Ladies & Gentlemen,

Don't you just love abbreviations? ;)

HTT stands for the 'Human Time Tunnel' - a view of human history that's at the core of how SW sees human time. GL stands for the Great Library - the 'place' where the Archivists hang out.

These things were previously discussed a lot in the "Mix your own metaplot" setting.

In this thread, we're trying to 'nail' these concepts - i.e. write them down for the our intended audience.

What we will do in this thread is:

1. Define (and write) the HTT as core element of the game and explain elasticity
2. Define (and write) optional ways of looking at human time if we think they're powerful and common variants (mentioning butterfly as well)
3. Define (and write) archivist time (AT) and how the players can have a deadline on archivist time (I don't want urgency to figure into this too much - just mention how, mechanically, a deadline is possible)
4. Define how the GL works as a 'switching' device between HTT and AT. We don't need too much details on the exact nature of the GL, but we do need to know which design parameters for the GL are a logical derivative of HTT and AT.

Thanks! If you get lost - my sig has the thread index, and as ever, feel free to PM me.

Defining the HTT and elasticity
Okay, the first thing I want to point out is that the "time tunnel" concept was an extremely simplified and inaccurate metaphor used to make it easier to conceptualize the timestream theory that was developed in earlier threads. With that stated, do we want to keep using that as a metaphor? I'm of two minds about doing so. On the one hand, it does make it easier for everyone to understand the basic concepts. On the other hand, if we discuss it using the terminology of the metaphor, we run the risk of expanding on the inherent inaccuracy of the metaphor.

Since the thread was formed to discuss the HTT, though, I'll address that, unless others want to discuss the theory in the more accurate terms of the theory itself, rather than the metaphor.

So, the HTT -- what is it? As stated, the HTT is the "mainline" timestream (and, as used here, timestream includes a physical dimensionality) of humanity. It's the "here and now" and the "then and there" of all human experience, from start to finish. It is not alterable by internal forces, but is somewhat alterable from external forces (Archivists and similar beings). Any such externally imposed alterations of the HTT are unnoticed to residents of the HTT -- if history changes, so do everyone's memories. However, externally imposed alterations may or may not be perceived by residents of the other timestream.

The inherent elasticity of the HTT means (to boil it down to its very basics) that the more important an event in human history is, the more difficult it is to change. So, while convincing someone to wear different shoes on a particular day might be easily accomplished just by suggesting it to them, preventing WWII would be far more difficult, requiring all the factors that lead to it being altered, which might require the alteration of the factors which lead to those factors, which might require the alteration of the factors which lead to the factors which lead to those factors, and so on.

Alternate variants of human time
As stated, there are other options for tinkering with the timestream. I don't see a whole lot of variablity here. What I see is a spectrum, with totally immutable time on one end and highly mutable time on the other. In this spectrum, the previously discussed version of the HTT is closer to the immutable end of the spectrum, whereas hte butterfly effect would lie closer to the opposite end.

Archivist time and deadlines
No problems here. We've already defined that Archivist time exists parallel to the HTT. What we haven't defined is the scale -- does time pass at the same rate in both timestreams? Consistently faster in one than the other? At variable rates (relative to the other) in both? Any of these options is fine, it just depends on what everyone prefers. I think the easiest to coordinate is to say that time passes at the same rate in both timestreams -- spend a year working in the HTT and a year has passed in Archivist time.

The Great Library as a nexus
Here's where my interpretation apparently varies a bit. I have been envisioning the Great Library and Archivist time (and space) as one and the same. As to how an Archivist goes from the GL to the HTT, he researches the time period he wants to go to, determines when a "window" of opportunity will be available, finds an appropriate host in that period, then transfers his consciousness to the host during the window. To travel back from the HTT to the GL, the Archivist simply chooses to do so.

Andrew Morris wrote: Archivist time and deadlines
No problems here. We've already defined that Archivist time exists parallel to the HTT. What we haven't defined is the scale -- does time pass at the same rate in both timestreams? Consistently faster in one than the other? At variable rates (relative to the other) in both?

The primary problem with no time passing while an Archivist is in the HTT is that it defeats the sense of urgency mentioned earlier. Not to mention, the aspect of time travel is going to be difficult for many GMs to coordinate by itself, and throwing in yet another confusing temporal variable might be too much for many folks.

