[Transhuman Space] First attempts at Sim play.

[Simon Marks]

So, I started up a game of Transhuman Space the other day, and I wanted to ask about how to make my Sim reffing better.

We have three players at the moment, a fourth is turning up next session. Sessions will be irregular (every other Sunday) and take place in my home.

The system is Gurps - something I dislike running, but I can cope. At least, until combat starts (sigh), fortunately that hasn't happend yet.

Let me introduce you to the players.

Ms T (Shyshen) - My partner, and an avowed Rules-Hater. She doesn't read rule books and dislikes the application of mechanics. She states they get in the way of her 'playing her character'. She is playing an inhuman monstrosity, a Cybershell controlled by a Low Empath AI encased in the Skin of an (ex) living human. The AI is designed as an assassin, but was recently released with the last orders "You are free now". Now Shyshen needs to find out what that means.

Mr S (Tyler) - The expert on Gurps, and on THS itself. He knows the system backwards but never particularly plays on the fact. Playin Captain Tyler, a Farhauler pilot (Space Trucker) as a member of the "Gyps Angels" - extreme libertarians beleiving in freedom above all. He and his crew went to the Ort Cloud (edge of the Solar System), and only he came back - with no memories, and a damaged ship. Only other survivor is Mac, a Sentient AI, who has been totally traumatised.

Mr D (Mr Ocelote) - A player I haven't had before, and rather socially awkard. Playing a rich kid from China who was an 'illegal' genetic modification. When his family fell into disfavour, his family enemies tried to have him killed. He fled into space, changing his name and losing a fortune.

At the begining of the session, I started with Shyshen and Tyler - as the prologue had them together, limping into a disreputable port in Langrange 5 (a space port between the moon and the earth)

Now, I had come to the conclusion that I wanted to run a Sim supporting game - as my players seem very keen on this style of play. It is worth noting (for example) that the players are on vastly different points (Shyshen is something like 550pts, the rest are 300pts), so I have tried to be careful about playing to their niche's.

In addition, I took up the idea of using a low-prep play (actually, no-prep - but I intend to alter that) by using three guidelines off of which I would 'riff' everything.

1) The Locations are either Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica (new series) - that is, either Hyperclean and perfect or on the edge of collapse.
2) In the end, everything starts and ends with China
3) In space, everything is peaceful and serene. On land, it is always chaotic.

Armed with this, I launched into the first game.

Now, all in all the game worked quite well. I'm reasonably pleased with in.

Tyler and Shyshen went looking for woek. Mr O was looking for a ship. Mr O found them, and then found them work. (Mr O's niche is the diplomatic one). I had to ensure that D (Mr O's player) didn't hog spotlight time by playing out his shopping trip. Although I did play out any situation with Shyshen being in public. Shyshen's niche is standing out in a crowd. Tyler's niche is being moody and having a ship.

In the end they found someone looking for cargo being hauled to Europa (moon of Saturn). This was a patently illegal cargo run, resupplying one of the sides in the war there before the EU can send a delegation. About 2,500 tons of munitions in fact.

And off they went. They were immediately suspicious of the cargo. Mostly because I told them that it felt like there was something wrong. So, they broke open one of the cases and found that it was full of DPU Railgun shells.
Still unsettled they went about wieghing all the other cases to see if they weigh the same. (This will take weeks) - convinced there will be in one of them.

When we left them, they had just picked up the debris on another ship ahead....
Which meant that the earlier ship was on exactly the same course and left only about 5-6 hours earlier.

Good, stand out moments.
Shyshen dealing with plants for the first time.
Tyler explaining to Shyshen why crawling along the ceiling like some freaky-weird black spider was not a good way of travelling through a densly populated space station.
Mr Ocelote leaping into the party by setting himself up as a middleman and my ability to latch on and support what the players planned to do.
The tension built up by some real simple elements relating to the backstory of Tyler - a rock in the airconditioning unit, going over the security tapes and counting down the crew as they just... vanish. Mr Ocelotes abortive attempts at communication about "These weird burn marks all over your ship then?"

