The Scattered Stars

[Rauðbjørn]

Hoi!

I've an idea for a game, and I thought I'd throw it out there for comment.

It's a multifaceted game of exploration, war, intrige, espionage and trade set against a collossal, user co-defined galaxy.  The major empires (and some of the worlds) are pre set, as are the major races, and the rest can be made up by the players/GMs and submitted for acceptance and mapping (via an online starmap). 

Here's the pitch.

The fledgling human race is just entering into serious space exploration.  Among the hundreds of billions of planets and quadrillions of beings in the galaxy (most of them hostile) humans discover that they are among the smallest and weakest of all interstellar polities.  Free Traders (and pirates) can "update" their starcharts in real-time, learning about new systems, just explored, colonists can learn about new frontier worlds, each with their own dangers, waiting to be opened up, and inter-stellar mercenaries can get the latest scoop off the data-nets about border skirmishes and military "Hot Spots" around the galaxy.  Find allies, enemies, warders and tormentors across a swath of systems, grand adventure, interstellar politics and bloodshed on a planetary scale follow in the wake of human-alien interaction, among... The Scattered Stars.

I've mapped out the major polities, and the major races (including the relative average tech levels).  The Idea is to relase an alien critter, race, civilization, planet and system creation kit, either online or in conjunction with the core book, so that people that want to "homebrew" a race or homeworld or a minor empire can submit them have them approved for "legal" use (and use the online approved critters, worlds and systems) as part of their games, without having to buy forty-eleven splatbooks (one of my pet peeves).  Credit would be given as an "associate contributing writer", freeing me and mine up from the tedious task of inventing one hundred billion star systems, and adding an exciting new dimension to the gaming experience. 

I'm still trying to make the alignment system work the way I want.  It's actualy a matrix of Moral, Ethical and Social constraints that are maleable enough to allow for slow shifting, and "Going Native", but not for dramatic shifts.  The consequences of ignoring your morals, disobeying your ethos or violating your taboos would have more than simply metagame consequences.

I'm tinkering with a skill driven D% system.  The attributes used to describe a character are both randomly generated (to simulate the randomness of freebirth) and "built" based on species and background, using a Dark Conspiracy type background generator.  Each of the six "Prime" attributes is subdivided into two "Second" attributes used to add to skills and derive resistances (eg. Dodge is Agility + Insight /2, Pain is Resiliance + Willpower/2).

The skill system is an Attribute + Training + Background = Skill  system that advances similarly to BRP with a steep XP for training exchange.  Depending on the Technology level of the character's background, you might have access to a few archaic skills (Farming, Animal Care, Melee Proficency: Axe) or a whole Host of options (Pilot: Starship, Ranged Proficiency: Laser, Knoweldge, Cultural: The Ilkahni Confedracy).  New skills are simply obtained, proficiency is easy to achieve, mastery is difficult, almost impossible.

Combat is fast pased, realistic, and exciting, with all actions planned before initiative is rolled, and then excecuting in order of reaction.  Damage is either a minor inconvenience (bruises and scrapes, contusions, abrasions and minor concussions) or life-threatening (bullet holes, de-pressurization trauma, ruptured organs), and enough concussions, can lead to a damaged brain.

What do you think?

[soundmasterj]

So it´s kind of a simulation of a fictional galaxis?

0. What does that alignment system do there? What purpose does it serve? I don´t get it.

1. It seems that you are fascinated (want /expect to be fascinated) by three things in your game, correct me if i got that wrong.

• Creating a gigantic world, a huge complex of different societes, fantastic worlds (pitch, player input)
  
• Emulating a reality (derivated attributes following some tradition of describing the physics of human action, random character creation)
  
• Exciting Combat (well, I´m kinda worried, if combat is to be fast-paced exciting, does that mean other means of conflict aren´t?)
  

Right?


2. If I got that right, if your goals are enabling players to have fun in these ways, I think you should clearly adress each one separately by a bunch of lean, focused rules; and you have to set prioritys because I expect there to be conflict between those agendas in some places. Say, if the players have fun by cocreating a huge world, are rules emulating physics the appropriate solution? Why not some kind of highly-structured metamechanical narr tool like Universalis? Say, if there is a conflict between realistic combat and fast-paced exciting combat, what to choose?

3. And, what. Alignments. What do they do. Why. (I never played D&D, but to me, they seem like a tool for making players "behave", and fuck that. If I want to play my space-aline space-alieny, I will if it doesn´t hurt me and if I don´t want to, I shouldn´t be expected to and especially not forced to do it.)

4. Personally, I like the idea of cocreating a galaxis the most. Also, it´s the only thing that hasn´t already been done. Oh, and I like the trinary wound system: nothing inconvenience wound. That´s cool. I did that, too, when I made up a combat system once.

[Dementia Games]

I typed a massive response and it seems to have been vaporised, so I'm going to be much shorter here...

Not a fan of the alignment concept.  Even D&D has gotten very lax with its use, and this is largely because people didn't like it and didn't play strictly by it.  Unless you've got a good reason to include it and it is in any way "fun" for the players, I'd scrap this idea.

Soundmasterj might have jumped the gun a bit about your combat being fast paced and exciting comment - I get that you're comparing it to other systems, not other methods of resolution within your own game.  Personally, I'm somewhat of a skeptic on these things because I've read about combat being fast paced and exciting many times but played few games that lived up to the claim.  This is not to say that your situation isn't different.

Enough negativity, on to what I praise.

I, too, find your communal approach to galaxy building fascinating.  Also, I'm keen to hear more about your Creation Kit (for characters, races, planets, systems, etc).  Let me explain, quickly.  I have a relatively logical mind, but I was not very good at science in school.  I love sci fi and have run such games in the past.  However, I've always been limited by my capacity to create a "realistic" star system and so forth.  This Creation Kit, then, could be a real focal (read: selling) point of your game for gamers like me.  Yours will not be the first nor the last game set in the stars, but if you can devise a creation system that allows a science goober like me to create believable races, planets, systems and even galaxies, then you will have performed a service that makes your game totally worth the money.  Many games have sort-of tried this, particularly generic ones, but it's never quite enough, because it's not the focal point of the game.  Being that the alignment concept is possibly meh and the other aspects (D%, skill driven, etc) are nothing new to the market, your special niche in this oversaturated world could very well be the creation aspects (including the community approach to galaxy building).  I would really focus on this as a major driving force in your design, personally.  Bottom line, if you can enable a moron like myself to create star systems, their planets and even their races and cultures with relative ease, you've got something special there.  Furthermore, you might even consider such a toolkit from a more generic standpoint - applicable to any sci fi game.  This would make your game desirable even to those who are already well set in their ways with other games and systems much older than your own. 

