Sim approach to speculative, short story-based sci-fi?

[M. J. Young]

I'd be curious to hear more about your Multiverser experience, which sounds like you were taking a sim approach to speculative, short story-based sci-fi!

Rather than further muddy the waters in that difficult thread, I decided to attempt to address it here.

Something we wrote in the introduction to Multiverser which has proved to be more true than we realized at the time is that the game is about rules that change. At the time we wrote those words (about 1992) and even when the game went to print (1997) there were no concepts of creative agendum and no thoughts of drift, but somehow we managed to build transition into the system.

Somewhere I've noted that in resolving the outcome of, say, running, the simulationist wants to know how fast he ran, the gamist whether he ran fast enough, and the narrativist how his running mattered. I mention this because in explaining how to interpret resolution rolls in Multiverser, several options are given which while not corresponding directly to these agenda do tend to support one or the other. You can calculate how fast a character ran based on the roll, if that's what you want to do, or you can recognize that the character ran or did not run fast enough, or you can view success and failure in the context of what the player intended as the outcome.

The referee makes that decision; but then, the referee is working with the players very much on an individual basis--since the verse-out and multiple staging concepts make individualized play normative within the game, the push is for players and referees to adapt to each other's preferences on an individual basis.

Thus if David decides to go mountain climbing, I respond by setting up challenges within the man-against-nature realm, and he uses his character skills and personal wit to face these. On the other hand, if David settles into a research project trying to develop new technology, I make that interesting by raising the kinds of questions that plague such development--both the technical questions of how to overcome specific problems and the moral questions of whether this is a good development. If he's not interested in dealing with the moral questions, they'll slip away from the focus of play as he does other things (most of the time; obviously, if this is something that logically would raise public outcry or something, that's going to resurface).

Because of the multiple staging aspect, David and I don't have to worry whether Eric is interested in the difficult question of whether a teleporter separates a man's soul from his body, whether opportunistic spirits might be waiting to take control, and whether there is anything that can be done about this--Eric, after all, is probably off fighting vampires or something in another world, and what David does interests him as a player, but does not involve him as a character.

Thus the game drifts to accommodate the interests of the players, to the degree that the referee and the player are able to communicate concerning what interests them.

That's about the best I can answer this at the moment. Perhaps if that's not a sufficient answer, you could clarify the question.

Thanks for asking.

--M. J. Young

[Snowden]

I'm thinking specifically of science fiction in the vein of Philip K. Dick, Robert Scheckley, J.G. Ballard, and so on in which the "world" of the story is very clearly tailored to explore whatever specific issues the author has in mind.  In Dick you get "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" and "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" where identity and memory are the respective dominant societal concerns; in Ballard you get "The Concentration City" (urban development has expanded in three dimensions to the point where people can no longer grasp the concept of open space) or "Chronopolis" (all time-keeping devices have been destroyed in a revolt against automation and efficiency).  The short story seems to have been the main vehicle for this style, and I believe its heyday was in the 60s and 70s; the significant factor is that the narrative is heavily "railroaded" in the sense that it's difficult to imagine any other kind of story making sense in the setting.

I can see how aspects of multiverser (especially the ability to create tightly focused but "disposable" worlds instead of piling idea after idea into a fixed "campaign setting")  would greatly facilitate playing science fiction in this mode.  What I'm especially curious about, however, is whether you have been able to achieve this kind of tightly focused setting without significant railroading.  You mention that

On the other hand, if David settles into a research project trying to develop new technology, I make that interesting by raising the kinds of questions that plague such development--both the technical questions of how to overcome specific problems and the moral questions of whether this is a good development. If he's not interested in dealing with the moral questions, they'll slip away from the focus of play as he does other things

but in the source material I'm thinking of the "moral questions" would be deeply integrated into the setting itself, and the choice to address them front-loaded as a result.  Rather than allowing David the option of exploring the technical and moral implications of teleportation, he would be thrust into a world where instant travel allowed roving "flash mobs" to riot around the world (I can't remember who I'm stealing this idea from, but it's 100% stolen), and where he could then choose how to address the moral and scientific issues.  Note that this doesn't have to be narrativist; in the story I'm thinking of the protagonist travels around, talks to a bunch of people, and works out a purely technological solution to the problem.

I realize that a lot of this seems to come down to stance and metagame, but I'm curious about how it plays out in practice!