Michael Brazier wrote: You see, Archivist time is the time in which history changes. So if Archivist time and historical time can both pass at once, that means Archivists can be inside history as it changes. In which case, what happens to them? I foresee hairy and unplayable paradoxes ...

Chaos/Order: I would more set this one as a "setting axes" not on the character sheet. One that is affected by the overall actions of the archivists (perhaps at the end of each session the GM would make an arbitrary decision about which way the overall actions of the archivists would bump the scale. I would set this also as a sliding scale, as you cannot have equal amounts of chaos and order. If either of these are imbalanced then perhaps there are both mechanical and setting changes, for example: In a predominantly chaos oriented setting not only is the world unpredictable and full of conflict but is extremely open when it comes to options, but people have more free will and are harder to control. However, in a predominantly order based setting, there are almost no other options available but hosts do as they are told.

With chaos and order presented that way, I suddenly see two new possibilities (not incompatible): Chaos and Order replace the need for a Free Will/Whatever and the elasticity of the timestream is determined by the Chaos/Order levels. The more chaotic the more elastic, the more order, the more "stiff" the timestream is. I think I'll go post in that thread now too.

I myself, in the 'Nailing Axes' thread, wrote: "Chaos" has two problems as a term, though: Its connotation is negative (very rarely do you think of chaos as good), when I'd prefer to have players choose between opposed Good Things; and it applies primarily to the macro level, not really to the individual (very rarely do you think of an individual as "chaotic" outside of D&D), when I'd prefer to have the same values operating on both the macro and micro levels.

So I'd propose "Freedom vs. Order."

Please, call me Kirk.

Andrew Morris wrote: As to what happens to an Archivist in the HTT changing historical fact...well, nothing, other than they know they succeeded or failed in their mission. I can't conceive of any paradox coming out of this, due to the fact of dual timestreams. If there was only the one, then I would agree. But hey, I've been wrong before, and I'm sure I will be again. Maybe you could give me an example of what you're thinking of? It's entirely possible you've got a scenario I didn't forsee.

But what you miss out on, then, is the possibility of sending PCs to different time periods, keeping them in touch telepathically, and having someone in, say, 1130 AD set up something crucial for 1993 -- or conversely having someone in 1993 notice a crucial detail which later turns out to have been caused by someone in 1130.

I wrote up a notional example of play for this concept back in the Time Travel Party thread which I'll repeat here:

PLAYER 1: I'm running from the knights, across the courtyard of the castle...
GM: OK. Jane, what are you doing?
PLAYER 2: I'm driving furiously to get away from the Men In Black. I pull off the road and hide in the ruins of the old castle....
GM: Back to the 12th century, now.
PLAYER 1: Damn, where do I go?
PLAYER 2: Lady Charlotte.
PLAYER 1: We can't trust her.
PLAYER 2: You have a choice?
PLAYER 1: Okay. I go into the Keep and run into Lady Charlotte's room. "Please! Milady! You must hide this for me! You cannot understand, but trust me when I say the fate of all history depends on it!" And I give her the amulet.
GM: She takes it. Then the knights break down the door and drag you off to be hanged. They don't search Lady Charlotte's room for the amulet, though. Okay, Jane?
PLAYER 2: I'm searching through the ruins for where Lady Charlotte's room was, with the Men in Black searching for me. I'll risk using my Uncanny Perception trait -- that shouldn't burn out my Host.
GM: Your superhuman senses pick up a faint scratching on a stone: C-H-A-R-L....and the rest has been worn away by time. The stone's loose. But the Men in Black are near -- they'll hear if you make any noise.
PLAYER 2: I wrench the stone loose!
GM: The Men in Black surround you, guns drawn. But you have the amulet.....

Just a brief proposition.

It might be conceptually easiest to situate the game so that it is NOT our world as we know it. That is, rather like Dick's Man in the high Castle, perhaps the Nazi's won the war, Europe was occupied, and the US partitioned.

Then the desired outcome for the players would be to alter these outcomes such as our timeline actually comes about - i.e, the axis lose etc.

