In the Breaking the Heart of the Universe thread, Snowden wrote: I'd be curious to hear more about your Multiverser experience, which sounds like you were taking a sim approach to speculative, short story-based sci-fi!

I'm thinking specifically of science fiction in the vein of Philip K. Dick, Robert Scheckley, J.G. Ballard, and so on in which the "world" of the story is very clearly tailored to explore whatever specific issues the author has in mind. In Dick you get "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" and "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" where identity and memory are the respective dominant societal concerns; in Ballard you get "The Concentration City" (urban development has expanded in three dimensions to the point where people can no longer grasp the concept of open space) or "Chronopolis" (all time-keeping devices have been destroyed in a revolt against automation and efficiency). The short story seems to have been the main vehicle for this style, and I believe its heyday was in the 60s and 70s; the significant factor is that the narrative is heavily "railroaded" in the sense that it's difficult to imagine any other kind of story making sense in the setting.

I can see how aspects of multiverser (especially the ability to create tightly focused but "disposable" worlds instead of piling idea after idea into a fixed "campaign setting") would greatly facilitate playing science fiction in this mode. What I'm especially curious about, however, is whether you have been able to achieve this kind of tightly focused setting without significant railroading. You mention that

On the other hand, if David settles into a research project trying to develop new technology, I make that interesting by raising the kinds of questions that plague such development--both the technical questions of how to overcome specific problems and the moral questions of whether this is a good development. If he's not interested in dealing with the moral questions, they'll slip away from the focus of play as he does other things

(You stole it from Stars my Destination, also called Tyger! Tyger!, by Alfred Baxter.)

Snowden wrote: but in the source material I'm thinking of the "moral questions" would be deeply integrated into the setting itself, and the choice to address them front-loaded as a result. Rather than allowing David the option of exploring the technical and

I agree that short story SF has a very strong tradition of creating worlds specifically for the point addressed by the story at hand. OTOH, I think that most works of fiction do this - it's just less noticeable when two different authors make slightly different versions of contemporary new york. But IMO they are functionally the same - you would not expect a character from one story to cross over to another just becuase they are nominally set in the same time and place. Likewise, the moral questions are usually deeply embedded in character histories and whatnot.

The peculiar problem of the persistent world is fairly new and I think a more general problem for RPG to solve than anything directly related to the SF topic.

But what I am curious about is MJ's remark about doing "appropriate" research-type activities. How long can this be fleshed out as a real character action, in practice? I would fear that it descends into "I try the next potential solution on my list"/"roll"/clatter. This will just be science problem as problem, not as science; it also strikes me as filler rather than player engaging action. I could imagine that suitable resources might be built to accomodate this result, but that seems to be at odds with the idea of disposable worlds.

For some reason I can't seem to get my mind focused on exactly what it is I'm answering here; it doesn't seem to be the questions--they seem clear enough--so let me try to tackle these and see whether I can devise a coherent and sensible post.

I'm probably suffering in part from the fact that I don't specifically recall reading any Dick, Scheckley, or Ballard. I read a lot of sci-fi shorts in Omni in the eighties, and don't remember who wrote what. My first and only encounter with flash mobs was in Larry Niven, but in the collection of short stories I read no real solution was offered.

Multiverser divides what it calls "story worlds" from what it calls "multiverser worlds".

A multiverser world is said to be based on bias and concept--what is this world about, and what is possible within it. In such worlds, the referee is trying to create a place where things can happen, and then letting the player decide what things will happen through his choices.

A story world is said to be about the setting and the plot. In this case, the setting is that combination of bias and concept that makes a multiverser world, what the world is like and what is possible within it. The plot is described as "an objective which the character is expected to achieve", usually complete with events and schedule, things that will happen unless the player's actions interfere.

A good example of a story world is Prisoner of Zenda, in which I drop the character in Ruritania and engineer his encounter with the Crown Prince the day before his coronation, letting it be known that the player character is the near twin of the prince. From there, I interact with the player. The king will insist (and his Aide de Camp will emphasize the insistence) that the strange double, who must be a cousin, come back to the hunting lodge and have a drink. This will grow to dinner, and then the king is poisoned late in the evening--and the Aide de Camp pressures the player character to impersonate the king for the coronation.

What gets these stories working is a good hook, a way to bring the character into the beginning of the story. Such worlds have to be designed with such a hook, possibly several hooks, to draw someone in to them. At the same time, they always include materials for the character who "plays against the scenario". I've had players go the route of the story, and do well with it. On the other hand, I just had a guy categorically refuse to impersonate the king for the coronation, who then led a handful of faithful men on a rapid mission to get the king to safety and bring down his treacherous half-brother in time to save the kingdom.

I will trailblaze; I will not do illusionism. I will use illusionist techniques to reach a starting point or make an effective transition, but not to control the story. If the hook doesn't work, either I've created a bad hook or the player is not interested in that story. I've got a hook for a spy scenario that essentially goes something like, "We know what you are, and can easily send you on your way to the next world, which we will do if you decide you don't want to work for us." Ultimately, though, I know I can't force a player into my story. I have to let him tell his story in my world.