My two cents, anyway.  I'm interested to hear more about your Creation Kit, if you've got more to tell.

[Vulpinoid]

...can submit them have them approved for "legal" use (and use the online approved critters, worlds and systems) as part of their games, without having to buy forty-eleven splatbooks (one of my pet peeves)...

This would be a perfect use for a game related wiki.

Devise a system where anyonecan add their races, planets, ships, etc. into the wiki, then pick and choose which of these elements you'd like to include as canon for the system. If it get's big enough later, you can appoint a few other trusted individuals to make submitted aspects canon for your game.

I'd be interested in seeing if your generation kit is "point buy", "random", some combination of the two, or something entirely new and innovative.

V

[Rauðbjørn]

So it´s kind of a simulation of a fictional galaxis?

I wasn't sure what galaxis is, so I had to look it up.  While there are several factions that would love to "conquer" the galaxy, none of them have the wherewithal to pull it off, much less hold on to it.  As I say in the intro, "Space is big, I mean unbelievably huge.  Space is so big I won't even try to describe it, because the numbers involved are so big, that they have no meaning for someone such as you or I."

I'm using the milky way galaxy and applying as much of the physics I have to the galaxy as I can.  Yes, that means that the central 1/3 or so of the galaxy is uninhabitable (at least by carbon based lifeforms, too much radiation).

0. What does that alignment system do there? What purpose does it serve? I don´t get it.

3. And, what. Alignments. What do they do. Why. (I never played D&D, but to me, they seem like a tool for making players "behave", and fuck that. If I want to play my space-aline space-alieny, I will if it doesn´t hurt me and if I don´t want to, I shouldn´t be expected to and especially not forced to do it.)

I'm not certain what that sentence means, but I'll try to explain alignments.

Every one has a moral, ethical and societal code of conduct that tell him or her what to do.  Sometimes people violate these codes, and that can result in everything from depression, to PTSD.  Your Moral code probably includes things like "do not kill people", "inflict only that harm which cannot be avoided" and "all men are created equal".  Your ethical code probably includes "Obey the law of  the land", "do not lie to people" and "assist police officers if asked".  Modern cultural or societal taboos in the northern and western hemispheres typically include, cannibalism, incest, and slavery.  Violating the moral - ethical codes or cultural taboos of your society can result in self loathing, addiction, incarceration, emotional and psychological trauma and suicidal tendencies.

People who have no code of conduct are called psychopaths, and almost every society on earth hunts these people down and kills or incarcerates them, because they are dangerous. 

Originally alignments were meant to provide a code of conduct based on the characters moral and ethical outlook.  D&D based the moral axis of this index on a rating of good, neutral and evil, and the ethical axis on a rating of Lawful, neutral and chaotic.  When compared, a player could find a way to generally describe his character's moral/ethical code.  Lawful Good for example was a big fan of human rights, freedom, duty and personal responsibility.  Inversely, Chaotic Evil wanted to enslave others, garner power only for himself and was generally an ass and a violent one at that.  A character that fell at the Neutral - Neutral (called True Neutral) index was either a waffler, unable to decide on a strong code of conduct, and just tried to get along as best he could, or was determined to help maintain the balance of all forces in the world, and would assist whichever force needed to be assisted to maintain the balance (sometimes the goblins need to win). 

Not a fan of the alignment concept.  Even D&D has gotten very lax with its use, and this is largely because people didn't like it and didn't play strictly by it.  Unless you've got a good reason to include it and it is in any way "fun" for the players, I'd scrap this idea.

In White Wolf they are called nature and demeanor (and sometimes the Shadow or Po), in Palladium, the alignments are subsets of Good, Selfish, and Evil, and in some cases Honorable and Dishonorable.  Star Wars used Light side and Dark side, Warhammer used a straight linear progression from law - good - neutral - evil - chaotic (leave it up to the brits to find law and chaos more important that good and evil) and Marvel Super Heroes rewarded "moral" behavior and punished "immoral" behavior by awarding Karma or taking it away.

All alignment is meant to do, it act as a guideline for how the character acts (rather than conceding that it's just a game, so it matters not how you act), and how others, who know of him react to him.  The CE guy might be feared and respected, but the LG guy can get people to die for him.  I'm tired of dealing with sociopathic characters and characters with no more spine than Neville Disraeli.  I want characters that are heroic or villainous, not both because it's easy.  The relaxation of the alignment system leads directly to gamist play (more on that in my upcoming rant about gamism, D&D 4th ed, and why Roll-players suck).

1. It seems that you are fascinated (want /expect to be fascinated) by three things in your game, correct me if i got that wrong.

• Creating a gigantic world, a huge complex of different societes, fantastic worlds (pitch, player input)
  
• Emulating a reality (derivated attributes following some tradition of describing the physics of human action, random character creation)
  
• Exciting Combat (well, I´m kinda worried, if combat is to be fast-paced exciting, does that mean other means of conflict aren´t?)
  

Right?

2. If I got that right, if your goals are enabling players to have fun in these ways, I think you should clearly adress each one separately by a bunch of lean, focused rules; and you have to set prioritys because I expect there to be conflict between those agendas in some places. Say, if the players have fun by cocreating a huge world, are rules emulating physics the appropriate solution? Why not some kind of highly-structured metamechanical narr tool like Universalis? Say, if there is a conflict between realistic combat and fast-paced exciting combat, what to choose?

Well, I'm not so much interested in creating a gigantic world, as I am in having enough space to allow the GD (Game Director) to mess with the galaxy a bit.  Don't get me wrong, I am excited about the user co-defined galaxy, and for two main reasons; a) Heinlein once said "If a place gets crowded enough that it requires ID cards, it's time to move on. The nice thing about space travel is that it allows you to move on." and b) it means in terms of color and setting writing, I gain 3 billion potential assistant writers.

When I first started building my own RPGs, my first attempts were coming up with new places to play in the D&D world (at the time, Forgotten Realms), now I can't get my players to approach the Forgotten Realms for love or money.  Their reason? "It's too big, too well defined, it's to much info to absorb" (that last part comes from the gamist players).  But I like big, so I wanted to create something that was big, and at the same time small, unless you wanted it to get bigger.

