[Remember Tomorrow] Somewhere

edited May 2010 in Actual Play
This week I had the pleasure of playing Gregor Hutton's latest game Remember Tomorrow, with Gregor himself and Malcolm. RT is a near future set game, solidly inspired by fictional works by Gibson and films like Blade Runner, and very far from any geek-infested popular culture implementation of the concept of "cyberpunk". All good science fiction, and indeed literature, is about what it means being human, and so is RT. I am partial to this, shall we say, genre, and a while ago I adapted Ron Edward's Trollbabe to run Blade Runner-inspired games with the hack "Tears in Rain". Therefore it's good to see that Gregor quotes Trollbabe among the influences for RT.

RT is a game design built to facilitate Story Now - there's no GM, and all characters, be it player characters or supporting characters/organisations ("factions") may shift between the players if they want to. You can keep your "own" character close to you, as in more traditional games, but the way new characters and stories are constantly emerging, I can't see why you necessarily would.

We played for about three hours, and managed to create both a complex fictional setting as well as interesting story lines. In RT every players gets to set a scene one at a time. We got through 12 scenes in that time, and here are the notes (thanks to Gregor):

Player Characters

ZATUMO RYU-YEN, Operative (created and initially played by Gregor)
Ready: 4 (was 2 to start)
Willing: 5
Able: 5
POSITIVE
Angry (at bodyguard)
Armed (with Nagant revolver)
Supported
NEGATIVE
Humiliated (by Fliss' brother)
Lost (short-term memory gone)
MOTIVATION
Greed
GOAL
Get rich beyond his wildest dreams (W ticked)
NOTES
Zeiss Artificial Optics
Bodyguard (now dead)
AIWA Personality Chip (boosts his Willing)

ALEX BRABHAM, PhotoJournalist, Insider, works for Press Agency (created and initially played by Malcolm)
Ready: 5 (was 4 to start)
Willing: 5
Able: 5 (was 3 to start)
POSITIVE
Financed (by Archibald Leach Press Agency)
(was Convinced: Allied Carbide up to something, but has used it up)
NEGATIVE
Coerced (by Allied Carbide
(was Burned Out: by the job, but has removed that Condition)
MOTIVATION
Knowledge
GOAL
Why the village by the Allied Carbide factory in Chiapas died in the night
NOTES
Leica camera and lenses
House in Liverpool
Telefunken Tablet

REIF JONZ, Insider (created and initially played by Per)
Ready: 5
Willing: 4
Able: 3
POSITIVE
Connected (lawyer)
Financed (raise)
NEGATIVE
(was Trapped: by the job, but has removed that Condition)
MOTIVATION
Freedom
GOAL
Become a board member of Orange Micro (A ticked)
NOTES
Pontiac Keypad Uplink
Heinkel Taser
Pan Am Doll
Separated from his wife, but still pays the mortgage. Works in Berlin.

JARI KEIJO HIRVONEN, Operative
Ready: 3
Willing: 4
Able: 5
POSITIVE
Dangerous (military training)
NEGATIVE
Desperate (with grief)
MOTIVATION
Revenge
GOAL
Find his son's killer
NOTES
--

FACTIONS

ALLIED CARBIDE, Industrial
Influence: 6
MOTIVATION
Greed
POSITIVE
Prepared (to make it disappear)
(was Financed: by investors, but have used this)
(was Hardened: to the press, but have used this)
NEGATIVE
(was Desperate: developing crisis, but have removed this)
NPCs
Dr Reza Taylor, Insider. Moved from Fairbanks, AL to Chiapas, Mexico to deal with situation.

MENWITH FYLINGDALE, Orbital
Influence: 4
MOTIVATION
Power
POSITIVE
Connected (by the satellite network)
NEGATIVE
(was Impaired: no holdings on Earth, but have removed this)
NPCs
MF Janssen, a Suit.
NOTES
Wants to control the board of Orange Micro
Cottesmore-Scampton-Biggin-Patters retained lawyers

TEMPLAR SEC, Police
Influence: 4
MOTIVATION
Respect
POSITIVE
Angry (at Zatumo)
Financed (rentacop training)
(was Armed: by investors, but has been used up)
(was Supported: by Fylinggate, but has been used up)
NEGATIVE
Confused (stretched resources)
NPCs

Sue Kovač, Detective
Influence: 6
MOTIVATION
Respect
POSITIVE
Armed (with truth)
Hardened (don't let it be personal)
Prepared (has done her homework)
NEGATIVE
Coerced
«1

Comments

  • I'm liking this. Any hints on how Ready/Willing/Able works?
  • edited May 2010
    The parameters R/W/A are more or less the same as the number in Trollbabe - when you resolve a scene, the player rolls three dice and comparing each to one of the R/W/A on the character sheet (note: Factions only have one number) - thus you can get either no successes at all, or a success in one or more of the parameters. You, as the player, decides where. How many successes you get matters if your desired outcome of the fiction is directly opposed to someone else, and it interlinks with the game system's many moving parts where you can buy-off conditions, reach characters goal etc. You also buy outcomes in the fiction with your successes.

