[GroupDesign] - Mix Your Own Metaplot

[Doug Ruff]

Hmm...a thought just occurred to me. What if the Archivists' ideology was that history needs to be aided and humanity stewarded through the crises it has faced/is facing/will face, while the Nemesis is attempting to structure events either to destroy the Great Library (and thus the Archivists -- perhaps) or at least sever the connections between the timestreams so that Archivists can no longer "meddle" in human affairs. That way, they're both the "good guys," at least from their own perspective. This is pretty much a split along the freedom/happiness axis that's had numerous designations as it's been discussed. I wasn't thrilled with it on first glance, but once you back up to the level of opposing factions, it's pretty neat. We could even reverse those two viewpoints, with the Archivists trying to end the Nemesis' interventions into human history, even if it means they will no longer be able to observe and add to their store of information.

Frankly, I think that this level of moral ambiguity is essential. Also consider that the Truth is far bigger than any individual Archivist, or Nemesis, and also bigger than any of the factions.

Once we've nailed the whole Space-Time question, I would like us to come up with a list of all the ways Archivists might want to upset (or maintain) the existing order of things. Assuming a decent number of Archivists, it's likely that there will be at least a few Archivists following each of these Goals - there's your factions for the game.

Because above all of the other questions in the sister thread about Control, Sacrifice, etc. there is another question which is directly related to this thread: as an Archivist, you have the power (or at least the potential) to change the fundamental nature of Reality - so WTF are you going to do with something that powerful?

<well meaning rant> because all of this cool cosmology is only important insofar as it contributes to the larger Story </well meaning rant>

[Kirk Mitchell]

Frankly, I think that this level of moral ambiguity is essential. Also consider that the Truth is far bigger than any individual Archivist, or Nemesis, and also bigger than any of the factions.

I agree, this allows for greater questions without being tied down by morality, but also doesn't need to be tied down by different beliefs as well.

I'll be back later with...stuff <shrugs>.

Kirk

[Sydney Freedberg]

What if the Archivists' ideology was that history needs to be aided and humanity stewarded through the crises it has faced/is facing/will face, while the Nemesis is attempting to structure events.... so that Archivists can no longer "meddle" in human affairs.... We could even reverse those two viewpoints, with the Archivists trying to end the Nemesis' interventions into human history....

Frankly, I think that this level of moral ambiguity is essential. Also consider that the Truth is far bigger than any individual Archivist, or Nemesis, and also bigger than any of the factions.

I'm liking this. But let me elaborate:
(1) given two dilemmas at right angles to each other (e.g. Freedom vs. Security/Happiness/Harmony and Transcendence vs. Humanity) creating a Cartesian plane all of whose extremes are unpleasant and potentially Nemesis, and
(2) recalling "Maintaining a Balance" as one of the themes from the original brainstorm,
the whole goal of the PC Archivists could be to keep things safely in the center, with all values balanced. Or PC Archivists could start out seeking one of the extremes -- perhaps on their own initiative, perhaps in response to a clear Nemesis at the opposite extreme -- and come to realize, over the course of play, that their ideal is an equal-and-opposite extreme to what they're fighting, and come round to the importance of Balance that way.

"Things fall apart, the center cannot hold..." -- in this take, the Archivists' job is to make damn sure the center will hold. If history is full of nasty positive feedback loops and prone to shoot off towards one extreme or another, the Archivists will be intervening to keep changing it and nudge it back on course; if history is full of negative feedback loops and largely self-correcting, the Archivists will be intervening mainly to prevent other people's (well intentioned?) attempts to change things.

And I bet we can come up with a forces-of-history mechanic that can cover either alternative (probably by changing one key variable or flipping a "switch" in the mechanics) so different gaming groups can choose either option.

[Andrew Morris]

Let's also keep in mind the earlier comments (I'm not sure who made them) that most RPGs put the players into a reactive position of maintaining the status quo. That's why I suggested reversing the ideologies -- that way, the PCs can be the active characters instead of reacting to the "bad guys." Just some food for thought.

