Thoughtcrime (formerly Iron City) - concept sketch

[Mike Holmes]

Bob, that's true. But then what's your "win" condition? There has been in the past an aversion to having win conditions in RPGs. But for no reason that I can discern other than tradition, and an unreasoning fear that Gamism will run rampant. The game Rune is a great example of a Gamist RPG with a win condition that has no problems.

What I see here is a game that could advance the idea of a Gamist game with seriously philosophical undertones. Which I think would be very cool.

Further, I stand by the principle that games ought to have a well defined scope. Sure he could do the aftermath portion as well, but I'm not sure that's part of his vision for the project. He could also include aliens in the conspiracy, and elves, but would the game really benefit? Don obviously has a strong idea of what the game will be about. So I think he ought to run with that.

Not to say that a game that includes aftermath of revolution wouldn't be cool as well. Just that if that's what you want, then someone else, maybe yourself, should design that particular game.

Mike

[komradebob2]

Heya,

OK Mike, I see what you mean about limiting the scope, especially initially. I can easily see how overwhelming trying to do everything involved in building the system in the first place ( much less building essentially a second game at the same time ) could be.

Actually, I doubt that I personally have the wherewithall to put together anything even a tenth the size of ThoughtKrime these days. Honestly though, I am really jazzed about the whole setting. I really just wondered if  a game where the pcs have little or no chance to eventually succeed in their endeavors was just a bit too depressing. Of course, that was the original premise of Paranoia, and I did enjoy that...

One thing that I would throw out there ( okay, maybe two things)

Game Art: This game seems to be one of those ones where the art that goes along with the writing is likely to set the entire tone of the game for folks first encountering it.  Just curious what your vision for accompanying art would be?

Setting: Strictly for my own greedy reasons, I like all setting related stuff seperate from mechanical thingies. Basically, even though I understand the "System Matters" argument, I like to have a setting guide that is not intermixed with rules, so that I can port it around easily. I know, horrible and evil of me. Honestly though, I think the setting of ThoughtCrime is really clever- Clever enough that I'd want to play games in that setting without necessarily slowing down for mechanics ( Personal sidenote- I'm starting to game with folks that haven't been gaming before, so I'm tending towards ruleslite or even, Heaven Protect us Gamey Simmers, more narrativist oriented rules).

Wow, that was chatty.

I've been reading about both power groups as background and relationship maps ( it seems like you'd want to go beyond Blood and sex ties for this setting). Are you thinking of utlising either or both?

[Mike Holmes]

Strictly for my own greedy reasons, I like all setting related stuff seperate from mechanical thingies. Basically, even though I understand the "System Matters" argument, I like to have a setting guide that is not intermixed with rules, so that I can port it around easily. I know, horrible and evil of me.

Not really controversial. System Does Matter indicates that system should be able to uniquely support the selected setting, but that doesn't mean that the setting must be made so that it can't exist without the system.

It does raise some issues of presentation, but that's been dealt with in other threads. Basically, it seems to be a matter of preference in how the system is linked to the setting in the text. Some prefer it to be interlaced, but many others would agree with you that system should be presented separately. It is traditional, and there's nothing to say that it's not effective.

In any case, interlacing is rarely that obtrusive, anyhow. I mean, what you tend to see is blocks of stats, followed by text. It's usually easy to ignore the stats blocks if all you're after is the rest of the text. But that's just my opinion. I recently stole a Warhammer Fantasy adventure, and all I had to do was ignore the last third of the text which was the system stats for the people and creatures invoved.

Mike

[Brennan Taylor]

It strikes me that within your Motive/Means/Opportunity areas, Means would be the place to put skills/stats. This portion of the character description indicates how useful the character is to the Cell, specifically in applying his skills, contacts, resources, knowledge, and other basic ability to the Cell's goals.