Obviously, if the issues are deeply fixed in the world, they're hard to avoid. On the other hand, people do avoid them. I did a post-fantasy world in which at every turn there was clear evidence of the oppression and enslavement of orcs by the "free peoples", with a lot of material on the justification of this, the impact it was having on orcish society, and the fermenting discontent that was headed toward trouble--and some of my players just walked around enjoying the world while allowing the societal blinders keep them from addressing the problem at all. I did another world in which competition was cutthroat to the point that killing someone to get a promotion was not an impossible scenario, and some of the players leapt into the competition with both feet, trying to prove they were the best. You can't force someone to address your issues; you can only surround them with the issues and let them decide whether they have anything to say about that.

Gareth wrote: But what I am curious about is MJ's remark about doing "appropriate" research-type activities. How long can this be fleshed out as a real character action, in practice? I would fear that it descends into "I try the next potential solution on my list"/"roll"/clatter. This will just be science problem as problem, not as science; it also strikes me as filler rather than player engaging action. I could imagine that suitable resources might be built to accomodate this result, but that seems to be at odds with the idea of disposable worlds.

Michael: Thanks, I think your distinction between "story" and "multiverser" worlds pretty much nails it. It seems like there's a lot of trial and error involved (i.e. if the player isn't really interested in what you've planned for a story world, scrap it and try something else); however I'd be really interested to see a game that found some way to integrate the process of creating these "story worlds" into the system itself to a greater degree, in order to avoid both railroading and detached PC "tourism." This is probably a new topic though!

Contracycle: I agree that science fiction isn't the only genre to do this, but I think its genre expectations allow it to do so much more forcefully than many other literary traditions. In my experience this kind of tight focus is often perceived as clumsy when applied outside of a sci-fi context.

Jeph: Thanks! Alfred Baxter doesn't ring a bell at all and I was thinking Bradbury; my memory's not what it used to be...

Hello,

Pedantic note: Jeph's fingers got a bit ahead of him - the name is Alfred Bester. Strongly recommended for the sort of SF we're discussing here, which is the only reason I'd post a non-theory pedantic correction.

Don't reply to this post; carry on. Also, everyone, please do not enter into a fanboyish rave session for or against Bester's work. Stay on topic, please.

Best,
Ron

I admit that I don't know what a "Sim approach" is to gaming, Sci Fi or otherwise, is when discussing, specifically, a game set-up--I'm not sure what it's shorthand for (unless it's shorthand for planned illusionism or railroading--for which terms already exist).

One thing that I can speak to directly however (and this echoes Gareth's post): most of my made-up worlds, which is almost all of them, are, indeed, explcitly created for one or another sort of situation (that's 'story' if you're not married to a railroad-implied definiton of story in an RPG).

Same for the one's I play in that I've written up here. Although these games would qualify as speculative fiction they wouldn't necessiarily qualify as science fiction--but I think the idea is critical.

A gameworld that is co-designed with characters (either before or after) to bring a specific situation to the foreground is a key element of situational-based gaming (which, as I understand it could be Sim or Nar). As such, I'm not sure what a "Sim approach" would mean under that model.

-Marco

Snowden wrote: Michael: Thanks, I think your distinction between "story" and "multiverser" worlds pretty much nails it. It seems like there's a lot of trial and error involved (i.e. if the player isn't really interested in what you've planned for a story world, scrap it and try something else); however I'd be really interested to see a game that found some way to integrate the process of creating these "story worlds" into the system itself to a greater degree, in order to avoid both railroading and detached PC "tourism."

Marco wrote: I admit that I don't know what a "Sim approach" is to gaming, Sci Fi or otherwise, is when discussing, specifically, a game set-up--I'm not sure what it's shorthand for (unless it's shorthand for planned illusionism or railroading--for which terms already exist).

M.J.: Sorry, I don't know where I got the idea you were a Michael! I'm Morgan, by the way, but that was already taken as a username. Anyhow, I have no experience with Multiverser beyond your descriptions, so take my "sim" label with a huge grain of salt. In this case, what I meant was that it seems like the game is primarily focused on establishing the "reality" of the setting, letting themes (not sure if that's the right word) surface only if the players choose to address them. Since Breaking the Heart of the Universe has been sealed off, I just thought I'd bring in an alternate approach that you mentioned there and that seemed very a propos:

I can think of one possible way to approach this. Start with a modern setting, then propose exactly one technological innovation that is introduced into the world as it is. The players then get to decide what they do with it as it grows from rare to ubiquitous; together with the referee, they must also predict what other people will do with the same technology. Once you've got one going, introduce another. Keep adding one at a time, and integrating the impact as you progress. Even this, though, requires that the players be particularly insightful. The application of new technology to unusual uses is the hallmark of societal change. It takes vision to make those kinds of extrapolations. It's a difficult game at every level.

A gameworld that is co-designed with characters (either before or after) to bring a specific situation to the foreground is a key element of situational-based gaming (which, as I understand it could be Sim or Nar). As such, I'm not sure what a "Sim approach" would mean under that model.