Now, currently I am struggling with two things.
1) When asked for feedback, Ms T said that she did not like the way that I had stated that Shyshen felt nervous about the cargo. I don't see how else I could have got across that the character was subconciously picking up that something was wrong - or is it fair to have to try and make Ms T feel uncomfortable about the cargo? That just seems... manipulative.

2) I'm quite pleased how they got this job, Mr D said "I'm going to look for a job that they could do going in this direction", so I came up with some tasty sounding missions and left it to them to decide. With low-prep play I can get away with this sort of thing much easier. But now I am stuck with what to do about the cargo. I wanted to make the players (characters?) be nervous and wary of the cargo. Now they expect to find something nasty in the woodshed.

But, here is the thing - if it turns out to be nothing am I undercutting the power of the situation? Will the players be less likely to react and riff of my emotive statements if I just decide to drop any plans I may have had?
On the other hand, if there is something nasty in there - how can I introduce emotive statements that *don't* flag up "This is going to be a challenge right here guys!"

Comments welcome.

[Rob Alexander]

Hi,

Since no-one else has responded yet, I'll throw in my limited expertise....

It is worth noting (for example) that the players are on vastly different points (Shyshen is something like 550pts, the rest are 300pts), so I have tried to be careful about playing to their niche's.

You're looking at low-combat sim, right, and Shyshen's extra points are mostly in combat or movement abilities (such as the 'crawling along the ceiling')? If that's true, then I don't think there will be problems here.

Ms T said that she did not like the way that I had stated that Shyshen felt nervous about the cargo

Hmmm...can you expand on why she didn't like that? Was it a general objection to the GM telling her how her character was feeling (i.e. overstepping the boundary of control), or more to the specific suggestion that a "Low Empath AI encased in the Skin of an (ex) living human ... designed as an assassin" might feel nervous about anything?

In the latter case, maybe a less personal "something seems abnormal here" might have been more acceptable to her.

The situation on board the ship, with the rock and the burn marks and the 'inhuman monster' PC is really, really cool. As a player I'd really like to be in that kind of situation.

But that might be something of a warning bell because, as established in other threads on this forum, my preferences seem to be pretty gamist.

[TonyLB]

But, here is the thing - if it turns out to be nothing am I undercutting the power of the situation? Will the players be less likely to react and riff of my emotive statements if I just decide to drop any plans I may have had?
On the other hand, if there is something nasty in there - how can I introduce emotive statements that *don't* flag up "This is going to be a challenge right here guys!"

Wow.  That's some tricky stuff there.  Hrmmm.

Why don't you drop a lot of potential avenues for exploration, and then react to what possibilities they see as immediately interesting?  Like, if they comb the crates for bio-signs, give 'em all sorts of static and cloaking fol-de-rol that they can overcome, and if they overcome it then yep, there were hidden biologicals in those crates.  If they immediately break out quarantine gear then you know that the biologicals are probably viral (or worse).  If they try to talk to it then it's probably sentient (or worse).

If you do this obviously then people immediately realize that they're in charge of the story, and they sometimes start driving it around in quite lunatic circles.  But if you set yourself up with a fall-back plan ("Here's what I'll dump on them if they don't have anything better in mind,") and drift slowly toward that until they drag you onto another course then often they think that they've brilliantly figured out your plan before you could spring it, and headed you off at the pass.

Does that make any sense?  I should probably be referring you to past threads on this, if you find the notion at all gels with your style.

[Lamorak33]

Hi

This is a general thing but, if you are playing sim do you have a definite story that you are playing to? Do you have a number of scenes/ things that have to happen/discover/people to meet to move the story along?

If your playing along to peoples backstories and improvising and presenting bangs based on the player characters backgrounds/character sheets you may have unwittingly slipped into narratavism.