    GM responsibilities within the game are still there, of course, and in RT you are the Controller of the scene you set when it's your turn - ie. you have the main GMing responsibilities of framing the scene, deciding what kind of scene it is etc. Everyone around the table is encouraged to chip in with details, colour and so on. If a non-Controller plays one of the factions or characters from the pool and wins a conflict in the scene he gets an "Edge Die", which basically gives you a free extra die on a future roll (thus it follows the players who earned it).

    EDIT to add the scenes we got through:
    SCENES
    1 (G) Intro: Zatumo. Zatumo kills bodyguard
    2 (M) Intro: Brabham on train, looking at glossy, high-end magazine containing some of his photgraphy (it s established that print magazines like this are rare and expensive, a symbol of status when most people simply look at magazines on their tablets)
    3 (P) Intro: Reif calls Yasmin, with whom he has been having an affair

    4 Intro: Allied Carbide flies Dr Taylor into Chiapas in order to try and spin the situation to their advantage.
    5 Intro: Menwith-Fylingdale buys Laywer firm and thus establishes some kind of presence on Earth.
    6 Intro: Templar Sec investigates murder of bodyguard

    7 Face/Off: Menwith vs Raif over merger/redundancy (Cross into next scene)
    8 Intro/PC: Jari (with a Cross of Riif's promotion)
    9 Intro/Faction: Sue Kova? (3 successes!)

    10 Face/Off: Allied Carbide vs Brabham (joint winners, Gregor gets Edge Die)
    11 Face/Off: Templar Sec vs Zatumo (Cross into next scene, joint winners, Malcolm gets Edge Die)
    12 Face/Off: Sue Kova? vs Zatumo (colour scene)

    The very first scene for each player is an introduction scene to his starting character.
  • edited June 2010
    Thanks, Per!

    I wanted to ask you about Sue Kovac. I thought it was interesting that you made her as a Faction.

    Did you consider making her a held PC, or a Pooled PC? I think she would work very well as all three, but in different ways. Anyway, I was curious to see how you viewed her as it was you who introduced her. Could you talk a little about the process of how you created her? Did you want to create a Faction and then the choices on the lists threw up Kovac to you? Or did you have an idea and then the lists formalised that into Kovac?

    Oh, and Remember Tomorrow is now on OBS.
  • I think I wanted to try having a single character as a faction - because it was possible :) I think that worked really well, but I did later almost regret that she wasn't a pooled PC, because she grew quite interesting and I wanted to play her as a held PC!

    I did use the faction list in the book as an inspiration to create Kovac - I think what really made her interesting was when I chose the negative condition "Coerced" - in fact she ended up being quite different from what initially had in mind, which was a professional, effective freelance investigator for Templar Sec.

    I very much like the lists, but also that you don't have to use them. They are there as a help to trigger your imagination.

    Per
  • This sounds very interesting!

    Do you want to tell us more about what this game brings out in play, or how it differs from other games? Are there things that happened in play that you don't normally get into?

    Surprises?
  • What was very cool for me was when I introduced my PC: Zatumo.

    A little history: Previously I played a character called Fliss Drake who wanted to kill a dude called Zatumo Ryu-yen. Fliss had been singularly unsuccessful in getting that Goal. So, this time I decided I would play Zatumo.

    I framed the drunken and odious Zatumo in a hotel/casino bar and had him pick up a girl to take back to his room. He was in the bathroom showering while his bodyguard was in the bedroom with the girl. I then had the girl's boyfriend come in with a handgun and threaten to shoot the shit out of everyone. I rolled the dice. Zatumo was pretty successful: I got 2 success but on Ready and Able. Not Willing. (On an Intro scene you set it yourself, roll unopposed and narrate.)

    Not Willing. Huh.

