jeronimooo skrev:regarding the armor; I would be dropping my entourage suit and replace it with knight errant body armor (+ kite shield)
Fine by me.
Willard skrev:
I guess the long period of being poor just doesn't appeal to me, and it certainly isn't the direction we've taken the campaign.
There's a broad continuum between "be sure to collect every spent shell casing so you can sell them for money to buy your next tube of soy paste" and "don't bother tracking money because you already have a hundred of everything" and it's no surprise that different people prefer different points along that range. I'm pretty sure that I'm not aiming as low on that spectrum as you think I am and, yeah, I realize that you're probably not aiming as high on it as I think you are either.
I also think we may have different concepts of what "poor" means. I wouldn't consider any of the PCs to have been particularly "poor" up to now. Sure, most of them may not be able to afford everything they want, but Ryder is the only one losing money (which I get the impression is by design) and nobody has had to go without anything they need. You gear is, at worst, adequate for the situations you've found yourselves in, and often much better than merely adequate. Medical and repair costs may have hurt, but they haven't been crippling either. Nobody has been in the position of having to say "I
really don't want to do this, but I need the money, so..." or make any other hard choices for lack of money. That's not "poor". Hell, in cyberpunk terms, that's practically enough to put you in the top 1% already.
As far as "the direction we've taken the campaign", we started out with a session to talk about the direction we wanted to go. "Cyberpunk" was the starting point. We all explicitly agreed to "gritty", albeit with varying levels of enthusiasm. We talked about starting at street level, then gradually building up to bigger things. We agreed to having a system of weapons permits not only for realism, but also to limit what player characters would initially have access to and to give them something to aspire to eventually getting.
To me, at least, everyone having enough money to buy everything they want is not "gritty". It's certainly not "punk" (cyber or otherwise) - you're not sticking it to The Man, you
are The Man. With tons of money and a constant barrage of "I'm inserting random element X from out of nowhere into my character's background; can Almighty/Mal get a Category 4 permit now?", where are the limits of what you can access and what will you aspire to eventually getting?
I'm not entirely sure how it happened, but it feels like the gritty street-level cyberpunk game that everyone agreed up front that we wanted to play is rapidly turning into superheroes without the tights. (We've even got someone wanting to buy a cape!
)
Willard skrev:
there are many more interesting choices and themes to explore than being poor and saving towards a bigger gun.
There most definitely are, but very few of them require owning the biggest gun around.
Willard skrev:
In a way I feel bad about doing stuff not on the list and just letting what's there expire,
Good! That means I'm doing it right!
God45 skrev:And since I was the player that was for pitching a more highpowered Campaign where we wouldnt have to worry about those things to begin with it feel natural to pick up the edges that allow me to play that way.
Fair enough.
So new Advances are Agility d12 for Almighty and Rich for Paladin, correct? Does anyone remember whether David said anything about what he wanted to take for Bullseye?
jeronimooo skrev:in fact you taking rich with that kind of motivation could very well mean you force both him and Bullseye to take on rich as well... surely that can't be the intention?
Funny you should mention that... I've been considering saying "no more taking Rich unless there have been actual in-game, at-the-table events to support it", but decided against that because it wouldn't be fair to Bullseye or Ryder.
But I think I will still say: No more taking Filthy Rich unless there have been actual in-game, at-the-table events to support it.
jeronimooo skrev:I also don't want battling AI's or freeing the sims to become the main campaign theme... I'm fine if it comes up once in a while, but I really think there are fare more interesting possibilities out there...
Where does the rest of you stand on this?
I don't particularly care about what sort of jobs you want to pursue, so an anti-AI jihad or spearheading a sim rights movement would be perfectly fine with me, as would focusing on something completely different.
Willard skrev:
I prefer a more active role in the world than what just taking random jobs implies.
That's where I want to see things go as well.
I'll keep doing the general job postings regardless, but I don't expect you to keep taking them indefinitely. Once you have enough of a sense of the situation in Chicago, you should either start planning your own operations or at least focus more on private missions, which will come with more information in their listings about who they're targeting, so that, even if you're just taking those missions, you can still decide on an agenda you want to pursue and select missions which advance that agenda.
Willard skrev:
I also don't mind different characters having different ambitions, we don't all have to pull in the same direction all of the time.
That's something the rest of us were talking about in the car on the way to the train station Monday night. We all thought it was great to have seen intra-party conflict rather than blind allegiance to The Party Hive Mind. The conflicts don't have to erupt into open combat, of course, but it's completely healthy and appropriate for a group of five PCs to have eight conflicting agendas among them.
