[Cybergod] ...Of Cybernetic "Theotechnological" Evolution

[catmorbid]

First, I'd like to say how educating it has been to stroll around glancing at the posts in this forum. It is a fine thing to see with my own eyes that a community such as this one is alive and kicking :) Don't know how many ideas and concepts i've already adopted from these forums, so thanks for those ;)

But... To the point, starting with a short introduction:
I've been toying with an idea for a specific RPG for a long time now - I've actually created a few somewhat working games so far (none released anywhere, yet), most of which are in fully playable condition, but there has been one concept I've never managed to flesh out to become what I've envisioned.

In my visions, Cybergod is a dark sci-fi rpg about Cybernetic Sentient Organisms, with emphasis on the word Sentient in a world of immerse technology combined to strange and twisted religous aspects, mysticism and mysteries eventually reaching epic scale events (babylon 5, star wars, Hyperion and Endymion by Dan Simmons). I want the game to be both dramatic and realistic, i.e. fast and deadly combat (which becomes closer to cinematic when considering the fact that players are super-boosted cyborgs...), as well as insightful roleplaying.
I.e. the players take the roles of entities that are partly human and partly machines. Different forms of human modification exists, varying from nanotechnological enhancement to the standard cybernetic prosthesis, implants and so on. But upgrading the character constantly to become the ultimate killing machine is not what I've intended the game to be about. I want it to be a deeper experience, in a way that the players would feel like playing a different kind of entity - yet similar to ourselves in many ways.

An important factor in the game are different factions that have nearly sole control over the worlds(several colonies) and their inhabitants(mostly common humans), as well as the powerful technology exceeding anything today (date set several thousand years in the future). Most of the factions themselves are 100% cyborg. Humans are the inferior race. (An option for playing with a human might be included for real challenge).

Another point of importance are twisted "theotechnological" (a word I probably invented?) agendas and religious zeal around a mystical entity known only as the Prophet, and a Cybernetic God visioned by him.

The basic concept could easily be about the factions fighting each other (there are around 8 thought of so far), without forgetting the religious aspect in the game, and one of the most important traits i've come up with so far: Humanity.

Humanity in the game is both a trait each character has, as well as a philosophical concept in the world. In terms of game mechanics, if humanity drops down to zero, the game's over. This contradicts the fact that many characters would probably seek a path that would eventually decrease their humanity right down to zero, by getting more and more enhancements and pushing their bodies and minds far beyond human limits.

Problems
There are a few areas where I am in need of a new perspective, and after reading through the posts, I thought you people might be able to help me out here.

World detail issues
I haven't completely decided yet on how detailed approach should I take into creating the world. I know there could be lots to tell, but what would be the easiest and most sufficient way? E.g. Do I need specific timelines, names for colonies, faction key-individuals?

An idea crossed by mind about keeping even the world as abstract as possible, leaving more imagination to the GM and players. How much details can you actually leave the players and the GM, with still getting to the bottom of it? I know this kind of setting can easily have tons of background material, but I myself would rather keep it to the minimum, as I know most people are very lazy about reading through those anyway (including me).

Humanity
I've decided to put a great emphasis on the humanity part during the play, making roleplaying very important. But I've also come to the conclusion that I need something to make the roleplaying challenging. For this, I've decided to use some sort of Alignment system, which roughly determines the character's motives and reasons for being what he is.
I've come up with three basic Alignment categories:

Humanist, Neutral and Machinist.

Basically Humanist supports human efforts and is aware that for every nanobot and cool cybernetic prosthesis he puts in his body, he loses his humanity, and they don't want to cross the point of no return (i.e. humanity zero).
Machinists on the other hand are the opposite of that, and couldn't care less about human casualties etc. and want more and more powerful enhancements, and desire to evolve into a supreme cybernetical being closing the gods of myths and legends. I.e. machinists eventually destroy themselves (or at least the playability of the character).
Neutrals are in the between, attempting to maintain a good balance out of fear of consequences, because they believe it's "right", or whatever may their reasons be.

IMO three simple categories aren't enough - at least I feel I'd need something in between, but what? I know alignment should be an abstract form, and actually I rarely use such in other games, but in this case I feel it's appropriate. I've thought of a d&d syle lawful, neutral, chaotic - which could work, but that doesn't satisfy me (too boring). How else could the current concept of alignment be expanded? I know I'm somewhat perfectionist by nature, and details such as this often stay and haunt my mind :)

Well, that's about it for now. Any questions, comments and ideas are appreciated.

[joepub]

Hey, welcome to the Forge!
Do you have a real name we can call you by?


Looks like an interesting start.
Are you familiar with the Warhammer 40,000 background?
They have a lot of machine worship, dark sci-fi...
A lot of their fluff would be interesting for inspiration I think.

i.e. fast and deadly combat (which becomes closer to cinematic when considering the fact that players are super-boosted cyborgs...), as well as insightful roleplaying.

I want it to be a deeper experience

Want to elaborate on what YOU see as being "insightful" and "deeper", maybe with an example of an issue that players would go "deep" into?

Most of the factions themselves are 100% cyborg. Humans are the inferior race. (An option for playing with a human might be included for real challenge).

Just to clarify - humans are still the same race, aren't they?
I'm not trying to nit-pick terminology, I just wanted to clarify that.

Would it be a "real challenge", or a different set of challenges? It seems like this human/cyborg/robot thing is on a really sliding scale, so it seems like the challenges would SHIFT rather than INTENSIFY as you got closer to full humanity.

Am I correct in this assumption/projection?

But I've also come to the conclusion that I need something to make the roleplaying challenging. For this, I've decided to use some sort of Alignment system,

Personally, I'm often skeptical of alignment systems - especially d&d type ones.
How does this make roleplaying more "challenging"?

And, are you really going for challenging, meaning you want to make it hard for the player to roleplay?
Or are you trying to return to the "deep" and "insightful" goal?

