I'm looking forward to Blade Runner.

[Gringnr]

It may be matagaming, but remember to make regular back-ups of your girlfriend.

 

[The Convenient Skill]

Could be an interesting campaign idea. Build up to a "replicant's rights" social change. Oh, also, some folks were talking about using other systems to do BR style games; Green Ronin released a cyberpunk supplement for Modern AGE recently. I think MAGE could handle this type of game setting quite well.

For replicant rights see Detroit: Become Human.

And Hostile filed the serial numbers off both and indeed made it awesome.

Which Hostile books would be the ideal ones for BR only?

 

[Baragei]

The setting -book touches on the proles - vatgrown labourers, mentally culled and complete with planned obsolecence. The Synthetics-supplement adds a bit more to them, along with replacement replicants and other ..totally not pitch-black bleak visions of the future.

 

[Rich H]

It may be matagaming, but remember to make regular back-ups of your girlfriend.

Or don't and then roll-back to an older, yet YOUNGER, version of her. Shhhhhhhhhhhhwing!

 

[Gringnr]

Or don't and then roll-back to an older, yet YOUNGER, version of her. Shhhhhhhhhhhhwing!

That's why I enable "automatic updates"

 

[AsenRG]

Are Replicants human just because they look like us? Can something constructed by humans be slaves?

Would you consider an advanced Alexa or Siri human just because you can have a conversation with it? What if it was in a human shaped body?

What is the BR punishment for killing people, or aiding and abetting murder if human? (Don't forget they killed a shuttle's crew and passengers before the events of the movie - how many people is that likely to be?).

What are you and your players' opinions on killing - Chaos cultists, goblins in their lair, a human tribe that had killed your village? Where is the line drawn, at what point do players get a conscience?

All of these are a shade of grey, with no right or wrong answers and are somewhat central to BR as a setting.

Well, I don't believe Roy and co. went on a murderous rampage until they realized that they were slaves who had committed no crime, but were nonetheless created with a built-in execution date.

OK, and here's the alternative take!
I have committed no crime, either. I am well aware I have an extinction date as well. We all do, we're just blessed and cursed at the same time by not knowing the day!

I get that they killed, but weren't they (and countless others) basically being held against their will?

Only humans have legal will, so no, not until you prove they are human.

Could you call what was happening to Pris (and, again, countless others) rape?

Do you call using inflatable dolls "rape" as well?

Who was responsible for their treatmeant? Anyone who owned or operated one?

What treatment?

There are a lot of questions that aren't answered by the movie or the book.

Because they aren't meant to! They're meant to make you ask those questions to yourself.

I think when the replicants developed emotions (if that is indeed what they were, and assuming that they didn't always have them), they stopped being "machines", and became "beings".

Not really. Animals have emotions, but they aren't people, legally.
And yes, if I was going to play a pro-replicant human activist, I'd be rooting to use the laws against animal abuse...

This opens up a whole can of worms, ethically. Why treat replicants any better than we do livestock, or aniimals used for medical or cosmetics testing? Because they can play chess?

Exactly. Also, some dogs and monkeys can play chess as well.

 

[JAMUMU]

All I'll say here, and it's the biggie about the taste the BR franchise leaves in my mouth, is "sapient, sentient, inflatable dolls".

 

[lategamer]

All I'll say here, and it's the biggie about the taste the BR franchise leaves in my mouth, is "sapient, sentient, inflatable dolls".

I was talking to my other half about this and she feels the same. Enjoys the movies but....

We then started talking about other similar premises. Like "The Island" and "Never Let Me Go". Seems movies have an appetite for harvesting humanoids

 

[Fenris-77]

BR is the first Free League game in a while that I haven't jumped on like a staving man on a fried pork chop.

 

[Gringnr]

OK, and here's the alternative take!
I have committed no crime, either. I am well aware I have an extinction date as well. We all do, we're just blessed and cursed at the same time by not knowing the day!


Only humans have legal will, so no, not until you prove they are human.

Do you call using inflatable dolls "rape" as well?

What treatment?

Because they aren't meant to! They're meant to make you ask those questions to yourself.


