[Sufficiently Advanced] Quickstart Manual

[Colin Fredericks]

Hello again.

I decided to bang out a "quickstart manual" for S.A.. It's 32 pages long, counting the minimalist character sheet. Those of you interested in taking a look can find it by following this link. It's about 700 k. I ran a basic spell check, but haven't done major editing, so please excuse repeated words or accidental homonyms. :)

Since my last post, I've added dice to the system, and altered how one gets and uses plot points (though the basic idea is still there). My questions for you are:

1. Do characters with high attributes (and thus low Plot Scores) seem balanced against low-attribute (but high-Plot) characters?
2. Is there a big, obvious gap in the Civilizations? Do any of them seem completely redundant? Would some of them work better as branches of a larger group (or perhaps have split from it in the past)?
3. On a presentation note: does the archaic header font work well with the general feel of the game? or should I look for something more techy?
4. And, of course, general comments.

Thanks for your time.

--Colin Fredericks
http://www.valentgames.com

[TonyLB]

Okay, first thoughts:

The Unionists seem (to me) to be a wasted opportunity.  If they are merely (in your words) a "scare story come true" then there is no interesting exploration to be had there.  Their society has given up a lot:  What did they do it for?  What are the ideals they're working toward?  Are those ideals, possibly, worth giving up individual free will?

The Inspector Status in Tao cultures seems wrong:  The Inspectors would find themselves written into the stories of these people, wouldn't they?  Indeed, the Tao people might misuse technologies in order to draw Inspectors to oppose them, knowing the dread consequences, because of the savor it would add to their tales.

In a world where information is currency, I cannot conceive of why the Roamers would be poor.  Their exploration has to be netting them an incredible amount of income.  So what are they secretly spending it all on?  Your setting doesn't need to answer that, but I think it should at least inspire the GM to answer it herself.

You talk a lot about the Logicians, but I couldn't find an entry about them.

Since your Plot Points are based on your highest ability, wouldn't you want to make all of your abilities the same level?  Once you have one ability at level 4, is there any cost to making all the rest of them level 4?


On your main question, I definitely do think that plot points are imbalanced by comparison with abilities.  Abilities work off of a difficulty (read: GM Fiat), whereas Plot Points simply work.  As such, I would expect to see a lot of totally unaugmented humans running around, solving problems by sheer force of "I'm important to the story."

[Colin Fredericks]

Thanks for all your comments. The one about the Tao is going straight into the book; that's an awesome idea.

The Union didn't stand up and choose to become cyberslaves; it happened slowly and often against public opinion. The benefits are that they have a working communist society with a literally zero crime rate, where everyone can band together against outside foes, and creativity and art are not stifled. That's a pretty major benefit from their point of view. I should probably emphasise that more in the book, and maybe put in something about their history and how this happened to them.

As for the Roamers, remember that they travel via wormhole on a regular basis, and it's very expensive. If wormhole travel ever became cheap, they would probably be quite wealthy. I may put in something about what you said, but I'm still thinking it over.

The Logicians are another name for the Rationalist League. I should probably make that clearer. And yes, there's no reason not to put all your attributes as high as the Plot Score cap will let you.

On the balance issue, maybe shifting the complication chart a little bit would help... making the the Plot Score = 8 level the minimum might discourage people from taking worthless complications in return for massive amounts of plot points.

Thank you for all the ideas!

--Colin

[contracycle]

The Union didn't stand up and choose to become cyberslaves; it happened slowly and often against public opinion. The benefits are that they have a working communist society with a literally zero crime rate,

[rant mode]
No, they do not.  They have a working Fascism, which is indeed making the trains run on time as the old joke goes.  Communism can only exist in the absence of a state, rather tricky to reconcile with this  scenario.

Frankly this is McCarthyist rubbish and I would suggest doing rather more reading before your propogate it.
[/rant mode]

[Colin Fredericks]

No, they do not.  They have a working Fascism, which is indeed making the trains run on time as the old joke goes.  Communism can only exist in the absence of a state, rather tricky to reconcile with this  scenario.

Thanks for the correction. I should point out that the Union doesn't have the corporate partnerships that are part of fascism (according to the wikipedia entry); they concentrate much more on the working class in the manner one usually sees in communism or socialism. They also don't have a single leader. They certainly do have the totalitarian thing down, though.

Every so often I run into something in SA where I know how it works, but there's no good word for it yet. Metatech was a perfect example - as far as I know, there is no word for technology based on social science. The Union's government is another one of those things.

--Colin

[Callan S.]

About money, I don't see why the ability to make any substance stops money existing. Objects only support the idea of money. You could still have accounts recorded in bank systems.

Also the quick start seems to still refer to money latter, ie people not paying for certain medical technology and thus the patent office has to come and take it off them.

