The Forge Archives

First, I'd like to say how educating it has been to stroll around glancing at the posts in this forum. It is a fine thing to see with my own eyes that a community such as this one is alive and kicking :) Don't know how many ideas and concepts i've already adopted from these forums, so thanks for those ;)

But... To the point, starting with a short introduction:
I've been toying with an idea for a specific RPG for a long time now - I've actually created a few somewhat working games so far (none released anywhere, yet), most of which are in fully playable condition, but there has been one concept I've never managed to flesh out to become what I've envisioned.

In my visions, Cybergod is a dark sci-fi rpg about Cybernetic Sentient Organisms, with emphasis on the word Sentient in a world of immerse technology combined to strange and twisted religous aspects, mysticism and mysteries eventually reaching epic scale events (babylon 5, star wars, Hyperion and Endymion by Dan Simmons). I want the game to be both dramatic and realistic, i.e. fast and deadly combat (which becomes closer to cinematic when considering the fact that players are super-boosted cyborgs...), as well as insightful roleplaying.
I.e. the players take the roles of entities that are partly human and partly machines. Different forms of human modification exists, varying from nanotechnological enhancement to the standard cybernetic prosthesis, implants and so on. But upgrading the character constantly to become the ultimate killing machine is not what I've intended the game to be about. I want it to be a deeper experience, in a way that the players would feel like playing a different kind of entity - yet similar to ourselves in many ways.

An important factor in the game are different factions that have nearly sole control over the worlds(several colonies) and their inhabitants(mostly common humans), as well as the powerful technology exceeding anything today (date set several thousand years in the future). Most of the factions themselves are 100% cyborg. Humans are the inferior race. (An option for playing with a human might be included for real challenge).

Another point of importance are twisted "theotechnological" (a word I probably invented?) agendas and religious zeal around a mystical entity known only as the Prophet, and a Cybernetic God visioned by him.

The basic concept could easily be about the factions fighting each other (there are around 8 thought of so far), without forgetting the religious aspect in the game, and one of the most important traits i've come up with so far: Humanity.

Humanity in the game is both a trait each character has, as well as a philosophical concept in the world. In terms of game mechanics, if humanity drops down to zero, the game's over. This contradicts the fact that many characters would probably seek a path that would eventually decrease their humanity right down to zero, by getting more and more enhancements and pushing their bodies and minds far beyond human limits.

Problems
There are a few areas where I am in need of a new perspective, and after reading through the posts, I thought you people might be able to help me out here.

World detail issues
I haven't completely decided yet on how detailed approach should I take into creating the world. I know there could be lots to tell, but what would be the easiest and most sufficient way? E.g. Do I need specific timelines, names for colonies, faction key-individuals?

An idea crossed by mind about keeping even the world as abstract as possible, leaving more imagination to the GM and players. How much details can you actually leave the players and the GM, with still getting to the bottom of it? I know this kind of setting can easily have tons of background material, but I myself would rather keep it to the minimum, as I know most people are very lazy about reading through those anyway (including me).

Humanity
I've decided to put a great emphasis on the humanity part during the play, making roleplaying very important. But I've also come to the conclusion that I need something to make the roleplaying challenging. For this, I've decided to use some sort of Alignment system, which roughly determines the character's motives and reasons for being what he is.
I've come up with three basic Alignment categories:

Humanist, Neutral and Machinist.

Basically Humanist supports human efforts and is aware that for every nanobot and cool cybernetic prosthesis he puts in his body, he loses his humanity, and they don't want to cross the point of no return (i.e. humanity zero).
Machinists on the other hand are the opposite of that, and couldn't care less about human casualties etc. and want more and more powerful enhancements, and desire to evolve into a supreme cybernetical being closing the gods of myths and legends. I.e. machinists eventually destroy themselves (or at least the playability of the character).
Neutrals are in the between, attempting to maintain a good balance out of fear of consequences, because they believe it's "right", or whatever may their reasons be.

IMO three simple categories aren't enough - at least I feel I'd need something in between, but what? I know alignment should be an abstract form, and actually I rarely use such in other games, but in this case I feel it's appropriate. I've thought of a d&d syle lawful, neutral, chaotic - which could work, but that doesn't satisfy me (too boring). How else could the current concept of alignment be expanded? I know I'm somewhat perfectionist by nature, and details such as this often stay and haunt my mind :)

Well, that's about it for now. Any questions, comments and ideas are appreciated.

Hey, welcome to the Forge!
Do you have a real name we can call you by?


Looks like an interesting start.
Are you familiar with the Warhammer 40,000 background?
They have a lot of machine worship, dark sci-fi...
A lot of their fluff would be interesting for inspiration I think.

Quotei.e. fast and deadly combat (which becomes closer to cinematic when considering the fact that players are super-boosted cyborgs...), as well as insightful roleplaying.

QuoteI want it to be a deeper experience

Want to elaborate on what YOU see as being "insightful" and "deeper", maybe with an example of an issue that players would go "deep" into?

QuoteMost of the factions themselves are 100% cyborg. Humans are the inferior race. (An option for playing with a human might be included for real challenge).

Just to clarify - humans are still the same race, aren't they?
I'm not trying to nit-pick terminology, I just wanted to clarify that.

Would it be a "real challenge", or a different set of challenges? It seems like this human/cyborg/robot thing is on a really sliding scale, so it seems like the challenges would SHIFT rather than INTENSIFY as you got closer to full humanity.

Am I correct in this assumption/projection?

QuoteBut I've also come to the conclusion that I need something to make the roleplaying challenging. For this, I've decided to use some sort of Alignment system,

Personally, I'm often skeptical of alignment systems - especially d&d type ones.
How does this make roleplaying more "challenging"?

And, are you really going for challenging, meaning you want to make it hard for the player to roleplay?
Or are you trying to return to the "deep" and "insightful" goal?

QuoteHey, welcome to the Forge!
Do you have a real name we can call you by?

Sure, I have a real name, but it's a finnish same, so you'll probably want to stick with the nick :)

QuoteLooks like an interesting start.
Are you familiar with the Warhammer 40,000 background?
They have a lot of machine worship, dark sci-fi...
A lot of their fluff would be interesting for inspiration I think.

I think I've played the tabletop game a couple times and the computer games, but other than that no. Perhaps I should take a look at those.

QuoteWant to elaborate on what YOU see as being "insightful" and "deeper", maybe with an example of an issue that players would go "deep" into?

The world itself is full of political backstabbing between the factions, as well as numerous secrets. So the characters could very well get involved in a political game, as well as an open conflict between factions or an attempt to unveil some of the mysteries around the Prophet (equivalent to jesus or muhammed as a religious figure) or any other faction. Also, with deep and insightful I guess I also mean good roleplaying, and taking into consideration that cyborgs do lack emotions and human traits - when a character understands that he cannot feel as much as he used to, or has become insensitive to all kinds of violence and destruction, what kind of effect it has on him? This kind of self awareness is something I want the be considered.

QuoteJust to clarify - humans are still the same race, aren't they?
I'm not trying to nit-pick terminology, I just wanted to clarify that.

Yes, human race exists, even though they are not the ones in charge anymore. Cyborgs are little bit like different race, except a human can become a cyborg.

QuoteWould it be a "real challenge", or a different set of challenges? It seems like this human/cyborg/robot thing is on a really sliding scale, so it seems like the challenges would SHIFT rather than INTENSIFY as you got closer to full humanity.

Am I correct in this assumption/projection?

Now that I thought of it, yes. A machine doesn't really need to care of his survival, but a 100% human does. He needs to find alternative ways to fight and have an influence on something. On the other hand, a machine is effective in doing what it is designed to do, but anything beside that becomes easily too complicated. Or something like that.

QuotePersonally, I'm often skeptical of alignment systems - especially d&d type ones.
How does this make roleplaying more "challenging"?

And, are you really going for challenging, meaning you want to make it hard for the player to roleplay?
Or are you trying to return to the "deep" and "insightful" goal?