Not really. Animals have emotions, but they aren't people, legally.
And yes, if I was going to play a pro-replicant human activist, I'd be rooting to use the laws against animal abuse...


Exactly. Also, some dogs and monkeys can play chess as well.

1. Yes, we all have an "extinction date", but it hasn't been decided by a corporation to whom we will be bound in servitude, without any say. And on average, it's far longer than six years.

2. Only humans have legal will, okay, even if I accept that premise (and in the case of replicants, I'm not sure that I do), mistreatment of "animals" is still a crime in most civilized societies. You also can't decide you're just going to kill every animal you own on its sixth birthday. Is a replicant more than machine? Is it alive?

3. No, using inflatable dolls isn't rape, but then, inflatable dolls aren't aware and in possession of emotions. They are inanimate objects. With replicants, that line is blurred to the point of being indistinguishable.

4. What treatment? Forced servitude/sex slavery, and a lifespan cut cruelly short, specifically to prevent the development of empathy that would further humanize them (the 6-year span was decided on, because after that, the replicants could learn enough about empathic response to pass Voight-Kampff tests).

5. Yes, I agree that the movie (as well as the book) are designed to allow us to draw our own conclusions, and I have.

6. Dogs and monkeys may be able to play chess, but, for the record, I'm also against using them as sex slaves. There are still standards of ethical treatment for animals, and we are even seeing a shift of public sentiment with regards to aquariums, zoos, circuses, even pet stores.

Edit: not trying to make this about IRL stuff at all, just to be clear. Just saying that, even equating the treatment of replicants with that of animals, it seems they'd be getting the shit end of the stick.

 

[AsenRG]

Edit: not trying to make this about IRL stuff at all, just to be clear. Just saying that, even equating the treatment of replicants with that of animals, it seems they'd be getting the shit end of the stick.

Yeah, man, I'm presenting the alternative viewpoint once, not interested in defending the morality of the BR universe. If you noticed, I used a specific emoticon...
Maybe I should have added "that emoticon's advocate" just to be clear? Either way, that's a role that gets old fast.

Also, that's exactly why I suggested the laws against animal cruelty. That would be a large improvement for replicants, possibly. But they're basically being treated as robots, not animals, in-universe.

 

[Gringnr]

Yeah, man, I'm presenting the alternative viewpoint once, not interested in defending the morality of the BR universe. If you noticed, I used a specific emoticon...
Maybe I should have added "that emoticon's advocate" just to be clear? Either way, that's a role that gets old fast.

Also, that's exactly why I suggested the laws against animal cruelty. That would be a large improvement for replicants, possibly. But they're basically being treated as robots, not animals, in-universe.

Yeah, I know where you're comin' from, all good, amigo.

Yeah, I mean, if replicants are seen legally as "machines", that's where my viewpoint gets difficult to support. Technically, it's true. They are synthetic, artificial lifeforms. No real memories, maybe no real feelings. But possibly, they do have actual thoughts and feelings, not just programming. Hard to say. Does JOI really care for Joe? Or is she just a REALLY advanced AI?

 

[Toadmaster]

1. Yes, we all have an "extinction date", but it hasn't been decided by a corporation to whom we will be bound in servitude, without any say. And on average, it's far longer than six years.

2. Only humans have legal will, okay, even if I accept that premise (and in the case of replicants, I'm not sure that I do), mistreatment of "animals" is still a crime in most civilized societies. You also can't decide you're just going to kill every animal you own on its sixth birthday. Is a replicant more than machine? Is it alive?

3. No, using inflatable dolls isn't rape, but then, inflatable dolls aren't aware and in possession of emotions. They are inanimate objects. With replicants, that line is blurred to the point of being indistinguishable.

4. What treatment? Forced servitude/sex slavery, and a lifespan cut cruelly short, specifically to prevent the development of empathy that would further humanize them (the 6-year span was decided on, because after that, the replicants could learn enough about empathic response to pass Voight-Kampff tests).

