SMS Cellphone Roleplay

[KorbanDream]

(Sorry if I'm thread hogging)...

In which case it seems that I'm encouraging broader strokes - think fast and loose and swashbuckling instead of the minutiae of valves and stock prices.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'Broader strokes'...?

I assume you mean leave out some of the smaller, more intricate details of the game and concentrate more on the more instant elements...

If that's what you meant then my answer is; I have.

The game has been designed to be as intricate or as easy/broad as you like...
If you prefer to run games as an RTS you'd most likely end up in one of the militaries as a fleet commander ordering your fleet into the fray. At the same time, if you like quick, kill 'em all style games then you'd probably end up as an Messiah 415 Allegiance Sympath and be out in a craft kicking (military/Prozone) butt for the majority of your game...

The game is built upon a series of time based stages, (the transition between these stages wouldn't really be noticed by the player), from craft combat to walking around inside an Envocon, is played on a timeframe basis and the more intricate the game becomes, (by player action), the tighter the timeframe focuses around the game. For example; travelling from one sector to another would be a matter of one message (and XN weeks game time), by using the NAVCAL mod. Taking out an inventory item and using it on another item would take seconds both here and there thus also one message using the INV mod. Walking from say a trade counter to your craft still only takes a single message because of this. By using AWK to say you wanna go to your craft...

Hope this helps...?

[mindwanders]

Hi there,

I must say this actually sounds like an incredably cool idea, however I think there's two distinct threads that seem to be going on here so I'd propose spawning off one of them to here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=134975

This thread is about the actual technological implimentation of the game as opposed to what this thread is mainly about, which is explaining the concept of the game.

This new thread is kinda' of topic for here so if you you reckon it's something that should be discussed somewhere else Ron, just say. Odly it might be better in the Publishing forum.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi MW,

Nice split! Let's keep this thread focused on the "what is it" topic, folks.

Best,
Ron

[KorbanDream]

Hello All...

Let's keep this thread focused on the "what is it" topic, folks.

Sorry Ron but I'm not quite sure what you mean? - What is it?

Are you referring to my game as in it's design, or are you referring to the concept of sms roleplay in general...?

(Having a thick day...?)... #:-/

[erithromycin]

Rather than discussing the technological aspects of play, which is what mindwanders started that whole thread for, I think Ron is suggesting that we concentrate on the way in which the game is played -

The content of the communication, if you understand me, rather than the means of its conveyance and response. That is to say, to illustrate completely - what the players will do, and what will happen in response, rather than how the players will contact you the GM and how you will respond to them.

So, to that end, thank you for answering my question about 'broad strokes' - I think I wasn't clear enough on this one - what I meant was that in this kind of game where communication is limited, the results must either be _exact_ (Knight to Queen's Rook 3, for example), or not in too much detail - "you buy the cargo of refinable ore for c150" rather than "after three hours of tense negotiations you eventually persuade the mining cartel to allow you access to the unprocessed leavings from the asteroid wher there's been a recent strike" - you're limited by the 160 character thing.

Now, your talk of moving within timeframes - what? I'm somewhat surprised by that - if you're allowing people to change their timescales as much as they want (moving from dockside to starside to, I don't know, combat?) to focus on things, that's one goal, but how are you going to keep track of 100+ different sets of timescales? Isn't the point that there's going to be interaction between them?

Again, in the interests of clarity, this thread is predicated on the assumption (which I think is a reasonable one) that this game will work technologically and logistically - This means that we have a game which works, as far as I can tell, like this:

1. Players have a limited number (four) of 'actions' a day.

2. An 'action' is written within an SMS text message [160 characters]

3. Each 'action' generates a response, also an SMS, which provides a series of options for the player.

4. Players have the option for an Action 'other' which allows them to do things that are not listed in the response. The number of 'other' actions may be limited (and is, at the moment, it seems, to one per day?)