I guess what I'm trying to achieve with this alignment system is an easier way to get hold onto the character, to adopt the personality and role during the play. Simply because I don't want the characters to seem too human. But I don't want roleplaying to to be too difficult, that would be simply stupid of me, challenging perhaps. I can only imagine that insightful roleplaying of a part-machine character could be very difficulty, and to make that easier I want to give some simple guidelines and examples to choose from. Perhaps alignment is a bad word?

Quote from: catmorbid on March 01, 2006, 08:06:49 PM
Humanity
I've decided to put a great emphasis on the humanity part during the play, making roleplaying very important. But I've also come to the conclusion that I need something to make the roleplaying challenging. For this, I've decided to use some sort of Alignment system, which roughly determines the character's motives and reasons for being what he is.
I've come up with three basic Alignment categories:

Humanist, Neutral and Machinist.

Basically Humanist supports human efforts and is aware that for every nanobot and cool cybernetic prosthesis he puts in his body, he loses his humanity, and they don't want to cross the point of no return (i.e. humanity zero).
Machinists on the other hand are the opposite of that, and couldn't care less about human casualties etc. and want more and more powerful enhancements, and desire to evolve into a supreme cybernetical being closing the gods of myths and legends. I.e. machinists eventually destroy themselves (or at least the playability of the character).
Neutrals are in the between, attempting to maintain a good balance out of fear of consequences, because they believe it's "right", or whatever may their reasons be.

IMO three simple categories aren't enough - at least I feel I'd need something in between, but what? I know alignment should be an abstract form, and actually I rarely use such in other games, but in this case I feel it's appropriate. I've thought of a d&d syle lawful, neutral, chaotic - which could work, but that doesn't satisfy me (too boring). How else could the current concept of alignment be expanded? I know I'm somewhat perfectionist by nature, and details such as this often stay and haunt my mind :)

Well, that's about it for now. Any questions, comments and ideas are appreciated.

Well, let me raise one question: Why would players want to not be Neutrals, daring the edge of low Humanity without going over the edge into NPC psychosis? In particular, why should players be Machinists, since that's a clearly self-destructive path?

V:tM (sourcebook alert!) created a system to allow for vampires to choose something other than humanity, the Path system for accepting one's inhumanity and in fact embracing it without going psycho. Will something like this be an option for Machinists?

Moving along from this, my gut instinct is that there shouldn't be a significant divide in game terms between human and cyborg -as such-, because it's a continuum rather than a sharp cliff. Take Shadowrun (another bit of source material for you). Mages aside, quite a few people in the world have a couple of basic implants...and then there's the solid chrome ones skating on Essence 0.1. So the difference between human and cyborg isn't "either-or," it's "how much," and that's better represented by "take human, add hardware, lose humanity, apply effects of lost humanity."

QuoteWell, let me raise one question: Why would players want to not be Neutrals, daring the edge of low Humanity without going over the edge into NPC psychosis? In particular, why should players be Machinists, since that's a clearly self-destructive path?

V:tM (sourcebook alert!) created a system to allow for vampires to choose something other than humanity, the Path system for accepting one's inhumanity and in fact embracing it without going psycho. Will something like this be an option for Machinists?

Moving along from this, my gut instinct is that there shouldn't be a significant divide in game terms between human and cyborg -as such-, because it's a continuum rather than a sharp cliff. Take Shadowrun (another bit of source material for you). Mages aside, quite a few people in the world have a couple of basic implants...and then there's the solid chrome ones skating on Essence 0.1. So the difference between human and cyborg isn't "either-or," it's "how much," and that's better represented by "take human, add hardware, lose humanity, apply effects of lost humanity."

It does seem, that humanist would be the most logical alignment for any character. And in fact it is the most logical to start with. I planned the alignment to be a constantly shifting thing  (perhaps I should've mentioned that...) which would be dependant on how much and how powerful enhancements you have planted in yourself (much like the way as in Shadowrun). The Alignment itself is supposed to just tell the player how has the character changed. Meaning you could start as a humanist but end up as machinist in the end. Ends justify the means, meaning here that the character might think that becoming more a machine helps him fulfill his humane goals, but in the end things might not work like that.

At this point it's impossible to say if the humanity zero would be an absolute ending for the game or not. In most cases yes, but it could be a possibility to give those who decide they're machinists an opportunity to continue playing even after losing all of their humanity. Whatever would make the game interesting, that's what important.

Yes, Humans can have few basic implants and stuff that helps them in their daily lives, but with a cyborg in the game I mean a character that has been literally rebuilt: Several parts of their body, including skeleton has been ripped out and replaced. That's the difference between humans and cyborgs. Being a cyborg is a point of no return. After that, it's your call how far you want to go. I know how the system goes in shadowrun, and in fact thought of something similar in first place, but I wanted to make a greater difference between humans and cyborgs.

Lots of general points that I hope will help you, in no particular order:

Date - As an amateur futurist, I can fairly safely say that anything you imagine for "several thousand years in the future" is likely to fall FAR short of actual abilities, unless you have periods of 'devolution' or 'downgrading tech' in the game's future history. For instance, if we keep on our current tech potential curve, even one thousand years should find us well away from "human" and into "transhuman."

A short laundry list of possible abilities that the Average Joe could have:
* Semi-autonoumous copies of personal sentience, in cybernetic modes or physical modes - Basically, someone could 'shard off' a copy of their mind, assign it to an appropriate vessel (cloned body, nanotech robot, computer), and give it a set of tasks to complete. After said tasks are complete, the seperate sentience would be re-integrated into the 'primary mind' (or maybe even terminated, but that raises some serious ethical issues).
* Casual physical morphology - Using nanotech--or its future offshoot?--people can trivially reconfigure their base DNA and RNA to adapt to any number of environments, threats, or mere whims of cosmetics.
* Hive minds - It (should/will) become common for people to form into hive minds (cybernetically, most likely) to accomplish any number of cooperative goals: material planning, democracy, research, social interrraction, you name it.
* Proactive immunology - You've got to have heard of this--it was even in a classic Star Trek episode! Basically, folks will walk in a fractal cloud of nanotech agents, tools, sensors, and countermeasures. This cloud will augment immune systems as well as provide a host of knock-on abilities (exs: telecomm, physical self defense, journaling). Also, given the likelihood of powerful telecommunications tools providing a network for those agents to the user, it will be rather hard to define the "edge" of someone's existence: it will extend far past their skin and five senses.

Anyway, take some time to really think about your future history, tech curves, and how that will shape the thematic issues of your game play. Frankly, most of the tech and commensurate conflicts that you detail seem better suited to, say, 50 or 100 years in the future, not several thousand. And this speaks to...

Humanity - You seem to have adopted the (popular) dialectic of naturalism = human and artificial = non-human. THis has been espoused since the beginning of the Industrial Age, as folks watched factories turn craftmen into cogs--easily replaced, less than human. But, I believe, it is just flat wrong.

I have much better teeth, hair, skin, bone structure, etc than I should have, thanks to artificial (technological) enhancements and supplements. We all do. Now consider someone who's had lasic (sp?) eye surgery... or an artifical heart... or rebuilt knees. These folks, in your notion and game system, have "lost humanity." Taking an inductive leap, you go on to presume that integrating computing systems into mind, or reinforcing bones and skin, or improving sensory fidelity will necessarily lead to even less "humanity".

A futurist would just have to call that an incoherent induction (if polite) or laugh out loud (if an ass). The writer with an online thesaurus linked to his brain is "less human" even though his command of language is such that his works become sublime. The artist who can see into the microscopic can interpret visions for people that have never been naturally seen, providing a nuance to art and life heretofore unimagined. The soldier with chromed body armor and fantastic weaponry can project more power, thus requiring fewer soldiers, thus leaving more people free to pursue "higher" goals in life than material control assault or defense. I could go on ad naseum (and maybe have?): technology in itself does not debase or exhault mankind's "humanity". It's use might, but that means we need to speak more about what this ineffable "humanity" means, really. Surely, it's not the disease, grime, feces, prejudices, violence, tribalism, fear, or lack of purpose for sentience... is it? SO it's, instead, that which we drive towards, after the kids are fed and the fires are lit and the night beasts are held at bay. And what has most-aided such "higher" pursuits? Technology. Environmental manipulation. Usurping control of human evolution. Self-control of base, animal instincts.