5. Yes, I agree that the movie (as well as the book) are designed to allow us to draw our own conclusions, and I have.

6. Dogs and monkeys may be able to play chess, but, for the record, I'm also against using them as sex slaves. There are still standards of ethical treatment for animals, and we are even seeing a shift of public sentiment with regards to aquariums, zoos, circuses, even pet stores.

Edit: not trying to make this about IRL stuff at all, just to be clear. Just saying that, even equating the treatment of replicants with that of animals, it seems they'd be getting the shit end of the stick.

I think that is kind of the point, replicants didn't start off sentient, more highly programed androids. Tyrrell Corp keeps improving them to the point they become learning machines which eventually begin to develop into true AI. Never explicitly stated in the film but it is implied to me fresh out of the factory they are not really sentient just programed to pass for human, but over their short lifespan they do develop true sentience and the desire to be "human" wanting emotions and memories, but nut fully understanding them. Rachel was different as she came with memories and preprogrammed, which jump started the learning rate.

As always the laws are behind the technology curve.

The whole idea behind the book and film is thinking about what being human actually means. If being human requires thought, if it requires empathy / emotions then there are a lot of humans that fail to make the cut. Being born from humans rather than grown in a vat seems like a pretty weak technicality, but exactly the kind of distinction legal systems love.

Shouldn't it be possible to play something else, in the setting of Blade Runner? Like, not a Blade Runner or a Replicant.

I'm having some second thoughts as well...

Rather than just replicant assassins my take on it is the blade runners investigate crime involving replicants whether that is rogue replicants, illegal trade in replicant technology, crime against replicants (at the least a property crime and there may be some protections for them), crimes using replicants etc. Like vice or homicide detectives, they specialize but all crime within their specialty is not the same.

 

[carpocratian]

I think that is kind of the point, replicants didn't start off sentient, more highly programed androids. Tyrrell Corp keeps improving them to the point they become learning machines which eventually begin to develop into true AI. Never explicitly stated in the film but it is implied to me fresh out of the factory they are not really sentient just programed to pass for human, but over their short lifespan they do develop true sentience and the desire to be "human" wanting emotions and memories, but nut fully understanding them. Rachel was different as she came with memories and preprogrammed, which jump started the learning rate.

In the films, though, they are really just genetically modified humans, rather than androids per se. The fact that you can only distinguish them from regular humans by using a psychological test indicates that they are fully biological creatures. Their sentience is inborn because their brains are human ones. If there were some significant differences in the structure of their brains, or in their cells, or any other part of their bodies, a blood test or simple soft tissue scan would show what they are. They aren't like the "synthetics" in the Alien universe. Their limited lifespan would seem to be an intentional thing, designed to prevent them from developing enough emotional maturity to become more independent.

The difference between replicants and regular humans has more to do with developmental psychology. Regular replicants are, essentially, emotionally on the level of toddlers, but with some artificially enhanced subject-specific knowledge, adult bodies, and adult social roles. Rachel's fake memories are an attempt to make up for that disconnect.

 

[AsenRG]

The difference between replicants and regular humans has more to do with developmental psychology. Regular replicants are, essentially, emotionally on the level of toddlers, but with some artificially enhanced subject-specific knowledge, adult bodies, and adult social roles.

Just wanted to chime in, but people who are psychologically toddler in the bodies of adults...exist, and they're scary.

The whole idea behind the book and film is thinking about what being human actually means. If being human requires thought, if it requires empathy / emotions then there are a lot of humans that fail to make the cut. Being born from humans rather than grown in a vat seems like a pretty weak technicality, but exactly the kind of distinction legal systems love.

Yup.

Rather than just replicant assassins my take on it is the blade runners investigate crime involving replicants whether that is rogue replicants, illegal trade in replicant technology, crime against replicants (at the least a property crime and there may be some protections for them), crimes using replicants etc. Like vice or homicide detectives, they specialize but all crime within their specialty is not the same.

Indeed. Especially "illegal trade in replicant technology" and "crimes using replicants" would be sure to be covered...and we know that "rogue replicants" do exist, because the main character is hunting them.