The Man in the High Castle option is definitely one scenario or even entire campaign to let people play out -- but as one option among many, I think. Some groups may find it easier to play with history-as-we-know-it as the baseline, and we should make that possible too.

So the key issue for this thread is trying to figure out concepts and ultimately mechanics that make both options playable.

Michael, Sydney pretty much covered most of what I was going to say in response to your example. I just want to point out, though, that none of that is a paradox problem -- design challenges, sure, and we'll have to decide how such things work, but no paradox problem. So to answer your question about what happens to Alice, here's my gut response: no, no, yes. It might help to think of possession not so much that the Archivist is really "in" the HTT, but rather that he's projecting some portion of his consciousness there in order to influence the host and thus the HTT as a whole.

And dammit, Sydney, your response to contracycle was what I was going to say, as well. You really need to get rid of this habit of summing up my viewpoint before I can even come up with it in the first place.

Sorry it's taken me so long to post to this thread. I believe this is the most "complicated" part of the setting, as it involves creating an Imagined Space that is, well, complicated.

I'm going to attempt to give a "scientific" explanation of how the HTT works, and what makes it elastic. I do think that this is necessary; it helps to keep the setting coherent, and explain how Archivists can and can't do certain things. It also helps to define some of the "rules" of Schrodinger's War.

But I'm warning you now, this may be a bumpy ride.

Firstly, Andrew is right - the HTT is a gross simplification of what's actually going on. HTT is actually what physicists used to call Space-Time.

(I say "used to", because modern physics is all about string theory and stuff like that. Let's not go there.)

Classical Space-Time has 4 dimensions, the three "regular" ones, plus time.

The HTT as described elsewhere is the entire universe, extended in these 4 dimensions. If you subscribe to the theory that there was a Big Bang, and that the universe will eventually expand and "die out", the HTT looks like a 4-dimensional, infinite, carrot. It's infinitely small at one end of the time axis, and infinitely big at the other.

Within this carrot is the history of the Earth. It's a thin cylinder (which fits the "tunnel" analogy better), which starts some distance away from the tip of the carrot, and ends at some point further down the time axis. How it ends is up to you.

Archivist Space-Time exists outside the carrot. Archivist Time is a different axis (dimension) to Host Time (perhaps perpendicular, as Michael suggests, but I'll leave that for now.) But the reason for introducing Archivist time at this point is: From a viewpoint in Archivist Space-Time, as Archivist Time passes, the Host Space-Time "carrot" changes.

In other words, from an Archivist (outside) perspective, the whole of Host History is constantly shifting. patterns emerge, flow, and die out, like ink dispersing in a glass of water. And this happens independently of Archivist interference.

In other words, if all the Archivists sat outside of History (the carrot) and did nothing, it would still change. in other words, there are historical forces at play which have nothing to do with the Archivists. One of the effects of these forces is the "Elasticity" phenomenon.

This manifests as certain Events (or clusters of Events, or patterns) in Host Space-Time which are persistent. This is because they are "overdetermined" (great term from another thread) by the surrounding Events, this acts as a stabilising force.

However, most individual Events are easier to change, and occasionally some of these line up in a "chain reaction", which means that a small change to a single event can sometimes have far reaching consequences (the Butterfly Effect).

As discussed elsewhere, both Elasticity and the Butterfly effect are properites of non-linear (chaotic) systems. So, Host-Timespace is inherently Chaotic, but exhibits Order when Events are overdetermined.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you the Carrot of History - do you choose to wield it?

(If so, I'll attempt to use the concept to address some of the issues raised in this thread.)

Doug Ruff wrote: From a viewpoint in Archivist Space-Time, as Archivist Time passes, the Host Space-Time "carrot" changes. In other words, from an Archivist (outside) perspective, the whole of Host History is constantly shifting. patterns emerge, flow, and die out, like ink dispersing in a glass of water. And this happens independently of Archivist interference.