As far as Leads go, something you could explore is the fact that the more useful a character's Means, the easier he is to identify. Basically, the more he advances toward the Cell's goals (subversion), the more evidence he leaves for the authorities to track him down. You discussed this briefly earlier, but on the Cell level the more effective a Cell is the more likely it is to be discovered. The players would then be skirting the edge of capture in order to be truly effective. Great gains can only be obtained by taking risks, but risks that are too great end in the exposure of a Cell.

[W. Don]

Hi again, all. Apologies for the late return-fire, but here are the issues brought up for Thoughtcrime. Again, I've arranged them into sections starting from the ones I'm least focused on to those I'm more focused on (at least at this early point in the design stage).
__________________

MISC:

Wow, that was chatty.

Please do be chatty, Bob. It helps get the whole project moving. Thanks for the questions and all the input!
__________________

LOOK, FEEL, STYLE:

How horrific do you plan to make the setting? I used to play Paranoia and loved the setting. My group used to play it primarily for laughs. OTOH, I have seen people play it really dark and brooding...

Game Art: This game seems to be one of those ones where the art that goes along with the writing is likely to set the entire tone of the game for folks first encountering it. Just curious what your vision for accompanying art would be?

Strangely, I've always thought of the whole setting as dark but fun, or fun but with a heavy beackbeat. Like a Disney film but with strong emotional and philosophical content in the sub-text. I certainly don't mean dumbed-down, rather matured-up. I imagine the furries and the steam-powered robots would be just plain nifty to play, but loaded with meaning if the players so wish it. I just don't want the game's emotional underpinnings to get tiresome.

Imagine this: You are wrecking havoc on The City in a giant steam-powered five-story robot -- yeah! -- but your doing it because They've widowed you by killing off your one true love -- yeah! -- not to mention that you're cackling with diabolical laughter -- yeah! -- to cover up for the fact that a big part of you is wondering just how many citizens you're turning into widows too with each explosive cannister you fire off -- oooo.

Something like that.

Setting: Strictly for my own greedy reasons, I like all setting related stuff seperate from mechanical thingies. Basically, even though I understand the "System Matters" argument, I like to have a setting guide that is not intermixed with rules, so that I can port it around easily. I know, horrible and evil of me...

It does raise some issues of presentation, but that's been dealt with in other threads. Basically, it seems to be a matter of preference in how the system is linked to the setting in the text...

Thanks, Mike. I'll have to check up on those threads for an overview of the issue here.
__________________

GAME CORE:

It strikes me that within your Motive / Means / Opportunity areas, Means would be the place to put skills / stats. This portion of the character description indicates how useful the character is to the Cell, specifically in applying his skills, contacts, resources, knowledge, and other basic ability to the Cell's goals.

Brennan, thanks for the input. The way it's going on the drawing board right now is this: Motive is used (among other things) for character advancement / development, Means are where the stats are (just as you've seen), and Opportunities are essentially scenes framed by the gamemaster and "hijacked" by the players through some director stance mechanic.

As far as Leads go, something you could explore is the fact that the more useful a character's Means, the easier he is to identify. Basically, the more he advances toward the Cell's goals (subversion), the more evidence he leaves for the authorities to track him down. You discussed this briefly earlier, but on the Cell level the more effective a Cell is the more likely it is to be discovered. The players would then be skirting the edge of capture in order to be truly effective. Great gains can only be obtained by taking risks, but risks that are too great end in the exposure of a Cell.

For this game, the above was exactly one of the core conundrums that I'm seeing the anarchist/criminal to be faced with, the reason why Leads are there in the first place. From my point-of-view right now: risk == deviancy (ie: just how much are you willing to step out of the systematised ordered nature of The City to effect your goals?). Means and Leads where I'm looking to explore this. I'm finding that conceptualising everything according to the idea of "deviancy" is where both the individual's struggle and the Cell's struggle come together.

