Time Paradoxes, just a paradigm?

[MachMoth]

Well, I decided to go ahead and start work on my Generations Project.  I figure my idea is different enough from Pendragon to make it worth my effort.  The working title is Saeculum Adstructum, which roughly means (if my latin isn't total crap) "buiding onto an age."

Basically, I'm looking at probably narrative (and a touch of sim), with either actors stance, or director's stance.  Yeah, both ends of the spectrum.  I'll pick once I get a good idea where my thoughts are taking me.  The gameplay focuses on a "timeline," or the story of a specific time period and place.  There won't be a specific setting, as making it up is a major part of play (though if I get far enough, I'll make a sample or two).  The play sessions each focus on a single, significant event along the timeline.  So, each session relates to the others, even though the characters may not.  In a complex campaign, they can even have several mini-storylines going.  Character designs will be simple, as the players will often be making new ones fairly often.

My first stumper in the design process came with the issue of time.  While the game follows a timeline, I want to be able to have an event take place anywhere on it, regardless of whether other events have taken place in the future.  Just how did the miners come to revolt?  Why did Sir Cyprus's father join the Knights of Gronen?  What is the history of the magical sword that was used to assasinate the king?  Are Mongols really evil, or just misunderstood?  Its about exploring both the future, and the roots.  

But, sometimes, something has to happen (or not happen) to lead up to the future.  The future assassin can't die, or he won't be there to assassinate.  Characters fall into this trap too.  I haven't quite worked out character design yet, but there has to be a way to "unadvance" a character in an earlier age.  Perhaps this will lead to more organic character design.  I can only hope.

I have one fix in mind, but I'm going to hold onto it until after I here some feedback.

[jdagna]

Since I don't know a lot of specifics about how you want to deal with events in different timelines, I can't be too specific in responding...

However, most paradoxes can be explained away in typical soap opera or comic book style.  The players only thought the assassin died, but he really fell off the cliff into the water, where he was captured by evil mermaids until he could escape later.  They only thought so-and-so was their real father, but he really kidnapped them as infants and, failing to get a ransom, raised them for farm labor.  And so on.

Of course, you run the risk of making it look like the timeline is inflexible if you have the GM pull too many of those out of his hat.

It sounds to me like a significant part of your game mechanic is going to have to deal with which events (in both future and past) are either inflexible (not going to change, regardless of player actions) or flexible (meaning they're only likely outcomes, but may change depending on what happens).  Perhaps flexible events get turned into inflexible ones during play, and a campaign ends when everything in the timeline becomes inflexible?

[MachMoth]

Well, I thought I might give the players the responsibility of avoiding paradoxes.  If character X should die, the player has to narrate how he isn't really dead, or how someone disquised himself as his fallen comrade in order to make the assassination, etc.  I'm thinking some kind of reward mechanic might be in order for cleaning up your own temporal mess.  If its partly the players responsibility to make things fit, then they won't complain if things don't match up.

[M. J. Young]

I think that what you're saying demands director stance for the players; if they don't have control over a lot of the significant details, they can't avoid the paradoxes.

What I'm gathering from this thread and one I read earlier where you broached the idea, what you're saying might be something like this.

[*]It's 2004, and John has just been elected President of the United States. Now he has to pay off a few favors, to the people who helped him get here. Someone asks how this came about.[*]Suddenly, it's 1980, and John is a local politician in Philadelphia, on the city council and running for the state legislature. He meets with (longshoremen or bankers or whatever nefarious group is right for the character), who are going to support him, but expect to be repaid in kind when the time comes.

It's absolutely vital that whatever happens in this, because we've already played the events of 2004, John must survive and advance his political career without disruption, he must wind up owing these people a favor, and if anyone else is involved in both timelines, they also must survive. You have to make a decision when you jump to 1980 whether the man who is calling in his markers in 2004 is the same man who earned them in 1980, or his predecessor in office, or his father, or connected some other way.[*]You might next jump to 1990, when John tried to pay off the debt or get it resolved, only to find out that the screws were being tightened; you might jump ahead to 2006 when there's an assassination attempt on John. If you do 2006, you might next do 2005 where we find out what John did that leads to 2006.[/list:u]
If I've got it right, I think that the answer is heavy director stance and a form of plot immunity.

A lot of games use plot immunity: the player character cannot die unless the player chooses to allow it to be so. It seems a small extension of this to say that any fact established as having been done in the future cannot be undermined by any events played in the past.

This is, of course, limiting to the players; however, isn't all previous play always limiting to the players? I'm sorry, you used that spell/ammo/gadget already, and don't have a replacement. You lost that arm, and now have to make due with your prosthesis. This is not more limiting, it's just different limiting. In this case, you're saying that you've established certain facts as real in the future, and you cannot undermine them here in the past. It's plot immunity.

Let's suppose that in 2004 John owes Bruno for help rendered in his state legislature campaign in 1980, and Bruno wants to collect by getting John to quash some anti-union bill. In 1990 he tries to get rid of Bruno, by exposing him as involved with organized crime. Now, we have already played 2004, when Bruno has made his claim against John; we've also already played 1980, when John comes to Bruno for help. What happens now?

What happens is that John is not so successful as he'd hoped. Maybe he gets Bruno put away for a few years; maybe he smears the man; maybe he only embarrasses himself when Bruno comes up smelling like roses. However, now when we go back to 2004 and continue the story there and then, Bruno is also going to bring up how that nonsense in 1990 only made the debt worse.

I do think you need to do a lot of record keeping--books of chronicles (best in word processing, with hard page breaks at the chapters, and each chapter paginated as an independent section with chapter title and year rather than chapter number, so that you can add sections without having to reprint the entire text); annual character sheet updates; spreadsheet of specific changes, particularly those with uncertain dates (such as John is single in 1980 and married in 1990, but when did he get married?--not decided yet, but sometime between those two dates). But I think it's very interesting, with a lot of potential for creating narratives. Of course, even the "present" will feel like flashbacks to some degree, as you piece together the events out of temporal sequence but in the order in which the audience cares.

Any help?

--M. J. Young

[MachMoth]

Much!  You pegged exactly what was going through my head.  I was hoping for director's stance, but sometimes games seem to ask things of you, that you don't expect ("But a game can't ask, it doesn't exist."  "Shut up, wrong thread.").  

Basically, yes, the players have a narrative goal.  They have a set of facts, and they fill in the details as they go.  In your example, I would even suggest the players take the part of Bruno's gang in 1980.  Nothing says they have to be the good guy.  Just that they have to be characters during the event.  In fact, Bruno's gang is more appropriate for the players, because it gives them more active control in reaching the goal set forth by the future.

I was hoping I can get away with a little less record keeping, but now that I think about it, the finished product would be quite interesting to keep around.  An entire story, written by the players.  New player comes in, they look over the book and are instantly caught up on everything important.  

Also, I'm thinking the character sheet will probably be description based, similar to (I believe) The Pool.  I'd rather not use a word processor, but it would make the character description a lot prettier, chronologically.

Hm, plot immunity, I was thinking Chonology Immunity, hehe.  And the events are now officially called Epochs (defined as: A particular period of history, especially one considered remarkable or noteworthy).  I love where this is going!  I might even be able to move to the Indie Game Design forum soon.

Oh, and thanks for helping me put my thoughts in order, guys