I am not a big believer in the thought "all men are created equal" because they're not.  Now wait, before the recriminations begin to fly, hear me out.  If all men were created equal, everyone would be as strong as Conan, as fast a runner as Jesse Owens, as strong a swimmer as Michael Phelps, all men would look like Daniel Craig and all women like Jenna Jameson.  And every last one of us would be members of MENSA.  But that would be boring.  Even among people in the same class (IE. Heavyweight boxers) there are small, random variations in strength, endurance and speed.  The fact that I have brown hair and not red is purely a matter of random chance
(well with a strong dose of predetermination, since I'm both Irish and Scottish, but hey, I always did like to play against type). 

It is my belief that point buy systems are gamism at their worst, and are there specifically to pander to the munchkin player.  Oh sure, they prevent stat roll cheating, but still, a level playing field is only there to provide a fair launchpad to outdo your other party members (and if your players are cheating, do you really want them in your game? Randomly generated stats present the role-player with their very first hurdle.  How do I accomplish my goals with the limitations of my character stats.  It teaches the acceptance of disability,and the importance of perseverance and creative thought.

I admit it, I am an action movie junkie.  I love the fast paced, exciting scene, preferably with lots of chop, chop / bang, bang / boom, boom.  I actually have experience with real melee and unarmed combat, I have quite a bit of experience with shooting (though mostly none in explosives) and a bit in the world of high speed auto chases.  I know exciting. And I find that most games treat the action (specifically combat) in them as either a) most of your actions are futile and non-productive, so you get only a very few to actually do things with, or b) combat is so realistic that it becomes 90% of the game.

I want to play (and run) a game that accepts that a person with minimal training can perform more than one action in 6 seconds, and rewards intelligent, prudent roll-playing in such situations (IE if you dodge every round, you probably will survive the encounter).  But I did not want to re-create Rifts (sorry Kevin, I love the game, but DAMN).  I really liked the melee system used in the old RECON game, and have been toying with that and the concept of muscle memory automated response in hand to hand (that is, sometimes you have to commit to a block before your opponent commits to his attack).

I don't think that any of the other encounters of resolutions will be less exciting (anyone that was cognizant back during the Geneva Summits  in the 80's remembers how exciting but protracted that was).  It's just that high speed trade negotiations are usually called piracy, and high speed social encounters are often decried as rape.  Action is fast, other encounters should move at their own speed.

I don't think that any form of conflict resolution needs to take a back seat to any other.  Combat does require a firmer set of rules than social interaction, because combat in and of itself is gamist play.  Social interaction (supposedly) is narrative play, and should be encouraged, even if (mayhap especially if) social conflict is settled by a skill check or other fortune device.  It comes back to the old "The GM is the author of the story".  He's not by the way, at best he is an editor, there to ensure that the authors (the players) are following the rules of the universe that are weaving a story in.  If you don't require some acting from your players, you might as well be playing a console game (not that there aren't outstanding RP servers out there).  Again, role-playing teaches conflict resolution (other than HULK SMASH!), emotional sharing and creative thought,

4. Personally, I like the idea of cocreating a galaxis the most. Also, it´s the only thing that hasn´t already been done. Oh, and I like the trinary wound system: nothing inconvenience wound. That´s cool. I did that, too, when I made up a combat system once.

Thanks for the kudos on the wound system, I swiped the concept from TMNT (SDC/HP) because it just made so much sense.  Some weapons just only inflict injurious damage, and one of the effects of a critical hit is that they inflict lethal wounds instead (go study the effects of sap (blackjack) induced head trauma sometime and find out why they're illegal in most places).

Being that the alignment concept is possibly meh and the other aspects (D%, skill driven, etc) are nothing new to the market, your special niche in this oversaturated world could very well be the creation aspects (including the community approach to galaxy building).

In my experience, RPGs are like presidential candidates, most people will stick with what they know, never mind if it's stupid.  D&D players are typically going to play D&D, no matter how fucked up it gets, because they've always played D&D, and besides, what else is out there? GURPS? No degree in math and physics.  Palladium? Don't wanna spend an hour on a 45 second fight.  RoleMaster? Don't wanna spend 8 hours making 1 character.  Hackmaster? Please!

On thwe other hand,  I have personally purchased 85% of everything Kevin Siembieda put out, and 90% of everything TSR put out (yes I had all of the color coded box sets), up until 3rd ed.  I took one look and said "No, thank you." because I could see (but was unable to verbalize) the gamism inherent in the system.  If an effort was made to stem the tide of MMORPG style of RP, we could get back to the days when people bought supplements for the color and setting expansion, and not just for the newest way to spatter your opponent all over the countryside.

-Troth

Rauðbjørn


P.S. Oh wow! Universalis may be more Narr than Everway, It hearkens back to the halcyon days of my youth (when I was 6) and conflict resolution consisted of "Bang! Your dead!" "No I'm not." "Yes you are, trust me.".  With no editor, no producer, no GM, how is this game not a meeting of the mutual admiration society?  I like Nar, don't get me wrong, but DAMN!

[soundmasterj]

Naaaah. Galaxis is german for galaxy and I forgot your word was different. Sorry I´m dumb.

Again: Galaxy Creation is where the gold is at. Digg there digg digg digg deeper. Tell us more. To be honest, I think RPG design is a lot more advanced around here than you know, but that part, nobody has tackled it yet to my knowledge. Elaborate your goals and means!

Ok. I don´t care how alignment systems work in D&D. For everything I know, they are a mechanism for making players behave and they don´t work. They won´t EVER work. This is why: D&D is mostly about being good at combat. Anything happens in that context. Players don´t get their D&D fun from being moral or amoral, they get their fun from being good at combat and they act accordingly. They´d be playing he game wrong if they didn´t.
Where would a alignment system help your game? If you want players to play moral characters, it won´t ever ever do that. If you do believe me, we could talk about alternative means (because having charcaters act moral is easy), if you don´t, I´ll explain myself more clearly.
Imagine how alignment would work in Star trek/wars. The whole premise wouldn´t work because neither Anakin nor Luke would even think about the dark side. Same goes for Star Trek and the prime directive.
Where does "alignment" fit into science fiction?
Do you believe me? If yes, do you want to know how I would solve it? If know do you want me to elaborate?

Roll-players suck

I´m a gamist when I play gamist games. Say it to my face. Say to my face how I suck.
(And I´ll answer, "you don´t understand Big Model/GNS/Forge-style RPG theory".)