[catmorbid]

Hey, welcome to the Forge!
Do you have a real name we can call you by?

Sure, I have a real name, but it's a finnish same, so you'll probably want to stick with the nick :)

Looks like an interesting start.
Are you familiar with the Warhammer 40,000 background?
They have a lot of machine worship, dark sci-fi...
A lot of their fluff would be interesting for inspiration I think.

I think I've played the tabletop game a couple times and the computer games, but other than that no. Perhaps I should take a look at those.

Want to elaborate on what YOU see as being "insightful" and "deeper", maybe with an example of an issue that players would go "deep" into?

The world itself is full of political backstabbing between the factions, as well as numerous secrets. So the characters could very well get involved in a political game, as well as an open conflict between factions or an attempt to unveil some of the mysteries around the Prophet (equivalent to jesus or muhammed as a religious figure) or any other faction. Also, with deep and insightful I guess I also mean good roleplaying, and taking into consideration that cyborgs do lack emotions and human traits - when a character understands that he cannot feel as much as he used to, or has become insensitive to all kinds of violence and destruction, what kind of effect it has on him? This kind of self awareness is something I want the be considered.

Just to clarify - humans are still the same race, aren't they?
I'm not trying to nit-pick terminology, I just wanted to clarify that.

Yes, human race exists, even though they are not the ones in charge anymore. Cyborgs are little bit like different race, except a human can become a cyborg.

Would it be a "real challenge", or a different set of challenges? It seems like this human/cyborg/robot thing is on a really sliding scale, so it seems like the challenges would SHIFT rather than INTENSIFY as you got closer to full humanity.

Am I correct in this assumption/projection?

Now that I thought of it, yes. A machine doesn't really need to care of his survival, but a 100% human does. He needs to find alternative ways to fight and have an influence on something. On the other hand, a machine is effective in doing what it is designed to do, but anything beside that becomes easily too complicated. Or something like that.

Personally, I'm often skeptical of alignment systems - especially d&d type ones.
How does this make roleplaying more "challenging"?

And, are you really going for challenging, meaning you want to make it hard for the player to roleplay?
Or are you trying to return to the "deep" and "insightful" goal?

I guess what I'm trying to achieve with this alignment system is an easier way to get hold onto the character, to adopt the personality and role during the play. Simply because I don't want the characters to seem too human. But I don't want roleplaying to to be too difficult, that would be simply stupid of me, challenging perhaps. I can only imagine that insightful roleplaying of a part-machine character could be very difficulty, and to make that easier I want to give some simple guidelines and examples to choose from. Perhaps alignment is a bad word?

[Ramidel]

Humanity
I've decided to put a great emphasis on the humanity part during the play, making roleplaying very important. But I've also come to the conclusion that I need something to make the roleplaying challenging. For this, I've decided to use some sort of Alignment system, which roughly determines the character's motives and reasons for being what he is.
I've come up with three basic Alignment categories:

Humanist, Neutral and Machinist.

Basically Humanist supports human efforts and is aware that for every nanobot and cool cybernetic prosthesis he puts in his body, he loses his humanity, and they don't want to cross the point of no return (i.e. humanity zero).
Machinists on the other hand are the opposite of that, and couldn't care less about human casualties etc. and want more and more powerful enhancements, and desire to evolve into a supreme cybernetical being closing the gods of myths and legends. I.e. machinists eventually destroy themselves (or at least the playability of the character).
Neutrals are in the between, attempting to maintain a good balance out of fear of consequences, because they believe it's "right", or whatever may their reasons be.

IMO three simple categories aren't enough - at least I feel I'd need something in between, but what? I know alignment should be an abstract form, and actually I rarely use such in other games, but in this case I feel it's appropriate. I've thought of a d&d syle lawful, neutral, chaotic - which could work, but that doesn't satisfy me (too boring). How else could the current concept of alignment be expanded? I know I'm somewhat perfectionist by nature, and details such as this often stay and haunt my mind :)

Well, that's about it for now. Any questions, comments and ideas are appreciated.

Well, let me raise one question: Why would players want to not be Neutrals, daring the edge of low Humanity without going over the edge into NPC psychosis? In particular, why should players be Machinists, since that's a clearly self-destructive path?

V:tM (sourcebook alert!) created a system to allow for vampires to choose something other than humanity, the Path system for accepting one's inhumanity and in fact embracing it without going psycho. Will something like this be an option for Machinists?

Moving along from this, my gut instinct is that there shouldn't be a significant divide in game terms between human and cyborg -as such-, because it's a continuum rather than a sharp cliff. Take Shadowrun (another bit of source material for you). Mages aside, quite a few people in the world have a couple of basic implants...and then there's the solid chrome ones skating on Essence 0.1. So the difference between human and cyborg isn't "either-or," it's "how much," and that's better represented by "take human, add hardware, lose humanity, apply effects of lost humanity."

[catmorbid]

Well, let me raise one question: Why would players want to not be Neutrals, daring the edge of low Humanity without going over the edge into NPC psychosis? In particular, why should players be Machinists, since that's a clearly self-destructive path?

V:tM (sourcebook alert!) created a system to allow for vampires to choose something other than humanity, the Path system for accepting one's inhumanity and in fact embracing it without going psycho. Will something like this be an option for Machinists?

Moving along from this, my gut instinct is that there shouldn't be a significant divide in game terms between human and cyborg -as such-, because it's a continuum rather than a sharp cliff. Take Shadowrun (another bit of source material for you). Mages aside, quite a few people in the world have a couple of basic implants...and then there's the solid chrome ones skating on Essence 0.1. So the difference between human and cyborg isn't "either-or," it's "how much," and that's better represented by "take human, add hardware, lose humanity, apply effects of lost humanity."

