Blade Runner rpg - having trouble getting sucked in

[Jd Smith1]

I don't understand why anyone thought that playing a death squad for an evil establishment to murder for their corporate interests could be a viable RPG product.

That, and murderous PC self-interest, are pretty much every campaign I can ever remember running in the last 40 years.

D&D pretends to be more Good/Evil aligned, but it is also set up for rampant murder hobo and XP-for-kill-motivation.

Admittedly, I don't play Star Wars, so I can't really weigh in on the moral choices there.

But most realistic settings usually leave the PCs choosing the lesser, more acceptable, or best-for-me faction to ally with, if not going straight to 'for the highest bidder'.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Stripped of the setting, it's hard to imagine many people signing up for Slave Catcher: The RPG.

Given the right pay scale, I am sure 80% of the gamers in my experience would be OK with it, so long as you avoided that specific title.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Stripped of the setting, it's hard to imagine many people signing up for Slave Catcher: The RPG.

Yeah I kind of wondered why so many people seemed keen on the idea. It's like, did people not watch the movie? From this thread - evidently they did not, or profoundly misunderstood it. And it's not a subtle movie, or an underdiscussed one, either!

You're a monster who has to survive by doing bad things.

There's a key difference, though, isn't there.

Has to.

Vampires in VtM have, depending exact edition, basically three choices:

1) Find a way to feed.

2) Don't feed and go berserk, probably killing a bunch of people.

3) Attempt to die in a fire, but possibly go berserk and fail to do so and maybe kill a bunch of people.

Blade Runners have two choices:

1) Be a slave-catcher.

2) Don't be a slave-catcher, go get some other job.

That's not exactly the same level of dilemma, is it?

Further a Blade Runner presumably chose to get into that line of work, whereas an awful lot of vampires either didn't choose at all, or were not exactly given the full information before they were turned (and may well have been turned when they were pretty young and dumb, indeed that's kind of the most likely time), and importantly, there's no going back. Further still, feeding in vampire is not necessarily a huge focus of the game, and certainly in the editions I'm familiar with, is often largely off-screen. It's also not true to say all siren vampires are "feigning" sex or are "serial rapists", that's a distinctly VtM Revised viewpoint, in 1E and 2E that certainly wasn't clear-cut, and I'm skeptical 20th Anniversary follows Revised here (I mean I'll believe you if you say it does, but does it?), though I don't know which way 5th went - but that is the sort of edgy thing 5th would be into so I could believe it - then again, 5th being edgelord-y even by VtM standards is part of why its popularity is... limited. To be clear, Revised's maximum body-horror, maximum personal horror approach is valid, but I don't think there can be any question that, had VtM 1E gone as hard on the same themes, had the same lore, and so on, it would not have been nearly as successful (there were always some groups who ran it that way, but I think they were fairly small in number compared to the "intrigue/politics/mystical mysteries" groups and "trenchcoats and katanas" groups - certainly the sourcebooks and adventures supported the latter two, and not the former, in 1E/2E).

 

[Voadam]

Further a Blade Runner presumably chose to get into that line of work,

The first movie where you have a replicant with false memories seems fairly manipulated and forced into it.

I do not have the RPG and do not know if that is part of the RPG setup.

 

[payn]

The first movie where you have a replicant with false memories seems fairly manipulated and forced into it.

I do not have the RPG and do not know if that is part of the RPG setup.

You pick human or replicant. There is a memory piece of chargen that I think is pretty cool. Though, yeah default you are basically doing this job by choice. There is a secret replicate variant but it feels very afterthought and not key to the game as I expected.

 

[MGibster]

Blade Runners have two choices:

1) Be a slave-catcher.

2) Don't be a slave-catcher, go get some other job.

