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

[daMoose_Neo]

My bid is for "Anywhen".
Too, a "Window" could be defined as the point prior to a Fixed Event that is far enough disassociated with it where the Archivists could jump to to start making changes.
So, rather than take one and pitch the other, why not have the one absorb the other?
Archivists can jump "Anywhen", but can't always make (significant) changes unless they happen to jump to a "Window" point. Too close to the FE and the changes are meaningless, just as jumping in too soon. Thus, this Window would fall right between the two so that the actions have the most effect.

[Andrew Morris]

Hmm...I don't think that really makes it any better, Nate. Combining the two in that way would seem to carry all the negatives without all the positives. It could still feel like railroading -- "Well, sure, you can go anywhen, but if you pick any period other than what I've determined as the best, you won't be able to do anything."

I'd rather go with either one than a compromise, unless the compromise solution kept all the benefits, without all the negatives.

[Doug Ruff]

I don't think you'll be surprised that my vote is for "anywhen."

But I just wanted to mention that daMoose actually has a point here:

Archivists can jump "Anywhen", but can't always make (significant) changes unless they happen to jump to a "Window" point. Too close to the FE and the changes are meaningless, just as jumping in too soon.

I don't think that "window" is the most appropriate way of saying it, but in an Elastic universe, turning up too early could be just as bad as turning up too late.

If you want to make a change to a major event in 1939, going back to (say) 1812 isn't necessarily going to help much; by the time you get to 1939, History is back on track.

The only exception to this would be if what you did in 1812 triggered a major change to Big History around then; in which case events in 1939 may have changed beyond recognition.

So, yeah, there's an optimum period of time, a "window of opportunity" if you like, but that's mainly because most of the events that "determine" the event you are going to change will lie within this period.

[daMoose_Neo]

Re: Andrew

Okay, my terminology sucks, but my thought is this:
If you showed up the day Hitler was elected to the position to lead Germany (I can't for the life of me remember what it is) and killed him, WW2 would still happen, you may as well have shown up two weeks later.
If you jumped back 50 years and killed his grandparents, odds are strong WW2 would still happen. (I like WW2 ^_^) There might be a chance though, setting up certain events or what not, to arrive at just the right point to diffuse the tensions in Europe, the real cause of the Great War, long before Franz was killed.

I guess I was thinking what I was saying: Give the players the chance to go anywhen, but make it more challenging to alter the events. We're almost agreed events that are well documented are Fixed. Thats nice, but there ARE lesser events going on around that CAN be changed. That would allow Archivists access to change.
So, you changed something at the Kennedy Assasination that allowed Police to uncover something else- jump ahead to learn this secret. Jump back a little before the assassination and attempt to change Event A associated with the Secret. Nothing happens. Jump back a little further. Change Event B, which impacts A. Nothing again. Jump waaaay back, Change Event D, which shows incredible promise...until Event C occurs, knocking it all back on track. Thus, you need to find some point between D and C to change the course to make a significant change at the acutal Event.
My emphasis was on "significant". You can't go right back and change the KA, but you could change a smaller event that allows a foothold or "window" (maybe Foothold is better term?). By only going with a "Window of Opprotunity", as you described, players would be limited to just a defined point(s) as opposed to the jumping around as such. Without possibly making subtle changes at the Event itself, certain Footholds couldn't be gained in other points.

Is it neccesarily GM determined what the exact point is? Not really. The GM can have an idea, but any good GM should be able to (literally in this case almost) "go with the flow". So, the PC Archivists uncovered an underlying reason for Oswald to kill JFK or something not even connected to Oswald by observing the actual event and subtle changes there- the GM never anticipated this. This creates new Footholds available for the PCs to attempt to change history.
For something like this, I imagine we'll need very loose, very openminded GMs. Like my Imps game, I doubt highly a GM will be able to sit down with more than a plot hook to play.

[Edit] Curse my skimming. Doug said it in fewer words. Poo.

[Andrew Morris]

Okay, Nate, I get what you're saying now. I thought you were suggesting some sort of mechanical limitation for effectiveness if players went somewhere other than the window. What you're describing sounds exactly like the "anywhen" concept, though. (Which, I've mentioned, I'm perfectly fine with.) How is what you are suggesting different? I guess that's the key point I'm missing.

[Michael Brazier]

I vote for "anywhen", for the record.

As for providing a rational scientific explanation, I most certainly was not trying to do so. The thought of open portals was simply sparked by a current theory, it had nothing to do with the theory itself. The main reason I liked it was because I've had trouble coming up with a method of becoming an Archivist that allows a wide range of starting backgrounds. For example, if the method of becoming an Archivist was primarily philosophical, it'd be fairly hard to reconcile the character concept of, say, an Archivist who was a hardened criminal in his human existence.

