As mentioned in this thread, a group effort of design will take place in this thread.

This thread is for a System and Setting brainstorm. YES, this can involve such abstract thoughts as 'system is not needed' or 'setting is not needed', but make sure you keep it focussed on this game, in that case, and do not devolve into a generic discussion. In other words, meta-thoughts and concepts SPECIFIC to this game are very welcome.

As to the rules of brainstorming: everything goes. Really. No idea is bad, ESPECIALLY not the idea you think sucks as you read it - because that strong reaction will be the cause of lots of creativity. Critical evaluation is a step that's still in the future.

I will occasionally summarise the 'concepts so far' and try to note the relative interest that's been generated for them. There are several brainstorm techniques available to get creative juices flowing, but I'll try to keep it focused somwhat. So, we'll run 2 parallel things in this thread:

1. Shout out whatever you want from this game, System and Setting wise (the on-topic brainstorm)

2. Try to 'top' the last poster's definition of the 'best' possible game. Note: this is not disagreement with the last post: the post you make has to improve, expand upon the last definition.

So, kicking off (how appropriate):

1.

- Simple rules, interaction gives complex play
- Innovative
- Tries to avoid dice where possible
- Setting where you play more than 'just one character'.
- Borrow a page from CCG: perhaps not all rules/options need to be in one central book.

2.

The best possible game is one where the rules work, at least. (Yes, I can go 'bigger' than that, but it's a kickoff).

Welcome!

Okay, i guess i will chime in...

1. I like the CCG suggestion. Some sort of modular rule system. Provide a basic resolution system that can work for everything, and then provide some rule "modules" to expand or focus on certain game/setting elelments. For example, a high(er)-detailed magic ruleset for people who want to focus on magic.
2. I have alwasy been fascinated with the idea of using some sort of bluffing mechanic for resolution. There have been a couple discussed here on the Forge which i will try to post later. Anyway, i think it would be pretty cool to include some bluffing, and i feel that it would lend itself well toward modularity as you can change the way odds are calculated or bets are made or whatever.
3. I still really like the idea of a meta-hook or a meta-plot (but not in the WW sense). Basically what i am talking about is a system in which the same basic story is played out with every session. We would not want anything too specific, but i believe this could also be a powerful tool. Examples from Western literature tend to fall within folk-tales and fables. Consider Little Red Riding Hood, there are easily 50 to 100 different version of this story which have different morals, different outcomes, entirely different characterizations. So, could we provide a couple of characters (with very general outlines) and a basic plot to follow? I trust the players could generate some incredibly fascinating permutations of this story.

Thomas

Okay, Tobias, your idea of playing more than one character sparked a few ideas:

First is that the "characters" are personalities. So the characters all have multiple personality disorder. This could mean that players switch characters (personalities) within the same physical body, or players switch control of the physical bodies as the different personalities take control.

Second, the characters are some sort of alien/cyborg capable of switching bodies or altering their personalities for specific tasks. Or they could control multiple bodies at the same time with the same personality.

Third, the players each play a nation through the luminaries of that nation (ambassadors, military leaders, etc.) and are free to switch characters as needed.

Fourth, the players take the roles of nobles in a fantasy setting...and they also play the retainers of the other nobles.

Fifth, something along the lines of the Lensmen series: the player's characters are humans, with a sort of guardian angel in the form of a super-powerful non-corporeal alien entity that is capable of temporarily taking over ("energizing") the humans to combat another equally powerful alien race.

Sixth, you play a family, following it through the course of generations as it strives for some very long-term goal. Rather than playing multiple characters at the same time, you switch to the next of kin when your current character dies (from old age, or anything else). Obviously, in-game time would have to pass much faster than real time in this concept.

The "avoiding dice" concept didn't get as many ideas flowing, but it did raise a couple of questions, especially whether you mean avoiding just dice, or any Fortune mechanic.

About not having all the rules centralized, the only thought I had on that was that perhaps we have a general set of rules, then a bunch of special powers that alter the basic rules in specific ways.

I have been working for years to play a character who is as weak and tempted as I am and find within him the power to be heroic as an example to myself and others. I know it is horribly sim of me, but I have been thinking a lot since I read the Wuthering Heights RPG that I want a system that makes it feel right for a character to do something self-destructive from within the character rather than because some die roll said you were an alcoholic, or so that you could gain some other power. One of the things I like about Sorcerer is that there is an addiction like mechanism; what I don't like is that it is designed from outside (authorially) rather than based on what the character wants and needs. I want a system where doing the wrong thing gets the character something they need even if it's going to kill them in the long run; and where a player would want to put their character into these sort of predicaments for enjoyment.

So I was driving home when a thought hit me... what happened in Tokio in 1968? "I don't know" was the answer... so let me explain.

Narrator is the king of a strange realm, the questions realm. Every now and then he asks a question such "What happened in the strange shadows cave six centuries ago?"

Players are the Archivists. They can browse a huge archive (book, internet, necromancers, nature forces...) to get the answer. Yes, but the archive is never complete, so they have to go out and investigate.

Setting could be as strange as possible... dreamland, strange planets and so on. Oh, you said multiple characters. The achivists could be only a man thought, they has no shape, but they can borrow a human body. Half archivist half human with half archivist porpose and half human purpose.

Resolution could be "Tarots like". We can think to a series of "Narration cards" or "Situational cards".

...

The best possible game is one where player can decide story elements too.

Jedi, that's pretty cool. Sort of like an Eternal Darknes-style living through the experiences of people from different times and places in order to get the whole picture?

Some cool ideas!

Thor - you're sparking me into thinking maybe player-defined growth or challenge paths could be an option? So that the rules allow the player to cobble together specific goals, challenges, etc.? It might even allow for the different creative agenda's to be present - each character/player getting rewarded exactly for the type of play they desire...

The Archivists, and some of the other options for 'what if you're not just 1 character' sound really cool too! The nation-through luminaries thing is something that was spooking through my mind... as was the cyborg thing (this then developed into the 'group life' thing that I posted in another thread). And of course there's some similarities betweens lensman/archivists, right?

Okay, I've nominated myself to make sure anyone coming into this discussion without having seen the original thread knows what's up with the self-imposed rules. Currently the rules for participating in this project are as follows:

1. Tobias will start all new threads on this project.
2. Tobias will have pseudo-moderator status with all participating members in all project threads (so, for example, he can give someone a time-out for posting, or end threads if they derail into arguments, etc.).
3. During the brainstorming session, Tobias will occasionally post a quick bulleted list of the ideas so far, to make sure nothing gets lost in the discussion. Alternately, Tobias can pass this responsibility to another one of the participants.
4. Any participant is free to call for a vote in order to resolve a dispute, but Tobias must agree to a vote before participants cast their vote. Tobias can provide summary arbitration instead of allowing a vote. In the case of a tie, Tobias will arbitrate a decision. All participants must agree to abide by a vote outcome or arbitration by Tobias.

Posting to this thread implies acceptance of these rules, so don't get bent out of shape if Tobias makes a ruling or something. Also, participants are free to suggest changes to these rules, but that should be done in the original thread.

Amazing. Just a few posts and a cool core concept is starting to solidify. As I'm beginning to see it:

1.
Each player takes on the role of an Archivist -- a kind of disembodied spirit guardian.
Recommendation: Archivists used to be people. They're ghosts, in essence. That way they can have some individuality and some history and in general some human-ness for players to get into, alongside the alienness of being a cosmic being that jumps bodies. (Doesn't Nobilis do this?)
That said, a lot of an Archivist's human past should probably be lost to him on ascension to Archivist status. Maybe there's some level of amnesia (so, ironically, an Archivist may have to look up his own past in the Archives), and certainly there's a loss of the physical self and all the simple pleasures that go with it. There is a lot of roleplay potential in (a) grieving for one's lost humanity vs. exulting in one's new powers, and in (b) the temptation to give it all up and become human again vs. the high, hard, cold call of duty. Rogue Archivists become a possibility. (Especially interesting when you combine this with the body-hopping in (3) below).

2.
The Archivists are Good Guys, collectively seeking the answer to... something... which will resolve the Fate of All Things.
Recommendation: This meta-plot should be defined collaboratively by each gaming group choosing (1) a Cosmic Threat and (2) a Crucial Question. (Rather like creating the Master in My Life With Master).
E.g. a group that loves The Lord of The Rings may have a Dark Lord threatening to rule all worlds, and their question may be, "How do we find and destroy his shiny ring, source of his power?" A group that likes Neil Gaiman's American Gods might have a brewing cosmic battle between New Gods and Old, and their question might be "How do we make peace?" A group that likes the "fate of a nation over several generations idea" could guide a given family or the leaders of a given group over centuries.