 

[lategamer]

In the films, though, they are really just genetically modified humans, rather than androids per se. The fact that you can only distinguish them from regular humans by using a psychological test indicates that they are fully biological creatures. Their sentience is inborn because their brains are human ones. If there were some significant differences in the structure of their brains, or in their cells, or any other part of their bodies, a blood test or simple soft tissue scan would show what they are. They aren't like the "synthetics" in the Alien universe.

Blade Runner might have been an even better movie if they had been Alien-type synthetics.

The N8s and later had the tattoo in their eye visible when they look up and left (which is also where people tend to look when telling the truth).

It's a weird technology progression. I wonder what the N1-N5s were like. Dull, almost animatronic? Even Leon was a Nexus 6.

Their limited lifespan would seem to be an intentional thing, designed to prevent them from developing enough emotional maturity to become more independent.

In the movie, the 4 year lifespan was explicitly to stop them developing emotions.

 

[carpocratian]

It's a weird technology progression. I wonder what the N1-N5s were like. Dull, almost animatronic? Even Leon was a Nexus 6.

My guess would be that they wouldn't be any less emotionally complex. They are still just genetically modified humans, after all, not actual machines. The "progression" with the ones up to the Model 6 may have had more to do with shortening their lifespans while maximizing their physical capabilities and skill levels within that period.

In the movie, the 4 year lifespan was explicitly to stop them developing emotions.

They didn't lack emotions, though. They just lacked emotional development and maturity and had limited empathy, like toddlers. That probably made them easier to control, since you could use basic punishment/reward strategies, like you can with small children, but they also had an adult level of rationality and logic, so they weren't purely emotion driven (they could understand delayed gratification). A longer lifespan would have given them the chance to develop more empathy, which would have made it more likely that they would band together for mutual protection, fight to defend each other, etc.

That one video easter egg from Prometheus where Weyland criticizes Tyrell's replicants versus his own "synthetics" is a nice little bit of commentary on the dangers of treating genetically-engineered humans like machines:

Does This 'Prometheus' Easter Egg Hint at a 'Blade Runner' Tie-In? | FirstShowing.net

"Dictated but not read." Well, what do we have here, Mr. Weyland? That ominous October 11th, 2012 date seen in the viral and end of the credits for Prometheus is fast approaching. But as many assumed, it's right around the DVD/Blu-Ray release date for Prometheus. However, with this release comes...

www.firstshowing.net

 

[Fenris-77]

They just lacked emotional development and maturity and had limited empathy, like toddlers. That probably made them easier to control, since you could use basic punishment/reward strategies, like you can with small children,

I'm sorry, are you saying that toddlers are easy to control?

 

[Gabriel]

It may be matagaming, but remember to make regular back-ups of your girlfriend.

I'm pretty sure that in setting since memories themselves are commodities to be traded, sold, and merchandized, then the idea of personal backups has been declared completely illegal along with some draconian penalty.

 

[lategamer]

They didn't lack emotions, though. They just lacked emotional development and maturity and had limited empathy, like toddlers. That probably made them easier to control, since you could use basic punishment/reward strategies, like you can with small children, but they also had an adult level of rationality and logic, so they weren't purely emotion driven (they could understand delayed gratification).

OK, I don't necessarily agree but happy to differ. I think the earlier models were more like uplifts. Not as tough, not as smart - definitely non-human - and, I think this is the important part for the in-world ethics, the stem line wasn't human sourced but likely pieced together from a lot of patented sequences. A synthetic genome might not include telomeres (which might also explain the shortened lifespan).

I had a debate earlier today with another friend about this and I think the argument was along the lines of why they don't use mechanical robots. Apart from the obvious, the morality play of human-like beings in slavery and the power dynamics wouldn't have been as interesting. We have contrivances for the sake of a story, I guess.

I see the earlier replicants as much more mechanical in behaviour. Obedient. Like K. And their emotions develop quickly. They don't know wrath, because they haven't developed the emotions for literally caring about anything. Killing enemies is logical, killing someone because they destroyed a treasured memento is emotional. Having a treasured memento is emotional.

At least, this is the route I'm taking with Kick Murder.

