[Cybergod] ...Of Cybernetic "Theotechnological" Evolution

[dylank777]

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.

[David Berg]

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...

[David Berg]

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...

[contracycle]

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.

[Oscar Evans]

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.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

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.

...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.

I 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."

Again, 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.

We 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!"

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?

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

[Oscar Evans]

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.

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?

[Mikael]

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.

[David Berg]

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...

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.

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...

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...

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...

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:

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.

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".

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

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.

An 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:

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. 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

[Kirk Mitchell]

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. 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

[Ron Edwards]

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