[Perfect] The Mechanics of Commiting Crimes.

[joepub]

just for reference, one of the previous threads: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19545.0
and, one on game colour/etc: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19498.0

Okay...
So for those of you who haven't been following, and didn't click the above links, a brief synopsis:

Perfect is set in a world parallel to Victorian England, but one which has evolved into a nightmarish and oppressive dystopia.
Social status, etiquette, and conformity have become law. They are the driving forces of oppression.
Before dying, the last monarch, Queen Abigail, set up this dystopic system... one which remains unchanging, and unable to change... and which isn't led by any single figure or class. It is self-regulated and circular.
The government has "Inspectors", men in black suits and bowlers who watch every street corner for infractions.

You play someone who simply cannot accept this society as being just and fair.
This system weighs heavily on your soul, and you realize you need to take action to make things better for yourself.
You start committing small crimes, building forbidden friendships... you grow your discontent.

Cool. end synopsis.

Let's get into mechanics: what's on the character sheet, what gets tested, and how those tests work.

Characters are made up of a few elements (these have changed a fair bit since the original idea):

Freedoms - These are contractual obligations that the character is forced to live with.
Freedoms are in the form "You agree to X, we agree to Y".
Once adopted, a freedom is law for that particular character. Breaking a freedom is a captial offense.

Freedoms are stated like this:
Name (ex. Freedom of Thought)
Imposition - what you are forced to live with. Breaking this during a crime brings about "fallout" (ex. You cannot speak)
Benefit - what special benefit you get for taking on this freedom. (ex. You cannot be subjected to interrogation)
Fallout - what happens if you break your freedom, during a crime (ex. Enter interrogation.)

Images - These are things that keep your faith in humanity alive, and that make you rise to brave and stupid actions.
Winston having flashbacks of his mother in 1984 is an example of an image.
Inspectors want to erase your images, because then you are more controlled.

Images are stated like this:
Description (ex. Mother's Perfume)
Benefit - the bonus you get for invoking an image. Usually a modifier to resolution. (ex. +2)
Fallout - what happens when you invoke an image, and succeed in your test. (ex. Lose one image point.)

Evasions - Evasions and Images are the tools you have in tests... Together, they are your "toolkit" so to speak.
Evasions are tactics you can employ in order to dodge the Inspectors - whether in a physical chase or questioning period.

Evasions are stated like this:
Description (ex. Accuse Someone Else)
Benefit - the bonus you get for invoking an evasion. Usually a modifier to resolution (ex. +3)
Fallout - what happens if you invoke an evasion and succeed at the test (ex. subtract one from a Trust.)

Status - status is strictly enforced. Citizens are "classed", and only certain classes are allowed into certain locations.
Status also denotes how many freedoms a character must have.

They are rated by colour:
Crude Citizen – Brown              (0 freedoms)
Low Citizen – Maroon               (1 freedom)
Lesser Citizen – Red                (2 freedoms)
Common Citizen – Orange        (3 freedoms)
Upper Citizen – Yellow              (4 freedoms)
Citizen First Class - Gold          (5 freedoms)

Trust - A trust on your character sheet represents another character (or NPC) having put faith, trust and/or attachment into you.
Whether this person is a partner in crime, someone you have helped, or a lover...
They have given you strength.

Person - who gave you this trust (ex. The old man on 5th street)
Connection - why this person gave you the trust (ex. Saved him from thieves)
Benefit - the benefit for invoking a Trust during a test (ex. use one of Person's images in narration.)
Fallout - what happens if you invoke the Trust and succeed at the test (ex. lose one image point.)

Certifications - Tickets that allow you access into certain areas. Simple as that.

[joepub]

okay... this post, then I'll do a third post about conflict resolution.

Creating a character
Players decide, round table, what their status will be. Players may have different statuses, but it makes things difficult...
Players pick out the appropriate amount of freedoms and record them.
Players have X points to spend on Images/Evasions. Some of X should be saved, and left unspent.

Players design their own Images and Evasions.
Gains are listed in a chart. You create the image/evasion description, and pick an appropriate gain.
Each gain has a "cost". If you pick a level 3 gain, you need to pick a level 3 fallout to attach to the image/evasion.

make sense?