Oh, and uhm...what happened to the voting? As far as I can recall, I voted, and so did Tobias and Sydney. To recap, let's hear from anyone who disagrees with the following:

1) The dual timestreams theory (Human Time Tunnel and Archivist Time Tunnel). The basic concept is that the two timstreams are parallel, but with variable and finite intersections, allowing a limited amount of travel from one to the other.

2) Freedom vs. happiness as the "second axis." Or conrol vs. safety, or whatever you want to call it. Essentially, this is the question of how much free will you are willing to take away from humanity in order to keep it safe.

3) Mutiple factions of Archivists. We currently have two factions, do we need more? Since there's no clear trend on this, everyone should at least voice their opinion on this issue, I believe.

[daMoose_Neo]

...the Archivists will be intervening mainly to prevent other people's (well intentioned?) attempts to change things.

<random tangent>...what if 'enemies' aren't always Nemesis or rouge Archivists but...Doc Brown?
SciFi is *filled* with time traveling heroes who meddle with the time stream one way or another (Mechanically via Doc Brown, superpowers ala Fitzroy and Legion from X-Men, w/e)...one set of adventures/sessions can revolve around cleaning up after these do-gooders (or bad guys in the case of Fitzroy)
</random tangent>

[Sydney Freedberg]

Oh, and uhm...what happened to the voting?... 3) Mutiple factions of Archivists. We currently have two factions, do we need more? Since there's no clear trend on this, everyone should at least voice their opinion on this issue, I believe.

Definitely there should be Archivists opposed to the PCs, because have a "Mirror, Mirror" moral opposite to play against is essential -- albeit formally organized factions are not: Whether it's every Archivist following its own conscience or formal hierarchies or something in between should be up to the gaming group.

Likewise proliferation of opposed sides beyond the basic two is entirely possible (since we're looking at multiple possible ways to trade-off among values) but should be left up to each gaming group: Do you want 2 sides? 3? 10? Or do you want to start with 2 and keep on having them splinter over the course of the campaign... possibly even with PCs taking both sides?

[Doug Ruff]

Let's also keep in mind the earlier comments (I'm not sure who made them) that most RPGs put the players into a reactive position of maintaining the status quo. That's why I suggested reversing the ideologies -- that way, the PCs can be the active characters instead of reacting to the "bad guys." Just some food for thought.

Oh, and uhm...what happened to the voting? As far as I can recall, I voted, and so did Tobias and Sydney. To recap, let's hear from anyone who disagrees with the following:

1) The dual timestreams theory (Human Time Tunnel and Archivist Time Tunnel). The basic concept is that the two timstreams are parallel, but with variable and finite intersections, allowing a limited amount of travel from one to the other.

2) Freedom vs. happiness as the "second axis." Or conrol vs. safety, or whatever you want to call it. Essentially, this is the question of how much free will you are willing to take away from humanity in order to keep it safe.

3) Mutiple factions of Archivists. We currently have two factions, do we need more? Since there's no clear trend on this, everyone should at least voice their opinion on this issue, I believe.

Here's my vote:

1) Yes to two timestreams; No to the "finite intersections"; I believe that travel should be unlimited under normal conditions. Travel could be limited by being trapped in a Host, or by unusual properties of an area (a bit like a "Bermuda Triangle" within the continuum) but I don't agree with the idea that Archivists can only enter and exit Host-Time through a finite number of access points. But I'm willing to be persuaded...

2) Freedom vs. Happiness as a key conflict within the setting, Yes. As a "second access" within a geometric system of themes, no. I don't think we need the thems to be this neatly packaged. I think it's sufficient to have a number of key themes and ensure that the mechanics support them. Above all, I don't anything that looks like  the AD&D alignment system...

3) Factions, Yes. More than two factions, Yes. Sole caveat: factions reflect shared morals and interest, and do not grant Kewl Powers or faction specific traits. This should help to avoid the "splat" trap.

[Doug Ruff]

"Things fall apart, the center cannot hold..." -- in this take, the Archivists' job is to make damn sure the center will hold.

Forgot to mention how much I like this - please make sure it ends up in the book in some form or other!

And I agree that the Archivists, as we have imagined them, are going to take on this role. They are the guardians of True History - which still leaves open the possibility of arguments over what True History is.