[Jeph]

(You stole it from Stars my Destination, also called Tyger! Tyger!, by Alfred Baxter.)

[Caldis]

but in the source material I'm thinking of the "moral questions" would be deeply integrated into the setting itself, and the choice to address them front-loaded as a result.  Rather than allowing David the option of exploring the technical and

I think the typical way of handling this in Sim based games is some form of railroading.  Illusionism or participationism that maintains the consistency of the GM's story and themes allowing the players to play out their characters actions within the story.

[contracycle]

I agree that short story SF has a very strong tradition of creating worlds specifically for the point addressed by the story at hand.  OTOH, I think that most works of fiction do this - it's just less noticeable when two different authors make slightly different versions of contemporary new york.  But IMO they are functionally the same - you would not expect a character from one story to cross over to another just becuase they are nominally set in the same time and place.  Likewise, the moral questions are usually deeply embedded in character histories and whatnot.

The peculiar problem of the persistent world is fairly new and I think a more general problem for RPG to solve than anything directly related to the SF topic.

But what I am curious about is MJ's remark about doing "appropriate" research-type activities.  How long can this be fleshed out as a real character action, in practice?  I would fear that it descends into "I try the next potential solution on my list"/"roll"/clatter.  This will just be science problem as problem, not as science; it also strikes me as filler rather than player engaging action.  I could imagine that suitable resources might be built to accomodate this result, but that seems to be at odds with the idea of disposable worlds.

[M. J. Young]

For some reason I can't seem to get my mind focused on exactly what it is I'm answering here; it doesn't seem to be the questions--they seem clear enough--so let me try to tackle these and see whether I can devise a coherent and sensible post.

I'm probably suffering in part from the fact that I don't specifically recall reading any Dick, Scheckley, or Ballard. I read a lot of sci-fi shorts in Omni in the eighties, and don't remember who wrote what. My first and only encounter with flash mobs was in Larry Niven, but in the collection of short stories I read no real solution was offered.

Multiverser divides what it calls "story worlds" from what it calls "multiverser worlds".

A multiverser world is said to be based on bias and concept--what is this world about, and what is possible within it. In such worlds, the referee is trying to create a place where things can happen, and then letting the player decide what things will happen through his choices.

A story world is said to be about the setting and the plot. In this case, the setting is that combination of bias and concept that makes a multiverser world, what the world is like and what is possible within it. The plot is described as "an objective which the character is expected to achieve", usually complete with events and schedule, things that will happen unless the player's actions interfere.

A good example of a story world is Prisoner of Zenda, in which I drop the character in Ruritania and engineer his encounter with the Crown Prince the day before his coronation, letting it be known that the player character is the near twin of the prince. From there, I interact with the player. The king will insist (and his Aide de Camp will emphasize the insistence) that the strange double, who must be a cousin, come back to the hunting lodge and have a drink. This will grow to dinner, and then the king is poisoned late in the evening--and the Aide de Camp pressures the player character to impersonate the king for the coronation.

What gets these stories working is a good hook, a way to bring the character into the beginning of the story. Such worlds have to be designed with such a hook, possibly several hooks, to draw someone in to them. At the same time, they always include materials for the character who "plays against the scenario". I've had players go the route of the story, and do well with it. On the other hand, I just had a guy categorically refuse to impersonate the king for the coronation, who then led a handful of faithful men on a rapid mission to get the king to safety and bring down his treacherous half-brother in time to save the kingdom.

I will trailblaze; I will not do illusionism. I will use illusionist techniques to reach a starting point or make an effective transition, but not to control the story. If the hook doesn't work, either I've created a bad hook or the player is not interested in that story. I've got a hook for a spy scenario that essentially goes something like, "We know what you are, and can easily send you on your way to the next world, which we will do if you decide you don't want to work for us." Ultimately, though, I know I can't force a player into my story. I have to let him tell his story in my world.

Obviously, if the issues are deeply fixed in the world, they're hard to avoid. On the other hand, people do avoid them. I did a post-fantasy world in which at every turn there was clear evidence of the oppression and enslavement of orcs by the "free peoples", with a lot of material on the justification of this, the impact it was having on orcish society, and the fermenting discontent that was headed toward trouble--and some of my players just walked around enjoying the world while allowing the societal blinders keep them from addressing the problem at all. I did another world in which competition was cutthroat to the point that killing someone to get a promotion was not an impossible scenario, and some of the players leapt into the competition with both feet, trying to prove they were the best. You can't force someone to address your issues; you can only surround them with the issues and let them decide whether they have anything to say about that.