[Quick aside: I would disregard Shadowrun, for one reason: its tension is between magic and technology (NOT human and tech), so the REAL purpose of Essence is to prevent "cybermages" that have every tech mod AND know a school of magics. In other words, Shadowrun's notions of "humanity" really came from gamist play balance considerations, not any realistic grounding in metaphysics or philosophy. Want the tech toys? Then no magic for you! What's that got to do with (a) your playstyle goals ("deep") or (b) actual history of human progress or (c) the metaphysics of ANY real-world magic belief system? Heck, that's sort of a non sequeteur, in Shadowrun: magic--this "supernatural" and "spiritual" and "arcane" power--depends upon a human biology, consistent and whole? So much for "demon sorcerors," huh? :) ]

Alignments - This word is often confusing, because it can be considered in two ways:
* Motivations, as in what influences an actor to behave in a certain way.
* Ethics, as in what justifies those motivations and actions, in a greater context (metaphysical, spiritual, pragmatic).

For the tone of your rather bleak game, I think you want the latter: some way to underpin the intentions of your player's characters. You seem drawn to factionalism, coupled with your notions of natural v. artifiicial, and so that makes your "alignment system" really more of a matrix of allied beliefs. As you already have your 8 (and growing) political factions, look to that as a map of character motivation and role playing constraints (which is all ANY "alignment system" is, at root). Forget about forging some metaphysical spectrum which is, in my opinion, reflective of an Industrial Age prejudice, as I have said above. Instead, consider the motives and goals of your various in-game factions, and provide ways that players can ally themselves with those factional goals.

However, if you really feel there is a significant tension--at a metaphyscal level--between the artificial and the natural in humans, then you might want to go with the other folks' ideas about a continuum from unaugmented humans to utterly cybernetic human-origin sentiences. THEN, make each stance along that continuum equally valid, in and of itself. In other words, don't preach with your alignment system; don't make some point on the continuum "just right" and all others "pale reflections" or "stupid and wrong" or "evil".

What's more, I believe this about your setting: if each faction's propeganda is appealing, taken at face value; and if each stance along the continuum of artificial v natural has pros and cons; and if the players are given mechanical means to weigh and balance each faction and stance; then this game will resonate with FAR more Creative Agendas, it will allow for more nuanced exploration of the themes of humanity and progress and naturalism, and it will push closer to that "deep" playstyle you espouse.

Inspirations - In no particular order:
The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson: nanotech influence and impact done right... and only a handful of decades away (not thousands).
Anything by Steve Baxter: the Manifold series, in fact, go FAR beyond your time frame, to look at what forms sentience might take to survive universal heat death, sterilization events, and other "explanations" for the Fermi Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox). Leave your "humanity" at the door: these far-future humans live in databases built from black holes held in static matrices. :)
World Transhumanist Association (http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index/): folks who have BIG brains and have thought a lot about this stuff.

Hope this all helps!
David

Disagreement with a couple of points here. Not to get into an argument, but I think you're disagreeing with a lot of his basic game premises here, and not in a tone that's challenging him to answer "why," but in a tone that says "this won't work because it doesn't fit in with current projections of the future." So, let me rewrite it in a "why?" tone.

Date: I'd like to ask the author...-is- this intended to be hard science fiction? If not, then I think that several centuries of technological development could equal several "realistic" decades. Dune, for instance, explains how it's technologically backwards despite being 9,000 years uptime from now, but "don't worry about it" is an equally valid position for a sci-fi setting, as are dark ages and apocalypses, for the same reason that people can travel faster than light-speed. (Frankly, -on Earth-, I don't believe technological advancement could continue for more than 50-100 years without apocalypse, but that's me.)

Humanity: Well, the whole theme of the system at present is destroyed, IMO, if the natural-artificial tension is destroyed, so don't remove that aspect lightly. Looking strictly at the gamist agenda, if players don't have the incentive to not accessorize themselves to the point of God, they will accessorize themselves to the point of God, looking at the Narrativist end, players lose the intended question of "what does it mean to be human?" since the word has become useless.

Alignments: Here, I agree. When it comes to how to dealing with the continuum of human-machine, he's pretty much said all I can say on the subject. I don't think, however, that you should make all the factions appealing. Far from that...if you want to generate pathos, you want all the factions to be equally -un- appealing. But maybe that's just me. ^_^

Quote from: Ramidel on March 02, 2006, 03:00:33 PM
... I think you're disagreeing with a lot of his basic game premises here, and not in a tone that's challenging him to answer "why," but in a tone that says "this won't work because it doesn't fit in with current projections of the future." ...

Good point. I get on rolls, sometimes, and lose sight of the IGD forum's purpose: refinement of ideas, not refutations. However, in my own defense...

Quote from: Ramidel on March 02, 2006, 03:00:33 PM
Date: I'd like to ask the author...-is- this intended to be hard science fiction? If not, then I think that several centuries of technological development could equal several "realistic" decades. Dune, for instance, explains how it's technologically backwards despite being 9,000 years uptime from now, but "don't worry about it" is an equally valid position for a sci-fi setting, as are dark ages and apocalypses, for the same reason that people can travel faster than light-speed. (Frankly, -on Earth-, I don't believe technological advancement could continue for more than 50-100 years without apocalypse, but that's me.)

I only brought this up because his choice of time frame broke me out of my willing suspension of disbelief. I read "several thousand years" and then the game is about dealing with fairly trivial adjustments to human biological effectiveness, and I can't make it jibe in my head. You propose ways to allow for this apparent disconnect (as did I, recall)--and that's all I really meant to say with that diatribe on transhumanism: "Please come up with a more plausible date/time frame -OR- explain why it's taken so long to make such minor advancements". That's sort of a "Why" type question, re-writ in imperative form to make it a suggestion. ;-)

Quote from: Ramidel on March 02, 2006, 03:00:33 PM
Humanity: Well, the whole theme of the system at present is destroyed, IMO, if the natural-artificial tension is destroyed, so don't remove that aspect lightly. ...

Touche. If the game's tensions must revolve around the human v. artificial dichotomy, then my advise can not be taken.

I believe, however, that a better dichotomy (which has the same tension) is identity v. technology. Strapping on some body mods doesn't seem to shake anyone's notion of human identity (Shadowrun aside). BUT, shard your mind a few thousand times, re-integrate them, add in a few million nanites providing sensory expansion, and give yourself near-total control over your mood, mindstate, and sensorium: well, then, you have some meat for theme, I believe (NAR), and you can certainly get into your game-mechanical balances (GAM) as you use "loss of identity" (character death) as the stick to oppose the "cool power tech" carrot.

But speaking back to the goal of human v. artificial, I would ask "why sci fi?" That dichotomy would play out far better in a game of demon control, dark magics, psionics that ruin intellect, or some other (quasi-)metaphysical framework. Technology is just too normative in its "interface" with reality to play out many issues of an ineffable quality like "humanity." IMHO (as all of this is, of course).

Quote from: Ramidel on March 02, 2006, 03:00:33 PM
Alignments: Here, I agree. ... I don't think, however, that you should make all the factions appealing. Far from that...if you want to generate pathos, you want all the factions to be equally -un- appealing. ...

Interesting tonal shift, and probably more in keeping with the bleakness he has suggested. Picking the "lesser" of evils has a far different feel than picking the "best" belief system, the one in which the player/character believes proactively.

Anyway, we've framed these three points nicely; it will be up to catmorbid to explain his goals and feelings, to better offer further direct advice.

---

As for the one direct question:

QuoteI haven't completely decided yet on how detailed approach should I take into creating the world. I know there could be lots to tell, but what would be the easiest and most sufficient way? E.g. Do I need specific timelines, names for colonies, faction key-individuals?

In the Forge Lexicon, you must decide how much and what details you will provide for Setting, Situation, and (maybe) Challenge.

Given the styling, tone, and above dichotomy, I think you must provide some kind of deep Setting. The colonies, the major moments in history (like the several devolutions that have nanotech as "high tech" in thousands of years. ;-) ), intergalactic social order, and specifics of technology, society, and culture.