It does seem, that humanist would be the most logical alignment for any character. And in fact it is the most logical to start with. I planned the alignment to be a constantly shifting thing  (perhaps I should've mentioned that...) which would be dependant on how much and how powerful enhancements you have planted in yourself (much like the way as in Shadowrun). The Alignment itself is supposed to just tell the player how has the character changed. Meaning you could start as a humanist but end up as machinist in the end. Ends justify the means, meaning here that the character might think that becoming more a machine helps him fulfill his humane goals, but in the end things might not work like that.

At this point it's impossible to say if the humanity zero would be an absolute ending for the game or not. In most cases yes, but it could be a possibility to give those who decide they're machinists an opportunity to continue playing even after losing all of their humanity. Whatever would make the game interesting, that's what important.

Yes, Humans can have few basic implants and stuff that helps them in their daily lives, but with a cyborg in the game I mean a character that has been literally rebuilt: Several parts of their body, including skeleton has been ripped out and replaced. That's the difference between humans and cyborgs. Being a cyborg is a point of no return. After that, it's your call how far you want to go. I know how the system goes in shadowrun, and in fact thought of something similar in first place, but I wanted to make a greater difference between humans and cyborgs.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Lots of general points that I hope will help you, in no particular order:

Date - As an amateur futurist, I can fairly safely say that anything you imagine for "several thousand years in the future" is likely to fall FAR short of actual abilities, unless you have periods of 'devolution' or 'downgrading tech' in the game's future history. For instance, if we keep on our current tech potential curve, even one thousand years should find us well away from "human" and into "transhuman."

A short laundry list of possible abilities that the Average Joe could have:
* Semi-autonoumous copies of personal sentience, in cybernetic modes or physical modes - Basically, someone could 'shard off' a copy of their mind, assign it to an appropriate vessel (cloned body, nanotech robot, computer), and give it a set of tasks to complete. After said tasks are complete, the seperate sentience would be re-integrated into the 'primary mind' (or maybe even terminated, but that raises some serious ethical issues).
* Casual physical morphology - Using nanotech--or its future offshoot?--people can trivially reconfigure their base DNA and RNA to adapt to any number of environments, threats, or mere whims of cosmetics.
* Hive minds - It (should/will) become common for people to form into hive minds (cybernetically, most likely) to accomplish any number of cooperative goals: material planning, democracy, research, social interrraction, you name it.
* Proactive immunology - You've got to have heard of this--it was even in a classic Star Trek episode! Basically, folks will walk in a fractal cloud of nanotech agents, tools, sensors, and countermeasures. This cloud will augment immune systems as well as provide a host of knock-on abilities (exs: telecomm, physical self defense, journaling). Also, given the likelihood of powerful telecommunications tools providing a network for those agents to the user, it will be rather hard to define the "edge" of someone's existence: it will extend far past their skin and five senses.

Anyway, take some time to really think about your future history, tech curves, and how that will shape the thematic issues of your game play. Frankly, most of the tech and commensurate conflicts that you detail seem better suited to, say, 50 or 100 years in the future, not several thousand. And this speaks to...

Humanity - You seem to have adopted the (popular) dialectic of naturalism = human and artificial = non-human. THis has been espoused since the beginning of the Industrial Age, as folks watched factories turn craftmen into cogs--easily replaced, less than human. But, I believe, it is just flat wrong.

I have much better teeth, hair, skin, bone structure, etc than I should have, thanks to artificial (technological) enhancements and supplements. We all do. Now consider someone who's had lasic (sp?) eye surgery... or an artifical heart... or rebuilt knees. These folks, in your notion and game system, have "lost humanity." Taking an inductive leap, you go on to presume that integrating computing systems into mind, or reinforcing bones and skin, or improving sensory fidelity will necessarily lead to even less "humanity".

A futurist would just have to call that an incoherent induction (if polite) or laugh out loud (if an ass). The writer with an online thesaurus linked to his brain is "less human" even though his command of language is such that his works become sublime. The artist who can see into the microscopic can interpret visions for people that have never been naturally seen, providing a nuance to art and life heretofore unimagined. The soldier with chromed body armor and fantastic weaponry can project more power, thus requiring fewer soldiers, thus leaving more people free to pursue "higher" goals in life than material control assault or defense. I could go on ad naseum (and maybe have?): technology in itself does not debase or exhault mankind's "humanity". It's use might, but that means we need to speak more about what this ineffable "humanity" means, really. Surely, it's not the disease, grime, feces, prejudices, violence, tribalism, fear, or lack of purpose for sentience... is it? SO it's, instead, that which we drive towards, after the kids are fed and the fires are lit and the night beasts are held at bay. And what has most-aided such "higher" pursuits? Technology. Environmental manipulation. Usurping control of human evolution. Self-control of base, animal instincts.

[Quick aside: I would disregard Shadowrun, for one reason: its tension is between magic and technology (NOT human and tech), so the REAL purpose of Essence is to prevent "cybermages" that have every tech mod AND know a school of magics. In other words, Shadowrun's notions of "humanity" really came from gamist play balance considerations, not any realistic grounding in metaphysics or philosophy. Want the tech toys? Then no magic for you! What's that got to do with (a) your playstyle goals ("deep") or (b) actual history of human progress or (c) the metaphysics of ANY real-world magic belief system? Heck, that's sort of a non sequeteur, in Shadowrun: magic--this "supernatural" and "spiritual" and "arcane" power--depends upon a human biology, consistent and whole? So much for "demon sorcerors," huh? :) ]

Alignments - This word is often confusing, because it can be considered in two ways:
* Motivations, as in what influences an actor to behave in a certain way.
* Ethics, as in what justifies those motivations and actions, in a greater context (metaphysical, spiritual, pragmatic).

For the tone of your rather bleak game, I think you want the latter: some way to underpin the intentions of your player's characters. You seem drawn to factionalism, coupled with your notions of natural v. artifiicial, and so that makes your "alignment system" really more of a matrix of allied beliefs. As you already have your 8 (and growing) political factions, look to that as a map of character motivation and role playing constraints (which is all ANY "alignment system" is, at root). Forget about forging some metaphysical spectrum which is, in my opinion, reflective of an Industrial Age prejudice, as I have said above. Instead, consider the motives and goals of your various in-game factions, and provide ways that players can ally themselves with those factional goals.

