[GroupDesign: Schrodinger's War] Doug Destroys the World

[Tobias]

Very interesting, Sydney, and it does make the term 'Archivist' make more sense.

There are 2 things I'd try to take into account, as I (and you) work on this:

1. Even if you wipe out the history of how the Big Brother society came to be, it, and its overlords, still exist. Even if you tell the people living under BB something completely bogus, they're still feeling the effects every day. So not everything can be erased (still plenty of room for horror and history-wiping, though).

2. This also opens up some other interesting avenues - what if the Archivists completely 'remove' a Pillar through ret-conning (known) history? Say they remove the pillar of Agression - wouldn't the world be a much better place? Sure, maybe, for a while, and then, all of a sudden, overpopulation, apathy (any hostile virus/threat is not met agressively enough to counter it), etc.

I've been banging my head trying to get parts 2 and 3 to come out, but they're stuck. (The gap between time-travel and pillar and personal possession spotlight is too hard to close elegantly). Maybe this'll jolt them loose. :)

[contracycle]

The dependance on HUMAN observation is still troublesome.  a) its not in the science, b) its more and more like mage ("kill everyone and let prime sort it out" is a potentially valid solution to the ascension war), and c) are there any aliens in space, shaking tentacles with the Tibetans 'round Algol, and if so, what does their observation effect?  What if we are being observed by an alien through a very (very) large telescope?

[Tobias]

I'm not sure I referred people to timestream before, but let me do so again.

(heck, I'm not sure if I haven't been influenced a lot by it already, if it's parallel development, or whatever. I did dl it today).

edit: oh, and contracycle, I'm having difficulty parsing your post. Could you elaborate a bit?

[contracycle]

ok.  There is nothing in the Heisenberg principle that relies on human or living observation.  Any electron is a valid observer.  But this model, by proposing that "observation" constitutes human knowledge of history, implies that observation is a special quality of humans, or at least, living beings.

Which is rather like Mage.  Under this model, if a bit of history is troubling you, a valid methodology would be to erase its memory or kill everyone who remembers it, thus rendering it indeterminant.  In a similar way in mage, because reality is enforced by the conceptions of humans, killing everyone is a valid solution if you think this will cause the re-assembly of Prime as all the shards are re-united (the shards being the mystic soul that gives humans the power to impose reality).

If its not specific to humans, or of the game is intended to pass into the future, then the question is raised as to if there are aliens, and if they also have the same powers of "observation" as humans.  If they do, then we must consider the prospect that someone far away might be observing what we do through a solar-system sized telescope.

[Tobias]

Ok.

This is just my take, but 'the model', as of now, is of course in flux. I am well aware that to the Heisenberg principle even one electron may be a valid observer.

I am not saying that the 'Schrodinger Points' are quantum-mechanical points that any electron will decide the state for; I am saying the SP's - that a Archivist may seek out and try to affect - share (disturbingly many?) characteristics with such 'Cat' situations.

As I see it, in the hypothetical grand field that unites things in the SW universe, there are space-time 'points' or 'moments' that for some reason are low-threshold to enter (from a perpendical vector) and little known, but once a little push has been exerted there (this may be as little as the Archivist observing) will 'collapse' to favor one side of the possible conflict at that point. Basically, the Schrodinger Point is a metaphor. Archivists may very well call them 'teetering boulder' points. After the boulder crashes down, the whole timestream wobbles with its impact, both past and future.

I just noticed this also elegantly solves the ret-conning problems of another (Dark) Archivist going back and undoing your work - the point has already collapsed once, and had it's effect - undoing it won't work since the delicate balance is gone.

Anyone outside the timestream with the power to influence could potentially collapse these points - people (and aliens) within the time-stream (which is 'over and done with' and 'complete' from the point of view of the archivists, or in the process of the last dying seconds due to Nemesis) however, have already had their say/impact effect. In other words, it can't be 'observed' by an alien within the normal timestream because it already hasn't been 'observed'.

(side note: I'm currently thinking on the possibilities of Passions also being somewhat perpendicular to the timestream.).

[Andrew Morris]

(side note: I'm currently thinking on the possibilities of Passions also being somewhat perpendicular to the timestream.).

Interesting. I was seeing Pillars as perpendicular to the long axis of the timestream. (Yes, I know, extending the metaphor is wildly inaccurate and all. Eh, what can you do?) So, the idea is that Pillars provide structural stability to human spacetime. Damage, destroy, or alter Pillars and you fundamentally restructure the spacetime. Kind of like taking out a tent pole deforms the shape of the tent. Uhm, except cooler and more precise.

Also, we could allow the creation of new Pillars as another way to alter human spacetime.

Still digesting all this new stuff, but I'll post more later.