Its always been my understanding that the dividing line between sim and narratavism is whether its the Gm driving the story or the characters.

Regards
Rob

[Lamorak33]

Hi

I forgot to ask, if you not a fan of GURPS and your wife prefers rules lite, why are you using that system? Could you just apply the background to another system, or are you running or planning to run published modules?

Regards
Rob

[Simon Marks]

Hi all, thanks for the replies...

I'll take them in order - and throw two real proper questions in as well.

It is worth noting (for example) that the players are on vastly different points (Shyshen is something like 550pts, the rest are 300pts), so I have tried to be careful about playing to their niche's.

You're looking at low-combat sim, right, and Shyshen's extra points are mostly in combat or movement abilities (such as the 'crawling along the ceiling')? If that's true, then I don't think there will be problems here.

Yeah, 'low combat' and if there is any it'll either be (a) because the Players initiate it or (b) require the participation of all players (multiple objectives).

Ms T said that she did not like the way that I had stated that Shyshen felt nervous about the cargo

Hmmm...can you expand on why she didn't like that? Was it a general objection to the GM telling her how her character was feeling (i.e. overstepping the boundary of control), or more to the specific suggestion that a "Low Empath AI encased in the Skin of an (ex) living human ... designed as an assassin" might feel nervous about anything?

In the latter case, maybe a less personal "something seems abnormal here" might have been more acceptable to her.

No, simple overstepping the boundary of control.
Seems like I need to ensure that whereas I have no problem with a ref telling me how I feel, she does.
I've talked to her about it, and we've agreed that I'll avoid doing it again in the future.

The situation on board the ship, with the rock and the burn marks and the 'inhuman monster' PC is really, really cool. As a player I'd really like to be in that kind of situation.

But that might be something of a warning bell because, as established in other threads on this forum, my preferences seem to be pretty gamist.

I'm glad you like the situation, but any ideas why it rev's your gamist engine?

But, here is the thing - if it turns out to be nothing am I undercutting the power of the situation? Will the players be less likely to react and riff of my emotive statements if I just decide to drop any plans I may have had?
On the other hand, if there is something nasty in there - how can I introduce emotive statements that *don't* flag up "This is going to be a challenge right here guys!"

Wow. That's some tricky stuff there. Hrmmm.

Why don't you drop a lot of potential avenues for exploration, and then react to what possibilities they see as immediately interesting? Like, if they comb the crates for bio-signs, give 'em all sorts of static and cloaking fol-de-rol that they can overcome, and if they overcome it then yep, there were hidden biologicals in those crates. If they immediately break out quarantine gear then you know that the biologicals are probably viral (or worse). If they try to talk to it then it's probably sentient (or worse).

If you do this obviously then people immediately realize that they're in charge of the story, and they sometimes start driving it around in quite lunatic circles. But if you set yourself up with a fall-back plan ("Here's what I'll dump on them if they don't have anything better in mind,") and drift slowly toward that until they drag you onto another course then often they think that they've brilliantly figured out your plan before you could spring it, and headed you off at the pass.

Does that make any sense? I should probably be referring you to past threads on this, if you find the notion at all gels with your style.

I like that idea.

I'll let them find ... something ... in one of the crates. Something that is not immediately a threat but one that raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers.

*thinks* something like a disasembled cybershell (robot) of unknown construction and unknown origin that just looks real badass with a AI stored in a computer. Do they plug it into the main computer? Do they put it back and pretend they never saw it... What to do?

So, yeah - some links would be fab.

This is a general thing but, if you are playing sim do you have a definite story that you are playing to? Do you have a number of scenes/ things that have to happen/discover/people to meet to move the story along?