 

[Toadmaster]

In the films, though, they are really just genetically modified humans, rather than androids per se. The fact that you can only distinguish them from regular humans by using a psychological test indicates that they are fully biological creatures. Their sentience is inborn because their brains are human ones. If there were some significant differences in the structure of their brains, or in their cells, or any other part of their bodies, a blood test or simple soft tissue scan would show what they are. They aren't like the "synthetics" in the Alien universe. Their limited lifespan would seem to be an intentional thing, designed to prevent them from developing enough emotional maturity to become more independent.

The difference between replicants and regular humans has more to do with developmental psychology. Regular replicants are, essentially, emotionally on the level of toddlers, but with some artificially enhanced subject-specific knowledge, adult bodies, and adult social roles. Rachel's fake memories are an attempt to make up for that disconnect.

I don't think that is right, I believe they are "mechanical", not modified humans, more like better disguised synthetics in Alien. They are far stronger than humans (even the pleasure models), tolerate temperature extremes that will kill humans and they die like machines. When Decker kills Zhora she is shown to be fully rigid laying on the ground, like everything froze when her systems stopped running, when Racheal kills Leon, you see something similar, he just shuts off and falls over straight and rigid like a manikin, he doesn't collapse and become floppy like a human would, and when Decker kills Pris she goes ballistic flip flopping around before he finishes her off. I can't find a clip, but as I recall she is also later shown to be stiff and rigid like a manikin.

I would assume they are good enough that a physical exam is hard to tell them apart short of an autopsy, and it would be awkward to go around surgically inspecting everybody suspected of being a replicant. In both the book and film when a replicant is killed there never seems to be any doubt as to whether or not it was a replicant, so dead it seems they can easily be identified from human.

 

[lategamer]

I don't think that is right, I believe they are "mechanical", not modified humans. They are far stronger than humans (even the pleasure models), tolerate temperature extremes that will kill humans and they die like machines. When Decker kills Zhora she is shown to be fully rigid laying on the ground, like everything froze when her systems stopped running, when Racheal kills Leon, you see something similar, he just shuts off and falls over straight and rigid like a manikin, he doesn't collapse and become floppy like a human would, and when Decker kills Pris she goes ballistic flip flopping around before he finishes her off. I can't find a clip, but as I recall she is also later shown to be stiff and rigid like a manikin.

I would assume they are good enough that a physical exam is hard to tell them apart short of an autopsy, and it would be awkward to go around surgically inspecting everybody suspected of being a replicant. In both the book and film when a replicant is killed there never seems to be any doubt as to whether or not it was a replicant, so dead it seems they can easily be identified from human.

Well, that buggers up the sequel....

 

[Toadmaster]

OK, I don't necessarily agree but happy to differ. I think the earlier models were more like uplifts. Not as tough, not as smart - definitely non-human - and, I think this is the important part for the in-world ethics, the stem line wasn't human sourced but likely pieced together from a lot of patented sequences. A synthetic genome might not include telomeres (which might also explain the shortened lifespan).

I had a debate earlier today with another friend about this and I think the argument was along the lines of why they don't use mechanical robots. Apart from the obvious, the morality play of human-like beings in slavery and the power dynamics wouldn't have been as interesting. We have contrivances for the sake of a story, I guess.

I see the earlier replicants as much more mechanical in behaviour. Obedient. Like K. And their emotions develop quickly. They don't know wrath, because they haven't developed the emotions for literally caring about anything. Killing enemies is logical, killing someone because they destroyed a treasured memento is emotional. Having a treasured memento is emotional.

At least, this is the route I'm taking with Kick Murder.

There is a clear similarity in the morality of replicants in BR and synthetics in Alien. Part of the argument is creators rights, why would a corporation devote resources to creating artificial life unless they can use it to make money. More of an issue with synthetics as there seems to be no fuzzyness about them being sentient and they have far longer life spans. In BR replicants only live 4 years, and it seems the debate over their actual sentience has not been addressed in a legal sense. I would expect Tyrell corp is arguing great programming, while those in support of replicant freedom argue that they are fully sel-aware and a sentient being.

