New Player Questions?

[wat3rm0le]

I'm running Paranoia for the first time this Friday with my group. They have all heard of Paranoia but none of us has played it. I've read the Player's Handbook and the Gamemasters Handbook but I didn't have a set answer for a couple of questions one of my players asked me.

1. Can a player kill his own clone for XP points? For example, they have 4 treason stars and instead of letting another player kill them they report to a termination booth. Would clone #2 receive the XP points?

2. How does a player keep the fact that he is a mutant from the other players? I know that I can tell them that some of the mutant cards are blank, but when cards are placed face down during an action, won't it be obvious when something happens? Are players just expected not to metagame or is there some other way of keeping this secret but letting the GM know?

Thanks Friend Computer for your help!

 

[Shai]

1) If a player gets xp points for going to a termination booth is generally up to you, the GM. In general it's not encouraged, it's an easy escape from a bad situation. I'd give points on cerain conditions, for example if the player does it in an amusing way, or fills out a 10 page form while everyone else is green-lighted to red- light him.

2) In Paranoia the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge is most important (a character using player knowledge would get killed, while a player not using character knowledge will most likely see that character die). The GM should be aware of that and keep the players in line at that aspect (Notice in the players book's example of play, pages 4-6, how many times the GM says "it's dark".) The players should know that player knowledge and character knowledge are two separate things. If they won't, you may use the computer to remind them. For example: if a player reports a character for being a mutant, the Computer will ask for evidence, if the player answers "I can see him using his card" that is a treasonous answer because the character doesn't have a card. Interrogation and violent death ensues. In other words, it's expected from the players to metagame, and it's expected from you to use this to your advantage.
Edit: take into account the bluffing game-players don't know if the other player has any mutant ablility, they just assume he does.
(In previous editions, the players had barely any knowledge about the rules, and talking about the rules was considered treason)

 

[Orion]

How do you integrate meta-game punishments into the game? Let's say a player should get penalized for talking about the rules - how would you link ingame consequences to this?
Aren't you, as the gm, then also meta gaming, in a way?

 

[Shai]

How do you integrate meta-game punishments into the game? Let's say a player should get penalized for talking about the rules - how would you link ingame consequences to this?

Using your example of not talking about the rules:
I would say, that when a player is required to be penalized for talking about the rules it is, usually, because he is required not to talk about those rules. Possible reasons could be: it is above their clearance or they were commanded not to talk about them.
In these situations you could:
1) Bring in the Computer, to question their loyalty and clearance. (Resulting in xp point loss to the group, treason stars, community service, reactor shielding duties or death.)
2) Have the Computer join in the conversation in such a helpful (annoying) and clear (confusing) way that the clone looses some moxie.
3) If you don't want to do the work yourself, make an achievement: promise 200xp points to all those who take out clones that talk about things above their clearance.
4) Change the rule, if they think that the rules are to their advantage, make it the opposite. Remember that you could only stretch that so far.
There is only one type of metagaming that requires you to kill the character with no hesitation and no chance of survival. When a player tries to describe what happens when a GM description card is played, let them have it.
(Page 97 GM's book)

Aren't you, as the gm, then also meta gaming, in a way?

If done cleverly, there won't be any need to meta-game.
On the other hand, the game isn't about the GM, it's about the players. The GM doesn't get cards, or rolls dice (in general). The players get the mission and the commands, but they are the ones that the game is about. The GM gives them a world to play in, characters to (kill) interact with and opportunities to shine. Bottom line, the rules are the GM's domain, he may talk about them and it is still a part of the game (at least the way I see it).

 

[Orion]

I see. I think my assumption was that meta talk is not in character talk. So essentially everything players say their characters say.

 

[BanjoFox]

Orion,

In my current group I am pretty much the only one with any Paranoia experience so I was going to take it easy on them...initially. However, I am starting to warm up to some of the points that Shai made regarding meta.
The Computer is a GM's best friend because it is everywhere, save for the Dead Zones of course. With enough exposure to The Computer while talking out-of-character (OOC) players SHOULD hopefully get the idea that OOC chatter isn't necessarily going to help them

I would make certain exceptions (passing notes to GM, bio breaks, etc.) on an as-needed basis. The great thing about tabletop roleplaying is that you can generally set the rules/guidelines however best fits your group

Banjo