No, I have no 'pre-determined story' that is playing out.
Hell, at the first game all I had was the setting and three 'general rules'

For future games I'm working on a "Bandoler of Bangs", to throw in whenever the oppertunity presents itself.
This being Sim, they will be along the lines of "Look at this interesting aspect of the fictional world", for example - one of the Bangs I have is
"A Ghost (a digital copy of a biological mind that is perfect, but the copying process destroys the original brain - it requires dicing) of an executive of a corporation has been xeoxed by another corporation. Now both copies are claiming to be the original, and accuse the other as the fake. This would be fine if they weren't both claiming custody of something (patent, Family, Dog)"

If your playing along to peoples backstories and improvising and presenting bangs based on the player characters backgrounds/character sheets you may have unwittingly slipped into narratavism.

Its always been my understanding that the dividing line between sim and narratavism is whether its the Gm driving the story or the characters.

This is expressly not my understanding of Narrativism.

Narrativism is about 'addressing Premise' which, although it may happen is not what I am trying to do.

Sim, on the otherhand, is about exploring, investigating, celebrating and discovering within the setting/genre/system.

The above Bang, however could easily slip into Nar play the moment we all realise that such a Bang addresses the Premise "What is it to be Human" - which is the Premise of Transhuman Space.

But thats fine, I can have "Nar interludes" in a "Sim leaning game" - or at least I could if I knew how to end an instance of Sim Play.

So, here is my big question

Sim reward cycles.
I get Gamist reward cycles - an instance of Gamist play ends when you have "Stepped on up"
I get Narrativist reward cycles - an instance of Narratavist play ends when you have "addressed the Premise"

Taking again the example of the above Bang, in a Gamist instance of play, the instance would end when the Players had stepped on Up and succeeded in showing their guts/talent by (say) destroying the fake Executive.
And in a Nar instance of Play, the instance would end when the players had addressed the premise and (say) stated that both of the Ghosts where really human, and that the only way to reconcile the differences was to "merge" the minds back into one whole.

But, in a Sim instance of play where does it end?
How much do they need to "Explore/Discover" the situation before they have 'done enough'

Sim, at the moment, to me is only problematic because I'm not sure when you have explored something enough

I forgot to ask, if you not a fan of GURPS and your wife prefers rules lite, why are you using that system? Could you just apply the background to another system, or are you running or planning to run published modules?

Why are we running GURPS?
It's a good question, and I don't have any good reason.
I think because of the 4 players (a 4th is joining soon), 3 of them like GURPS.
I can't actually think of a system I'd rather use because I don't have any real experiance with Sim supporting systems and the Transhuman Space system is built around GURPS.
In other words, I suppose, because I'm lazy.

Care to suggest a good Sim system?

Finally, a thought about "Bangs"

I thought I had started off without any, I know think that

1) The Locations are either Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica (new series) - that is, either Hyperclean and perfect or on the edge of collapse.
2) In the end, everything starts and ends with China
3) In space, everything is peaceful and serene. On land, it is always chaotic.

are three "Reusable" bangs.

What do you call a bang that just keeps giving? Is it still a bang or just Setting?

[Lamorak33]

Hi

The pay off for Sim is generally 'being the character' yes? Thus if playing bang-sim you will be giving the character the opportunity to behave as their character would do, not necessarily as they, the player, 'want to'. An example here is from a game like Pendragon with personality traits. Dyed in the wool sim players might decide what the character does based on what he thinks his character would do based on the personality ratings.

I think the only problem you may suffer from is playing with an incoherent agenda. You obviously have a mix of players who have different creative agenda proclivities which can lead to a break down of the social contract to a lesser or greater extent. Gurps doesn't help because it is quite incoherent, don't you think? But the game will still be good I suspect as you sound like a good GM. I'd like to play in that game.

I'm only fairly new so I can offer opinion but little in the way of advice. I will leave that to the more sage contributors!

Regards
Rob

[Simon Marks]

The pay off for Sim is generally 'being the character' yes? Thus if playing bang-sim you will be giving the character the opportunity to behave as their character would do, not necessarily as they, the player, 'want to'. An example here is from a game like Pendragon with personality traits. Dyed in the wool sim players might decide what the character does based on what he thinks his character would do based on the personality ratings.

