PDA

View Full Version : Cyberpunk Problems: Who Makes Important Decisions



BayardSPSR
2016-07-30, 01:00 AM
Something occurred on the topic of why my recent efforts to knock together a good, thematic, fun cyberpunk RPG system haven't gone so well: cyberpunk fiction tends to have all the most important decisions made by antagonists, not protagonists.

Contrast the Lord of the Rings with Neuromancer, to make an extreme example. Frodo and Gandalf especially, but all the members of the Fellowship in general make almost every plot-driving decision. Case does what he's told because he has poison sacs implanted in his body, and is otherwise motivated mostly by addiction.

Apply similar things to Ghost in the Shell, Blade Runner, etc*. Cyberpunk "protagonists" seem to very often be reacting to things beyond their control, often ineffectively.

Placing this in an RPG context, if "PCs' " choices don't matter much in the long run (and the most likely end to the game is expected to be tragic), and giving the players the roles of the real mover and shakers is inconsistent with the theme (those things being meant to be kept behind closed doors, only to be dramatically revealed at the moments of highest tension), how do you keep the edgy, gritty feel while keeping players involved in the decisions that drive the game?



*I bring up these three because they're the main inspirations I'm drawing from.

Honest Tiefling
2016-07-30, 01:03 AM
Warn them ahead of time. They might not make world changing decisions, but is it wrong to assume they could change things in their district a bit? I think your complaint comes with the territory, but isn't neceasarily a bad one, just a change of pace.

Vitruviansquid
2016-07-30, 02:07 AM
I... don't really see the problem.

Classically, the antagonist does something to threaten the status quo, which tends to be the biggest decision around, and then the protagonists react to stop it (or, in many morally grey settings, help it).

Sauron marches his armies out of Mordor to conquer Middle Earth --> Frodo has to leave his comfy hobbit life to stop it.
The Emperor builds Death Star to finally end the Rebellion --> Luke Skywalker and friends must destroy the Death Star.

So it is in cyberpunk:

Cyber-terrorist plot is initiated by the bad guy of the week --> The Major and friends have to figure out how the plot is being done and stop it.
These dangerous robots were created by some corporation --> Harrison Ford has to destroy them.
Corporation wants rival corporation's VIP incepted --> Leonardo DiCaprio and friends figure out inception

By virtue of being "the good guys," PCs almost never make that most important decision which kicks off the plot because live-and-let-live is usually considered a hallmark of goodness while going out there and messing with other people is usually considered evil.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-30, 02:10 AM
By virtue of being "the good guys," PCs almost never make that most important decision which kicks off the plot because live-and-let-live is usually considered a hallmark of goodness while going out there and messing with other people is usually considered evil.

This is what I'm trying to step away from, except replace "PCs" with "players." I'm trying to redistribute major plot decisions from the GM-side to the player-side (if not necessarily the "PCs" themselves), and running into hurdles.

Comet
2016-07-30, 04:43 AM
Neuromancer is the cornerstone of cyberpunk literature, but Case isn't its icon. Molly Millions is. She does what she wants, she wanders from story to story and she has all the answers.

Your players are gangbangers, hackers, nomads and freelancers. Just give them a city and tell them to make some money. Then put corporations and punks between them and said money. That's cyberpunk, making ends meet in a city that really doesn't want you to.

That's Gibson, though. Stuff like Ghost in the Shell and Blade Runner share aesthetics with it, but they're very different thinhs narratively and thematically.

Cybren
2016-07-30, 05:09 AM
A lot of cyberpunk or cyberpunk adjacent stuff seems to really focus in on being "just some guys" and make explicit that mega corps or the setting equivalent always win. Season 2 of Friends at the Table took that approach- at the beginning, but it ends with the characters in a very different place