View Single Post
  #89  
Old 05-10-2014, 02:10 PM
welsh welsh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 49
Default

There are a variety of ways that Project could get weapon systems, but there are potential challenges for each. A military contract that get fudged means the project is willing to break the law to get its weapon systems. Given the nature of the project, its secrecy, and the potential risks- chances are it is not getting the weapons through illegal channels though. Even a small Morrow Project would still need to do it legally.

(For those interested- the Dogs of War - both the book and movie- talk about the challenge of private militaries getting guns. The film the Wild Geese, never really develop that issue but simply assumes away that the corporate sponsor could do it).

Is the Morrow Project or Morrow Industries a weapons supplier? Is it a private military company? Perhaps Morrow Industries is a private company whose job it was essentially oversee weapon sales to developing countries or to provision peacekeeping forces in an increasingly hostile world. Perhaps Morrow was hired to purchase military surplus from countries that are going through a process of demilitarizing. Perhaps as suggested in the 4th ed. its in the business of training peacekeepers and armed forces. Or maybe it was hired by the US government in the 1950s with a contract to develop civil defense infrastructure and capacity in the event of a nuclear war.

Do these questions matter? Kind of, if you think origins matter, or if you want your characters to deal with the consequences of that history. If so, I suspect the problem the project faces is that they are constrained in their resources and technology more than they'd like to be.

I don't want to create the wrong impression. Sgt has made a strong argument in favor of his F5 and other advanced tech. I can see others making arguments for an A-10. What flavor of advanced warplane do you like?

But I can also see a world in which someone has also made a dirigible- a maintained Goodyear Blimp. Imagine a story where, 150 years after a nuclear war, the Goodyear Blimp armed with nerve gas on a mission to bomb a city finds itself in the middle of an air battle with improvised bi-planes that, once upon a time, were crop dusters.

I have made a counter argument. Neither is right or wrong- because what matters is story telling. Does it fit the story? As directors you have to decide how much of the manual you want to follow and how much you want to create or change to fit what you think is the story. That story shapes the worldview of the game itself or "what kind of story do you want" mindful of the consequences. You can add weapons and tech or actually reduce it.

My feeling- keep it simple, practical and low-tech- it makes sense for the Project, keeps the challenge to the players high (especially if they have to acquire the assets or form an alliance with those who have the assets), and maintains balance with potential adversaries. But that's because I like a rougher and lower-tech view of a post-apocalypse. Neither position is wrong- just different.
Reply With Quote