But what I am curious about is MJ's remark about doing "appropriate" research-type activities. How long can this be fleshed out as a real character action, in practice? I would fear that it descends into "I try the next potential solution on my list"/"roll"/clatter. This will just be science problem as problem, not as science; it also strikes me as filler rather than player engaging action. I could imagine that suitable resources might be built to accomodate this result, but that seems to be at odds with the idea of disposable worlds.

It's difficult, particularly given that "there is no fiction" in Multiverser--an idea that might be scientifically valid somewhere might be scientifically valid here, and so every sci-fi proposal has the potential to work. So to some degree it does come down to investing time into the project and rolling the dice to see whether you have learned how to do this or successfully done it.

On the other hand, this also becomes a skill-building activity. One of my players spent a fair amount of time developing a starship drive based on a wormhole generator. I have no idea whether something like that could "really" work, and I doubt whether even Hawking could say positively either way. The dice said he found a way to do it. Now his character knows how to design such a drive, and he can do it again in any world where such skills are possible. So the play is ultimately the way a new skill is "purchased" (there being no currency for "buying" skills in the game).

Does this answer the questions, or am I just too foggy following the holiday to know what was asked?

--M. J. Young

[Snowden]

Michael: Thanks, I think your distinction between "story" and "multiverser" worlds pretty much nails it.  It seems like there's a lot of trial and error involved (i.e. if the player isn't really interested in what you've planned for a story world, scrap it and try something else); however I'd be really interested to see a game that found some way to integrate the process of creating these "story worlds" into the system itself to a greater degree, in order to avoid both railroading and detached PC "tourism."  This is probably a new topic though!

Contracycle: I agree that science fiction isn't the only genre to do this, but I think its genre expectations allow it to do so much more forcefully than many other literary traditions.  In my experience this kind of tight focus is often perceived as clumsy when applied outside of a sci-fi context.

Jeph: Thanks!  Alfred Baxter doesn't ring a bell at all and I was thinking Bradbury; my memory's not what it used to be...

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Pedantic note: Jeph's fingers got a bit ahead of him - the name is Alfred Bester. Strongly recommended for the sort of SF we're discussing here, which is the only reason I'd post a non-theory pedantic correction.

Don't reply to this post; carry on. Also, everyone, please do not enter into a fanboyish rave session for or against Bester's work. Stay on topic, please.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

I admit that I don't know what a "Sim approach" is to gaming, Sci Fi or otherwise, is when discussing, specifically, a game set-up--I'm not sure what it's shorthand for (unless it's shorthand for planned illusionism or railroading--for which terms already exist).

One thing that I can speak to directly however (and this echoes Gareth's post): most of my made-up worlds, which is almost all of them, are, indeed, explcitly created for one or another sort of situation (that's 'story' if you're not married to a railroad-implied definiton of story in an RPG).

Same for the one's I play in that I've written up here. Although these games would qualify as speculative fiction they wouldn't necessiarily qualify as science fiction--but I think the idea is critical.

A gameworld that is co-designed with characters (either before or after) to bring a specific situation to the foreground is a key element of situational-based gaming (which, as I understand it could be Sim or Nar). As such, I'm not sure what a "Sim approach" would mean under that model.

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

Michael: Thanks, I think your distinction between "story" and "multiverser" worlds pretty much nails it.  It seems like there's a lot of trial and error involved (i.e. if the player isn't really interested in what you've planned for a story world, scrap it and try something else); however I'd be really interested to see a game that found some way to integrate the process of creating these "story worlds" into the system itself to a greater degree, in order to avoid both railroading and detached PC "tourism."

I think this is intended for me. One of the downsides of using my initials (in some ways a poor decision I made seven years ago) is that people miss my name. It's Mark; but I'm comfortable with M. J. now, as it prevents me from being confused with anyone but Mary Jane.

Let me suggest you check out Legends of Alyria. The entire game setup/character generation process is geared to involve the players in the theme from the outset. True to Valdron's commitment to making Multiverser as flexible as possible, we've worked with Seth to create interfacing rules so that Multiverser characters can move into Alyria under the LoA rules, and it looks very promising.