Character creation: I don´t care how the world is mostly normally distributed, I know she is but I don´t care. Nor would I want to look like Daniel Craig nor would I want every (or any) girl to look like Jenna Jameson. Especially not my mom, my sister, my (girl)friend, my daughters. I especially don´t want my RPG characters look like those. What happens in the context of traditional stupid RPG systems as played by gamists is they make everybody as combat-efficient as possible because that´s what playing the game optimally needs from them to do. And it´s right. Do you know what would make for a realistic character? This method:
Write this onto your sheet: a name, three sentences about past and present, "Combat: 3 points".
Everybody does this. Now nobody competes by making their combat stat better, but by making the best descriptions and names.
Do you understand what I´m getting at? Do you see where it could help you? Why would you choose a traditional method?

Concerning Combat Systems: A game with a lot of tactical options expressed as physics-emulating dice rolls makes me see smoke grenades as "-4 dice", not as FUCK I CAN`T SEE I CAN´T FUCKING SEE SHOOT GODDAMN SHOOT
Both are exciting, but in different ways. I like both. What kind of exciting do you want? The kind you get from chess/a computer game or the kind you get from reading a novel?

Concerning believability and excitement (realism is a stupid term in fantasy/sf - context), considers this. Say combat works like this; we roll dice, whoever rolls higher freely narrates what happens. You win. You start narrating how we start shooting and screaming, panic, how the pain hurts where we get hit because you exactly know how that happens etc.
Or say, it works like this: we roll two dice, and whoever rolls the highest narrates, but whoever gets the lowest gets hurt. Say I roll a 1 and a 6. What I do is I start narrating how we scream and shout and shoot and how we get hit and I ask you, say I get hit here, how does that hurt? And you tell me and I narrate how it burns and how there is blood all around and so on.
In the end, we narrate how one of us is dead or both or none and how it realistically could have happend that it went that way. Way more realistic than any percentile die emulating armor encumbrance. We didn´t even count the bullets wrong because there was no point in cheating. At one point you said, hey, your gun should be empty and I said, yes you´re right, and started anrrating how my guy hides behind a corner and tries fitting that stupid magazine into that damn gun and faster dear god faster there are people out there wanting to shoot me.

Of course, that´s a greatly simplified example, but I guess you get where I´m getting at. What kind of exciting do you want? I like the one where we´re mostly thinking about dice, too. I like playing dice games. I also like playing story games.

Think about this. Do you want your RULES to look like reality or the stories people tell when they use those rules? If the former, you probably should be a scientist, not a game designer. It doesn´t work like this: the closer rules look to reality, the more their product looks like reality. It works like this: allow those that have fun by telling belivable storys to do so. Do you believe me? If yes, do you want me to elaborate anything?

Concerning Universalis: Well, you see, the whole book (and it costs a lot of money!) consists of nothing but the sentence "HEy folks how bout y´all make up this world anything goes gogogo have funnnnn" and Mike Holmes wrote it while he was so high on drugs its a wonder he didn´t write a new Pink Floyd album instead and what no Game Master?, how would a game without a game master ever work (I mean look at Capes who would ever want to play that)...
Come on. Universalis has RULES. They clearly establish who gets to do what in which context and it´s working great. You don´t need a GM, you just need common sense and clear distribution of narrational rights. It´s kind of ignorant dismissing it because you don´t know it when it is, by general consensus, really good at managing shared story-telling and world creation.
Also, "narr" doesn´t mean freeform or low-on-rules. Narr needs very clear rules stating who gets to narrate what when how (as every P&P does). Narr rules are often really "heavy".

I think you could greatly profit from reading some non-mainstream games with an open mind (not thinking about how "realistic" they are, but what kinds of play and what kinds of story they might provide for). In case of sim-leaning guys, I usually prescribe The Shadow of Yesterday because it´s fairly traditional, but actually seems to work.
(This one is free to read, by the way, and critically acclaimed.)

Lastly, I don´t get sim at all and if your highest priority is "rules themselves being close to reality" (an orthogonal goal to "great story" and "story being believable"), disregard everything I said and lets start talking about probability curves because I like those, too.

So my points are, 1. Galaxy Creation is gold, get your shovel out. 2. Alignment systems won´t give you what you want, but there are easy ways. 3. Character Creation has to be looked at in the context of the overall goals of the game, and not as "fixing typical player mistakes", but as "enabling players to make up good characters". 4. Combat... Define believability and excitment in your case. Also, think about non-traditional (but forge-standard) methods. 5. Stop talking about stuff like Gamism or Universalis that you simply don´t quite grasp like they did things to you. 6. Read TSOY, it´s great. 7. Sorry I don´t get sim.

[soundmasterj]

Obligatory link to TSOY / Solar System:
http://files.crngames.com/cc/tsoy/book1--rulebook.html
http://tsoy.crngames.com/

TSOY is designed so it works when you try optimizing your character. It aims to provide for BETTER stories when you do that, not worse.

Also sorry if I sounded kind of condescending up there, but I always get like that when I feel people read GNS as meaning "gamism is dumb"

[Rauðbjørn]

Alignment systems are not a mechanism for "making players behave".  They have worked in the past, and they can work in the future.  D&D 3rd & 4th editions were, and are all about combat and the gamist concept of "winning" the RPG session, by defeating the opponent critters.  And so the alignment system has been largely ignored (partly I think because of younger players, that have little acting ability much less critical thinking skill, and small if any moral/ethical code of their own) and in this most recent edition of D&D, practically done away with.  The alignment system is not there to "Help" the game; it is there to help the players and to teach them, and to cause them to question their own motivation for their character's actions.  Basic D&D was very much gamist, what with the adventure modules having only the most limited of options available to the player for situation resolution.  But AD&D and AD&D 2nd edition, were very much about creating the story of your character, encountering scary critters (with nasty big pointy teeth), or fiendishly clever traps, and devilishly convoluted intrigues and finding solutions for them.  Now, if you're a hammer (and I am) all problems tend to look like nails, so as a fighter (Barbarian, Ranger and to a certain extent Paladins), I tend to see things through the lens of "Can I Kill It? Can I  Loot it?"  When I play Thieves (Assassins, Bards) I tend to view things through the "Can I Loot It? Can I Kill It Without Being Caught?" lens.  When I play Clerics (Wizards, Druidsand to a certain extent Paladins) the world suddenly takes on a "How Can I Defeat This Challenge Accordance With My Deity's Will?" or "How Can I Defeat This Challenge Without Expending Power, While Gaining As Much Power As Possible?"