Then players get to pick 2 certifications to start the game with.

Then they spend a lot of time and paper describing their outfit.



IN GAME
Trust - the way trust works is... from that initial X points you had to spend on Evasions/Images...
The amount you have left over (which can be added to in-game, more on that next post) can be invested on Trusts in game.

They are designed with a description, then pick a gain, then pick a balanced fallout...
Except that you then put that Trust on someone ELSE's character sheet.
It can be used in stead of using either an Image or an Evasion.


The stakes set for committing crimes (conflict resolution) can alter or create Images, Evasions and Trusts during play. more on that in the next post.

[joepub]

Conflict Resolution: Committing Crimes

The only time you ever have to make a test in Perfect is when you are doing something illegal, or dealing with the reprocussions of something illegal.

To commit a crime:

1.) First, declare stakes for committing the crime. This can be anything, but must be negotiated and agreed upon around the table.
Some things might be:
"Add +1 to the benefit of this Image I have"
"gain a new image: Stealing Roses/+2/suspicion increases by 1."
or... it might be a narrative stake, with no mechanical gain. That'd be totally cool too.

2.) Calculate the amount of Infraction Points you rack up (there's a 2 page spread of laws in the book, with IPs listed).
The GM gets this many points to spend on the scene.

The GM invests those points into a mix of Fear points and Inspector points.

3.) You commit the crime in question.

4.) You then make two tests:
Test to see if you kept your cool and avoided suspicion, and test to see if you got caught in the act.
These tests are respectively called Calm and Discovery tests, and are independant of each other.

They both function in the same way, but:
Calm tests: Images oppose Fears.
Discovery tests: Evasions oppose Inspectors.


ALL TESTS FOLLOW THIS FORMAT:
The player can choose to invoke an Image/Evasion (whichever is relevant to the test) or a Trust. They get the benefit inscribed.
The GM can choose to put forth an amount of Inspector/Fear points (whichever is relevant to the test).
The player can invoke another.
The GM can bid forward more.
whenever both sides are satisfied, each side rolls a d6. Player adds mechanical bonuses gained from Images/Evasions... GM adds points spent.

If the player wins, he gets away "scot free", but suffers the fallout of every Image, Evasion and Trust he invoked.
If the player loses, then he gets a Build point (which can be invested in Trusts, Images or Evasions).


If the test was a Calm test, he lost his cool... people got suspicious and told the Inspectors..
and now he's in Interrogation (enter the Interrogation test).

If the test was a Discovery test, then the Inspectors caught him in the act of the crime, and took him in for mental conditioning.
(proceed to a Conditioning test.)

Interrogation

This test follows the same format as Calm tests and Discovery tests...
but this test pairs Evasion against Fear.

If the GM loses this one, nothing bad happens. Interrogation is survived.
If the player loses this one, he loses an amount of Image points equal to the amount he lost by.
These images have been uncovered and beaten out of him, through interrogation and emotional torture.

Conditioning

Again, the same format for test as the others.
but this test pairs Images against Inspectors.

If the GM loses this one, then the process of mental conditioning doesn't work... and the character is unaffected.
If the player loses this one, then he gains a "conditioning."

This is an Impostion, like Freedoms have.
If the character steals flowers from the imperial guards, maybe teh conditioning is "I will not touch flowers."
If the character smashes a statue, maybe the conditioning is "I will not touch statues" or "I will not touch stone".

If the player has sex outside marriage, maybe the conditioning is "I will not touch women."



Questions
1.) Does all of "this" fit thematically with the game? (in your opinion)

2.) Does the mechanic make sense to you? Is it easily learned and used?

3.) Is letting players/GM decide "conditionings" and "what you gain for committing the crime" freely around the table a good idea? will people abuse the system if its not more structured?

4.) All comments and criticisms and suggestions welcome.

[Chad]

Hi Joe,

Wow its come a long way. Quick question - in a narrative sense, how do players evoke Image/Evasion? Are they required to tie it into their narration in some way? Say, the PC realises that a character who he is trying to befriend illegally reminds him of his mother in some way - so he ties this into the story etc? Or will it be enough for the player to to simply state he is using that Image. Who gets the narration rights?