Also, it seems a very sim based game. But much of it screams nar potential at me (it might be the forge rubbing off). The many cultures are depicted as living in certain ways and I keep thinking "Why!? What drives you to live this way?". Indeed, with such high technology, they seem to be living certain types of lives, but not questioning it. In a lower technology setting where people spend their time trying to get food and shelter, I can understand people sticking to old habits. But in an ultra high tech world...they don't have a reason to stick to old habits as as if they are still on the food/shelter treadmill? It seems they stick to old habits rather than go all nar, only because its a simulationist game. Perhaps its just me, but the ideals of simulationism would, to my mind, drive this to nar. Rather than exploring all these neat civilisations, I'd imagine play would start to be about the players making nar choices for these civilisations and the turmoil involved with that.

Okay, a bit rambly there, ignore if off target.

[Colin Fredericks]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear about this: money still exists. From page 2: "Wealth is an abstract, generated by three things: inspiration, effort, and luck. Intellectual property is many times more valuable than physical property." The idea I was trying to get across is that physical substances don't create wealth in SA. No one is a miner or prospector or diamond merchant in this game (though some might still be antique collectors).

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in the second part; can you give me some examples?

--Colin

P.S.: Some of the "why" behind the civilizations got left out of the quickstart for three reasons. 1: I wanted to get the quickstart out early. 2: I'm still writing some of it. 3: I want feedback from playtesters and others as to what makes sense. If you have suggestions as to some civilizational practices that might be outdated, please let me know!

[contracycle]

Thanks for the correction. I should point out that the Union doesn't have the corporate partnerships that are part of fascism (according to the wikipedia entry); they concentrate much more on the working class in the manner one usually sees in communism or socialism. They also don't have a single leader. They certainly do have the totalitarian thing down, though.

Well thank you for this measured response to my rant.  I'd agree that the system as described is not formal Fascism, but it could be correctly characterised as simple Totalitarianism it seems to me.  What gets my goat is the hackneyed and propagandist conflation of Soviet state capitalism with actual communism as described by Marx.  At the very least, if the terminology were used correctly a more meanigful discussion would be possible than the mere exchange of insults.

Every so often I run into something in SA where I know how it works, but there's no good word for it yet. Metatech was a perfect example - as far as I know, there is no word for technology based on social science. The Union's government is another one of those things.

Sure.  It appears to me you are working from a rather Extropian perspective with a dash of Libertarianism, as the two have links.  But there are other philosophies of societal science with their own jargons, and they may be worth investigating.

[Colin Fredericks]

Well thank you for this measured response to my rant.  I'd agree that the system as described is not formal Fascism, but it could be correctly characterised as simple Totalitarianism it seems to me.  What gets my goat is the hackneyed and propagandist conflation of Soviet state capitalism with actual communism as described by Marx.  At the very least, if the terminology were used correctly a more meanigful discussion would be possible than the mere exchange of insults.

{snip}

Sure.  It appears to me you are working from a rather Extropian perspective with a dash of Libertarianism, as the two have links.  But there are other philosophies of societal science with their own jargons, and they may be worth investigating.

The main piece of communist jargon that caught my eye was, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," which is almost exactly how the Union works. But you're right, I was overlooking many other ideas (class struggle, etc.) that are important to communism and socialism. Though, to be fair, most of the propaganda that makes people conflate communism with the USSR is Soviet propaganda. :)

The Extropian perspective was definitely intentionally chosen for the book. The libertarianism that shows up in some of the more advanced cultures is more a result of the source material (especially The Golden Age by John C. Wright and Singularity Sky by Charles Stross). If you can point me to some other source material, I'd be glad to read through it (though it may take me a while). After all, there are fourteen different civilizations in SA; they don't all work on the same principles.

[MikeSands]

If you can point me to some other source material, I'd be glad to read through it

Try Ken McLeod's stuff for a variety of different perspectives - particularly The Star Fraction, The Stone Canal and The Cassini Division.

[contracycle]

The main piece of communist jargon that caught my eye was, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," which is almost exactly how the Union works. But you're right, I was overlooking many other ideas (class struggle, etc.) that are important to communism and socialism. Though, to be fair, most of the propaganda that makes people conflate communism with the USSR is Soviet propaganda. :)

The last point conceded to some degree, what with the whole "actually existing communism" Stalinist argument, but the argument as presented by Westerners does not, in my experience, reflect any of that discussion.  It's simply denunciation of the big state on a set of faulty premises.

And the slogan above is incomplete; the full version reads "From each according to his ability to each according to his need; he who does not work does not eat".  That puts a rather different spin on the outright silly accusation that Communism suppresses individual innovation.