I think you mistake "morality" for "moral".  Moral indicates a certain positive degree of rightness or correct behavior and thought, whereas morality is merely the framework for what you believe is "right".  For example, my morality indicates that killing people if they become a danger to you and yours is perfectly acceptable, as is robbing your enemies, which includes all those not a part of your social dynamic, but there is a catch.  In order for all of this to be "Moral" behavior, you must admit that you did it, never hide it, be proud that it was your hand that guides the blade, and accept any consequences that come your way, be it wergild or blood-feud.   I ask not that players behave in what I think is moral, but that they define what their character thinks is moral, and then have their character act within those boundaries.

Have you even watched the Star Wars movies?!?  One of the constant themes, is "Unless you carefully avoid the dark side, you will fall from the light.  Question every motivation you have to ensure your purity of purpose.  Man is not automatically good, consciously avoid being corrupted by evil."  Where do you think Darth Vader came from?  Episodes I through III are all about Anakin's fall to the dark side.  Episodes IV through VI are all about Luke's attempts to avoid the same fate as his father.  And the Prime Directive?!? The Prime Directive is the overriding ethical constraint of Star Trek.  And while it is usually obeyed, all of the great Federation captains and even Spock have been known to bend, and even break it.  Usually they must examine the situation carefully to determine is the moral value of their impending action outweighs the harm that violating their ethics may do, both to themselves as well as to their intended beneficiary.

Go re-read, Deborah Doyle & James MacDonald, Isaac Asimov, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournell, Holly Lisle, Spider Robinson, David Webber, Alan Dean Foster, Leo Frankowski & Dave Grossman, Sean McMullen and John Ringo.   After doing that you can come back and we'll discuss the presence and/or the "fit" of morality in science fiction.  Go read George Alec Effinger, Philip Jose Farmer, and Harry Harrison and we'll talk about the ethics of science fiction.  Go read Robert Heinlein and Pamela Sergeant and we'll talk about societal restraints and cultural taboos in science fiction.  I think when you say science-fiction; you mean space opera or science fantasy (read as fantasy fluff).  Did you even bother to watch Babylon 5 or Alien Nation?  What about Firefly?  Stargate SG-1? Ever watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer for something more than boobs and hot, hot redheaded lesbians?  Thor's Teeth and Freya's Bountiful Bosom Man! One of the basic tenets of Sci-Fi/Spec-Fic is "Make the reader think! Make him question the boundaries of his world, cause him to wonder "what if?"."

Well, I have to ask you, about your "realistic" character.  Is 3 points in combat an average rating? Weak? God-like?  By assigning a value (3 points) to an attribute (combat ability) of the object (soundmasterJ's character) you have just entered the realm of Simulationist play.  White Wolf LARP uses descriptors such as; brawny, dexterous, wise (et all) to use when making any kind of action with more than one possible outcome.  Players indicate what trait they are using and what they are attempting to do then play Rock-Paper-Scissors to generate a (supposedly) random outcome (IE "I am cunning enough to hack the Ventrue clan leader's computer.")  In case of a tie, players would then "bid" traits to win the tie, and success would depend on the relative value of the trait categories (IE "I have 3 mental traits." "Sorry Bob, the computer security has more than that.").  Narrativism is (as I understand it) the story end of the play, and the degree to which story is overriding in importance relative to the Simulationist aspect of the game (IE the "physics" of the game).  Gamism is the degree to which one can "win" the game, and the philosophy that winning is the important part of the game. 

You indicate that in "Traditional" RPGs, combat is the only important factor.  What about the bard who in 3rd ed, was able to adjust the mood of a mob (literally an angry crowd) throu a charisma based performance check.  This ability to make a large group of potential foes, leave the party alone is an outstanding way to defeat enemies, but hardly qualifies as combat.  Back in 2nd ed there was a cleric kit called the Medicus, that could swap out any of it's spells for Cure Light Wounds (or better depending on level), and had the absolute worst combat abilities of any cleric (usually a pretty good fighter), putting it on par with a rogue.  On the other hand, the Medicus is a healing machine, and nothing else in the game would keep your party alive, useless in a fight, but with maximized low end healing and the ability to convert all his spells into heals, you could fight a losing rearguard action All. Day. Long. And still walk away from it.  Yes you can optimize your character for combat, but a combat optimized bard, is about a valuable as a druid in an urban setting.

The rules or "physics" of a game tell you what you can and cannot do, and expresses in unarguable, numerical values what occurs for any given situation.  So yes, in the rawest simulationist sense, smoke grenades ARE -4 dice.  This is where the GM and the players are supposed to kick in with the Narrativism.  Here is the same encounter expressed in purely simulationist terms and then again in narrativist form, describing the action (this is written using the mechanics of the Scattered Stars system.

"Johnny, make a perception check +50%, everyone else can attempt one with a +100% penalty." Said the GD
"I get 59, that's a success" replied Johnny, after rolling, only one other person, Jane rolled as well.
"I rolled an ought-two, crits always succeed right?" she asked.
"Awesome Jane, right you are." Was the return "You two can see a tall thin guy hiding in the shadows between the dumpster and the end of the alley watching you and your party."
"Well we can't have that, my character will pull his neural pistol and make a tactical advance on the hidden man" Johnny said nonchalantly.
"Hey, wait a minute, I'm going with you" cried Jane "I grab my sub-gun through my duster and follow him into the alley."
"The tall man panics and tries to hide behind the dumpster" said the GD "give me your initiatives and prepare your actions."
"65.  Move, Move, Move, Dodge, Contingincy: Parry, Contingency: Attack" spieled off Jane.
"80. Dodge, Move, Move, Move, Contingency: Parry, Contingency: Dodge, Contingency: Melee Attack, Contingency: Melee Attack." Recited John.
"Allright, make your dodges and then move, both of you." Replied the GD.
Johnny rolls and then reports "Aw, crap 50% dodge, that's a +10% penalty.  I then move in to the right and advance between the dumpster and the wall trying to flush him out."
"I'll block him in behind the dumpster and the nearest wall." Exclaimed Jane, rolling the dice" Woot! 15% that's' a +40% penalty!"
"Excellent!" mutters the GD, rolling dice "Everyone else make a reaction check at +20% penalty"
No one makes the roll.
"Everyone except Jane is now blind and deaf, suffering a +100% penalty to all actions for 10 rounds and only ½ normal actions." Says the GD smugly
"Jane roll to parry, the tall man is trying to kick you as you close on the dumpster." He continued.
"30% parry?" inquired Jane.  At the GD's nod, she rolled again "I but stroke him in the face.  01! Woot yeah!"
The GD looks stunned for a moment, then rolls dice several times "Gah! And the tall man falls at your feet, unconscious. Good job Jane."