I admit that I don't know what a "Sim approach" is to gaming, Sci Fi or otherwise, is when discussing, specifically, a game set-up--I'm not sure what it's shorthand for (unless it's shorthand for planned illusionism or railroading--for which terms already exist).

I'll confess I don't have an answer to that. In the parent thread it was suggested that Multiverser sounded like a sim approach to whatever it was I entitled this thread, and I put a question mark after it as I'm not certain that it is. Perhaps those who posed the idea can explain what they meant and whether my description fits that. I tend to think that I'm looking at a drift or transition approach built into the game, but Multiverser gets the sim label as a system (I don't object, although I was initially surprised), so that may be the foundation for the idea.

--M. J. Young

[Snowden]

M.J.:  Sorry, I don't know where I got the idea you were a Michael!  I'm Morgan, by the way, but that was already taken as a username.  Anyhow, I have no experience with Multiverser beyond your descriptions, so take my "sim" label with a huge grain of salt.  In this case, what I meant was that it seems like the game is primarily focused on establishing the "reality" of the setting, letting themes (not sure if that's the right word) surface only if the players choose to address them.  Since Breaking the Heart of the Universe has been sealed off, I just thought I'd bring in an alternate approach that you mentioned there and that seemed very a propos:

I can think of one possible way to approach this. Start with a modern setting, then propose exactly one technological innovation that is introduced into the world as it is. The players then get to decide what they do with it as it grows from rare to ubiquitous; together with the referee, they must also predict what other people will do with the same technology. Once you've got one going, introduce another. Keep adding one at a time, and integrating the impact as you progress. Even this, though, requires that the players be particularly insightful. The application of new technology to unusual uses is the hallmark of societal change. It takes vision to make those kinds of extrapolations. It's a difficult game at every level.

This sounds both interesting and extremely challenging!  I wonder how you would decide when to jump from the "setting-building" stage to the "character-playing" stage, or whether the two could coexist side by side during gaming sessions...


Marco:

A gameworld that is co-designed with characters (either before or after) to bring a specific situation to the foreground is a key element of situational-based gaming (which, as I understand it could be Sim or Nar). As such, I'm not sure what a "Sim approach" would mean under that model.

I see what you're saying, but I was thinking of a much tighter focus than is usually present in co-designed gameworlds (at least the ones I've seen).  Not just "let's have this story arc be about loyalty and the clash between cultures," but "when the orbital cold war is over, what happens to decomissioned satellite crews who can't handle earth gravity?" or "what if pollution created a floating chemical film that prevented ocean evaporation?"  If this is the level of focus your group is doing (whether Sim or Narr), I would be interested in hearing more about it!

[Marco]

Hi Snowden,

Marco:

A gameworld that is co-designed with characters (either before or after) to bring a specific situation to the foreground is a key element of situational-based gaming (which, as I understand it could be Sim or Nar). As such, I'm not sure what a "Sim approach" would mean under that model.

I see what you're saying, but I was thinking of a much tighter focus than is usually present in co-designed gameworlds (at least the ones I've seen).  Not just "let's have this story arc be about loyalty and the clash between cultures," but "when the orbital cold war is over, what happens to decomissioned satellite crews who can't handle earth gravity?" or "what if pollution created a floating chemical film that prevented ocean evaporation?"  If this is the level of focus your group is doing (whether Sim or Narr), I would be interested in hearing more about it!

[/quote]

My methodology of co-design falls along a spectrum.

1. I've never approached RPG's by 'trying to create a story about' "loyalty and the clash between cultures" either. As a starting point it seems backwards to me--although that's not to say that I wouldn't want a game that focused and revolved around those themes.

2. In terms of co-design:

(a) Search on 'Marco' in Actual Play for threads I've started and you can see several game writeups (both those I've played in and run)--they are lengthy but they detail a specific spec-fic world and the characters therein...
(b) Usually I will either be given information about the PC's the characters want to play or I will give the players constraints for the PC's I want (for the last game I ran, I told the players a few things about their characters--they lived in a small town, they were friends since they were young, they had a common friend who had vanished a long time ago, they led lives without much wealth).
(c) Once I have a general idea and some specific characters, I'll then tailor the situation to the characters and players making sure that my general idea becomes specifically relevant to their interests.

3. I do not consider the creation of situation without a discrete focus on Premise to be "Sim" or even a "Sim approach." I consider that a Situational approach. I think it is a common synechdote here that considers, for example "games based on cause and effect" or "games where a fictional world is presented as if you 'were really there'" (or play from Actor Stance) to be Sim-ist. I'm not saying you're saying that--but I've seen, IMO, a fair amount of it.

