Incarnate Update - Revised Incomplete Version (long)

[deadpanbob]

One question to resolve, then, if how you deal with other (non-Incarnate) humans.  Do they have free will?  Are they simply creations/pawns of the Collective Hallucination?  Are they faceless zombi masses?  Can they even be said to exist in any real way?

Well, in my vision, they aren't exactly faceless zombis.  More like the weight of the Consensual Hallucination tends to force them into highly predictible patterns of behavior.  Today is going to be a lot like yesterday and a lot like the day before that...

As to whether or not the exist in any meaningful way, or whether or not they actually have free will - that will probably be left to individual GMs and players to decide, or fight over.

Everything you've ever experienced is a lie (think "Dark City"), but you still probably retain emotional attachments to non-existing things, which helps fuel your rage against the entire system and your egotistical desire to remake the world in your own image.

This is another good idea - and something I think the game should strive for.  I'll need to give this some thought.

Still, is massive hubris the only option in the game?  Because that's not going to appeal to every type of player.  It's okay if you want to say from the beginning: "Incarnate is a egocentric, adversarial game where players vie for control of reality.  Don't be nice.  Crack enough skulls and you might become God."  I just don't know if that's what you're actively trying for.  Again, all this could be me and Eddy imposing our perceptions of the game on what you're doing...

Well, hubris is one of the main options.  A lot of people who go into politics probably truly (at least at first) want to make the world a better place.  Still and all, it takes a lot of hubris to think "I'm the one who can make a difference".

I can see individual characters, once having had that Transcendent experience, think "Yeah, I could take over and make the world a lot better"

Later, then, comes the moral quandries "Well, it seems that in order to eventually rule all of this and thus make the world a better place, I have to make these poeple over here suffer - greatly.  Hmmm, should I do that?"

The only question is, should I systematize these moral delimas, or let them naturally arise as a part of the play experience?

I'm definitely not aiming for a wide audience.  So the fact that the competition, paranoia and hurbris are so highly played up is not a problem from my perspective.

Cheers,

Jason

[Eddy Fate]

The only question is, should I systematize these moral delimas, or let them naturally arise as a part of the play experience?

I would say no.  I haven't seen a system that really brings that across well, outside of player and GM interaction.

[Jonathan Walton]

As to whether or not the exist in any meaningful way, or whether or not they actually have free will - that will probably be left to individual GMs and players to decide, or fight over.

Good choice.  That's probably smarter than codifying it, now that I consider it more.  I guess I was mostly just wondering how much the Incarnate could mess with normal humans and get away with it.  Do some normally wade through a sea of humans, destroying things as they go (since, from their perspective, the others aren't really there)?  Do others truly try to create a uptopia, a place where every person's life is quantitatively better?

I could see some huge divisions developing over the treatment of other living things.  Not "let's make splatbooks!" kinds of divisions, but more ideological divisions like those in Nobilis.  You would still associate with those who caused a great deal of destruction (how can you prove that other beings exist, after all?) even though you wouldn't necessarily believe as they do.  This would make everything "feel dirty."  Because among your allies would be those you despise and among your enemies would be those you respect.

Then again, I just love shades of grey... :)  Obviously, individual GMs could choose to raise and lower the contrast to suit their style of game.

Well, hubris is one of the main options.  A lot of people who go into politics probably truly (at least at first) want to make the world a better place.  Still and all, it takes a lot of hubris to think "I'm the one who can make a difference".

Definitely.  The problem might be in combining these two concepts into the fabric of the game.  If you think about most things that deal with the "I was only trying to help" theme (like "Fight Club" for example), there's some point where the protagonist realizes that his power has gotten out of hand.  I think White Wolf's "Abarrent" tries for some of this, but I haven't actually read it.  To use the old Spider-Man cliche, these kind of stories are about power and responsibility.

The question is how to balance these in the texts.  You want to encourage players to be irresponsible (at least at first), because that causes conflict and creates good story.  However, you want them to eventually come to realize the price of their power.  If the players know their lives will eventually get destroyed by their own egos, I don't know how easy it'll be to get them to act recklessly in the beginning.  Like "Unknown Armies," it sounds like Incarnate could deal a lot with power and consequences (which is really just a variation on "power and responsibility").

Making that shine through is going to be challanging, but hopefully rewarding.

The only question is, should I systematize these moral delimas, or let them naturally arise as a part of the play experience?

I'm pretty divided on this issue.  In many ways, I hate how White Wolf tends to give stats for "Virtues" like Courage and Belief and Roads and Philosophies those kinds of things, since I'd rather see them played out in a more abstract manner.