However, if you really feel there is a significant tension--at a metaphyscal level--between the artificial and the natural in humans, then you might want to go with the other folks' ideas about a continuum from unaugmented humans to utterly cybernetic human-origin sentiences. THEN, make each stance along that continuum equally valid, in and of itself. In other words, don't preach with your alignment system; don't make some point on the continuum "just right" and all others "pale reflections" or "stupid and wrong" or "evil".

What's more, I believe this about your setting: if each faction's propeganda is appealing, taken at face value; and if each stance along the continuum of artificial v natural has pros and cons; and if the players are given mechanical means to weigh and balance each faction and stance; then this game will resonate with FAR more Creative Agendas, it will allow for more nuanced exploration of the themes of humanity and progress and naturalism, and it will push closer to that "deep" playstyle you espouse.

Inspirations - In no particular order:
The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson: nanotech influence and impact done right... and only a handful of decades away (not thousands).
Anything by Steve Baxter: the Manifold series, in fact, go FAR beyond your time frame, to look at what forms sentience might take to survive universal heat death, sterilization events, and other "explanations" for the Fermi Paradox. Leave your "humanity" at the door: these far-future humans live in databases built from black holes held in static matrices. :)
World Transhumanist Association: folks who have BIG brains and have thought a lot about this stuff.

Hope this all helps!
David

[Ramidel]

Disagreement with a couple of points here. Not to get into an argument, but I think you're disagreeing with a lot of his basic game premises here, and not in a tone that's challenging him to answer "why," but in a tone that says "this won't work because it doesn't fit in with current projections of the future." So, let me rewrite it in a "why?" tone.

Date: I'd like to ask the author...-is- this intended to be hard science fiction? If not, then I think that several centuries of technological development could equal several "realistic" decades. Dune, for instance, explains how it's technologically backwards despite being 9,000 years uptime from now, but "don't worry about it" is an equally valid position for a sci-fi setting, as are dark ages and apocalypses, for the same reason that people can travel faster than light-speed. (Frankly, -on Earth-, I don't believe technological advancement could continue for more than 50-100 years without apocalypse, but that's me.)

Humanity: Well, the whole theme of the system at present is destroyed, IMO, if the natural-artificial tension is destroyed, so don't remove that aspect lightly. Looking strictly at the gamist agenda, if players don't have the incentive to not accessorize themselves to the point of God, they will accessorize themselves to the point of God, looking at the Narrativist end, players lose the intended question of "what does it mean to be human?" since the word has become useless.

Alignments: Here, I agree. When it comes to how to dealing with the continuum of human-machine, he's pretty much said all I can say on the subject. I don't think, however, that you should make all the factions appealing. Far from that...if you want to generate pathos, you want all the factions to be equally -un- appealing. But maybe that's just me. ^_^

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

... I think you're disagreeing with a lot of his basic game premises here, and not in a tone that's challenging him to answer "why," but in a tone that says "this won't work because it doesn't fit in with current projections of the future." ...

Good point. I get on rolls, sometimes, and lose sight of the IGD forum's purpose: refinement of ideas, not refutations. However, in my own defense...

Date: I'd like to ask the author...-is- this intended to be hard science fiction? If not, then I think that several centuries of technological development could equal several "realistic" decades. Dune, for instance, explains how it's technologically backwards despite being 9,000 years uptime from now, but "don't worry about it" is an equally valid position for a sci-fi setting, as are dark ages and apocalypses, for the same reason that people can travel faster than light-speed. (Frankly, -on Earth-, I don't believe technological advancement could continue for more than 50-100 years without apocalypse, but that's me.)

I only brought this up because his choice of time frame broke me out of my willing suspension of disbelief. I read "several thousand years" and then the game is about dealing with fairly trivial adjustments to human biological effectiveness, and I can't make it jibe in my head. You propose ways to allow for this apparent disconnect (as did I, recall)--and that's all I really meant to say with that diatribe on transhumanism: "Please come up with a more plausible date/time frame -OR- explain why it's taken so long to make such minor advancements". That's sort of a "Why" type question, re-writ in imperative form to make it a suggestion. ;-)

Humanity: Well, the whole theme of the system at present is destroyed, IMO, if the natural-artificial tension is destroyed, so don't remove that aspect lightly. ...

Touche. If the game's tensions must revolve around the human v. artificial dichotomy, then my advise can not be taken.

I believe, however, that a better dichotomy (which has the same tension) is identity v. technology. Strapping on some body mods doesn't seem to shake anyone's notion of human identity (Shadowrun aside). BUT, shard your mind a few thousand times, re-integrate them, add in a few million nanites providing sensory expansion, and give yourself near-total control over your mood, mindstate, and sensorium: well, then, you have some meat for theme, I believe (NAR), and you can certainly get into your game-mechanical balances (GAM) as you use "loss of identity" (character death) as the stick to oppose the "cool power tech" carrot.

But speaking back to the goal of human v. artificial, I would ask "why sci fi?" That dichotomy would play out far better in a game of demon control, dark magics, psionics that ruin intellect, or some other (quasi-)metaphysical framework. Technology is just too normative in its "interface" with reality to play out many issues of an ineffable quality like "humanity." IMHO (as all of this is, of course).

Alignments: Here, I agree. ... I don't think, however, that you should make all the factions appealing. Far from that...if you want to generate pathos, you want all the factions to be equally -un- appealing. ...

Interesting tonal shift, and probably more in keeping with the bleakness he has suggested. Picking the "lesser" of evils has a far different feel than picking the "best" belief system, the one in which the player/character believes proactively.

Anyway, we've framed these three points nicely; it will be up to catmorbid to explain his goals and feelings, to better offer further direct advice.