As far as why look human? The obvious would be the pleasure models, but there are advantages to having them appear human. They use equipment made for humans as one example, and we don't know much about the off world colonies and what situations may exist. There may be labor issues where replacing humans with replicants will fly under the radar where obvious robots would cause strife. There is also some mention of combat, so again "super humans" may offer advantages over obvious fighting robots. Replicants are not allowed on earth, but I never got the feeling they don't mix off world, and in fact that there are pleasure units would indicate that they do.

We also don't know that there aren't robots in use, it seems like there is a fair bit of automation seen in the film, so maybe the replicants just fill a niche between human and robot.

 

[Toadmaster]

Well, that buggers up the sequel....

I actually haven't seen the sequel. Love the first movie, have not been able to develop much enthusiasm for 2049. If the sequel involves a plot with a dead replicant, it is further in the future so not unlikely that they have been further advanced and even harder to spot dead or alive.

 

[lategamer]

There is a clear similarity in the morality of replicants in BR and synthetics in Alien. Part of the argument is creators rights, why would a corporation devote resources to creating artificial life unless they can use it to make money.

Totally! I think it's the eventual end point of capitalist dystopias.

and in fact that there are pleasure units would indicate that they do.

Which reinforces the dystopia.

 

[carpocratian]

I'm sorry, are you saying that toddlers are easy to control?

No, but basic punishment/reward can be more effective with them than with more emotionally mature people who have developed more empathy and might put the needs of others - or even bigger ideals - above their own. Replicants that live long enough to want to take care of each other and fight for more abstract principles become that much more dangerous to the people enslaving them.

 

[carpocratian]

I would assume they are good enough that a physical exam is hard to tell them apart short of an autopsy, and it would be awkward to go around surgically inspecting everybody suspected of being a replicant. In both the book and film when a replicant is killed there never seems to be any doubt as to whether or not it was a replicant, so dead it seems they can easily be identified from human.

That's true in the book, but in the film they aren't even sure about Leon at first, even though they have him custody where they can do x-rays, blood tests, etc. They had to do a Voight-Kampff test on him. If the replicants aren't humans, a simple genetic test taken from a blood sample would show that.

 

[AsenRG]

No, but basic punishment/reward can be more effective with them than with more emotionally mature people who have developed more empathy and might put the needs of others - or even bigger ideals - above their own.

...have you seen a genuinely stubborn toddler that has made up his mind? Let's say that basic punishment/reward doesn't exactly cut it in some cases!

 

[SamuraiHaiku]

I'm very much looking forward to Blade Runner.

I've played as much Mutant City Blues as I can find because I enjoy procedural, investigative games probably more than the average bear. More than that, BR seems filled with the moral and ethical tension about what it means to be "alive" (vs. mere "living") and to be profiting by the existence of a created, servant race. That may bother some people and rightfully so. It's ethically and morally ugly. I mean, one doesn't have to examine their own day to day life and everything that goes into it (the source of your food, the source of your clothing, your fuel, your very livelihood) before one shies away from deeper self-examination. I understand why most people may not want to spend free time "playing" there.

Grappling with ethics at the table through the proxy of imaginary people helps real-world me more acutely understand those moral & ethical arguments I exist with. It's like by virtue of one remove I can gain more insight into my understanding of myself. That's valuable to me.

Don't get me wrong: I expect that some of the BR games I plan to run will be "chase down the rampaging Nexus 6s and smoke 'em", but I'm more interested in the gritty flavor of what the BR world is and everything hard and ugly that implies. I hope Free League really leans into that. I've just never been satisfied by hacking up goblins.

It's good that Free League included a content warning on the Kickstarter, which I'll quote here: "The Blade Runner franchise deals with dark and existential themes, and this roleplaying game is no different. The stories told in this game can be violent, distressing, and raise issues relating to personal morals. This is not a game for children." [emphasis mine]

 

[AsenRG]

This is not a game for children." [emphasis mine]

That's about the best way to get some younger people to join the KS...

 

[Baulderstone]

I'm very much looking forward to Blade Runner.

