Factions

[ghostlee]

What you say is more or less Fallout New Vegas factions,
where you only have reputation of factions without actually joining them.

How about this, then for something new.
The main character is the enemy of all factions. but he/she can have any relationship with any gorgeous female/male on any factions.
It will feels like dangerous relationships.
He can destroy them all, or unified them all under one banner.
It would be interesting to collect gorgeous females from all factions, if we are going to the unification plan.

Not at all same as NV faction rep. I'm talking about a rep that transcends how a single group feels about you. Leet runner obviously matters most to console cowboys, but corps and fixers can respect that too while It might be nowhere on a nomads priority list. "Drug problem" might be an in with gangs and corps (because they feel they could have a hold on you) but also apply a glass ceiling beyond which they would be less willing to trust you.

As for ruling romance into factions... If that's a joke it's funny, if not, please god no.

 

[d1am0ndback]

You might form a working relationship with a gang and get their trust as someone who does what he's paid to do and doesn't screw you, but you don't join it & work your way up to any significant height within the timescale that CRPGs operate on. People who have been part of that gang for a decade aren't stepping aside because you're a deft hand with a deck or a gun, and during the time you were earning your Combat Sense they were earning Family so they're sticking together and you're the outsider. You're just not going to be able to catch up to them, prospect.

For roleplaying reasons, people want to be part of something. Not just me, this is true throughout history. Also who cares if the guy who outranks you doesn't want you to advance, this is Cyberpunk, killing solves problems like that in an instant. **Snaps fingers**

All I can hope for is that all the gangs in the Night City Sourcebook are there.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I don't like the idea of MP factions, but I think I might be in the minority.

I hope this game focuses a bit on the SP aspect as well, and includes factions with NPCs.

 

[ghostlee]

For roleplaying reasons, people want to be part of something. Not just me, this is true throughout history. Also who cares if the guy who outranks you doesn't want you to advance, this is Cyberpunk, killing solves problems like that in an instant. **Snaps fingers**

All I can hope for is that all the gangs in the Night City Sourcebook are there.

It is okay to just say that you want something in the game, you know, instead of claiming that all true cyberpunks want something or it's a universal human constant.

2 possible outcomes for that kind of behavior. One, thanks for the replacement kidneys. Two, earn reputation "Treacherous Bastard" and guarantee that the only people willing to deal with you in any capacity are both desperate and planning to screw you first. Which inevitably leads back to the first option.

 

[wisdom000]

It is okay to just say that you want something in the game, you know, instead of claiming that all true cyberpunks want something or it's a universal human constant.

2 possible outcomes for that kind of behavior. One, thanks for the replacement kidneys. Two, earn reputation "Treacherous Bastard" and guarantee that the only people willing to deal with you in any capacity are both desperate and planning to screw you first. Which inevitably leads back to the first option.

This.... so much this...

 

[d1am0ndback]

It is okay to just say that you want something in the game, you know, instead of claiming that all true cyberpunks want something or it's a universal human constant.

2 possible outcomes for that kind of behavior. One, thanks for the replacement kidneys. Two, earn reputation "Treacherous Bastard" and guarantee that the only people willing to deal with you in any capacity are both desperate and planning to screw you first. Which inevitably leads back to the first option.

Solo of Fortune states CLEARLY that gangs are the true cyberpunks. Those who go against everything authoritarian and the one thing most works of art miss when they call their product cyberpunk. Also there are ALWAYS more than 2 possible outcomes for anything. Of course, reputation is everything but what in the hell does that have to do with anything about the OPTION of joining a gang?

If you can be a cop in this game and not run with a gang, I'll be sorely disappointed.

 

[Sardukhar]

Hmmm. I don't recall thta line, but even if so, Solo of Fortune, like most CP2020 publications, is written as a magazine, with authors that have their own perspectives.

I remember reading a story of some cyberkids destroying a full-on russian Borg using Wolvers and what not - we tried to figure out what they were packing for cyber that would let them easily drop such a machine and figured either a) the Borg was exagerrated for impact or b) the kids were.

I disagree that gangs are the true cyberpunks. They aren't rebelling - they're joining! And they sure aren't trying to make any kind fof difference. Some don't even have cyber.

Not that I'd mind playing a booster in the game, but it's not my idea of essential cyberpunk play. It's not even a basic Role, really, and instead we make do with Nomads or what have you.

 

[ghostlee]

Of course, reputation is everything but what in the hell does that have to do with anything about the OPTION of joining a gang?

It has to do with an alternative system of measuring relationships, instead of isolated relationships with individual Factions.