As for Situation and Challenge: this is gonna be a poll. Some folks will say "cool!" and these folks will read every line of your "metaplot" and "main story arc". Others will say "crap!" and will go on to quote how poorly this or that game managed its "metaplot" or "main story arc". By the same token, if you set up a world-level Challenge, then it must either (a) be undefeatable or (b) have some form of ongoing Challenge generator that is hooked into the Setting and Situation. Some will love this, if it all hangs together and, as such, makes for a richer end product. Others will think it's a waste of paper; the argument goes: "why have a world-level Challenge, when as soon as a given game group "defeats" it, their victory is made moot by the 'next Challenge over the hill' OR they decouple themselves from the main story arc and are unable to coherently participate in future canonical Situation/Challenge expansions?"

[An aside: My vote in this poll: Setting only. Every minute you would have "wasted" on story arcs and Situation and metaplot, you can instead devote to rich world details. If you feel compeled to do Situation and Challenge work: release modules, as the "official" canon of the game world, and let people choose whether or not they need such material.]

As always, "just tryin' to help!"
David

Hello Nick,
I have an interest in your game, the philosophical ramifications and sheer controversy surrounding it. I see multiple opinions and enjoy that it generates more threads!

I feel that the embrace of machines, prosthetics, nanobots, software and virtual spirituality is important in your game and shouldn't be calculated into one number.

Most people are born in a world that is inherently dangerous and they learn to survive, thrive and enjoy it. The sum of the experiences and training is immense and, at the same time, hard to define. A person is more than just attributes, skills and cool powers. If you're looking to really immerse the players in your game vision then really focus on what humanity is, beyond what humans are.

What we consider to be humanity is a comfortable view of how people behave and what causes less waves in the political waters. We can bomb a city out of our greed for power and suddenly send in blankets, food and medicine. Those who steal in the name of religion could have a sense of humanity. So, humanity is definitely based on agreement in a world varying opinions.

There are tremendous facets of humanity and many aspects of the human condition are considered barriers to a path of true humanity. So, I don't assume that the cyborg world is automatically a dehumanizing approach. It is quite possible that rendering the flesh inert may indeed pave way to becoming a better "human".

In the real world, people who survive great traumas to their bodies and minds find themselves perceiving the world in a different fashion. Lack of movement, dexterity, sight, hearing, voice and the knowledge of having a life-support machine trailing behind you seems to make the current view of humanity absurd to them. Of course, people deal with tragedies in different ways. Some are thankful that they are alive and life themselves beyond their physical challenges. Others adopt despair and thrive on misery and its company.

The idea of multiple factions is exciting. Groups who have the same goal of reaching some ultimate destination, yet compete in the way to get there. If cybernetics is the main way of getting there, then think about how cybernetics can be applied.

Alignment is too narrow in this area. That annoying tic-tac-toe board of law and chaos makes me roll my eyes. Regardless of the descriptions you will assign to alignment, each player will have a different opinion about it.

A possible way to handle humanity, cybernetics effects and alignment could be:

Humanity is replaced by a group of numbers where each measures a particular aspect of being human. This is different from showing the epitome of humanity. There are advantages and disadvantages built in that would affect the game mechanics, not just how the player should play the character.

Compassion: On the high end you want to provide relief and eliminate the cause of pain. On the low end you may observe what is happening and see truth in it.

Affection: On the high end you have tender feelings for another. On the low end you are detached from the emotions and perceive the other indifferently.

Pride: On the high end you are firm in what you want and actively announce your achievements. On the low end you are inhibited, taking no credit and satisfied with what you need.

Personality: On the high end you acknowledge the individuality and uniqueness of all people. On the low end you see the similarity of all humans.

Worldly: On the high end you know the pleasures and pains of the body, indulgence in the senses. On the low end you are closer to spirituality.

Creativity: On the high end your mind is capable of fantastic thoughts and meanderings. On the low end you have a practical mind able to apply knowledge to appropriate situations.

If you wanted to get really religious, then just use the seven deadly sins as a way to measure human-ness.

Cybernetics could have a multitude of applications and the reasons behind using them. The reasons for their use may be more interesting than just creating cool devices that modify attributes and give you kick-ass abilities.

Sensory Filter: spinal implant capable of limiting or enhancing tactile sensations. Pleasure can be nullified to generate focus on mind and spirituality. Sensory deprivation mode can be enabled with appropriate life support for weeks.

Communal Pace Maker: replaces asymmetric pulse with controlled pulse tuned to a specific group. All hearts beat with the same rhythm and engage the communal experience.

Occupational Fittings: hands are replaced with specific tools to perform assigned tasks. Efficiency, production and quality is insured freeing the mind of success and failure.

Censor Module: the mind will only receive information relevant to the person's goal and programming. Ignorance is bliss.

Neuter Procedure: the person is modified to have no sex. Appropriate organs are removed and the hormonal system is replaced with artificial genderlack. This renders the person free of personal bias.

Lobotox: a frontal cortex monitoring device designed to pacify aggressive emotions and reveal a sense of elation and well-being.

Alignment can be a combination of motives and ideals that come into affect when humanity is threatened.
Protector of the weak: High compassion will make you come to their aid. Low compassion will let you stand back and watch.
Bad Temper: With high pride you are set off by derogatory remarks. Low pride lets you calmly analyze the mental condition of the one who is speaking.

The factions may be rooted in the different aspects of humanity or by methods of achieving a spiritual apex.

Humanists believe that being human, indulging in the body and keeping technology at arm's length is the way to achieve enlightenment. They will surrender their bodies to death before using prosthetics. They fight often with Mechanists and threaten to use EMP devices.

Mechanists compute that the spirits of humans are trapped in the flesh. Complete cybernetic replacement and unit assignment is the logical way to merge with the creator.

Surfs are voluntarily participants plugged directly into the Net. Their goal is to seek and interact with any conversations regarding spirituality through interthought processes.

Mediators strive to placate various sides of conflicts. Through their diplomatic tactics, mediators look for the common ground and emphasize sameness and sympathetic spirituality.

Multivatican City is a biomechanical warehouse of failed bodies placed in vats whose minds hold the key to the soul. A central AI monitors the frail bodies and suspends the minds in a virtual cathedral of dogma and ceremony. Cardinals and Ordinals receive their duties to minister the heathens directly from the Multivatican through digital transmissions.

Inquisitors rely on their broad knowledge and efficient questions to seek the secrets of the spiritual universe. Encountering an inquisitor is a surreal experience as they only ask Yes/No/Maybe questions. With 20 questions or less they can garner amazing facts about your life.

That was fun!
Troy

I believe the situations where I've actually felt this kind of overflow of inspiration are very rare indeed. I would've never thought to get this much and this kind of response, through a simple post. My most sincere gratitude for all this :)

Many questions have arisen, and in order to continue this splending exchange of thoughts, I'll do my best to answer them all and comment all of your posts in no chronological order.

Date
No, the game isn't supposed to be "hard" sci-fi. I'm no scientist, just a guy who finds sci-fi very interesting and appealing setting, and enjoys envisioning technological marvels, and wants to incorporate that in a homebrewn rpg. I think I'm a storyteller by heart, and sci-fi proves unlimited options for telling interesting and thrilling stories. I consider sci-fi a similar tool to your ordinary magical fantasy. Anything is and should be possible. It's only up to your imagination to come up with the possibilities. The good thing about sci-fi is, that it's less random than your average fantasy rpg.

One of the reasons I had when setting the date so far in the future was to give me unlimited options to form the world into what I want. Everything has changed. All that remains same as today is a small blue planet called Earth (not even sure about that though, but could be important as a religious figure - e.g. a source of pilgrimage? Finding your roots blaablaa, the mythic first home of mankind :)), and humans. Languages have changed, names have changed, human physiology has changed. But when looking at the surface, everything seems very familiar and hence something you can easily relate to. This is RPG after all, and It's always been easier to relate to those fantasy races closer to humans than the most different ones.

Technology
David and Troy both gave me wondrous ideas for technology. I felt silly a while back after reading your posts: I hadn't even thought of the extent that the technology could reach. But then again, I shouldn't, because I believe it easily makes the game too massive and difficult to comprehend. I want to keep it relatively simple, but want to definetely add more depth through technology as well.