I've played as much Mutant City Blues as I can find because I enjoy procedural, investigative games probably more than the average bear. More than that, BR seems filled with the moral and ethical tension about what it means to be "alive" (vs. mere "living") and to be profiting by the existence of a created, servant race. That may bother some people and rightfully so. It's ethically and morally ugly. I mean, one doesn't have to examine their own day to day life and everything that goes into it (the source of your food, the source of your clothing, your fuel, your very livelihood) before one shies away from deeper self-examination. I understand why most people may not want to spend free time "playing" there.

Grappling with ethics at the table through the proxy of imaginary people helps real-world me more acutely understand those moral & ethical arguments I exist with. It's like by virtue of one remove I can gain more insight into my understanding of myself. That's valuable to me.

Don't get me wrong: I expect that some of the BR games I plan to run will be "chase down the rampaging Nexus 6s and smoke 'em", but I'm more interested in the gritty flavor of what the BR world is and everything hard and ugly that implies. I hope Free League really leans into that. I've just never been satisfied by hacking up goblins.

It's good that Free League included a content warning on the Kickstarter, which I'll quote here: "The Blade Runner franchise deals with dark and existential themes, and this roleplaying game is no different. The stories told in this game can be violent, distressing, and raise issues relating to personal morals. This is not a game for children." [emphasis mine]

It comes down to it being a noir game. If your world isn't ugly and characters don't have to make horrible decisions at times, it isn't noir.

 

[Endless Flight]

If artificial intelligence looked like a T-800, nobody would advocate for them being “human”. People do judge everything by their cover.

 

[sharps54]

If artificial intelligence looked like a T-800, nobody would advocate for them being “human”. People do judge everything by their cover.

Interesting point, would folks give Arnold in the last Terminator movie, Dark Fate?, the same leeway as Pris?

 

[Gringnr]

Interesting point, would folks give Arnold in the last Terminator movie, Dark Fate?, the same leeway as Pris?

Yoy KNOW some would, especially if he was givin up dat booty...

 

[Toadmaster]

That's true in the book, but in the film they aren't even sure about Leon at first, even though they have him custody where they can do x-rays, blood tests, etc. They had to do a Voight-Kampff test on him. If the replicants aren't humans, a simple genetic test taken from a blood sample would show that.

Leon punches a hole in a steel dumpster with apparently no pain, and Roy punched through walls with his hands and head, and also took a pipe to the skull with minor effect. The V-K test is pure plot device, they could have just as easy handed Leon a stubborn jar of pickles and asked him to open it.

Yes there are holes in some of the film logic, and agree the difficulty of determining replicants from humans leaves a lot of questions. They are able to tell a live fake snake from real and clearly couldn't apply the V-K test to it. I haven't seen anything to suggest replicants are just genetically modified humans, the name itself suggests artificial life, and Sebastian a lead designer for Tyrell has many "robotic" life forms running around his apartment. Perhaps a hybrid between androids like Alien's Synthetics and Terminator's T-800 containing both mechanical aspects and genetic material.

I'm very much looking forward to Blade Runner.

I've played as much Mutant City Blues as I can find because I enjoy procedural, investigative games probably more than the average bear. More than that, BR seems filled with the moral and ethical tension about what it means to be "alive" (vs. mere "living") and to be profiting by the existence of a created, servant race. That may bother some people and rightfully so. It's ethically and morally ugly. I mean, one doesn't have to examine their own day to day life and everything that goes into it (the source of your food, the source of your clothing, your fuel, your very livelihood) before one shies away from deeper self-examination. I understand why most people may not want to spend free time "playing" there.

Grappling with ethics at the table through the proxy of imaginary people helps real-world me more acutely understand those moral & ethical arguments I exist with. It's like by virtue of one remove I can gain more insight into my understanding of myself. That's valuable to me.

Don't get me wrong: I expect that some of the BR games I plan to run will be "chase down the rampaging Nexus 6s and smoke 'em", but I'm more interested in the gritty flavor of what the BR world is and everything hard and ugly that implies. I hope Free League really leans into that. I've just never been satisfied by hacking up goblins.