Are you sure about that? In the first movie, Decker was out of the blade running game and initially refused to go find Batty and his group. It wasn't until Bryant threated him that Decker agreed to this last job. In the second movie, K, or Joe if you prefer, is a replicant himself and certainly has as much choice as a vampire does. He can do his job or be retired. Hell, in the movie the police initially go after him because they notice he's poking his nose where it doesn't belong.

Further a Blade Runner presumably chose to get into that line of work, whereas an awful lot of vampires either didn't choose at all, or were not exactly given the full information before they were turned (and may well have been turned when they were pretty young and dumb, indeed that's kind of the most likely time), and importantly, there's no going back.

Do you think runners are given the full information before they start? They likely believe the replicants to be robots because that's what they're told. They're not really people, so you don't murder them you retire them.

Further still, feeding in vampire is not necessarily a huge focus of the game, and certainly in the editions I'm familiar with, is often largely off-screen. It's also not true to say all siren vampires are "feigning" sex or are "serial rapists", that's a distinctly VtM Revised viewpoint, in 1E and 2E that certainly wasn't clear-cut, and I'm skeptical 20th Anniversary follows Revised here (I mean I'll believe you if you say it does, but does it?), though I don't know which way 5th went - but that is the sort of edgy thing 5th would be into so I could believe it - then again, 5th being edgelord-y even by VtM standards is part of why its popularity is... limited.

From the 5th edition entry on Sirens, "You feed almost exclusively during or while feigning sex...you think of yourself as as sexy beast, but in your darkest moments, you fear that you're at best a problematic lover, at worst a habitual rapist." I'mm going to go ahead and ask, why is it okay for this kind of thing to go on off screen? One of the criticisms of The Godfather is that we never see the negative impact the Corleon's business has on regular people which helps cast them in a more sympathetic light. Would we feel so badly for Sonny if we saw him squeezing protection money out of a small business owner just trying to get by? To me, it's more problematic to ignore the negative aspects of the monster you're supposed to be role playing. It's what leads to superheroes with fangs compaigns.

 

[payn]

From the 5th edition entry on Sirens, "You feed almost exclusively during or while feigning sex...you think of yourself as as sexy beast, but in your darkest moments, you fear that you're at best a problematic lover, at worst a habitual rapist." I'mm going to go ahead and ask, why is it okay for this kind of thing to go on off screen? One of the criticisms of The Godfather is that we never see the negative impact the Corleon's business has on regular people which helps cast them in a more sympathetic light. Would we feel so badly for Sonny if we saw him squeezing protection money out of a small business owner just trying to get by? To me, it's more problematic to ignore the negative aspects of the monster you're supposed to be role playing. It's what leads to superheroes with fangs compaigns.

Thats why The Sopranos was so incredible. It flipped the mobster film on its head. You get to see the impact on everybody, including the mobsters, and its rather ugly. As mentioned, this can be a compelling drama to write or film, but as a RP game? I want to believe there is space in the RPG world to explore these things, but it requires some finesse and maturity. That should be greatly focused on by the rules designers and adventure writers.

Very difficult to do since the established playloop by the most popular (by far) system is about vanquishing foes and getting their stuff. Doing it from a level 1 to 20+ is a long running play loop as well. Often rationalized as white hat vs black hat so its easy to just move on without thinking about any of the actual implications of the game material. It's not just Bladerunner either. A team could design a West World game based on Creighton and HBO series and folks would surely be asking why its not more like Robocop. The template has been set, and expected, and its unfortunate. Im not saying kicking ass and chewing bubble gum is bad or old hat, but I think some variety and exploration outside that framework would be welcomed.

 

[DarkCrisis]

That accurately describes about half the CP2013, CP2020, Tank Girl, and Shadowrun adventures I've seen... and is really beaten like a drum on SLA Industries 1E...

CP as a literary genre really is heavy on the in-your-face slave to the corporate overlords themes. Both movies are pretty much CP in tone and plot...

Many people playing CP, especially CP2020 or Cybergen, are not running in the CP genre, but the related but far more optimistic Transhumanist genre. Not a few groups running Shadowrun are avoiding the CP genre, making it a fantasy transhumist game.

