Forum

The rules are a little unclear on how players should go about sabotaging ARK Projects. First it mentions that players can help or hinder another PC's skill roll in exchange for sacrificing their turn, then it says that "PCs and NPCs can sabotage projects, whether completed or not, during play." (104)

I presume that hindering slows progress instead of outright destroying the project. As far as sabotaging projects is concerned, it makes no mention of how much time it takes to carry out the sabotage, if any skill rolls are involved, or whether or not it consumes that session's work points for the PC(s) involved. Does it follow similar rules to scrapping a project (i.e. all players must be in agreement)** or does it follow different rules?

Would someone mind clearing this up for me?

*Obviously the GM would determine if/when NPCs sabotage ARK projects.
**Is it safe to assume that scrapping a project would consume every PC's work points for that particular session?

If the GM is running the assembly (i.e. there are no players in the Ark) then he can start a project but also  sabotage projects. He can decrease a project by PC number of WP. What I do here is that during a "GM running" assembly I have PC number of points, each of them can either be just to as a WP as usual or to decrease WP on already existing projects. So if I have four players, I have four points that I can use. I can for example start a new project (e.g. Autocrazy), spend three points on that (it cost 8 WP in a four player game) and then spend the last point to decrease the cropland by one point. If we assume that the cropland is a finished project, it will be a project that now has 11 out of 12 WP (so counts as almost finished) and also the Food Supply drops 3d6 points. Then I have to make up a story for this. Could be that a boss (that would like to be an dictator) has burn down the cropland (or parts of it) in order to create fear (fear is usually something that dictators like to have). When the players return to the Ark they will have some work to do.
If the players wants to sabotage a project in progress they can do so in the normal gameplay using whatever skill(s) the GM things appropriate. -1 WP per Nuke rolled.

I don't like the rule that say that the if the people can destroy a project in the assembly if the players are in an agreement to it. The reason I don't like it is, if we take the autocracy example, there is clearly a boss (and his gang) that wants to have an autocrazy. So why should the players be able to scrap that just because they want to scrap it. In this case, they clearly don't speak for all the people. What I do is that I as a GM has say in this case. So if I (GM) and the players agree to scrap a project, it will automatically be scrapped. This way, the story that has been built up is protected and the players must find other ways to destroy the project. In the autocrazy example, I as a GM would say no to just scrap that project and my explanation to the players would be that not all the people in the ark want to scrap the autocrazy idea, a small but not an insignificant part of the people wants the autocrazy. The players in this example would be forced to go out and do a political campaign for scrapping the (not yet finished) autocrazy project or find other means to destroy it (kill the dictator-wannabe boss).

Also I would remove the assembly if the ark turns into an autocracy (and the players aren't the dictator). I want the projects to really mean something. To really change something. Not just to be a word on a piece of paper. So I usually create small rule changes to reflect that a project has been done (so they become more than just numbers). For example, no one can buy or sell anything in the ark before there is a market. Sure someone with contacts might find someone that might have something but without contacts, no. If there is a tavern, rumours might start to spread about various zone sectors or people beside that rot free food can be bought without having contacts or if the players have loads of contaminated food they can probably exchange that to rot free food (the tavern owner probably have Zone Cook).

Oops, this become longer than I wanted.

Interesting. So if I’m understanding your house rules correctly: 1 work point (WP) of sabotage reduces the Ark’s rating by xd6? How would this account for every subsequent WP spent sabotaging that particular project (assuming this is possible)? Why would the associated DEV rating revert back to what it was before (the project’s completion) from only one WP worth of sabotage? If a rival boss spent 1 WP sabotaging a tavern, for instance, one would assume the tavern would still be standing and almost in working order—damaged, but still salvageable. Would that really warrant the loss of DEV rating attributed to an act of sabotage (along with the potential, if unlikely, slide into a lower DEV level)? Odds are the folks that established the tavern would still have the know-how to fix it up. Would sabotaging a project back up to its initial WP requirement destroy the project outright, or would that still require unanimous approval from the Assembly?

Certain projects, such as autocracy and collectivism, are much harder to quantify in terms of WP. How does one sabotage an ideology? By spreading a different, more appealing ideology? What if no such ideology exists in-game at that point? Would the People revert to the old ways? How would you handle this?

I agree that the scrapping mechanic is quite flawed. It’s one of those moments where the game’s systems can grate against the established worldbuilding by allowing the players to step out of their roles as characters and decide on behalf of the entire Ark (which is a challenge, since—as you rightly mention—their decisions may go against the desires of certain factions within the Ark). It also runs the risk of derailing promising narratives before they can come to fruition.

You make an excellent point about fleshing out projects beyond the project’s DEV bonus. Not only is it a fantastic way to validate the players' choices, it enriches the setting as well. I’d like to play devil’s advocate with regard to your point on fixers, however. While the Marketplace certainly provides a centralized location for fixers to peddle their wares, I think it’s fair to say fixers have probably always existed in some form or another in the Ark, playing a vital role in the Ark’s economy—supplying the People with food, grub, and gear (for a price). With a community as small as 200 people, fixers would probably be pretty well-known.* That said, I completely understand where you’re coming from. It makes things a lot more interesting if the PCs have a personal connection with a fixer aside from everyday business transactions.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain the rules more thoroughly. It's always great to hear a GM's perspective. I look forward to hearing your input on my follow-up questions.

P.S. Apologies if this reply seemed a little rough around the edges, I lost the original copy when my forum login timed out, and had to try and piece it together from memory (last time I make that mistake).