Now this is a narrative version as described by people that know the system, and how to narrate a scene.

"Standing in the pool of weak light at the center of the cul-de-sac, waiting on your contact is a boring proposition at best.  The oppressive gloom of the moonless Balhafran night seems to absorb light like a stealth coating.  It is a Non-Trivial task to search the shadows for anyone approaching.  Johnny and Sarafine, you manage to pick out the amorphous shape of someone standing near a dumpster at the end of an alleyway on the south side of the cul-de-sac.  The shape is very tall, approximately two meters, but no other features can be made out."
"I dodge, making me an unusual target for attack while running towards the dumpster trying to flush him out from behind it."
"I race towards the other end of the dumpster, to block the spy's escape, rolling into a crouched position as I approach the giant bin."
"Suddenly a small canister arcs out of the darkness at the end of the alley, bouncing to a stop at the mouth of the passage with a metallic tinkling.  The alien sound throws off your reaction as the tiny object explodes into furious light and thunderous sound making it impossible to think, much less act."
{A chorus of outraged and terrified howling, blasphemy and profanity erupts from all characters save Sarafine.}
"The figure darts out from behind the dumpster, lashing out in a vain attempt to knock Sarafine to the ground, allowing his escape."
"I lash out with my sub-gun, aiming for his jaw."
"The butt-stroke connects and the tall figure crumples to the ground, insensate."

See, simulationist play can be narrativist, if the players and the GD put forth a little effort to be descriptive and learn how the "universe" works.  Combat is relatively uncomplicated, fast paced and it is possible to be descriptive and maintain a decent narrative.

The combat system you described has one serious flaw; If I am a gamist player, every time I win the initial combat roll, you die, a quick painless death, because I shoot you in the head, or manage to drive my blade into your brain.  Every. Single. Time.  It is possible to have a "dice game" that is also a "story game".  It is not possible to have a "story game" that encourages "winning" or is based on a gamist platform, because it encourages gamist behavior.  If you are a gamist when you play gamist games (IE Monopoly, chess, poker) and a Narrativist when you play narrativist games (IE Everway, old school White Wolf, Amber Diceless RPG) then good for you. If you think that playing narrativist games as a Gamist makes them gamist then yeah, you suck.

ODIN"S EYE!

I've just had an epiphany, gamists that play non gamist games as if they were are what we call Munchkins.  They seek to win a patently unwinnable game.  They do this by "min/maxing" characters, fudging dice rolls and exploiting rules loopholes.  In my part of the world, these people are mocked, shunned and if all else fails, beaten into unconsciousness.  Seriously, we hate these guys.  As Scott Kurtz put it in PVP "People like you are ruining this game!"

Y'know, I [/b]like[/b] games that have clear cut rules.  I like being able to say "this is what my character can do in relationship to the universe, in relationship to other characters.  I want a game with clearly defined attributes.  People that can alter the universe on a moment's whimsy should be called wizards (or a reasonable setting equivalent) and either be feared and reviled, or respected and revered (or a blend of the two) not players.  A world with no consistency, that changes with no rhyme or reason is madness, and should be played by those that enjoy such things.  There is a reason neither I nor anyone I know (and in Alaska that's a significant portion of the gaming community) plays games like this.  We enjoy a determined attachment to realism, and find the idealism of Bishop Berkeley to be so much Matrix style bullshit.  I've also never heard of a "narr" game that had both a whole  lot of rules and a very well defined set of rules.  Either they leave as much open to "ST adjustment as possible, or there just aren't a whole lot of them, because the players and ST are supposed to "make them up as needed".  By definition, a rules heavy game is simulationist, because the rules are meant to simulate the physics of the game universe.  How well, is entirely a matter of opinion.

I will look into The Shadow of Yesterday, and thanks for the links.  I am hesitant to purchase narr heavy games, because no-one ever wants to play them, and usually, the kinda suck.  I picked up the Amber Diceless game and I played one game.  It was so bad, that we quit, and played Spellfire for the rest of the night to try to clear the taste out of out mouths.  I feel morally certain that game directly led to Roger Zelazny's death.

The thing to remember about sim play, is that unless the rules framework is solid and overarching, all narr play (which admittedly is smoke and mirrors) will collapse on itself every time the "story builders" gat crosswise to each other.  Besides, how do you resolve anything without rules?  No need for probability curves (all probabilities are 50/50; either something will happen, or it won't).

I also like my user Co-Defined reality concept.  It's only really doable in the modern age, with the internet being so pervasive and all accessible.  I've not gotten the kinks worked out on the creation system yet, but as soon as I do, I'll post a rough for commentary.  Thanks for the input, and the argument.  I rarely get to engage in intelligent discourse with adults anymore.

-Frith & Troth

[soundmasterj]

You know what I´ve just learned? I learned I shouldn´t use forge terminology on the forge because people surprisignly don´t use them in the glossary sense. You got your terminology all wrong, what you call narrativism is, in forge terms, color or narration or low points of contact, what you call sim is high points of contact etc.

But AD&D and AD&D 2nd edition, were very much about creating the story of your character, encountering scary critters (with nasty big pointy teeth), or fiendishly clever traps, and devilishly convoluted intrigues and finding solutions for them.

Sounds like gamism to me.

I hereby declare that every time you used the words gamism, simulationism or narrativism you used them completely wrong. If you want to argue that fact, I refer you to the glossary: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/27/
I think without you reading that, further discussion of anything GNS would be completely pointless.

Go re-read (... long list of people ...)

Hit me with your big words!
...
I´d advise not trying to win an argument against me, but partaking in a discussion furthering your desgin. You know, I´d actually love starting a huge flamewar, waving my "I´ve read THIS and THIS, but did you read THIS?" internet penis at you, but this isn´t the time nor place for it. I think we´d both thoroughly enjoy it but it wouldn´t be productive.
But here are my scifi favourites: Firefly, everything by William Gibson, Arno Schmidt and the second Star Trek movie. Just so we got some common ground. I didn´t know there were lesbians in Buffy. I always assumed people watched that series because of something like that and never went for it and felt mad stupid when I learned how it supposedly was a lot like Firefly.

I've also never heard of a "narr" game that had both a whole  lot of rules and a very well defined set of rules.

Yeah that´s the thing. You don´t know of them (me, I don´t care for any but those narr games with well defined rules). That´s why I said you should maybe read up on some (TSOY). TSOY is free (cc licensed), no need "wasting money" on people who just might kill your favourite authors! I think if you enjoy sim, that´s what you should do, but to me, my first well-designed narrativist game was eyeopening; but more importantly, it helps seeing how limited the traditional approach is (NOT how limited sim is. Non-trad design works for sim as well.). Amber, by the way, isn´t a particulary narrativist game, and White Wolf games especially aren´t, they are broken simulationist, encouraging gamist abuse, hiding behind narrativistic-simulationistic rethoric.