Hi Snowden,

Marco:

A gameworld that is co-designed with characters (either before or after) to bring a specific situation to the foreground is a key element of situational-based gaming (which, as I understand it could be Sim or Nar). As such, I'm not sure what a "Sim approach" would mean under that model.

I see what you're saying, but I was thinking of a much tighter focus than is usually present in co-designed gameworlds (at least the ones I've seen). Not just "let's have this story arc be about loyalty and the clash between cultures," but "when the orbital cold war is over, what happens to decomissioned satellite crews who can't handle earth gravity?" or "what if pollution created a floating chemical film that prevented ocean evaporation?" If this is the level of focus your group is doing (whether Sim or Narr), I would be interested in hearing more about it!

Last year I posted a design skeleton of a game dealing with the subject of serial short story type sf, I dubbed Ship and the Stars.
Part 1 can be seen here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9055
Part 2 is here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9097

A descrptor for a golden age sf campaign may be seen here.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9096

S&tS will use a descriptor based system similar to SOAP and The Pool, It will be based on scene resolution/narrateive control and players will be rewarded based on contribution to the setting.

S&tS deals with on the the biggest rpg bees buzzing around in my bonnet, setting creation. My view on the reason that running SF campaigns is so hard is that there is potentially so much setting matterial. S&tS takes this problem and makes it the core of how gameplay works.

I will be working on S&tS in earnest after the rollout of Eldritch Tales, my upcoming Lovecraftian storytelling game.

Morgan a.k.a. Snowden wrote: Anyhow, I have no experience with Multiverser beyond your descriptions, so take my "sim" label with a huge grain of salt. In this case, what I meant was that it seems like the game is primarily focused on establishing the "reality" of the setting, letting themes (not sure if that's the right word) surface only if the players choose to address them.

Then, quoting me, he wrote: I just thought I'd bring in an alternate approach that you mentioned there and that seemed very a propos:

I can think of one possible way to approach this. Start with a modern setting, then propose exactly one technological innovation that is introduced into the world as it is. The players then get to decide what they do with it as it grows from rare to ubiquitous; together with the referee, they must also predict what other people will do with the same technology. Once you've got one going, introduce another. Keep adding one at a time, and integrating the impact as you progress. Even this, though, requires that the players be particularly insightful. The application of new technology to unusual uses is the hallmark of societal change. It takes vision to make those kinds of extrapolations. It's a difficult game at every level.

This sounds both interesting and extremely challenging! I wonder how you would decide when to jump from the "setting-building" stage to the "character-playing" stage, or whether the two could coexist side by side during gaming sessions...

M.J. said this wrote: My impression is that character playing is setting building in this game. The idea is, "here is a new technology, what do you do with it, and what does the rest of the world do with it?" There's a hope that at some point these introduced techological innovations will raise real issues, but there's no guarantee that it will happen.

Just as a thought, the solution to this problem might be

• Have the first scientific advance be in gerontological research which enables the player characters to live for hundreds of years and• Use a Pendragon-like time progression, where you do something this year, and then make a few arrangements that constitute the advance to the next year.


Just a thought.

--M. J. Young

I agree that time progressio/scene construction will have to play a role here, but that is not enough IMO. Mainly becuase I have not had any success conceptualising a working system that can use it.

One approach might be that of micro-games. I have begun to feel that the singular system approach has reached its limits. Maybe such a sim exploration needs to relate to the setting in different ways by building scenarios that are themselves miniature games.

Lets propose a common event in SF, responding to decompression. Its the kind of stock trauma that ships in high adventure encounter. Then we build a mini-game that is exclusively "Evacuation". A game of Evacuation can be invoked by other events in the game space., whatever events lead to your need to leave in a hurry. A game of Evacuation is like a single extended contest governed by a set of special, non-universal rules that are not used anywhere else, such as that any failure of any stage results in being unable to evacuate, or rules describing how easy it is to traverse a part of the ships interior.

Hmm, expanding that for a moment, lets say the basic structure is that each section of ship requires a movement test to get through it fast enough. The more cluttered and crammed the ship, the higher the difficulty to traverse.

Now in terms of game design, what Evacuation needs is a set of modifiers and so on, some "stock encounters" for the GM to expand and riff on, some special and unusual hazards to introduce variety. It is at this level of developement that the hard science would be introduced, with discussions of movement in microgravity, movement under acceleration, movement in spun pseudo-gravity. Types of materials that might be found in ships and why and how they can be hazardous. Forms of escape device like pods and shuttles, launch protocols, the thousand and one things that could go wrong in conditions of extreme crisis. And of course, what happens exactly when things go wrong.

All of this would contribute to the sense of exploration, of being exposed to the problems we speculate are likely to be encountered by people living in space. There is no story here inherent to the game of Evacuation, but of course the game of Evacuation might be invoked in a Situation which already has story properties and thus exhibit people having to prioritise their grudges or their survival prospects, or who perhaps plot to sabotage an enemies escape attempt.