The way I have things figured so far is that the most powerful technology is limited. The Factions are the ones who control, develop and use new technologies. Individual corporations might do this as well, but even they are mostly Faction controlled. I like the idea of Factions instead of open corporations or powerful governments. Through giving access to high technology to factions only, I think makes them even more important and makes the common man even more powerless, which I think suits the bleak atmosphere for the game.

Most technologies I've thought of at this point mostly involve different kinds of cybernetic enhancements, which I call simply enhancements :) This will probably be an important issue in the game, pretty much the only "resource" the characters will want to seek out (in addition to a more traditional character advancement, but as opposed to wealth). This also IMO gives great contradiction to the fact that these enhancements eventually destroy the character. Which is still something I want, but more on that later.

In fact, many ideas presented for technology are somwhat already thought of, but you just gave them names :) But I will certainly look for more ideas about technology.

What comes to general level of technology here's a few thing I've thought. Any ideas of better names or alternatives are welcome.

"Jump ports": Call them stargates, jumpgates whatever. Something that makes travelling between colonies easy. They're time and resource consuming however to build and maintain, and definite strategic advantages in space-age warfare. Something I definetely want to include.

Slow space travel: Without jump gates travelling through space is slow. Even though I want to keep mundane ways of travelling somewhat reasonably time consuming, I don't want startrek warp engines and similar. I think slow is better, hence light speed or maybe a little faster, but not much. So it could take years to travel to a colony without a jumpgate. I loved the element of insecurity with the Tseng Ho (?) mercantile fleet in a Vernor Vinge novel I read about a year ago or so. They could never anticipate if a certain civilisation was even standing when they arrived. Though thousands of years of travelling is perhaps a bit too much.

Effective personal security: I thought of a thing called DNA-codes, which would be a personalised code based on DNA which to use instead of a social security number, compulsory for every human being. These could be read from a distance, making controlling crime and people very easy. Also used for currency transactions and such. However I also want a loophole for using a substitute for "cash", to make black market transactions and such possible. Loopholes in system are great :) Any good ideas, or better replacements? A bleak world must have a powerful technological way of controlling people, however in such way that it gives at least the illusion of freedom.

Common virtual realities: Cyberpunk like way to keep the common people happy through virtual entertainment. Also, vast holographic projections are possible such as the Star Trek's famed holodeck. Haven't really thought of how vast their use would be, i.e. would the average joe have his own holographic living room, to participate in random generated entertainment.

General teleportation: Why not? Maybe through short distances though, I don't want any "beam me up scotty" stuff.

of Humanity again
The main reason WHY I think cybernetics will ruin humanity is the feeling that the entity becomes closer to a god when achieving greater power. Simplicity and weakness is the purest form of humanity I believe. E.g. I believe great intelligence eventually surpasses empathy and sympathy and such. Raw logic tells you that emotions are futile. What can you do, when you KNOW It's bad for you to feel? And feeling, IMO is what humanity is about. There have been good points though, that there could be various ways of using the factor of humanity. E.g. Troy's idea of using the seven deadly sins was in fact a fabulous one. I'll certainly think about that.

I'll probably still use the Humanist/Machinist idea somehow. Mostly because I think it would help to play the role. BTW. Not even the original Humanist/Neutral/Machinist division was supposed to give any type of right or wrong division. I've always thought it to be more like a matter of perspective, but it may be more effective to use those terms to describe the general stand of the factions, adding more as Troy suggested.

Factions
Are these too boring so far? Anything you'd like to see?
I'll use the H/N/M division to give some idea.

Humanists
1. Religious faction that follows the teaching of the Prophet and seeks the Ultimate being - a combination of technology and humanity. Diplomats by nature.
2. An order from past times dedicated to enforcing the law through any means necessary. Soldiers by nature.
3. A "terrorist" organization dedicated to preserving humanity and fighting the machine opressors. They believe the ends justify the means, i.e. using cybernetics to fight cybernetics isn't a bad thing if you know where to set the line.

Machinists
4. A faction dedicated to subjugating humans and ruling with raw logic and machine supremity. Organized soldiers by nature, that pretty much see the humans as useless organisms perhaps worth studying as lab rats.
5. A combination of today's organized crime and powerful corporate strategies. They think with pros/cons style of way, giving a value to everything. They respect hi tech - not high humanity.

Neutrals
6. A faction of mercenary hackers/engineers/scientists that seek knowledge, advancement and personal glory.
7. Independent merchants that take care of most civilian/cargo transports for long distances, employing a vast and organized defensive force, similar to an army of mercenaries to protect this cargo against any aggressors.
8. A mysterious religious order that seems to brainwash and use people for unknown purposes. Most faction members are unaware of what goes inside it, and indeed "join" against their will. Or at least heavily regret later. Very secretive and zealous.

Hello Nick,

I'm glad you're focusing on setting and background. I find that too many people just want to create clever ways to redo attributes, abilities and skills.

Your game description is beginning to look very much like a mixture of Cyberpunk 2020, Cyberpunk Generation, Mutant Chronicles and a bit of Alternity. The religious overtones, mega-corporations and warped humanity are very much a part of Mutant Chronicles.

I like your original ideas about this game. Frankly, you're adding a lot elements that take away from it. Keep it simple and pure. Stick with your initial premise and you'll be surprised at how much detail you'll need.

Work the story without thinking about the game mechanics and I think you'll have a very rich setting. Create the mechanics now and its possible your story-telling mode will suffer.

Good luck!
Troy

Here's -one- problem then.

I'll probably still use the Humanist/Machinist idea somehow. Mostly because I think it would help to play the role. BTW. Not even the original Humanist/Neutral/Machinist division was supposed to give any type of right or wrong division. I've always thought it to be more like a matter of perspective, but it may be more effective to use those terms to describe the general stand of the factions, adding more as Troy suggested.

This statement is at odds with the following...

In terms of game mechanics, if humanity drops down to zero, the game's over.

Thus, mechanism is not a viable choice. If becoming a cyber-psychotic is grounds for removal from play, then players who want to keep their character will not play characters that are on the road to losing their humanity completely, any more than V:tM players who want to keep their characters will play evil, psychotic monsters (unless Paths are allowed, of course).

So, I'd like to ask your solution to that?

Quote from: Ramidel on March 04, 2006, 04:36:02 PM
Here's -one- problem then.

I'll probably still use the Humanist/Machinist idea somehow. Mostly because I think it would help to play the role. BTW. Not even the original Humanist/Neutral/Machinist division was supposed to give any type of right or wrong division. I've always thought it to be more like a matter of perspective, but it may be more effective to use those terms to describe the general stand of the factions, adding more as Troy suggested.

This statement is at odds with the following...

In terms of game mechanics, if humanity drops down to zero, the game's over.

Thus, mechanism is not a viable choice. If becoming a cyber-psychotic is grounds for removal from play, then players who want to keep their character will not play characters that are on the road to losing their humanity completely, any more than V:tM players who want to keep their characters will play evil, psychotic monsters (unless Paths are allowed, of course).

So, I'd like to ask your solution to that?

I have thought of a solution. Nothing well-developed at this point, but I've thought that removing a character from play should be rare and permanent, but it should be something the player wants, not something the gamemaster states. And it should also be always planned of and played in a logical way. The character shouldn't just wake up one day and be considered an NPC. I thought of creating a system which gradually makes the player lose some control over the character if his humanity has become low enough. This should at first show in very rare occasions, something that don't really seem to bother the player at first.

But I myself don't see a problem in playing a character that eventually becomes unplayable. Especially if the players know of such possibility before creating the character or starting the play. I'm thinking this game should be more about telling stories than creating unbeatable god-like characters. Of course one story might involve and even be about such characters, but when considering the general bleak atmosphere in the game, don't you think that a path that eventually leads to destruction, of which the players themselves know about and are completely aware of, only supports the telling of a powerful story? There's nothing more dramatic than a character that knowingly and willingly sacrifices himself for something else? Of course this is a matter of good roleplaying from the player, but is also something I'd really like to see.

