Campaign: "B-Roll Befuddlement"

[Territan]

There's a lot I want to respond to here, especially about the House Chaos Goblin, but this one caught my eye first and right this second, I don't have time to respond to much else. So...

Originally Posted by johndallman

My first question as a character when I learned that would be "Have you called in the police?" Or, if there was anything else that seemed dubious, not asking that question, going "home in the evening" with some copied evidence and taking it to the police.

This need not be an actual problem with the campaign: all you need is a police NPC helping with the trawl.

The situation as it stands when the Briefing occurs is that the COO has heard that there's a lot of nonsense and some bad stuff in the vault. She tells the archivist to assemble a "sizzle reel" to show at the Briefing. Well hey, that strange little can he found the night before has what looks like a premeditated stabbing on it, so he adds a snippet of that because he thought the COO knew.

That scene is the thing that kicks off "The First Reel" as I'm calling the starter adventure. At that outset, no police had been called, and if they did call the police based on a single reel of film, what would they tell them? The COO's task is to keep the studio running, so she wants to minimize police involvement in the operations of the studio, and especially minimize police carting away boxloads of paper and film that they may need for those operations. But she also wants this cleaned up, so her idea is to find these problems and wrap them up with a metaphorical bow to present to the police so the studio can keep making wine commercials and corporate presentations.

By the end of "The First Reel," they'll have significantly more evidence, and I have a police detective NPC drawn up to bring in and call upon if/when needed.

(The fact that the can is labeled #STM3 should give the participants more than a hint of concern...)

(And yes, I said "no spoilers" in the outset, but I'm okay discussing this because I've spoiled ...the first fifteen minutes of the game, unless the Chaos Goblin causes trouble. Then call it thirty.)

Edit: And an anthropologist from UCLA, now I've looked up "Melpomene." The police can also worry about the possibility of this being a trick on the part of Melpomene Movie Productions to evade debts and resume operations as a "clean" company.

If my players don't look up Melpomene too, I'm going to be very disappointed and a little cross. Add to that the fact that many of the cultists' robes and chants and trappings are Greek-adjacent or Greek-inspired, and you may see another reason I chose that name.

I've also considered what could be found through forensic accounting, and let's just say you're not wrong. But the details that don't match up are troubling.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Territan

The situation as it stands when the Briefing occurs is that the COO has heard that there's a lot of nonsense and some bad stuff in the vault. She tells the archivist to assemble a "sizzle reel" to show at the Briefing. Well hey, that strange little can he found the night before has what looks like a premeditated stabbing on it, so he adds a snippet of that because he thought the COO knew.

What makes this stabbing stand out? We're talking about a company that produced Horror movies - a scene of a ritual where someone gets stabbed seems par for the course. I can't help but think someone viewing it under these circumstances would simply assume it was just a scene from an unfinished movie, and commenting on the "special effects" rather than realizing they just saw a video of an actual murder... particularly if they only see a snippet of it.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Territan

He did something else, too: He has a Talent called "I saw that in a movie once!" that adds +1 to IQ-based skills. And he wants to use it on all IQ-based skills to offset the default penalty. (The description on "Talent: Large" does say "13 or more related skills.") I'm going to try to negotiate him down, hopefully before he tries to get the second level of that Talent.

My initial reaction is that there's no way you should allow that; it seems inherently abusive. And I note that custom Talents are at the GM's discretion. Players can petition for the right to create one, but the GM doesn't have to allow it. And it has to be plausible that a Talent is inborn in some way.

Narratively, "I saw that in a movie once" is kind of a specialized version of "I've seen people do that," which is the rationale for getting a default to any skill; it makes less sense for getting +1 to skills you've actually learned. And I just don't think you could see someone use Accounting, or Mathematics, or Sociology in a movie; movies tend not to show people actually using academic or analytical skills, but just to show them knowing things—the process that attains that knowledge is seldom visual enough to make good film.

Looking at it analytically, getting +1 to IQ-based skills doesn't seem that far from getting +1 to IQ, which would cost 20 points. Though it depends on how broad "IQ-based" is. Is he excluding Per-based and Will-based? If so, there's a case to be made that buying up IQ, and buying down Per and Will to compensate, is worth 10 points. But it wouldn't be a Talent.

Here's a devilish thought: Define this as +1 to IQ, -1 to Per, -1 to Will, and a quirk: explains his ability to use skills by saying "I saw that in a movie once." Though to make it worthwhile as a quirk, maybe he should have to cite a specific movie, or describe a scene that could have been shown in a movie.

