Preamble:
This thread is a sister thread to GroupDesign: Advanced Archivism, dedicated to figuring out how to play an entire campaign in the setting and situation thrashed out in the earlier Groupdesign threads Setting & System Brainstorm, Clusters 2 & 3, Core vs. Optional, and -- probably the best starting point for newcomers, as it lays out the latest and most evolved set of concepts -- Nailing Mechanics. People who've not been following the GroupDesign discussion might feel a bit lost until they've skimmed those old threads, but anyone and everyone who finds this work-in-progress interesting should feel free, indeed encouraged, to contribute.

On the one hand, our as-yet-nameless game has very little metaplot in the traditional sense -- established major NPCs, factions, official timelines, pre-destined major events -- because we want to give each gaming group considerable freedom and multiple options to customize its setting. On the other hand, we appear to have come to hold one constant across all alternatives: The protagonists, the Archivists, must posssess mortal human Hosts in order to forestall the Nemesis -- some kind of urgently looming disaster, its exact nature to be chosen by each gaming group, that threatens humanity. Further, the thread Time Travel Party showed some consensus that as a recommended, if not mandatory, aspect of the game, the Archivists should combat the Nemesis by travelling through time in order to alter history and prevent the disaster.

Now, it's entirely possible to handle these inter-related Big Issues -- forestalling the Nemesis (a mandatory element), and changing history (an optional consideration) -- using the traditional techniques of an RPG campaign, in the GM either has an overarching plot in mind already, or evaluates the effects of the PC's actions on the setting in a purely subjective manner. But those traditional RPGs tend to be about individual characters growing in power and do have very explicit mechanics for character development across sessions and adventures. I would argue that the focus of our game is not on individual development but on the overall struggle against the Nemesis -- the cause in whose name the PCs are making all sorts of terrible sacrifices and hard choices, after all -- and that this focus would benefit from explicit mechanics that track that struggle across sessions and adventures.

The only model that comes to mind is My Life With Master, where the setting itself has traits (Fear and Reason) that come into play just like the characters', and where certain mechanical values (Love) accumulate over time until they trigger a specific Endgame. I'm not proposing this as an exact template, of course. I have a few vague ideas of my own instead to kickstart discussion:

(1) One possibility is Sorcerer-style currency on a large scale, where your margin of success in one conflict can be applied as a positive modifier on another, and where you can meld together successes from multiple conflicts into one big, whopping bonus on a huge conflict you otherwise could never hope to win. (Inspirations in TonyLB's Capes , currently being thrashed out on the Forge, work somewhat like this). Thus at the start of the campaign the PCs would have no hope of succeeding in a "Forestall the Nemesis" conflict, but by accumulating successes on smaller sub-problems throughout the campaign they can ultimately prevail.

(2) Another possibility is to have each successful Archivist "mission" produce, in essence, "victory points" in the form of "Truth," namely greater understanding about the true causes of the Nemesis. Truth should be both something stated about the game-world and a mechanical value. When the protagonists have accumulated enough points of Truth, they understand what caused the Nemesis, and thus how to forestall it.

(3) Especially in the case of time travel, we could scale up the concepts of Traits, Humanity, Fade, and Burn as they apply to individual human characters and apply them to entire societies, and perhaps to all of humanity. Then the players' actions to manipulate history can be reflected by changing the "character sheet" for the entire civilization whose history they're changing -- for good or ill.

Further, any of these methods of portraying meta-scale change could be reflected in the fates of individual NPCs whom the players care about, as discussed in the "Helping Chen" part of the Time Travel Party thread.

Then again there is probably some completely different method for tracking success and failure over the course of the entire campaign which I've not yet thought of. And to really understand how to model the struggle against the Nemesis on such a large scale, we probably need to refine our concepts of what the Nemesis can and cannot be.

I like the idea of successes carrying over from session to session, even though I don't like it on the smaller scale, as shown in Sorcerer. Is this the thread to post ideas for mechanics on that, or just toss ideas back and forth?

Andrew Morris wrote: Is this the thread to post ideas for mechanics on that, or just toss ideas back and forth?

Okay, I see this carrying-over of success/failure as manifesting as something real and accepted in the game world. Call it factional momentum, non-temporal causality waves, or just plain winning the war. Two ways to do that pop into mind:

First, successes in the "past" of the mainstream timeline makes success more likely in the "future" of the timeline.

Second, come up with some theory that shows that there is some sort of trend that Archivists set in motion, which follows them along in their journeys across space and time, making success more or less likely based on past success/failure.

Just an idea tossed out to spark some discussion.

Did anyone see my post on Tensions? I posit that it should be possivle to track a game by coordinating moments of play with the escalation of a tension that exists within the game world.

That sort of explicit structure could be used here, especially with the Archivists paranormal sensibilities. It may not be apparent that a particualr issue in the setting is about to reach boiling point, but explicitly or implicitly, the archivists know, and seek to intervene.

contracycle wrote: Did anyone see my post on Tensions?

Here it is, Sydney.

Yeah, umm, sorry I was a bit busy. Just tracked it down myself.

(popping back online from a $10 a day [ugh!] broadband connection in my hotel room, typing in total darkness while the baby sleeps 15 feet away in a rental crib)

Contracycle's idea is an intriguing one, and may actually fit this game better than more traditional ones. The downside is it seems like it would be very easy to get rigid with it -- "Okay, next thing on the chart is a 'peace vs. justice' scene, let's go."

Perhaps we can combine Tensions with some of the ideas thrown out earlier. For example: Is there some way to build on Tensions that instead of mapping a sequence out in advance, instead creates perhaps a "race track" where the players (not just the GM) can watch Tensions build up (acquire points, move ahead on the track, whatever) and decide which they want to address next?

This allows trade-offs, now that I think of it: Do you want to address "Freedom vs. Stability" in the next Archivist "mission," or do you want to let it fester, and become harder to deal with later, in order to smack down "War and Peace" while it's still small? (I'm partially inspired by TonyLB's Capes here, where players are forced to make constant tradeoffs among different aspects of the same struggle).

Interesting...

What does everyone see as the mechanical effect of Tensions? Personally, I'm thinking of something along the lines of a pool of...well, something or other...that builds up the longer a particular theme isn't addressed. Here's how I'm picturing it going:

Player 1: "Okay, I'm going to sacrifice my host for the greater good. It sucks, I know, but it's the only way we can suceed here."

GM: "Good, that addresses the "personal good vs. greater good" Tension, which is currently at 14. How many points do you want to take?"

Player 1: "Hmm... Okay, I'll take three of those points."

GM: "No, you have to take at least a quarter of the available points, rounded up."

Player 1: "Oh, right...I'll take four, then."

Player 2: "Wait a minute, I have to try and put a stop to that, because it's against our traditions. I'll take points from "orothodoxy vs. individual accountability" for it, too."

GM: "Oh, okay. That one's up to 10, how many points do you take from it?"

Player 2: "All 10 points."

GM: "Whaaaa? Oh, boy, this is gonna be interesting."

The two players make their rolls (or whatever) as normal, but once the results are figured, the degree of their success or failure is adjusted by the number of points they took from the Tension. Let's a assume that Player 1 succeeds in his action. With his 4-point degree modifier, it's a pretty big success -- the host is sacrificed in a dramatic fashion that hammers home the theme of the Tension. Player 2 fails his roll, and since he took a 10-point degree modifier, it's a disastrous failure, probably complicating things for the players significantly and highlighting the inability of orthodoxy to cover all situations, or something like that.

Another way to handle it would be to have each instance where the players address (or fail to address, though that seems to encourage avoiding issues) the theme of a Tension increase the pool of "plot points" for the group. Essentially, these plot points could be used as similar devices in other games, allowing the players to change elements of the game, etc.

Now that's interesting. Andrew is talking about gambling -- a game mechanic that in general I've found very interesting of late (see this thread). And darn it, it's another thing that's big in Capes.

It's also especially cool to have gambling when your mechanics are not Fortune-based.

One of the difficulties I encounter with the present setup is that the only real component of system we have is burn/fade, which tackles only a single topic, the relationship between host and archivist.

Perhaps the key to designing your own metaplot and/or game in this case is to establish another mechanical system that in some sense contradicts or operates at cross purposes from this burn/fade relationship. Some other aspect of the game world would have to bve posited as lying athwart the burn/fade axis and systemitised.

A second thought. In line with recent discussion on conservatism et al in RPG , it strikes me that this presently existing model sort of shows this tendency in action. That is, the fundamental conflict so far established is to PREVENT the status quo from changing, or to reverse changes that have been made in the status quo. This ius fundamentally the dynamic between arhivists and notional ant-archivists.

I hasten to add this is not necessarily a problem in any sense. But I have trouble with it because it means the archivists are essentially reacting to some other groups initiative; they are trailing after this group cleaning up the impact they have on reality/whathaveyou. And accordingly, I have very little ability to develop an idea of motiviation or direction for the archivists themselves. Their agenda is only to prevent another agenda being implemented - they do not have an agenda of their own which they can proactively initiate.

Again in recent discussions a though on the role of villains cropped up. It has been suggested in stories of this nature, of which there are many - star wars is one - the story itself is really about the villain, precisely because the villain is acting and the heroes reacting. I find myself in a similar bind regarding the archivists - really, it is their opposition whose story is being told in this world.

But seeing as the anti-archivists have been deferred from the initial conceptual design, we have no idea whob they are or what they do - we have been hoping, I guess, that multiple theories of archivism will produce multiple enemies. But for the reasons mentioned above, I think this hindering rather than helping at this point.

contracycle - interesting points. I've been trying to write a core myself, and this point is something I've come across - to capture the burn/fade/hostawareness as mechanic effects that have meaning in relation to the 'what are you trying to achieve' during each session (and in the longer run), which is basically trying to achieve the Archivists agenda.