Further, being a part of an organization you can draw significant power and support from is the whole point of several roles, as Sardukhar just mentioned and I mentioned in my first post in the thread. Having Family (the clearest of the relevant special abilties) should be every bit as role-defining as a Netrunner's Interface skill, and downright antagonistic to the paranoia that drives Combat Sense (from Solo's description: "You can't trust anyone - your mother, your friends, your lovers - no one." ) If you want that "rising leader" feel, I hope you can have it, but by choosing a role that embodies it. Other folks who act right should be able to conduct solid biz with a gang, get work from it, hire it if you need muscle, but you're never going to lead it.

I mean, if not, why ever play anything but a solo or a netrunner?

 

[Decatonkeil]

Okay, I had this idea about how factions might relate to roles if implemented. It might be a little wild, though.
Take as an example the OCP in Robocop. OCP has the objective of building this Delta City in what is now (in the time the movie takes place) the most depressed district of the city, because it's profitable. Now OCP has different assets, different arms if you please, that it uses to attain this goal. Some of these assets are more difficult to trace back to OCP than others, as they are more illicit and they have to be able to deny any connection. Simplifying, OCP uses Bodicker's men (a criminal gang) to create social unrest which will lead to everyone wanting the utopia they propose and this utopia "will be possible" with the corporatized police they're planning to build (one that won't convict OCP's visible heads for their misdeeds).

So what if factions were something big that starts in a corporation that has these different compartimentized assets and informs them of their goals in a need to know basis? This would allow all of the roles to belong to different sections of the same faction, sometimes having scenarios where a cop doesn't know his patrons have criminals in their payroll and the efforts of both lead to the same goal.

 

[d1am0ndback]

I want it to be deeply political, most wars are won with words. To be able to play both sides for one ultimate goal you have personally set for yourself and what you believe in. This is the true art of ninjutsu.

If the faction you join is what you believe in then it should be known. The way you play should tell people close to you what you believe in.

Make it in such a way that it all feels organic.

 

[Sydanyo]

I want it to be deeply political, most wars are won with words.

Really now?

Not to derail this topic, but I'm just curious; which words won which war?

 

[Decatonkeil]

Really now?

Not to derail this topic, but I'm just curious; which words won which war?

Don't you know about the performative function of words? I say "this war is won" therefore the war is won, by the power bestowed on my person by the state of Arizona. XD
Now seriously, I think the world is moved by two kinds of people: the brutes and the conspirators. The brutes' weapon is force, which doesn't imply physical strength necesarily, it includes all kinds of dotation. The conspirators weapon is cunning rhetoric and negotiation, and conspirators are more easy to imagine sitting on top of the system than brutes are.

Now even more seriously, stirrers are important in any movement, be it revolutionary or conservative, radical or moderate. History and social studies have proven the importance of the cult of personality in most events and systems. If a stirrer gets his or her ideals through the skulls of more people the probability of victory, of pervading increases. We can debate if better ideas and ideals expand better or if it's the more convenient ones that do this.

 

[d1am0ndback]

Really now?

Not to derail this topic, but I'm just curious; which words won which war?

Wars are generally started over words (i.e. religion, etc.) Cults begin with charismatic leaders, Hitler used words to influence others to kill for him, history gives us a plethora of examples to take from. There are a lot of people who send others to do their dirty work from countless empires through the ages. The ruling elite with all their wealth have nothing better to do than to send the children of peasants to fight their wars. Conspiracies and corruption are the hallmarks of a powerful tyrannical faction where secrets are king.

It would be nice to play a game where I can play all sides to a certain point, politics itself as a "mini-game."

 

[phosphore]

Little Idea #2

In big :
-Federal cops, corrupted ones
-Punks/Gang of bad guy
-Rebels who want to change but they are not very fair
-Dealers who need a blackmailer

But it would be cool if we can have a political opinion (i didn't seek deep, but you can improv the things) :
-None
-Extrem left (with communists) who want to take down the richs in the up of the city (Zalem / Metropolis)
-Extrem Right who hate robots or cyborgs and want to remove they right because they arenot humain
-Etc

 

[Decatonkeil]

Little Idea #2
-Extrem Right who hate robots or cyborgs and want to remove they right because they arenot humain
-Etc[/SIZE]

I usually smile at this, because I have always thought of robot manufacturers as right wing. First they need a number of human workers to work with tools in either the production of this very product (robots) or an earlier market that will then give way to this, then they start adding machines to the factory (maybe this is the product they started making, and they needed humans for that) and less people are needed, then the smaller group of human workers and machines produce robots, no humans are needed. "Guys, we've needed you for this, but not anymore, go hit the fucking streets".