3.
Archivists have access to multiple parallel universes of information, but they need to take on human hosts -- not simply possessing them, but acting as Guardian Angels of a sort -- in order to fill in key gaps.
Recommendation 1: There is never a simple "roll to see if you know" task for an Archivist. Every attempt to gather information should involve some kind of quest in some kind of realm to get the answer, with a certain fairy-tale quality in many cases. (Like HeroQuesting in Hero Wars?) Note that a quest could be necessary even for trying to remember something about one's own human, pre-Archivist past!
Recommendation 2: Archivists can plug into any suitable human in any parallel world and amp them up with Kewl Powerz. (Think The Matrix, only where the Zion guys don't have to stick to one virtual body). Different powers might be available in different parallel universes and/or to different Archivists who exemplify different archetypes -- allowing for the CCG-style use of add-on rules. There should also be some mechanic for "layering" the Archivist's powers on top of the innate abilities of the Host.
Recommendation 3: Since there is a collaboration between host and Archivist, they should be played by different players. (E.g. Player #1 plays Archivist A and B's Host; Player #2 plays Archivist B and A's Host).
{EDIT: Or you could do it the way Ars Magica does, with some players taking on the roles of Mages (here, Archivists) and others Companions (here, Hosts) in a given session, then switching roles the next time).
There should be a constant dilemma about pushing the host too hard and driving him/her crazy and getting him/her killed -- Joan of Arc might be a classic case of this -- and not pushing the host enough and failing in the mission.
There should also be a temptation to just take over the host body, crush the host personality, and enjoy being human again -- one type of Rogue Archivist.

And all of this suggests anti-Archivists out there somewhere, ruthlessly possessing and casting aside Hosts in their quest to answer the ultimate question before the good guy Archivists do....

Sydney Freedberg wrote: 2: Archivists can plug into any suitable human in any parallel world and amp them up with Kewl Powerz. (Think The Matrix, only where the Zion guys don't have to stick to one virtual body). Different powers might be available in different parallel universes and/or to different Archivists who exemplify different archetypes -- allowing for the CCG-style use of add-on rules. There should also be some mechanic for "layering" the Archivist's powers on top of the innate abilities of the Host.

Sydney-

Oooh, shiny! I mean...ahem...those are some interesting ideas worth developing.

One thing, though...why are the Archivists the good guys? I'm not saying they should be the bad guys either. Mabye they're just the completely-alien-with-totally-inhuman-drives guys? Just because they're enlightened humans doesn't mean they have to be what we, from our feeble human point of view, believe to be "good," right? I'm totally down with the anti-Archivists concept. Maybe (with whatever philosopy/morality) the Archivists have some self-imposed limitation that the anti-Archivists don't, making them a challenging opponent?

Adding in parallel worlds is pretty cool, too. And it neatly solves the killing-your-own-father-before-you-were-born problem if our energized characters are going to be traipsing around time and space.

And having some mechanic for pushing your host too hard is neat. Plus, I think it somewhat addresses Thor's idea of making doing bad things something that a character might want to do. So, you know you can defeat that nasty anti-Archivist if only you manifest into your host just a bit more...of course, he might end up a vegetable if you do...

Random thought: how about if there is some initial difficulty in manifesting in (energizing) a human form. Having done so allows the Archivist to more easily do so in the future. That way, there'd be another reason why you don't want to burn out your hosts all the time, because then you'll have to just work on energizing a new one. Hmm...not sure what to do with that, just offering it up for thought.

Okay, for those who haven't read the Lensmen series by E. E. "Doc" Smith (and you should, if you haven't), the Lensmen are the human intermediaries of the Arisians (who are sort of the Archivist analogues here) in their millennia-spanning war against the Eddorians (who'd be the anti-Archivists). Basically, the Arisians have left behind their physical bodies, and developed their minds to the point of having phenomenal psychic powers. They've dedicated their existences to understanding the Macrocosmic All (essentially, understanding everything, everytime, everywhere). The Eddorians are another ancient race, but they're founded on brutal Darwinism...any Eddorian with any weakness has long since been torn apart by his kin. The only ones left are those too strong for any of the others to kill. They still have physical bodies and are masters of technology. Uhm, that's all the key points, I believe, other than that the Arisians are only hanging around this existence in order to help the humans develop into a force capable of defending everybody from the Eddorians, at which point the Arisians plan to move on (essentially die) and go explore the next level of existence. The Eddorians want all the races of the galaxies to worship and serve them.

LordSmerf wrote: This could be really cool, Archivists as some sort of cosmic Agent (in the Matrix sense) able to jump hosts at will and need...

Thomas

Andrew Morris wrote: ...having some mechanic for pushing your host too hard is neat.....

This sounds like it could be tied thematically in many ways to Marvel Comic's Exiles.

I especially like the possibilities inherent in the idea that you can be "bound" to a host and the team (or whatever) will have to decide how much time they can spend trying to rescue you before they must move on in order to complete their quest.

Thomas

Or the mortal hosts could be completely unaware of the Archivist energizing them. I mean, think about it...you're a puny human, what's it going to do to your ego to find out a super-powerful alien thing is wearing you like a new suit? So, to protect the humans, the Archivists could conceal their presence. The anti-Archivists don't give a damn, and their human hosts end up insane as a result.

And what if the story of these parallel worlds did spring sort of "clan" of Archivist? I mean... there are good archivist that search for truth, bad archivist that search for power.. and so on... (metaplot?)

Ok, the host is almost unaware, small headache, bad dream... and faster decay, pale skin, hair loss: they are used up!

Ok the idea that archivist can't go in and out a being at will. Machanics needed

Is there anyone over the Archivists (do they serve a higher entity), or are they independent agents? Are Rogues defined by the fact that they do not work for that Agent or that they work for some other Agent instead?

How do you become an Archivist? Does it matter?

What limits do the Archivist's have? What can they do to/with a host? What requirements are met by the Host and what by the Archivist?

Food for thought...

Thomas

Jediblack wrote: Ok, the host is almost unaware, small headache, bad dream... and faster decay, pale skin, hair loss: they are used up!

LordSmerf wrote: Is there anyone over the Archivists (do they serve a higher entity), or are they independent agents?

LordSmerf wrote: Are Rogues defined by the fact that they do not work for that Agent or that they work for some other Agent instead?

LordSmerf wrote: How do you become an Archivist? Does it matter?

LordSmerf wrote: What limits do the Archivist's have? What can they do to/with a host? What requirements are met by the Host and what by the Archivist?

Lots of neat ideas flying. Some thoughts:

1. Archivists as hidden vs. overt presences
Recommendation: Let the Archivist (i.e. the player) choose. There's a scale from "passive observation through Host's senses" to "subtle boosts to Host's power or flashes of intuition" to "Host manifests frickin' superpowers" to "you moron, let me drive" (total possession). Of course, the more blatant the Archivist is about empowering the Host, the more likely the Host is to suffer all the nasty effects JediBlack talks about, from "bad dreams and headaches" to "hair loss and illness" to "screaming lunatic" to "corpse." Presumably evil Archivists don't care, but the PCs should.
So there's a constant temptation to ramp up your level of empowering of and control over the Host, tempered by the danger of burning out the Host -- who, remember, is another player's character (even if only for one session) and thus someone you have an out-of-game incentive to care about!
This definitely would count as one of those "self-imposed restrictions" of morality or philosophy that Andrew Morris was talking about.
{EDIT: And it would also be a good place to use a Blackjack-style mechanic where you want to go as high as you can without going over some set limit, in this case the Host's capacity to endure your power-ups. There's room for a GM vs. player bluffing mechanic here, a cool idea I recall someone having}

2. Archivists, Anti-Archivists, Gods, and Devils
Are the Archivists working for a Higher Power, or simply a self-governing secret order? Are the anti-Archivists working for a Power of Evil, or just renegades?
Recommendation: Again, let each gaming group choose as part of their campaign design. If you want to do a "guide the nation through several generations" game, then you don't need a Higher Power or an anti-power {EDIT: and bad-guy Archivists are just renegades, not an organized opposing force}. If you want a huge cosmic battle between Good and Evil in the Manichean mode (i.e. the Devil is God's equal, not just a fallen angel), then you definitely want Higher Powers on both sides. {EDIT: And each Power should have an organized army of Archivists, rather than bad guys just being rogues}.

3. Do Good Archivists and Bad Archivists come from different worlds?
This is Jediblack's idea about "clans."
Recommendation: Again, let each gaming group choose. I dislike "splats" in the White Wolf style, but they're a useful tool for many players. So I'd recommend that at some point in the project we make up a big ol' bunch of parallel worlds, Kewl Powerz, archetypes of Archivist, and Higher Powers, plus rules for creating your own -- and then let each game group pick what worlds, powers, and types of Archivists and Powers they want in their campaign. Some groups may just pick a fixed package out of the book, others may mix-and-match ("Chinese menu"), others may design their own everything from scratch.

4. How do you become an Archivist?
Recommendation: You die.
Maybe you have to be really enlightened in life. Maybe you have to be picked by an existing Archivist or a sponsoring Higher Power. Maybe you were a Host who got burned out by an Archivist who pushed too hard and then felt responsible. Maybe any of these is a valid option depending on the game group.
But regardless of details, I'd lean strongly to saying that Archivists are, for all practical purposes, ghosts. The themes of loss, alienness vs. residual humanity, and temptation (to take over someone else's body and return to mortal life) this creates should allow for some really interesting roleplay.

As much as I like the Archivist concept, maybe we should spend some time thinking up other ideas, rather than just fleshing this one out more. That's what brainstorming is for, after all. Come up with a hundred ideas, throw away the 99 bad ones, and run with the one great one. Anyone got anything else? I know I had some core level ideas back on page one. Anyone want to go back to those? Not trying to push my own ideas, though, so new ideas are welcome.

I like the Host /Archivist being played by different people, but what mechanisms does the archivist have to get the other player to do what they want. This would seem to fall into the whole loss of control issues that we have seen here befor. An Archivist might be in a host that thinks going to get drunk is what they should be doing when the archivist thinks they need to stop the bad guys from blowing up the bridge.