It is indeed reactionary, as stated. While that may not be a bad thing, the point about it being a story about the bad guys' agenda (and overcoming it, at the end) is true. If introducing the Anti-Archivists, or having a focused archivist agenda outside the 'prevention' will make the game more interesting to you, by all means, add it.

In the meantime, I'm going back to a little feedback loop I've discovered - wouldn't it be logical for the Archvists to posess people and then perform the archivist-making procedure on them (or have it performed by them on others?). Not 'core' to the game, I guess, but little quirks like that should have their place in the grand scheme of archivist society as well.

Plenty of 'abuse' of archivist status possible - maybe that can be something for your anti-archivists?

contracycle wrote: Their agenda is only to prevent another agenda being implemented - they do not have an agenda of their own which they can proactively initiate.

Tobias wrote: In the meantime, I'm going back to a little feedback loop I've discovered - wouldn't it be logical for the Archvists to posess people and then perform the archivist-making procedure on them (or have it performed by them on others?).

Andrew Morris wrote:

contracycle wrote: Their agenda is only to prevent another agenda being implemented - they do not have an agenda of their own which they can proactively initiate.

Maybe they do. Initially, I wanted the Archvists to be...well...not evil, but certainly without human morals or scruples. So, going back to that, how about the idea that countering the Nemesis is just a part of the overall Archivist agenda? Perhaps the Archivists are trying to write the Nemesis out of existance, by "fixing" the event in the past that lead to the creation of the Nemesis. Maybe they just want to eliminate the Nemesis, which is why the Nemesis fights the Archvists, which is why the Archivists want to eliminate the Nemesis, which is why...and so on.

Tobias wrote: In the meantime, I'm going back to a little feedback loop I've discovered - wouldn't it be logical for the Archvists to posess people and then perform the archivist-making procedure on them (or have it performed by them on others?).

On the moral-lessness of Archivists... I'd worry about making a character that is too far divorced from the player's mindset to be an effective avatar for their concerns. If you want to go 'big picture' and say "The fate of the timestream is more important than the murder of a million peasants in medieval China', fine everyone can sympathize there. But if you're just flat out saying 'The proper arrangement of petals on a cherry tree, with no other consequence, is more important than the murder of a million peasants' then I think players will find it difficult to relate.

If you do want to go big picture, I find that no single principle lends itself more to moral atrocity (and I mean that in a good way) than this one: "It is more important that humans have a chance to solve this problem on their own terms than that the problem is actually solved." Obviously this is for local-level problems like millions of dying peasants, not the archivist-level problems that will be the main focus of the story.

Tobias wrote: Heck, this could mean the players are ALL the currently existing archivists - no society of NPC archivists out there.

Tobias wrote: If they're out of space and time, and have always existed - doesn't that deny a human origin?

Tobias wrote: If they're out of space and time, and have always existed - doesn't that deny a human origin?

A priposition based on some expeirnce playing Mage. Maybe some ofd this appears in Continuum, I dunno.

When you are a mage, you can do nearly anything. Thats not strictly true but its near enough that it stands as a working principle. Lets say you find yourself in an irreconcilable difference with another mage, what do you do?

Well, the simplest thing to do is to teleport into their location and shoot them, or similar. Direct and to the point. Unfortunately because it is also obvious, its doomed. Its doomed because your opponent can ALSO do nearly anything, so you are playing your main strength aginst their main strength on ground of their choosing. Not good.

Therefore: the only plan with a reasonable chance of success is one the opponent cannot reasonably anticipate. And thats quite tricky.

Now what strikes me as a potential parallel here is the kind of gimmicks bill and tedd pull with time travel to get themselves out of binds. Maybe the point of a manipulation is to, say, make sure person X is wearing red shoes instead of brown shoes, for some reason, ona certain day. Now you could just teleport there in the night and paint their shoes, or replace them, or something equally direct and obvious. But that should not work - what you should have to do, in order to solve your problem, is figure out 4 or 5 interactions with this person that have the result of them wearing red shoes instead of brown shoes.

This is actually a sort of Groundhog Day model of trim-travel, because in effect the players might be repeating the same scene over and over again with one new ingredient added to see if that, at last, brings about the required result. And this alos goes to an extent toward the identity of the archivists, becuase in such a model the tiniest detail is critical. Maybe this person is wearing brown shoes becuase of a traumatic experience in kindergarten - if you can find that out and fix it before it happens, the problem is solved.

This is not a finished concept but goes some way to establishing a framnework of "what do you actually do" in this game.

Tobias wrote: Hmmm maybe I wasn't clear enough.

There have been several posts regarding 'becoming' archivist. While we could ignore that, the point has been made (a few times) that there should be some way of identifying with the Archivists, and that the best method would be to give them some recognizable human traits. Thus, a becoming.

Tobias wrote: 1. There should be some advancing point of 'now' or 'the latest realised time', which is indeed proceeding linearly (or at least, there is no realised future yet beyond that end).

Tobias wrote: If a point of time exists where the nemesis has happened, that point would likely be shielded as the mother of important events.

Tobias wrote: ...in other words, the mechanics should provide an impartial 'threshold' for when certain aspects of an event become shielded.

Tobias wrote: The Nemesis is in the future, and it's happening is predicted with current knowledge with a degree of imperfection, as well as the method of averting it. (This means that even after all the Archivists efforts, and given the time-pressure on the players, Nemesis might very well happen. Like MLwM, the pressure could rise at a defined rate, and at point X things will wind up good or bad).

How about if we scrap Time Travel, but don't scrap Era Travel?

Specifically, from the limited human viewpoint, the dark ages happen after the Roman Empire, but before the Rennaisance.

The Archivists know this to be false... history is proceeding in all of these Eras simultaneously, and causality flows as easily "forward" and "back" as it does "north" and "south".

But the human mind isn't capable of perceiving that, so it takes all the events of every era and tries (with very mixed success) to stitch them into a single line. It gets ridiculous little errors, but they are glossed over with yet further elaborate rationalizations: The eastern capital of the Roman Empire falls after the Dark Ages? The Dark Ages in Germany wind toward a close with the RISE of the Holy Roman Empire? What sort of glue are these humans sniffing, anyway?

Tony, uhm...hmm...what? I'm lost, probably because everything I know next to nothing about history other than it happened in the past. I think I get the basic concept, though, which leads me to a question. How do you reconcile that folks can be born at the end of an era, but then live through into the next one?

Folks can't be born in an era and then live through to the next one. The beginning of another Era is irrevocably past. Time doesn't flow forward from one to the next like they're on a line. That is a fable that humans have created to explain the world.

From the Archivists point of view there is only one Now. But there are many Eras, and it is Now in all of them. Where Humans foolishly see history or coincidence, the Archivists see the causality of the Eras mixing and pulling at each other.

Now, in the Roman Empire, the Senators are arguing violently. The repairs to the winter harbor at Ostia are, as ever, the topic of debate. A previously reticent Senator has recently come across a spectacular landscape painting in an antique dealer's stall, depicting the harbor in its glory. It has swayed his opinion, and with his help it looks like the funds to complete repairs may be approved.

Now, in the Dark Ages, an italian peasant is throwing rocks at the water. The water is bluer, seems deeper, now then it ever did before. But then, it is a summer's day, and no raiders have struck the village this year. Small wonder if everything seems glorious. On the spot he makes up a little tune, barely music, more bare emotion.

Now, in the Rennaisance, a painter hums a little tune. It just popped into his head, but now that he thinks about it he recalls that it is an old folk song. He must have learned it in his youth. He puts the finishing touches on the landscape of the harbor, possibly the finest work of his young career.


Heh... maybe a bit too abstruse for a game. I like it though :-)

I think the Bill & Ted approach works quite nicely.
It was kinda cool the first time watching it with them wondering about something as mundane as "Where are the keys?" in the begining only to find that they need them near the end, and the simple idea of "I know! After this, lets go back and grab the keys BEFORE I lose them and plant them...right here! Dude, look, there they are!"
From 'outside' the timestream, a traveler can concievably do all sorts of things to our "Past", "Present", and "Future". Rather than focus on an Archivist time-flow, why not make that part of why they need hosts? Use them for a frame of reference or perception.
Not only are they incorporeal, but their perception of time is "Everything at once", and need the human element to streamline Time itself to make any kind of effective change, as well as intereact with the physical world.

Oh, I like that.

"Why do I need a Host? Alright, imagine you're trying to hit a baseball. You obviously can't do that if you see all of time at once."
"Obvious? What's obvious about it? You'll know exactly where the ball is going to pass over the plate!"
"Yes, but I'll also know where every other ball that has ever or will ever be pitched is going to pass over the plate. You will never understand how exhausting it is to pick out one particular ball from the chorus. It's a marvel that you humans do it so casually."

Tony, that clears it up a bit for me, but I'm still wondering how objective facts (and don't get me into how that's a misleading term) fit into the Era concept. I mean, if I can trace my heritage back into medieval times, doesn't that contradict the theory?

Nate, nice, very nice. I also like the idea. The Archivists are essentially too advanced to be able to mentally "gear down" and interact within the human concept of linear time. This only works if the Great Library is non-dimensional and non-temporal, though. At least, it only works well if that's the case.

Wow, this discussion moves. Forgive me if I backtrack a bit....


