Scum & Villainy: A small bit of confusion concerning “Play Both Sides”.
“Mind you that not every bounty hunter captures a bounty, so the GM will (or won’t) adjust faction status as fictionally required at the end of such a job.”
This sentence trips me up. Stras (or anyone who understands it), might you unpack it a bit?
Edit: After some thought I realized I actually dislike this ability. For one, you’re not playing both sides because you aren’t getting paid by the bounty poster and letting the bounty go. Perhaps Cut ‘em Loose or Catch and Release would fit better?
A bigger issue is that it’s simply not worth it. You risk pissing off bounty posters and wrecking your reputation, so how often will you want to use the ability? You gain a contact (which you can do in other, easier ways. Plus, the Speaker can do it a ton of times with no penalty), sure, but also Heat. And it’s a contact who’s actively in danger. They give you contracts and tips, but isn’t that what every contact does? Aren’t you looking for contracts? Otherwise, the game halts.
So, let’s look at it again:
-You gain an endangered contact
-You risk angering factions
-You gain Heat
How is that worth not only the potential problems but also a precious crew upgrade? It really doesn’t seem to be. But, it’s wrong to criticize without possible solutions. My ideas aren’t necessarily the answer, but I do hope to get a discussion flowing. So, I was thinking that maybe your new contact could give you +1 Effect to gathering information or acquiring an asset. Maybe you choose one time from a list of options, such as “Get paid” or “Do not lose faction status”. Perhaps you get a new crew XP trigger of “Get XP when you decide to show mercy and help the bounty go to ground”.
I dunno the right answer and maybe the slickness of this ability is eluding me. If so, please chime in and sell it.
Hmm. Sounds like it might be okay as a general option, not an upgrade.
Cutting the bounty loose is mentioned as an option in the starting situation for the Cerberus, which is odd as a crew may not have taken Play Both Sides, giving them the benefits for free (no Heat and no need to take the ability).
I believe it says that should a bounty hunter not capture or kill the target of the bounty hunt then the GM adjusts faction status accordingly.
Which makes this even more lackluster. Everything it does should be covered by normal gameplay (and is, as I noted in the Cerberus starting scenario). Special abilities should be special and this one (as far as I can tell) really isn’t.
This is actually one of the most popular Cerberus ability in the APs I’ve seen (it’s also the basis for many of the Cowboy Bebop episodes which is the big inspiration for that crew), and in my experience it’s produced some of the best gameplay, so it’s interesting to hear this take.
Sentence just says: If Jabba asks you to capture Han, he won’t hate you if you let Han go, unless he explicitly pre-paid you, or he finds out that you did it to cross him, or he figures out that you’re now chummy with Han etc, because not every bounty hunter lands the bounty. I can’t think of every scenario, so GM will have to make that call.
——
Gaining a contact is usually a long term project. So you’re making a ton of assumptions I can’t quite sort where you’re coming from.
Remember that powers are ways to flag what sort of fiction you’re interested in and establish what sorts of games you want to play. ANY group can try to create a contact out of a bounty, but this power gives you a clear-cut framework with rules on how you can do this regularly. This says: Hey we can let decide to let bounties go, and here’s explicitly how that works.
If you try to just do it fictionally, maybe that guy gives you the finger, and tells sells you out to the guy that you dropped the bounty for to get back in their good graces. Maybe they disappear and you never hear from them again. Maybe they are pissed that you nabbed them and make your life difficult. Or maybe they end up friendly. Who knows? This power positions the game differently. It says that you can more reliably turn people into allies if you help them out.
For the starting scenario I hard coded some of those decisions, but they aren’t a consistent thing.
Written into the power is also: Han is a great ally but realize other people are hunting him, so you might get jobs dealing with helping him out, or you might have to bail them out once in a while in order to get access to their stuff.
So I’m looking at your list and it seems very different from intent:
—You get a friend who has unusual skills, resources and knowledges, and may have access to factions you don’t.
—You gain a contact free jobs when they get in a jam that you don’t have to track down.
And the cost for this is:
—Some heat (avg roll) or 0 depending on other powers you take (ex: licensed)
—Maybe a faction will be mad if they know you crossed them and let this person go.
If you want free jobs, and allies cropping up, and tons of folks you can tap for missions later—this is a great power. If what you want is not to have allies that might have troubles that you can get paid to solve, or extra heat … you don’t have to take the power!