A bit of explanation: a character's deviancy from the system makes you a criminal (thus Leads threading back to you are produced), deviancy within an anarchist Cell makes it more ripe for infiltration (thus the Leads may show up within the Cell itself -- a possible option which I'm thinking may be more potent if handled via author/director mechanics.) So right now, I'm really trying to tie everything into the whole deviancy angle in an effort to get at the "punk" in "steampunk", so to speak.
__________________

GAME SCOPE:

...someone mentioned the gamist goal of overthrowing the evil regime, and thus ending the game. I just like to point out ( is this going narrativist/sim'ist?) that what happens after a revolution can be just as interesting as the paranoid underpinnings of the fight against the Big Bad....

Anyway, my point is this: I know that you haven't yet got the original game off the ground yet, but the overthrow of the Old Order almost never ends all the issues that the Revolution was originally about...

I really just wondered if a game where the pcs have little or no chance to eventually succeed in their endeavors was just a bit too depressing. Of course, that was the original premise of Paranoia, and I did enjoy that...

Bob, that's true. But then what's your "win" condition? There has been in the past an aversion to having win conditions in RPGs. But for no reason that I can discern other than tradition, and an unreasoning fear that Gamism will run rampant...

Further, I stand by the principle that games ought to have a well defined scope. Sure he could do the aftermath portion as well, but I'm not sure that's part of his vision for the project...

Yep. Mike nailed it right there. It's really a question of scope. I'd much prefer to work with an end in mind at this point (and not a new beginning), just so I don't go crazy. If it helps you can think of it this way: What happens after a revolution? Why, a new system is put into place; and a new breed of anarchists will then rise up. ;) -- self-prepetuating punk.
__________________

THE GNS ANGLE:

What I see here is a game that could advance the idea of a Gamist game with seriously philosophical undertones. Which I think would be very cool.

Hehe. I was actually thinking of getting something Sim-Nar going here. However, the more I've thought of it over this weekend, the more I can't seem to escape the almost necessarily Gamist choice of premises for the game: You've been burned, so strike back. You versus the Secret Police. Cat and mouse. Everybody runs. And so on. The whole players "hijacking" the framed scenes, and the Leads (as essentially GM points) is all making it quite the Gamist game. So -- hey -- this thing really might end up being Gamist with... er, character "issues" and all. Sounds like fun, eh? :)

I was trying to explain the game to a buddy of mine and he goes: "Damn, it's a munchkin game (he meant Gamist in the GNS sense), but now your trying to make 'meaningful munchkins.'" Which I think pretty much sums up the direction I've been tacking to of late.
__________________

Well, that's it so far. I'm off to continue work on this thing. Hopefully, I'll be updating with more meat in a few weeks (er... make that a month). If anyone at all has any questions or input, I'd go ahead and post if I were you. ;) I'm just around the corner.

Specifically: If anyone has any idea where the "teeth" of the game might lie, I'm all ears! :)

Thanks, everyone!

- W.

[Praetus]

I've been lurking and following this idea for a couple of weeks now, and I've read the background threads to catch up.  Simply put, there's a lot to love here.

I've been thinking about running a variation of it for my local group.  The idea was to blend it a bit with the anime Big O, so that the characters are out to wreck the government, but (A) they're doing it with some really kewl steampunk gear, and (B) there are other, far less morally responsible criminals out there that they might end up fighting, which could create the escape path of becoming Robin Hoods instead of bin Ladens.

Today I read your comment about five-story robots with explosive canisters, and I made a face not unlike that of Dee-Dee from "Dexter's Laboratory" when she finds a red button to push.  Maybe you're a fan of the Big O as well?

Anyway, the point.  I came up with a preliminary idea of how this could be played using the standard tenets of WEG's D6 system.  Here's how a character sheet would look.

NAME:  the PC's name
NOM DE CRIME:  the cool alias

STRENGTH:  measuring both lifting power and physical endurance
    Any Strength skills would appear beneath.
REFLEXES:  measuring dexterity and reaction times
    Any Reflexes skills would appear beneath.
KNOWLEDGE:  measuring analytical thinking and memories
    Any Knowledge skills would appear beneath.
TECHNIQUE:  measuring ability to use and repair machines
    Any Technique skills would appear beneath.