However, NOT codifying stuff tends to mean that it gets overlooked sometimes.  As long as you could codify it in a way that was general and abstract enough, and a way that tied directly into the rules system you already have, I think it would be a good idea to have SOMETHING connected to the core mechanics, if you really want to emphasize the moral questions of the game.

It's quite possible that you could work up a system that focused on all the dialectics you're setting up in the game: paradigm vs. hallucination, self vs. society, power vs. responsibility, freedom vs. entrapment, chaos vs. order, red vs. black (in the cards), and player vs. GM.  Note that all the things I've listed first seem to go together (paradigm, self, power, freedom, chaos, red, and player) and they're all not necessarily positive.  Finding some mechanic to connect them would be damn cool.

Just a thought.

Later.
Jonathan

[deadpanbob]

I guess I was mostly just wondering how much the Incarnate could mess with normal humans and get away with it.  Do some normally wade through a sea of humans, destroying things as they go (since, from their perspective, the others aren't really there)?  Do others truly try to create a uptopia, a place where every person's life is quantitatively better?

Again, I think that these should be issues raised in the "Running Incarnate" chapter - options for areas that could be explored in play.  In terms of game enforced consequences (i.e. mechanical consequences), cutting a swath through the normal human population and leaving a bloody trail of corpses and madness behind you is certainly one option of how to play that isn't going to be punished...except in so far as the GM chooses to enforce the normal types of social/in-game constraints from the other Incarnate.  There are no Paradox spirits.  CH is not agressively manevolent - more passive agressively so.

I could see some huge divisions developing over the treatment of other living things.  Not "let's make splatbooks!" kinds of divisions, but more ideological divisions like those in Nobilis.  You would still associate with those who caused a great deal of destruction (how can you prove that other beings exist, after all?) even though you wouldn't necessarily believe as they do.  This would make everything "feel dirty."  Because among your allies would be those you despise and among your enemies would be those you respect.

All good ideas to be explored in play IMO.

Then again, I just love shades of grey... :)  Obviously, individual GMs could choose to raise and lower the contrast to suit their style of game.

Me too.  In fact grey is my favorite color.

The problem might be in combining these two concepts into the fabric of the game.  If you think about most things that deal with the "I was only trying to help" theme (like "Fight Club" for example), there's some point where the protagonist realizes that his power has gotten out of hand.  I think White Wolf's "Abarrent" tries for some of this, but I haven't actually read it.  To use the old Spider-Man cliche, these kind of stories are about power and responsibility.

That power/responsibility or road to hell is paved with good intentions theme is definitely something that I hoped to be able to explore with this.  The question remains, how to or if to systematize it.  Aberrent does this through a mechanic called Taint - which is a madness inducing physical reaction to the Quantum powers that the Aberrents weild i.e. the more powerful the Aberrent, the higher the Taint (likley - that's a generalization about the rules)

If the players know their lives will eventually get destroyed by their own egos, I don't know how easy it'll be to get them to act recklessly in the beginning.  Like "Unknown Armies," it sounds like Incarnate could deal a lot with power and consequences (which is really just a variation on "power and responsibility").

You are the second person to mention UA to me in regards to this game.  I should probably check that out - once I get the $$ to make some additional game purchases.

I think, based on my experience as a GM, the way to get the players to act recklessly is to challenge them - but I'm going for something here with fewer rails the GM can ride the players down, so I'll have to give this some thought as well.

My knee-jerk reaction is to in some way systematize the Hooks - in a way that requires them to be challenging to overcome - but makes the rewards (at least at first) seem too good to pass up.

It's quite possible that you could work up a system that focused on all the dialectics you're setting up in the game: paradigm vs. hallucination, self vs. society, power vs. responsibility, freedom vs. entrapment, chaos vs. order, red vs. black (in the cards), and player vs. GM.  Note that all the things I've listed first seem to go together (paradigm, self, power, freedom, chaos, red, and player) and they're all not necessarily positive.  Finding some mechanic to connect them would be damn cool.

Damn cool indeed.  I didn't even think about those dialectics until you pointed them out...this bears some serious thinking.  Yet another good idea for Mr. Walton.  Thanks agrin :-)


Cheers,

Jason

[Jonathan Walton]

In terms of game enforced consequences (i.e. mechanical consequences), cutting a swath through the normal human population and leaving a bloody trail of corpses and madness behind you is certainly one option of how to play that isn't going to be punished...except in so far as the GM chooses to enforce the normal types of social/in-game constraints from the other Incarnate.

Well, part of what would limit players is not just mechanical reactions or the reactions of other Incarnate, but the reactions of individuals within the CH.  If leaving a trail of corpses in their wake is going to make other humans flee in terror and never want to get near them, that's one thing.  If it's going to cause the government to call out the army and nuke the hell out of the character, that's another thing.