5. Players' characters are in a shared space - their actions can influence each other.

6. The scope and scale of actions can be changed - this is context sensitive - an action (or turn?) represents a set value of time in the real-world, but can represent different scales of times within the game.

7. The game world is detailed, with a variety of political factions, a complex trading system, the threat/presence of large organised military conflict, and is spread over a vast number of locations.

Now, with the assumption that the 7 components of the game are identified correctly, there seem to me to be a couple of issues -

To wit, that 5, 6, and 7 seem to be very much constrained by 1 and 2, that 6 and 5 seem to make it difficult to track interaction over larger events, and that 4 is necessarily limited by 2.

What we're dealing with here, I think, is gaming within constraints - I'm halfway certain that this has been discussed before: roleplaying games played by hikers using the secondhand of a watch as a randomiser; 10 minute games*; the archetypal convention demo; PBeM/play over chat/IRC gaming/messageboard gaming.

What I'm getting at is that  the medium in which you are conducting the game constrains it in a number of ways, and the game must be capable of functioning within those constraints. In the 'technological' thread they're talking about making the communication that imposes the constraints work. Here, we should be talking about making [edit] _A_ game work within those limits.

Finally, korban, is that your real name? We're quite big here on being on first name terms, despite the preponderance of nicks.

*and if there hasn't I may have to start one.
[edit] - no footnote, changed "the game work within those limits" to "a game work within those limits" - the former is firmly in the purview of Indie Game Design - this is theory, so the issues become wider ones of desire and focus rather than implementation and specific design.

[KorbanDream]

Rather than discussing the technological aspects of play, which is what mindwanders started that whole thread for, I think Ron is suggesting that we concentrate on the way in which the game is played -

The content of the communication, if you understand me, rather than the means of its conveyance and response. That is to say, to illustrate completely - what the players will do, and what will happen in response, rather than how the players will contact you the GM and how you will respond to them.

Ah!? - Light dawns over a crusty skull...?

May I first say that everybody's perception of 160 characters being small is a bit of a misconception, imo. I understand that a true rpg in it's conventional sense has no such boundaries on limitations of storyline/scenario, (etc, call it what you will), I belive that it's rather like the old saying of; "It's not a question of size, it's what you do with it that counts"... The content capacity maybe small but words often have a boundary out of the known physics of time and relative linea.

Now, your talk of moving within timeframes - what? I'm somewhat surprised by that - if you're allowing people to change their timescales as much as they want (moving from dockside to starside to, I don't know, combat?) to focus on things, that's one goal, but how are you going to keep track of 100+ different sets of timescales? Isn't the point that there's going to be interaction between them?

It's not so much that it's their choice as to what timeframe they choose as it's more like what they are doing that changes the timeframe around them... If two people were engaging in craft combat they'd BOTH be in the same timeframe. If two people were having a chat in the Katenya of an Envocon somewhere, they both still be in the same timeframe. Now; If two people wanted to attack each other, one was in a craft and the other player was in their Febs suit and the scene was in the harshness of space, (Rather stupid idea but ?), the ten second combat round timeframe still applies... So it no longer becomes timeframe management but more of proposal content... The Player in their craft would be running craft combat commands into his console and the poor fool in the febs suit would probably be placing his head between his legs and getting ready to pucker up...?!

To add to this; It also makes it twenty times easier for me as (if need be due to player capacity),  I could enable the real-time concept I've had on standby for ages.

This is where time is effectively shrunk into a period per hour, ie; 96 Hours (game time which is also one Delfinian Day), would be shrunk into say one working day, (0900 - 1800), for example, real-time. Not much help when fourty people dock at once but if twenty people all decide to use Conflux where a single journey could take months then that player get's effectively placed on hold or suspended animation for the player until they arrive at their destination. Breaking out of this suspended animae for random encounters which, incidently bring them into real-time...

To wit, that 5, 6, and 7 seem to be very much constrained by 1 and 2, that 6 and 5 seem to make it difficult to track interaction over larger events, and that 4 is necessarily limited by 2.