This has played further into what I was looking for than I hoped but I would prefer the idea of one player playing both parts with the knowledge that certain rolls are for the Archivist and others are for the Host. Like a captain trying to lead his men in battle the archivist is helpless except for whaterver thoughts that he could push into the head of the host and powers that can be transfered to the host. If the Archivist is succesful the images can make the Host change his actions but nothing can be counted on. In my minds eye it plays like Grand Theft Auto with a lag on the controls. for example, you, as the Archivist, want the Host to stop before going into a building and notice something. you push a thought of some person that might be in the building that he would not want to see, like his boss, into his head and if successful get him to hesitate. Maybe pushing emotions and memories is all they can do. Like making origami with oven mits on.

I was just thinking, and i realized that a "modular" rule set is a good match for a multi-verse game setting (RIFTS, Multiverser). Now, i am not sure if that integrates with Archivists or not, but it is food for thought.

Thomas

1) Roleplaying Host & Archivist -- two players or one?

Thor wrote: I like the Host /Archivist being played by different people, but what mechanisms does the archivist have to get the other player to do what they want..... I would prefer the idea of one player playing both parts . ...helpless except for whaterver thoughts that he could push into the head of the host and powers that can be transfered to the host....Like making origami with oven mits on.

Thomas wrote: ... a "modular" rule set is a good match for a multi-verse game setting (RIFTS, Multiverser). Now, i am not sure if that integrates with Archivists or not...

Andrew Morris wrote: As much as I like the Archivist concept, maybe we should spend some time thinking up other ideas, rather than just fleshing this one out more....

Andrew Morris wrote: I know I had some core level ideas back on page one.

Andrew Morris wrote: First is that the "characters" are personalities. So the characters all have multiple personality disorder. This could mean that players switch characters (personalities) within the same physical body, or players switch control of the physical bodies as the different personalities take control.

Andrew Morris wrote: Second, the characters are some sort of alien/cyborg capable of switching bodies or altering their personalities for specific tasks. Or they could control multiple bodies at the same time with the same personality.

Andrew Morris wrote: Third, the players each play a nation through the luminaries of that nation (ambassadors, military leaders, etc.) and are free to switch characters as needed.

Andrew Morris wrote: Fourth, the players take the roles of nobles in a fantasy setting...and they also play the retainers of the other nobles.

Andrew Morris wrote: Fifth, something along the lines of the Lensmen series: the player's characters are humans, with a sort of guardian angel in the form of a super-powerful non-corporeal alien entity that is capable of temporarily taking over ("energizing") the humans to combat another equally powerful alien race.

Andrew Morris wrote: Sixth, you play a family, following it through the course of generations as it strives for some very long-term goal. Rather than playing multiple characters at the same time, you switch to the next of kin when your current character dies (from old age, or anything else). Obviously, in-game time would have to pass much faster than real time in this concept.

Okay, new idea. The characters are aliens attempting to take control of the earth in preparation for a full-scale invasion. The could be controling various synthetic bodies at the same time. There could be stats for using primative human technology and blending in, etc.

Now everyone else come up with another idea.

Some thoughts on the Archivist concept (geez, even I can't help adding more to it):

I like the idea of the player controlling both host and Archivist. I was thinking along the lines of different reward mechanics as well. However, I was thinking that XP for hosts would result in rapid gains, whereas XP for Archivists would result in slower gains. The player could choose where the XP goes -- host XP get high short-term gain, but it will eventually be lost when the Archivist takes a new host. Of course, the improved host will still be there for the Archivist to control another time.

Random idea 1: once a host has been energized, no other entity can energize that particular host.

Random idea 2: The knowledge base of the Archivists is a universe/realm/reality/whatever that takes the form of a library larger than several worlds put together. It's a sort of surreal place, and finding anything is more instinct than anything else. Maybe the anti-Archivists also frequent the Library, and for some reason confilct between them doesn't occur. Maybe another race of beings (Librarians?) patrols the Library, helping researchers, and refusing entry to those who violate their rules of decorum?

Sydney Freedberg wrote:

Since Hosts may change from session to session, presumably rewards for good Host play should take the form of some metagame currency that isn't tied to character advancement (or can be rolled over from one Host to another).

Andrew wrote: Okay, new idea. The characters are aliens attempting to take control of the earth in preparation for a full-scale invasion. The could be controling various synthetic bodies at the same time. There could be stats for using primative human technology and blending in, etc.

First up, a new idea:

Players play a complex, self-aware meme. (This would be something like a mind-virus AI).

Second: running with Morris' idea: The aliens would represent some new type of evil. Not the one we're all used to (demon, psychopaths, warmongering presidents, kpfs) but something fresh we have to come up with.

Third: I'll remember all posters that there's a parallel brain-warming question about 'best' possible RPG. See the initial post.

Fourth on the Archivist thing: I'll note that this idea is going towards details very rapidly. Nothing wrong with that, if you're exited about it, but try to keep creative and storming at all levels of that idea, and not just fleshing out powers. In upcoming parts of the brainstorm session, we'll take about 5 ideas and try to flesh them out a bit more - like's being done with the Archivists now. For now, try to add ideas so we have at least those 5... trying to solve the problem 'what's the coolest thing we can make right here'?

Another take on the Archivist idea. The archivists are there to witness only, like the Watchers in the Marvel Universe, and are forbiden to interact or change the outcome. Catch 22 like, however, the host is likely to take sides in the situation when they see what is happening and try to be involved. This would be a better layout for two players rather than one, having completely different objectives and capacities. If the host get's too involved the Archivist must jump to a new host or risk being involved in the changing of the situation, something which could drain a lot of the Archivists power, and find a new host. The host meanwhile would loose the powers that they have had and might suffer some other trauma. the biggest problem with this is that you might find yourself needing a new bunch of hosts on short notice. But there could be some fun trying to stop your Host from being involved when there is a chance to do good or make lots of money based on the knowledge.

Go Brainstorm!

How about PCs with Multiple Personality Disorder. Not in the actual psychological sense, but in the popularized fictional sense...?

Thomas

Heh...yeah. What if there was only one character, but each player was a separate personality?

Thor wrote: Another take on the Archivist idea. The archivists are there to witness only, like the Watchers in the Marvel Universe, and are forbiden to interact or change the outcome. Catch 22 like, however, the host is likely to take sides in the situation when they see what is happening and try to be involved. This would be a better layout for two players rather than one, having completely different objectives and capacities. If the host get's too involved the Archivist must jump to a new host or risk being involved in the changing of the situation, something which could drain a lot of the Archivists power, and find a new host. The host meanwhile would loose the powers that they have had and might suffer some other trauma. the biggest problem with this is that you might find yourself needing a new bunch of hosts on short notice. But there could be some fun trying to stop your Host from being involved when there is a chance to do good or make lots of money based on the knowledge.

Andrew Morris wrote: Heh...yeah. What if there was only one character, but each player was a separate personality?

Tobias wrote:

Andrew Morris wrote: Heh...yeah. What if there was only one character, but each player was a separate personality?

Or turning it around - what if there was only one personality (ideal, driving force), and each character would try to live up to / support / strive for that goal the best? To become the best incarnation of, so to speak? Maybe you're one of X clones of an original subject that died and is now being restored - but since the clones are imperfect, they'll take the closest match - so you better become the closest match.

(Interesting for all those games that have cloning in them as a cheat-death option too)

LordSmerf wrote: While i am thinking about it: Is there any sort of preference/feeling/inuition about what Creative Agendas we should be trying to focus on or avoid? Or are we still at a point where that is yet to be decided.

Okay, Tobias has asked me to post a summary of the ideas so far. Here are the four concepts we've come up with:

The Archivists
Powerful, disembodied beings controlling humans througout time and space, working to counter the efforts of an equally powerful enemy.
We've probably got way more than we need on this one, so let's table this concept for now and focus on the others for a while.

Alien Invasion/Covert Ops
PCs are aliens imitating/controlling humans in order to achieve their objectives, which include taking over nations in preparation for an invasion force. The aliens are "some new type of evil" that we have to come up with.
Some ideas on this new type of evil would be cool to see.

Multiple Personality Disorder
The players take the roles of distinct personalities vying for control of a single person. Alternately, PCs are all MPD and the players trade control of the characters between themselves.
Any thoughts on how to make this work?

Meme
No real details on this one yet, other than that the players might be something along the line of an intelligent, self-aware computer virus.
For those unfamiliar with the term, a meme is an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture. That might give a jumping-off point.

First one to come up with a cool new concept to add to this list wins the Andrew Morris Fire Monkey Award for Creativity.

This isn't quite a new idea as it is a reworking of Andrew's concepts (chiefly) about nobles-and-retainers and playing a nation through key leaders, with some inspiration from the history of the late Roman Republic and the old Avalon Hill game Kremlin:

Perfidy
The players are factions (heck, or patron gods; or memes) seeking to guide some political entity -- which should be nicely unstable, like Rome during much of its history -- towards their chosen goals -- which should be at least somewhat in conflict.
Players can only act through a character -- but no one player owns any one character. Instead there's a whole stable of characters, probably collaboratively created and constantly added to during play.
At any given time, each player can only act through one and only one character. But at any point, a player can "hop" to a newly-created character made up on the spot or to an existing character not currently being played by anyone else. If another player objects, the two players can bid metagame resources to determine who gets who.
Players gain metagame resources by playing their current character in keeping with his/her established traits (e.g. Centurion Lucius is a greedy coward; whenever you make him run away or take bribes, you get points). Players spend metagame resources to add new traits to existing characters or to create new characters (e.g. creating a bodyguard for some existing character just in time to thwart an assassination attempt). (N.B. It should be very expensive to create a new character who's got a lot of power to start with).*
There should be a constant tension between sticking with your current character -- who, remember, is invulnerable to takeover by other players as long as you stay with him/her -- vs. jumping to someone else who's in a better position for what you need to do right now.