Depends on what sort of crew you want to be. Never underestimate that some players love getting into trouble (and out of it) as part of the play experience. So maybe the power isn’t for everyone, but it’s certainly been popular in the games I’ve watched/read.
Does that scan? Maybe it was written unclearly? Does that help sell it or showcase the slickness? ^_^
I worked over 12 hours today and just got home, so please allow me (for the time being) the lazy response of, “Stras, as always, your way with words breaks through the derp-walls of my mind. Thank you”. So yes, you have sold the slickness, my friend. 🙂
No worries ben ^_^ Rest up, self care, drink lots of water.
OK…week done and I owe Stras more detail. I feel a big thing is me not having watched Cowboy Beebop (I know a bit about it in general, but nothing really specific) so I don’t have the same perception of a crew of bounty hunters regularly releasing bounties, assuming that’s a thing in the series (based on your reply). My headspace was that of it being very interesting story fodder, but ultimately an outlier that when engaged would yield interesting results. For it to be a common thing struck me as the crew being shitty bounty hunters! 😉
The reason the benefit of a guaranteed contact eluded me is that while we use LTPs to gain/improve contacts, fictional positioning plays just as much (if not more) a part of garnering them. Fantastic results during social scenes and positive and logical situations that spring up through play have gained PCs contacts at a decent pace. I saw the same pace being similar with Play Both Sides, so that benefit wasn’t as obvious, however I can see it being a nice touch to have a guaranteed contact.
Any baggage that comes with said contact has simply been assumed. I see you were just reminding players that just because you used Play Both Sides doesn’t mean you erased the bounty’s troubles. I was overcomplicating it and that reminder is a nice touch.
The bit concerning who might be mad and when/why was tickling my brain, but your example helped cement the thought that we’ve been “doing it right”. The crew was sweating potential blowback from Arlox for releasing Cho quite a bit and took steps to smooth that out. It was interesting fiction.
I also completely understand that what things a group takes are touchstones for the direction they want things to go. I feel that such touchstones should, as it’s still a game, provide tangible benefits that are substantial. My initial impression of Play Both Sides didn’t seem to hit that mark as much as others, hence my post. All things gathered now? I can see the draw, even if I may need to shift my handling of certain things (better info, jobs, etc.), which is OK as it keeps GMing fresh.
If I had one firm “gripe” it would be the adding of Cho as a free contact in the starting scenario, as previously mentioned. Maybe this’ll be an issue, maybe not. It doesn’t hinder me, I’m just trying to see it from the view of a person completely new to S&V and how it might trip them up.
I deeply appreciate the time you take to dig as deep as you do. My critiques and questions aren’t ever meant to be bitter interrogations of your work and if they ever come across as being such, advanced apologies and feel free to totally, “WTF, Ben?!”. 🙂
As always, thanks!
No worries Ben ^_~ I think it’s good to talk it out.
We were talking about the power on the back end and we may tweak some language around it or the job so it becomes more clear.
It sounds like you guys are just using the blades system right to already generate this kind of fiction, which I think is a great way to handle it, but it’s also meant as more of a story prompt for those looking for permission and flags to discuss the kind of game they want.
But we’ll see if we want to tweak it a bit to maybe give that kind of play a leg up ^_~
I think it’s really good when players have options, which this gives. I absolutely love the fiction of (at times) soft-hearted hunters taking mercy on their prey and how such a moment of “weakness” might blossom into something grand. In fact, the scenario involving Cho and his “daughter” (as she basically is in our game, even going so far as to glare at a PC, saying, “Don’t hurt Papa…”. It was heartfelt yet chilling, too!) has started a slow-simmering stew of a plot that’s yet to be tasted. I’m very excited by it! So, any time I can get past a hurdle to a better headspace in a game I love, I’m grabbing it.
If I made it seem I disagreed with your reasoning behind the ability being a story tag, apologies. The disconnect was on my end.
I normally don’t get this level of insider information into games I play, so I enjoy seeing how you guts make the sausage, you know? Plus, your text-emoji-things are adorable. 🙂
Oh! When you have the time, could we discuss Sundering a wee bit? There seems to be a disparity between the book and sheet. I think I get your new build, I just want to be 100%. I’m really trying to nail down how you see the Way as I have quite a few builds I’m interested in.
Don’t worry man ^_~ A designer needs to have a clear idea of what they’re making, and we have to use that as a compass to decide what’s best for a game. You can always disagree, but it is on us though to decide whether that’s valuable or needs to be addressed in terms of rules (as with any critique).
Haha, Sundering’s our problem child. Sure, start a new post.