(That sound's altogether way too much like the instructions you get from Ikea...? :-D)...
Seriously though, by utilizing a series of mod languages the only real drawback is to the player having to learn them, (unless I draw up a guide booklet to EVERY mod?). Of course on the other hand by not providing a guide I get the added bonus of realism as most mods with one or two exceptions are ingame computers that do most of the work for you, ie; The Dock-Trader is the automatic cargo buyer that activates upon every dock. It doesn't work just because you paid for it and had it installed - You still need to program it and, like real life, you (unfortunately) aren't born with computer programming knowledge instilled into your brain...?

Finally, korban, is that your real name? We're quite big here on being on first name terms, despite the preponderance of nicks.

No. Korban Dream is my second character's name in the Universe, (first being Sean Williams). My real name is Dan. So, you may call me any of the above, (ps; my mother has called me worse...?).

Sorry about the delay in posting, I went to the park with the step-kids last night to play football and put my back out in the process...?!
The sign's of old age are starting to creep in...!

[erithromycin]

Hello Sean,

Firstly, trust me, 160 characters is short. Admittedly, I'm a fan of proper punctuation, but I use a ridiculous quantity of them to keep track of friends and colleagues and I know roughly how much information I can fit in one. Their primary utility is for, well, short messages - "I am going to be late" - "the project files are in your drop-box on the G5" - "while you're at the supermarket could you buy a new kitchen knife, some refuse sacks, and a spade?"

Secondly, can I just check that the 7 things I enumerated are true?

Thirdly, alright, action effects timeframe - this is a continuous universe though, no? Action in A's turn effects action in B's turn. What happens when they don't match? Remember, perception of this time is fixed, if there's a limited number of texts a day -

A, B, and C, are at the docks at the same time. A gets in his ship and goes to the Asteroid Belt with a package, entering 'ship' time - his next turn is 96 hours of game time long. B &C throwdown over a gambling debt, and get involved in a brawl at dockside. The fight lasts thirty seconds - three turns. A meanwhile, has dropped of his cargo, gotten back in his ship, and has arrived back at the station.

So, to recap - A,B,C are all on the same time - A goes away, B&C stay, and three full turns elapse. A returns to the station 186 hours after the fight started. Where are B&C?

Fourthly, how is communication between players going to work?

Fifth and finally, alright, programs for the various systems, I can handle - it's more instruction for the basepack, but OK - does that mean that when I submit my turn I'll preface it with instructions for my systems? Stuff like, ooh, I dunno, um:

1/CWCI/DFCL/PFJ NC-010 FC-BC4FE TC-SMP4OBAAL MC-SOO DS-MA(MSADDP) DVOA "study documents about AEGIS for clues on location, encrypt before arrival" DACWCI/LSTS

(select option 1*/comply with customs inspection/depart from current location/prepare for jump) (navigation computer - destination 010)(flight computer-best course for fuel efficiency)(trading computer-SELL Maximum Price for Ore BUY All Available Liquor)(maintenance computer-Safety Orders Only)(defensive systems - maximum alert, but make safe at destination defensive perimeter)(During Voyage Other Action something connected to one bit of plot or another)(Destination Arrival Comply With Customs Inspection/Link systems to station)

(*which might have been "take AEGIS documentation from resistance contact")

Block X's knife using my wrench 2-handed, step back out of range of X, smack X in the head with my wrench as hard as I can, run if miss, call police if I win

Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? I'm still trying to get a handle on the way this is meant to be working. Would each of those be legitimate turns, or things that would fit into the scope of a turn? The first is a 'ship time' one - 96 hours, no? The second is combat time - 10 seconds, which I took the liberty of scripting burning wheel style.

[M. J. Young]

Dan, to try to focus on what Drew is tackling, let me give an actual play account.

In one game the referee tended to play fast and loose with a lot of stuff. For him, the game was always active, and if you happened to be around him and started talking about the game, you were playing.

