Finally got around to reading the quickstart. I mostly like what I see, but I’m a bit surprised that the Threats tend to be focused around destabilizing the status quo. Isn’t the status quo in cyberpunk usually… suboptimal? I’m admittedly no expert, but aren’t cyberpunk protagonists usually the ones working to destabilize the status quo, and their antagonists working on the side of order and continuity?
Finally got around to reading the quickstart.
Finally got around to reading the quickstart.
Depends what you establish in the fiction. The status quo is what is already established in the fiction – so then you’re changing what the protagonists already know of the world. It’s meant to be an AW style thing where there are no status quos. The fiction should always be changing and evolving and be kept interesting. You don’t want it to get stagnant, so it should be shook up, which is what conflict does. I’ll try and clarify that more in the QuickStart, hopefully that comes across in draft.
Oh, also – Adam, thanks for checking it out. Appreciate all the feedback I can get. I do want to get a different kind of cyberpunk going on with this game too. It’s very geared towards, well a change in the status quo! As in relation to what popular opinion thinks Cyberpunk is.
Hm! OK. I’m intrigued.
See, one of my favourite parts about cyberpunk is the punk side, the idea that the establishment is corrupt and the only way to truly do good is to rail against the establishment.
It definitely seems like you’re hitting that sweet spot in your Big Questions section, but I can’t help but wonder if the actual play will drive that way without a very firm authorial voice from the GM.
Well the nice thing about it is that when you do your first session, you’ll all be establishing things in the fiction. So if people want that old school punk in the cyberpunk going on then you’ll tailor your big question to that and that’s how that’ll get explored. Because when you make your moves, you’ll always be considering if the move gets them closer or further away from the “truth” and the big question ya’ll are tying to explore as well. If the players contributed to the fiction in the first session enough – they’re providing you with the fictional flags saying like, “Hey, MC, I wanna explore the punk side of things”, so you shouldn’t really have to be authoritative because they’ll be actively trying to explore that with you, too. Ask lots of questions in every scene and they’ll be building that plot for you.
Also with the incorporation of mixed reality you can have authority constantly oppressing them because they’re essentially never safe, since the digital is physical. Use your MC move, “Let them feel the ripples”, and you should be getting that old school felling a lot. In Neromancer when Case is called on the old school pay phones by Wintermute, and as he’s walking away they all ring each in turn as he’s walking away, that’s letting them feel the ripples. What authority you want to produce from them, either direct or more subtle – you can incorporate pretty easily since mixed reality can let your imagination run rampant.
Yeah, I wrote that bit, and I’ll certainly need to clean it up a bit, but in my mind, the main antagonist isn’t really “the machine”, but someone who is trying to shake up the status quo. The abstract machines in the background are usually these vast, unknowable constructs in the that add to the ambiance and mood, and maybe ultimately puppet everyone around; whereas the main antagonists are those that are shaking up the status quo of the PC’s lives. There are some assumptions there about what the PCs are all about though, but the main antagonist is there mostly just to elicit the big questions.
I’ve always thought the punk part was more of an aesthetic, too. In all the classic, and my favorite, cyberpunk stories, the protagonists aren’t really about changing things or shaking up the status quo. They’re usually acting squarely in their own self-interests, and the status quo gets shaken up as a result of their meeting the main antagonist(s). It’s definitely a good reason to get everyone on the same page for first session though, everyone’s touchstones are going to be slightly different.
I don’t think I agree with that. In the world of Neuromancer, I feel like just choosing to live off the grid/outside the world of the corporate wage-slavery is a revolutionary act, let alone choosing to make a criminal lifestyle your “jam”.
Case might not want to tear down the machine, but neither does he want to be part of it. I guess in the sense that it wants to shake up the status quo, Wintermute is a Threat in the terms of your game, which makes for an interesting case, since I wouldn’t, by default, assume a “Threat” would also be a patron for my character.
I don’t understand Threat in PbtA games to generally mean ‘adversary’ so much as more generally a faction. The Threat system can just as easily be used to provide a framework for a friendly NPC-controlled group, even one that the PCs intend to help.
In this case, the motivation might well align with the PCs. The moves might describe how the Threat will assist the PCs, or act to hinder their opposition. The stakes might be about conflicted interests, or about how the PCs and Threat will benefit eachother.
I also find the countdown/pending doom to be very valuable, as it is important to have an idea of what the NPC Threat intends to do, if the PCs don’t interfere. not to railroad the action, but rather to provide that bit of inertia to the fiction, that lets the PCs truly change the trajectory of the story. (so if it’s a friendly NPC Threat, their countdown might well lead to some ultimate failure, but through the intervention by the PCs, they might triumph. Or perhaps they are in a position to achieve their goals, but through the PCs the goals or method may change).
Adam D does raise the good point though that there could be some threat elements that represent the “system” that generally oppresses the population, for use in dystopian games. In those games, if the PCs are agents of disruption, then MCs might like to have tools to show how an entrenched authority responds to put down revolution.
Threat type: Monolithic Institution
A monolithic institution has Power, with a capital P. It has worked hard to build and protect some semblance of order that now sustains its position at the top, and is inexhaustible in defending that order. It is more than the sum of its parts: no single person can shut it down now. Anyone within the institution can be replaced, and the momentum will keep it moving forward, as long as it maintains the support of the seething masses.
Subtypes:
Government (Motivation: To protect the interests of the ruling class)
MegaCorp (Motivation: to control the markets and production)
Ecclesiarch (Motivation: To uphold a sacred truth and persecute blasphemers)
MC Moves:
* Marshall public sentiment against opposition.
* Monitor and control public infrastructure (utilities, transportation).
* Call on standing/reserve forces.
* Replace one talking head with another.
* Suppress a subversive message.
* Call on the black-hats for dirty work.
* Levy rationing to corral the masses.
* Fire up the Propaganda Machine.
* Bread and Circuses!
The monolithic institution has grown from an upstart to the establishment. It functions by keeping enough people content to maintain the order; however, it has unsustainable hungers. Whether through oppressing its people, consuming natural resources, or condoning abhorrent abuses, it is monstrous in some way that should chafe at the PCs, and it will fight hard to protect its position at the top.
Sweet, lots of good feedback to take into consideration, thanks guys! I think I could work in another threat and definitely make clear that the status quo isn’t the literal status quo in the fiction, but mostly just what’s been established in the fiction previously/currently.
I’ve thought of a couple of additional moves for the Monolithic Institution, that should totally go into that list:
* infiltrate a subversive organization with a spy and/or an agent provocateur.
* Conduct a false-flag operation against non-critical asset(s) to incite public response.