Needless to say this is pretty hard-core Gamist....

* EDIT: Perhaps the best way to do this is to allow "free" traits to be gained in-game through play, at the GM's discretion. I.e. if Brutus is given command of a large army by vote of the Senate -- because players, as Senators, collectively decide the Senate does so -- and later defeats the barbarians in a great battle -- because whoever's playing Brutus outsmarts whoever's playing the barbarian leader -- then Brutus gains the traits "Commander of a Large Army" and "Hero of the War against the Barbarians" for free.

Hey guys, this is weird... listen!

PCs are teenagers (better if japanese then I'll explain) with many mental/social/nervous/eating disorders. Essentially they live, there's no a target, an objective to achive... er... yes, graduation at school, baseball matches, piano lessons are objective but they're only mere reality were teenagers live.

Interior worlds are the "real reality", the "if" world... "If I hadn't said that to Katsumi..." and so on.

When a teen undertakes an action if he wins ok all rest unchanged, but if he fails many XPs and more disturbs come!

Why this? I'm reading "Norwegian wood" by Haruki Murakami...

This is a neat idea, Sydney. Whether it's based on an earlier idea or not, I hereby award you the Fire Monkey Award for Creativity, just for sparking the discussion. Actually, come to think of it, it could tie in nicely with the Meme concept. {EDIT -- you get one too, Jedi}

Okay, now, here's what I've come up with:

For the Alien Invasion concept:
I couldn't think of any new types of evil, but something I haven't seen in an RPG before is the idea of manifest destiny. The aliens are technologically advanced, and don't feel the need to concern themselves with the primitive savages already here. In fact, they may feel they are "helping us better ourselves" by forcing us to adopt their culture. Sort of like the Europeans with the Native Americans.

For the MPD concept:
The players all vie for control of a single body. Most of the game would happen in the surreal world of the subconscious. "Adventures" could be as simple as going to the store for milk, attending a job interview, or paying the bills. I like the idea of one identity for multiple bodies, but I don't know how to make it work, as shown below.

For the Meme concept:
The characters are embodiments of certain concepts (war, peace, love, greed, etc.) striving to spread their concept as wide as possible across the world. They could all be working toward the same concept or perhaps allied concepts. This could be the driving force behind Sydney's concept about the political game.

By the way, if anyone's reading this thread but not posting, feel free to join in. I'd especially like to hear from some people who took part in the original thread, like Emily Care, jdrakeh, contracycle, and others.

Whoops, I keep on getting enthused about stuff and running ahead without covering all the bases.

Tobias wrote: there's a parallel brain-warming question about 'best' possible RPG.

Andrew Martin sez:
Alien Invasion/Covert Ops
PCs are aliens imitating/controlling humans in order to achieve their objectives, which include taking over nations in preparation for an invasion force. The aliens are "some new type of evil" that we have to come up with.
Some ideas on this new type of evil would be cool to see.

Or the aliens could be taking over the Earth as an art project.

They don't want power; they don't want resources; they don't want our women; they don't even want to implant bizarre monitoring devices in your butt. They just want to make the world a more aesthetically interesting place... by their very alien standards. Think performance art or Jackson Pollock splattering red paint on a planetary scale. ("And now, with just a few well-timed thermonuclear detonations, I will reshape the Chicago area into the Quongolian rune for 'love'.....").

This might end up being a little tonge in cheek. Especially if the aliens are not professional artists but from their equivalent of a gifted & talented high school program..... Fame meets Teenagers from Outer Space meets Invasion of the Body Snatchers meets X-Files.

amiel wrote:

Andrew Martin sez:
Alien Invasion/Covert Ops
PCs are aliens imitating/controlling humans in order to achieve their objectives, which include taking over nations in preparation for an invasion force. The aliens are "some new type of evil" that we have to come up with.
Some ideas on this new type of evil would be cool to see.

Or, what if you played the aliens as colonists who think they're saving these "clumsy primitive animals"?
-Jeremiah Davis

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Or the aliens could be taking over the Earth as an art project.

They don't want power; they don't want resources; they don't want our women; they don't even want to implant bizarre monitoring devices in your butt. They just want to make the world a more aesthetically interesting place... by their very alien standards. Think performance art or Jackson Pollock splattering red paint on a planetary scale. ("And now, with just a few well-timed thermonuclear detonations, I will reshape the Chicago area into the Quongolian rune for 'love'.....").

This might end up being a little tonge in cheek. Especially if the aliens are not professional artists but from their equivalent of a gifted & talented high school program..... Fame meets Teenagers from Outer Space meets Invasion of the Body Snatchers meets X-Files.

r.e. Best system

if I was looking for a best system, I would want something that encouraged player involvment in the world building and running. I have often dreamed of a game that opperated on more than one level. Each of the players would be a country in a risk like country to country level game, a leader of a secret society in the campaign operating across purposes and one or more characters in the role playing setting in an area that is in conflict in the above factions. The world woulld move around the characters and their factions would react to that and the players would react to the two above reactions. In many ways I would love to runn the world once a month the factions once a month and the characters every week or some such arrangement.

Andrew Morris wrote:
Alien Invasion/Covert Ops
PCs are aliens imitating/controlling humans in order to achieve their objectives, which include taking over nations in preparation for an invasion force. The aliens are "some new type of evil" that we have to come up with.
Some ideas on this new type of evil would be cool to see.

Thor wrote: if I was looking for a best system, I would want something that encouraged player involvment in the world building and running...

OK, here's another (longish) take on the Alien invasion theme:

Characters are Alien Invaders From Another Planet (TM), or AIs for short.

The AIs have limited telepathic powers, including the ability to transfer their consciousness between different host bodies, but this only works over a short distance.

They have access to slower-than light starship technology. They also have access to a jump-gate device which allows them instantaneous intergalactic travel but only if there is a gate at both ends of the journey.

Finally, they have developed a Super Consciousness Projector (TM) that enables them to enhance their ability to transfer consciousness massively.

Both the jump-gate and Projector require huge machinery and energy to operate.

The only way the AIs can expand their empire is to invade other inhabited worlds. They do this by:

1) Using the Projector to send special operatives to the target world, possessing native lifeforms.

2) Take over the world by using their superior intelligence and cunning.

3) Use the target planet's resources to build a jump-gate.

4) Bring in the starships.

This plan has been highly successful in the past, and the AIs now have their sights trained on a rather unexceptional planet orbiting a yellow star somewhere in the Milky Way...

However, Something Goes Wrong. The new hosts aren't fully compatible, the AIs aren't able to fully possess these strange 'human' creatures. Human society and mentality is more complex than expected. Without a jump-gate or another Projection device, this is a one-way trip...

End Result: a team of screwed-up alien/human personalities who have to balance World Domination with Holding Down a Day Job, Keeping Their Significant Other Happy etc etc...

Even worse, some of the humans have partially dominated their alien 'possessors' - they now know that There Is Something Unfriendly Out There and they want to stop it!

Players could either be the AIs (fighing against their newly-acquired human priorities) or humans (battling against the Invader Within) or could cross-over roles.

Great opportunities for comedy here, but could also be played 'straight'. Hope you like it.

Doug
(Tetsuki)

Doug Ruff wrote: ...a team of screwed-up alien/human personalities who have to balance World Domination with Holding Down a Day Job, Keeping Their Significant Other Happy etc etc...

Sydney Freedberg wrote: I think the real potential here is in the struggle between the player-character's "human-ness" and "alien-ness" (see my points above about giving players basically human characters they can get into).

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Perhaps the split incentives system people have tossed around for Archivists & Hosts might apply to create properly discordant behaviour? Or perhaps the more "alien" you get, the easier it is to access your Funky Alien Mind Powers -- but the harder it is to hide from the humans hunting you.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: The most appealing variant of this to me is having the aliens be sympathetic (either benign and here to help us, or comically inept at conquest) and the humans be nasty, narrow-minded, and paranoiac.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: P.S.: That said, I still think this is yet another concept that with a little tweaking could fit into the Archivist concept as one kind of campaign or adventure (instead of "psychic aliens get stuck in human bodies," just read "Archivists get stuck in host bodies"). And the Archivist meta-framework is just newer and cooler than simply "aliens."

Doug Ruff wrote: Yes, yes, oh yes. (I am also assuming here that the players can't just decide to 'go human' or 'go alien' on a whim.)

Allright, this is your friendly Foot trampling on all you've written.

I've cut-n-pasted all the stuff that's been floating around on the several differing options for the game, and, as will be no surprise to you, there are very many themes recurring throughout the different alternatives. These generally are the concepts of 'Alien' thought and agenda vs. human thought and agenda; brain- or host-hopping; mistaken intentions; surrealism/abstractness; promotion of a long-term concept or faction with serial short-term incarnations.

Many of these themes are spin-offs of some of the initial things I mentioned, for which I am naturally thankful. However, while we will certainly be returning to them, right now I would like from every participant a short description of the one coolest game they've ever played which is TOTALLY OPPOSITE to all these concepts (and the fact they're mentioned in context of an RPG). Don't worry about being correct, or eloquent - this is just about placing all these ideas in some context.