Now, my suspension of disbelief required me to see time as a constant. Thus I had no problem when the party ended a venture announcing that in four weeks I would be going on another venture and I would be contacting them with the details over the next few days. This mattered, because I needed time to train--I would be advancing to level three during that time. We got together a couple times during that period, and characters did quite a few different and interesting things. I kept track of the flow of time for each character, noting the date of each event.

One of the players was the stepson of the referee. They saw each other every day. To my complete shock, when we came back after the four weeks had elapsed for the rest of us, this character had been adventuring for five years and had advanced to level eight in the process, as well as amassing substantial equipment.

I was personally offended at the inequity of the situation. There was no fair solution at that point, except to say that the character had left and wasn't around for this adventure. Even that wasn't entirely fair, because it meant I'd lost a member of the team I'd expected to be part of things. Yet the referee had no qualms about the idea that this guy who had lived an extra five years should come back at the end of our four weeks, complete with all his experience, training, and equipment.

That's the problem that is looming in your game. If for one player, two days worth of turns advances him ninety seconds and for another it advances him nine centuries, how do you get them on the same clock?

It appears that (like him) you're using a sort of subjective time system. The amount of time a character spends doing something only really matters to his own growth and advancement. If Joe returns to the port ninety seconds later and Bill returns nine centuries later, they're now back in the same time frame if they got their on the same turn. The fact that one of them just stepped into the alley and got into a fight and the other traveled to the far end of the galaxy to pick up some rare commodity and returned affects them individually, but not corporately. It's not necessarily unfair, because Bill could now get involved in something measured in seconds and Joe in something that is measured in centuries, and it all comes out in the wash.

Except that there's still the problem that emerges if Bill and Joe are performing actions on different timescales in the same place So Bill gets in a fight, and is standing in the street involved in round-by-round combat with Someguy. Joe sees him there as he enters the theater. Bill's time scale is one of punches and parries; Joe is going to watch a play, probably in a single message. So Bill starts fighting as Joe steps into the theatre, and then as Bill delivers his second punch, Joe comes out of the theatre having watched the play and ready to turn in for the night. For Joe, a couple hours are gone and it's pretty late at night; for Bill, a couple seconds have past and it's early evening. So Bill calls out to Joe, and asks what time it is--and what the heck time is it?

Thus the potential time distortion creates discontinuity in the game world.

How do you resolve that?

--M. J. Young

[KorbanDream]

Morning all...

I think we're getting two arguments for the same side here and I think that is partly my fault...?
I have three available options for running the Universe when it comes to Timeframe Vs. Continuity;

01) - Keep a 'universal' universe (?) where if player A does something to alter the game before player B then Player A's actions become the new precident for player's B, C, D, etc...

02) - Have the game played as compressed real-time, ie; the 96 Hour period that is one Delfinian day is played out between the hours of 9 & 6 GMT, (Nine hour working day = Circa 10.5 Delfinian Hours to one hour GMT). That is, one hour passes here while ten and a half pass there, when one player sends at 9 in the morning and then another at 12, three hours have passed here but 31.5Hrs have passed there BETWEEN messages...

03) - Time Sync the player's who wish to meet up. I don't really like this as a general working theory though as it's a bit of a reality breaker... Example; If two players, A & B meet up and player A is six months behind player B, they both get a time sync. The time sync is a single message informing them of the date, similar to the calendar update message. The date is half-way of either direction, in this case, player A would be fast forwarded three months into the future and player B be would be sent three months into the past...
-- For the Duration of the Meet --

Once the meet was over they'd receive another time sync informing them of their original time slots... Like I said, kinda crushes reality with a large boot this one huh...?

(There is actually a fourth option I call "Filtered Reality" which is where each player has their own personal universe and only the larger aspects of gameplay continuity break into other player's games, ie; if player A destroys an Envocon, player's B-Z no longer have that envocon to visit. Communication between players would be the same as each player talking to an npc...).

That's the problem that is looming in your game. If for one player, two days worth of turns advances him ninety seconds and for another it advances him nine centuries, how do you get them on the same clock?