QuoteAnd it should also be always planned of and played in a logical way. The character shouldn't just wake up one day and be considered an NPC. I thought of creating a system which gradually makes the player lose some control over the character if his humanity has become low enough. This should at first show in very rare occasions, something that don't really seem to bother the player at first.

With this as your goal, I suggest that you think about Troy's notions of multiple sliders of "humanity" which each have a game-mechanical hook into your System (i.e. not just role playing guidelines). That way, you would automatically get the gradual loss of control that you seek: as each slider got to the "inhuman" extreme, its increasing Systemic impact would reduce player options (in Actor Stance). Put another (Big Model) way, the more inhuman ratings on sliders that the character has, the less credability its player will be granted and the more the System will dictate that character's responses. Right up until the last slider "falls off" and the System runs the whole character. Heck, the character wouldn't have to even go anywhere (die or disappear or whatever): it could still be in the "group" but it would be nothing but a GM-controlled automaton reacting as the System dictates in any given situation.

Example: One of the sliders is Compassion, which moves toward inhuman with each mental upgrade or personality sharding that someone does (insert System here). One case in which a Compassion roll is made is whenever a character wants to resist being panicked or disgusted into inactivity at the sight of human suffering. So, once a player has driven his Compassion to zero through brain augmentation, that player will often be unable to act immediately to save someone. (They fail Compassion rolls a lot and, thus, lose initiative or are required to act after characters who make their rolls.) Their unfeeling mind calculates the relative merits of helping the victim, thinking the victim probably has a mindstate back-up (and deserves to die, if they are so stupid as to not have one) and wanting to avoid any contact with biological contaminants, while the time to act decisively slips by. Meanwhile, the highly Compassionate nurse doesn't think twice before leaping to the victim's side, jamming a finger into a (possibly nanite-riddled) wound, and generally risking her own well-being for the victim.

Urk. A rough example, in retrospect, but I think it conveys the general idea well enough.

Also, as you seem to have a Humanist bias, each slider would probably have to provide a benefit, when high, to offset the penalty when low or nil. That will work to offset the other Systemic benefits the characters gain from the humanity-stripping cool techie upgrades. Of course, that takes you (dangerously) close to classes. If the same net effectiveness can be attained with high humanity slider "buffs" as can generally be attained with high tech (but humanity-stripping) upgrades, you basically have two classes: Humanity-driven and Cyber-driven. A player might as well choose one at random, if careful management of each yields the same net effectiveness in standard situations.

Up to the point, of course, where character "creation" (of a Cyber) leads to near-immediate character unplayability.

All that is just to say that ANY Systemic means of influencing a player to hover near one point on these pseudo-ethical sliders must be carefully balanced against the opportunities the player will gain at another point on said slider. Otherwise, any Gamist tendencies in the players will quickly "bubble out" the "sweet spot" on your panoply of sliders and most characters will gravitate towards that spot (excepting players who will play atypically weak characters just to explore that situation). Shadowrun was terrible about this: 95% of all player characters were either 6 Humanity or 0.1, because it didn't matter where you were on that range vis a vis effectiveness (after class requirements and resources we taken into consideration). If you used magic, you kept it at 6 to avoid Backlash (IIRC?); if you used cyber (any non-magical class, basically) you quickly ratchetted it down below one, packing yourself with tech.

[Begin Annoying Geek Aside: No one ever seemed to notice that a mage could have a TON of cyber installed in clothes and items, paying for miniaturization if necessary--I had an elementalist that wore a skull-like helmet that bristled with enhanced senses, body armor that was tougher than most street samurai dermal armor, and an electrified scythe that was at least as deadly as most light arms. All a "Cyber" had on him was wired reflexes and jacking without a deck--big whoop, I though, as he waded through most opponents: He was a "pet class" with more than half the cyberware in the book. I spent less than a point of Humanity to install the necessary interfaces in his head to the helmet and to VR (as a rider) and that was it.

His element was Shadow. Folks on the street called him Charon. :) [End Geek Aside]

Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on March 06, 2006, 02:34:02 PM

With this as your goal, I suggest that you think about Troy's notions of multiple sliders of "humanity" which each have a game-mechanical hook into your System (i.e. not just role playing guidelines). That way, you would automatically get the gradual loss of control that you seek: as each slider got to the "inhuman" extreme, its increasing Systemic impact would reduce player options (in Actor Stance). Put another (Big Model) way, the more inhuman ratings on sliders that the character has, the less credability its player will be granted and the more the System will dictate that character's responses. Right up until the last slider "falls off" and the System runs the whole character. Heck, the character wouldn't have to even go anywhere (die or disappear or whatever): it could still be in the "group" but it would be nothing but a GM-controlled automaton reacting as the System dictates in any given situation.

That's pretty much the way I imagined the end of humanity to go. After the one final upgrade, the player simply gives the character sheet to the gamemaster, perhaps sniffs once or twice, and starts creating a new character :)

And yes, the humanity sliders have began to sound a very good idea. At the moment I have the most problems deciding how many and what kind of humanity attributes to use.

Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on March 06, 2006, 02:34:02 PM
Also, as you seem to have a Humanist bias, each slider would probably have to provide a benefit, when high, to offset the penalty when low or nil. That will work to offset the other Systemic benefits the characters gain from the humanity-stripping cool techie upgrades. Of course, that takes you (dangerously) close to classes. If the same net effectiveness can be attained with high humanity slider "buffs" as can generally be attained with high tech (but humanity-stripping) upgrades, you basically have two classes: Humanity-driven and Cyber-driven. A player might as well choose one at random, if careful management of each yields the same net effectiveness in standard situations.

Up to the point, of course, where character "creation" (of a Cyber) leads to near-immediate character unplayability.

All that is just to say that ANY Systemic means of influencing a player to hover near one point on these pseudo-ethical sliders must be carefully balanced against the opportunities the player will gain at another point on said slider. Otherwise, any Gamist tendencies in the players will quickly "bubble out" the "sweet spot" on your panoply of sliders and most characters will gravitate towards that spot (excepting players who will play atypically weak characters just to explore that situation).

I originally thought of using the humanity instead of an attribute describing social ability. But I could probably keep the original idea only using the sliders this time. Perhaps giving a small bonus to certain tasks in the high-end and a similar penalty in the low-end. But, to give more meaning to humanity factors, I could even use high humanity factors as a means to qualify for gaining extra character advancement points or something similar.

For example: Let's say I'd have six different humanity factors. In the beginning of the game, the GM rolls a single six-sided die (only once, or maybe even once for each player). If the humanity factor the die shows is qualified for extra roleplaying points, the player has the opportunity to earn them by trying to play the specific humanity factor as much as possible, with still keeping in mind the character's goals.

I've also thought of somehow randomly determining the humanity factors' initial values, meaning that every character would have some factors that clearly step out among others. Or maybe let the player choose?

This could be viewed as almost exactly like Bruce Sterling Shaper/Mechanist work, with more thrown
in. This isn't neccecarily a bad thing as said work is sublime. Read it for more inspiration, and I would
say going ahead in this mode is a good idea as he a pretty much abandoned the subgenre and moved
on to more modern type settings, and there seems to be a fairly large call for more in this mode.

It seems to me that if you assume all your players will have a keen interest in roleplaying thoughtful portrayals of individuals grappling with the loss of their humanness, then the system of sliding attributes should serve largely as orientation, with no mechanisms really required.  "Here are some guidelines for what kind of behaviors make sense for a character whose Compassion score has dropped to 2", etc.

However, if all your cool tech and background power struggles add up to a setting where players make themselves badass and blow stuff up for fun and profit, then your "loss of humanness" theme risks being marginalized unless it has some sort of actual effect on the players' ability to kick butt, as enforced by the system mechanics.

Perhaps you should describe what you expect players/characters to spend their game time doing before discussing system mechanics further.  (I'm not trying to denigrate any system ideas already discussed here, but to me they just don't feel very grounded in actual play concerns at the moment.)