    So, Zatumo grabs a straight razor from his shaving kit in the bathroom and threatens to come out and chop everyone up, gun or no gun. But he doesn't do it. Not Willing, right? The dude with the gun and the girl leave and my bodyguard just tries not to be involved. When the couple are gone Zatumo comes out in a rage (I choose "Angry: with my bodyguard" as a Positive Condition) and he is now more Ready to take on the world (so I give him +1 Ready too) and he storms out and chops up his own bodyguard (NPCs like this can just be killed in narration). I then grabbed the gun off him (to fit up with my existing Armed PCon), got dressed and headed off through the hotel into the night, pissed as hell.

    Grim guy, but hey he's a PC. His Goal is to be "Rich beyond his wildest dreams". There was also a lot of stuff open to interpretation there. Who was the girl? Was that really her boyfriend? What about my now dead bodyguard? What was I out celebrating at the Casino and so on.

    Flash round a few turns and we're making Factions and Introducing them. On Per's turn he introduces Templar Sec (a sort of privatized Interpol) at the crime scene at the hotel. Bang! Per has the Templar Cops find the girl and put her in protective custody, and they try to get on the trail of Zatumo. They get pretty successful and Per loads them up with Conditions.

    And you can see this lead on to people naturally having the tools to go after Zatumo in Face-Offs, and an incentive to do so too (they get Edge dice if they're successful using a Faction or pooled PC). Malc also introduced a pooled PC Jari who is the bodyguard's father who wants revenge on his killer. And Per intro'd Kovac too, linked to that storyline.

    So, you can see the Zatumo storyline there. But what's fun for me is that I can also clearly see the Alex Brabham storyline in there too. And Reif Jonz' story is weaving in and out as well. Jari has read about him in the news (on a cross). We know they are going to be crashing into each other soon.

    Per, I think you should make Kovac a PC in a future episode. I mean, Zatumo is an NPC of the Crocus Brood Faction in the rulebook, right?

    When you get Joint Winners with mixed Scene Goals (like Alex Brabham had with Allied Carbide) it throws up interesting outcomes. With simply directly opposed Scene Goals the outcome wouldn't have been as rich.
  • Ready, Willing, and Able sounds pretty cool! Could you have had Zatumo chop them up anyway? If so, would not being Willing have meant that he regretted the decision or something like that?

    How does the game track/order those different storylines and characters?
  • Thanks for this thread, I have been reading Remember Tomorrow and it's intriguing, I really want to try it out.
  • Posted By: Paul T.Ready, Willing, and Able sounds pretty cool! Could you have had Zatumo chop them up anyway? If so, would not being Willing have meant that he regretted the decision or something like that?

    How does the game track/order those different storylines and characters?
    Yes, you're right. Zatumo could have chopped everyone up if I'd wanted to. On the Intro scene I'm the narrator and NPC created on the fly are at the mercy of that. But the lack of Willingness was something I should colour the fiction with.

    You each hold one PC in your hand,everything else sits in the middle of the table and is shared. So, the Factions are sitting there with deals and NPCs written on them, and shared PCs are there with notes on them too. And your own held PC has some text scribbled next to any conditions they have and you'd write in any deals you'd made.

    I'm not sure the game orders them. Well, on your turn you pick what interests you most as Controller, and sometimes it's mandated that there must be a cross from a previous scene (on a rolled double) or a really strong cross (for a triple or better on someone's dice roll). What really strong means is left up to the group's taste to decide.
  • edited June 2010
    Paul, let's wait for Gregor himself to answer your question about Ready, Willing, and Able - after just one session I'm not entirely sure how they work precisely and how much fictional leeway you have after the roll. As a player, however, you do announce what kind of outcome or goal you are going for before going for the dice, so your fictional outcome has to jam on that.

    EDIT: Cross-posted with Gregor
  • Sounds cool, Gregor. So you take turns picking up whatever you want, except sometimes (and doubles on three dice are not that rare) you must connect scenes/storylines?
  • It's not quite "whatever you want" in that this might imply you could do literally anything, which isn't true. The choices are limited so that can choose one of the following:
    * Introduce a new PC or Faction
    * Cut a Deal between your held PC and a Faction
    * Face-Off against someone else's held PC using either a PC (a pooled one or your own held one) or a Faction.

    Which one you choose is entirely up to you. But note, for instance, that you couldn't choose to Face-Off [i]against[/i] a Pooled PC or Faction. Nor can you dictate a Deal between a Faction and someone else's held PC or another Faction.