(1) The Macro Dilemma

Contracycle wrote: the only real component of system we have is burn/fade, which tackles only a single topic, the relationship between host and archivist. Perhaps the key to designing your own metaplot and/or game in this case is to establish another mechanical system that in some sense contradicts or operates at cross purposes from this burn/fade relationship.

TonyLB wrote: no single principle lends itself more to moral atrocity (and I mean that in a good way) than this one: "It is more important that humans have a chance to solve this problem on their own terms than that the problem is actually solved."

Contracycle wrote: the fundamental conflict so far established is to PREVENT the status quo from changing, or to reverse changes that have been made in the status quo

Andrew Morris wrote: Initially, I wanted the Archvists to be...well...not evil, but certainly without human morals or scruples. So, going back to that, how about the idea that countering the Nemesis is just a part of the overall Archivist agenda?

Tobias wrote: There should be some advancing point of 'now' or 'the latest realised time', which is indeed proceeding linearly (or at least, there is no realised future yet beyond that end). Why? Well, because if all time has already been (or exists currently), then there is no sence of urgency for the players. They can exist, even if the Nemesis has already happened (completely), so they have all the time they need to change things.

TonyLB wrote: From the Archivists point of view there is only one Now. But there are many Eras, and it is Now in all of them.... Now, in the Roman Empire, the Senators are arguing violently. The repairs to the winter harbor at Ostia are, as ever, the topic of debate....Now, in the Dark Ages, an italian peasant is throwing rocks at the water [and] makes up a little tune... Now, in the Rennaisance, a painter hums a little tune....

Go back in time to just before the Christian mob burned the Great Library at Alexandria (or the Vikings sacked the Christian monasteries of Ireland): You can't prevent the disaster, but you can have your Host gets away with some crucial piece of literature (or work of science, or whatever) and hides it. Then you can go to the Renaissance and make sure your Host there finds it, ensuring that this particular benign meme is preserved and reinserted into human civilization -- which, ultimately, will help prevent the Nemesis from happening.

Take one...

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Incidentally, this ties back to the question (in the original post) of whether Archivists are tragic, transcendent, or both. My original take, again, had been strongly on the tragic side -- that the loss of the flesh is a sacrifice that can never be entirely made up for. But this potentialyl gets us into a kind of White Wolf Wraith: The Eternal Moping type of teenage angst.

Andrew Morris wrote: The Archivists are essentially too advanced to be able to mentally "gear down" and interact within the human concept of linear time.

And this from the guy who said

TonyLB wrote: I'd worry about making a character that is too far divorced from the player's mindset to be an effective avatar for their concerns.

OK, here's a suggestion for the Nature of Time - this builds a bit some some of the previous concepts.

Firstly, there are two dimensions of time. Hosts can only perceive one of these dimensions, Archivists (and their ilk) can only perceive the other.

To help visualise this - imagine a "tunnel". At one end of the tunnel is the beginning of Host-Time, at the other end is the end of Host-Time.

Hosts cannot see the tunnel, they travel inside it, in one direction only. This is Life, with all it entails.

Archivists stand outside the tunnel, looking in. To an Archivist, all of Host-Time is one big Now[/] (Thanks Tony.)

However, Archivist-Time also moves, in one direction only. And as Archivist-Time passes, the nature of the tunnel can be seen to change

[Tricky bit: in Archivist Time, the future state of the "time-tunnel" is a function of it's previous state - a bit like the Game of Life.]

At any point in Archivist-Time, an Archivist can enter Host-Time at any point of the tunnel - they can also leave the tunnel, return to Archivist-Time and re-enter at a different point in Host-Time. From the Host-Viewpoint, this is effectively "time travel".

[This is also the only way the Archivist can influence how the tunnel will appear in the Archivist-future, they need to make the changes from within the tunnel.]

This means that Archivists can observe the whole of Host-Time from within Archivist-Time, step inside the tunnel to make changes, adn then step out again to see the effects.

What an Archivist cannot do is travel backwards or forwards in Archivist-Time, they are trapped in this, just as securely as Hosts are confined to the limits of their own Host-Time.

To paraphrase the famous saying: You can't step into the same tunnel twice.

(Note, "stream" may in fact be the better word, I just wanted to avoid this at first as "timestream" already carries a lot of connotations.)

Is this workable, or just insane?

Doug, two timestreams is a fine way to go, because it's probably easier for most folks to wrap their brains around than a non-temporal, non-dimensional un-space. The only thing I have to add is that if we go this way, we are accepting that the human timestream can be rewritten. I think there was some initial resistance to this idea.

Here's my suggestion around the more blatant problems that go with this. Instead of Archivists being able to jump in to the host-time tunnel (heh, Time Tunnel) at any point, we can say that there are "cracks" into the tunnel through which an Archivist must enter. That way, the GM can define the available time periods at any moment in Archivist-time. No, you can't get to the Kennedy assassination right now, but you can get in six years before it happens. Want to try changing things from then, or will you wait until an opening into the right time period opens up?

I think I understand what Doug and Andrew are saying (and I thought GNS Theory made my head hurt!), and I agree. This is what I was trying to get at with the idea of moving "windows" of access into different eras -- a concept that I now realize only makes sense if there's a parallel "tunnel" of Archivist-time in whose frame of reference the windows/nexi/openings/cracks can be seen to move.

EDIT: Now everybody stop being so bloody creative so I can finish my 3,000-word article due next week, dammit....

Actually, I'm tempted to approach this one backwards:

Events such as the Kennedy Assassination are relatively "fixed" in Host-Time (actually, it's more like Host-Spacetime, but let's not go there right now...)

It's still possible to go there, but the events surrounding the assassination are so well documented, that it's virtually impossible to do anything useful there.

But by going six years down the "tunnel", the Archivists have more latitude to make changes - and these changes can undermine the events of the assassination, which introduces "cracks" in the solidity of the documented information, which make it possible later (that is, later in Archivist-Time) to go to the assassination and do something.

Have you ever played the Chrononauts card game? I see the whol Archivist Nemesis conflict as a massive game for control of the major events of history ("nodes", if you will) by the manipulation of the surrounding events, followed by a dramatic "capture" of the node itself.

This also means that, in Archivist-Time, the Kennedy Event has changed hands several times - sometimes he is in the "assassinated" state, sometimes he is in the "survives the assassination attempt" state - which brings us neatly back to Schrodinger's War

Doug, I like it. Print it, wrap it, ship it. Seriously, this is my vote for the "official way things are" for our game, and I think we should take the concept, flesh it out a bit more, without any "but we could do it this way" conversations. Changing history is possible, but it's hard, requires a lot of creativity and grunt work, and is a real reward to the play group -- or a real punishment, if they let the enemy get away with it.

With this as the model, though, I'm thinking a triad of opposed factions would be cooler. Instead of the Archivists/Nemesis, you have Archivists, the Nemesis, and...something else. Dark Archivists, maybe? Each group could have its own agenda and cool stuff, which could be detailed in our much-talked-about-but-unworked-on expansion modules. Anyone here ever play PlanetSide? It's my secret, guilty pleasure ("Kinnison" and "Damon" on Emerald server; say hi if you play). Anyway, that's the setup of the game -- three opposing empires, each with a mutually exclusive ideology, engaged in perpetual war. We don't have to limit ourselves to three, of course, but it's a nice prime number, low, but allowing for much more complex interactions than two.

Oh, and duh! Uhm, how come none of us throught of "Schrodinger's War" as the name of the game? Personally, I love it.

Andrew Morris wrote: Doug, I like it. Print it, wrap it, ship it. Seriously, this is my vote for the "official way things are" for our game, and I think we should take the concept, flesh it out a bit more, without any "but we could do it this way" conversations.... [and]how come none of us throught of "Schrodinger's War" as the name of the game? Personally, I love it.

According to the method we set up at the start of this, I believe we should request that Tobias either call for a vote or arbitrate. Hey, maybe we can even set it up as a poll. That way, even folks who aren't actively contributing, but are following the discussion can chime in.

And as to Schrodinger's War being the title, I just checked Google, and only came up with one site where that appears, and it was talking about a "Schrodinger's war criminal."

I think we should determine if others agree that we should lock this idea down as canon, then move on to other areas, but using this concept as a basis.

Good idea. Maybe we should also vote on Tony's candidate for Contracycle's position of the "macro dilemma" (all rephrased here by me): some variant of Freedom vs. Happiness -- i.e. at one extreme letting mortal humanity self-destruct if it chooses to do so out of its own free will vs. at the other extreme making mortal humanity a puppet in order to ensure it survives and prospers.

My argument for tackling this issue at the same time:

(1) Substantive:
Besides being the only candidate for a Macro Dilemma at this point, Tony's idea beautifully scales up the individual-level dilemma facing an Archivist possessing a Host, but then turns the problem at right angles to address an issue that the concept of "Fade vs. Burn" really doesn't adequately encompass, namely free will. (And while I can see how to scale up "burn-out" to human civilization as a whole, it makes less sense, or at least is less gripping, to scale up the danger of "fade-out" to all Archivists collectively). Maybe we need more discussion, but the more I think about this as the (rather than just a Macro Dilemma, the more I like it.

(2) Procedural:
If we wrap up the Macro Dilemma and the nature of Time Travel, the work of Mix Your Own Metaplot is arguably done, and instead of pages and pages more on this thread, we can move on to the mechanics of implementing these two inter-related concepts.

Well, to be honest, we can move on to mechanics after we've nailed down a few more things in Advanced Archivism -- where the issue of the Host's potential for free will is actually becoming one of the more interesting ones we're exploring, which fits nicely with Freedom vs. Happiness as the proposed Macro Dilemma).

