[GroupDesign] Schrodinger's war: Nailing HTT and GL

[Tobias]

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Don't you just love abbreviations? ;)

HTT stands for the 'Human Time Tunnel' - a view of human history that's at the core of how SW sees human time. GL stands for the Great Library - the 'place' where the Archivists hang out.

These things were previously discussed a lot in the "Mix your own metaplot" setting.

In this thread, we're trying to 'nail' these concepts - i.e. write them down for the our intended audience.

What we will do in this thread is:

1. Define (and write) the HTT as core element of the game and explain elasticity
2. Define (and write) optional ways of looking at human time if we think they're powerful and common variants (mentioning butterfly as well)
3. Define (and write) archivist time (AT) and how the players can have a deadline on archivist time (I don't want urgency to figure into this too much - just mention how, mechanically, a deadline is possible)
4. Define how the GL works as a 'switching' device between HTT and AT. We don't need too much details on the exact nature of the GL, but we do need to know which design parameters for the GL are a logical derivative of HTT and AT.

Thanks! If you get lost - my sig has the thread index, and as ever, feel free to PM me.

[Andrew Morris]

Defining the HTT and elasticity
Okay, the first thing I want to point out is that the "time tunnel" concept was an extremely simplified and inaccurate metaphor used to make it easier to conceptualize the timestream theory that was developed in earlier threads. With that stated, do we want to keep using that as a metaphor? I'm of two minds about doing so. On the one hand, it does make it easier for everyone to understand the basic concepts. On the other hand, if we discuss it using the terminology of the metaphor, we run the risk of expanding on the inherent inaccuracy of the metaphor.

Since the thread was formed to discuss the HTT, though, I'll address that, unless others want to discuss the theory in the more accurate terms of the theory itself, rather than the metaphor.

So, the HTT -- what is it? As stated, the HTT is the "mainline" timestream (and, as used here, timestream includes a physical dimensionality) of humanity. It's the "here and now" and the "then and there" of all human experience, from start to finish. It is not alterable by internal forces, but is somewhat alterable from external forces (Archivists and similar beings). Any such externally imposed alterations of the HTT are unnoticed to residents of the HTT -- if history changes, so do everyone's memories. However, externally imposed alterations may or may not be perceived by residents of the other timestream.

The inherent elasticity of the HTT means (to boil it down to its very basics) that the more important an event in human history is, the more difficult it is to change. So, while convincing someone to wear different shoes on a particular day might be easily accomplished just by suggesting it to them, preventing WWII would be far more difficult, requiring all the factors that lead to it being altered, which might require the alteration of the factors which lead to those factors, which might require the alteration of the factors which lead to the factors which lead to those factors, and so on.

Alternate variants of human time
As stated, there are other options for tinkering with the timestream. I don't see a whole lot of variablity here. What I see is a spectrum, with totally immutable time on one end and highly mutable time on the other. In this spectrum, the previously discussed version of the HTT is closer to the immutable end of the spectrum, whereas hte butterfly effect would lie closer to the opposite end.

Archivist time and deadlines
No problems here. We've already defined that Archivist time exists parallel to the HTT. What we haven't defined is the scale -- does time pass at the same rate in both timestreams? Consistently faster in one than the other? At variable rates (relative to the other) in both? Any of these options is fine, it just depends on what everyone prefers. I think the easiest to coordinate is to say that time passes at the same rate in both timestreams -- spend a year working in the HTT and a year has passed in Archivist time.

The Great Library as a nexus
Here's where my interpretation apparently varies a bit. I have been envisioning the Great Library and Archivist time (and space) as one and the same. As to how an Archivist goes from the GL to the HTT, he researches the time period he wants to go to, determines when a "window" of opportunity will be available, finds an appropriate host in that period, then transfers his consciousness to the host during the window. To travel back from the HTT to the GL, the Archivist simply chooses to do so.

[Michael Brazier]

Archivist time and deadlines
No problems here. We've already defined that Archivist time exists parallel to the HTT. What we haven't defined is the scale -- does time pass at the same rate in both timestreams? Consistently faster in one than the other? At variable rates (relative to the other) in both?

Perhaps Archivist time should be perpendicular to historical time.  That is, while an Archivist is riding a Host, and experiencing with the Host, no Archivist time passes at all; Archivists come out of a Host in the same instant they went into one.  And, to an Archivist experiencing Archivist time, historical time is just one dimension of the spacetime manifold; all of history is equally present in the Great Library.

You see, Archivist time is the time in which history changes.  So if Archivist time and historical time can both pass at once, that means Archivists can be inside history as it changes.  In which case, what happens to them?  I foresee hairy and unplayable paradoxes ...