Well, the essential step in becoming an Archivist has always seemed to be discovering Transcendence, and that's going to limit the Archivists' plausible backgrounds.  A bit of, um, detachment from the world-as-it-is would be a prerequisite, and people who were never so detached couldn't qualify.  Hardened criminals, for instance, are normally pure pragmatists.

But that still leaves a fair range of plausible backgrounds: ascetics, searching for transcendence by ignoring material things; scholars, searching for images of transcendence in the patterns of the material; creators, imposing forms upon the material in obedience to a private vision ...

[Doug Ruff]

...criminals, whose thirst for knowledge was so great that they were prepared to lie steal and murder for it... mad scientists conducting experiments in dimly lit basements, searching for the secret of everything...fanatics who were prepared to let the whole world burn in order to bring about their own vision of a proper society.

I don't think that Transcendence has to be about renouncing the world. Otherwise, why are Archivists (and especialy, the Nemesis) tinkering with History so much?

I suspect that Transcendence is more about exceeding your limits. Whether that's a result of meditation, discipline or unchecked passion, does it matter?

[daMoose_Neo]

Re: Backgrounds

Say you have a 20 year old who is commited several henious murders (maybe a family?), is convicted and sentenced to Death Row. His appeals, pleas, retrials, postponements and what not end up taking another 40 years before they finally decide to carry out the sentence. He's a 60 year old man now, tired, locked away from socioty and possibly, genuinely reflected on his life and the mistakes that put him where he is. He's had almost as much time to 'meditate' as your monks or priests or others normally associated with Trancendance, he's had something to genuinely reflect on, not hypotheticals, and this guy might generally feel remorse and now understand the value of human life.
In my thinking, he'd almost be a prime candidate for our Trancendence. A for this game GM could do something evil and put him in a situation where he could have the power to stop the family he killed in life from running afoul his 20 year old self or stop himself from killing the family, and somehow tie that choice to the overall outcome of the situation the PCs are in.

Re: Andrew

I see somekind of difference in my mind, but I'm not getting it out I guess. You, Doug and I seem to be on the same page though, so lets leave it there.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Character concepts: way cool. (I love the brutal killer locked away for life, slowly mutating through meditation into a gentle mystic and potential Archivist -- particulary if he still has that dark energy on tap somewhere down deep...). Also off topic, though. So let me as pseudo-moderator remind everyone of what our real moderator said:

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.

I think we've got #1 and #2 pretty much down -- i.e. "how to mess with human history" -- and have a good start on the others. Perhaps the next item on the agenda is to flip this around and figure out #3, how you can have a deadline in Archivist time, and #4, how the Great Library works?

[daMoose_Neo]

#3 Deadlines

This is something I'm having a hard time dealing with. You can easily have deadlines HT, but AT?...

Ala Frequency you have time moving the same in both the present and the past.
Ala Quantum Leap...there weren't many drawbacks, simply blowing it and being stuck in the host's body from then on. Possible Mechanic: too long within the HTT binds them to a host? Becoming to 'in sync' with the host to 're-Acend'.

btw, I was told by a pal GURPS Time Traveler (anyone read?) might provide some brainstorm material...have to dig through this...

[Doug Ruff]

OK, #3 and #4

Earlier on, I suggested that when an Archivist possesses a Host, they extend part (but not all) of their Presence into a Host.

This means that part of the Archivist is still subject to Archivist time. Which means that Archivist time can (and should pass) in parallel with Host time. It also means that the act of possession forges a "link" between the two timestreams - which may be similar to the "tunnel" we were discussing before; the main difference is that only consciousness (Presence) can pass through the tunnel.

This brings a deadline smack back into the game. Time is passing in both "spacetimes" (and can be assumed to pass at the same rate, at least for now). This means that while the Archivists are messing with one part of the HTT "carrot", the Nemesis are doing the same.

And... the shape of the Carrot is constantly changing. Minor changes are easily accomodated - the Archivist and Host move with the shift, and the link is maintained.

But if there is a major change, then the part of History that the Host is in ceases to exist (no parallel universes.) This means that the link between the Archivist and the Host is broken, and the part of the Archivist that was inside the Host is lost. It's as if someone cut a finger off (or an arm... it depends on how much Presence the Archivist had invested.)

This may be a better implementation of the damage ("burn") mechanic for Archivists, it also helps to explain why Archivists may want to (a) remain secret and (b) invest minimal Presence in their Hosts.