COVER:  This is a trait for mundane life background details.
    "Cover Skills" would actually be friends, business contacts, job, other legitimate sources of money, government contacts, etc.
CONSPIRACY:  This is a trait covering criminal background details.
    "Conspiracy Skills" would actually be crime contacts, allies, hidden sources of funding, weird gadgets, hideouts, etc.

CHARACTER POINTS: 5 (starting XP, basically, which can be spent on bonuses)
MOTIVATION POINTS:  1 (spent to double all stats for a round or to add a major plot point; if it's spent on a relevant matter it is regained at the end of the game, and if it's spent on a really game-critical matter, another MP is gained)
OPRESSION POINTS:  0 (these accumulate as the Secret Police manage successful investigations of the character -- discovering his/her Cover traits, finding the hideout, blocking access to technology, etc.  Gain more OP than you have MP and you're pretty much out of business, because the character is more afraid of the SPs than he/she is motivated to fight them)

In case you aren't familiar with the system, D6 uses die pools for everything.  Each attribute has a base die pool, and skills add to that (so each skill under an attribute would have more dice than the base attribute).  The point of designing Cover and Conspiracy as attributes and their details as skills is to allow the player to choose how "in" the character is (just starting out with lots of legit contacts, or deep inside the underworld with little surface time?) by how the points are spent.

I have no idea if this is at all helpful in designing your own system.  I hope it is useful as an alternative example.  In any case, know that your work is inspiring others, and I for one will be happy to buy it if it ends up as a marketed product.

Praetus (five-story robots . . . glee!)

[W. Don]

Hiya,

Welcome to the Forge, Praetus! Thanks for the interest and the input, and thanks also for taking the time to go over the background threads.

Today I read your comment about five-story robots with explosive canisters, and I made a face not unlike that of Dee-Dee from "Dexter's Laboratory" when she finds a red button to push. Maybe you're a fan of the Big O as well?

Great suggestion. I haven't actually seen any Big O episodes yet, but I've gone through some reviews of it and it's definitely going into my list of inspirational material for this project -- ya just gotta love them 5-story robots! I have, however, seen Giant Robo (which, I believed has influenced Big O to some extent). That particular anime helps lend color to the project in some way other than just look and feel. (If you've seen Giant Robo, the organisation called "Big Fire" is what I mean by anarchists of the Osama stripe.)

I'm imagining all technology and machinery in the game world might be powered by steam and pneumatics: No gunpowerder in the game, so guns might end up loaded with fat shells of highly-compressed gas that can drive bullets at high speeds, explosive cannisters should work the same way powered by a core of compressed gas. Robots and various automata can load their pneumatic tanks at state-run depots. Wheee! But I digress...

Anyway, the point. I came up with a preliminary idea of how this could be played using the standard tenets of WEG's D6 system. Here's how a character sheet would look...

... I have no idea if this is at all helpful in designing your own system. I hope it is useful as an alternative example. In any case, know that your work is inspiring others, and I for one will be happy to buy it if it ends up as a marketed product.

Wow, man. Flattered and floored by the response. :)

The ideas are definitely helpful. Many things you've touched on above parallel my own thoughts at the drawing board right now. For example, the whole angle of characters having a cover or some sort of mundane life under which their criminality lies is shaping up to be an important part of the game.  

At the very least, that particular angle to the characters (ie: family life, emotional ties to "non-combatants", etc.) could become the "area of risk" for the players. That is, their cover life isn't simply a collation of contacts and resources, but also represents the elements each player-character may risk in the pursuit of their motive. The manner in which they put those elements in danger should impact both character effectivity (ie: you use you mundane resources for criminal activity, eg: send your 8 year old kid to unwittingly deliver a bomb in her lunch box) and also the evolving nature of each character's sedition (ie: whether they become an Osama or a Che or a combination of both). I'm still mulling about this in my secret lab right now.