[Andrew Morris]

The primary problem with no time passing while an Archivist is in the HTT is that it defeats the sense of urgency mentioned earlier. Not to mention, the aspect of time travel is going to be difficult for many GMs to coordinate by itself, and throwing in yet another confusing temporal variable might be too much for many folks.

You see, Archivist time is the time in which history changes. So if Archivist time and historical time can both pass at once, that means Archivists can be inside history as it changes. In which case, what happens to them? I foresee hairy and unplayable paradoxes ...

I respectfully disagree, and disagree completely. Archivist time is most specifically not the time in which history changes -- there is no time in which history changes. The fact that history has been changed can be determined in Archivist time, though. As to what happens to an Archivist in the HTT changing historical fact...well, nothing, other than they know they succeeded or failed in their mission. I can't conceive of any paradox coming out of this, due to the fact of dual timestreams. If there was only the one, then I would agree. But hey, I've been wrong before, and I'm sure I will be again. Maybe you could give me an example of what you're thinking of? It's entirely possible you've got a scenario I didn't forsee.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Chaos/Order: I would more set this one as a "setting axes" not on the character sheet. One that is affected by the overall actions of the archivists (perhaps at the end of each session the GM would make an arbitrary decision about which way the overall actions of the archivists would bump the scale. I would set this also as a sliding scale, as you cannot have equal amounts of chaos and order. If either of these are imbalanced then perhaps there are both mechanical and setting changes, for example: In a predominantly chaos oriented setting not only is the world unpredictable and full of conflict but is extremely open when it comes to options, but people have more free will and are harder to control. However, in a predominantly order based setting, there are almost no other options available but hosts do as they are told.

With chaos and order presented that way, I suddenly see two new possibilities (not incompatible): Chaos and Order replace the need for a Free Will/Whatever and the elasticity of the timestream is determined by the Chaos/Order levels. The more chaotic the more elastic, the more order, the more "stiff" the timestream is. I think I'll go post in that thread now too.

This was from the Nailing Axes thread, and that idea was a part of the axes, but it also seems to fit very well here.

If I wasn't so coherent in the quote, let me just try and sum it up:

Chaos/Order axes is determined by the GM as a sliding scale depending on judgements made on the actions of the Archivists and their possible effects on the timestream.

Chaos>Order: The timestream is much more elastic and easier to alter. This is simply a value to get an idea of exactly how elastic the timestream is.

Order>Chaos: The timestream is fairly fixed and static. Difficult to change time here.

This would mean that in order to make it easier to change time, Archivists would have to promote chaos, and those who don't want it to change would have to promote order. Schrodinger's war would still apply and major events would still happen, but the more chaos, the more unpredictably the major events will occur and the more order, the more predictably the major evetns will occur.

Thoughts, opinions, shoot me down?

Luck,
Kirk

[Sydney Freedberg]

"Chaos" has two problems as a term, though: Its connotation is negative (very rarely do you think of chaos as good), when I'd prefer to have players choose between opposed Good Things; and it applies primarily to the macro level, not really to the individual (very rarely do you think of an individual as "chaotic" outside of D&D), when I'd prefer to have the same values operating on both the macro and micro levels.

So I'd propose "Freedom vs. Order."

But with that (admittedly important) caveat, I think I'm on board with Dumirik's idea on how this pair of opposites applies to the timestream as a whole.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Please, call me Kirk.

[Michael Brazier]

As to what happens to an Archivist in the HTT changing historical fact...well, nothing, other than they know they succeeded or failed in their mission. I can't conceive of any paradox coming out of this, due to the fact of dual timestreams. If there was only the one, then I would agree. But hey, I've been wrong before, and I'm sure I will be again. Maybe you could give me an example of what you're thinking of? It's entirely possible you've got a scenario I didn't forsee.

OK.  Alice and Bob are Archivists.  Alice enters a Host in the year 2000.  While she is there (according to Archivist time) Bob enters the father of Alice's Host in 1975 and prevents him from meeting the mother of Alice's Host.  History changes.  What happens to Alice?  Does she vanish, taken away with the history she was working in?  Does she continue in the old HTT, only to discover when she leaves that all her work has gone to nothing?  Is she abruptly ejected from the HTT when her Host vanishes?

The advantage of saying that no Archivist time passes during a possession is that the players don't have to worry about other Archivists working in the HTT past and undermining their work as they're doing it -- which is certain to happen if there are Archivist factions working at cross purposes, unless it's defined to be impossible.  This way, the players only have to deal with Archivists who have come to the same HTT time, at an earlier Archivist time.

[Sydney Freedberg]

But what you miss out on, then, is the possibility of sending PCs to different time periods, keeping them in touch telepathically, and having someone in, say, 1130 AD set up something crucial for 1993 -- or conversely having someone in 1993 notice a crucial detail which later turns out to have been caused by someone in 1130.