It might be nice if the player states he wants to use an Image, the roll takes place, and if he wins he may narrate the resolution of his stake using his image/evasion. I find rewarding the player with narration is a useful drive, and with your juicy images, tied in might make for some interesting narrations.

Also, so a PC always racks up infraction points during a conflict regardless of the outcome? I wonder if this will discourage them from initiating conflict. It might, on the other hand, add to that fearful paranoid atmosphere that your setting evokes though.

Best,
Chad

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

1.) Does all of "this" fit thematically with the game? (in your opinion)
2.) Does the mechanic make sense to you? Is it easily learned and used?

Firing on all cylinders, in my opinion. I think the interconnections of elements are tight, the terms are evocative, and each is clearly relevant in play that takes its cues from the inspirations (1984, Paranoia, etc).

3.) Is letting players/GM decide "conditionings" and "what you gain for committing the crime" freely around the table a good idea? will people abuse the system if its not more structured?

Tough one. Yes and no.

Yes: It's good to allow players to generate their own punishments. All but the gamiest of gamists will probably impose worse conditions on themselves than an arbitrary judge (GM) would.

No: Without some metric to go by, the players might flounder when trying to assign a condition.

Idea: Could you use the Infraction Points as a metric, with a chart/guide for players that ranks condition examples by IPs? Also, perhaps you could have a clear, one-to-one correlation between the general nature of the crime and the general nature of conditions imposed for it, to whit:
Theft = May Not Touch X (where the commonality of substance/item X increases as IP increases)
Sedition = May Not Speak At Location(s) A (B, C, D, E, etc. as IP increases)
Assault = May Not Be In Public In A Group Smaller Than X (where the value of X increases as IP increase)
[Remaining crimes...]

Finally, clarify that Murder = Death, as killing someone pretty much violates their freedom (also a capital crime, right?).

4.) All comments and criticisms and suggestions welcome.

a) How does group play work? Cooperation on crimes? Sharing/apportioning conditions?

b) While recognizing that this is a mechanics post, I suggest at least touching upon how this is actually played: step by step process, when and how folks narrate, etc. Basically, as written here, the game could "reduce" to a lot of number shuffling with few handles on creating story or defining situations.

Also, so a PC always racks up infraction points during a conflict regardless of the outcome?

I think it only counts for the one crime, as its the GM resource to create opposition to the crime (i.e. a metric of its riskiness). Could you clarify, Joe?

I can see either way working. Total IP appeals to me in that each crime carries the "weight" of previous crimes: there is a ramp-up of risks the more you buck the system, which seems right for the world: rock the boat enough and you will eventually get noticed. Yet per-crime IP recognizes that you are only as exposed as your current actions make you, so you should not suffer under some "fated" death spiral to discovery.

Of course, if you couple IP to the punishment (as I recommend above) then you have to keep that in mind as you consider this total IP v. per-crime IP choice. For total IP, again, it seems appropriate, in that the more the Interrogators see you, the worse their conditions become. Conversely, per-crime IP contributes to a notion that justice was appropriately served at each discrete instance, and as such it smacks of the rigidity of the society and its (presumed) total trust in the sufficiency of discrete judgements.

Coin flip? Or am I missing another interconnection?

HTH;
David

[joepub]

Firing on all cylinders, in my opinion. I think the interconnections of elements are tight, the terms are evocative, and each is clearly relevant in play that takes its cues from the inspirations (1984, Paranoia, etc).

Score!
Chalk one up for me!

No: Without some metric to go by, the players might flounder when trying to assign a condition.

Idea: Could you use the Infraction Points as a metric, with a chart/guide for players that ranks condition examples by IPs?

Right, that makes sense. Maybe just guidelines per crimes....
If you have something as severe as a 5 IP crime.... two examples are "..." and ",,,"

I'm not gunna do a chart in this case, but do a lot of examples.

