Difference between revisions of "Breaking the Hidden City Bribery Mechanic"

From Dragon
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with '"So, this is an interesting mechanic. It's not really an integral part of the city, it's more that it's a shared convenience. It works because everyone wants it to work, not…')
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
"So, this is an interesting mechanic.  It's not really an integral part
+
'So, this is an interesting mechanic.  It's not really an integral part
of the city, it's more that it's a shared convenience.  It works
+
of the city, it's more that it's a shared convenience.  It works
because everyone wants it to work, not because it's part of the
+
because everyone wants it to work, not because it's part of the
physics.  You know, like the way you don't have to carry money around
+
physics.  You know, like the way you don't have to carry money around
because you can get a letter of credit from the House of Judicious
+
because you can get a letter of credit from the House of Judicious
Increase - it's not that the letter has the same *chi* as a handful of
+
Increase - it's not that the letter has the same *chi* as a handful of
li, but merchants and the House want them to be the same, because it's
+
li, but merchants and the House want them to be the same, because it's
useful."
+
useful.'
  
"So the way you break it, is you make it not *popular*, and you make it
+
'So the way you break it, is you make it not *popular*, and you make it
not *work*, and then it stops working."
+
not *work*, and then it stops working.'
  
 
Her mechanic:
 
Her mechanic:

Revision as of 21:14, 8 August 2013

'So, this is an interesting mechanic. It's not really an integral part of the city, it's more that it's a shared convenience. It works because everyone wants it to work, not because it's part of the physics. You know, like the way you don't have to carry money around because you can get a letter of credit from the House of Judicious Increase - it's not that the letter has the same *chi* as a handful of li, but merchants and the House want them to be the same, because it's useful.'

'So the way you break it, is you make it not *popular*, and you make it not *work*, and then it stops working.'

Her mechanic:

PART A:

1) Pick an important / significant group competitive Thing. Like a party, or a civil service exam, or something. Bribe all (well, lots of) the relevant people to not take bribes. (That is, if you pay them N, then someone will have to pay more than N to get them to be interested. Pick your N based on what bribes you think are likely. N must at least equal the success number for the district). If it's a party, pay off the bartender and the butler and the caterers and the people selling fancy party clothes... that sort of thing. Anyone who seems really likely to be a candidate for throwing money at for successes.

2) Get the person running it to declare it an "honest" affair.

3) Make sure that nobody who snuck a bribe by you wins. (No using bribes yourself here, obviously.)

Do this a bunch. You want coverage both in terms of type of thing, and in terms of where they take place. Your absolute minimum would be three quite significant events; one physical, one mental, one tao; one in the outer ring, one in the inner ring, one in the inner circle. Increasing the number can help counter failings in your coverage, but if all you do is rig the street brawls in Pewter, then it really won't matter how many you do.


PART B:

1) Provoke an interesting and notable one-on-one confrontation, in which one party uses bribes, and the other one doesn't. Have the one that doesn't, win. (Successes must beat the success number for the district).

Again, do this a bunch, with similar coverage requirements as part A.


Ideally, you'd do all of this at about the same time, or in close succession, like during adjacent runs and putterings. You want to make it obvious that Things Have Changed. Don't throw a no-bribes party now and then wait two months before doing the civil service exam.