Thank you for pointing out how the word "Conspiracy" might be used in the system. Right now, I need some tastey names for some of the stats. I've also been thinking of the other stat names you've mentioned. Right now, however, I feel that I should be more focused at tracking deviancy as the prime stat for character effectiveness in the game. One of the options for character generation on the table for me right now goes briefly like this: (1) give the players pre-made templates based on societal niches (ie: migrant, slave, government worker, trader, artisan, etc.), (2) give them them certain "deviancy points" that will represent just how criminally different they are from the societally dictated mould into which they've been born into.

To recap: I'm planning for the system to reflect a character's deviancy vis-avis (1) society, and (2) vis-a-vis the Cell he's a part of. Increasing character deviancy from societal norms (including special skills and strange abilities) will reflect greater effectivity but also how easy it will be for the Secret Police to track him down, and increasing deviancy within the Cell will reflect its inability to thwart infiltration.

So perhaps I could be dropping the traditional range of stats (ie: Strength, Intellect, Skill, etc.) in favor of deviancy. In fact, it might be productive for the project to make deviancy and its various measures to be the only kind of stats that really count, and the only ones that change over time.

As a proto-example, perhaps this might go like this: For all tasks related to your cover identity roll 2d6, for all other tasks roll 1d6. Each deviancy point you have (reflected in a character write-up) adds another dice, however to use this bonus you must also play a Lead point to be used by the GM. Something like that. (How this might actually be effected might need some sort of play structure similar to how I've envisioned it in past threads).

Again, thanks for the input and kind words. If you're planning on actually running the system you've outlined above, go for it! Tell me how it works out as it all sounds so intriguing for me and my own project.

I'm still very much at the drawing board right now, and I have yet to find enough free time to really get my hands dirty. I will be making updates here as I continue to work. There's also a good chance I might set up some sort of website about the project in the next three weeks to help me focus on it, spur interest, and help generate momentum. Might also be a good excuse for me to put up my own horrid sketches of giant steam-powered robots online somewhere. Yeah! ;p

Cheers,

- W.

[Praetus]

"Together, Victory or Death!  Big Fire!"  Oh, yes, I am inspired now.  I think I'll be reviewing my tapes soon.

Your comment on compressed air blew my mind, because I was actually thinking of something similar.  Ever see "Logan's Run?"  The Sandmen had pistols which blew out jets of white gas with a whoosh (an old Starlog magazine write-up said they were firing acid or explosive pellets, I think, but another source said they were lasers).  I was thinking of playing the Secret Police as having compressed-gas pistols which fired some nasty kind of ammunition.  Probably just a coincidence, but a nice one.  I probably thought of it because it would allow them to have fairly quiet weapons, which would be nice for Secret guys.

The real trick with Deviancy is the question of how much it should impact the character's life as represented in roleplaying.  It's a similar situation to the Humanity track in Vampire: the Masquerade.  If the character starts off with a Humanity of 6 (stealing is at level 7, higher than the character's starting point) then is that character perfectly all right with stealing?  That's determined as much by roleplaying behavior as by the chart.  The situation might be one where Deviancy would be determined by in-game behaviors more than by dice.  Or is Deviancy intended to be a roleplaying guide for the players?  'Cause that would work, too.

A really interesting point is that the character would gain effectiveness within the Cell as Deviancy increases.  I have been wondering if there would be older members higher up the Cell's order, and just how Deviant would they be?  Would they be the freaky mad scientists and diabolical plotters, or would people that Deviant have already been tracked down and removed from play by the Secret Police?