I wrote up a notional example of play for this concept back in the Time Travel Party thread which I'll repeat here:

PLAYER 1: I'm running from the knights, across the courtyard of the castle...
GM: OK. Jane, what are you doing?
PLAYER 2: I'm driving furiously to get away from the Men In Black. I pull off the road and hide in the ruins of the old castle....
GM: Back to the 12th century, now.
PLAYER 1: Damn, where do I go?
PLAYER 2: Lady Charlotte.
PLAYER 1: We can't trust her.
PLAYER 2: You have a choice?
PLAYER 1: Okay. I go into the Keep and run into Lady Charlotte's room. "Please! Milady! You must hide this for me! You cannot understand, but trust me when I say the fate of all history depends on it!" And I give her the amulet.
GM: She takes it. Then the knights break down the door and drag you off to be hanged. They don't search Lady Charlotte's room for the amulet, though. Okay, Jane?
PLAYER 2: I'm searching through the ruins for where Lady Charlotte's room was, with the Men in Black searching for me. I'll risk using my Uncanny Perception trait -- that shouldn't burn out my Host.
GM: Your superhuman senses pick up a faint scratching on a stone: C-H-A-R-L....and the rest has been worn away by time. The stone's loose. But the Men in Black are near -- they'll hear if you make any noise.
PLAYER 2: I wrench the stone loose!
GM: The Men in Black surround you, guns drawn. But you have the amulet.....

Which is all only possible if there is some common frame of reference shared by all the Archivists in a given "party," at least: They may be in different time periods (in Human time) but their personal time (Archivist time) is advancing in synch. Thus if Archivist 1 travels to January 10, 1130 AD at 6:00 am, and Archivist 2 travels to March 1, 1990 at 5:00 pm, Archivist 1 gets to 6:30 am in his time period and Archivist 2 gets to 5:30 pm in hers at the same "time" -- e.g. both of them experience 30 minutes as having passed.

(TonyLB also wrote up a great post on this concept of multiple "eras" each with its own "now" -- back in Metaplot I believe).

Note that I am not trying to figure out the (pseudo-)physics and then come up with its effects. I am looking at a desired effect -- urgency, and to create that urgency, a kind of dramatic, cinematic intercutting -- and working backwards from there to what the physics have to be to justify it.

Similarly, I don't think we should get bogged down in "well if you change this bit of history would this bit change?" Having been trained as a historian, I'd love to do that, but I also know it'd be maddeningly complicated. Instead, I'd propose an Archivist mission i.e. session of play -- which, remember, may take place in multiple time periods (from a human perspective) at the same time (from an Archivist perspective) -- be rated by the GM for success or failure in terms of its effect on the axes (which we're nailing in another thread).

Thus you don't try to figure out impossible causation questions like "did our getting Hitler's grandmother married to someone else stop World War II"? Instead, you say "Okay, we just increased global Transcendence by one, but lost one Humanity in the process" -- and then work out how history would feel different from there, in a kind of "Bedford Falls effect." (The town from It's a Wonderful Life).

EDIT to add:

And the original problem you described, of an NPC Archivist bad guy changing history so your Host ceases existing in mid-mission?

(a) It's not easy: By Schrodinger's War principles, your existence in that Host means you're observing and therefore locking down all sorts of details about that Host's life -- making them much harder to change.

(b) It's not a problem: So the bad guys really get it together and erase your Host's grandparents. History instantly rewrites itself, your Host ceases to exist just as you're about to achieve your goal, and you're kicked back to the Great Library. Bad for your character -- good for you as a player -- you want adventure and challenges! Dust yourself off, do some Great Library research, find out what the villains must've changed, and now go back in time and rescue the grandparents. Yes, if the GM does this arbitrarily to keep you from ever succeeding, it's obnoxious; but done sparingly, it's a source of new adventures.

Once again: Don't think physics and practicalities (i.e. Sim); think dramatic challenge (i.e. Nar or Gamism).

[contracycle]

Just a brief proposition.

It might be conceptually easiest to situate the game so that it is NOT our world as we know it.  That is, rather like Dick's Man in the high Castle, perhaps the Nazi's won the war, Europe was occupied, and the US partitioned.

Then the desired outcome for the players would be to alter these outcomes such as our timeline actually comes about - i.e, the axis lose etc.

[Sydney Freedberg]

The Man in the High Castle option is definitely one scenario or even entire campaign to let people play out -- but as one option among many, I think. Some groups may find it easier to play with history-as-we-know-it as the baseline, and we should make that possible too.

So the key issue for this thread is trying to figure out concepts and ultimately mechanics that make both options playable.

