Singularity - a new game

[gizem]

I have designed a game and uploaded it to the net. It is more a setting than a game actually, but it has some simple mechanics also. It is rather cyberpunkish. My main influences were W.Gibson, P.K.Dick and the old version of 'S c h i s m' by J. Sorensen. (Jared, I have taken the liberty to link to your site, I hope this is no problem)


Please feel free to criticise the game,  mechanics, the concept, my English, whatever you can think of, I would love to hear your opinions.
The address is


http://peregrjnus.tripod.com/singularity/index.htm">Singularity version 1.0



And I would be honoured should you find it to be worthy of addition to your library of free games.


Thanks in advance,


Gizem  


-gomi no sensei

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Master of Junk? :smile:

Looks really cool -- and no worries about the link.

I like the look of the header graphics as well...obviously a strong Ghost in the Shell/Virtual Light vibe going (I approve!  I approve!).

One thing though...right now it's an interesting "anime cyberpunk" setting -- but the mechanics are lacking something.  Narrative drive, perhaps.

What is the game about?  Answer that...then focus everything toward accomplishing that goal.  What problem is facing every single character that every player will have to deal with?  

Very promising start!

[Jason L Blair]

I have such a weakness for cyberpunk. Something about neon, chrome, nano, and AI... man, I'd give a nut to live in an alternate 1987.

Good work, Gizem. Damn nice.

[gizem]

[Zak Arntson]

Wow!  I have to say I'm impressed by what I see so far!  So, you want criticism?

Okay, here's one thing I can figure out, but the English doesn't make sense:

Multiple Actions
There are no multiple actions rule are interpreted as a difficult single action. Increase the difficulty, roll once.

Since "rule" is singular, you should say "There is" instead of "There are": "There is no multiple action rule.  Instead ..."

I also have to say I can't figure out what the game is _about_.  You've got a really compelling setting (I love how you've handled things on a global scale, though what happened to Bill Gates' legacy?  The great Robber Baron of the 21st Century?).

What do you want to focus on?  Or do you want there to be any focus?  Whichever you choose, there should be some kind of game-design idea to support it.

I see that you want to include the general idea of Stress.  That looks like a good start.  I would suggest you think of how a Singularity game should play out.  I am picturing the players dealing with the fact that their Stressors are most often tied to their Goals.  So there could be a balancing act between your Stress and your Goal.

Since this is an exaggerated modern-setting game, I'll use my own self as an example:

Character: Zak Arntson
Major Skills: Computer Programmer, Author
Occupation: Database Programmer

Goals:
Fulfilling Relationship (stressor: Family obligations)
Own a House (stressor: Payment, upkeep)
Fulltime Game Designer/Author (stressor: Doesn't support Family & Lifestyle)

The GM would then use these Goals and their stressors to create a compelling story.  Say my father-in-law needs a terribly expensive medical treatment, but needs my help to pay it.  This plays with Family Obligations vs. Payment of the House.  Where's the roleplaying excitement in this?  Suppose I decide to hack into my company's financial system and somehow get a bunch of money to pay.  Now I've solved the problem, but have possibly added a temporary new Goal: Hide theft (stressor: Getting caught)



Okay, last thing ... I see that you've copied my Copyright notice for Chthonian!  I'm flattered!  Just remember that I'm no lawyer, so I don't know how well-worded it is (it sounded good to me at the time ...)

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Hey, Gizem.

Here's what I would do:

Get rid of Stress.  I don't understand how that relates to the inspirado.  I'm ignoring the system as it doesn't really relate to the setting...it's a cool way of handling pass/fail but it doesn't mesh with any kind of premise (which rules out it being an N game).

You can go a few different ways with Humanity (it's not overdone in cyberpunk RPG's...it's just not done very well.  At all):

1. The normal way: Humanity is good.  Humanity is empathy and soft flesh and nature.  As we move (have moved) away from this, our bodies have gotten stronger but we've lost something.  We have to get it back (like that Midnight Oil song).  Human interaction suffers through mechanization and de-personalization (email, cell phones, cars, big cities)...how do we as humans survive in such an inhospitable environment without paving over our souls (ahem).

2. The abnormal (ie: the Tetsuo: Iron Man) way: The old flesh is weak, long live the new flesh.  The world is harsh steel, you must become harsh steel.  You must evolve past Humanity, which is part of the Old Way.  Embrace the New Way.  Humanity loss is encouraged...irrationality and psychosis are systemic of the imperfect meat body.  Lose it!

3. The in-between (ie: Ghost in the Shell) way: We as human beings are on the verge of becoming something new; a hybrid of flesh and technology.  We should cast aside our mortal shells and become one with the universe as beings of pure thought/information.  Fear of the unknown and a cyber-mysticism become key issues.  Like fire, a dangerous creation can not only help us, it can lead us out of darknes (ho ho ho) and into the dawn of a new age of man.  Humanity/Technology balance is important, up till both are cast aside...

Hope this isn't all too cheesy.  It certainly reads that way. :smile:

_________________
jared a. sorensen / http://www.memento-mori.com
indie game design from beyond the grave

[ This Message was edited by: Jared A. Sorensen on 2001-06-29 02:20 ]

[gizem]

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Something associated with Schism and Blade Runner...

I'm gonna post it here because it's relevant and maybe you can use it for Singularity.

Mortality.

I want to make a gamist RPG version of Schism (computer RPG would be ideal).  In Schism, you use your power and you get stronger but you get closer to death.  Right before you die, your power goes up to ridiculous levels -- you literally cannot fail.  Then you die.  Sucks to be you.