Doug, I think we are on the same page as far as the theory goes, but I just want to voice my concern with the carrot theory. You're probably aware of it, but while that model likely brings more people closer to understanding the overall concept, like any model, it's still inaccurate. So, going with the carrot, the Archivist timestream is another carrot. Everyone with me so far? Here's where it gets harder to conceptualize. The Archivist carrot is in exactly the same "position" (totally inaccurate, but it helps with the visualization) as the Human carrot. Despite this, they do not intersect at any point. There are, however a variable number of "tunnels" from the "now point" of the Archivist carrot into the Human carrot. These tunnels only go one way -- from the Archivist carrot to the Human carrot. Nothing physical can pass through these tunnels, but Archivists can send their thoughts through. These tunnels tend to vanish and appear due to changes in the Human carrot.

Again, while woefully inadequate to really explain the theory, this model is (hopefully) helpful to anyone who wasn't completely understanding it before. If I've just confused the issue more, let me know, and I'll try to clear it up.

Andrew,

Same page, different book, I suspect.

Where we differ is that I do not have the "tunnels" in my cosmology - I've never subscribed to the concept that there are limited access points for the Archivist to enter the carrot.

And to explain why, I'm going to have to invoke some scary physics:

The classic 4-dimensional theory of Space-Time is outdated. More recent theories, notably "string theory" sugeest the existence of many other dimensions. However, some of these dimensions are "collapsed" (imagine a piece of string with both ends tied together) and effectively inaccessable.

OK, BadWrong Physics alert - I am not an expert on this, so I'm probably committing awful crimes against physics with my next statement.

My theory is that the Great Library exists in one or more the "collapsed" dimensions. These dimensions are effectively "perpendicular" to the ones that normal people can obsetve and act upon.

Because the Great Library doesn't exist in the 4 "regular" dimensions, it isn't subject to the usual rules (which means we can make some up). Specifically, from the Great Library it is possible to access any point in Host Space-Time. In other words, the whole carrot.

However, it is not possible to access "earlier" states of the carrot. In other words, one of the Archivist dimensions is Archivist-time, and there is no travelling backwards in this dimension.

Still with me? OK, here's the next bit. Archivists have acquired the secret of removing part, or all of themselves to the Archivist dimensions. When an Archivist posseses a Host, they extend some (but not all) of their Presence from the Archivist dimensions into the Host dimensions. This means that Archivists always maintain a link to Archivist-Time. If this link was broken (perhaps through massive Fade or Burn) the Archivist wouldn't be an Archivist any more.

IMHO, this is entirely compatible with Sydney's example of play, seven posts ago. In that example, actions taken in the 12th century changed what happened in the future (the scratchings on the stone, revealing the amulet). This means that during the play, time passed in the Archivist dimensions. I would go as far as to say that game "rounds" (ie the order in which things happen, in the game) need to be measured in Archivist-Time for this game to be playable.

I hope this is making sense, it's really hard to convey this concept in words. Please tell me if this is any clearer and/or of value.



PS Sydney, There Is No Carrot, that's the secret...

Sydney Freedberg wrote: But what you miss out on, then, is the possibility of sending PCs to different time periods, keeping them in touch telepathically, and having someone in, say, 1130 AD set up something crucial for 1993 -- or conversely having someone in 1993 notice a crucial detail which later turns out to have been caused by someone in 1130.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: And the original problem you described, of an NPC Archivist bad guy changing history so your Host ceases existing in mid-mission?

(a) It's not easy: By Schrodinger's War principles, your existence in that Host means you're observing and therefore locking down all sorts of details about that Host's life -- making them much harder to change.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: (b) It's not a problem: So the bad guys really get it together and erase your Host's grandparents. History instantly rewrites itself, your Host ceases to exist just as you're about to achieve your goal, and you're kicked back to the Great Library. Bad for your character -- good for you as a player -- you want adventure and challenges!

Doug Ruff wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you the Carrot of History - do you choose to wield it?

Doug Ruff wrote: Still with me? OK, here's the next bit. Archivists have acquired the secret of removing part, or all of themselves to the Archivist dimensions. When an Archivist posseses a Host, they extend some (but not all) of their Presence from the Archivist dimensions into the Host dimensions. This means that Archivists always maintain a link to Archivist-Time. If this link was broken (perhaps through massive Fade or Burn) the Archivist wouldn't be an Archivist any more.

Andrew Morris wrote: There are, however a variable number of "tunnels" from the "now point" of the Archivist carrot into the Human carrot.....These tunnels tend to vanish and appear due to changes in the Human carrot.