[Andrew Morris]

Michael, Sydney pretty much covered most of what I was going to say in response to your example. I just want to point out, though, that none of that is a paradox problem -- design challenges, sure, and we'll have to decide how such things work, but no paradox problem. So to answer your question about what happens to Alice, here's my gut response: no, no, yes. It might help to think of possession not so much that the Archivist is really "in" the HTT, but rather that he's projecting some portion of his consciousness there in order to influence the host and thus the HTT as a whole.

And dammit, Sydney, your response to contracycle was what I was going to say, as well. You really need to get rid of this habit of summing up my viewpoint before I can even come up with it in the first place.

[Doug Ruff]

Sorry it's taken me so long to post to this thread. I believe this is the most "complicated" part of the setting, as it involves creating an Imagined Space that is, well, complicated.

I'm going to attempt to give a "scientific" explanation of how the HTT works, and what makes it elastic. I do think that this is necessary; it helps to keep the setting coherent, and explain how Archivists can and can't do certain things. It also helps to define some of the "rules" of Schrodinger's War.

But I'm warning you now, this may be a bumpy ride.

Firstly, Andrew is right - the HTT is a gross simplification of what's actually going on. HTT is actually what physicists used to call Space-Time.

(I say "used to", because modern physics is all about string theory and stuff like that. Let's not go there.)

Classical Space-Time has 4 dimensions, the three "regular" ones, plus time.

The HTT as described elsewhere is the entire universe, extended in these 4 dimensions. If you subscribe to the theory that there was a Big Bang, and that the universe will eventually expand and "die out", the HTT looks like a 4-dimensional, infinite, carrot. It's infinitely small at one end of the time axis, and infinitely big at the other.

Within this carrot is the history of the Earth. It's a thin cylinder (which fits the "tunnel" analogy better), which starts some distance away from the tip of the carrot, and ends at some point further down the time axis. How it ends is up to you.

Archivist Space-Time exists outside the carrot. Archivist Time is a different axis (dimension) to Host Time (perhaps perpendicular, as Michael suggests, but I'll leave that for now.) But the reason for introducing Archivist time at this point is: From a viewpoint in Archivist Space-Time, as Archivist Time passes, the Host Space-Time "carrot" changes.

In other words, from an Archivist (outside) perspective, the whole of Host History is constantly shifting. patterns emerge, flow, and die out, like ink dispersing in a glass of water. And this happens independently of Archivist interference.

In other words, if all the Archivists sat outside of History (the carrot) and did nothing, it would still change. in other words, there are historical forces at play which have nothing to do with the Archivists. One of the effects of these forces is the "Elasticity" phenomenon.

This manifests as certain Events (or clusters of Events, or patterns) in Host Space-Time which are persistent. This is because they are "overdetermined" (great term from another thread) by the surrounding Events, this acts as a stabilising force.

However, most individual Events are easier to change, and occasionally some of these line up in a "chain reaction", which means that a small change to a single event can sometimes have far reaching consequences (the Butterfly Effect).

As discussed elsewhere, both Elasticity and the Butterfly effect are properites of non-linear (chaotic) systems. So, Host-Timespace is inherently Chaotic, but exhibits Order when Events are overdetermined.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you the Carrot of History - do you choose to wield it?

(If so, I'll attempt to use the concept to address some of the issues raised in this thread.)

[Sydney Freedberg]

From a viewpoint in Archivist Space-Time, as Archivist Time passes, the Host Space-Time "carrot" changes. In other words, from an Archivist (outside) perspective, the whole of Host History is constantly shifting. patterns emerge, flow, and die out, like ink dispersing in a glass of water. And this happens independently of Archivist interference.

So you have.... a wobbly carrot?

(Sorry, couldn't resist).

But the idea of the timestream changing on its own, even without time travelers mucking about, does actually go quite well with the Schrodinger motif: The unobserved aspects of human history -- like Schrodinger's cat -- are in an undetermined condition fluctuating between alternative and equally possible states.

[Andrew Morris]

Doug, I think we are on the same page as far as the theory goes, but I just want to voice my concern with the carrot theory. You're probably aware of it, but while that model likely brings more people closer to understanding the overall concept, like any model, it's still inaccurate. So, going with the carrot, the Archivist timestream is another carrot. Everyone with me so far? Here's where it gets harder to conceptualize. The Archivist carrot is in exactly the same "position" (totally inaccurate, but it helps with the visualization) as the Human carrot. Despite this, they do not intersect at any point. There are, however a variable number of "tunnels" from the "now point" of the Archivist carrot into the Human carrot. These tunnels only go one way -- from the Archivist carrot to the Human carrot. Nothing physical can pass through these tunnels, but Archivists can send their thoughts through. These tunnels tend to vanish and appear due to changes in the Human carrot.

Again, while woefully inadequate to really explain the theory, this model is (hopefully) helpful to anyone who wasn't completely understanding it before. If I've just confused the issue more, let me know, and I'll try to clear it up.