Well my stick is how rules don´t have to look like physics formulas to make for a game where everything happening is believable. You don´t want your rules to look like reality, but what you use them for and in my experience, rules looking like reality don´t make for believable stories at all.

You, on the other hand, seem to like rules that somehow measure and quantify physical properties of the game world. That is not the only way for orienting yourself in the game world. In my experience, strict-ruled narrative games - where it is made totally explicit who gets to say what - are way less defined by out-of-game discussion not at all moderated by the actual rules. The most simple example is how in a Task Resolution system you shoot someone to make him drop his weapon. I hit, you (as GM) have the guy roll willpower or whatever, target nubmer 5. No way, I say, he just got hit by a fucking bullet, that´s at least TN 10! And we´re arguing and arguing. In a conflict resolution system (which might as well be simulationist), I say, I roll combat to make him drop his weapon. Now, if he drops his weapon entirely depends on my roll, not at all on what we argue about. That´s a tight grip on the situation by the rules. Also, it´s fair. And fun.

the rules are meant to simulate the physics of the game universe.

Gloriously, one of the most important principles of this here site states that actually, rules really never simulate physics, but moderate narration (as a descriptive, not normative fact and in each and every RPG). Rules make us agree. We agree that in this situation, our chances are thusly because we use a common rules set; but what the situation is depends entirely on what we agree upon. Some rules make us agree by giving us the idea that they are somehow simulating reality, but that is their how, not their what. This might be hard to understand but once you´ve thought about it it´s somewhat of a truism.

The thing to remember about sim play, is that unless the rules framework is solid and overarching, all narr play (which admittedly is smoke and mirrors) will collapse on itself every time the "story builders" gat crosswise to each other. 

Yeah but no. I mean, this is completely wrong. This is completely wrong. In a bad design, it will be up to people arguing. In a good design, people agree on a good story. I don´t care if your Amber play sucked; it means that you don´t like free-form, not that narr is bad. Narr isn´t per definition freeform. But I propose we skip over the terminology talk.
By the way, I would describe your examples from your game as non-strict rules. It is governed not by mechanical, transparent rules, but by GM fiat. It doesn´t matter that there´s a lot of numbers around. What matters is what they make us (me and you, not Conan and the T-1000 of our imagination) do.

What somewhat interested me was our alignment discussion. We agree that Star Wars (I saw most of these movies, not that I liked them too much though) is a lot about some sort of orientating on a moral compass. Here´d be my proposal for a sim game for Jedi Knights, super slimmed down:
- To do anything, roll 3d6. 10 or more, you succed. Add or substract a Die for anything really easy or hard.
- Gain 1 dark side bonus die for every action you do out of fear or anger. Gain 2 bonus die whenever you act out of hate.
- Whenever you roll a 6 on a dark side bonus die, you gain it as a PERMANENT bonus die. Also, you have to try killing one person you love or one person you are related to. 3 permanent dark bonus dice, you´re a sith (also, you roll like 6d6 so you can probably kill Star Destroyers by farting, I guess I need to rebalance this somewhat).

Wow, that might actually work somewhat. Besides the suspicious fragility of Star Destroyers of course.

Now let´s imagine Alignment Star Wars:
- To do anything, roll 3d6. 10 or more, you succed. Add or substract a Die for anything really easy or hard.
- Gain 1 bonus for every roll where you act as a Jedi knight should: protecting the weak and in a balanced state of mind. Lose one die on every roll you act while breaking the Jedi code.
- When you´ve broken your Jedi Codex 10 times, you´re a Sith. Also, you can´t use Jedi Powers anymore, congrats asshat, next time, listen to that bearded dude and that pokemon thing with the backwards speech.

Boy would that game suck. Imagine how stupid the movies would have been if choosing the light side would have been the opportunistic choice! "Join me Luke!" - "Why would I, old man?" - "Yeah I dunno, it worked for me." - "Wouldn´t for me, I´m neutral good." *slays Emperor Palpatine*
I promise you, alignment won´t give you what you want from it.

By the way, the above design is in itself neither gam nor sim nor narr, it could easily be adjusted to any of the three agendas.
You said you liked Firefly. The fun thing is how in that series, it is all about people being moral even though it breaks character. Mal being a hero - Mal doesn´t even want to be a hero! That´s why he´s so good. Dramatic situations come from people having to break their moral code when they don´t want to, but they still do it because it´s the only way out. I am 100% sure an alignment system will not give you what you want it to.

A working alternate system to alignment would be TSOYs "keys". You know what way I´d like this discussion to move? You say how you want your game to be (for example, "people should act character-appropriately" or "people should make though moral choices" or "combat should be full of tactical choices" or "combat should be colorfull") and I think about how that might work. Then, you say why my ideas suck and not why some imaginary narrativist agenda sucks.

My final thesis is that making rules look like reality is a stupid thing to do if what you want is believable gaming. It´s a fine goal in itself (it´s called "physics"), but it won´t work for that purpose.

Frith & Troth

Why are you two people help I barely feel like one person mostly

[dindenver]

Rauðbjørn,
 OK, I have some comments:

The major empires (and some of the worlds) are pre set, as are the major races, and the rest can be made up by the players/GMs and submitted for acceptance and mapping (via an online starmap).

This seems a little half-baked. I am not trying to be harsh. But I do not see the point of making room for all this customization if the major pieces are already in place and already in play. I know that other games handle fully customizable settings (Shock for instance) very well, maybe you should start from there and then add one or two factions if playtesting proves this is necessary? Or at the very least change your propaganda to not claim that the players can customize the setting (since the setting is static and the players just add flavor to the setting).

I'm still trying to make the alignment system work the way I want.  It's actualy a matrix of Moral, Ethical and Social constraints that are maleable enough to allow for slow shifting, and "Going Native", but not for dramatic shifts.  The consequences of ignoring your morals, disobeying your ethos or violating your taboos would have more than simply metagame consequences.