As for the one direct question:

I haven't completely decided yet on how detailed approach should I take into creating the world. I know there could be lots to tell, but what would be the easiest and most sufficient way? E.g. Do I need specific timelines, names for colonies, faction key-individuals?

In the Forge Lexicon, you must decide how much and what details you will provide for Setting, Situation, and (maybe) Challenge.

Given the styling, tone, and above dichotomy, I think you must provide some kind of deep Setting. The colonies, the major moments in history (like the several devolutions that have nanotech as "high tech" in thousands of years. ;-) ), intergalactic social order, and specifics of technology, society, and culture.

As for Situation and Challenge: this is gonna be a poll. Some folks will say "cool!" and these folks will read every line of your "metaplot" and "main story arc". Others will say "crap!" and will go on to quote how poorly this or that game managed its "metaplot" or "main story arc". By the same token, if you set up a world-level Challenge, then it must either (a) be undefeatable or (b) have some form of ongoing Challenge generator that is hooked into the Setting and Situation. Some will love this, if it all hangs together and, as such, makes for a richer end product. Others will think it's a waste of paper; the argument goes: "why have a world-level Challenge, when as soon as a given game group "defeats" it, their victory is made moot by the 'next Challenge over the hill' OR they decouple themselves from the main story arc and are unable to coherently participate in future canonical Situation/Challenge expansions?"

[An aside: My vote in this poll: Setting only. Every minute you would have "wasted" on story arcs and Situation and metaplot, you can instead devote to rich world details. If you feel compeled to do Situation and Challenge work: release modules, as the "official" canon of the game world, and let people choose whether or not they need such material.]

As always, "just tryin' to help!"
David

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello Nick,
I have an interest in your game, the philosophical ramifications and sheer controversy surrounding it. I see multiple opinions and enjoy that it generates more threads!

I feel that the embrace of machines, prosthetics, nanobots, software and virtual spirituality is important in your game and shouldn't be calculated into one number.

Most people are born in a world that is inherently dangerous and they learn to survive, thrive and enjoy it. The sum of the experiences and training is immense and, at the same time, hard to define. A person is more than just attributes, skills and cool powers. If you're looking to really immerse the players in your game vision then really focus on what humanity is, beyond what humans are.

What we consider to be humanity is a comfortable view of how people behave and what causes less waves in the political waters. We can bomb a city out of our greed for power and suddenly send in blankets, food and medicine. Those who steal in the name of religion could have a sense of humanity. So, humanity is definitely based on agreement in a world varying opinions.

There are tremendous facets of humanity and many aspects of the human condition are considered barriers to a path of true humanity. So, I don't assume that the cyborg world is automatically a dehumanizing approach. It is quite possible that rendering the flesh inert may indeed pave way to becoming a better "human".

In the real world, people who survive great traumas to their bodies and minds find themselves perceiving the world in a different fashion. Lack of movement, dexterity, sight, hearing, voice and the knowledge of having a life-support machine trailing behind you seems to make the current view of humanity absurd to them. Of course, people deal with tragedies in different ways. Some are thankful that they are alive and life themselves beyond their physical challenges. Others adopt despair and thrive on misery and its company.

The idea of multiple factions is exciting. Groups who have the same goal of reaching some ultimate destination, yet compete in the way to get there. If cybernetics is the main way of getting there, then think about how cybernetics can be applied.

Alignment is too narrow in this area. That annoying tic-tac-toe board of law and chaos makes me roll my eyes. Regardless of the descriptions you will assign to alignment, each player will have a different opinion about it.

A possible way to handle humanity, cybernetics effects and alignment could be:

Humanity is replaced by a group of numbers where each measures a particular aspect of being human. This is different from showing the epitome of humanity. There are advantages and disadvantages built in that would affect the game mechanics, not just how the player should play the character.

Compassion: On the high end you want to provide relief and eliminate the cause of pain. On the low end you may observe what is happening and see truth in it.

Affection: On the high end you have tender feelings for another. On the low end you are detached from the emotions and perceive the other indifferently.

Pride: On the high end you are firm in what you want and actively announce your achievements. On the low end you are inhibited, taking no credit and satisfied with what you need.

Personality: On the high end you acknowledge the individuality and uniqueness of all people. On the low end you see the similarity of all humans.

Worldly: On the high end you know the pleasures and pains of the body, indulgence in the senses. On the low end you are closer to spirituality.

Creativity: On the high end your mind is capable of fantastic thoughts and meanderings. On the low end you have a practical mind able to apply knowledge to appropriate situations.

If you wanted to get really religious, then just use the seven deadly sins as a way to measure human-ness.

Cybernetics could have a multitude of applications and the reasons behind using them. The reasons for their use may be more interesting than just creating cool devices that modify attributes and give you kick-ass abilities.

Sensory Filter: spinal implant capable of limiting or enhancing tactile sensations. Pleasure can be nullified to generate focus on mind and spirituality. Sensory deprivation mode can be enabled with appropriate life support for weeks.

Communal Pace Maker: replaces asymmetric pulse with controlled pulse tuned to a specific group. All hearts beat with the same rhythm and engage the communal experience.

Occupational Fittings: hands are replaced with specific tools to perform assigned tasks. Efficiency, production and quality is insured freeing the mind of success and failure.

Censor Module: the mind will only receive information relevant to the person's goal and programming. Ignorance is bliss.

Neuter Procedure: the person is modified to have no sex. Appropriate organs are removed and the hormonal system is replaced with artificial genderlack. This renders the person free of personal bias.

Lobotox: a frontal cortex monitoring device designed to pacify aggressive emotions and reveal a sense of elation and well-being.

Alignment can be a combination of motives and ideals that come into affect when humanity is threatened.
Protector of the weak: High compassion will make you come to their aid. Low compassion will let you stand back and watch.
Bad Temper: With high pride you are set off by derogatory remarks. Low pride lets you calmly analyze the mental condition of the one who is speaking.

The factions may be rooted in the different aspects of humanity or by methods of achieving a spiritual apex.