This helps makes the concept of Balance central to the game, and having the Nemesis as a faction that are attempting to destroy this Balance, or to replace it with their own version of Order, also supports this.

But, in support of my vote on Issue#2 - we don't need Cartesian planes to get this concept across.

Side note: I think that we need to agree on a more general term for "someone who possesses Hosts". At the moment, we're mainly using Archivist, but that also implies that we are talking about the Archivist faction exclusively. Any ideas, anyone?

[Tobias]

Everyone, given the pace this thread and its sister are going, please PM me with your suggestions for new Group Design Thread, and their topics.

I will spawn them tomorrow, given enough feedback, and close these threads. (In fact, I will probably close the threads first, try give a recap of them in the newly spawned threads or the thread index.)

Thank you
Foot

[Andrew Morris]

[WHOOPS. CROSSPOSTED WITH TOBIAS.]

But, in support of my vote on Issue#2 - we don't need Cartesian planes to get this concept across.

Okay, all geometric models aside, do you like freedom vs. happiness as a major theme and core mechanic for the game? From what you wrote, it seems to me you do. The whole two- or three-axis model is just a convenient shorthand way of considering the interrelations between the core theme mechanics, as I see it.

Side note: I think that we need to agree on a more general term for "someone who possesses Hosts". At the moment, we're mainly using Archivist, but that also implies that we are talking about the Archivist faction exclusively. Any ideas, anyone?

Good call. I thought about that earlier, but nothing came to mind. As I see it, two methods come to mind. First, just create some string of characters that sounds cool and means nothing to serve as a name. Second (which is what I'd rather see), is a descriptive name, much like "Archivist" itself is. Here's a few thoughts: Illuminated Ones, Enligtened Ones, Timethieves, the Enlightened, the Bodiless, or Transcendants. Ugh, those all suck, and I'm out of ideas. Hopefully, that will spark some ideas in someone else.

[Tobias]

I now have 3 suggestions for new threads.

Don't think that's enough, and at a request, will give the people some more time to speak out on the vote. (How appropriate).

So feel free in this thread until I get one or 2 more suggestions, or some time passes.

Tx!

[Andrew Morris]

I was thinking about character advancement in our game. Do we need it? Should it be core, or a custom option? Do we want advancement mechanics for characters (Archivist and/or host) or for groups as a whole (based on the ongoing success/failures in the campaign).

Apart from the mechanics of it (I know Sydney spoke against character advancement early on in this thread) what does everyone think about the thematic validity of character advancement? Does character advancement seem to support the core ideas and themes, or does it get in the way?

[Doug Ruff]

I now have 3 suggestions for new threads.

Don't think that's enough, and at a request, will give the people some more time to speak out on the vote. (How appropriate).

So feel free in this thread until I get one or 2 more suggestions, or some time passes.

Tx!

Hmm, have you cheked your PMs? There's 4 suggestions from me there (unless you mean that you've only had 3 PMs.)

Also, should we feel free to discuss the vote here, or to make suggestions for other threads, or both?

(I think I'm having Comprehension Issues today - I'm still processing the Election result.)

[Sydney Freedberg]

...I know Sydney spoke against character advancement early on in this thread....[but] Does character advancement seem to support the core ideas and themes, or does it get in the way?

Actually, I've come 'round to the position that it can support the bigger themes, especially the "maintaining a balance" idea. See my recent posts in Advanced Archivism about maintaing a balance between two opposed Good Things (e.g. between Humanity and Transcendence) and how a character should be able to do that with both Good Things at a low level or, with much difficulty, with both at a high level -- the "reconciliation of opposites."

And -- to get back on topic -- the Metaplot significance of character advancement is if an individual Archivist can achieve such balance, perhaps there's hope the whole world can, too. The macro mechanics should ideally mirror the individual-level ones to drive home the correspondence.

[Andrew Morris]

So, let me see if I'm following you, Sydney. What I'm hearing is that you are viewing "character advancement" as an increase in balance, rather than a linear increase in power. Is that accurate? I'm certainly not mired to an increasing scale of power or in-game effectiveness, though I do generally prefer it.