As for the question of how much detail work to put into your setting, my advice would be: as much as you can possibly stomach.  Even if no one ever reads it, the process of thinking it and writing it will give you a much richer sense of your world, and that richness tends to shine through in the end product.  (I say this as someone who tends to browse through books and arbitrarily stop at flavor sidebars or passages with cool illustrations next to them.)  Warhammer 40,000 is an excellent example of selectively highlighting bits of a giant backstory in order to create an effectively rich setting.  I think.  It's been a while...

Quote from: David Berg on May 16, 2006, 01:14:01 AM
if all your cool tech and background power struggles add up to a setting where players make themselves badass and blow stuff up for fun and profit

Let me add that I'd be much more excited about a game where players are trying to use technology to ascend unto Godhood than one in which they're using it to kick butt.  The religious/mystical element is definitely my favorite part of your high-tech setting. 

What religious beliefs are dominant in the gameworld? 

What other belief sets are major options for player characters?

System-wise, perhaps the Humanity-Tech spectrum should turn into a Humanity-Tech-Divinity triangle...

If your major theme is what we might call "technical ascension", then I don't think your humanity stat can be abstracted, it has to be exploded into some detail.  If that is to be important to play, decisions involving it cannot be too simple.  One approach might be the ability to switch off human drives.  If you could prevent yourself from experiencing hunger unless you chose to, does that mean you lose touch with other humans?  But then again, does it matter?

One important question to raise is how big a society you need for this to work.  Is a society spanning stars with gates and whatnot, and all the implications these entail, really necessary for what you described as a specific RPG?.  Could it be set it in a single big flying city, for example?  That might allow you to go somewhat down the road of Dogs and Sorcerer in having user configurable settings if you wished.

Another consequence of reaching far into the future or deep into space is that the further you go the more pressing becomes the Fermi Paradox.  Its also hard not to tread on this terrain when you are dealing with philosophical concepts relating to technology and the future.  For similar reasons, I would be inclined to stay away from wormholes and so forth, as they have complicated relativistic consequences.

Addressing David "Czar Fnord" Artman:

You ask some interesting questions. Although its impossible to really know the future. Who would have thought 50 years ago that the genetic and chemical sciences would advance to the state they have before we even managed to have a single base on the moon? And the very concept of nanotech would then seem preposterous. Chances are in 100 years they will be doing things we would never have even thought of (And not doing half the things we thought they would). Its impossible to accurately predict the advance of technology. But hell, its FUN, isnt it?

I think a case can be argued though that as we become more machine, we become less human. Your example of the artist who can see the microscopic is the perfect case of losing humanity to machines. Much of what defines us as a culture, be it art, taste, religion or belief is governed by irrationality and misinterpretation of reality.

For a people who can see into the microscopic, an artistic interpretation must become more abstract and less based on reality, as duplicating what one sees becomes childs play (As evidenced by Modern Art in the face of technological developments). It is our interpretation of what we see that inspires art. As we percieve things more exactly, interpretation becomes less of a feature.

Again, in the "Usurping control of human evolution. Self-control of base, animal instincts" we are removing what makes us human. Much of our aesthetic taste- our relaxation at the sound of running water, our pleasure at the burbling of a child, our enjoyment of a camp fire on a starry night all stem from evolved animal instincts. Such things could easily be simulated by chemical stimulants to change our brain chemistry. Sit around all day just enjoying the feeling, like a drug addict. We could exist in a state of perpetual bliss. Though indeed, why have these instincts at all? They serve no rational purpose. Best to remove them entirely.

I dont propose that this is something that would happen in the future. It is already happening. As we become more affluent we move more towards gratifying our desire for entertainment than advancing ourselves as a species or as individuals. We occupy ourselves with games, music, television, drugs and we usurp the evolutionary process for our amusement using contraception.

As we become more perfect, increase our knowledge, remove our irrationality and understand the universe more completely, we lose much of what makes humanity unique. We lose our unique human madness, if you will. Perhaps, then we are becoming less animal. But what are humans if not unique animals?

You even propose that we would form collectives. Perhaps, eventually, one single collective human mind? That is going beyond losing our humanity, and into losing our individuality. That goes into your identity vs technology dichotomy, which is a very interesting one.

Is all of this good or bad? We could end war, poverty, grief, hardship, struggle. But what is it to be human?

I dont know man! I just live here. But its a very interesting thing to explore in an RPG.

We're thread-jacking, but it's somewhat germane. As I am mostly proffering opinions, there isn't much more "Jack" left in me--it's on catmorbid to establish the game situations.

Quote from: Oscar Evans on May 16, 2006, 04:22:13 PM...Although its impossible to really know the future. ...Its impossible to accurately predict the advance of technology. But hell, its FUN, isn't it?

We gotta take a stab at it. Otherwise, it's going to be even less plausible sci fi: I'd rather predict inaccurately than completely disregard plausible advancements and just throw a pastiche of tech and time together. But that's me: that's an opinion. And, yep, it's fun.

Quote from: Oscar EvansI think a case can be argued though that as we become more machine, we become less human. ...It is our interpretation of what we see that inspires art. As we perceive things more exactly, interpretation becomes less of a feature.

Shaky. Very shaky. So do we throw away our glasses and contact lenses? We wouldn't want to lose the precious humanity that near-sightedness grant us, right?

And the slope gets more slippery: we use telescopes to change the "eyes of the gods" into "celestial rings," then into stars and planets and galaxies. In refining our worldview (AKA more exact perceptions leading to less fanciful interpretations) we have found more profundity and wonder than any earlier cosmologies. We might have lost "god" in the advances, but I think you've got a long row to hoe to say we lost "humanity."

Quote from: Oscar EvansAgain, in the "Usurping control of human evolution. Self-control of base, animal instincts" we are removing what makes us human. ...As we become more affluent we move more towards gratifying our desire for entertainment than advancing ourselves as a species or as individuals.

So now pastoralism = human? If we aren't wasting our days with hunting and berry gathering, we aren't human? If we don't try to hump anything with the right curves (and bash the brains out of any companion who objects) then we aren't human?

Veneration of the animal in Man is questionable, at best. Resting the definition of humanity on the foundations of animalism is no different than resting it on bacteria... or amino acids. It's just scaling, at that point.

Me? I think the fact that we reject and surpass our animal heritage IS humanity. Otherwise we're particularly violent (but clever) monkeys.

Quote from: Oscar EvansWe lose our unique human madness, if you will. Perhaps, then we are becoming less animal. But what are humans if not unique animals?

Well that's the thing, ain't it? You say Humans = Animals + "Unique". We got the animal thing down pat (I suppose--that's another thread, though) but to make this game fly, we need the "Unique".

*I* say Humanity = The "Unique". Humans are animal and "spirit" or what-the-hell-ever. Humanity is the non-animal part of us. And we are slipping into the age-old philosophy game I call "Semantic Judo!"

Quote from: Oscar EvansYou even propose that we would form collectives. Perhaps, eventually, one single collective human mind? That is going beyond losing our humanity, and into losing our individuality. That goes into your identity vs technology dichotomy, which is a very interesting one. Is all of this good or bad? We could end war, poverty, grief, hardship, struggle. But what is it to be human?

Now, we are asking "what is The Unique part of the formula" again, but this time in the context of individuality and recognition of such (and other messy things like privacy of thought and singularity of perception). Earlier in this thread, it was something ineffable. Lately, it has been quantified more (the sliders). And all I argue for is that there be some serious consideration of issues of identity, sentience, sense of self, and sense of time/place. Not just the sliders of altruism, emotionalism, and knowledge--all that happy stuff that we put on our "human resume" to prove we aren't mere animals.

You worry about becoming less human because you could have the fallability of your senses removed? Ha! I worry about becoming less than human when I am able to have, say, forty different sensorium foci comprising twenty different "views" onto a given instant, spread across a planet... or a galaxy. Can I hold to a kernel of "David" as I expand myself more and more? Will I preserve my core metaethics when I no longer fear death or deprivation or even (in time) the heat death of the Universe? Heck... I realize now that that's the real question: how can we continue to CARE when there is nothing to fear?