Humanists believe that being human, indulging in the body and keeping technology at arm's length is the way to achieve enlightenment. They will surrender their bodies to death before using prosthetics. They fight often with Mechanists and threaten to use EMP devices.

Mechanists compute that the spirits of humans are trapped in the flesh. Complete cybernetic replacement and unit assignment is the logical way to merge with the creator.

Surfs are voluntarily participants plugged directly into the Net. Their goal is to seek and interact with any conversations regarding spirituality through interthought processes.

Mediators strive to placate various sides of conflicts. Through their diplomatic tactics, mediators look for the common ground and emphasize sameness and sympathetic spirituality.

Multivatican City is a biomechanical warehouse of failed bodies placed in vats whose minds hold the key to the soul. A central AI monitors the frail bodies and suspends the minds in a virtual cathedral of dogma and ceremony. Cardinals and Ordinals receive their duties to minister the heathens directly from the Multivatican through digital transmissions.

Inquisitors rely on their broad knowledge and efficient questions to seek the secrets of the spiritual universe. Encountering an inquisitor is a surreal experience as they only ask Yes/No/Maybe questions. With 20 questions or less they can garner amazing facts about your life.

That was fun!
Troy

[catmorbid]

I believe the situations where I've actually felt this kind of overflow of inspiration are very rare indeed. I would've never thought to get this much and this kind of response, through a simple post. My most sincere gratitude for all this :)

Many questions have arisen, and in order to continue this splending exchange of thoughts, I'll do my best to answer them all and comment all of your posts in no chronological order.

Date
No, the game isn't supposed to be "hard" sci-fi. I'm no scientist, just a guy who finds sci-fi very interesting and appealing setting, and enjoys envisioning technological marvels, and wants to incorporate that in a homebrewn rpg. I think I'm a storyteller by heart, and sci-fi proves unlimited options for telling interesting and thrilling stories. I consider sci-fi a similar tool to your ordinary magical fantasy. Anything is and should be possible. It's only up to your imagination to come up with the possibilities. The good thing about sci-fi is, that it's less random than your average fantasy rpg.

One of the reasons I had when setting the date so far in the future was to give me unlimited options to form the world into what I want. Everything has changed. All that remains same as today is a small blue planet called Earth (not even sure about that though, but could be important as a religious figure - e.g. a source of pilgrimage? Finding your roots blaablaa, the mythic first home of mankind :)), and humans. Languages have changed, names have changed, human physiology has changed. But when looking at the surface, everything seems very familiar and hence something you can easily relate to. This is RPG after all, and It's always been easier to relate to those fantasy races closer to humans than the most different ones.

Technology
David and Troy both gave me wondrous ideas for technology. I felt silly a while back after reading your posts: I hadn't even thought of the extent that the technology could reach. But then again, I shouldn't, because I believe it easily makes the game too massive and difficult to comprehend. I want to keep it relatively simple, but want to definetely add more depth through technology as well.

The way I have things figured so far is that the most powerful technology is limited. The Factions are the ones who control, develop and use new technologies. Individual corporations might do this as well, but even they are mostly Faction controlled. I like the idea of Factions instead of open corporations or powerful governments. Through giving access to high technology to factions only, I think makes them even more important and makes the common man even more powerless, which I think suits the bleak atmosphere for the game.

Most technologies I've thought of at this point mostly involve different kinds of cybernetic enhancements, which I call simply enhancements :) This will probably be an important issue in the game, pretty much the only "resource" the characters will want to seek out (in addition to a more traditional character advancement, but as opposed to wealth). This also IMO gives great contradiction to the fact that these enhancements eventually destroy the character. Which is still something I want, but more on that later.

In fact, many ideas presented for technology are somwhat already thought of, but you just gave them names :) But I will certainly look for more ideas about technology.

What comes to general level of technology here's a few thing I've thought. Any ideas of better names or alternatives are welcome.

"Jump ports": Call them stargates, jumpgates whatever. Something that makes travelling between colonies easy. They're time and resource consuming however to build and maintain, and definite strategic advantages in space-age warfare. Something I definetely want to include.

Slow space travel: Without jump gates travelling through space is slow. Even though I want to keep mundane ways of travelling somewhat reasonably time consuming, I don't want startrek warp engines and similar. I think slow is better, hence light speed or maybe a little faster, but not much. So it could take years to travel to a colony without a jumpgate. I loved the element of insecurity with the Tseng Ho (?) mercantile fleet in a Vernor Vinge novel I read about a year ago or so. They could never anticipate if a certain civilisation was even standing when they arrived. Though thousands of years of travelling is perhaps a bit too much.

Effective personal security: I thought of a thing called DNA-codes, which would be a personalised code based on DNA which to use instead of a social security number, compulsory for every human being. These could be read from a distance, making controlling crime and people very easy. Also used for currency transactions and such. However I also want a loophole for using a substitute for "cash", to make black market transactions and such possible. Loopholes in system are great :) Any good ideas, or better replacements? A bleak world must have a powerful technological way of controlling people, however in such way that it gives at least the illusion of freedom.

Common virtual realities: Cyberpunk like way to keep the common people happy through virtual entertainment. Also, vast holographic projections are possible such as the Star Trek's famed holodeck. Haven't really thought of how vast their use would be, i.e. would the average joe have his own holographic living room, to participate in random generated entertainment.

General teleportation: Why not? Maybe through short distances though, I don't want any "beam me up scotty" stuff.

of Humanity again
The main reason WHY I think cybernetics will ruin humanity is the feeling that the entity becomes closer to a god when achieving greater power. Simplicity and weakness is the purest form of humanity I believe. E.g. I believe great intelligence eventually surpasses empathy and sympathy and such. Raw logic tells you that emotions are futile. What can you do, when you KNOW It's bad for you to feel? And feeling, IMO is what humanity is about. There have been good points though, that there could be various ways of using the factor of humanity. E.g. Troy's idea of using the seven deadly sins was in fact a fabulous one. I'll certainly think about that.