-Marco

[b_bankhead]

Last year I posted a design skeleton of a game dealing with the subject of serial short story type sf, I dubbed Ship and the Stars.
Part 1 can be seen here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9055
Part 2 is here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9097

A descrptor for a golden age sf campaign may be seen here.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9096

S&tS will use a descriptor based system similar to SOAP and The Pool, It will be based on scene resolution/narrateive control and players will be rewarded based on contribution to the setting.

S&tS deals with on the the biggest rpg bees buzzing around in my bonnet, setting creation.  My view on the reason that running SF campaigns is so hard  is that  there is potentially so much setting matterial. S&tS takes this problem and makes it the core of how gameplay works.

I will be working on S&tS in earnest after the rollout of Eldritch Tales, my upcoming Lovecraftian storytelling game.

[M. J. Young]

Anyhow, I have no experience with Multiverser beyond your descriptions, so take my "sim" label with a huge grain of salt.  In this case, what I meant was that it seems like the game is primarily focused on establishing the "reality" of the setting, letting themes (not sure if that's the right word) surface only if the players choose to address them.

I think the sim label is probably correct in a fundamental sense with Multiverser. The game is "about" what you would do if you were suddenly ripped from your home, given ageless immortality, and moved from universe to universe through death. Much of what the system does is make it possible for different worlds to exist as different worlds--to have magical worlds where technology doesn't work well and technological worlds where magic doesn't work well, and such as that. What is not readily apparent (in large part because we didn't realize it) is how easily the game drifts into gamist or narrativist play if that's the direction the players want to go. I think it's not incoherent, because it seems to me that if I took players out of any random Multiverser playgroup and dropped them into another, they would still be able to drift the game to that which interested them. Obviously, though, I can't say I've encountered every Multiverser playgroup out there, and so that's an assessment based on limited information.

I just thought I'd bring in an alternate approach that you mentioned there and that seemed very a propos:

I can think of one possible way to approach this. Start with a modern setting, then propose exactly one technological innovation that is introduced into the world as it is. The players then get to decide what they do with it as it grows from rare to ubiquitous; together with the referee, they must also predict what other people will do with the same technology. Once you've got one going, introduce another. Keep adding one at a time, and integrating the impact as you progress. Even this, though, requires that the players be particularly insightful. The application of new technology to unusual uses is the hallmark of societal change. It takes vision to make those kinds of extrapolations. It's a difficult game at every level.

This sounds both interesting and extremely challenging!  I wonder how you would decide when to jump from the "setting-building" stage to the "character-playing" stage, or whether the two could coexist side by side during gaming sessions...

My impression is that character playing is setting building in this game. The idea is, "here is a new technology, what do you do with it, and what does the rest of the world do with it?" There's a hope that at some point these introduced techological innovations will raise real issues, but there's no guarantee that it will happen.

--M. J. Young

[Snowden]

My impression is that character playing is setting building in this game. The idea is, "here is a new technology, what do you do with it, and what does the rest of the world do with it?" There's a hope that at some point these introduced techological innovations will raise real issues, but there's no guarantee that it will happen.

I can certainly see this working for situations where coping with a new development is the point of interest.  But tying character and setting together so tightly might make it difficult to collaboratively develop "late-blooming" situations -- if they arrive in time to see the first barely-intelligent robot (i.e. the technological innovation they've decided to take as their point of departure), they'll spend their lives living through events that Asimov skims over on his way to the good parts.

I can see a few solutions:
1.  Allow the players to "fast forward" the game as they play; they might do a few sessions as a team of scientists on the verge of an important discovery (which is developed through play), do a few more as a team of sociologists (or revolutionaries!) 50 years later who are attempting to solve problems related to this discovery (again, developed through play), and finish up the story arc playing children born 100 years after the initial session.

2.  Accept a timeline which allows players to develop an entire storyline through a single set of characters even if this entails an "unrealistically" fast rate of discovery and cultural change.

3.  Work out the "back story" collaboratively before bringing the characters into the game.

I've seen approaches analogous to all three used in science fiction novels and stories.  With a lot of squinting, this is starting to look like a game I'd really like to get my hands on!


Edited to admit that it took me this long to realize I need to check out Universalis!