Standard Deviants

[ethan_greer]

Weird, isn't it?  The similarities, I mean.

Anyhow, how are things going with this project of yours?  Any new developments?

[szilard]

Weird, isn't it?  The similarities, I mean.

Anyhow, how are things going with this project of yours?  Any new developments?

Yeah. I was even planning on having the clones named after the original person they were clones of...

If anyone knows of other literary sources, please let me know...

The project has made some progress, but I have been to busy at work to put as much time into it as I want.

I have the basic outline for character generation. I've thought more about setting presentation and have come to some sort of decision there... I'll probably post an update some time next week.

Stuart

[clehrich]

Okay, feel free to tell me I'm a raving freak here, but you did say this came up when you read an article by (or about?) Heidegger, so you asked for it.

It occurs to me that this game is in some ways tinkering with fundamental (which is not to say simple) concepts of reflection philosophy.  I wonder if you couldn't foreground this a bit more, so that the premise becomes something that actually every player agonizes about too, like it or not; that is, what you're doing here is amplifying and emphasizing aspects of a fundamental human problematic, and by leaning on it a bit as a human problem (not just a clone thing) you might encourage deeper play.

Figuring here that some readers just said, "What the hell is he talking about?" and not knowing how many or which ones, let me put that a bit more concretely.

--------------------------- (brief intro)
Okay, so you've got the Subject, which is to say me, I, the little man in my head.  I think therefore I am.

The problem is that if the Subject is in a total vacuum (of objects, ideas, everything), i.e. there isn't anything at all except the Subject, then the Subject can't say, know, or think anything.  It can't say, "I think" or "I am" because these ideas imply "some things don't / aren't" and/or "thinking" as a specific idea/action different from "I", and so on.

So the way the Subject comes to know anything is by looking at other things, generally known as the Object.  And since what it really wants to know about is itself, it's looking at the Object comparatively, trying to find out what about the Object will be most helpful for understanding the Subject.  In essence the Subject is looking to interpret the Object as a mirror, so it can understand itself.  This is called the reflection problem.

So the Subject can't know itself in any sense, including whether it exists or not.  But we all make up stories about how real we are, and how well we understand ourselves, because we don't want to recognize the fragility of the Subject.
--------------------------- (back to clones)

Okay, so I'm a clone with a herd mentality.  Everywhere I look, I see some nice mirrors.  

The better I come to understand myself with respect to those mirrors (other clones), the more I am differentiating myself from them.  And that pushes me, the Subject, more and more toward the original dangerous condition of unity and isolation, where I can't understand anything because I have no objects / mirrors.  So the more I come to understand myself, the greater the danger of my total insanity.

On the other hand, the more I come to identify myself with the others, i.e. the more I treat the mirrors as true reflections, the less I am capable of maintaining the idea of a separation between Subject and Object, self and other.  And if that goes all the way, the "herd" thing conquers: I become a cow, basically, placidly chewing my cud and happy to be like everyone else and with a vegetative mind.

So intellectually, the clone's most fundamental struggle is doomed from the outset, but it is that very struggle which nonetheless defines him morally, makes him a true person (cf. the replicants in Blade Runner).

And the trick is, of course, that the same problem applies to every intelligent being, because the Subject problem has nothing to do with being a clone as such.  So the clone's problem is really only that he sees clearly what ordinary humans always try to forget: your identity as a human being and an individual is (1) unprovable, (2) inherently self-destructive, and (3) resting on a very fragile foundation.

--------------
Maybe that's all too much "high concept" for this game, but I'd love to see a Premise that's really a deep human concern; I think you've got that, but I would encourage you to emphasize it a bit.  I for one am tired of games that have sophomoric Premises along the lines of, "How can we agonize about being weird/dead/ugly (and powerful)?"

[szilard]

Chris,

The struggle, as you describe it, is there. I think I pointed out that the premise of the game was, roughly, At what price individuality? You round that out nicely... and put it into some terms I hadn't considered. Thank you.

I think that this struggle will be, largely, in the foreground. Yeah, if you want to play the game as a crack-commando-unit who work incredibly well together, you'll probably be able to do so and (hopefully) have fun at it. That's not the real focus, though. I can't imagine that a game about playing clones would have a wide appeal unless it was used to illustrate something interesting about human nature. That is what I'm hoping to do.

The article, btw, was John Haugland's "Heidegger on Being a Human." Very good stuff.

Stuart

[szilard]

I've been toying with a few different formats, but I have - for far too long - left several basic questions about this game unanswered (to myself). Thus, I submit the subject of my internal debates for comment:

1. How many members should there be to a standard group in relation to the players? Should there be a set number? A ratio? If the latter, what should it be? Should the players, in character creation, be able to determine how many deviants there are in the group?

2. Who should have narrative rights over the non-deviants in the group? Currently, I'm working on the assumption that it will be shared between players with the players of more-deviant characters having less control.

3. Should the game be GM-less? I was toying with this for awhile, but I am really not sure if it would be a good choice.

4. Should I include an option for each player to control an entire non-deviant standard group? This would, essentially, be a game-within-a-game... and probably substantially more Simulationist than Narrativist. It might also be more popular...

Stuart

[ethan_greer]

1.  I think the actual numbers in the SG can be decided during character creation based on the desires of the players.

2. This is a difficult question, and I don't have any specific advice for you here.  I could see a number of different approaches working.  I would say, write up some different approaches, playtest 'em, and pick the one you like best.  Or, present all the ones that work and let the individual group decide, ala a "dial" that can be turned.

3. I don't think the game should be sans-GM; that opinion is based on my own personal preferences, so take it with a grain of salt.

4.  I think this would be an interesting dial setting you could include, and I would refer back to my response in 2 - i.e. playtest.

That assumes, of course, that you're ready to playtest... If you're still totally in the planning stages, the approach that works for me is to just go with what seems comfortable or correct based on what you envision the game to be like.  Once you have a straw man put together you'll have something that's easier to tear at.  Is all this making sense?  I'm kinda rambling, sorry...