I'll probably still use the Humanist/Machinist idea somehow. Mostly because I think it would help to play the role. BTW. Not even the original Humanist/Neutral/Machinist division was supposed to give any type of right or wrong division. I've always thought it to be more like a matter of perspective, but it may be more effective to use those terms to describe the general stand of the factions, adding more as Troy suggested.

Factions
Are these too boring so far? Anything you'd like to see?
I'll use the H/N/M division to give some idea.

Humanists
1. Religious faction that follows the teaching of the Prophet and seeks the Ultimate being - a combination of technology and humanity. Diplomats by nature.
2. An order from past times dedicated to enforcing the law through any means necessary. Soldiers by nature.
3. A "terrorist" organization dedicated to preserving humanity and fighting the machine opressors. They believe the ends justify the means, i.e. using cybernetics to fight cybernetics isn't a bad thing if you know where to set the line.

Machinists
4. A faction dedicated to subjugating humans and ruling with raw logic and machine supremity. Organized soldiers by nature, that pretty much see the humans as useless organisms perhaps worth studying as lab rats.
5. A combination of today's organized crime and powerful corporate strategies. They think with pros/cons style of way, giving a value to everything. They respect hi tech - not high humanity.

Neutrals
6. A faction of mercenary hackers/engineers/scientists that seek knowledge, advancement and personal glory.
7. Independent merchants that take care of most civilian/cargo transports for long distances, employing a vast and organized defensive force, similar to an army of mercenaries to protect this cargo against any aggressors.
8. A mysterious religious order that seems to brainwash and use people for unknown purposes. Most faction members are unaware of what goes inside it, and indeed "join" against their will. Or at least heavily regret later. Very secretive and zealous.

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello Nick,

I'm glad you're focusing on setting and background. I find that too many people just want to create clever ways to redo attributes, abilities and skills.

Your game description is beginning to look very much like a mixture of Cyberpunk 2020, Cyberpunk Generation, Mutant Chronicles and a bit of Alternity. The religious overtones, mega-corporations and warped humanity are very much a part of Mutant Chronicles.

I like your original ideas about this game. Frankly, you're adding a lot elements that take away from it. Keep it simple and pure. Stick with your initial premise and you'll be surprised at how much detail you'll need.

Work the story without thinking about the game mechanics and I think you'll have a very rich setting. Create the mechanics now and its possible your story-telling mode will suffer.

Good luck!
Troy

[Ramidel]

Here's -one- problem then.

I'll probably still use the Humanist/Machinist idea somehow. Mostly because I think it would help to play the role. BTW. Not even the original Humanist/Neutral/Machinist division was supposed to give any type of right or wrong division. I've always thought it to be more like a matter of perspective, but it may be more effective to use those terms to describe the general stand of the factions, adding more as Troy suggested.

This statement is at odds with the following...

In terms of game mechanics, if humanity drops down to zero, the game's over.

Thus, mechanism is not a viable choice. If becoming a cyber-psychotic is grounds for removal from play, then players who want to keep their character will not play characters that are on the road to losing their humanity completely, any more than V:tM players who want to keep their characters will play evil, psychotic monsters (unless Paths are allowed, of course).

So, I'd like to ask your solution to that?

[catmorbid]

Here's -one- problem then.

I'll probably still use the Humanist/Machinist idea somehow. Mostly because I think it would help to play the role. BTW. Not even the original Humanist/Neutral/Machinist division was supposed to give any type of right or wrong division. I've always thought it to be more like a matter of perspective, but it may be more effective to use those terms to describe the general stand of the factions, adding more as Troy suggested.

This statement is at odds with the following...

In terms of game mechanics, if humanity drops down to zero, the game's over.

Thus, mechanism is not a viable choice. If becoming a cyber-psychotic is grounds for removal from play, then players who want to keep their character will not play characters that are on the road to losing their humanity completely, any more than V:tM players who want to keep their characters will play evil, psychotic monsters (unless Paths are allowed, of course).

So, I'd like to ask your solution to that?

I have thought of a solution. Nothing well-developed at this point, but I've thought that removing a character from play should be rare and permanent, but it should be something the player wants, not something the gamemaster states. And it should also be always planned of and played in a logical way. The character shouldn't just wake up one day and be considered an NPC. I thought of creating a system which gradually makes the player lose some control over the character if his humanity has become low enough. This should at first show in very rare occasions, something that don't really seem to bother the player at first.

But I myself don't see a problem in playing a character that eventually becomes unplayable. Especially if the players know of such possibility before creating the character or starting the play. I'm thinking this game should be more about telling stories than creating unbeatable god-like characters. Of course one story might involve and even be about such characters, but when considering the general bleak atmosphere in the game, don't you think that a path that eventually leads to destruction, of which the players themselves know about and are completely aware of, only supports the telling of a powerful story? There's nothing more dramatic than a character that knowingly and willingly sacrifices himself for something else? Of course this is a matter of good roleplaying from the player, but is also something I'd really like to see.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

And it should also be always planned of and played in a logical way. The character shouldn't just wake up one day and be considered an NPC. I thought of creating a system which gradually makes the player lose some control over the character if his humanity has become low enough. This should at first show in very rare occasions, something that don't really seem to bother the player at first.

With this as your goal, I suggest that you think about Troy's notions of multiple sliders of "humanity" which each have a game-mechanical hook into your System (i.e. not just role playing guidelines). That way, you would automatically get the gradual loss of control that you seek: as each slider got to the "inhuman" extreme, its increasing Systemic impact would reduce player options (in Actor Stance). Put another (Big Model) way, the more inhuman ratings on sliders that the character has, the less credability its player will be granted and the more the System will dictate that character's responses. Right up until the last slider "falls off" and the System runs the whole character. Heck, the character wouldn't have to even go anywhere (die or disappear or whatever): it could still be in the "group" but it would be nothing but a GM-controlled automaton reacting as the System dictates in any given situation.