*From the Mutant: Year Zero core book's entry for the Marketplace project: "Bartering has always taken place in the Ark, but with a designated marketplace, trade is more organized." (107)

If the GM decides to sabotage Ark projects (he can do so if there are no assembly), he does so by reducing WP for a project, up to PC number of WP. He can also during those "no-assembly-today" session start a new project.

My houserule for what happens during a "no-assembly-today" sessions is that I let the GM have PC number of points that he can either use to remove WP from a project as per the official rule but also to add WP to projects, either existing projects or to the one project that he may start during those sessions.

That DEV is lowered by rolling the same dice that you did when you completed a project is an official rule (p104). Why do this if only one WP is destroyed? When you build a project you don't benefit from it until all WP has been payed for so removing one WP should count it as destroyed. Removing more WP than one doesn't have more effect, the project is already destroyed, but makes it harder to repair (more Nukes needs to be rolled).

To destroy Autocrazy (or other "idea"-projects) is probably by creating a resistance of some king. Persuading people to have something. This can be a problem. In my first campaign, The players built mostly projects for food and science. When the Ark was attacked, they started to build up the defenses. When the players was away (for many sessions in a row), I started (and built) a tribunal, surveillance and also started on the Autocracy (I didn't want to finish it because I wanted to give the player time to react). When the players came back, they wondered what has happened. My story was that one of the bosses has convinced the people that the attack was possible due to insider information. The players started to plan to persuade important NPC that an Autocrazy was not good and the Ark should go towards Democracy instead. I told the players that you need to roleplay this correctly, your Ark, themselves included, don't know what democracy is (the Ark didn't have high enough culture), they had to come up with other ways to counter the boss (more violent I might add). Was this to harsh, I don't think so. The players should  value culture as well as the more direct food, science and defense DEV. But it is tricky to destroy ideas.

When it comes to market and fixers. Yes there are fixers and these are know to the players, even before the market, but without a market, the fixers work for someone, they are protected by someone. Probably a big bad boss. That boss might not like to sell food or ammo to the players of if they do, it might upset another boss. I simply make it trickier for the players to navigate the buy and sell if they don't have a market. Might be tricky even with a market depending on the players reputation.

Where would you say the distinction lies between DEV levels and work points (WP)? I understand that WPs measure the amount of actually work required before a project is completed, but shouldn't DEV levels be a little more flexible? Realistically, would the knowledge gained from a project's completion (i.e. it's DEV bonus) truly be lost? If a gearhead was able to figure out how to build an explosives lab, for instance, shouldn't they be able to work on projects they'd be qualified to undertake if the explosives lab was still in place? A boss may have blown it up, but odds are the gearhead (and whoever else worked on the project) took detailed notes during the explosive lab's development, allowing them to apply that to more advanced projects (i.e. commensurate with the Ark's DEV level at the time of its completion). I suppose it could be justified by saying their research went up in flames with the distillery, but that still seems a little contrived to me. How would you justify the associated "brain drain" (literal loss of knowledge, in this case) brought on by someone sabotaging a particular project? Would you say DEV levels are more reflective of the Ark's knowledge or its capabilities (or a mixture of both)?

Thank you for the detailed explanation! Your use of examples cleared things up immensely, Fenhorn.

When you build a project you measure how that will WP (Defenses cost 8 WP in a four player game). If you have earned all WP you will get the DEV bonus (Warfare +2D6 in the case of Defenses).

So if we assume that we have completed the Defenses, one of the players roll 2d6, lets assume 7 ,Warfare DEV will increase by +7 because you have some good defenses now.
If someone destroys that. You could as a GM either just say that the defenses are totally destroyed and the players must rebuild it. Technically this means that the players write 8 in the WP cost for Defenses and they have to spend time rebuilding it just as any project.

But projects do not just appear one they, they are build. So the Defenses are first 1/8 complete (if we continue with my example), then 2/8, 3/8 and so on until the playes have spent all 8 points. Visually this probably would look like a construction site, more and more complete every day. The DEV is not gain until it is 8/8 complete. This means that if the defenses can be destroyed a little bit. For the defense purposes a wall for example that have a four meter gap in it is of little use, since all the monsters will coming in that way. This means that if you destroys the defenses a little bit (a four meter gap in a wall), the wall shouldn't be completely destroyed, it is an easy fix. The wall will be mostly useless, but it will take much lesser time to repair a four meter gap than to build a 30 meter wall. To measure this you can destroyed the defenses (and also reduce the Warfare DEV by 2d6) and the GM can also assign how much the defenses are destroyed.

So for example if this Defenses is destroyed in a fight. One player rolls 2d6 and subtract that from the arks Warfare DEV. The GM uses his common sense and assign how much the defenses are destroyed. He can be harsh and say that the defenses needs to be totally rebuild (the project is back to no effect and 8 WP needed to complete) or he can be nice and assign a lower degree of destruction, for example 25% (the defenses is back to no effect and 2 WP needed to complete).

There might be some projects that can't be destroyed partially of course but at least most physical projects can.

Edit: When it comes what happen to DEV requirement if DEV is reduced. I don't stop projects that has already been started, but they can't start new projects unless they meet their current DEV. They should repair destroyed or partially destroyed projects anyway (the DEV will go up again).

I imagine that events involving the sabotage/destruction of projects must be deployed with care by the GM to avoid arbitrarily undoing too much of the players' progress, or worse, openly railroading them into a particular scenario (the difference between nudging a player in the right direction and shoving them down a certain path).

Your house rules for project sabotage/destruction really go a long way towards filling the gaps in the core book's mechanics. While I wish the core book was a little more detailed on the subject, I think that implementing "degrees" of destruction is an extremely elegant solution, giving PCs a little bit of breathing room when it comes to repairing the damage inflicted by sabotage.

As always, thank you for your thoughtful responses, Fenhorn.