How does the mortal landscape react to the Incarnate?  I guess I feel like the Incarnate should somehow be above the world.  To them, reality is mostly a medium for their artwork.  They only really have to participate in it when they want to.

OH, EUREKA!  The opposite of EGO should be PARTICIPATION!  After all, if the Incarnate swing too far down into normalcy, their actions DO start to have consequences, since they're bound up by the restraints of the CH.  It wouldn't really measure how much they were brainwashed by the CH (since their realization freed their minds permanently), but it could determine how much reality responded to the things they did.

For instance, if an Incarnate with a high EGO slaughters an entire city's polulation, the rest of the world isn't likely to notice.  But, if an Incarnate with a high PARTICIPATION accidentally killed someone in a traffic accident, he'd have to go through everything that normal mortals have to go through (trial, possible imprisonment, media coverage, etc.).

Still, this may change what you've already imagined, so if this isn't the direction you want to head, just say so and I'll try to switch tracks again.

In fact grey is my favorite color.

Mine too, coincidentally.  Though only if it's spelled with an "e."  "Gray" just seems to be an entirely different color than "grey."

My knee-jerk reaction is to in some way systematize the Hooks - in a way that requires them to be challenging to overcome - but makes the rewards (at least at first) seem too good to pass up.

That's what I was hoping you'd say.  Of course, wanting to do something and coming up with a system for it are two different things.  Good luck.

Later.
Jonathan

[Mike Holmes]

Indeed, you can't answer questions like whether or not the people are real or not. I believe that would be one of the points of play. To adress just that issue. An Incarnate has to decide if he's doing something morally wrong by eliminating people. The decision is based on whether or not he feels they are real. Which is an intersting choice to get to make in an RPG.

In point of fact, they are not real. They are characters in a RPG. I have no doubt that such a game will become self-referential. For example, The Grat Paradox (what I called it in the other thread) where a character loses Paradigm trying to force it on the CH, might lead the character to speculate that he was just playing some grand game with arbitrary rules. And futher that he may have an author and referree driving his reality...

Don't think about it too hard, just read OTE.

Mike

[Jonathan Walton]

I agree with Mike.  In fact, I'd like to retract my suggestion about flipping over cards at the same time.  That was based on the idea of "fairness" and "balance" before I really got a handle on the setting.

Now that I think about it.  I think the GM should have a definite advantage over the players.  The player bids a card, and then the GM decides whether to smack him down or not.  That just seems more fitting in the GM = CH concept you have going.

Later.
Jonathan

[Eddy Fate]

I agree with Mike.  In fact, I'd like to retract my suggestion about flipping over cards at the same time.  That was based on the idea of "fairness" and "balance" before I really got a handle on the setting.

Eh, I say keep it.  The GM/Universal Consciousness decides whether to smack or be nice, and picks a card.  The Player/Incarnate decides how badly they want to impact reality, and picks a card.

The neutral 'flipping' shows the showdown and suspense of whose reality is stronger.

[deadpanbob]

Mike, Johnathan and Eddy:

Lots and lots of good ideas to think about - from both threads.  I need time to internalize all of this good input.  I'm really psyched right now!

I'm going to try and produce an updated outline of the game by Monday or so.

Dissonance = Ego - I think I'm going to go with this.

Resonance = either Participation or Sublimation

The Great Paradox - wonderful setting piece, and I think I'll use it.

The dual fudge scale - I've actually thought a lot about this.  Originally, when I decided to switch form dice to cards, I was considering a centrality method of action resoultion.  I thought about doing something like this, using say red cards to support the CH and black cards to support the Incarnate or vice versa.  The problem is that, from a statistical point of view, I think this introduces too much of a wiff factor.

I'll have to think about the idea of protagonizing the CH too.  I wouldn't think that the GM needs a character that would actually ever show up - but having the GM create a character that acts 'behind the scenes' might open up some interesting possibilities - particularly with issues like "Maybe the CH is merely the paradigm of the Incarnate who is currently on top of the Pyramid"

I still like the idea of the bilnd card flip - put the cards face down to commit and then flip them over.  Thinking about it, the CH is represented by billions of people with a Sublimation/Participation metric - whereas each individual Incarnate has to fight this one on one with their lone Ego method.  I think that stacking the deck, so to speak, this much in favor of the GM by allowing him/her the opportunity to always paly last would just make the game too depressing.

One last thing I actually thought up on my own: Flair.  This would be the idea that a character could, at the beginning of an Exchange, discard between one and three cards and re-draw from their deck by describing their aciton in a cool way.  Sort of like Exalted stunt dice.  This is still a nascent idea, but I think something like this should make it into the final mechanical make-up of the game.