Okay, let me elaborate on something I didn't make clear enough -- in part because it's only become really clear to me now:

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Freedom vs. Happiness [as] the Macro Dilemma and the nature of Time Travel ....[are] two inter-related concepts.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: (And while I can see how to scale up "burn-out" to human civilization as a whole, it makes less sense, or at least is less gripping, to scale up the danger of "fade-out" to all Archivists collectively). Maybe we need more discussion, but the more I think about this as the (rather than just a Macro Dilemma, the more I like it.

Axis 1: Fade vs. Burn

Fade > Burn - Individual: Archivist fades out and drowns in mortal nature.
Fade > Burn - Macro: The Great Library itself fades out of existence, taking all the accumulated wisdom of the Archivists with it.

Burn > Fade - Individual: The Host burns out, dying or losing all humanity.
Burn > Fade - Macro: Civilization burns out, becoming extinct or soullessly materialistic (the Minority Report consumerist dystopia, or perhaps a negative form of Clarke's Childhood's End, where a psychic massmind ascends and leaves mortal humanity an empty husk).

Fade & Burn Balanced - Individual: The Host and Archivist both retain their humanity yet possess Transcendent knowledge and power.
Fade & Burn Balanced - Macro: Civilization evolves to a transhuman state without losing that which makes us human.

Axis 2: Freedom vs. Happiness

Freedom > Happiness - Individual: The Host chooses to screw up his/her life.
Freedom > Happiness - Macro: The Wild Wild West -- or runamuck capitalism destroying the environment.

Happiness > Freedom - Individual: The Host is a happy, passive puppet.
Happiness > Freedom - Macro: Huxley's Brave New World.

Freedom & Happiness balanced - Individual: The Host chooses to do the right thing.

Freedom & Happiness balanced - Macro: Civilization achieves both democracy and equality, both freedom and peace.

Tobias wrote: Heck, this could mean the players are ALL the currently existing archivists - no society of NPC archivists out there.

Re: Triad

Why not steal a page from Lucas?

Archivists = Jedi, Order Keepers, Arbitrators, collectors, observers. Archivists are reactive, responding to changes in the temporal current. Mostly/Roughly organized.

'Anti/Dark Archivists' = Dark Jedi: Not Sith, but not Archisits either. They retain much of what makes Archivists what they are, keeps roughly the same ideals, but uses methods Archists won't, almost to the point of being counter productive. AA/DA are proactive, changing things themselves time to advance the 'cause' of the Archivists. Reletive Loners.

'Nemesis' = Sith, reletively unknown, shadowy force attempting to alter what is, was, and is to be. Organized as well as the Archivists.

Now, with this (take it or leave it), by leaving the Nemesis reletivly unknown, we open up a question: How all knowing would the Archivists be? Is the status quo what needs to be maintained? Is this "Nemesis" a threat or simply the next step? Could it be both, depending on what is changed, balanced or outright attacked?

Say in game terms a Nemesis agent assainated Austrian Archduke Ferdiand (I believe that was him), sparking 'The Great War', with the intent of producing some kind of effect almost 100 years into the future (Which it could). Should the players stop that assination, WW1 might not have occured, meaning WW2 probably wouldn't (The aftermath of WW1 is what lead the German people to so readily accept Hitler and make the concessions that lead to WW2).
Now, on the one hand we have a few things:
1) The sheer loss of life averted by the avoidance of not one but two wars would be a plus (I couldn't even tell you what that amount would be between military and civillian deaths and BOTH wars)
2) The loss or severe postponement of many of the advancements made during both wars (if I remember correctly, Einstien and much of the scientific community considered much of his work that was the basis of the Manhatten project to be theory...until push came to shove and US Scientists used those "theories" to create a concrete reality in atomic power and weapons) would be a detriment
3) Who is to say, however, we couldn't be more advanced, after all we don't know what the children or grandchildren of those who died in the wars could have been capable of, which could be a plus

Other brain burner- could the "Nemesis" be the Archivists, existing in relation to them as the Archivists exist in realtion to Humanity?

daMoose_Neo wrote: Re: Triad .... Anti/Dark Archivists.... They retain much of what makes Archivists what they are, keeps roughly the same ideals, but uses methods Archists won't, almost to the point of being counter productive

If I may offer a suggestion on handling time travel, changing history, etc.?

Make the Archivists' past experiences in history be their anchor to humanity. And, if history changes in such a way that an Archivist's past is erased -- either their mortal past, or their Archivist past -- their tie to humanity is weakened; they become less human and passionate. Symmetrically, if an Archivist influences some part of history where they've never been, their tie to humanity might grow stronger.

Firstly, this gives a reason why Archivists don't just head into the same point of time over and over until they "get it right". Each time the Archivist tries to change an event and fails, the cost to them of the final success goes up; there's more of their past being cancelled.

Secondly, it gives a way that Archivists can hurt each other; by discovering where in history an Archivist first came from, then altering that part of history, an Archivist enemy can reduce his victim to the dispassionate indifference of the purely transcendent.

And you could even tie this in with the Nemesis, by saying that sometimes when Archivists have had all their history annulled, and therefore cease to care for history as it is, they are attracted to the Nemesis and become its agents ...

How could you guys type so much while I slept?

Also: warning: this started as a coherent post, but has become rambling because I'm trying to pull a lot in.

:)

There's a lot of wonderful stuff here. The main points seem to be the 'double time stream' issue, the '2nd axis' issue, and now, in the end, some thought on Archivist factions (splats? *ducks*).

Suggestions have gone up for voting, but I'd like to do so with a twist: I'd only like those who DISAGREE to vote against (and say why). The reason being that I see little disagreement now, and I think we can proceed under the assumption that everyone's good to go with this. If not, then those opposed can make the strength of their feelings known by this vote, as well as argue the exact point why they're voting No.

BTW, don't feel bad about voting no, if that's you wish - it will only make the game better in the long run. If people want a poll, let me know. Lurkers may also just PM me or chime in, as always.

I'm happy with both the time-stream and the 2nd axis suggestions. The double timestream gives the players pressure (they will have a 'Nemesis deadline' on 'Archivist time', which is also a good reason of why Archivists are needed in the first place - normal humanity can't deal with the issue because they aren't on Archivist time). The 2nd axis wraps up a series of concerns about good and bad (side)effects of archivist actions (host burnout, host freedom and wonderment at his posession can very well be an aspect of 'freedom vs. happiness'), and deals with one of the great philosophical questions as well at the same time to boot!

I like the 'cracking open' description of the Host Time Tunnel (HTT) as well. I see the HTT (human history) as caused primarily by global effects, statistics (see psychohistory from Asimov's Foundation), i.e. 95/99 % of the time, things develop according to the law of the masses, and occasionally a 'freak' occurence will shift things. An example: given the state of the world at 1935, assasinating Hitler probably wouldn't have prevented WWII - someone else would've risen to that position (the nature of the WW might've been different, sure, but it's just an example).

So changing history might be a lot of drudge-work, little nudges to change the 'measurements' of the 'sample population' thus 'shifting the distribution', with the side-effect of laying open a shift in history at point X ('opened crack'). GM's could then decide on the pacing/level of tension they're happy with for their group by mixing drudge work with critical missions. There's another reason I want this statistical approach - while it might be a bit less appealing to the players, they're also less capable of 'wrecking' reality, AND it will make the life of the GM much easier. Sure, things will change with the Archivists actions, but 17th century Europe will still basically look like 17th century Europe, tech-wise, clothing wise, thought-wise. Otherwise, the GM will have to re-create whole society and timestream fabrics with EVERY change the archivists make.

Could be part of Archivist skill - the best archivists know which events to pick to change, that won't be drowned out by statistics (inertia). Heck, there are all kinds of spinoffs here into Paradox (changing the HTT too fast) or subtlety (don't let the other faction see where you're making changes), etc.

On the factions: I'm not opposed to having more than 2 factions. In fact, given that there are 2 axis proposed now, with 2 scales of application (global vs. individual), there are 16 (2^4) possible combinations of 'philosophical ends' an individual or group might go for (although some may be self-contradicting, and some will be similar enough that cooperation is possible).

An example: your mark1mod0 Archivist will probably be more negative about Burn than your Dark Archivist/Sith/Nemesis would be (although I would argue that Nemesis isn't necessarily a race or sentient), but might have a broader range on what 'setting' of Freedom vs. Happiness they prefer. Like Sydney also mentioned, there's appeal to PC's slipping into other factions and extremes (with a tantalising slip to Nemesis yawning at the extreme end of each scale).

I do think the Freedom vs. Happiness thing needs some work (Sydney's right about 'Happines' being an awkward and poorly defined term), as well as balanced axis - I don't think transcendence is automatic when balance is achieved, I think balance is a prerequisite for that transcendence.

Oh, and I like "Schrodinger's War" as a title a lot myself.

I also like Tony's comment: "The Archivists are the Library. As their collective Burn/Fade and Free/Happy trend, so trends their underlying reality." This is also what I was going for when I mentioned that the Great Library is the sum of all memories (senses, thoughts, feelings) of an Archivist, both in the life before the Transition, and while they were Hosts (with editorial comments). So Burn/Fade and Free/Happy would impact the library, as well as the 'life' they leave for their Hosts - abusing hosts would maybe get them time-moulding goals more directly, but load the library with a lot of bad memories (perhaps a difference in agenda between factions as well?)

I ALSO like Michael's suggestion on cross-archivists hostilities - make the archivist (and his memories and associated part of the Great Library) less relevant by performing history shifts in the places he's been - with the time (s)he lived the most determining (initially). This also makes young Archivists (by archivist time) more vulnerable than old ones.