[Territan]

Originally Posted by Varyon

What makes this stabbing stand out? We're talking about a company that produced Horror movies - a scene of a ritual where someone gets stabbed seems par for the course. I can't help but think someone viewing it under these circumstances would simply assume it was just a scene from an unfinished movie, and commenting on the "special effects" rather than realizing they just saw a video of an actual murder... particularly if they only see a snippet of it.

Fortunately, I considered that too. For one thing, that footage is very realistic, from muted blood spatter (what movie stab wouldn’t bring in a gusher) and the actress’s defensive posture. It also comes from an era when the studio could apparently not even organize an omelette. On first sight, the question will be raised: Was that an actual stabbing, or just a very good practical effect?

Second, I already have the rest of the reel written up. The archivist’s job is ultimately to scan all the footage into the studio’s media server, starting with the oddballs (films found “out of place”) or threatened (films at risk of deterioration or degradation). So he can just call up the full reel of #STM3, which includes a lot of out-of-take business, and concludes with the two men behind the camera saying “Was that good enough?” “It had better be.”

(Pregnant pause among the viewers)

“Nope, that wasn’t a practical.”

The whole thing ties into the disappearance of that actress thirteen years before, and the film is from right around when she disappeared. There will be no doubt that was a murder, and she didn’t see it coming until too late. Than when the game should truly and properly be afoot.

[Varyon]

My concern was more why the viewers would single out the small snippet to look at closer. Realistic bleeding may well look fake to the viewers, seeing as they are movie buffs rather than doctors (although if there are any PI's, they might notice that the bleeding is more realistic than normal). If the actress obviously looks at the camera and calls out to for help (something like "For the love of God, stop filiming and hel-glllkk..."), that could certainly pique their interest.

Movie Guy: "That weird sacrifice clip... what the hell was that? Were they doing a film about a person being killed during a film or something? And that actress really sold being terrified, and was also really pretty... why haven't I seen her in any other horror movies? And what was with that weird blood effect anyway? Squibs don't usually work like that..."
PI: "Honestly, that was a pretty realistic look for a stabbing, which surprises me out of a studio that barely managed B-movie status. Is there a longer version of that scene?"

[Inky]

Movie Guy might remark that it wasn't a good blood effect, if he's only ever seen bleeding in films and thinks that that's how it really looks :-D and then the PI might put him right on that.

If the archivist didn't know who the actress was, then he might not guess that there was anything wrong with the clip, and there might be someone at the showing who did recognise her and goes "Isn't that so-and-so? When's that from? I think this might actually be the last film she ever appeared in..." ...time to look more closely at that clip!

[dcarson]

If her disappearance had the police investigate and the clap board date for that clip is after that date that would raise questions.

[lugaid]

Originally Posted by Territan

He did something else, too: He has a Talent called "I saw that in a movie once!" that adds +1 to IQ-based skills. And he wants to use it on all IQ-based skills to offset the default penalty. (The description on "Talent: Large" does say "13 or more related skills.") I'm going to try to negotiate him down, hopefully before he tries to get the second level of that Talent.

It seems to me that concept is more akin to Wild Talent than a normal Talent, even a Large one, but if the player insists then it should just be an increase in IQ. Or if you have Power-Ups 9, you could carve out the Will and Per portions, and then it wouldn't affect Will- or Per-based Skills.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by johndallman

My first question as a character when I learned that would be "Have you called in the police?" Or, if there was anything else that seemed dubious, not asking that question, going "home in the evening" with some copied evidence and taking it to the police.

You're ignoring the bad PR, legal, and financial angles, which will be instinctively obvious to any Hollywood suit-type character.

* Massive amounts of intellectual property tied up in legal battles for years.
* Potential wrongful death lawsuits from families of victims murdered on the property or by company employees.
* The sort of bad publicity that makes the Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby cases look trivial and sends potential investors running for the door, and current investors running for their lawyers.

From a police point of view, evidence of an on-screen murder from 40 years ago is the very definition of a cold case. They've got real bad guys to catch right now, so they might not want to be bothered with evidence of old crimes, particularly if it will make the department look bad.

You could easily have ex-law enforcement people brought in to make sense of it all and possibly give the studio execs fair warning if there's a PR disaster about to occur.

In any case, police involvement is a likely plot complication.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Territan

He did something else, too: He has a Talent called "I saw that in a movie once!" that adds +1 to IQ-based skills.

This might be better modeled based on Higher Purpose, Wild Talent, or the Jack of Trades Talent.

Alternately, it could be just limited IQ (Limitation: "Only for skills you can reasonably have seen performed - realistically - in a movie").