I'll kick it off - one game I'm thinking of is a racing game where you actually have a physical track with rails around some sections and no rails on other sections. You have two cars (small shufflepuck like tiles) and get to give two 'flicks' (2 on 1 car, or 1 on each car) in each of your turns. Very concrete imaginary space, physical props, physical performance important, clear goal, clear contest.

The first thing that comes to mind is not even an RPG. Let me explain how i got here... I thought real-world skill playing a role in resolution, skill and randomization simultaneously, Diceland! (you can check out the Diceland games over at Cheapass Games) Basically it uses oversized, heavy pasteboard D8s that have customized facings representing stats for a character/tank/ship whatever. There are rules for changing faces and all that and rules for tossing your dice at opponent's dice in order to change their faces.

So, some sort of resolution system in which you can change your opponent's result when you get your own randomize (perhaps something as simple as trying to hit their dice with your dice when you roll...)

Thomas

Based on a description of John Kim's Vikings and Skraelings, the rissus Vikings of the Caribian, and a review of FVLMINATA, I played a great game of Sheep and Chicken stealing Vikings in the new world edging in on territory of a Roman Colony south of Virginia. The Romans had Guns and Airships and the sheep stealers found something new to poach. I don't know if this is the most different to what we were discussing (Any good english major could findcould map a dozen similarities) but the game was infinitely less cerebral and spooky. The chicken raids were positively slapstick. big strapping warriors chasing chickens around a barnyard so they can feed their families is a ton of fun.

Thor wrote: The chicken raids were positively slapstick. big strapping warriors chasing chickens around a barnyard so they can feed their families is a ton of fun.

Okay, the opposite, huh? Hmm... All right, how about this: it's the humans who are invading the alien planet. Unlike those primitive, barely civilized savages, we've got the advanced tech and we need those natural resources. Those stupid aliens aren't even using theirs, and they'll probably just kill themselves off in a few generations, anyway -- they've just developed nuclear weapons and obviously aren't mature enough as a species to handle them.

No? Okay. Another concept then. It's finals time at the university, but only one student can be valedictorian. How will you stop your classmates from beating you out for the coveted spot? Dirty, nasty foul play, of course. Will you rip out that crucial page from the key text? Crazy glue their notebook shut? Lock them in their dorm room? All's fair in the race to the top, after all. This could be sort of like a comical version of Scarlet Wake, with the players taking turns as protagonist and antagonist, without a GM. Could work as for a corporate office setting, as well, instead of college. Who's gonna get the promotion?

Eh, it's early, still, and that's the best I can do at the moment.

Tobias wrote: Allright, this is your friendly Foot trampling on all you've written.

Tobias wrote: Very concrete imaginary space, physical props, physical performance important, clear goal, clear contest.

Lord Smerf wrote

-Use a 1d6 roll whenever someone has to resolve something.
-If they roll a 6 they get to narrate their success however they wish.
-If they roll anything but a 6 they must narrate their failure. This is a temporary failure since as soon as they are done they will be rolling again... and again... and again... until the get a 6 and succeed. So there is never true risk of failure.

I liked so much Lone Wolf gamebooks... I think you all know what they are... books with multiple choices. I think they're beautiful!

Thor wrote: What if everything that the character could do is possible and the player gets points for making the inevitable interesting.

Sydney, without referring back to the topic we're not talking about, that mechanic is awesome. I really like it. The more I think about it, the more I can imagine developing it into a very elegant system. But since we're still looking for new ideas right now, I won't go any further. I will, however, ask Tobias if now is a good time to end brainstorming, select a concept, and flesh it out.

Andrew Morris wrote: ...that mechanic is awesome....

Andrew Morris wrote: I will, however, ask Tobias if now is a good time to end brainstorming, select a concept, and flesh it out.

Jediblack wrote: I liked so much Lone Wolf gamebooks... I think you all know what they are... books with multiple choices. I think they're beautiful!

Now that bluffing has been mentioned again, i want to reiterate... Bluffing mechanics are cool! The real questions are: Do we have a good use for one? and Can we design one that works within the game?

That said, i also support the idea that Players simply choose their "roll" as it were. Or (to get in bluffing) the roll their dice (or whatever) in secret and then declare their bonus. There are two possible ways to move from here:

1. They get the bonus named no matter what, but if they are called and do not have the named value they lose something. If they are called and they do have what they claimed (or better) they get something special!
2. If you are called and you do not have the named value you fail, regardless of whether or not the value you actually had was adequate to win the thingy...

Thomas

LordSmerf wrote: ....Players ... roll their dice (or whatever) in secret and then declare their bonus...

I, myself, just a little while ago, wrote: you could allow players to choose whether the bad thing that happens when they blow the limit affects them or someone else they care about.

Andrew Morris wrote: Okay, the opposite, huh? Hmm... All right, how about this: it's the humans who are invading the alien planet. Unlike those primitive, barely civilized savages, we've got the advanced tech and we need those natural resources. Those stupid aliens aren't even using theirs, and they'll probably just kill themselves off in a few generations, anyway -- they've just developed nuclear weapons and obviously aren't mature enough as a species to handle them.

Tsk Tsk, Sydney, says the Foot, as he slightly squishes you - get in line, like you promised.

The brainstorming does indeed seem to be petering out. I propose a moment of measuring the relative interest in the varying concepts that have been floating around. The measuring will be done in the following way: we will compose a list of items, mentioned in these brainstorms (i.e. you will have to convince me it's not a new item). Once this list is complete, every person who so desires gets to add 1 more item to that list (please PM your new item, and any items I will have missed to me, to keep the thread shorter). I will post the list of items I have received once daily, but I imagine we won't need more than 2 days for this.

You will each get 10 points to distribute over the items in this list. PM your distribution to me. Then I will list the results, and you will get 5 more points to distribute over each item on the list which is in the top 10. Everyone point is a unit of emphasis that should be placed on that point in-game. For instance, you may have a game of humans and aliens where both are equally important, or one where 1 of the two is merely background, because everything happens within one race's zone of experiences.

As a side note - I, too, like the suggested 'blackjack' mechanics, with or without the random added factor. As to establishing the blackjack limit - I read a thread this or last week about sealed envelope auctions, where the highers bidder paid the second highest bid amount. That was cool, maybe we can use it. (If anyone can mention the link, I'll be grateful).

Note that these are generally non-mechanics items - we'll hook up with mechanics later.

Anyway, here's your list:

- Archivists - namely, incorporeal beings questing for solutions to questions
- Aliens
- Humans
- Meme
- Human Nature
- Alien Nature
- Benign faction(s) important
- Malign faction(s) important
- Grey (balanced) faction(s) important
- Maintaining a Balance
- Playing a Faction or Group
- Posession ability
- Burnout
- Making hard choices
- Abstraction
- Cold hard reality
- The power of Fantasy
- Invasion
- Art
- Unexpected/Non-traditional Roles
- High-tech
- Personal sacrifice
- Earth-centric
- Galaxy-spanning
- Accumulation, working to a well-defined goal
- The journey's as important as the goal
- Multiple personality disorder
- No exclusive Player Characters (ok, partly mechanical, but important to setting)
- interior/dream worlds
- The choice between going Fast and Hard or Slow and Steady

I'm eagerly awaiting your PMs. No more mails, except from me, in this thread for a bit, please. If you have something you want to share, PM me and I'll distribute it if neccesary.

Thanks!

This is Foot.

I have received 4 entries on the voting, not counting my own.

Closing time for the first round will be 17:30, my time (I'm on Amsterdam time), friday (tomorrow).

Thanks.

Tobias wrote: Closing time for the first round will be 17:30, my time (I'm on Amsterdam time), friday (tomorrow).

I'm on GMT+1.

Ladies and gentlemen, the scoring, from 6 people voting:

13- Archivists - namely, incorporeal beings questing for solutions to questions

8- Posession ability

6- Maintaining a Balance

5- Making hard choices

4- Human Nature
4- The choice between going Fast and Hard or Slow and Steady

3- Abstraction
3- Earth-centric

2- Playing a Faction or Group
2- Burnout
2- High-tech
2- Personal sacrifice
2- Multiple personality disorder
2- interior/dream worlds

---- top-10 cut-off point

1- Accumulation, working to a well-defined goal
1- Alien Nature

You are now free to PM me with 5 more points to distribute over those subjects that are above the top-10 cut-off point.

All the mentioned subjects will get some amount of attention, if possible, but emphasis will be put on the high-scoring items.

Obviously, the Archivists have struck a chord, and their posession ability is deemed cool. I'm very happy with the #3 and #4 - maintaining a balance and making hard choices. Note that there were no votes for 'aliens' (although the archivists are alien).

I suggest you put your 5 points in the lower-scoring items, possibly with one or 2 points in one of the top 4 items to make sure they stay in the order you like - if you like that, of course. Otherwise, some of the 'lower' items might jump up to double digits if there is too much focus on them by everyone.

Thanks and have fun voting again. :)

Ladies and Gentlemen, after round 2, the scores are:

16- Archivists - namely, incorporeal beings questing for solutions to questions

10- Posession ability

9- Maintaining a Balance

8- Making hard choices

6- Multiple personality disorder

5- Human Nature
5- Abstraction
5- Burnout
5- Personal sacrifice

4- The choice between going Fast and Hard or Slow and Steady

3- Earth-centric
3- High-tech

2- Playing a Faction or Group
2- interior/dream worlds

---- top-10 cut-off point

1- Accumulation, working to a well-defined goal
1- Alien Nature

As you can see, some minor re-arranging in the lower regions, with the interesting twist that multiple personality disorder moved up quite a bit.