Shame for the archivists there are so little secrets to keep with all your memories out there for review.... >:)

Also, the Mage and Lucas references remind me that it may be just as fun to play Archivist or Dark Archivist (just like Tradition mage or Technocrat mage both think they're 'good' and 'right').

And I'm so glad I've read stuff like a brief history of time and flat(ter)land. :)

And now I know I should've picked up Chrononauts when I was at Essen a few years ago... is there a .pdf of the rules out there somewhere (since it'd be fairly harmless to distribute without the cards)?

Ok, enough rambling.

Some other possible time-travel mechanisms, selecte to try to take advantage of the archive/library trope:

big fish in a tiny pond:
In fact, the Archivists are not moving through any objectively existing time atll, but through a very small local model of time. The archivists are somewhat disembodied sentiences of the crew of a starship trapped right on the very edge of a black holes event horizon as it shivers back and forth due to mass fluctuation and quantum uncertainty. Thus the archivists exist in a fixed external frame but all sorts of manipulations of local time can be justified; what the A.'s are seeking to do is figure out a way to extract their ship from the horizon by constructing, from the dissasociated psycological states of the crew, how they got here and how to get out, or perhaps they need to reintegrate their own identities by collecting memories, fioguring out to whom they should be assigned, and reconstructing that perosnality. Thats a bit vague but anyway...

the big model:
the world that archivists experience is ain fact a hug simulation built by the intellects that used to be human many billions of years ago. Now they hang as barely tangible nets of electrons in the deepest and darkest of interstellar crevasses, undisturbed but for their own slight shimmer as thoughts surge along the tenuous circuits, crossing light-seconds. These archivists are a projection of these radically advanced huimans and performed as an exercise in self-comprehension.

the matrix model:
the rise of the machines has been and gone, it was a one-sided struggle and now, matrix-like, the only human experience anywhere is inside a simulation. Similar to the above concept, the sim has been constructed so that the machines can explore their own origins, much as we carry out anthropology. Reality is malleable as it is only a sim, but the coherence of the sim is what underlies its value as a reserach tool and thence there are limits to how far it can be bent.

the telescope tunnel:
if you were very far away, and moving towards earth at very nearly the speed of light, you could point a (very powerful) telescope toward the earth and thereby observe earth's electromagnetic shell almost on fast forward. That is, an immense amount of things will occur in the earths frame of reference by comparison to what occurs in the subjective time on the ship. Hence, the incomming data is temporally compressed, and it may be quite hard to discern the important from the dross. Once again the time continuum is rather more a model than an actuality but there is a critical need to extract certain data from the model.

the wormhole telescope:
similar to the above, except that you build a pair of wormhole gates per Michio Kaku's hyperspace theory. You send one to a point 1000ly away at 99.99% of c., then switch the gates on. The subjective time on board has been reduced, so even though in real time the ship takes more than a thousand years to arrive at destination, you'll be able to switch the gate on in 10 years time, say. Now the other gate is 1000ly away both in space AND time... which means you can go there and build a very large telescope to look back at earth and see the signal shell of that whole thousand years.... even though 990 of those years are in your future. Again, introduce some reason for wanting to know stuff from this data-stream.

--

Anyway... there are a lot of ways to have time travel or a sort of pseudo-time travel that do not necessarily assume an objective and fixed time-stream. Nor is it impossible to locate the chunk of time that can be travelled in a box, cut off from the rest of the causal universe. The universe does not even have to be "real".


Schrodingers War:
I couldn't find any instances of "schrodingers war" either, but did find: S's Cat, S's Cat-sitter, S's Kitten, S's Dog, S's Mouse, S's Lifeboat.

If CONSCIOUSNESS is going to be the necessary 'observer' in this model, some gibble-gabble will have to be provided as to why this is the case as it is not implied by the theory itself.

Whoa, contracycle, I thought I knew my sci-fi and popular science astro, but you're definately using those mental muscles a lot more than I am.

I guess some of these explanations would work great as alternative options, so thanks much for providing them.

Would you agree that it's a good idea, conceptually, to have a 'host time' and an 'archivist time', though? (To give the players some pressure of deadline on archivist time).

Do you have a science background you'd like to share, btw? I'll share mine - I'm a chemical engineer-informatics specialist, with a little study into the quantum world as well as interest in space-time topics.

Tobias wrote:
Would you agree that it's a good idea, conceptually, to have a 'host time' and an 'archivist time', though? (To give the players some pressure of deadline on archivist time).

Do you have a science background you'd like to share, btw? I'll share mine - I'm a chemical engineer-informatics specialist, with a little study into the quantum world as well as interest in space-time topics.

contracycle wrote:

Tobias wrote:
Would you agree that it's a good idea, conceptually, to have a 'host time' and an 'archivist time', though? (To give the players some pressure of deadline on archivist time).

Actually I like this a lot but in a slightly different sense. I think it has to be delicately handled because we don't want to make the human time stream insignificant to the archivists.

contracycle wrote: OTOH I think the archivists need a "place to hang" as it were, and this place is necessarily "outside of time and space". And this has reminded me of the Olympian gods as presented in say the hollywood version of the Odyssey, existing in this space that is just an open columned hall against a blue sky.

I do think that the archivists need to be endowed with a sense of urgency, of consequence, else there is little drama, yes. And that pretty much requires that the archivists be subject to causality, which requires there be SOME sort of subjective time.

Welcome to the Forge, Michael. Glad you decided to jump right in to the project.

Tobias, nitpicker's point here: neither of the two timestreams is "outside" the other, better to say they are parallel, but with an finite and variable intersection.

As to the voting:

Two Timestreams -- Obviously, I'm way for it. Nuff said.

Second Axis -- Yes, we should have one. No, I don't think it should be Freedom vs. Happiness. I'm thinking something more along the lines of Pragmatic vs. Moral, or something. I think the only reason we don't have more options is that nobody asked for them. I'd definitely like to see some more discussion on this before it is nailed down.

Archivist Factions -- Bah! Who needs 'em? I say save stuff like this for the expansion modules. Archivist/Nemesis or Archivist/Nemesis/Rogue is good enough for now.

Fine to pick nits, Andrew, but I'm having difficulty envisioning the time streams as parralel and the archivists experiencing a sense of urgency in the one (A-time) but not in the other (H-time).

Second Axis needs a further look - agreed, there's only axis option out there now, and like mentioned earlier, I think the freedom vs. happiness needs looking into at least before it becomes useful. I'd like to see alternatives as well (although I think there's value in the Free/Happy one has good potential). Pragmatic vd. Moral doesn't to me seem to be a scale you could slide on very well and more a fixed setting for an individual, but that could just be me. Every complication is of course a challenge between pragmatic and moral (when they are in conflict).

Factions: while I don't want proliferation here, I can imagine it would only be logical that something similar to factions would arise from the different agenda's at ends with each other (Nemesis and Archivists being one, but there's probably some more related agenda's lurking in the time stream interaction. We still don't know if the Archivists are merely conservative/reacting to Nemesis, or push their own agenda - nor what that is).

Archivist agenda is probably based on the event that started 'A-time'. If it's Nemesis, they're reactionary. If it's some Archivists from whatever time being the first to exist, (s)he probably sets the agenda. Or maybe it's a cosmic non-A related event.

It's a question that may need asking: what started the A-time? Or did it start at the same 'time' or 'point' as the Big Bang, and just evolved at a different rate/in a different dimension?

Oh, and I'll recommend Laszlo's Science and the Akashic Field again - just cause it's the last book I read, relevant, and good, IMHO.

(1) Archivists' human pasts as their anchor in human history

Michael Brazier wrote: Make the Archivists' past experiences in history be their anchor to humanity... Each time the Archivist tries to change an event and fails....there's more of their past being cancelled. .... by discovering where in history an Archivist first came from, then altering that part of history, an Archivist enemy can reduce his victim to the dispassionate indifference of the purely transcendent.... when Archivists have had all their history annulled, and therefore cease to care for history as it is, they are attracted to the Nemesis and become its agents ...

Tobias wrote: I'm having difficulty envisioning the time streams as parralel and the archivists experiencing a sense of urgency in the one (A-time) but not in the other (H-time).

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Or they simply drift off into total Transcendence and cease for all practical purposes to exist -- and (following Tony's & Tobias's thoughts) the Great Library, as the sum of Archivists' knowledge, ceases to exist as well.

Sydney,

As your last post is very long (and is only 3 posts back), I won't quote it here. I just want to question something about it.

I agree absolutely that the game should be about making subtle changes, and that Archivists just can't "wade in" and attempt to make major changes to events which are "overdetermined, with multiple causes" (great expression, BTW.)

But what Archivists make enough minor and subtle changes, that they are able to undermine a significant number of the underlying multiple causes? Does this mean that the Big Event is no longer overdetermined, and can be "captured"? And would you support this style of play?

For example, we are going to make Chen happy, because in 30 years time this will help us to change which Dynasty rules China?

Because I think that this is the type of conflict that will be central to an Archivist/Darkchivist (and any other faction) campaign.

Also that the results of these conflicts will ultimately have an effect on events in A-Time. I especially like the idea that Archivists can be somehow hurt by changes to the H-Time continuum, and that this should be related to how much of an Archivist's "history" in Host-Time is still valid.

Here's another spin on this: every Archivist "genesis moment" (when they became an Archivist for the first time) is it's own Big Event. Each character must identify the a set of circumstances that caused them to achieve Archivist status. If these events are altered significantly, then the Archivist Fades somehow within Archivist-Time.