The idea is that you have a real-world time limit.  The GM says GO! and you're off and running...you have X hours to deal with your situation (kill your enemies, wreak vengeance, resuce a loved one, find out who you are) before you die.  Every X minutes of game time, you lost "life" -- but you gain "power" -- the final minutes of the game will be the character rampaging through the city as an unstoppable, mutant juggernaut.  Oh yes. :smile:

So give your cyborgs a finite lifespan (which is counter to most robot fiction, where the robots last longer than people) -- 4 years, maybe...like the Replicants.  Nothing like impending death to shake up your priorities...

Oh yeah...and you should HAVE to play a cyborg/robot/replicant/whatever in Singularity.

[Zak Arntson]

On 2001-06-29 13:26, gizem wrote:
Damn, I knew I forgot something, I forgot to change the copyright notice. Well, Zak, I apologise for stealing your copyright notice. I am really ashamed. But I cannot stop smiling also, because this is kind of ironic, to steal the copyright notice.

Whee!  I thought it was pretty durn funny, too.  No apologies needed, man.  Even if you did something like grab the entire Terrible Insight mechanic and rework it to fit Singularity, it'd be fine with me.

Thanks for the advice. I actually did not set out to design a Narrativist game (I think I am a simulationist, but I dislike rules), but just want a N angle to it, so it will no more be a just setting but a real game.

Durnit!  I need to finish my rules-light simulationist game.  Don't think that a measure of rules is an indication of G/N/S.  If you want a Simulationist bent, go for it.  Just make sure your rules support that.

	Logged

Zak
Harlekin-Maus Games

[gizem]

I agree that Singularity is somewhat out of focus. This is because I am a bottom-up game designer. First I have a scenario idea (usually one-shot) and then I build a setting (and some mechanics-if I can) for it. For Singularity I had three such starting ideas:
1. The first question of Dick (Blade Runner question): 'what is a human being?' The prototype game I mentioned was about this, the players were cyborgs fighting for their rights, and yes they had a limited life span and were called replicants. It also had a meta-plot involving the secret agenda of an AI gone rogue. It was more N, I developed it around a moral dilemma. One interesting point is that one player insisted on playing a human agent masquerading as a replicant.
2. The second question of Dick (the Matrix question): 'What is reality?' I was planning to make a game where the players would have been prisoned in an artificial reality and then would 'wake' into another reality. Like Matrix right? Not really. Because then the players would 'wake' once more, into yet another reality. As any Stanislaw Lem fan knows the real terror starts after reality falls apart for the second time. I was planning a plot where the players would go through two such changes, one drug induced and the other immersive VR, as in the Matrix. I see great roleplaying opportunities along this way.
3. I wanted to have a means by which I can run a 'classical' Cyberpunk game without having to roll dice for everything.
So I wrote Singularity. I think it is a well developed setting where I can accomplish all three of my goals but is not a real game because it lacks a focus. I need to figure out some way to do this without losing my objectives.
'If you don't lose your objectives you can be long-lasting.'
says Lao Tzu, who am I to know better?

Gizem
- a part-time Taoist

PS: Jared, your idea for Schism is great. I believe in the slogan 'roleplaying is action', action should be in the gameplay itself, not in character backgrounds or in settings. The 'time for power' scheme seems an excellent way of creating action in the game, and maybe much more.

[Zak Arntson]

1. The first question of Dick (Blade Runner question): 'what is a human being?'
2. The second question of Dick (the Matrix question): 'What is reality?'

Wow!  That sounds like a monumental task!  I think you should try tackling one of these at a time.  I would recommend the "what is a human being" approach for a longer campaign-oriented game.  What is Reality is a great theme (something that Philip Dick confronts again and again) but it would be tough to design an rpg where Reality wouldn't become blase (PLAYER: "Oh, well, I'm actually a person trapped in a cage thinking I am a computer who is tricked into believing I'm a monkey. Ho hum.  Sounds like last week").

It'd be a noble pursuit (what is reality) because if PKD can hit it again and again AND AGAIN, I'm sure there's a way to get a fresh take on it through an rpg.  I can just see it being way tough to do.

What is Humanity would be a great topic to tackle, especially because I haven't seen a good cyberpunk game hit this one yet.  It's always stupid rules like, "Too much cybernetics makes Homer go crazy."  I think a game that deal with AI and Replicants and so on would be great fun.  And with the A.I. movie just coming out, you may have a surge of interest!

PS: Jared, your idea for Schism is great.

The 'time for power' scheme seems an excellent way of creating action in the game, and maybe much more.

I've also got to commend Jared.  I love the concept of "You've got 4 years to live.  GO!!"  Or, "You WILL die, and it will be glorious!"

PS - Gizem, PKD and Lem?  Two of my favorite authors!  I'm looking forward to your reworkings of Singularity (and any future games you write!)

[Jamie Thomas Durbin]

Hmmmm... Having looked at the concept, it's quite good... I am, of course, reading the page as I write this, so if each bit seems a bit disjointed, that's why...

...The technology is most definitely believable, and the implications of the technology have obviously been well explored... :smile:... well done there!

One gripe about the site layout is that I'm not entirely sure how you're handling character creation, as, the moment I look at the "Character" section, it gives me what the stats *mean*, but not how you *get* to them...

...History is short and sweet, that's good... most settings I know try to write too much of the History, and that screws over the players *and* the GMs, 'cos they have very little room to maneuver in...

Organisations, like the history, are well thought out and it appears that you've decided to make this a very thoughtful setting, full of the Dick question of "what is human?" and "what is reality?", although currently more the former than the latter...

All in all, it looks like a good system, although character creation rules might be nice...:/