It might be nice if the player states he wants to use an Image, the roll takes place, and if he wins he may narrate the resolution of his stake using his image/evasion. I find rewarding the player with narration is a useful drive, and with your juicy images, tied in might make for some interesting narrations.

This will definitely be suggested, but not mandatory in all cases.
Because otherwise, as discussed before, some narration would get extremely contrived.

Conversely, per-crime IP contributes to a notion that justice was appropriately served at each discrete instance, and as such it smacks of the rigidity of the society and its (presumed) total trust in the sufficiency of discrete judgements.

That's the idea.
You also get a black patch sewn onto your suit jacket.
The idea being that gossip and pecking order are your only long term punishment. :)

a) How does group play work? Cooperation on crimes? Sharing/apportioning conditions?

There will be some way to do group play effectively, but unsure of it yet.
You know how Trusts work...

Maybe if the character with the Trust and the character who "gave" the Trust (ie, the Person) are committing a crime together... they can both invoke the Trust.

I dunno if that'd be balanced... but then again who cares? This is Narrativist.



Anyways... think up ideas for how to make working together juicy.... I could use some good suggestions.
Gotta run to school now. Peace.

[joepub]

Also, forgot to mention:


The points that the GM gets are for the whole "scene", which includes possible Interrogation and Conditioning.
The GM has to budget whether to spend a lot of points during a Discovery test to ensure success,
or save a couple of those Inspector points for the Conditioning test.

Any points not spent at ALL during the entire scene are banked for the next scene.
Points can only be banked for one scene though. (ie, GM can't stockpile points for 7 crimes then suddenly have a mountain of chips.)

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

The points that the GM gets are for the whole "scene", which includes possible Interrogation and Conditioning. The GM has to budget whether to spend a lot of points during a Discovery test to ensure success, or save a couple of those Inspector points for the Conditioning test.

Damn! That's slick. You're almost getting Gamist, there--after all, the GM presumably is "trying" to catch the player(s), yes? Hmmm... or SIM: the GM might decide that, for the situation (say, a very clever plan), it is most plausible that few or no points go into Discovery... and then, if Interrogators DO come into the mix later, they are gonna be whoppers! Almost as if a cool and clever criminal gets WORSE treatment than one who operates more above-board--how Perfect!

Any points not spent at ALL during the entire scene are banked for the next scene.
Points can only be banked for one scene though. (i.e., GM can't stockpile points for 7 crimes then suddenly have a mountain of chips.)

Also great. Enables additional SIM points of contact; lets a GAM GM pick and choose when to stick it to the players; facilitates NAR play by allowing the GM to "get out of the way" (waste points, basically) if the story is being served by that at the moment.

You say "[Perfect] is Narrativist," but I see hooks into all main Agendas.

One thing, though: why not let a GM stockpile? Think of the player tension, as they watch the chips pile up and have to keep heading out to do crimes. (Why IS that, by the way? What's my motivation?) Think of Perfect's society of "watchers" just letting the character get deeper and deeper and deeper into trouble before slapping them down.

Another thing: Could the IP associated with the banked points stays with them? Ramping up the consequences in parallel with the odds of player failure? Hmmm... maybe not. That might lead to a death spiral, ESPECIALLY if they can be banked for more than one crime. And it also makes it possible for a stack of "minor" crimes to eventually add up to a very major one, with a high likelihood of Conditioning.

OK, so if you like association of IP to the banked chips, then you can't let GMs bank for longer than a single instance of crime. If you like unlimited banking, then the IP has to stay decoupled.

I like unlimited banking, personally. Tension, fear, a society of watchers just waiting to finally catch old Slippery Jim in the act.... Too Perfect.

My 2¢, YMMV, no warranty expressed or implied;
David

[joepub]

I like unlimited banking, personally. Tension, fear, a society of watchers just waiting to finally catch old Slippery Jim in the act....

Okay.
You convinced me on that one.

Why IS that, by the way? What's my motivation?

Well... to put it most simply: something is wrong with the system, and you can`t live with that.

To complicate the matter:
-extramarital affections are illegal.
Just like Winston, you need to break the law in order to love someone truly.