There is one thing that I'm still trying to wrap my head around.  By the current description of system, if you use 3 Deviancy bonus dice (for example) you put a Lead point in the Sunday's hands.  However, what if the player specifically designs the character's activities so that they confuse his goals and disrupt the evidence left behind?  It seems like there should be some way that a high roll might actually neutralize the Lead point, preventing it from tallying into the final SP investigation roll.  Alternately, a really horrible roll might add another Lead point, indicating that the conspirator's instincts were bad and his mistakes left even more clues than normal.  Then again, this would complicate the system, and you may be going for a cleaner dicing element than that.  So feel free to say "That's too complicated for my goals" and wave this paragraph away.

I desperately want to know one thing, though.  Why is the GM called the Sunday?  I'm afraid the reference goes right over my head, and I never found an explanation anywhere.

Thanks for all of this, and be sure to post your website address when it's up!

Praetus

[Cemendur]

Small question. What exactly do you mean by anarchist? Do you mean the anti-political philosophy and movement that advocates autonomy? Or do you mean some one who happens to be against the current government? Or do you mean some variation of the dictionary and media definition, basically an advocate of disorder? Or do you mean a free market libertarian or any host of other political philsophies that are sometimes refered to as anarchist?

Which role is the character to play?

[W. Don]

Hi, all. Real life's been keeping me busy and I haven't had the time to really respond to the concerns above until now. Apologies for the delay.

The real trick with Deviancy is the question of how much it should impact the character's life as represented in roleplaying. It's a similar situation to the Humanity track in Vampire: the Masquerade. If the character starts off with a Humanity of 6 (stealing is at level 7, higher than the character's starting point) then is that character perfectly all right with stealing? That's determined as much by roleplaying behavior as by the chart. The situation might be one where Deviancy would be determined by in-game behaviors more than by dice. Or is Deviancy intended to be a roleplaying guide for the players?

Hiya, Praetus. I'd prefer for Deviancy to be reflected by in-game choices and supported by the dice (in that order). Deviancy ought to be proportional in some way to both (a) character effectiveness; and (b) the Leads by which the character is tracked down or otherwise countered by the powers-that-be. I'd like the players to be able to freely decide just how criminally deviant their characters become (and in what ways), given the relationship of such Deviancy to (a) and (b) above.

I have been wondering if there would be older members higher up the Cell's order, and just how Deviant would they be? Would they be the freaky mad scientists and diabolical plotters, or would people that Deviant have already been tracked down and removed from play by the Secret Police?

Ever since the project started, I've been trying to see where I can present a structure for the Cell itself within the game. Cell structure will be loosely based on the idea that an effective Cell controls access and isolation to and among its members. For example: you are connected to one person above you who knows more of the Cause, and two people below you who know less of the Cause ("the Cause" in this case might also be called "the Conspiracy").

... what if the player specifically designs the character's activities so that they confuse his goals and disrupt the evidence left behind? It seems like there should be some way that a high roll might actually neutralize the Lead point, preventing it from tallying into the final SP investigation roll. Alternately, a really horrible roll might add another Lead point, indicating that the conspirator's instincts were bad and his mistakes left even more clues than normal.

I was discussing this same issue just last week with one of my potential guinea pigs (er... playtesters). While it might be nice to have some element of controlled risk here, I'd prefer character effectiveness and evidence (the Leads) to be clearly and inevitably connected to each other. I am thinking that at most, what can be achieved by a character trying to obsessively cover his tracks is that the appearance of Leads can be delayed -- but only delayed; the Leads are inevitable. To play up this inevitability, I was thinking of giving the players some specific authorial or directorial stance mechanics allowing them to "force" the Leads to show up at certain points in the game (wherever they deem it most exciting and appropriate for their character). All in all, right I'm still weighing this situation, among other things concerning the game. Thanks for suggestion of using dice to help with this though -- I feel that it definitely deserves a closer look.

I desperately want to know one thing, though. Why is the GM called the Sunday? I'm afraid the reference goes right over my head, and I never found an explanation anywhere.