    I would say that R|W|A is a pooled "Number" there to give colour rather than there to mandate a type of behaviour to get the use of it or applicable to an Arena, if you see what I mean? Is your character more likely to be Ready, Willing or Able in resolving a situation? The system doesn't demand that you act "Tough" before the roll to get to use your Tough stat, or that you try to describe your character in a particular Arena to get rolling on one stat over another.
  • edited June 2010
    It only just now occurred to me where I recognized the title from.

    Remember Tomorrow

    \m/
  • I've now read this more thoroughly and I am convinced that the emphasis on brand names is the very best thing to come along in equipment rules in a long time.
  • So, we played this tonight. Me and Johnstone and Daniel "Ice Cream Emperor" Wood.

    Some reflection - creating and introducing characters was fun. We need to review the rules. The equipment checklist on the character sheet didn't make any sense. Trying to play "your" PC is difficult and often frustrating. Cyberpunk is awesome. Writing character motivations that directly conflict, right off the bat, leads to potentially excellent play. Not doing that does the opposite.

    I'm going to confer with my compadres and maybe post a better, deeper reflection.
  • Thanks Adam. Those would be good to hear.

    Um, the partial lists on the bigger character sheet were just so that you don't have to refer to the book when making up gear on the fly. If they're confusing I can drop them from an expanded sheet. (They don't appear on the basic sheets in the book.) If they're more of a hindrance than a help that would be good to know.

    I think there's a "jump" for players to not see their turn as Controller as their turn as a player of their character. I also think that the other players need to see how you want to play your PC and work with that when framing scenes for them. My hope is that the Intro scene kicks out there enough stuff about your character and what they're shooting for. So when framing a scene they need to give you room to breathe before hitting the hammer on you, if that makes sense?

    If a scene doesn't work or it's too jarring then you can always just call it a colour scene where each person picks one outcome. The example of a colour scene in the book was from when Russ framed Malcolm's antiquarian book dealer into a potentially dangerous scene with the taser-firing Crocus Brood. It worked for Russ but not for Malcolm. I mean Malc had a strong view of Miriam and just couldn't see her hanging around the bad part of town Russ had framed her into. So Malc got her out of there as soon as he could. Russ didn't think the Crocus Brood gave a rat's ass about Miriam and wouldn't fight her truning tail, so he just called it a colour scene. It could have gone another way, though, Malc could have had Miriam confront them (I think she was pretty boosted with good Parameters and PCons) and she'd have had a good chance of at least being a Joint Winner with the Brood.

    Thanks, Jason! I know the brands are "only" words but they do colour my view of the gear more than I had thought they would.
  • The big checklist on the expanded sheet - we just ignored it. The names and stuff were neat for colour, for sure (and we ended up with a lot of strange, cool branded gear like President's Choice No-Name Brand Amphetamine Pills and a 3-Piece Samsung 20% Kevlar Suit) but the real-estate on the sheet didn't seem justified. What did a check-mark next to "Pontiac" even mean?

    It's hard not to see your held PC as "your" character when your turn as controller comes around. I think maybe a change in the way handling works might help that. Also, after six intro scenes, we started to feel a little like we were telling each other stories rather than roleplaying - it didn't make sense to jump into PC-on-PC confrontations right away and so we ended up doing a couple of deals first. Which felt like more solo-play. When your turn as controller came around, it felt strange because you couldn't initiate conflict between your PC and a faction. For example, the PC I created was Arbalest, a rogue AI who was forced into a human body by some hackers. His goal was to "get revenge on the hackers that did this to me" but as Controller, I wasn't mechanically able to pursue that goal. The hackers were there - they were an active Faction - but I couldn't get at them unless someone else attacked Arbalest with them. It made me want to Intro a PC just so I could give Arbalest up so that someone else could take him so that I could attack him with the Hackers. It felt really convoluted.

    Something else that we found a little difficult was the introducing of new NPCs. We'd run an Intro scene or a Deal scene about a particular Faction and describe a particular NPC or two. Following the scene, it felt a lot like one of those NPCs should have been upgraded to a PC, but nobody wanted to run another Intro to bring them in. It sort of felt like there should have been an option, maybe during a Deal scene, where you could run an intro and split off a PC from a faction.

    Just some feedback - there were parts of the game that really worked for me, too, but these were the sticking points we had.
  • Thanks!

    I'll throw up some sheets without the lists and have boxes for "Brand", "Type" and "Detail", like "Pan-Am | Tank | Called "Gloria" with 125-mm gun and smoke launchers".

    The mental leap to make, and it's a tough one, is to really feel like your PC when you're not Controller. Get someone else to frame scenes for you and ask to be in scenes that you're not immediately framed into. For example, you could well be in the Penny Black Bar when the Crocus Brood start picking a fight with Fliss.