Ahhh. No.
Thats not Sim play as I understand it.

Now, I look at it a little differently, which is that Sim is much smaller than implied by those essays, and is best understood as a form of celebration of the prevailing enthusiasms/assumptions about some starting material.

Now, I think I've got Sim - apart from the 'Reward Cycle' problem I'm having. And I'll say this bluntly - I think you're waaay off base with regard to Sim play.

So, I think we are going to have to back off on this discussion until we can agree on what we mean by Sim play. I'm aiming for what Ron states - a celebration of what makes the setting cool. You suggesting that Sim is 'being in character' isn't helping any - because thats not what Sim play is.

The best thing to do is, i'm afraid to say, read the essay, check the threads in the GNS forum at the moment and post any questions about Sim play there.

I think the only problem you may suffer from is playing with an incoherent agenda. You obviously have a mix of players who have different creative agenda proclivities which can lead to a break down of the social contract to a lesser or greater extent. Gurps doesn't help because it is quite incoherent, don't you think? But the game will still be good I suspect as you sound like a good GM. I'd like to play in that game.

Oh yeah, we all have different agenda when we come to the table, but here is the thing. I' running this game (for the first time) on purpose. I'm mostly hoping that my entusiasm for "Isn't this cool!" will make people realise that this is what we are here to do.
If they get no reward from me as the GM for inchoherent, Gamist or Nar play and I feedback to them about what I liked then we should be able - through feedback and positive re-enforcement - come to an understanding about what I'm tryng to do with this game.
Add to that the fact that art of the Social Contract is that, in this case, the game is about exploring/discoverng the ... setting, I hope that Incohernce won't set in too much.

As for GURPS being incoherent, I'd be interested to hear why you feel that - although in another post perhaps. I don't like the system because it often feels like wading through molassess - there's just so many little subsystems! But I don't think it's actually Inchoerent. Just.. kludgey.

[Josh Roby]

Oh yeah, we all have different agenda when we come to the table, but here is the thing. I' running this game (for the first time) on purpose. I'm mostly hoping that my entusiasm for "Isn't this cool!" will make people realise that this is what we are here to do.
If they get no reward from me as the GM for inchoherent, Gamist or Nar play and I feedback to them about what I liked then we should be able - through feedback and positive re-enforcement - come to an understanding about what I'm tryng to do with this game.
Add to that the fact that art of the Social Contract is that, in this case, the game is about exploring/discoverng the ... setting, I hope that Incohernce won't set in too much.

Have you not discussed your intentions with the players?  Are you trying to lead them to Sim, rather than moving towards Sim together?

[Liminaut]

Now, I had come to the conclusion that I wanted to run a Sim supporting game - as my players seem very keen on this style of play. It is worth noting (for example) that the players are on vastly different points (Shyshen is something like 550pts, the rest are 300pts), so I have tried to be careful about playing to their niche's.

Starting the game with the GM's partner being vastly more powerful than the other players is a big warning flag to me.  The other players have their "right to dream" as well, and having a "dream" of carrying the bags for another PC isn't going to be a lot of fun.

In addition, I took up the idea of using a low-prep play (actually, no-prep - but I intend to alter that) by using three guidelines off of which I would 'riff' everything.

1) The Locations are either Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica (new series) - that is, either Hyperclean and perfect or on the edge of collapse.
2) In the end, everything starts and ends with China
3) In space, everything is peaceful and serene. On land, it is always chaotic.

Sounds like the Serenity RPG.

And off they went. They were immediately suspicious of the cargo. Mostly because I told them that it felt like there was something wrong. So, they broke open one of the cases and found that it was full of DPU Railgun shells.

<snip>

1) When asked for feedback, Ms T said that she did not like the way that I had stated that Shyshen felt nervous about the cargo. I don't see how else I could have got across that the character was subconciously picking up that something was wrong - or is it fair to have to try and make Ms T feel uncomfortable about the cargo? That just seems... manipulative.