-shows of certain emotions are illegal.
Just like John Preston wasn't allowed to have emotions in Equilibrium.

-people feel lost, and violence simply becomes a lifestyle.
Arguably, like Alex in Clockwork Orange

-maybe violence does solve problems in the end
Think Fight Club. redemption through destruction.

-Protecting the things that matter to you (family, friends, possessions) can sometimes be illegal.
Think the paperweight that Winston buys for himself in 1984.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Like the start on motivations. May I expand...?

something is wrong with the system, and you can`t live with that.

(Little advice: be careful about using Big Model terms like "system" casually or out of their strict meaning. We are dancing close to semantic confusion.)

Sounds to me like that's something you might need in the game System, then. Maybe not something resource-tracked, but somewhere in the System this "something is wrong" needs to be hooked into the character directly. Maybe treat it like an addiction of sorts: the character must get his or her "fix" every day/week/(game session interval), whatever that is. Hearing banned music, reading banned books, doing illegal drugs, visiting the mistress, having a good hard cry, etc.

But that still doesn't seem enough of a spur to criminality on a larger, Fight Clubesque level. Maybe the characters are all in secret societies (not necessarily the same one!) that meet to do minor crimes of sharing "fixes" with each other, but also take the opportunity to coordinate larger Project Mayhem stuff.

And maybe there are still-more hooks into situation ("spurs") to buck the system. You could have a System element almost like D&D Alignment, delineated exactly and only by the way in which the character bucks the system:
o  Romantic - for forbidden love (secret trysts and letters)
o  Idealist - because The Man is WRONG! (evidence gathering and propaganda)
o  Anarchist - to tear it all down (violence and vandalism)
o  Archivist - to save art (theft and hoarding)
o  Emotionalist - to feel more (hedonism and incursions above their Status)
... and there's gotta be a TON more.

And are those not Perfect hooks into HOW the characters are likely to buck the system? (Added in parentheses above)

This is hot. Any System element that the players can choose and that gives the GM a clear signal as to how the players want the game to go is A Good Thing Indeed.

To complicate the matter: ...

Not sure if this is an "axis two" of complications, or just the other side of the "somethings wrong" coin. Presumably, other members of society don't notice this "wrongness" and, presumably, that is because they do not feel deprived or constrained (i.e. kept from a needed fix). My examples above all stem from the same-coin notion: the character's need for the fix is opposed by the fact that the fix is a crime.

If you run with my secret societies notion, then this does become a second axis of complications: after all, someone could be in a secret society and yet not have to get a fix. Why they risk guilt by association, I don't know--it's not my character--but it is possible and, therefore, there would not be a direct coupling between fix and crime.

Of course, most of the alignments above are defined by virtue of the deprivation or constraints on the character, so they are "trivially criminal": criminal by virtue of being define from the list of possible crimes.

Hmmm... maybe that is becoming too circular, to neat? Or maybe it's a Perfect circle.

(I dig the game name, for its use as a pun!)
David

[joepub]

(I dig the game name, for its use as a pun!)
David

It shows. :P

And maybe there are still-more hooks into situation ("spurs") to buck the system. You could have a System element almost like D&D Alignment, delineated exactly and only by the way in which the character bucks the system:
o  Romantic - for forbidden love (secret trysts and letters)
o  Idealist - because The Man is WRONG! (evidence gathering and propaganda)
o  Anarchist - to tear it all down (violence and vandalism)
o  Archivist - to save art (theft and hoarding)
o  Emotionalist - to feel more (hedonism and incursions above their Status)
... and there's gotta be a TON more.

I dig this.
Maybe there are a list of like 10 or so archetypes.
I think these are just plot hooks, have no actual mechanical bonuses.

Would it be better to have a pregenerated list, or have players create them?

Maybe treat it like an addiction of sorts: the character must get his or her "fix" every day/week/(game session interval), whatever that is. Hearing banned music, reading banned books, doing illegal drugs, visiting the mistress, having a good hard cry, etc.

I want this to evolve organically during play and narration. I think that it would come across as contrived if this were a mechanical element of the character.

Maybe though... players are told "write 2-4 character hooks down on the paper".
and little vices could be part of those hooks.