At this point, the key issues and some background are fairly well set. We will therefore move on to the definition of these terms, what they do, and why they are important. When they are well-defined, we can start getting into the mechanics further.

To do this, we'll try to define several 'clusters', in series. I want to keep it in this thread for, now, so the thread will end with the well-defined results of the brainstorm - after that, we'll get into a new thread for mechanics, etc.

The clusters we'll be dealing with are:

1. Archivists and their posession ability - Describing what the Archivists are, what they do, and why their posession ability is so important to what they do.

2. Maintaining a Balance, Making Hard Choices, FastHard/SlowSteady. As far as I can tell, these are intimately related - but I may be wrong, you/we may have different take on this. What Balance needs to be maintained for the Archivists? Why? Why do hard choices need to be made? Is FastHard/Slowsteady the primary description of the balance/conflict of choices, or is there more?

Note that other issues may be related to this - Burnout, Personal sacrifice, Multiple Personality disorder - but they seem to be extreme results of things going wrong on the balance end, which is why they are point 3:

3. When things go bad - Burnout, Personal sacrifice, Multiple Personality disorder. Over here we can go into more detail.

The more general points: Human Nature, Abstraction, Earth-centric and High Tech are things I would like you to keep in mind while we're forming the definitions of these three clusters - as color, or backdrop, if you would.

So, the procedure from here:

- Take clusters 1.
- Post your definition, the basic concept as you see it, short and tight but complete, of this cluster.
- Wait until all participants have done so (about 5 right now, but outsiders are still very welcome). Please don't discuss until all have posted.
- Questions, short comments, etc. - please PM them to me
- After they are posted, I will try to summarize, and post that. At that point, if I have missed anything, or there are conflicting takes, we'll try to hammer that out.

After that we'll go to cluster 2 and 3, but let's get 1 sorted first.

edit: let me emphasize again that this is to get the CORE of these clusters defined, so we're working on the same thing. We'll flesh them out in seperate threads

Thanks for playing!

[shoves to front of queue]

K, I have a concept for Feersum Endjin-meets-Battlestar Galactica-meets-2001. It has arisen from the listed elements rather than from a conception of gameplay, and I have some doubts about this direction, but what the hey.

Our basic concept is a colony ship in the depths of space carrying a human cargo in suspended animation, presumably justified by some stock megascale SF catastrophe.

Cluster One: Archivists

The archivists are artificial personalities running the ship. The data they research are the records and resources of the ship itself, and the problems they deal with are related to the course of the ship, its ultimate destination, and any space-based or internal hazards they encounter en route. As I see it, most of the action takes place in a matrix-like virtual world, in which the AI's "channel" the personality records of live crew in order to access their skills. Thats something of an inversion of the posession ability - a more orthodox version could be that the AI's decant humans and introduce a personality to the jellyware in order to solve various problems.

Cluster Two: Balance
The main balance issue is that this is a closed system and all energy expenditure has to be accounted for. Things need to be done but doing things has the potential to destabilise some other thing. Because these personalities are not human and immortal, real time can be abandoned; that is game play might deal with a consequence of an action that took place a century ago. Another category of hard choice would be finding a suitable colony world - how good a match aganist the ideal do you accept as worth the risks? Is staying in space better than landing on a rock? How will the human society be built once the landing is decided?

Cluster Three: When Things Go Bad
I'm kinda thinking, you might need to balance the needs of the environment maintance system with the energy dmeands for running an AI. Personal sacrifice might be that the community of AI's may agree to terminate one of their number for the sake of the energy budget. Multiple personalities can arise through hosting or posessing human perosnalities.

I would envision such a game is being heavily episodic - even within a single session centuries might pass as play jumps to significant moments. This could be even more present if the ship is moving at near lightspeed with attendant time-dilation; I like this because it allows astrographic features like clusters and gas clouds to be more dynamic in game time.

Ok, as foot, I'm going to have to trample on this one a bit.

1. We're only on cluster 1 - but I'll save your comments on 2 and 3 for later anyway. If that was unclear - my apologies.

2. One of the 'Tenets', if you will, is earth-centric. While you could argue that the global destruction of earth and search for a new one is fairly earth-centric, it is likely not what was intended - but I may be wrong on that. The group will let me know, undoubtedly.

3. It isn't so much an attempt to consolidate what we have already, but an expansion. I see that I didn't make this clear from my last post - for that, my apologies. There are valuable things in your post (and the game/story/setting sounds interesting), so I'm not going to cry foul.

Thanks for your efforts, though, contracycle - they are appreciated.

I just received a PM from Sydney with the excellent suggestion of designing the game in such a way that the setting that contracycle posted is ALSO possible.

In other words, the core concept of archivists is explained and rules are given - but the setting information for that might as well be the AI's contracycle posted as the incorporeal aliens posessing meatbodies on earth.

This is partly in line with the CCG or modularity concept that was also tossed about.

I'd prefer it if we kept to cluster definition for now instead of discussing this development, but if you post a definition that, like contracycle, seems different from the original Archivist/Posession concept I will presume you like this idea. If you feel strongly about having only one setting for the game we're designing, please note it as a single line below your definition of cluster 1.

Thanks.

Tobias wrote: 1. Archivists and their posession ability - Describing what the Archivists are, what they do, and why their posession ability is so important to what they do.

Okay, my thoughts on cluster one:

I'd rather define exactly what the Archivists are, who they're fighting, etc. rather than leaving it up to each play group to define. Also, I'd like to have the Archivists exist in "some place else" when they are not energizing their host(s). That way you could have some interaction apart from "missions." Maybe even both the Archivists and the Nemesis can come together and talk in the other place -- have debates and such. But on Earth, it's like the front lines of a war, with quarter only rarely asked for, and given even more infrequently.

So, Archivists. Yeah, I like the idea that Archivists were once human, but have become something else. Their "else-ness" is part of their coolness factor, for me, at least. Now they are trying to gather information and collect it in their Great Repository or something. Maybe it's just information in general, or maybe it's about a specific thing. Maybe their possession ability is so important because they have causality limitations. They're hopping about in space and time, right? But maybe paradox is impossible, so they have to work within the limits of what is known. So, for example, neither they (nor their enemy) could go back in time, energize a host and have him kill Hitler before he comes to power, because it's already known to history that he did. Maybe that's even what the conflict is over -- the Archivists want to observe and record everything, thereby "locking it down" and keeping it safe from manipulation, while the Nemesis wants to exert subtle pressure on history, working in the hidden spots, in order to increase their power in the current time.

Back again after a couple of days on the road - here's my submission for Cluster 1.

Who are the Archivists?: Archivists were once human. Through some combination of evolution and technology, they became disembodied beings of thought and energy. Before this, they also managed to reach and colonise other stars and planets (useful for different settings, and also brings in the high tech factor.) This technology became unnecessary when Archivists evolved to their current state; they have the innate capacity for Faster Than Light travel. They are also immortal (saving some accident or act of violence.)

(Note: I'd avoid Time Travel if possible - this could get real messy. It is also likely to take over the other listed themes. So I'm proposing FTL travel as a means of traversing distance only. I appreciate that the physics is more complicated than this, but don't want to go there for now!)

What do they do?: As immortal beings of pure thought and energy, they usully spend a lot of time roaming the universe and studying its wonders. However, there is some great threat to their civilisation, perhaps also to the universe itself. A threat that requires a physical response. So right now, some of the Archivists are fighting this threat. Some other Archivists don't really care about the threat. Maybe some other Archivists are the threat (this appears to be a common theme from previous posts.)

Why is possession important?: To fight the threat. Archivists can't exert 'physical' power without a host. Most likely scenario is that they need human bodies to build high-tech gizmos to help fight the war. Of course, the other side is doing just the same...

Regards,

Doug

In the Wim Winder's films "Wings of Desire" and "Far Away So Close" there was a sense that, if you watched everything, what would make you act? That being the kind of question I would love to explore, I want the Archivists to be fully incorpreal and have a very low power to move the Host who has the consequeses of these new actions to live with as well.

I agree that the game would be better if the setting was more flexable. One of the great things we have seen from sorcerer is the multitude of ways that people have transformed the central Metaphore/Mechanic into so many settings and styles. I am completely casual about how we get the Archivist/ Host relationship up and running and more interested in how we make the relationship meaningful and not destructive.

Hi,

I get the feeling that, all of a sudden, the creative process going on on this thread appears to have evaporated.

Are we still going to do this project? Foot, where are you? Please let me know you're still at the helm!

(Apologies if this is inappropriate, by the way. I'm hoping that this is an acceptable plea for momentum and not just a random act of thread necromancy.)

Regards,

Doug

I think the idea was to wait until all contributors had a chance to post their ideas before moving ahead. But, yeah, I think it's been long enough to wait. Time for a new thread, Tobias?

Gentlemen,

You foot loves you. :)

I had exactly the same sense yesterday, but RL prevented an update then. Your claims for action have not lead to any follow-up posts after that with content, so I guess we can assume people are done contributing to cluster #1 for now.