What made Shysen feel uncomfortable?  If you want to do Sim, then _do Sim_.  Describe the boxes.  Does Syshen have a special Shysen-sense that warns of plot complications?  What do the boxes look like?

And if they get the description and don't figure out something is off ... well, that's Sim.  Telling the players straight off that "they feel like something is wrong" is enforcing a narrative direction by indicating a direction for their actions.

==Ed

[Lamorak33]

Now, I think I've got Sim - apart from the 'Reward Cycle' problem I'm having. And I'll say this bluntly - I think you're waaay off base with regard to Sim play.

So, I think we are going to have to back off on this discussion until we can agree on what we mean by Sim play. I'm aiming for what Ron states - a celebration of what makes the setting cool. You suggesting that Sim is 'being in character' isn't helping any - because thats not what Sim play is.

The best thing to do is, i'm afraid to say, read the essay, check the threads in the GNS forum at the moment and post any questions about Sim play there.

Ok, will do. Tell me if I am wrong though, Ron has developed the 'sim' definition since the article 'Sim;The Right to Dream'. According to the big model all forms of play incorporate celebration and exploration of the setting. The key points are who ultimately controls the story, and whether rules manipulation for advantage is part of 'the point' to play.

I also question your apparent narrow view of narratavist play, and that is that nar is not taking place unless the premise of the game is being addressed. Are you intentionally disqualifying player generated character premise, and/or player decisions driving the story which I understood to be narratavist type play.

However, as only a beginner at all this I will retreat to the GNS forum/articles for some more 'study' as some of my assumptions may very well be 'off base'.

Cheers
Rob

PS: I note that you hail from the old Roman town of Camoludunum. Are you planning to make Dragonmeet this year?

[Rob Alexander]

I'm glad you like the situation, but any ideas why it rev's your gamist engine?

P1: "Hey, what's if there's something nasty in these crates"
Me: "Yeah, better check them out. I'll open the nearest one and look inside."
P1: "Is that a good idea? I mean, what if they're like full of hostile aliens?"
Me: "Shit. You're right. Is there an area we can hoist them into that's closed on three sides?"
GM: "Well there's the lift to the upper level. It's open on one side and as safety rails around the rest."
Me: "Rails aren't going to be enough....have we got any crates that we can vouch for as ok?"
GM: "There's half-a-dozen empty ones stashed in one corner"
Me: "Okay, we'll winch some of those onto the lift so that they form a kind of corral or horseshoe, then we'll put each suspect crate in the middle and have the android open it up while the rest of us stand back here. With lasers."
P1: "I don't mean to be alarmist...but you're all hung up on aliens. What about biohazards?"
Me: "Right....have we got any vacuum suits?..."

etc....

[Simon Marks]

Again, almost from the top.

Have you not discussed your intentions with the players?  Are you trying to lead them to Sim, rather than moving towards Sim together?

Sorry, I should have been more clear.
I did explain that what I was trying to do here was (I think the phrase when along the lines of) "Just be the world of Transhuman Space, to explore and see what makes this world interesting and cool". Now, I'm sure the players heard me - I'm not sure the players knew what I meant. I tried in the feedback session afterwards to again explain.
So, not only stating upfront what I'm aiming for but by actually aiming for it as well I can show and explain. I'm partly leading them, but only because I can't think of a better way to show them what I'm
aiming for. But I have told them that I am aiming in this direction.

Starting the game with the GM's partner being vastly more powerful than the other players is a big warning flag to me. The other players have their "right to dream" as well, and having a "dream" of carrying the bags for another PC isn't going to be a lot of fun.

The group is robust enough to take it, mostly because the players trust me.

Sounds like the Serenity RPG.

Does rather. We had just watched the movie.

What made Shysen feel uncomfortable? If you want to do Sim, then _do Sim_. Describe the boxes. Does Syshen have a special Shysen-sense that warns of plot complications? What do the boxes look like?