    When it's your turn as Controller look to other PCs that could getting a Face-Off, then consider if your PC could or would be the one doing it. I don't know if that helps? For you to get playing your PCs "like PCs" you need to get framing for each other.

    NPCs with personality emerging from Factions are awesome for me. It makes it easier for me to visualize their badness and tempting deals. But I remember they're a face of that Faction. They've got the Faction's mechanics to back them up and they're a bit like a Pooled PC in that anyone can play them. Of course, they can't be held, but it also means that they can't be targeted. And if they get INF:8 they get written out Triumphant.

    I see Armitage in Neuromancer as an NPC of Wintermute, who is a Faction that gets INF:8 in the end.
  • Oh, and when you frame scenes let the PC "breathe" and get played a little (at least) before you bring the hammer down.
  • Did I misinterpret the rules that said that a controller can just off an NPC whenever they like? We say promotion of a character from NPC to PC as a sort of insurance that they'd play their own unique part of the story. We wanted face-offs between our PC and the NPCs of particular factions and we wanted to be the ones instigating them. The NPCs have the face of the faction but they're very fragile. What if a Controller playing Wintermute had just decided "eh, fuck it, it'll be cool if Armitage dies in this scene" - would it have to be a non-mechanical discussion (to the point of Calling Bullshit, even) outside of the fiction about whether it's okay to kill Armitage or not?

    I think maybe we were unclear on the "goal" of the game. I mean, if the idea is to advance the Goal of your PC, you need to have face-offs to do that. To get Face-Off scenes you need to go up against other PCs because you can't choose to face-off against a Faction of your own accord. I felt, personally, like it was a little difficult to grok what I was supposed to be doing, above and beyond "tell a rad cyberpunk story".

    I think that the Cross mechanic did a good job of forcing us to keep our characters tied together but I think maybe that more mechanical impetus needed to be there during the first round of character creation. Enforcing, maybe, that all of the initial characters have a Cross by default and then that everyone creates a Faction and Crosses in at least one or two characters in their introduction. We were doing some of that stuff ourselves, but we didn't have to. There wasn't a lot of guidance in the game to do it.

    (Again, I feel like I'm focusing a lot on the parts we had trouble with - I'll say this, I loved the PCons and NCons and how they worked and the die mechanic was really encouraging to narration - knowing whether a character was Ready, Willing or Able really helped me play out framed scenes. Oh, a quick question, though. On a roll, when you spend an Outcome on improving R|W|A can you pick any of the three or just one you assigned a success to?)
  • Hey, no problem. I totally get what you mean. And I appreciate the feedback. (I'm superpleased you had fun with it on the first run out.)

    By the way, Wintermute does kill off Armitage at the end of Neuromancer! (But I reckon that Armitage's death is sealed because it's an Exit.)

    If you want to go up against a particular NPC -- like you have a real beef with them and you want them "protected" from someone at the table just killing them off -- then make them part of your Goal. If you have no ticks in your current Goal you're not losing anything by changing the wording or Goal. Fliss always wants to kill Zatumo, but I've never got there yet in game.

    NPCs can be killed (or apparently killed) at the will of the narrator (which may or may not be the Controller), but not if their demise is tied to a Goal. (And by the way they can also be cryo-fixed, cloned or otherwise brought back if it makes sense in the fiction and they haven't been exited by a successful Goal.)

    For me PCs can be really far apart to start, but when I make a Faction I like to make them an enemy (in my mind) for at least one PC and pregnant with the possibility for more. With common enemy Factions, cut Deals and surprising crosses on dice rolls the stories move closer to each other. For a punchier story I agree that you want to link everyone from the get go.

    Mechanics-wise: When you spend Outcomes you can buy up anything, not just what you rolled successes on. So if being Willing now helped you become more Ready for later then that's all good.

    Oh, and on a roll when you burn off a PCon in exchange for a Success: It's just a Success because of the PCon, rather than being allocated to a Parameter. You might also roll 3 Successes on Parameters and get 4 Successes in the end (as good as a PC can do: Ready, Willing and Able and Angry too, say). A Faction can get a maximum of 5, which is 4 dice rolled on INF and a PCon burnt. It means that to tick a Goal box on a low Parameter you've still got to roll low and allocate it to that Parameter, rather than just buying the Goal tick with a PCon. So buy up those low ranked Parameters...