Which is more interesting to explore? Matter of taste. And in my opinion, it won't be very interesting attempting to role play all this angsty, bummer, "I'm losing my humanity--waa!" stuff when the reason given is because I have an improved sensorium and physical form. All semantic and tech-tree issues aside: isn't that the real crux of this whole debate? How can this game make me (the player) actually feel this angst, this loss; how can it actually make me explore what is human and what isn't, and how to find a balance that isn't just a shinier, modern retooling of Luddism?

Thanks for your reply;
David

QuoteWe're thread-jacking, but it's somewhat germane. As I am mostly proffering opinions, there isn't much more "Jack" left in me--it's on catmorbid to establish the game situations.

Well, we are still addressing his core concept, the humanity/technology continium. I was just proposing a way in which it could be salvaged. Playing devils advocate, if you will (It might suprise you, but im actually NOT a luddite). Although Catmorbid seems to be doing very well by himself so maybe he doesnt need my help on that.

Perhaps the conflict here is animal-machine, with human somewhere in the middle? That might work, although it certainly deglorifies the low end of the scale (Who wants to be a hairy caveman?). And from the point of view of the system, there wouldnt be terribly much point REDUCING your humanity and going into the animal scale- unless the game had magic, psionics, or similiar. Thats probably something more suited to a werewolf or beastman game.

Either way, it doesnt have to be angsty or 'Wah i am losing my humanity' necessarily. Just a conciousness of what we give up, for what we gain. Loss is only change, anyway. Perhaps though, as we get further from the animal (even to the point that there isnt a biological part on our body), we are gaining more humanity?

Hey kissasurkea, be proud of your Finnish name. Even if it´s only to prevent people calling you "Nick"...

Somewhat more on the topic, have you read Edwards´ Sorcerer or Kirk´s RPG Design Patterns? The latter is a free download, even.

Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 10:57:14 AM
I'd rather predict inaccurately than completely disregard plausible advancements and just throw a pastiche of tech and time together.

Depends on who your players are.  :)  Some care about whether a setting makes sense, others just care whether it's fun to play in.  That said, the vast majority of guys I've gamed with do care about things making sense...

Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 10:57:14 AM
In refining our worldview (AKA more exact perceptions leading to less fanciful interpretations) we have found more profundity and wonder than any earlier cosmologies.

Amongst your opinions, I find this one to be one of the most controversial, and I think Catmorbid could easily claim the opposite if he desires.

Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 10:57:14 AM
Veneration of the animal in Man is questionable, at best. 

Probably not what Catmorbid has in mind, but I could see it being a fun element in the right game... especially one with heavy religious influence...

Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 10:57:14 AM
Me? I think the fact that we reject and surpass our animal heritage IS humanity. Otherwise we're particularly violent (but clever) monkeys.

I dig your philosophical premise, but I'm not sure it serves this game well...

Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 10:57:14 AM
And all I argue for is that there be some serious consideration of issues of identity, sentience, sense of self, and sense of time/place. 

Sounds good to me.  Whether a gaming experience can be focused on said concerns though...

Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 10:57:14 AM
Not just the sliders of altruism, emotionalism, and knowledge--all that happy stuff that we put on our "human resume" to prove we aren't mere animals.

Hey, the qualities that people connect to emotionally are probably strong candidates for defining "humanness" in a game where the struggle with losing "humanness" is supposed to be a dramatic dynamic.  More logical and philosophically advanced definitions might not pack the same oomph.  For example:

Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 10:57:14 AM
I worry about becoming less than human when I am able to have, say, forty different sensorium foci comprising twenty different "views" onto a given instant, spread across a planet... or a galaxy . . . how can we continue to CARE when there is nothing to fear? 

I can't possibly imagine a party of cool tech-toting semi-cyborgs playing through this kind of quandary.  Maybe a solo game.  Or maybe the culmination of a very long campaign with characters who have evolved drastically in the course of play.  But certainly not an ongoing foreground concern from the get-go.

Quote from: David "Czar Fnord" Artman on May 17, 2006, 10:57:14 AM
How can this game make me (the player) actually feel this angst, this loss; how can it actually make me explore what is human and what isn't

It'll probably work best if it plays off of current values, attachments, likes and dislikes you have in your real, everyday existence.  Trying to force high-mindedness begets insincere play.  Feeling uneasy over immortality and expansion is kinda outside of my emotional context.  Maybe I should meditate more...

Personally, I'd try to set up a scenario in which the characters struggle with loss of things like love, friendship, gratification/satisfaction, self-expression, and sense of belonging.  An identity crisis will probably work better if it relates to these rather than to some highly abstracted notion of sentience or "humanness".

As I mentioned earlier, I am running out of Jack. Do not feel that I am dismissing your thoughtful replies. Just that it really, really, really is, now, on catmorbid to draw some lines in the sand. Then we can see if we can help him tune those lines.

Quote from: David Berg on May 18, 2006, 03:08:51 PMAn identity crisis will probably work better if it relates to these rather than to some highly abstracted notion of sentience or "humanness".

I don't think it was getting anywhere near highly abstracted: quite the opposite. We went from "tech ain't human" to "these are some ideas for sliders of humanity--how can system hang on them?" to (my request) "let's try to include a slider or two for identity [as in who *I* am, where *I* am, not your use of "identify" as in relate] and mortality." Further, if catmorbid had anything at his core idea for this game, it was along the lines of "what is it to be human, and what will you give up to gain nonhuman advantages?" Recall this, from the designer:

Quote from: catmorbidThe main reason WHY I think cybernetics will ruin humanity is the feeling that the entity becomes closer to a god when achieving greater power. Simplicity and weakness is the purest form of humanity I believe. E.g. I believe great intelligence eventually surpasses empathy and sympathy and such. Raw logic tells you that emotions are futile. And feeling, IMO is what humanity is about.

So, in short, while it is interesting to continue this debate somewhere (new thread: "Can a game metric 'get at' being human; or can it only 'get at' relationships and efficacy?"), we are officially thread-jacking.

David

Catmorbid (we generally have a real name policy here 'cause it makes things easier, but if you aren't comfortable with it then that's cool too), I love the concept!

Now, I know you've specified that you want fantastic combat, and crazy stunts and technology and shit, but for me, what makes the game the most interesting are what I see as the two central issues: Faith and Humanity. Concepts like "what impact does science have on faith?", "If god did not exist, then man would have to invent him" and "how does expanding technology influence our humanity" are fantastic building blocks for stories. You should check out the Nikopol Trilogy (also called Immortal, I think). I don't remember the author, but a Google search should show up some results pretty quickly. Also, Blade Runner, Brave New World, all the classics.

So if you were, instead of focussing on how good your character is at combat, what crazy stunts they can do, make the game centered about those two issues: Faith, Humanity and how they interact with science and technology. Everything the players do should be oriented around those issues, 'cause that's what's interesting.

I'd highly reccomment that you check out a lot of the games around the Forge. We generally take a different view to design than most mainstream groups, so a lot of what we suggest might seem a bit odd at first if you aren't familiar with our methodology. Sorcerer and Sex & Sorcery are must reads for anybody designing RPGs. Seriously, I can't recommend them enough. Sorcerer also deals with Humanity, but from a different perspective, asking the question: how far will you go for power? If you want, you can also check out some of Ron's essays in the Articles section. If you have a bit of trouble with those, haul ass down to Anyway. (http://www.lumpley.com) and Vincent's essays and posts should make things a bit clearer. While you're at it, you may wanna check out some of his freebies like Otherkind, as well as Dogs in the Vinyard, which is one of the current favourites at the moment.

But anyways... We've got a decent handle on your themes and setting. What kind of system are you working with? Rules and stuff are really important, and we can only do so much without any information on yours.

Keep it up! I'm really intrigued by what you've said so far!

Luck,
- Kirk

Slight social moderator post.

"Nick" is not catmorbid's name. It was used to mean "nickname" and someone seemed to think it was the real name or something like it.

To the person posting as catmorbid - the Forge is an international community and everyone posting is accustomed to names from quite a few countries, Finland included. Speaking for myself and many others, we would greatly appreciate it if you would disclose your actual, human name. Why? Because this practice means people are more likely to interact as actual, human persons. This principle has been validated many, many times at this site.

If you really don't want to tell your name, you don't have to. But it would be appreciated.

Best, Ron