And if they get the description and don't figure out something is off ... well, that's Sim. Telling the players straight off that "they feel like something is wrong" is enforcing a narrative direction by indicating a direction for their actions.

See, this is my weakness in GMing.
I want to include a scene involving the cargo. I need to say "Hey, guys - do you fancy investigating the cargo?" without saying "Investigate the cargo, dammit".
My problem is that I did the latter, not the former.

[TonyLB]

So, yeah - some links would be fab.

Okay, here's something to start on:  The Conflict is Yours.  It gets started with a real punchy post from Fang Langford about the difference between appreciating a type of story and being able to make that type of story be the end result of a gaming experience.  An oldie but a goodie.

[Mike Holmes]

See, this is my weakness in GMing.
I want to include a scene involving the cargo. I need to say "Hey, guys - do you fancy investigating the cargo?" without saying "Investigate the cargo, dammit".
My problem is that I did the latter, not the former.

Not really a weakness, likely, more like the difficulty of what you're attempting.

That is, if you say, "Hey guys - do you fancy...?" they may say no. And then what? So it's actually typical to fall into the pattern of telling them what to do, if you have stuff pre-planned. Actually, what often happens (is this you?) is that the GM will learn Illusionism, meaning how to make it look like the players have the ability to choose, but really do not. For example, a classic technique in this case is the "escalating problem":

GM: You note the cargo bay door is open as you pass.
Player: OK, I close it.
GM a bit later: The computer says that there's a strange radiation signature coming from the cargo bay.
Player: I'll send the robot to check it out.
GM a bit later: The robot has failed to return.
Player: I'll send another bot to check that one.
GM a bit later: There are sounds of something thrashing around coming from the cargo bay.

Often, however, players see right through this, and may not be satisfied.

Here's the key to good play of this sort. What you have to do is to give them stuff to improvise against. That is, your preparation cannot merely be a series of expositions that they have to get to. At as many points as possible, you should allow for player improvisation on what their characters are doing to come into play. To make it fun for the genre in question, I'm thinking that what you want is to allow them to figure out how their transhuman and technological advances interface with particular situations. Not as a challenge to figure out how to "win." But as a challenge for them to be creative in coming up with a cool "what would happen" sort of response. Then your job as GM is to move them from one of these situations to the next.

Now that's just one idea. If you decide instead that the exploration in the game is more about the sorts of action that occur in the transhuman universe, then go with that. Meaning give them situations that you don't have any idea how they're going to get out of, and allow them to be creative in doing so. Here's a key - always allow them to win unless making them potentially lose means that they get further opportunities to show off their player creativity.

All RPGs have to have some sort of key form of player imput to make it interactive. With sim play, this is in terms of playing their characters in such a way as to match the universe. Rob had it sort of right - it's not about playing the character "right" it's about playing the character to highlight the interesting things in the universe. The players are not just there to see you do this in play, but to be creative in this way as well. If you don't give them opportunities to do so, they'll be bored.

Conversely, you'll find that if you manhandle their characters a lot, that it's OK with the players as long as it doesn't take away their ability to do the cool stuff. That is, railroading only makes sense as a term if it means "taking away the stuff I like to do." Outside of that, all bets are off, and you as GM can get away with anything in terms of controling PCs for the players. Take the classic example of moving a character to the next city. Is it railroading to say, "Three days later, you get to the city." Certainly you've taken away he theoretical decisions available to do three days worth of stuff. But in practice, there were no interesting decisions there. If the interesting decisions were at the city, the player will thank you for moving his character on to that.

This is the key. Find interesting things for your players to do in the setting, and then use your GM authority to adjust the entire game so that the situation in play is such that the player is empowered to do cool stuff. If you think of it this way, you can't go wrong.

Now the hard part is figuring out what the cool part of the genre is that the players want to do. :-)

Mike