    The three Exits might well be a PC demise (Injured, Dying, then Dead), a Faction triumphing and one PC getting their Goal. I don't see everyone getting their Goal in one episode or some PCs even getting close.
  • Oh, I should say Fliss does kill Zatumo in an example, but that was me making that up. She's never been so lucky!
  • It was fun, yeah. A pretty significant departure from the first time I played 3:16, for example, but fun, still. Though, there are some definite design elements present in both games. You sure love your random fiction tables, huh? ;-)

    I get the Goal-protection clause for NPCs - I write "Kill Nakata Stamos" as my goal and you sure as shit can't just off Mr. Stamos in a scene. That much makes sense. I guess the issue here was less about protection and more about skipping unnecessarily long Introduction periods. Like I said, if I introduce Manager Honda during a Deal Scene with the Nakagawa Coprosperity Agency it feels like a huge burden to wait a whole cycle of turns just so I can play his Introduction scene and make him a full PC. If I want Manager Honda to have his own Goals and Motivations and such, I'm meant to have to wait out that whole cycle, which breaks up the fiction. I think I'd probably consider working in an optional rule about splitting off PCs if another roll serves as their Introduction.

    I could see the game taking on quite a life of its own. As we played, we were generating PCs and Factions in the background - a shadowy military figure, some unnamed man we all had a connection to, etc. It was neat - at any time we were ready to bring those whispered-about characters into the limelight, we could write them up and take our turn as an Introduction. Those were the kinds of Intro scenes we _wanted_ rather than feeling forced to play out a scene to Intro someone we already know.

    There's still a little bit of tricky business in the whole issue with holding your PC and just sort of asking people to antagonize them in particular ways, but I guess if you wrote really clear Goals you could just trust the other players to use the Factions to bash you around and move you towards those goals.

    We'll have to play it again, I think, before I can get a really firm idea of what I really think. This is all initial stuff. I'll play it again at GPNW and see what happens!
  • edited June 2010
    My experience from other "your turn to frame scene" games is that if there is a clear place for people to look for ideas and constraints when it's their turn to frame scenes, it helps them enormously. Here I am thinking of PTA's Issues and in this game, Goals seem to fulfill that requirement?
  • It seemed to me like that full two rounds of introductions put us on the wrong foot. We were alternating between our PCs stories, like we would in a game of Shock:, instead of building the same story together. After two scenes of my PC I realized his story was mostly tangental, and if we had kept going (past the 4-hour mark I think), I'd have put him up on the shelf and concentrated on Daniel's character.

    Looking back, I think we should have set up an initial situation, not an initial theme, and made sure every scene played to that situation, and that double-crosses etc continued the story from the previous scene directly. Like, make them more connected than we did.

    I felt the same as Adam, that Intros should be sub-scenes, and that a dude who is introduced could just be written up as a character or faction on the spot, regardless of what kind of scene was happening.
  • Adam, Johnstone, et al

    If you haven't before, I would strongly suggest you read some of Gibson's later work, especially All Tomorrow's Parties and Spook Country. I think it might help you understand how the early phase of RT seems to want to play.

    (caveat: I haven't read or played RT yet, this is just based on what I've gleaned form this thread)
  • I've read just about everything that Gibson's written and I didn't find that it really helped that much, pacing-wise. I see the parallel, but before we played it again at GPNW, I didn't think the game was paced very well at all.
  • The GPNW game was great. I don't think the issue of Intro scenes came up much (we only brought one new faction in, maybe?). It helped that Adam was facilitating the rules instead of playing a character, but also allowing players to frame scenes with their own PCs vs. factions as well as other PCs was a real boon. That's my only criticism of the system now. Otherwise, I think it's pretty damn solid.
  • Gregor,

    I bought this today.

    Dude! This could by the cyberpunk game I've wanted forever. It also fits with the kind of play structure that I like (a la Dirty Secrets). It's also possible you may have made the game that will let me play The Wire.

    In other words, you might have just saved me a lot of work and maybe made my newest favorite game. I've been wanting to play something cyberpunk lately. But, you know, Gibson cyberpunk. Not Shadowrun. So, when I get this to the table, I'll let you know.

    Sorry for the total fanboy gushing.

    Seth Ben-Ezra
    Great Wolf
  • I agree with Johnstone - the second game was super awesome. It was nice not having to worry about the rules stuff (I was just facilitating and not playing any characters) but I think yet again with another game, that I could do both. I really enjoyed the fluidness of the characters. Stats and n/pcons flowing from character to character made it have a solid fictional feel, you know?