Well, originally I'd have run a timeloop scenario on either player to synchronise one or both of them. For example; If two players are a couple of weeks out of sync and decided to meet I'd have the player who is ahead in time arrive after a series of obstacles to slow them down temporally, (ie; work calls, "Can you deliver this consignment of x to location z), then have the other player (who is behind in time) arrive without hassle and as fast as his craft can allow, this way they should arrive around the same time, (ie; on the same day if planned carefully enough). One of the greatest elements to time is that it is just so damn flexible, even by being a constant.

Incidently, as the GM, I would have taken the 'even-keel' approach and told the player who'd advanced five years in your game that on the day of play; today's date is xx/xx/xx.x and that he/she may bring to the table any and all skills/items/cash he/she has learned BEFORE the date, including travel time to the game's starting location. Anything learned after that date hasn't been learned yet and to loose it from play...! - (If they hadn't written down the dates of learning, I'd have said loose 3/4 of your inventory/stats/cash as Five years is just a little longer than four weeks...?).

So Bill calls out to Joe, and asks what time it is--and what the heck time is it? ... Thus the potential time distortion creates discontinuity in the game world ... How do you resolve that?

--M. J. Young

It's a good question and one I certainly don't have the answer for without going into Einsteinian philosophy? - Basically, I have three theories on the subject,

01) - Become a GM similar in nature to that of say Cyberpunk and rule with your word as god?! - (ie; No you can't do that 'cos I said so!) - Not very accommodating but at least cut's down on the paperwork?

02) - Try to manipulate the storyline by squeezing in drawbacks, ie; Bill finally finishes fighting, calls out to Joe to ask the time... But before Joe can respond, two dudes from hell emerge claiming they're friend's of the guys Bill just got into a fight with and want revenge, seeing this joe legs it back to the safety of his craft and as it's now late goes to sleep...

03) - Use a system similar to that of the time-sync mentioned above...?

Alternatively; Keep the storyline as a guardian of time. By this I mean; if it's not in the player's immediate timeframe, it wouldn't be there, so don't show it on the storyline. If Bill know's time as 1800 and Joe knows time as 2200 then Joe would still be inside the theater watching his show while Bill is getting his butt kicked. Based on the outcome of Bill's fight, when Joe leaves the theater he either sees the crime scene because Bill's body is lying face down in a pool of blood or he sees a bloodstain on the floor outside and possibly a leg or two sticking out of the garbage can in the back alley. Joe's immediate timeframe would become the direct outcome of Bill's options... Thought's?

BTW: Most Envocons, especially planets, have their own internal clocks based on their locations, much the same as travelling through the time-zones here and as an argument pacifier the law of the Delfina on time is simple, wherever you are, the clock on the wall will tell you what time it is... Technically this incorporates a third date/time to bring a medium response to the game. Player A's craft clock might say it's three weeks ago and player B's Paldex might inform him that it's half past tuesday? the character's clock/s is/are irrelevent as the second they land the time and possibly even the date can/will change to match the location's...

Other than that, I haven't really ever had an in game continuity error that serious. Most people let themselves assume that "my date is their date" and a perception of "well I'm talking to them now so they must be in the same now as I am", quite literally as gospel truth and unless they have a fascination with time aren't really looking at it that hard...?
That's not to say I'm passing the buck, it's just easier to let them belive what they see as reality and built the physical elements around it...

[M. J. Young]

Keep the storyline as a guardian of time. By this I mean; if it's not in the player's immediate timeframe, it wouldn't be there, so don't show it on the storyline. If Bill know's time as 1800 and Joe knows time as 2200 then Joe would still be inside the theater watching his show while Bill is getting his butt kicked. Based on the outcome of Bill's fight, when Joe leaves the theater he either sees the crime scene because Bill's body is lying face down in a pool of blood or he sees a bloodstain on the floor outside and possibly a leg or two sticking out of the garbage can in the back alley. Joe's immediate timeframe would become the direct outcome of Bill's options... Thought's?