For example: my Archivist character was a noted scientist in his Host-life, his dedication to knowledge was one of the factors that caused him to become an Archivist.

I representing this by choosing "Studied at MIT" as one of his Genesis Events. If as a result of changes made to Host-Time, MIT ceases to exist, my character takes damage!

On the Great Library:

If we accept the HTT theory - there is no Library as such.

Why? IMHO, the original concept of the Great Library was as a repository of human history.

However, the HTT, as viewed from within Archivist-Time, is that repository - there is no separate Great Library.

However, Tony's observation that Archivists are the Library still has meaning within this theory. Because Archivists remember what History was like, before History changed. And they can attempt to change it back.

Arguments between Archivists and other factions can be defined under the following categories:

- Arguments over which History is the True History (and who remembers it best)
- Arguments over whether True History should be changed for something better. I think this is where the "freedom vs happiness" bit comes in - True History is what would have happened if it wasn't for Archivist interference. The exercise of Archivist free will undermines Host free will, and subverts True History. Or at least, that's one side of the moral debate.

Okay, here comes "Yes, Yes, No" to Doug's latest.

(1) Big Events can change -- Yes:

Doug Ruff wrote: But what [if] Archivists make enough minor and subtle changes, that they are able to undermine a significant number of the underlying multiple causes? Does this mean that the Big Event is no longer overdetermined, and can be "captured"? And would you support this style of play?

Doug Ruff wrote: I especially like the idea that Archivists can be somehow hurt by changes to the H-Time continuum, and that this should be related to how much of an Archivist's "history" in Host-Time is still valid. ere's another spin on this: every Archivist "genesis moment" (when they became an Archivist for the first time) is it's own Big Event....if these events are altered significantly, then the Archivist Fades somehow within Archivist-Time.

Doug Ruff wrote: If we accept the HTT [Human Time Tunnel] theory - there is no Library as such. Why? IMHO, the original concept of the Great Library was as a repository of human history. However, the HTT, as viewed from within Archivist-Time, is that repository - there is no separate Great Library.

Sydney Freedberg wrote:

Doug Ruff wrote: If we accept the HTT [Human Time Tunnel] theory - there is no Library as such. Why? IMHO, the original concept of the Great Library was as a repository of human history. However, the HTT, as viewed from within Archivist-Time, is that repository - there is no separate Great Library.

Here I disagree. The Great Library is the repository of everything the Archivists know about human history.

Question: Wouldn't that make, really, Archivist time the Library? Slip out of the HTT into AT, the A's would 'jack in' to this telepathic network and BOOM.

Other thing (Tangent! WOO!): I have a feeling many groups would want to jump right into the big events (Prevent this Assasination or Kill this person instead, have the Japanese formally declare war aside from PH, prevent the Manhatten Project)-
What might almost be a good idea (once we're though with the system) is to start to put together "Event Books" (okay, splats) for specific, major events players are likely to tackle (or get it out there and find out what they want to tackle). Not everyone who plays is a major history buff and may just like the idea of time traveling and killing Hitler. The books would give a more or less detailed history of the larger and smaller causes and effects of the events, why it would occur anyway, what other outlets the spark might take, etc.

IE
GM: "Okay, we're going to stop WW2 starting today's campaign"-
Players: "Okay, I kill Hitler during WW1."
GM: "WW2 still happened."
Players: "What?!"
GM: "The Germans, bitter at their defeat in WW1, secretly hoarded cash and supplies after World War 1, snubbing the League of Nations and created a stockpile of weapons, munitions, and supplies. Once they strengthed their military once more, they sought out former German territories, taking one by force while diplomatically absorbing the others until England realized Germany had become too powerful..."

or

Players: "The Japanese peacefully reach agreements to purchase large amounts of land from several local governments, anexing them into the Japanese Empire. Thus, Pearl Harbor is avoided because the Japanese were able to peaceably attain the territory and had no reason to provoke us. Because of that, we never needed the Atom Bombs to end the conflict."
GM: "Mounting losses in the German front caused the US government to worry about possibly losing the war. Reports flowed in about the Reich's attempts at atomic weapons, fueling American fears and a need to develop our own. Finally, perfecting our own weapon after several tests in the western deserts, we dropped a low-grade test weapon over Berlin."

A couple of those I would say are rather odd angles or results, not quite what one would expect, both player end and GM end. It wasn't that long ago I went over quite a bit of this in HS and College, and a friend is WW2 History Buff. The more we can provide players about events they may want to change, the better we can facilitate the "subtle" changes.

Alternatively, we could try to encourage modern settings, the Archivists doing things to alter/prevent/bring about changes in OUR futures.

daMoose_Neo wrote: Question: Wouldn't that make, really, Archivist time the Library? Slip out of the HTT into AT, the A's would 'jack in' to this telepathic network and BOOM.

daMoose_Neo wrote: I have a feeling many groups would want to jump right into the big events....Not everyone who plays is a major history buff and may just like the idea of time traveling and killing Hitler...

Sydney Freedberg wrote: (2) Archivists vulnerable to attacks on their human past -- Yes

Doug Ruff wrote: I especially like the idea that Archivists can be somehow hurt by changes to the H-Time continuum, and that this should be related to how much of an Archivist's "history" in Host-Time is still valid. ere's another spin on this: every Archivist "genesis moment" (when they became an Archivist for the first time) is it's own Big Event....if these events are altered significantly, then the Archivist Fades somehow within Archivist-Time.

Also agreed -- though the damage may be more loss of human traits aka passions, and subsequent disconnection from the mortal world and inability to act effectively in it, than fade-out as defined so far.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: This gives players an urgent stake in what goes on the timesteam -- a radical change in the past is the one thing that can "kill" their incorporeal characters! It also allows for another Hard Choice: Do you change the timestream in such a way that makes history much better but wipes out the fact of your own existence?

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Here I disagree. The Great Library is the repository of everything the Archivists know about human history. Human history itself is a separate thing: One is the Observer, the other the Observed -- and yes, as quantum theory and Schrodinger's War/Cat/whatever shows, each inevitably affects the other, but while they're part of the the same overall system, they're not the same thing.

Michael Brazier wrote: Annulling an Archivist's past definitely should not cause Fading, if that's right, since it's a loss of human traits; you need a name for a collapse into Transcendence ...

Michael Brazier wrote: A question: is "the Great Library" meant to be 1) the basic reality outside of history, on which the Archivists' existence as Archivists depends; or 2) the main institution of the Archivists' society, their communal memory; or both? If it's 2), as you say here, has anything been said about 1)?

(1) Archivist Burn

Doug Ruff wrote:

Michael Brazier wrote: Annulling an Archivist's past definitely should not cause Fading..since it's a loss of human traits ...

Good point, Fade is the wrong choice for this....Perhaps the damage caused to an Archivist by altering their history is a better place for us to hang the "Archivist Burn" mechanic....

Doug Ruff wrote:
1) What is Archivist-Space like?
2) What does it look like to Archivists?
3) What else is there, apart from the Archivists?

Re: Library
Or, even allow player perception to guide their view of the Library- an Archivist who acended from say they 50's will have a different idea of a "Library" than a monk from the 14th century and as different a modern librarian (Just visited my old HS on a demo trip- the library is mostly PC's now).
Maybe its a cop-out, but don't define it in any concrete way, just explain all Archivists view it differently, based on frame of reference in time, profession, and personality.

Re: Burn
OOO (me like)

Sydney Freedberg wrote: (2) That Darned Great Library

Doug Ruff wrote:
1) What is Archivist-Space like?
2) What does it look like to Archivists?
3) What else is there, apart from the Archivists?

I'd always thought of the Great Library as infinite. (Possibly infinite-closed, like a sphere where if you travel far enough you return to your starting point, rather than infinite-open, like a plane where you can travel for ever in any direction, but nevertheless infinite). I'd hadn't given much more thought to it than that.

But the implications are that

(1) Archivist-Space is not a real space but rather a virtual reality (whether technological or mystical), acting as an interface to the sum total of all Archivists' knowledge.
(2) As a virtual reality consisting of catalogued information, it looks like a big ass library because Archivists used to be human and libraries are a way of structuring information that people feel comfortable with.
(3) Nothing else is there except for the Archivists -- although an Archivist who's gone to zero Humanity and become purely Transcendent could still be floating around alongside the PCs, and be very alien and powerful, even godlike.

daMoose_Neo wrote: Or, even allow player perception to guide their view of the Library- an Archivist who acended from say they 50's will have a different idea of a "Library" than a monk from the 14th century and as different a modern librarian (Just visited my old HS on a demo trip- the library is mostly PC's now).

Doug Ruff wrote: I should have also asked the question "how and why did Archivist-Space (or the Great Library) come into being?" So it's my fault if I'm not 100% happy with your answer!

Doug Ruff wrote: Just say that the Library = Sum of Archivist Knowledge....However, some Archivists (and definitely the Nemesis) aren't sharing everything, so your library will always be several books short of a full set.

Doug Ruff wrote: 2) The Library is a function of Cyberspace....
IMHO, this is a cool concept, but not the right one for this game

Doug Ruff wrote: Maybe the Great Library is a construct... This means that "who built the Great Library" is a valid question within the Setting.

Doug Ruff wrote: Archivists aren't dead or disembodied, or even strictly human - they come form another plane which is outside the Pattern...