    Anyway, it's my cyberpunk go-to now.
  • edited June 2010
    Great! Thanks Adam and Johnstone.

    I guess I do Intros and Deals pretty quick when I'm playing; just a swift set-up and then make with the dice quick. I pick the Outcomes (or cry when there's none!) and flip them into the fiction. Then we roll on to the next dude as Controller. That sounds like what you were doing and I'm super happy that you had fun with it.

    I totally dug the Controller framing everyone into an area and then the Faction carpet bombing it. Super strong! In those sort of situations it's even more super-awesome when everyone's a winner too. You get the "Oh no! I just got Scene Goaled -- Carpet Bombing, oh noes! ... But, wait a minute I just got superloads of Outcomes and my own Scene Goal too -- and since I'm not a Loser no one can dog anything more on me! Woohoo!"

    Big Bad Factions are cool too. Especially when you bring them back and they're just set back to INF: 4 (or 5 if they got really out of hand an triumphed). It means you can at least get a shot in at the fuckers in your next Episode.

    I think there is a learning curve to it even though it's a short book and a quick read. It probably takes at bit of play and reflection to get up to speed. I mean, when you start spending Outcomes on Losers to help them out that's when it gets hot. (NAFTA and Molly are joint winners, Johnny is a Loser. Molly and Johnny get Dying as a NAFTA's Scene Goal. Molly gets W:Goal tick as her Scene Goal. Johnny burns a PCon anyway, since he's a loser to get a tick on A:Goal since he didn't get it as a Scene Goal. The Outcomes? They almost all get spent on Johnny, if you see what I mean. Molly giving him PCons and taking a +1 to Willing while NAFTA load him up with NCons and -1 to Able.)

    Seth, thanks! Fantastico!

    Edit: to add my missing word! Molly is the one grabbing a +1 to Willing. She can't help out Johnny that way.
  • Just bought this game and I'm really liking it, can't wait to give it a spin! One thing I'm unsure of, is if there are multiple PCs in a scene, do the supporting PCs have any influence over the scene apart from narration, ie are there any mechanical effects?
  • Thanks Phil.

    Multiple PCs mean that the Controller can have a Scene Goal to give some (or all) of them an unticked Goal box or Negative Condition. The PCs all have their own Scene Goals and they all roll to see if they get them and whether they avoid the Controller's Scene Goal. Does that make sense?
  • Cool, I think it does! I'll hopefully be giving it a trial run tonight.
  • Oh, the Print copies ($10) and Print + PDF bundle ($12.50) are now up on IPR as well as the PDF ($5):

    Malc and Per also talk about the follow up session to this one here: http://collective-endeavour.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=109

    Zatumo, my initial PC, got an exit .... but when Per was playing him and I was trying to Face-Off with him using Templar Sec in a bar in Dublin. I rolled shit and he got his Goal. Dammit (I mean... Yes!).
  • Had a good session last night, threw up a couple of points.
    Is gear just fluff? I could have the PCon Armed and I could have a Heinkel Pistol as part of my Gear. Using PCon Armed has a mechanical effect in the game, howabout my Pistol?
    Also how much note taking do you do in a session? We found we had to do a fair bit to keep track of the story. Do you detail anyone in particular to make the notes (if at all)?
  • edited July 2010
    My understanding, so far (have not played it yet) is that gear is "mostly color" the same way that Madness Talents are "only color" in DRYH: sure, you don't get mechanical bonuses, but in the fiction you can narrate some very different stuff if you have a Gotham JumpWing Backpack (TM), jumping off skyscrapers and gliding away, than if you don't. :)
  • Phil, your Heinkel Pistol is why you're Armed. When you take a Condition that's why you detail it and write it on the line below. If some fucker takes it off you then that's him trying to get rid of your Armed condition.

    If you want to think of starting gear as giving you bonuses then look at it this way. Start with 9 not 12 points in Parameters and then get three things that give you a +1 to Ready, Willing or Able. Or think of one of the pieces of your starting gear as being linked to you your initial condition.

    Rather than doing 9+3 (which IMHO is gamer bullshit) I would prefer for players to think that their PC's Ready (or whatever) should be higher because they've got 12 Yottabytes of info on their enemies in a Kalophone headchip. Dig?
  • Just tried Remember Tomorrow yesterday, and I'm digging it.
  • Sweet! Thanks Ben.

    I'm looking to get some game on at GenCon in a couple of weeks too. Got to get through my Seattle trip, San Diego and Chicago first though.
  • Quick question about ticking boxes and achieving Goals.