This is an interesting approach. But I don't really see how it applies to sci fi. D&D needs alignments because otherwise you don't know who protection vs evil applies to do you? But there is no sci fi equivalent to protection vs evil, is there?
  I think that this system would work as a way to apply constraints on a characters behavior. My question to you is, where is the fun in that? It "seems" like you are trying to apply some rules of realism onto the game, and that is commendable. But, I am not sure if constrained behavior is realistic. You say you like action movies, well isn't one of the cool action tropes to have a 'descent into darkness' where our action hero acts like a jerk cuz life has kicked him in the crotch one too many times? Does it make sense to penalize a player who is acting in character and pumping up the roleplaying and the drama with a 'descent into darkness' story arc?
  If you think that character actions should be in character, maybe you should come up with a reward system for in character behavior (dharma dice, you get bonus dice to spend if your character follows their own path?).
  Either way, I think you will find a lot of resistance to the idea of an alignment system in a sci fi game (unless you really want to do a fantasy sci fi like star wars, in wehich case, you need to really get the word out that that is what the game is about).

Combat is fast pased, realistic, and exciting, with all actions planned before initiative is rolled, and then excecuting in order of reaction.  Damage is either a minor inconvenience (bruises and scrapes, contusions, abrasions and minor concussions) or life-threatening (bullet holes, de-pressurization trauma, ruptured organs), and enough concussions, can lead to a damaged brain.

This worries me more than the alignment system does. I think you have the aspects you want to introduce:
1) Fast paced
2) Realistic
3) Exciting
  First, I think its almost impossible to have fast paced and realistic. Also, from personal experience, I think its almost impossible to have Realistic and Exciting. The reason being, realistic combat is fast and brutal, one, two hits tops will take anyone out if the attacker is armed and trained to any degree. So, think about that, I kill a character in 2 hits. Sounds good, realist and would definitely account for fast paced combat (how long could it take to roll up two hits?). But when applied to a PC, this means you have to re-roll a character every time there is a combat. This means lack of continuity, lack of empathy and awkward situations to get that player back to playing.
  Finally, I don't think highly lethal games makes it more exciting. I haven't killed a character since 2003 and all my players are excited at various times in my games. Usually, the excitement, instead, comes from having an emotional stake in the outcome. You can't adjudicate that. You can't say, care about your character or I will kill them off. But, you can implement systems that make the players want to care about their characters more. Look at 3:16:
http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/3-16.pdf
  This is a game where people get so invested in their characters that they stop playing because they know that the character is headed for tears. I suspect that you want that kind of emotional intensity expressed about the characters made in your games. If so, take a cue from that game and make less rules about rigid behavior and realism and more rules about the emotions of the characters involved. Just ask yourself, what would Bruce Willis do (lol)?

  Also, if you do decide to go with realistic combat damage and/or alignments, can I suggest one thing?
  Make every situation a win/win situation. In other words, maybe go ahead and penalize a character when they act against their beliefs when dealing with people from the same culture. But, maybe give them an equal bonus when dealing with people from cultures with similar beliefs. For instance, if I stab a guy with a shiv, some people will disown me. But, anyone who has been to prison or in a gang might respect me more. Then, the decision comes down to, who do I want to like me? Not if I steal a cookie, my daddy will spank me.

  Finally, I think there are some great ideas for a game in here. I am sorry if I sounded very negative, I only bring up these points, because I think its worth the effort to help you out where I can.

[Rauðbjørn]

You know, I think you may be right on a couple of points, I have not been using the terminology correctly.  I went back, and re-read the essays, and the glossary and I think I get it now.  I should have seen it, I mean the SenZar Rule was staring me in the face, and I didn't see it.  You know what gave it away?  You.

You soundmasterJ singlehandedly gave me the clues needed to understand the threat this place poses to my sanity and ability.

You misunderstand (and don't like) the Star Wars movies.  You've never played D&D.  You misunderstand Firefly.  You have no idea who some of the biggest names in Sci-Fi are, and you list, as one of your favorite authors, an experimental author that only counts as Science Fiction (as best I can tell) because all german fiction is divided into "serious" fiction and Sci-Fi.  You actualy like William Gibson.  The man hated and feared computers, Sci-Fi and RPGs (reading Gibson is important, like Joyce or Milton, but nobody likes to).  You're either 12 or you Fail at fandom.

It would seem, that I have stumbled upon the RPG equivilant of the Art Department.  The twisted phrasology, the counter-intuitive neo-logisms, the fact that everyone here seems to be concerned with the "Form" of the story, and not the "function" of the game.  You people are Poseurs. 

Unable to produce a playable game, and failing to really understand either the function of, or the creation of, you settle for appreciating the idea of an RPG and create odes to the wonderfulness of the form, but never the function.

Those that can, do.
Those that can't, teach.
Those that can't teach, write textbooks.

Sayonara Suckers, I'm off to write a game that works, if fun and will sell.  Enjoy your coffee, and mind you dont think too hard.

[Adrian F.]

You didn't mentoined Heinlein in your List,that makes all your posts invalid.

[soundmasterj]

I won a battle I shouldn´t even have started. I am sorry. It will not happen again. Hopefully, I learned my lesson.

Rauðbjørn, I don´t represent the Forge; I´m not even a good example (as I´ve just shown). Good luck with your gaming. To be honest, I think you just acted pretty immature (what with all the name-calling). But if you somehwat prematurely decide this isn´t the place for you, well, I hope it works out for you.

Also, Arno Schmidt actually wrote some Science Fiction (post-apocalyptic stuff with centaur mutants and brain transplants form man to horse). It´s really interesting.

[Dementia Games]

Sayonara Suckers?  Really?  Off to write a game that works, is fun and will sell?  Give Bill Gates my regards.  Wow, grow up man.

[Ron Edwards]

All right, let's take a look at what happened in this thread.

1. The guy showed up here in good faith and presented some game ideas.

2. People flipped their lids because he used a word ("alignment") that meant so much to them, they couldn't take the time to ask "what does that mean in play" without criticizing first.

3. Jona, never use GNS talk in First Thoughts with newcomers. Why? Because they're trying to use it to fit in without understanding it a bit (usually), not actually to apply the ideas. So when you correct them, all it means to them is a put-down, a refusal to let them fit in.

4. A geek-fight started about what kind of science fiction is good and what kind isn't.

5. Everybody used fake courtesy in practice. It is absolutely wrong to use phrases like "Don't try to win an argument against me." I don't care what you meant by it, it could have been the most benevolent and helpful intention in the world, but it will be read as "Fuck you, I'm bigger than you."

6. You all insulted him, shut him out, shut down any talk about his game, and basically insulted me and this site in doing so.

All of you have just conformed to every bad stereotype of what people claim about the Forge. This is not acceptable. Do not ever treat anyone this way at this website again.

Best, Ron