Doug Ruff wrote: The idea that there is a separate plane of existence that is somehow more "real" or "privileged" than the others reminds me very much of Amber.....[The] Library is actually a Great Pattern [that] somehow determines the rules of Host-Time

Sydney Freedberg wrote:
The thought gells:

<snip>

Sydney Freedberg wrote: That said, I believe it was Andrew's idea originally that Archivists should have a "home dimension" in which to hang out. Andrew, your thoughts -- particularly (getting back to Metaplot) on how to put this home dimension at risk due to the Nemesis?

Doug Ruff wrote:

Sydney Freedberg wrote:
The thought gells:

<snip>

In a word: yes.... Only thing I'll add for now (and I think this will also match what you are thinking already) - Archivsts still retain their sense of self when they are in the Library (which is now Archivist-Spacetime)

Andrew Morris wrote: I don't like the idea of the Great Library being different to each obsever, not because it isn't cool (it's actually very cool), but simply because it becomes a pain to GM.

I have a couple of questions. Firstly, where does schrodinger's uncertainty principle come into the game and where can I find it in the mass of threads?

I like the idea of the library being a compilation of all the memories of the archivists, but in being that, I don't think it needs to be on some separate plane or something like that. It could exist as a link between all the archivists, like a network creating some sort of nebulous repository for all the memories, sort of like the internet, or a hive mind, but only applying to memories and experiences. With that, a threat to an archivist is a threat to the great library itself. Maybe archivists can project themselves into the library through some mental representation (they are disembodied beings after all) to converse directly, but they get indirect information from all other archivists as they gain experiences. They learn what the other archivists learn. I dunno if this is any help, but its just my idea. Still working through the threads, but I'm having a bit of trouble keeping up. Bear with me.

Kirk

Kirk, the Schrodinger's War reference comes from Sydney Freedberg:

Sydney Freedberg wrote: 1) Schrodinger's War

Paradox is represented mechanically in-game. Let's take Andrew's idea of "if an aspect of history is documented, it's impossible to change" and tone it down to "if X is known to have occurred, it's harder to change." In game terms, this means that if an event of importance X has already been established, either by backstory or in-game events, then when people are back in time before that event happened, there is a modifier of +X to any action they take which makes the event more likely, and a modifier of -X to any action they take which makes the event less likely. I'm inspired by The Riddle of Steel's "Destiny" Spiritual Attribute, but adding the possibility of Destiny working as an impediment to character actions as well as a bonus.

The Hitler example: In our (real) timeline, it's a huge fact of history that Hitler became leader of Germany, slaughtered millions, and brought his nation down in ruins. Let's say Hitler's destiny is a level 10 fact. So if Archivists try to assassinate Hitler back in 1912, or just get him into therapy so he can work out his issues about having only one testicle, they run into a whopping -10 penalty to their every action -- Murphy's Law comes after them with a vengeance and every thing goes wrong at the crucial point. Conversely, if the Archivists are trying to protect Hitler and make sure he becomes the warped, hateful figure that history is counting on, they get at +10 bonus.

Conversely -- and here Schrodinger's Cat comes in -- if something is not known to history, then it is essentially undetermined until the Archivists show up. No bonuses or penalties either way.

As for the consequences of successfully changing history, this require huge GM flexibility on the fly. I wonder if anyone has read Feng Shui, which I hear does this -- though in a rather lighthearted way -- and might offer some tips.

{deleted -- posted the same link Andrew just did}

Andrew Morris wrote: I don't like the idea of the Great Library being different to each obsever, not because it isn't cool (it's actually very cool), but simply because it becomes a pain to GM. Meet me in the History section. Uhm....what history section...do you mean the Chanters of Lore?

Lotsa stuff happening again. I also get the feeling that the writing I'm going at home to pull stuff together is being discovered by all you lot as well. First I was mildly chagrined at having written it all out and seeing you all put it here as well - then I suppressed the ego and thought about how cool it was we're on one line.

On Archivist space/what is the GL: yes. Option #1. The 'gelling'. I think I may have written somewhere on the forum that each Archivists experiences are 'uploaded' to the GL immediately once they return from their Host-trip: making ANOTHER reason to treat the host well - otherwise you'll flood the GL with bad memories and feelings as well.

As to Big Events/Small events. We can always decribe what the neccesary pre-requisites to 'unlocking' or 'cracking open' a Big Event are. Whether the group then wishes to play the subtle behind-the-scenes thing first, or go in guns blazing (presuming some NPCs did the gruntwork, for instance), is up to the group.

I think I've also mentioned I like the elastic model - because the chaotic time model is something I feel underequipped to write. (Anyone want that splat, go right ahead, it IS cool after all). And I'm fully with Sydney's various examples on how WWII happens after all, unless you do a lot of groundwork. What I did find, luring in his posts, though (and I'm sure Sydney's not blind to this), is the danger of (perceived) railroading. Player: "I kill Hitler" GM: "[What I want] still happens".

This needs treatment (player-group communication) before it becomes a problem, and we'd do well to write some stuff to facilitate that for the player group.

Also, for those 'struggling' with the GL as concept, anyone aware of the Aristotlean (or that time period's) concepts of memories as 'house'? (i.e. Library/architecture?) Check it out here, for instance. Might be something we like.

So, time for another mechanics thread? With very specific focus? Or do you/we want to wait on my gathering-effort (which, truthfully, might take more than a week at the pace new stuff develops here).

Re:Railroading

Might be making an almost cosmetic difference here, but in dealing with history AND roleplaying, I would walk into a scenerio understanding there were many causes and many effects leading up to and away from a given event in history. It's not as much railroading as it is one of the games of "Don't Break the Ice" or "Jenga" - it is possible to move, remove, and alter the structure of the thing without it significantly changing.
I, personally, would see it as natural course of history. As with the WW1 example, the assassination of Franz was the catalyst that lit the fire. There could have been a million and one other catalysts, but WW1 would have still occured and with great probability end the way it did. You'd have to change numerous things to alter the final outcome of that, as well as WW2. Actually, for all intents and purposes, you would almost have to prevent WW1 to prevent WW2, as many of the reasons Germany embraced Hitler and rose to prominance came from WW1.

If the players could be made to understand there are numerous contributors to events, they would see it less as railroading and more of a puzzle. "Okay, I did this, this and this, and it still occurs. Theres something I'm missing here..."

Group Suggestion: Watch 'Back to the Future' 1&2 (3 if you really want) for all sorts of fictional, temporal hijinks. We do see some of that to a degree- "Wait a second, I did X! Why is the fututre still the same?!"

Tobias wrote: Well, the whole reason they're acting anyway is because something in that timestream (Nemesis) is going to FUBAR the HTT. So it's significant.

daMoose_Neo wrote: Question: Wouldn't that make, really, Archivist time the Library?

Dough Ruff wrote: But this means that the library cannot have been "built" from within Archivist Space, because it is Archivist Space. This makes it harder to accept that it was intentionally designed to conform to Archivist requirements.

Michael Brazier wrote: If (as seems to be the general idea) Archivists communicate by telepathy in the Library, that wouldn't be a problem. When a 20th-century Archivist refers to "the History section", that reference would be accompanied by a host of related images, ideas, and experiences which would tell Archivists from pre-Columbian America, say, that he meant what they would call "where the Chanters of Lore are". When they're at home, Archivists aren't confined to the limits of human languages.

Tobias wrote: I think I've also mentioned I like the elastic model - because the chaotic time model is something I feel underequipped to write.

Andrew Morris wrote: Hmm...a thought just occurred to me. What if the Archivists' ideology was that history needs to be aided and humanity stewarded through the crises it has faced/is facing/will face, while the Nemesis is attempting to structure events either to destroy the Great Library (and thus the Archivists -- perhaps) or at least sever the connections between the timestreams so that Archivists can no longer "meddle" in human affairs. That way, they're both the "good guys," at least from their own perspective. This is pretty much a split along the freedom/happiness axis that's had numerous designations as it's been discussed. I wasn't thrilled with it on first glance, but once you back up to the level of opposing factions, it's pretty neat. We could even reverse those two viewpoints, with the Archivists trying to end the Nemesis' interventions into human history, even if it means they will no longer be able to observe and add to their store of information.

Frankly, I think that this level of moral ambiguity is essential. Also consider that the Truth is far bigger than any individual Archivist, or Nemesis, and also bigger than any of the factions.

Doug Ruff wrote:

Andrew Morris wrote: What if the Archivists' ideology was that history needs to be aided and humanity stewarded through the crises it has faced/is facing/will face, while the Nemesis is attempting to structure events.... so that Archivists can no longer "meddle" in human affairs.... We could even reverse those two viewpoints, with the Archivists trying to end the Nemesis' interventions into human history....

Frankly, I think that this level of moral ambiguity is essential. Also consider that the Truth is far bigger than any individual Archivist, or Nemesis, and also bigger than any of the factions.

Let's also keep in mind the earlier comments (I'm not sure who made them) that most RPGs put the players into a reactive position of maintaining the status quo. That's why I suggested reversing the ideologies -- that way, the PCs can be the active characters instead of reacting to the "bad guys." Just some food for thought.

Oh, and uhm...what happened to the voting? As far as I can recall, I voted, and so did Tobias and Sydney. To recap, let's hear from anyone who disagrees with the following:

1) The dual timestreams theory (Human Time Tunnel and Archivist Time Tunnel). The basic concept is that the two timstreams are parallel, but with variable and finite intersections, allowing a limited amount of travel from one to the other.

2) Freedom vs. happiness as the "second axis." Or conrol vs. safety, or whatever you want to call it. Essentially, this is the question of how much free will you are willing to take away from humanity in order to keep it safe.

3) Mutiple factions of Archivists. We currently have two factions, do we need more? Since there's no clear trend on this, everyone should at least voice their opinion on this issue, I believe.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: ...the Archivists will be intervening mainly to prevent other people's (well intentioned?) attempts to change things.