So I'll try to get things summarized today, but RL is a bit harsh. If someone wants to voluteer to do so, it would also be welcome. :)

Gentlemen (and lurking ladies),

Here's my summary of what has come in cluster one. Note that I also put my own stamp on it at this time. The major points of differing opinions are on a customizable/general setting vs. a specific setting, on low-power vs. high-power posession ability, and on Time travel and FTL on a grand scale vs. more local-based issues.

As to the last point, I will note that Earth-centric is actually one of the important points from the first iteration of issues (we had more collaborators posting then). This does not preclude a backdrop of whole-universe exploration, but actual play would probably be best situated around Earth.

As to the low-power vs. high-power posession issue: many points were previously allocated to hard choices, fast/hard and slow/weak, balance, etc. These points all seem to point to a preference for at least the possibility of hardcore posession with powerful effects (even if it's rare and difficult). The 'abstraction' point could be said to argue for weak posession (since that will make it a less traditional game, unless we slip into a form of Wraith or something similar). I'm going to 'stamp' that high-powered posession IS possible - but, as agreed upon, not without cost (burnout, balance, social issues in Archivist society).

Note that the first 2 points may also be 'solved' by having a hierarchy of Archivists - maybe new ones are restricted to earth or small-time posessions, etc. I don't neccesarily mean we'd get into a 'level' or 'splats' game, but there are possible advantages).

The last issue left, generic/customisable might be the most critical point of disagreement. I will tell you up front that I prefer generic/customisable. However, I can understand the appeal for a strong, gripping setting. I propose we keep the generic/customisable option, but we take 1 setting (and the in-character examples) as a major example of how that setting is derived from general principles (thus showing both the setting and how it is made by customisation or setting variables) - and we pour some of our hearts into that setting as well. The space-ship setting (which it seems fair to say is a late and somewhat differening addition to the archivist concept) could then be taken as a lower-key counter-example, to show the versatility of the customisability (is that a word?).

Having said all that, this is the definition's I propose we proceed with. At this point, it's valuable if you all chime in here in this thread again so we can see how we all stand on this.

Archivists.

Archivists are incorporeal beings that were once human. Through hard work/accident/catastrophe/magic/technology they have transcended that state and lost their bodies and possibly many of the memories and knowledge of the physical state that goes along with it. They have gained powers that transcend their human state, but are hindered in the fact that they can often only effect some of them when taking posession of a human.

Archivists have a burning goal - 'Answering the Question'. This question is generally a Big Issue facing the Archivists or Humankind (possibly derived from the manner in which they became archivists in the first place). In this they generally have a Nemesis - an opposing faction. This may be some outside agency/event, humankind, an internal faction of archivists, or a kind of anti-archivist. The Big Question is likely to be split up in smaller questions.

The solution to the question always requires some amount of direct interaction with humans (requiring the question to be posed so as to force that contact). This leads to the second area of struggle/conflict for the archivists: a struggle between achieving the Big Issue at the personalised cost of abuse of the host and an archivist´s own ethics - because Archivists can ONLY interact with humans or 'normal realiy' through posession. (This may be due to causality limitations.)

Archivists do have 'off-time' place where they can more freely interact with each other. These might be downtime moments for the playgroup, or the first and last half our of each session. (Open for discussion, but it would give sessions a nice steady session progression). If there is a traditional GM in the role of Nemesis, maybe the players could interact with the GM in a novel manner in this 'off-time'?

Archivists did NOT appear by accident (I would like the "hey I died and WTF now I'm a ghost?" feel). Their existence was, to a large degree, actually sought out (although the last nudge may have been an accident).

The one thing I'm most curious about is how open we should keep the position of nemesis - how far it needs to be defined (so as to have cool rules/suggestions for it). Then again, we could just take the coolest group definition of nemesis and work that out in the example.

Your comments much appreciated, and if new people want to get on board, you're very welcome!

High Power vs. Low Power
I didn't think this was an issue in dispute. My take was that Archivists were as bad-ass as they wanted to be, but kept in check by the moral and pragmatic concerns of burning out hosts.

General vs. Specific Setting
Since we've moved away from brainstorm and into specifics, I'm gonna say that I strongly dislike the idea of a general setting. The setting is what draws me in and makes me want to play a game in the first place. I mean, I hear about these cool Archivists possessing humans throughout time in order to combat this evil nemesis and find the answer to Big Question, and I think, "Neato. I could get into that." I hear, about a vague concept with no established setting, and maybe the Archivists have an enemy, and maybe they don't, it's all up to me...well, that really doesn't inspire me to want to try it out. As to fleshing out one setting and saying it's an example...eh, could be a good compromise. Let's hear what everyone thinks.

Grand Scale vs. Local Issues
Well, I'm not sure how this can be viewed as anything other than a grand scale, but I'm open to ideas. My take is that the cost of failure for the Archivisists is nothing short of total...uhm...well, I don't know really, but I'm sure it would be bad.

Earth-centric
I like it, but not with any great deal of passion. It's just easier to use that as a starting point, at least.

Archivist Hierarchy
I'm all for it. You're basically a god. You can reshape matter and energy with the power of your mind. You're immortal. And when your boss tells you to reseach biological changes in dung beetles during the 4th Century...well...you're looking at bugs for a century.

The Nemesis
I see this going one of two ways: total opposites or dark reflections. The Nemesis could be another alien race working at cross purposes to the Archivists, opposites in every sense. The other way to go (and it's cooler in my opinion) is to say that the Nemesis is a group of Archivists themselves. For some reason, though, they are skewed, and work against their former companions.

Tobias wrote: Archivists are incorporeal beings that were once human. Through hard work/accident/catastrophe/magic/technology they have transcended that state and lost their bodies and possibly many of the memories and knowledge of the physical state that goes along with it. They have gained powers that transcend their human state, but are hindered in the fact that they can often only effect some of them when taking posession of a human.

Archivists have a burning goal - 'Answering the Question'. This question is generally a Big Issue facing the Archivists or Humankind (possibly derived from the manner in which they became archivists in the first place). In this they generally have a Nemesis - an opposing faction. This may be some outside agency/event, humankind, an internal faction of archivists, or a kind of anti-archivist. The Big Question is likely to be split up in smaller questions.

The solution to the question always requires some amount of direct interaction with humans (requiring the question to be posed so as to force that contact). This leads to the second area of struggle/conflict for the archivists: a struggle between achieving the Big Issue at the personalised cost of abuse of the host and an archivist´s own ethics - because Archivists can ONLY interact with humans or 'normal realiy' through posession. (This may be due to causality limitations.)

Archivists do have 'off-time' place where they can more freely interact with each other. These might be downtime moments for the playgroup, or the first and last half our of each session. (Open for discussion, but it would give sessions a nice steady session progression). If there is a traditional GM in the role of Nemesis, maybe the players could interact with the GM in a novel manner in this 'off-time'?

Tobias wrote: Archivists did NOT appear by accident (I would like the "hey I died and WTF now I'm a ghost?" feel). Their existence was, to a large degree, actually sought out (although the last nudge may have been an accident).

Tobias wrote: The one thing I'm most curious about is how open we should keep the position of nemesis - how far it needs to be defined (so as to have cool rules/suggestions for it). Then again, we could just take the coolest group definition of nemesis and work that out in the example.

Hey, we're back!

I'm cool with most of what Tobias and Andrew have said. I'd like to add the followng comments though:

Archivist Power: Agree that humans provide powers that Archivists lack, but I would argue that this power is largely 'human power' ie the ability to affect physical objects.

Power - if the power is limited by morality only, what about the Nemesis? I think there should be an upper limit to what Archivists (and the Nemesis) can achieve.

I would argue that power is limited by host burnout, how well the Archivist is 'attuned' to their host (possessing a large lump of 'meat' is going to play havoc with your powers until you can adapt) and the risk of detection (this should have consequences, Archivists are Secret Agents!) Detection may be less of an issue in other settings though?

Setting - let's go for one setting now, but with an option on other settings too. The main constraint is that we try and avoid rule mechanics that cannot reasonably be transported to another setting. (by the way, I don't think Detection is a 'mechanic', it's a setting-specific hazard.)

Hierarchy - don't like the idea of a strict 'you do this' hierarchy, but I think we have to define Archivist society and that this society should be transportable between settings. The battleground may change, but the Archivists don't.

The rest seems cool, so I shall await developments for the time being.

Regards,

Doug

Andrew Morris wrote: High Power vs. Low Power
I didn't think this was an issue in dispute. My take was that Archivists were as bad-ass as they wanted to be, but kept in check by the moral and pragmatic concerns of burning out hosts.

General vs. Specific Setting
Since we've moved away from brainstorm and into specifics, I'm gonna say that I strongly dislike the idea of a general setting. The setting is what draws me in and makes me want to play a game in the first place. I mean, I hear about these cool Archivists possessing humans throughout time in order to combat this evil nemesis and find the answer to Big Question, and I think, "Neato. I could get into that."

I hear, about a vague concept with no established setting, and maybe the Archivists have an enemy, and maybe they don't, it's all up to me...well, that really doesn't inspire me to want to try it out. As to fleshing out one setting and saying it's an example...eh, could be a good compromise. Let's hear what everyone thinks.

Grand Scale vs. Local Issues
Well, I'm not sure how this can be viewed as anything other than a grand scale, but I'm open to ideas. My take is that the cost of failure for the Archivisists is nothing short of total...uhm...well, I don't know really, but I'm sure it would be bad.

Earth-centric
I like it, but not with any great deal of passion. It's just easier to use that as a starting point, at least.