It's good that Free League included a content warning on the Kickstarter, which I'll quote here: "The Blade Runner franchise deals with dark and existential themes, and this roleplaying game is no different. The stories told in this game can be violent, distressing, and raise issues relating to personal morals. This is not a game for children." [emphasis mine]

An obvious dilemma is to have hardened blade runners finding themselves clearly on the wrong side of right. The replicants in BR were sympathetic, but they did some awful things which made Decker's job easier to defend. Encountering non-violent replicants whose only crime is existing in a free state, I would hope that would give any players some pause before blasting away.

 

[Baulderstone]

An obvious dilemma is to have hardened blade runners finding themselves clearly on the wrong side of right. The replicants in BR were sympathetic, but they did some awful things which made Decker's job easier to defend. Encountering non-violent replicants whose only crime is existing in a free state, I would hope that would give any players some pause before blasting away.

Finding out what the PCs will do is one of the things that makes RPGs interesting.

Deckard's motivation was more intriguing in the book, where he didn't like being a blade runner, but he needed the money from killing replicants to repair the robot sheep as it demonstrated what a empathic, caring person he was to his neighbors.

 

[lategamer]

Leon punches a hole in a steel dumpster with apparently no pain, and Roy punched through walls with his hands and head, and also took a pipe to the skull with minor effect. The V-K test is pure plot device, they could have just as easy handed Leon a stubborn jar of pickles and asked him to open it.

yesh, Leon can also lift 400lb ammo loads all day and night without tiring

Yes there are holes in some of the film logic, and agree the difficulty of determining replicants from humans leaves a lot of questions. They are able to tell a live fake snake from real and clearly couldn't apply the V-K test to it.

they were able to tell a snake was fake by examining a scale under a microscope. Deckard couldn’t tell if the snake or owl were real. Though in both cases he knew the answer beforehand

I haven't seen anything to suggest replicants are just genetically modified humans, the name itself suggests artificial life, and Sebastian a lead designer for Tyrell has many "robotic" life forms running around his apartment. Perhaps a hybrid between androids like Alien's Synthetics and Terminator's T-800 containing both mechanical aspects and genetic material.

JFs toys are what I think earlier model replicants were like.
Primitive but still biological machines.
Programmed intellect
Simple tasks. Not artificially intelligent. More like a rather stupid dog.

interesting line in BR: How can it not know what it is ? (Referring to Rachael)

Supposes that replicants are utterly self-aware of what they are.

 

[3rik]

I decided to cancel my pledge. I don't think the mechanics are for me.

 

[Torque2100]

In the theme of Torque likes to Add Manga flavoring to things, I have a few ideas for a Blade Runner game.

I don't know how many of you are familiar with VTubers: those streamers that use animated anime avatars to play video games. I do love me some Vtubers but there have always been certain aspects of the VTuber scene that have struck me as creepy and dystopian in a way that is easily applicable to Blade Runner: how the performers behind these characters aren't allowed to show their faces or names to the public, & how Vtuber agencies use "Graduate" as a euphemism for being fired.

I could work with that. A Blade Runner campaign set in Japan centering Replicant Virtual Idols who have realized their memories of an idyllic childhood may not be real or that their friends who "Graduated" are in fact dead.

 

[lategamer]

In the theme of Torque likes to Add Manga flavoring to things, I have a few ideas for a Blade Runner game.

I don't know how many of you are familiar with VTubers: those streamers that use animated anime avatars to play video games. I do love me some Vtubers but there have always been certain aspects of the VTuber scene that have struck me as creepy and dystopian in a way that is easily applicable to Blade Runner: how the performers behind these characters aren't allowed to show their faces or names to the public, & how Vtuber agencies use "Graduate" as a euphemism for being fired.

I could work with that. A Blade Runner campaign set in Japan centering Replicant Virtual Idols who have realized their memories of an idyllic childhood may not be real or that their friends who "Graduated" are in fact dead.

Me gusta.

Shades of "The Island (with Johansen/McGregor/Bean)" or even Logans Run.

And of course you've seen "Never Let Me Go"? With Carey Mulligan, Andrew Whatisface and Pretty Skeletor?