Example: One of the sliders is Compassion, which moves toward inhuman with each mental upgrade or personality sharding that someone does (insert System here). One case in which a Compassion roll is made is whenever a character wants to resist being panicked or disgusted into inactivity at the sight of human suffering. So, once a player has driven his Compassion to zero through brain augmentation, that player will often be unable to act immediately to save someone. (They fail Compassion rolls a lot and, thus, lose initiative or are required to act after characters who make their rolls.) Their unfeeling mind calculates the relative merits of helping the victim, thinking the victim probably has a mindstate back-up (and deserves to die, if they are so stupid as to not have one) and wanting to avoid any contact with biological contaminants, while the time to act decisively slips by. Meanwhile, the highly Compassionate nurse doesn't think twice before leaping to the victim's side, jamming a finger into a (possibly nanite-riddled) wound, and generally risking her own well-being for the victim.

Urk. A rough example, in retrospect, but I think it conveys the general idea well enough.

Also, as you seem to have a Humanist bias, each slider would probably have to provide a benefit, when high, to offset the penalty when low or nil. That will work to offset the other Systemic benefits the characters gain from the humanity-stripping cool techie upgrades. Of course, that takes you (dangerously) close to classes. If the same net effectiveness can be attained with high humanity slider "buffs" as can generally be attained with high tech (but humanity-stripping) upgrades, you basically have two classes: Humanity-driven and Cyber-driven. A player might as well choose one at random, if careful management of each yields the same net effectiveness in standard situations.

Up to the point, of course, where character "creation" (of a Cyber) leads to near-immediate character unplayability.

All that is just to say that ANY Systemic means of influencing a player to hover near one point on these pseudo-ethical sliders must be carefully balanced against the opportunities the player will gain at another point on said slider. Otherwise, any Gamist tendencies in the players will quickly "bubble out" the "sweet spot" on your panoply of sliders and most characters will gravitate towards that spot (excepting players who will play atypically weak characters just to explore that situation). Shadowrun was terrible about this: 95% of all player characters were either 6 Humanity or 0.1, because it didn't matter where you were on that range vis a vis effectiveness (after class requirements and resources we taken into consideration). If you used magic, you kept it at 6 to avoid Backlash (IIRC?); if you used cyber (any non-magical class, basically) you quickly ratchetted it down below one, packing yourself with tech.

[Begin Annoying Geek Aside: No one ever seemed to notice that a mage could have a TON of cyber installed in clothes and items, paying for miniaturization if necessary--I had an elementalist that wore a skull-like helmet that bristled with enhanced senses, body armor that was tougher than most street samurai dermal armor, and an electrified scythe that was at least as deadly as most light arms. All a "Cyber" had on him was wired reflexes and jacking without a deck--big whoop, I though, as he waded through most opponents: He was a "pet class" with more than half the cyberware in the book. I spent less than a point of Humanity to install the necessary interfaces in his head to the helmet and to VR (as a rider) and that was it.

His element was Shadow. Folks on the street called him Charon. :) [End Geek Aside]

[catmorbid]

With this as your goal, I suggest that you think about Troy's notions of multiple sliders of "humanity" which each have a game-mechanical hook into your System (i.e. not just role playing guidelines). That way, you would automatically get the gradual loss of control that you seek: as each slider got to the "inhuman" extreme, its increasing Systemic impact would reduce player options (in Actor Stance). Put another (Big Model) way, the more inhuman ratings on sliders that the character has, the less credability its player will be granted and the more the System will dictate that character's responses. Right up until the last slider "falls off" and the System runs the whole character. Heck, the character wouldn't have to even go anywhere (die or disappear or whatever): it could still be in the "group" but it would be nothing but a GM-controlled automaton reacting as the System dictates in any given situation.

That's pretty much the way I imagined the end of humanity to go. After the one final upgrade, the player simply gives the character sheet to the gamemaster, perhaps sniffs once or twice, and starts creating a new character :)

And yes, the humanity sliders have began to sound a very good idea. At the moment I have the most problems deciding how many and what kind of humanity attributes to use.

Also, as you seem to have a Humanist bias, each slider would probably have to provide a benefit, when high, to offset the penalty when low or nil. That will work to offset the other Systemic benefits the characters gain from the humanity-stripping cool techie upgrades. Of course, that takes you (dangerously) close to classes. If the same net effectiveness can be attained with high humanity slider "buffs" as can generally be attained with high tech (but humanity-stripping) upgrades, you basically have two classes: Humanity-driven and Cyber-driven. A player might as well choose one at random, if careful management of each yields the same net effectiveness in standard situations.

Up to the point, of course, where character "creation" (of a Cyber) leads to near-immediate character unplayability.

All that is just to say that ANY Systemic means of influencing a player to hover near one point on these pseudo-ethical sliders must be carefully balanced against the opportunities the player will gain at another point on said slider. Otherwise, any Gamist tendencies in the players will quickly "bubble out" the "sweet spot" on your panoply of sliders and most characters will gravitate towards that spot (excepting players who will play atypically weak characters just to explore that situation).

I originally thought of using the humanity instead of an attribute describing social ability. But I could probably keep the original idea only using the sliders this time. Perhaps giving a small bonus to certain tasks in the high-end and a similar penalty in the low-end. But, to give more meaning to humanity factors, I could even use high humanity factors as a means to qualify for gaining extra character advancement points or something similar.

For example: Let's say I'd have six different humanity factors. In the beginning of the game, the GM rolls a single six-sided die (only once, or maybe even once for each player). If the humanity factor the die shows is qualified for extra roleplaying points, the player has the opportunity to earn them by trying to play the specific humanity factor as much as possible, with still keeping in mind the character's goals.

I've also thought of somehow randomly determining the humanity factors' initial values, meaning that every character would have some factors that clearly step out among others. Or maybe let the player choose?