But that still doesn't seem enough of a spur to criminality on a larger, Fight Clubesque level. Maybe the characters are all in secret societies (not necessarily the same one!) that meet to do minor crimes of sharing "fixes" with each other, but also take the opportunity to coordinate larger Project Mayhem stuff.

Ixnay on secret societies. That paints things too black and white.
Characters might join secret societies through play... but I don't want it to be a character pre-requisite.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Maybe there are a list of like 10 or so archetypes. ... Would it be better to have a pregenerated list, or have players create them?

The list would be nearly identical to the one for crimes and Conditionings, but from the other perspective. Therefore, having players create them is sort of incoherent: could the players "invent" a new crime in the society? Hmmm.... maybe so. Can't imagine how, though; it's been a few millennia since an actual new TYPE of crime has evolved (not a mere new-technology-based variation on an old favorite!).

I think these are just plot hooks, have no actual mechanical bonuses.

Absolutely. They are... uh, Bangs... no Flags... no both, depending on who's using them! (sheesh) Anyway, yep, just like Alignment: there for the players to tell their GM how they want to approach the world, their "motivation," their justifications for behavior. That's what makes them rock: that communication channel between participants (not characters).

Maybe though... players are told "write 2-4 character hooks down on the paper" and little vices could be part of those hooks.

As could secret societies (more to that below). This probably works better than a single-motivation Alignment-type system. Sure, let them pick as many as they want: that's more data for the GM to use to shape Situations. So long as every player doesn't pick every Motivation (new term!), then the Player-GM communication channel stays open and useful.

Ix-nay on secret societies. That paints things too black and white.

Only because you assume there are no PRO-Society Secret Societies. No Double Secret Societies (double agents).

Check your sources (I HIGHLY recommend a look at Neil Stevenson's current Baroque Cycle): the most powerful people in Victorian and pre-Victorian society were involved in secret and "secret" societies. Our founding fathers, too, if you buy into the whole Masonic conspiracy.

Mind you, I'm NOT trying to ram-rod this element into the game... just to make it very clear that the existence of secret societies in The Perfect Society would most definitely NOT reduce to "us" v. "them" factionalism. Heck, just look at the Motivations (Alignment) above! I could see some serious rivalry between those differing opinions as to how to correct that "something wrong" in Society (e.g. Vandals v. Archivists).

Characters might join secret societies through play... but I don't want it to be a character pre-requisite.

Fair enough. But that's not quite what "ix-nay" means, no? ;-)

Summary
I figure, put in the Motivations, for sure, as both a Player-GM communications channel AND because you will already have a fairly one-to-one correlation with crimes (which MUST be defined, for Conditioning metrics and mechanics). Require at least one for each character, as a GM (situational) "hook," but do not limit them unless players attempt to take all/"too many" of them.

Then, include a lot of setting specifics and details for Secret Societies, and let membership in one (or more?!) of those be additional options for "hooks." After all, a player who elects to be a part of "The Occult Guild of Archivist" is pretty much giving you a Motivation, yes? (Unless he is ALSO in "The Right Rough Wrecking Crew" as well! Then, he's complicated and the GM must discuss the real underlying motivation [small M].)

Because the Societies should each have an agenda of SOME kind, that lets the players self-select their own agendas... which again provides a Player-GM communication channel for play interest/goals.

HTH;
David

[joepub]

Only because you assume there are no PRO-Society Secret Societies. No Double Secret Societies (double agents).

Check your sources (I HIGHLY recommend a look at Neil Stevenson's current Baroque Cycle): the most powerful people in Victorian and pre-Victorian society were involved in secret and "secret" societies. Our founding fathers, too, if you buy into the whole Masonic conspiracy.

Mind you, I'm NOT trying to ram-rod this element into the game... just to make it very clear that the existence of secret societies in The Perfect Society would most definitely NOT reduce to "us" v. "them" factionalism. Heck, just look at the Motivations (Alignment) above! I could see some serious rivalry between those differing opinions as to how to correct that "something wrong" in Society (e.g. Vandals v. Archivists).