[Doug Ruff]

Wheew, back from my business trip, and we're still discussing this, which is great.

I'm also going to sit back and digest this thread for a bit, but I'd like to comment now on somethng contracycle said, as it's both a good point and a significant potential stumbling block for this thread:

ok.  There is nothing in the Heisenberg principle that relies on human or living observation.  Any electron is a valid observer.  But this model, by proposing that "observation" constitutes human knowledge of history, implies that observation is a special quality of humans, or at least, living beings.

This is absolutely correct (or at least I don't know any better) - in the real world. However, in the game world, is there anything stopping us from giving primacy to human observation?

[pseudoscience] although quantum physics has a mathematical basis, no complete mathematical explanation of the universe is inherently provable, or unique (I believe that this is one of the consequences of Godel's Incompleteness Thoerem.) This means that there could be an entirely different set of rules for the universe, which would be equally valid as long as it was equally supported by experimental results. But all our experimental results are based on human observation... [/pseudoscience]

This is why Mage is a viable game concept, and I think that we can come up with a similar precedent for allowing the "observer effect" to be human-only.

[Andrew Morris]

I agree so completely with Doug I don't have the words to properly express it. I strongly suggest that we not allow any real science to interfere with the coolness of the game we are creating.

This game should be whatever we want it to be, not something we have to shoehorn into the scientific understanding of the day. Throw some pseudoscientific jargon in there for color? Sure. Try to justify it that way? Heck no.

[Doug Ruff]

Thanks Andrew, much appreciated!

To avoid turning this into a purely mutual back-slapping exercise, there's something I'd like to develop out of this.

As designers of this game, we don't have to justify any decisons that we make about the setting, period. However, I think we should acknowledge that the intensive discussions we have had about the "true" nature of HTT, possession etc. means that this is turning into a game with a significant Simulationist element - in terms of wanting a game universe with consistent rules, which can be explored. The emphasis on causality and modularity are also, IMHO, strong Sim themes.

The other driving force behind this game has been very Narrativist - in the sense of setting up play to addressing Premises and making difficult (moral?) choices, and wanting this to be explicit within the mechanics.

I don't want to derail the existing thread with this (but I think that making our design goals explicit in this way may be a useful mini-thread of it's own... that's a broad hint to Sydney, by the way.) However, if we accept the Sim element of this game as being a desirable or necessary feature: we do not need to justify, but we do need to be able to explain why things work as they do. Hence the "pseudoscience".

[Tobias]

Actually, like Ralph (in one post, at least, I won't say that's Ralph's whole opinion), I arrive at rather gamist elements myself. But there's no need for a pseudoscience setting to automatically be Sim.

The thread might be useful, though.

[contracycle]

This is why Mage is a viable game concept, and I think that we can come up with a similar precedent for allowing the "observer effect" to be human-only.

Right - I didn;t say it was invalid, I only point out that this has crept in as a tacit assumption without any explanation yet.  This will need to be explained along with all the rest of the mechanics of the notional system, thats all.

[Doug Ruff]

OK, it's been a week since the last post, but I'd like to make a statement of intent re:setting.

Assuming that we are still working (or thinking about, at least) "contender" mechanics for the game, here is what I would like to take from this thread for future use.

(1) My own "reverse causality" suggestion, which leads into the assumption that (at the beginning of the game) there has been a catastrophe.

(2) Archivists can only travel within Host time which is occupied by humans. I'd go so far as to say that they can only experience the Host Time Tunnel when they are in a Host.

(Note: Hosts with sufficient technology may be able to time travel physically as an Option. This would be extremely dangerous to the continuity of the HTT.)

(3) (From Tobias) - group competition very much encouraged. The Archivists are deciding how to shape the whole of human history, I cannot imagine them agreeing. I think this is facilitated by taking less interest in individual moments in history, and more interest over how the whole thing pans out.

(4) Also from Tobias - how old an event is, is not the only thing that makes it difficult to change. It's also how long the impact lasts, and (ultimately) how many people it effects. But I don't need to know (for example) who learnt how to domesticate animals, in order for this event to affect me. It's enough that it happened.

(5) (From Sydney) - if the Archivists (or Nemesis) change events so that Humanity flourishes amongst the stars, this effectively "locks down" a large element the game, as the Archivists have much less power to change things.

This makes a permanent "big brother" society a potential outcome. This should be considered to be a major danger when trying to save humanity.

Although this isn't yet a set of mechanics, I want to ensure that there are no "dealbreakers" within this set of assumptions. One of the reasons for this, is that I would like to draw a line under this thread, and start posting an outline for possession mechanics.

So, please speak, and speak loud.