If you can point me to some other source material, I'd be glad to read through it (though it may take me a while). After all, there are fourteen different civilizations in SA; they don't all work on the same principles.

I'd suggest the Culture novels by Ian M. Banks, particularly The Player Of Games and Use Of Weapons.  The Culture is just so awsomely technically advanced that concepts like property rights are simply irrelevant to human experience - AI's do all the organising and machines can produce anything they desire.  Thus, all the excitement in the novels necessarily occurs on the borders of the Culture proper, but it's still an interesting model.

Edit: I would also recommend the very interesting RPG "Fates Worse Than Death".  This game has invested a great deal of thought into sort of independant urban subcultures that spring up after a fairly stock collapse of western society ala much SF.  There is some really excellent thought in there about the nature and forms of human social structures, IMO.

[contracycle]

Oh yes, and also Peter F. Hamilton's book Fallen Dragon which I read recently.  This contains a fairly subtle contrast of a stakeholder-capitalism with a sort of high-tech communitarianism.

[Colin Fredericks]

And the slogan above is incomplete; the full version reads "From each according to his ability to each according to his need; he who does not work does not eat".  That puts a rather different spin on the outright silly accusation that Communism suppresses individual innovation.

That's enough with pushing politics for this thread. Would anyone like to comment on some other aspects of the game?

Thanks for the recommendations. Others have suggested the Culture novels as well, so I guess I'll have to pick them up.

--Colin

[Sydney Freedberg]

Having done a quick skim:

Mechanics: Plot points are a neat thing. So far, though, what different levels of them actually achieve in-game is very subjective, i.e. subject to lots of GM interpretation; it'd be great to make it more defined (e.g. Empathy 3 allows you to create a level-3 trait of "they like me!" or "they hate someone else!" in a target character, for example). Likewise, the Core Values are cool, but I don't see what they do mechanically; I'd love to see them have clear, defined effects every bit as powerful as a weapon. (See The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes for one way to do this).

Setting: I notice that a lot of the Big Questions are already answered, by you. The Transcendentals are the good guys -- really? They can't be malicious or just plain wrong? The Union is a nightmare -- really? Are you sure they're not happier that way? (Look at Huxley's Brave New World for an example of how this might work, and the dilemmas it presents).  The Logicians are doomed to technological stasis -- really? And so on. Obviously lots of gamers don't want to worry about who's good and who's bad, but for others (e.g. the "Narrativist" school talked about so much on the Forge), the main attraction is making hard moral choices.

[Colin Fredericks]

Having done a quick skim:

Mechanics: Plot points are a neat thing. So far, though, what different levels of them actually achieve in-game is very subjective, i.e. subject to lots of GM interpretation; it'd be great to make it more defined (e.g. Empathy 3 allows you to create a level-3 trait of "they like me!" or "they hate someone else!" in a target character, for example). Likewise, the Core Values are cool, but I don't see what they do mechanically; I'd love to see them have clear, defined effects every bit as powerful as a weapon. (See The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes for one way to do this).

Setting: I notice that a lot of the Big Questions are already answered, by you. The Transcendentals are the good guys -- really? They can't be malicious or just plain wrong? The Union is a nightmare -- really? Are you sure they're not happier that way? (Look at Huxley's Brave New World for an example of how this might work, and the dilemmas it presents).  The Logicians are doomed to technological stasis -- really? And so on. Obviously lots of gamers don't want to worry about who's good and who's bad, but for others (e.g. the "Narrativist" school talked about so much on the Forge), the main attraction is making hard moral choices.

That's not a bad idea for the plot points. I might have them create a double-level score (using Empathy 3 makes a level 6 trait), just because plot points are intended to trump everything else. The Core Values add directly to Metatech scores when trying to resist someone acting against your CV. For instance, if you're a Masquerader, one of your CVs is Anonymity. If you have that rated at 6 and a Metatech of 4, someone else would need at least Metatech 10 to get you to reveal information about yourself. The main rules will have a little more detail on each CV, to help clarify what situations it's useful for.

As for the Big Questions, I see it more as setting a "default" for most games. If I didn't say that the Transcendentals were the good guys, I think about 90% of the people playing the game would set them as evil by default, and I think we've all had enough of evil AIs controlling people for a while (my opinion, of course). I should definitely put a few pages in the next version about the implications for such setting shifts.

As for the Union, they are happier that way. That's the wonder of mind control - you can make people happy with anything. Even if you somehow took the slave implants out, they'd still think that way for years, if not generations. It's been conditioned into them. Other things, such as the Logician technological stasis, the coming schism in the Stored, the Tao problem with reality withdrawal, and so forth, will be listed in the next version as psychohistorical predictions for the civilizations - high probabilities, but not definites.

--Colin