Hehe. Missed that one, eh? ;) In the novel "The Man Who Was Thursday" by GK Chesterton (text free and available at www.gutenberg.net), Sunday was the grand ringleader of the anarchists (all of whom -- surprise, surprise -- turned out to be members of the Secret Police). I'm still not absolutely sold out on the term though in light of recent developments. It does have a nice ring to it, however, and I'm trying to get over my little obsession with it.

Small question. What exactly do you mean by anarchist? Do you mean the anti-political philosophy and movement that advocates autonomy? Or do you mean some one who happens to be against the current government? Or do you mean some variation of the dictionary and media definition, basically an advocate of disorder? Or do you mean a free market libertarian or any host of other political philsophies that are sometimes refered to as anarchist?

Which role is the character to play?

Hi, Cemendur. The core role of the anarchist that I'm trying to get to with the basic system I'm now cutting my teeth on is this: someone who has gone rogue and trying his best to strike against the nearly all-powerful rule of an existing system (be it political or otherwise). To be a bit more specific: The choices you've outlined above will likely be treated in the game as Color and not much more. I am meaning for the system itself to explore Character + Situation.

Thanks for the question. It helps to focus the game. Recently, I've been thinking of changing the name of the project to simply Rogue -- which is what it's all about, come to think of it.

General Update:

I'm pretty much ready to dive deep into the nuts and bolts of the project now. So that's what I'll be doing in the coming months. I generally work in spurts whenever I can, so the going will be a bit slow at times. Plus, I really feel I should go over and exprerience more games (eg: Dust Devils, etc.) in actual play before I can begin grafting some teeth into the design. I'll update here when I've got more beef to the rules to talk about, which I'm expecting to have developed within about a month or so real life concerns permitting. However, a simple website for the project should be up by mid-August (with links to the discussions here, if it's possible).

All things taken, I'd now like to ask if it's possible to simply just let this thread sink for a while. The game is pretty much out of the concept development stage at this point and there aren't any real nuts and bolts yet to the project to discuss.

Should there be any specific questions and input, everyone is still very much warmly invited to send them in. It would, however, be great to simply do it via PM or e-mail for now.

Sincere thanks to everyone for the advice and input. Wish me luck. :)

- W.

[Daniel Solis]

Good luck!

I know it's kind of late to be bringing in any input, but I just found some of my notes from when I was making a Matrix RPG (bear with me) that reminded me of your project's use of deviancy and leads.

Simply put, I had a single meter called "Freedom" that represented the mental freedom from the illusion of the machine. Any acts against any representation of the oppressive system, whether it's petty hacking or defying gravity, has Freedom added as a bonus to the attempt. Every successful act of rebellion added a notch. Get enough notches, your Freedom rating rises.

For a short while thereafter, the rebel would have an air of freedom detectable if he or she were in public. This would require a period of downtime while the rebel stays low until the heat dies down. However, this downtime also removes freedom notches so there's kind of a gamist tension. "My freedom's ready to level but if I so much as jaywalk, I'll be up to my eyeballs in agents. What the hell, I'll risk it."

Back to the topic at hand, in the long term, a rebel's "permanent" freedom would be used as a bonus in any investigation or tracking of her activities. In effect, higher freedom makes a bigger, brighter blip on the System's radar. Hrm... on second thought, maybe this should have been its own post. :P

[Kirk Mitchell]

Hey,

This game is a pretty cool concept, and gets really strong feelings from me. I was looking at the discussion on eventually bringing down the system and I strongly object. I don't know about anyone else, but I think that a 1984 style rebellion would be really interesting to play as, something that you cannot possibly achieve in your lifetime, but as one step closer to the system's downfall. I think that the fact that this is depressing brings the players further into the world you have created. I don't know, but that is just my thoughts on the situation.

Also, DON'T CHANGE THE NAME! PLEASE! Thoughtkrime is a really great name and should not be changed, you may be a rogue, but it is the thoughtcrime which leads to you becoming a rogue. Sorry, now that I have that out of my system I'll let the thread sink as you asked.

Good luck!

Kirk