Archivist Hierarchy
I'm all for it. You're basically a god. You can reshape matter and energy with the power of your mind. You're immortal. And when your boss tells you to reseach biological changes in dung beetles during the 4th Century...well...you're looking at bugs for a century.

The Nemesis
I see this going one of two ways: total opposites or dark reflections. The Nemesis could be another alien race working at cross purposes to the Archivists, opposites in every sense. The other way to go (and it's cooler in my opinion) is to say that the Nemesis is a group of Archivists themselves. For some reason, though, they are skewed, and work against their former companions.

Tobias wrote: Archivists did NOT appear by accident (I would like the "hey I died and WTF now I'm a ghost?" feel). Their existence was, to a large degree, actually sought out (although the last nudge may have been an accident).

Okay, you lost me. Can you exlain this some more?

Tobias wrote: The one thing I'm most curious about is how open we should keep the position of nemesis - how far it needs to be defined (so as to have cool rules/suggestions for it). Then again, we could just take the coolest group definition of nemesis and work that out in the example.

Yeah, I think if we doing the "example setting" concept, the nemesis should be part of that.

Specific/ General

I guess that I have no particular setting that I would be pulling for. I would certainly want to be able to customize it for a setting that I wanted.

I was talking with some friends about a Warhammerish sort of WWI setting the other day; and wondered if the Archivists setting things back to right would be a possible use of this setting. I was real into it, but I'm sure there are others that would want to play somewhere else.

High/Low Power

I am firmly in the low power camp. ? I suppose that there could be some variation in the ability to affect the host but I am against having outside powers to make thingsa happen. If there is going to be a high power level ouside the host, why bother with the hosts in the first place.

Tobias wrote: Can I ask how you feel about Sorcerer and it's adaptability in general?

Tobias wrote: I should have been more clear. 'Galaxy-wide vs. Earth'.

Tobias wrote: Yes I can. A 'not' was dropped from that:

"I would NOT like the "hey I died and WTF I'm a ghost?" feel".

Thor wrote: I guess that I have no particular setting that I would be pulling for. I would certainly want to be able to customize it for a setting that I wanted.

I was talking with some friends about a Warhammerish sort of WWI setting the other day; and wondered if the Archivists setting things back to right would be a possible use of this setting. I was real into it, but I'm sure there are others that would want to play somewhere else.

Thor wrote: If there is going to be a high power level ouside the host, why bother with the hosts in the first place.

Aaah, it’s good to be back -- both the thread and me personally (am at beach on crappy dial-up connection with ultra-crappy free AOL account I just got to work -- so pardon my tardy reply).

In general I'm very happy with Tobias's overview post. That won't stop me from writing a lengthy post essentially elaborating on what the Foot has said:


(1) Customizable vs. fixed setting

Ironically, since I'm the guy who proposed open settings in the first place, I confess that I had the same reaction as Andrew when I first read Sorcerer: "Wait -- where's the rest?" But I think Sorcerer is an extreme example of "do it yourself" setting. We can allow customization and still provide a strong framework.

One small example is the idea (Andrew's originally, I think?) that Archivists good, evil, and otherwise can all hang out in their own incorporeal plane, where they don't need hosts. Let's call it "the Great Library."

So, is this Great Library an afterlife? A strange dimension? Hyperspace? Cyperspace? The main databank of a multi-generation colony starship? Guess what: It doesn't matter. We can be highly specific about what the Great Library looks like, what you can and can't do there, what function it fulfills in-game, and so on while still leaving it up to each gaming group to decide the setting details.

Another, bigger example is the idea of enemy Archivists -- which, after some thought and considerable PM'ing with Andrew, I'd say are an essential element, i.e. one that should be a "standard" feature no matter how a given gaming group customizes the setting. (Why? Gamists need equal foes to challenge, Narrativists need a foil making the wrong moral choice about the Premise, and the most compelling enemies are the ones that resemble us -- distorted mirror images that we could one day become).

But are the Dark Archivists (better name, anyone?) just individual rogues, or are they a whole organization, or are they a conspiracy hiding among the good Archivists? Did they cause the Nemesis, do they serve a Nemesis that came into being without them, do they seek to control the Nemesis for their own ends, or are they trying to stop the Nemesis just as desperately as the good guys are -- but with an "ends justify the means" ruthlessness the good guys can't condone? Any of these options produces interesting play, and (as Andrew PM'd me), if the players don't initially know which one is The Truth, you have room for tangled plot twists and shocking realizations.

So, again, you can define very clearly what the Dark Archivists do, what their powers are, even who they are, as individuals, with a bunch of sample characters -- but leave wide open exactly how they use those powers and to what ends. (Imagine a Star Wars game where you had complete stats and lots of description for Darth Vader, but total freedom to decide whose father he used to be and whether he works for an evil Empire, a conspiracy, or a twisted Rebellion).

Likewise, the Nemesis has to be a "clear and present danger," and as Andrew said, it is hard to imagine it as anything less than world-shaking. But is it a mystical plague? A dark god? A conquering empire? As long as it threatens humanity with disaster, I think you can choose any Nemesis you like.

That said, I'd agree that besides specifying "master framework" elements that apply regardless of setting, we should also work on a specific and fairly detailed example setting, where the Nemesis and other aspects are clearly defined.



(2) Earth-centric

For much the same reason that I favor Archivists having been human once, I favor the primary setting being recognizably our world -- or at least parallel-universe variants on it -- or in different time periods on Earth, although I think parallel worlds are easier to manage than time-travel: (a) no paradox problems and (b) there are no historical accuracy errors by the GM, only differences between parallel timestreams. Surreal dreamspaces are a nice diversion, but the heart of the story has to take place somewhere we can understand and care about.


(3) Intentionality

Tobias wrote: Archivists did NOT appear by accident...

Thor wrote: I am against having outside powers to make things happen. If there is going to be a high power level outside the host, why bother with the hosts in the first place.

Tobias wrote: ... a struggle between achieving the Big Issue at the personalised cost of abuse of the host and an archivist´s own ethics - because Archivists can ONLY interact with humans or 'normal reality' through posession.

In general I'm very happy with Sydney's overview post. ;)

I think he caught, quite well, the balance between 'set' elements/framework (and their importance) and some degree of freedom/customisation still possible.

I'm also happy to hear about the PM's between Sydney and Andrew - Andrew, how do you feel about the points in this post?

Sydney Freedberg wrote: So, is this Great Library an afterlife? A strange dimension? Hyperspace? Cyperspace? The main databank of a multi-generation colony starship? Guess what: It doesn't matter. We can be highly specific about what the Great Library looks like, what you can and can't do there, what function it fulfills in-game, and so on while still leaving it up to each gaming group to decide the setting details.

But are the Dark Archivists (better name, anyone?) just individual rogues, or are they a whole organization, or are they a conspiracy hiding among the good Archivists? Did they cause the Nemesis, do they serve a Nemesis that came into being without them, do they seek to control the Nemesis for their own ends, or are they trying to stop the Nemesis just as desperately as the good guys are -- but with an "ends justify the means" ruthlessness the good guys can't condone? Any of these options produces interesting play, and (as Andrew PM'd me), if the players don't initially know which one is The Truth, you have room for tangled plot twists and shocking realizations.

I'm all for Kewl Powerz, but they have to have a price. So, to force the dilemmas we want, I'd say that Archivists operating independently should be terrifyingly weak, but that Archivists possessing a Host should be terrifyingly powerful -- IF they are willing to make the Host pay the price. If they're not willing to risk the Host's health and sanity, they should be very restricted (although still not as restricted as they are with no Host at all).

That said, Doug's correct that Archivists-in-Hosts should have some limits on their power besides self-restraint, or any Dark Archivists get out of hand very quickly. The most obvious way to do this is to have the Host die if you push too hard, which means even evil bastards (or good guys in extremis) have to choose between holding back to keep their Host intact versus accomplishing one spectacular effect that breaks their tool and leaves them powerless thereafter.

Tobias wrote: ... a struggle between achieving the Big Issue at the personalised cost of abuse of the host and an archivist´s own ethics - because Archivists can ONLY interact with humans or 'normal reality' through posession.

Interestingly, this dilemma pushes us towards a mirror-image of Sorcerer. (1) Instead of playing a human summoner, you play what is essentially a possessing demon. (2) Instead of the Possessors being (mostly) evil, they are (mostly) benign. (3) Instead of the Premise being, "given virtually unlimited power, how callously will you sacrifice others -- and ultimately, your own humanity -- to get what you personally want," the implicit Premise here is, "given great but severely restricted power, how callously will you sacrifice others -- and ultimately your own last vestiges of humanity -- to achieve your high and noble goal?"

Hiya,

Hey folks, start splitting into new threads, please.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hiya,

Hey folks, start splitting into new threads, please.

Best,
Ron

I'm on board with everything Sydney covered. Also, despite my earlier push with extremely powerful Archivists powers, Thor makes a very good point about the Anti-Archivists getting out of control quickly. So, I'm thinking a balancing act is probably a good idea here. The Archivists have built-in limitations that keep them from fully exerting what they could do, if they were willing to pay the price (or rather, allow their host to pay). The Anti-Archivists should be free to use stronger powers than the Archivists, but not by too much. We just have to figure out where that line is and how to illustrate it.

This thread now ends. Please continue posting in the follow-up thread
[GroupDesign] Clusters 2 and 3

Thank you
Foot