Andrew Morris wrote: Oh, and uhm...what happened to the voting?... 3) Mutiple factions of Archivists. We currently have two factions, do we need more? Since there's no clear trend on this, everyone should at least voice their opinion on this issue, I believe.

Andrew Morris wrote: Let's also keep in mind the earlier comments (I'm not sure who made them) that most RPGs put the players into a reactive position of maintaining the status quo. That's why I suggested reversing the ideologies -- that way, the PCs can be the active characters instead of reacting to the "bad guys." Just some food for thought.

Oh, and uhm...what happened to the voting? As far as I can recall, I voted, and so did Tobias and Sydney. To recap, let's hear from anyone who disagrees with the following:

1) The dual timestreams theory (Human Time Tunnel and Archivist Time Tunnel). The basic concept is that the two timstreams are parallel, but with variable and finite intersections, allowing a limited amount of travel from one to the other.

2) Freedom vs. happiness as the "second axis." Or conrol vs. safety, or whatever you want to call it. Essentially, this is the question of how much free will you are willing to take away from humanity in order to keep it safe.

3) Mutiple factions of Archivists. We currently have two factions, do we need more? Since there's no clear trend on this, everyone should at least voice their opinion on this issue, I believe.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: "Things fall apart, the center cannot hold..." -- in this take, the Archivists' job is to make damn sure the center will hold.

Everyone, given the pace this thread and its sister are going, please PM me with your suggestions for new Group Design Thread, and their topics.

I will spawn them tomorrow, given enough feedback, and close these threads. (In fact, I will probably close the threads first, try give a recap of them in the newly spawned threads or the thread index.)

Thank you
Foot

[WHOOPS. CROSSPOSTED WITH TOBIAS.]

Doug Ruff wrote: But, in support of my vote on Issue#2 - we don't need Cartesian planes to get this concept across.

Dough Ruff wrote: Side note: I think that we need to agree on a more general term for "someone who possesses Hosts". At the moment, we're mainly using Archivist, but that also implies that we are talking about the Archivist faction exclusively. Any ideas, anyone?

I now have 3 suggestions for new threads.

Don't think that's enough, and at a request, will give the people some more time to speak out on the vote. (How appropriate).

So feel free in this thread until I get one or 2 more suggestions, or some time passes.

Tx!

I was thinking about character advancement in our game. Do we need it? Should it be core, or a custom option? Do we want advancement mechanics for characters (Archivist and/or host) or for groups as a whole (based on the ongoing success/failures in the campaign).

Apart from the mechanics of it (I know Sydney spoke against character advancement early on in this thread) what does everyone think about the thematic validity of character advancement? Does character advancement seem to support the core ideas and themes, or does it get in the way?

Tobias wrote: I now have 3 suggestions for new threads.

Don't think that's enough, and at a request, will give the people some more time to speak out on the vote. (How appropriate).

So feel free in this thread until I get one or 2 more suggestions, or some time passes.

Tx!

Andrew Morris wrote: ...I know Sydney spoke against character advancement early on in this thread....[but] Does character advancement seem to support the core ideas and themes, or does it get in the way?

So, let me see if I'm following you, Sydney. What I'm hearing is that you are viewing "character advancement" as an increase in balance, rather than a linear increase in power. Is that accurate? I'm certainly not mired to an increasing scale of power or in-game effectiveness, though I do generally prefer it.

Andrew Morris wrote: What I'm hearing is that you are viewing "character advancement" as an increase in balance, rather than a linear increase in power

On the idea of archivists making DAMN SURE that the center will hold, I think that there is enough room around that for other factions. That could be for example the overall goal or duty of the archivists, but they can also persue their own ends around that. And two archivists or archivist groups will not allways agree...

As for new threads, I think that a summary thread would be good. Something that concisely sums up all of the issues that have been presented and decided on.

I'll also cast my vote:

1) Dual timestreams sounds cool. I just hink that they can impact upon one another. I also say no to the finite intersections. There should be some limitations on the intersections, but schrodinger's war keeps the players subtle.

2) Freedom vs Happiness or whatever you end up calling it: I don't know. It depends on whether the focus is to be on the safety of humanity itself or the safety of something bigger.

3) Multiple factions: I think that players should be able to form their own factions depending on their achivist's viewpoints. Maybe examples of mindsets within the archivist communities and descriptions of how to form your own. But yes, multiple factions that are not based around kewl powers, but shared morals or views instead are a must.

And I agree that the Archivists, as we have imagined them, are going to take on this role. They are the guardians of True History - which still leaves open the possibility of arguments over what True History is.

Doug Ruff wrote:

Hmm, have you cheked your PMs? There's 4 suggestions from me there (unless you mean that you've only had 3 PMs.)

Also, should we feel free to discuss the vote here, or to make suggestions for other threads, or both?

(I think I'm having Comprehension Issues today - I'm still processing the Election result.)

Tobias wrote: I will say one thing though: these new threads will have a note: 'Nailing' or 'Gathering'. A 'Gathering' thread is to expand concepts, discuss issues, add stuff, a 'Nailing' thread focuses on taking all that is present at that time and reduce it down to it's essential mechanics without adding stuff to it.

I think this thread has served well to:

1. Spawn the most common theory of an elastic human time (tunnel), with some 'key' events being harder to reach (needing 'unlocking' through earlier manipulation)

2. Spawn the thought of Axes (that is the plural of Axis?) as balancing factors and probably the vehicle to answer/work with Theme.

3. Give the concept of some factions that might exist.

I've received PMs from the more prolific contributers, and based on them, we're going to spawn some new threads. What I want from everyone is to write, of the number I am going to list below, which 3 they would want to adress most at this point, and what conclusion they see the thread reaching (in other words, when would you be satisfied the thread had worked). Please do it here, out in the open.

The options:

'Nailing'

- Nailing The Axes: Burn/Fade, Humanity/Transcendance, Freedom/Happiness, Free will
- Nailing Posession: Archivist & Host traits, & active posession
- Nailing Elastic human history and archivist time & the mechanics for changing time
- Nailing player urgency
- Nailing Names - glossary of game terms
- Nailing the great library

'Gathering'

- Factions
- Plothooks
- Working out 'base history'
- Publishing, writing, layout, art
- Nemesis options
- Themes
- How to FIGHT against the other factions
- What does this game feel like? Why is it fun to play? (!!!)

(Note that 'nailing' any of these core topics doesn't overrule the existence of options, as discussed before).

After people have written in, I'll update the index and spawn threads.

Edit: You can consider the three exclamation marks a minor hint on a thread I'd feel important. :)

"And the number of the counting shall be three..."

I second Tobias' subtle(!!!) suggestion that we address the feel of the play. May I also suggest that we do it in the same way as the Structured Game Design sticky at the top of this forum? I think we have enough of a shared perspective on what this game could look like to have a crack at this now.

As for two more:

1) I think that we are starting to Nail Possession in the other active thread. This may be optimistic, and based on my very biased opinion of the Presence mechanic - but can we take a closer look at that and see if it fits our purpose?

2) Nailing Elastic human history (and how to change it) seems a natural progression from what we've already laid down; it will also serve as fuel for some of the "gathering threads"

I think that, in general terms, this is a good time to Nail Some Things Down - we've had an explosion of activity on the boards (to think I used to complain about the lack of progress) and I think it would be a good idea to focus in for a while.

I think the "nailing" ideas would be more useful and productive at this time. So, I'm for:

Nailing Names
Nailing the Great Library
Nailing Possession

I think that nailing is also the most productive:

- Nailing The Axes: Burn/Fade, Humanity/Transcendance, Freedom/Happiness, Free will
- Nailing Posession: Archivist & Host traits, & active posession
- Nailing Elastic human history and archivist time & the mechanics for changing time

I think we should nail the mechanics first, let the names come later. The great library as a concept is finished, but the exact details can wait for later. And player urgency I believe can be pulled in either later or through the mechanics. If it is later, then we can fairly quickly nail why the players must be urgent as like the great library it is clear as a concept but the details aren't there yet. Let the mechanics come first for us to build on.

Afterwards the concept of factions should be addressed fairly soon, as well as the nemesis.

Kirk

"The three exclamation points stand for quality."

My votes:
1) Nailing Possession (and other Archivist/Host relations, if needed)
2) Nailing Elastic history (how to change time -- and the side effects)
3) Nailing the Great Library

... in that order. The main reason for possession is affecting history, and one reason for affecting history is the state of the Library (AKA the society of Archivists.) So when one of these items is nailed, that kicks off discussion of the next.

Dumirik, isn't the point of a "nailing" thread to take a concept that's clear in everyone's mind and get it expressed in a mechanic?

I'd favor

1

Tobias wrote: Nailing The Axes: Burn/Fade, Humanity/Transcendance, Freedom/Happiness, Free will

Tobias wrote: - Nailing Elastic human history and archivist time & the mechanics for changing time

Tobias wrote: 'Gathering'... - What does this game feel like? Why is it fun to play? (!!!)

Thanks all, unless any more votes come in, that's a wrap for this thread, at a nice 100 posts.

I'll put up the new threads this afternoon or tomorrw (my time, and it's 10 am here now).

I would drive my nails into:

player urgency, the great library, and what it feels like to play.

On that last I would like to propose a sub-question: what do Archivists look like? Do they tote gear around, and if so what is it?

*urk*

work issues. it's going to be tomorrow, guys.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Check the GroupDesign thread index (in my sig) for your fresh new threads.

Happy nailing!

Foot