    We played a very short game of RT at GenCon, and it was super sweet, and I'm totally itching to play a longer one when we have more time. Our very first scene was a face-off between The Teeth, a street gang beholden to some unknown organization, and one of the players, who was a totally bound and bought-in delivery driver for Omoto. (The corp charges its employees ruthlessly for training and lost materials, so they sometimes wind up basically indentured to work while they pay off the debts, and so on.) The gang boxed her into a dead-end street in an attempt to jack a load of pharmaceuticals, and we roll. The Teeth roll no successes, the driver rolls three. She gasses the gang out cold, takes their shoes and their guns, bumps up a couple of Parameters and grabs the PCon: Armed. Nice.

    My question is, since she got three unopposed successes in a face-off scene, one in each of R|W|A, it seems like she could have just gone tick, tick, tick, and bought off her Goal to get out from under the thumb of the corporation, right then and there. Is that correct? I mean, it's kind of neat that a held PC can ascend on the first turn of the game - and nicer that she chose not to - but is that intentional, or did we read the rules incorrectly?
  • As I understand the rules, there's a limit of one tick per character per Scene (and the same for unticking a ticked Goal).
  • Yep, see p.18 (although the example is muddy, the text is clear.)
  • Ah yes, of course it does. Durrr. I think I read that page a dozen times without seeing that line.

    Well, that tears it, then. This game is perfect now.
  • Picked this up at GenCon, devoured it on the plane ride home. I love the idea, and hope to get it started soon.

    Just one question: those Edge dice, it says you can use them to add a die to "any roll." But you can only assign one die to each of R|W|A... can you roll 4 and just discard one?

    I know you can cash in an Edge die beforehand to ensure at least one success, but still, I have to ask.
  • Posted By: HarlequinJust one question: those Edge dice, it says you can use them to add a die to "any roll." But you can only assign one die to each of R|W|A... can you roll 4 and just discard one?

    I know you can cash in an Edge die beforehand to ensure at least one success, but still, I have to ask.
    I think it's only PCons that give you the auto success, Edge dice just allow you to roll 4d10 instead of 3d10.

    The example on p.43 mentions rolling an Edge die and getting 4 successes, and this extra one is lost: each rolled success needs to be allocated to one of R|W|A, so your maximum success for a PC is 3, 4 if a PCon is used for an auto success.

    Factions are different, and can get all 4 successes using Influence (p.19), so they have a potential maximum of 5 successes including PCons.
  • Another question! We played another game of RT here last night with four players, three of whom had not played before, and two of those were total non-gamers (they were improvisers, though, so were good with setting up and playing out scenes). The game was super fun again - we had a little trouble, as mentioned above, tying together the held PCs initially, but things eventually built up around one or two central PCs/factions, and things ended with a satisfying bang. They'll be coming back...

    The question is: in two-sided face-off scenes, it felt like we were getting a lot of ties. Like, half of the face-offs that we set up ended with just two co-winners, and no losers, so no margin of success to spend on outcomes, and no super satisfying resolution of scene goals. I mean, we worked it so that both winners got what they wanted, which lead to some pretty entertaining double-screwage at times, but it still felt like those scenes didn't really move anything forward, both fictionally, and in the sense of advancing the PCs or factions involved. Did we do that right?

    Either way, super fun, and I know it'll hit the table again sometime soon...
  • Hey Marc

    Joint Winning is cool in a few ways.

    (1) It means that everyone gets their Scene Goal (ouch!). Unless the Scene Goals are directly opposed in which case only one side gets it (see the tiebreaker of highest rolled success).
    (2) Your Margin is the number of successes more than the nearest Loser. Where everyone is a Joint Winner you get all your successes as Outcomes (as the nearest Loser is 0).
    (3) Apart from your Scene Goal you can't affect the other "side" with Negative Conditions, as they're not Losers. It sometimes makes you wish you'd picked an NCon or Goal Untick as a Scene Goal...

    A tie of 3 or 4 successes means Scene Goals all round and a stacking of PCons, usually a Goal tick and Parameter boosts. Suddenly a tie is much better than a narrow win.
  • Posted By: Gregor Hutton(2) Your Margin is the number of successes more than the nearest Loser. Where everyone is a Joint Winner you get all your successes as Outcomes (as the nearest Loser is 0).
    Wow, I totally didn't get this from the text - this makes Joint Winning much more interesting! Good to know.
  • Hey, I should add an example in the text to clarify and highlight that.
Sign In or Register to comment.