Yes.

Joe leaves the theatre at 2200 on turn two, but on turn two Bill is still fighting outside the theatre. By this reasoning, Joe does not see Bill fighting, because the fight presumably will be over by 2200, and Bill does not see Joe leave the theatre because it has not happened yet. On turn three, Bill is severely wounded but has dispatched his attacker. He knows that Joe went into the theatre a few minutes ago and has not yet come out. Thus on turn three, Bill enters the theatre, threatening anyone who attempts to stop him, and interrupts to play calling out for Joe. However, Joe has already left the theatre, has now gone to sleep, and knows nothing of the interruption during the play.

Presumably if player characters interact, this sort of discontinuity is going to throw them. In a live game, you would push through Bill's combat before letting Joe leave the theatre; but in this game you have to allow Bill to leave the theatre before Joe's fight is over.

Also, the more players you have in the game, the higher the probability of such discontinuities occurring.

Now, you can fudge it. You can say that Bill's injuries are so severe he blacks out on the street and awakens in the hospital; but what if Bill is not injured, but wants to alert his friend Joe to the fact that he's just killed someone sent by Jabba the Hut, and they'd better book now before the reinforcements arrive?

These all strike me as fairly standard multiple staging* problems. The medium complicates them.

It also occurs to me that we've got Bill and Joe in the same place at turn one, but they might not be aware of each other at that moment. We know that Bill gets into a fight and Joe walks into the theatre. We'll assume both of those messages were sent as turn one. Does Joe know that Bill has gotten into a fight? Let's say that at the end of yesterday's game, Bill and Joe were going to the theatre together, and they encountered an enforcer outside the theatre demanding the money they owe some crime lord. Joe decided to start the day by showing his disdain for the enforcer:

I sneer, turn my back on the enforcer, and walk into the theatre to watch the play; I'll come out when it's over.

Bill, though, sees the situation differently.

I attempt to surprise him by drawing my knife and lunging at him, all in one move.

Probably each player assumes the other will follow his lead, but neither knows what the other has done until they receive their response to turn one--and even then, do they necessarily know? Bill might now know that he's fighting but Joe isn't there; Joe might know that the seat beside him the the theatre is unoccupied.

Anyway, these are the sorts of play problems I foresee. How you handle them is going to require some thought on your part. In a PbP or PbEM game, I as referee would wait for clarification, letting the players come to agreement concerning what they're going to do, before I adjudicated an outcome; but in this format, because of the message limitations you're pretty much obliged to assume that each of them did what he said, even if knowledge the characters would immediately have of each other's actions would impact that.

I'm not saying these are insurmountable; I just think you should work out how you're going to deal with such situations before they arise.

--M. J. Young

*Multiple Staging is the term Multiverser uses for any game play in which player characters are acting in different places and possibly different time frames simultaneously in play. It offers solutions for these problems that are largely specific to its own modes of play.

[KorbanDream]

I've spent most of the morning reviewing the posts on this thread and I've noticed a pattern forming...

I think I've made a boo boo...

I think I shall have to rename the Universe RPG to;

Universe, Adventure RPG...

Any rpg will allow any movement, feat, task or whatever else that falls within the game's contraints.
Without spending yet another twenty years reconfiguring the mechanics to allow for some of the elements I've blindly (and in some cases, blatantly), overlooked I can see there being more than hassle after prestart.

My only real option is to bring some of the limitations down, make the game a standalone universe per player without player interaction and effectively destroy most of the work I've spent over three quarters of my life on...?

... If anyone's got any idea's...

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Korban,

I suggest starting a new thread and not posting to this one again.

This is consistent with our social rules here, which are different from most other websites. A thread which introduces a new idea (and boy is yours new) tends to create a dozen different mini-discussions, and eventually the original thread is left alone and the distinct new discussions are used to start new, much more specific threads.

Best,
Ron