Basically, the CP games work well because most people aren't actually running them as CP. Excepting SLAI. SLAI, if running what's in the book, can't avoid the corporate oppressors motif.


The chrome fetishism is what leads to the CP and Transhumanism genres developing separate identities.
There still is some hardcore CP being written, but it's not focused on metalling up, but on fighting the system.

I really miss when Cyberpunk was about the "Punk" and not transhumanism and neon lights. Yes I know it always had transhumanism, Im just saying the Dystopian aspect has taken a long far away back seat to neon and AI etc.

Anywho, Blade Runner RPG feels a lot more Cyberpunk Classic than todays modern Shaodwrun etc. It asks some hard questions just like the film.

You don't always have to RP a (super)hero, sometimes your corp cop questioning the things you do.

 

[dragoner]

The first movie where you have a replicant with false memories seems fairly manipulated and forced into it.

I do not have the RPG and do not know if that is part of the RPG setup.

I think a lot of people miss that Deckard is a replicant, even after Scott said it with Gaff leaving the origami unicorn on the landing. I guess maybe Gaff could also be a Blade Runner, though like most healthy humanity had fled the Earth. He could be a detective, and Deckard is just wielded as a weapon against other replicants, which is the story of the second movie.

As much as I love the movies, the setting is far too problematic to be enjoyable.

 

[BigJackBrass]

I think a lot of people miss that Deckard is a replicant

A lot of people don't agree that he is. One argument against the idea is that, compared to known replicates, he's weak and outclassed. The only reason he makes it to the end of the film is because Roy let him live.

 

[MGibster]

I think a lot of people miss that Deckard is a replicant, even after Scott said it with Gaff leaving the origami unicorn on the landing. I guess maybe Gaff could also be a Blade Runner, though like most healthy humanity had fled the Earth. He could be a detective, and Deckard is just wielded as a weapon against other replicants, which is the story of the second movie.

Deckard's status as a replicant is a contentious opinion. I'm of the opinion that Deckard was not a replicant, that it doesn't make any sense for him to be a replicant. But there are valid arguements in favor of him being a replicant, so I'm certainly not going to say such a belief is ridiculous, just that it's not my particular school of thought.

As much as I love the movies, the setting is far too problematic to be enjoyable.

I don't usually have a problem with the problematic. But I can certainly see why it would turn some people off.

 

[payn]

A lot of people don't agree that he is. One argument against the idea is that, compared to known replicates, he's weak and outclassed. The only reason he makes it to the end of the film is because Roy let him live.

Thats not very convincing. Tyrell has been proven to experiment with the replicant lines. Deckard could have been designed physically weaker, or even given extensive psychological programming.

Though yes, despite director comments and included elements like Gaff knowing Deckard's dreams, folks enjoy the truth being left ambiguous. Like did or did not Tony Soprano get whacked?

 

[billd91]

A lot of people don't agree that he is. One argument against the idea is that, compared to known replicates, he's weak and outclassed. The only reason he makes it to the end of the film is because Roy let him live.

Yeah, it's ambiguous that Deckard is a replicant in the movie as it plays out - could be/might not be. Blade Runner 2049 doesn't really weigh in on that issue in either direction other than continue to portray Deckard's human or human-like limitations compared to replicants. The director, screenwriter, actors, and others involved in crafting the vision that Blade Runner projects do not agree. Some see him as human, some as replicant. And I consider that to mean the ambiguity is probably ideal.

 

[payn]

Yeah, it's ambiguous that Deckard is a replicant in the movie as it plays out - could be/might not be. Blade Runner 2049 doesn't really weigh in on that issue in either direction other than continue to portray Deckard's human or human-like limitations compared to replicants. The director, screenwriter, actors, and others involved in crafting the vision that Blade Runner projects do not agree. Some see him as human, some as replicant. And I consider that to mean the ambiguity is probably ideal.