Issues that I still really need help with:

What are the uses for Ego and Sublimation/Participation, and what other ways can characters gain/lose them.

Thanks again for all your input.  If I get to the point of e-publishing this thing, all three of you will get a least an honorable mention in the credits.

Really, this has bolstered my confidence and given me more new ideas then I've had about the game in several weeks.

Cheers,

Jason

[deadpanbob]

Just as long as you guys return the favor when I get around to (some year) putting up my own project.  :-)

Eddy,

Just realized that you list yourself as a game designer for SGS in your sig.  Did you work on Cartoon Action Hour?

The game sounds really neat - it's on my list of games to buy when the disposable $$$ goes up.

Any advanced hints on what you might be working on?

Cheers,

Jason

[Jonathan Walton]

Issues that I still really need help with:

What are the uses for Ego and Sublimation/Participation, and what other ways can characters gain/lose them.

These are the notes I made last night, right before I went to bed, based on the EGO - PARTICIPATION model I suggested earlier.  If you end up using some other model, you may have to either tweak these ideas or discount them entirely.

-----

PARTICIPATION (or "Involvement" or "Attachment" or "Engagement" or "Entanglement" or "Responsibility" or "Liability" or "Accountability") in this model is the negative trait, reflecting a character who is mired in the Collective Halluciation, in touch with reality, and unable to do anything to break out.

An Incarnate moves closer towards (or deeper into) PARTICIPATION whenever s/he interacts heavily with the CH.  This includes:

 * making new friends among the non-Incarnate or becoming significantly closer to existing friends (never form permanent attachments)
 * settling into a permanent location (never call any place "home")
 * getting a library or video rental card, joining a bowling team (never normalize your behavior, following patterns, or make repetative actions)
 * making -- and especially keeping -- appointments (promises restrict behavior and form the basis of the CH)
 * letting others in on personal information, feelings, or problems (never let anyone feel like they "know" you)
 * succumbing to the desires of the flesh: sex, drugs, rock n' roll, food, tv, movies, video games, massages, sports, music, etc. (reality is false but seductive, don't give in to temptation)
 * participating in self-destructive or submissive behavior, obeying authority (never do anything that lowers the self, damn The Man!)
 * going to church, asking forgiveness, praying (there is no god but yourself, bend your knee to nothing)
 * asking for help, quitting, giving into dispair (nothing is impossible, if you want something done, you have to do it yourself)


EGO (I can't come up with a better word, really) in this model is the positive trait, reflecting a character who is truly free of the Collective Hallucination, able to do and be anything s/he wants.

An Incarnate moves closer towards (or deeper into) EGO whenever s/he cuts ties to the CH and material reality as a whole.  This includes:

 * breaking off friendships
 * destroying things you care about
 * mass-destructive behavior
 * anything that strengthens the self at the cost of the world
 * destroying churches, government buildings, prisons, statues of rulers, and other symbols of a higher authority
 * ascetic living, cutting yourself off from the material world
 * becoming stronger in the gnostic belief that reality is false and only the self is true
 * triumphing over or killing other Incarnate
 * expanding or strengthening your Paradigm
 * finding "proof" of your Paradigm's truth or omnipresence

-----

What do you think?

In this model, the Incarnate have to commit atrocities, kill each other, and remove themselves from the world to obtain power.  However, the point of recreating the world in your own image is to enjoy it afterward, right?  But if they do that, they sink back into the Collective Hallucination, are lulled into a sense of false security, and are lost.  By the time they realize they're not in control anymore, they're stuck in the CH, which can do anything it wants, changing reality back to the way it was.

This would be a way of binding those "moral questions" that you were talking about into the basic cosmology, along with a reason why the Incarnate try to destroy each other.

Just something that come to me last night.

Later.
Jonathan

[Eddy Fate]

Just realized that you list yourself as a game designer for SGS in your sig.  Did you work on Cartoon Action Hour?

Initially, no.  I am working heavily on the revision/expansion of it for hardcopy publication, though.

The game sounds really neat - it's on my list of games to buy when the disposable $$$ goes up.

I like it a lot.  It's a nice break from my usually dark projects.  :-)

Any advanced hints on what you might be working on?

Details are still in flux, depending on publisher negotiations.  I am working on some demo adventures for our website (no ETA), and when we bang out the rest of this CAH manuscript, I will probably go back to work on Darkness Unleashed, which has been back-burnered for a lot of reasons.  Plus, I'm putting together a proposal for Microtactix.  And then there's my own PERSONAL project, tenatively called "Thy Kingdom Come", which is a glorified way of saying "I have a lot of research notes and ideas for a game..."

I can't have just one project, it seems.  :-)