(Sydney: let me know when you want to see the first possession mechanics, and whether or not I should start the thread, or PM you first.)

[Andrew Morris]

(1) My own "reverse causality" suggestion, which leads into the assumption that (at the beginning of the game) there has been a catastrophe.

I like this idea. Don't know if I mentioned that or not.

2) Archivists can only travel within Host time which is occupied by humans. I'd go so far as to say that they can only experience the Host Time Tunnel when they are in a Host.

I thought that was a given at this point. If not, I'm stating that I'm totally in favor of it.

(Note: Hosts with sufficient technology may be able to time travel physically as an Option. This would be extremely dangerous to the continuity of the HTT.)

I hate this, even as an option. Sorry Doug. My problem is twofold. The first issue is that this complicates things even more. My greater concern is that hosts being able to time travel has nothing to do with (at least in my opinion) what the core of this game is -- hard moral choices. Maybe I'm just being cranky and judgemental, but I think this would only serve to dilute the impact of the Archivists' own time-travel abilities.

(5) (From Sydney) - if the Archivists (or Nemesis) change events so that Humanity flourishes amongst the stars, this effectively "locks down" a large element the game, as the Archivists have much less power to change things.

I just had a random thought on this. What if:

1. Humanity expands into the stars, becomes super-evolved, and becomes Archivists.
2. The Nemesis sees this as a bad thing. Maybe they just don't like being Archivists. Maybe they're another disembodied group of beings who don't like the competition. For whatever reason, they somehow have a one-shot chance to change the far past, and create the apocalypse that destroys humanity before they can spread to other planets.
3. What happens to the evolved humanity (i.e. Archivists)? They vanish, because they never were. Except for a few who were conducting research outside of space and time, and are thus unaffected by the pre-emptive ending of their human lives. They are now, essentially, beings who came from nowhere, and they can travel into the area(s) of time which the Nemesis has altered in order to undo those changes, bringing back their friends and loved ones.

The good thing about this setup is that it makes it possible to futz around in history without worring about the immediate effects. What matters is the long-term effect it will have on (say) the 23rd century. And we can easily do this in the context of Passions.

[Doug Ruff]

(Note: Hosts with sufficient technology may be able to time travel physically as an Option. This would be extremely dangerous to the continuity of the HTT.)

I hate this, even as an option. Sorry Doug. My problem is twofold. The first issue is that this complicates things even more. My greater concern is that hosts being able to time travel has nothing to do with (at least in my opinion) what the core of this game is -- hard moral choices. Maybe I'm just being cranky and judgemental, but I think this would only serve to dilute the impact of the Archivists' own time-travel abilities.

Fair enough, and I'm happy to drop this part.

I also like the "random thought" as a story option, with one caveat:

3. What happens to the evolved humanity (i.e. Archivists)? They vanish, because they never were.

This is currently an accepted part of the mechanics, but I'm having problems with it. Ironically, one of my biggest problems with it is that it also undermines the "hard moral choices" aspect of the game.

To explain: if it's possible to "kill" an archivist by changing the event that caused them to become an Archivist, then it's too easy for the Archivists to be wiped out by something that isn't a direct consequence of a moral choice. I would prefer other means of bringing about character death:

- The death of Transcendence. An Archivist can succumb to the lure of Host existence, losing the ability to Transcend. This is a consequence of choosing to possess hosts.

- the death of Power. By saving humanity, an Archivist loses the power to steer History, there's now too much History, and events are overdetermined. Archivists are reduced to passive watchers, and are de-protagonised.

- the death of Humanity. Archivists become alien and unable to relate to Hosts. They have great power, but no motivation to use it.

I think that these are more appropriate types of "death" for this game, and the risk that Archivists will be wiped out as an unforseen consequence of some changes they (or someone else) made to History, detracts from this IMHO.

So I'm going to suggest another thing to take away from this thread:

(6) Archivists cannot cease to be, as a result of changes to their former Host existence. They have severed their ties to any specific earthly incarnation.

This is likely to be more contentious than the other suggestions, and I think it's a U-turn from some of my posts on other threads, so I'd appreciate feedback.

As an aside, what do you think would happen if an Archivist attempted to possess their own former Host? Perhaps this would cause them to lose their Archivist status, as they have renewed their bonds. This would be OK if it was a conscious choice on the Archivist's part (a sort of suicide, maybe.)

[Tobias]

Just a little note - I'm following this (and the new thread) with interest, and did a brain-dump to Sydney last Friday to get myself unstuck. Still plugging at it, but I'm at that phase of creativity where everything I've done looks like garbage, there's too much unsorted unassociated stuff, etc.

Sydney, feel free to post my brain-dump somewhere, if you think it might help.

Tx.