I believe thats rather consistent P.K. Dick's writing too. He was constantly examining existence and its meaning. I was kinda hoping the RPG would lean into that.

 

[Voadam]

The first time I saw the original I did not really think at all about the possibility of Deckard being a replicant.

The second time decades later after having heard the theory, the part where Deckard reluctantly gets brought back in to do the job by his overbearing and threatening boss, it struck me that everything up to the beginning could have been false memories, he might be manipulated entirely into this in front of our eyes partly by lying that this has been his job. He might not even actually ever get paid for his "job."

 

[dragoner]

Deckard's status as a replicant is a contentious opinion. I'm of the opinion that Deckard was not a replicant, that it doesn't make any sense for him to be a replicant. But there are valid arguements in favor of him being a replicant, so I'm certainly not going to say such a belief is ridiculous, just that it's not my particular school of thought.

A lot of people don't agree that he is. One argument against the idea is that, compared to known replicates, he's weak and outclassed. The only reason he makes it to the end of the film is because Roy let him live.

Ridley Scott said he is, that is how Gaff knew to make the unicorn, because his memories are implanted like Rachel's. I own every cut, even director's cut with commentary, I also have the soundtrack, and saw 2049 twice. If people want to say he isn't that is fine, though officially he is.

 

[MGibster]

Ridley Scott said he is, that is how Gaff knew to make the unicorn, because his memories are implanted like Rachel's. I own every cut, even director's cut with commentary, I also have the soundtrack, and saw 2049 twice. If people want to say he isn't that is fine, though officially he is.

George Lucas also told me the original trilogy was always about Darth Vader, but I'm not quite buying that either.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Thats not very convincing. Tyrell has been proven to experiment with the replicant lines. Deckard could have been designed physically weaker, or even given extensive psychological programming.

That's not very convincing, either. That's just a whole lot of handwaving things that don't at all mesh with what we see by saying "Well, maybe he made him different for reasons that are not at all explored".

Though yes, despite director comments and included elements like Gaff knowing Deckard's dreams, folks enjoy the truth being left ambiguous. Like did or did not Tony Soprano get whacked?

I mean, Ridley Scott was basically at odds with everyone on that view, so saying "despite director comments" misses that the alternative goes against the actor, writer, and others. I also think it utterly neuters the ending, which is basically par for the course with Scott: A good director, but he has to be kept from ruining the movie by other people. When he doesn't, you get stuff like Prometheus.

And the Gaff-Unicorn thing was always kind of weak, anyways. The dreams about unicorns aren't anything special, it's Deckard's subconsciously knowing that he's seeking something he can't find (satisfaction, meaning). Meanwhile, throughout the movie Gaff is making those things to mock Deckard: the origami chicken, or the man with the erection. Why start suddenly revealing dreams? He's making a metaphorical commentary on his love of Rachel, or that he managed to find Rachel at all, is an unlikely, almost mythical thing. No replicant needed, it's just a thematic tie-in.

Ridley Scott said he is, that is how Gaff knew to make the unicorn, because his memories are implanted like Rachel's. I own every cut, even director's cut with commentary, I also have the soundtrack, and saw 2049 twice. If people want to say he isn't that is fine, though officially he is.

The writer, actor, and everyone else on that production disagrees. Hell, the unicorn-part wasn't even added back in until a decade later. The whole idea about Deckard as a replicant is largely just Scott being Scott: too clever by half.

 

[dragoner]

The whole idea about Deckard as a replicant is largely just Scott being Scott: too clever by half.

I mean I think there are other clues, though I'm just saying what Scott said.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I mean I think there are other clues, though I'm just saying what Scott said.

I think there's an ample amount to interpret, but I bristle at Scott's idea being definitive when it's never fully made clear in the film and that he's always been alone in saying it. Again, I find him to be his own worst enemy when it comes to making films.