Subject to Orders Vs. Hunted: Watching

[Icel]

I'm planning a near-future sci-fi militaristic campaign and have a slight problem: I'm going to ask all players to buy Social Limitation: Subject to Orders Very Frequently (14- ), Major, to represent their ties to the military organization which they are part of.

Do they also need to get "Hunted: MoPow, NCI, Watching" to represent the military command that keeps track with their actions?

[Ndreare]

Re: Subject to Orders Vs. Hunted: Watching

 

This is how I have done it in the past when the characters are Working for the military.

[MitchellS]

Re: Subject to Orders Vs. Hunted: Watching

 

If the military is keeping track of them more closely then they are other members of the organization then yes, give them the disadvantage. But I would not give the disadvantage if the players are just one of many such teams. Watched really means there are active people spying on them all the time and that the military is taking extreme actions to know what these people are doing day in, day out.

[Vondy]

Re: Subject to Orders Vs. Hunted: Watching

 

In of itself, for most military jobs, subject to orders would be sufficient. If, however, they are in a sensitive position that requires additional security oversight (people involved in intelligence or responsible for restricted munitions would be a good example) then having watched as well would make sense.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Subject to Orders Vs. Hunted: Watching

 

As GM, I probably wouldn't *allow* the player to get points for both disadvantages -- that's generally going to be a case of getting two sets of points for the same problem.

 

If you do give them points for both, make sure they pay for both Not only should the orders cause problems, but so should the surveilance to make sure they're following the orders.