The GM should stop me!
Filip Luszczyk:
This is not explicit, and I didn't have a chance to talk about it with the group (some of the players might be reading this thread), so I'm not sure if they're fully aware of that. Still, note that nobody actually took the disrupt electronics ability yet, despite currently struggling against the AI. The option is there, but they seem to enjoy their step by step struggle to locate and hack its core, so nobody's reaching for the off switch.
On the other hand, they're investing in abilities such as interrogation, to circumvent certain obstacles on their way.
They're pretty close to reaching the AI's core after the last session, so it should soon turn out whether they choose to rely on the off switch or decide to find a less immediate solution.
I guess the system is also self-correcting here in a way. It's not in the player's best interest to open, learn or immediately use abilities that sidestep things they want to experience. Winning moves are nearly always potentially available, that only requires at least two players who want to see such abilities used. Stll, immediate victory, in struggles that matter, would go counter to the implicit agenda of the game. There's generally no reason to do it.
I think it's in a way a bit similar to how giving works in Dogs. In Dogs, a victory-oriented player never needs to give, so hypothetically conflicts could go on and on indefinitely. Due to the fact the tools for winning are always there, there necessarily also needs to be an inclination not to reach for them at times, or the game plain wouldn't work. Here, rather than to give when appropriate, the group needs to learn not to "win" when appropriate. A victory-oriented player could "win" the game with no real difficulty whatsoever. Only, the game is not about "winning", it's about getting there. I guess the game would provide the group with negative feedback should they approach things that way - i.e. the experience would stop being satisfactory.
Callan S.:
Hi Filip,
I suppose I was just asking in terms of how were looking at the player having a hang up and whether that'll just come out in the wash. If their getting how you intended the tools to be used, yeah, I'd imagine it'd come out in the wash and it's interesting how it seemed an issue at the time. But if they don't get how to use the tools - well, I would say it's not a hang up but an accurate hypothesis. To me it's still in a delicate state so I can't talk with certainty about how it was a hang up.
I suppose one thing that can be said about hang ups is that sometimes they might actually be spot on - but these fears tend to be a sort of scattershot solution. Ie, firing wildly just in case they hit with something relevant.
Filip Luszczyk:
Well, as far as the specific player in question is concerned, we won't know it seems, not on the basis of this campaign at least. He wasn't able to attend the next few sessions. Which prompts some questions regarding the nature of his absence, but it seems life was the reason. Meanwhile, the rest of us closed the campaign (and the system worked as expected here, i.e. the players started pushing off switches once the points of focus list got depleted of immediately interesting stuff).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page