As for #4, here is something Sydney said about the Great library in Mix Your Own Metaplot:

The Great Library is the sum total of everything all Archivists are and know (not much of a distinction for a disembodied mind) -- even the repressed parts a particular Archivist wants to keep secret from its fellows and even denies to itself. Thus the Great Library comes into being with the first Archivist, expands with every new Archivist, and changes constantly, growing as new knowledge is added but also shrinking as Archivists' residual humanity is lost: "Weren't there books of poetry here before? Strange that they're gone....".

Add this to what I just said about the Archivist creating "links" and the answer is that the Archivists are the switching device.

[Michael Brazier]

btw, I was told by a pal GURPS Time Traveler (anyone read?) might provide some brainstorm material...have to dig through this...

I have that one, as it happens.  The "Timepiece" setting in that book links up with this thread: there are two possible futures in the 22nd century AD that have time travel, and both of them send agents back into the past to improve the probability of their future coming to pass.  If either future's probability drops below some threshold, that future's time machine stops working ... so progress in the campaign is measured by the two futures' probabilities.  (One future is free and happy, the other is a 1984-style nightmare -- you can guess which one the PCs come from.)

The Time Travel Adventures book has two scenarios for that setting; in one the PCs need to stop a nuke from exploding in the Great Pyramid in 1973.  In the other (more interesting) the PCs sail on the Titanic, not to prevent its sinking, but to make sure the right set of people get into the lifeboats and survive.  Of course agents from the other future are around to get their people into the lifeboats, and those who help one future usually hurt the other.

But if there is a major change, then the part of History that the Host is in ceases to exist (no parallel universes.) This means that the link between the Archivist and the Host is broken, and the part of the Archivist that was inside the Host is lost. It's as if someone cut a finger off (or an arm... it depends on how much Presence the Archivist had invested.)

I'd suggest that the Archivist should suffer, not only if this happens during the possession, but also if it happens after the possession is over -- exactly as if the Archivist's life as a human is significantly altered.  Every experience in Host time connects the Archivist to humanity, whether in one's own person or vicariously through possessions.  (This would require keeping track of each Archivist's past deeds, as human and as Archivist, but players should want to do that anyway...)

[contracycle]

"windows" and "anywhen" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Lets say your time machine only works at 99.999% of the speed of light relative to the target frame.  This might take a couple of weeks to accumulate even with extremely efficient drives, and be very expensive.  You'd have to boost away, hit the machine, and come back.

This makes Anywhen available but the actual selection of a date quite conflicted, especially if the group has multiple agendas.  Windows might be compromise dates... and if you miss the target timepoint by a few hours, it probably won't be worth the time and effort to do it all over again.

Note in this form, archivist time and human time are in fact the same, and archivists are material beings.  This may not jive with other ideas floating about, but my main aim was to show that winbdows and free choice do not rule one another out.

[contracycle]

The idea of collapsing probable events into certainty needs more attention as well.  There is no need for a living mind to do this in terms of the science so if that is going to be adopted we are moving rather firmly into the territory  of mysticism, in which consciousness is itself a special property.  This is exactly why I'm inclined not to like the idea, it is sometimes abused by people making anti-science arguments and I'd not be keen to propagate that misunderstanding any further.  But that might be the cue for moving more firmly onto mystic terrain.

What if the determinacy of an event is determined by the Eye of God falling on that particular event.  Then our setting starts after the final judgement, even after the thousand years of gods peaceful reign on earth, and the archivists are digging through the now-defunct article of Creation that is nevertheless still accessible via divine hijinks.  This makes sense of the "archivists" and "great library" concepts and opts straight out of scientific dilemmas.  Archivists might arguably be similar to defence/prosecution lawyers investigating the facts to be brought before a divine court in the judgement of a person's goodness or otherwise.

[daMoose_Neo]

Re: Devinity
I dunno that I'm too keen on that. Granted I myself am fairly strong in my faith, but I don't know if that meshes with the direction we're headed. Have we even defined what this Nemesis is?
Just a little concerned players might go "Bah it ends up okay anyway" with the whole "Its the end of the world as we know it and everybody is fine!" idea (Can't deny, God actively reigning over Earth for 1000+ years, be pretty nice) and tying it too tightly to any one faith (noted the singular use of God, hence the assumption) can be dangerous amongst players anywho (case in point: I game with a couple of athiests, a couple of Wiccians, a Catholic and I myself am Luthern).
I think we should stick with pseduo-science, even if we can't explain specific details.