I think that building formal secret societies explicitly around crime is a bit too extreme.
I want the criminal underground to still be very unformed. I want it to be a word-of-mouth type thing.
I have an idea.

Have secret societies that have implicit, unstated roots in criminal activity.
The Poets Guild is tied to a lot of Idealist and Arsonist folks.
Many members of the Art Trading Hall have ties to illegal Archivist activities as well.

Just like a certain casino is somehow inherently connected to the mafia, but the FBI never have any evidence or way to bust the place. They just monitor it more intently.


And then... as well as that...
have small street-gang like groups, akin to Alex and the gaggle in A Clockwork Orange.
except... maybe more sophisticated in their approach.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  OK, RE: Secret societies, it is correct that they were all the rage back then, but they were then what they are now, social clubs. During the Vic era, they were heavily scrutinized because of the corruption, conspiracy and collusion of the 1400s and 1500s made by secret societies. Still, this would be the sort of thing that the govt would want to suppress and something that could turn from social club to instrument of insurrection under the right circumstances.
  RE: saving up IPs, I feel like its a bad idea.One it is counter to the flow of a proper story. You want escalating conflict, yes, but with a player victory at the end. Seems like the GM can escalate the conflict by bringing in more IPs on a scene by scene basis. and that if the GM has a ton of IPs saved up at the end of the story, it sets up the player for a failure, rather than a success. and it creates this sort of "limp" situation. I mean, if the GM has a boatload of IPs and doesn;t use them, then they really didn't pllay the game well, and if they have a boatload of IPs and use them, then the story will take a sort of anti-climactic ending, no?
  I maybe wrong, I am not ultra-tight with this genre (1984), but it feels like you want to challenge the players, and give the GM the tools to do so, without underwhelming or overwhielming the players. adding a strategy of deciding what IPs to save and for how long sounds like it could distract players from telling a good story, but maybe its just me...
  RE: Hooks, I think that's over-doing it. you already have Freedoms, Images and Evasions. If that is not enough of story hooks, what is? I mean, these are so flexible that if they don't say something about what you and your character is interested in, then you've done something seriously wrong, lol

[joepub]

RE: Hooks, I think that's over-doing it. you already have Freedoms, Images and Evasions. If that is not enough of story hooks, what is? I mean, these are so flexible that if they don't say something about what you and your character is interested in, then you've done something seriously wrong, lol

um... errr.... *stammers.*

You are most definitely right there, Dave. If anything, adding "hooks" would detract from the other elements.

Scrap hooks. Maybe that one "archetype" of Archivist, Anarchist, Idealist could be there though... to frame tone of the game a little more.

Keep archetype, but scrap the rest of the notion of "hooks".

I maybe wrong, I am not ultra-tight with this genre (1984), but it feels like you want to challenge the players, and give the GM the tools to do so, without underwhelming or overwhielming the players. adding a strategy of deciding what IPs to save and for how long sounds like it could distract players from telling a good story, but maybe its just me...

well... yes and no.

A few genre examples, for background:

-Clockwork Orange. Alex's sadistic criminal behaviour is monitored for some time (or so its hinted) before he is arrested and put through the BIG reprogramming.

-1984. Winston's love affair and other crimes are monitored through video camera and thought police for an extensive amount of time. In fact, the thought police actually LEAD him to commit more crimes, before arresting him.

Those two are examples of how sometimes dystopic literature is about bending the law until it snaps in your face... and about the reprocussions of that.

If we kept "stockpiling" as an option... it would become a social contract issue. Do the players want success, but through much trial?
Do they want to crash and burn?

If i DID put stockpiling as an option in the game, I would be very careful to address this social contract issue... and stress that the GM needs to keep in mind that how he plays his chips affects the table's enjoyment of hte game.

that could turn from social club to instrument of insurrection under the right circumstances.

Dave, it seems like you are agreeing with me on the point that secret societies definitely wouldn't be The Thompson Anarchists Association... lol

But... are you vouching for or against these "social clubs" existing?

Personally, I'd like to see those social clubs... and have them be groups that "could turn from social club to instrument of insurrection under the right circumstances."