Started by Ron Edwards, April 22, 2010, 10:50:29 AM
Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 22, 2010, 10:50:29 AMWhat excites me is that I think Levi Kornelsen's game in design, The Exchange, is really well-suited to the setting. His general page is here, but I used the link at the bottom of that page for the 2.0 version. This is important because I think the 2.0 version is much better than the more visually obvious 3.0 he has on his page.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 22, 2010, 10:50:29 AMOh! One other rules-thing: both corporate rank (similar to military rank) and Buyback are hugely important in the Justifiers setting. I had the cunning idea that these would be starting injuries in Exchange terms. The rank idea was that if you outranked someone (in setting terms, not in Exchange numerical terms), you can call in their rank as a die on your side; I enjoyed the idea that your own rank never benefited you directly and couldn't be called in as an ability in the ordinary way. Buyback would be similar, and could play a role in determining what policies are exerted toward the character for an upcoming mission, as well as act as the basis for trying to get free of the corporation – effectively you'd have to "kill" your Buyback. Both of these are discussed in some detail in the essay or handout or "piece" or whatever it is we call what I wrote.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 27, 2010, 11:30:33 AMYour suggestion about the Buyback and abilities is interesting, but it doesn't quite jibe with my use of the Exchange rules or with the setting
Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 27, 2010, 11:30:33 AMSteve, as I understand it, Injuries become "a character" when the same Injury receives three or more ratings in a numerical sequence.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 29, 2010, 05:03:53 PMLevi, I may have been working with an earlier draft, but that limitation of starting an Injury at 1 doesn't appear in my copy of 2.0. In fact, there's a short section about being able to set it anywhere. We played around with that particular option during play and I don't see any particular downside. Is there a play-experience you can describe that led you to focus on 1 being the starting point?
QuoteSince the setting is practically nothing but those issues in the context of immediate danger, I found it easy to draw upon simple content and place some aspect of it front and center in every "next go" I had.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on May 01, 2010, 02:48:07 PMWhen and if an Injury became rated in three numbers in sequence, it became a "character" who could strike its bearer (can't think of a better word). So we knocked down the threshold by one (three instead of four) and it could be located anywhere in numeric sequence. So if you were ultimately saddled with Bleeding 3-4-5, that would count.
Quote... I got your point about the risk of actual play producing a weak, safe answering of the premise. However, at first I didn't see the link between 'genuine danger + exciting situation action' leading to 'social and political decisions grounded in experience. This is what I think you're getting at: + Characters have a difficult (but genuine) possibility of achieving buyback + That's coupled with them facing genuine danger in the service of a very probably unethical corporation + Which leads to characters needing to make real decisions about whether or not to serve the interests of that corporation (and needing to answer bigger questions about how to live their lives).
QuoteI'm a little less clear on things from the character creation section on. Buyback at Level 1 seems to be pretty easy to buy your way out of (and I'm not entirely sure where Buyback comes from; I'm guessing it's the two underlined 'species' traits?)