This is why ludism was born, and why it's related to worker unions and progressive parties. It's easier to see in older times than it is now (but it is visible now, with the economic crisis and shit) but families used to have many children because they were an inversion in a human being. A human being that feels hunger, a human being that can develop emotional problems if exposed to the more bitter parts of life. People in the countriside and city raised their children so that when they hit 12, then 14 and 16 they could help in the family business or farm, this was secure both for parents and children. But then you have (fictional) characters like the robot manufacturer in I, robot - the movie- which I do hate (movie and character) that says that "you losing your job at the library because the internet has been invented is progress" (a very unfortunate line for many reasons). Then you give robots emotions for what exactly? So that humans that were already there, who have needs, who can emotionally bond with other humans feel pity for the machines and start asking for rights for the robots instead of for themselves? And these people in an overpopulated world live of good intentions? Or money grows on trees and people without jobs are paid for what exactly so that consumerism can continue?

This robot manufacturer I talk about is selling his product. He hasn't raised children who can starve all by himself to throw them in a world of uncertainty. He has used a wealth ammassed by generations and generations, wealth whose legitimacy is sometimes gray at best and is legitimized by laws that are always passed to benefit the wealthy and powerful... invested this wealth in creating a substitute for the people he once offered an uncertain future.

I'm really tired of seeing real injustices like racism and slavery be equalized to "hypothetical robots", made of mechanism and circuitry, in science fiction. Replicants, bioroids... those are quite another thing. And maybe, surprisingly for all, I would be one of those that could develop an empathy for a sentient AI... but why make one in the first place?

 

[Decatonkeil]

Little Idea #2
-Extrem Right who hate robots or cyborgs and want to remove they right because they arenot humain
-Etc[/SIZE]

Cyborgs on the other hand are another thing. This could be approached in many ways. Cyborg discrimination would be a thing of bigots that can't justify rationally this (religious?) or people who lost their jobs to them (this could still be right wing, it's like when one blames immigrants instead of hiring companies or a government that doesn't care for legal contracts and working rights - illegal immigrants are in a situation that hirers take advantage of, giving them salaries below the minimum, no insurance, etc. so they don't hire nationals who don't want to be exploited -). The problem of cyborgs could also be addressed from two left wing perspectives, the positive being the denouncing of hirers that will only contract cyborgs and will effectively push naturals to undergo cyborg surgery (take into account recovery times, costs and hospitalization, if the clinic is legal - expensive and private- or illegal - not that cheap and risky-) and the negative being having the unions treat cyborgs as blacklegs.

The image of a spoiled brat asking his rich daddy for new tits for her birthday and him indulging in this also comes to mind.

 

[phosphore]

Dear Decatonkeil,

I agree, (But i'm not really good in english so I read the all quickly)

But I wanted to show the guys who hate cybernetic things not the ones who want monney, not the capitaliste wing.
I wanted to meet in the game these people, the "Nazi" ones who you can help if you want.
It would not matter to meet people who want to make money with their factories in the gameplay, otherwise it would be nice if you could see in the background and in the game you could see newspapers about these guys who make things about the thing you said.
History filling the interplay of these things and make it more complete

 

[Decatonkeil]

Dear Decatonkeil,

I agree, (But i'm not really good in english so I read the all quickly)

But I wanted to show the guys who hate cybernetic things not the ones who want monney, not the capitaliste wing.
I wanted to meet in the game these people, the "Nazi" ones who you can help if you want.
It would not matter to meet people who want to make money with their factories in the gameplay, otherwise it would be nice if you could see in the background and in the game you could see newspapers about these guys who make things about the thing you said.
History filling the interplay of these things and make it more complete

Yes, we can all like to play the "sith part". With the distance these problems that aren't real world ones (yet? or ever?). But if I play someone that makes life hard for cyborgs I want to be judged to a degree: I like many, don't want to see the "goodie two shoes" options blue and on the top/right and the "asshole" options in the bottom/left and then have an ending for which I need every decission the designers thought of as "goodie". We've talked about consequences of our actions, we've talked about humanity checks and non-lethal playthroughs and I talked there about the importance of having the lethal option be difficult also from an emotional standpoint (killing not being that easy, and not killing not being that easy either). As I was saying it would be good if the game made me think of the error of my ways, as an example, slamming me with how a cyborg suffers from my character's bigotry, or forcibly putting me in his/her shoes (I wanted to be natural but now I need cybernetics). I think DE:HR promised a lot more eclecticism in its writing than it ultimately delivered, I hope there's enough variety in the points of view of CDPR's writers so that different groups don't end up as cartoons (except nazis without " " XD).

More than anything I don't want a game that conforms itself with players just calling it "Badass!" or "Awesome!", but a game that is thought provoking.

 

[phosphore]

I totally agree.

 

[deathntaxes]

Word Wars!!

How will Scrabble have evolved in 2077? With a harder more vicious stylish punk edge? Will combat sense work?