That was pretty much what I was thinking, Sydney, but Doug seems opposed to the tunnels/windows, and I'd like to hear why, before we go too much further.

I suppose the key question is whether "windows" are real, fixed openings, or if they are simply "windows of opportunity": I.e. can Archivists only reach certain moments in human spacetime, or can they reach any moment, albeit in practice highly overdetermined & well-observed moments may be difficult to do anything to once you arrive.

Doug?

What Sydney said. The second half, anyway.

The idea goes back to this thread - I don't think I was the only one to suggest this, but it's the first example I could find:

Doug Ruff wrote: 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.

Okay, that's a good point, Doug. What, exactly, does the tunnel/crack/window concept add? Hmm... uhm... Huh, well I'll be damned. I can't think of anything major. Limiting the available windows of travel does two things, though. First, it prevents (hopefully) players from going off into overdetermined areas and becoming frustrated with the GM when nothing changes. They might even start to think they were being railroaded. Second, by creating "hot spots" you force the Archivists and the enemy into closer contact with each other, which should help boosting conflict (and that's a good thing). Both of those are pretty weak, and I don't mind saying so. On the other hand, what benefit is gained by letting players go to any point in host time?

As to a "reason" for either view...I think we are way outside of any of the three practical theories for time travel that are currently being discussed in reputable scientific circles. The model we've set up doesn't have anything about Kerr holes, or Einstein-Rosen bridges, or cosmic strings, nor does the setting seem to fit with any of those. It seems more in line with good old fashioned science fantasy. I love time-travel theory, but this is a work of fiction -- let's figure out what we want to happen, and then come up with the justification for that being possible later.

Andrew Morris wrote: On the other hand, what benefit is gained by letting players go to any point in host time?

Andrew Morris wrote: As to a "reason" for either view...I think we are way outside of any of the three practical theories for time travel that are currently being discussed in reputable scientific circles. The model we've set up doesn't have anything about Kerr holes, or Einstein-Rosen bridges, or cosmic strings, nor does the setting seem to fit with any of those. It seems more in line with good old fashioned science fantasy. I love time-travel theory, but this is a work of fiction -- let's figure out what we want to happen, and then come up with the justification for that being possible later.

I personally lean towards Doug's idea, for a couple of entirely game-oriented reasons:

1) Strategy: It gives a strategically significant "landscape" to the human timestream. Poorly documented/observed events create areas of quantum indeterminacy, which in turn provide windows of opportunity to alter history, which in turn allows you to create uncertainty and thus opportunity in what were previously well-defined events, which ultimately allows you to work up to changing ("capturing") major events.

2) Flexibility: But while Doug's model is a limit on players' freedom of action, it is a flexible limit, whereas "there are these X periods you can travel to, period" is a fixed and rigid limit.* And different gaming groups can dial up the indeterminacy to make capturing Big Events quick & easy, or dial it down to make capturing one big event the climax of an entire campaign.

Frankly, I think a key Social Contract & customization issue for a game of Schrodinger's War is going to be, how easy is it to change Big Events? And we should accomodate both extremes of (1) "Two-Fisted History-Altering Action!" where kneeing Hitler in the groin at the right moment prevents the Holocaust and (2) "War in the Shadows" where a successful mission is one that shifts the possibilities just a little bit, in the It's a Wonderful Life model. I think the latter is the most interesting form of the game, myself, but not everyone will.

As for forcing PC Archivists into conflict with rival Archivist factions (who are not necessarily "bad guys"), I think Andrew Morris's concern is answered by Michael Brazier's question: Even if you're not forced to visit the same moments of history as your opponents, they will end up changing history around you and mucking up your mission -- so even if you're 500 years and two oceans apart, you know someone's messed with your plans and, dammit, you're gonna go kick his incorporeal ass.

Oh, and Michael asked about mechanics: I was thinking along the lines of giving events a "strength." High strength means well-observed and overdetermined by multiple causes; low strengths means little-observed and dependent on a single cause. Then, when you travel back to before a given event, anything you attempt that would make that event more likely to occur gets a bonus equal to the event's strength; anything you do that would prevent that event suffers a penalty.

This can apply to big things (-10 to your attempt to kill Hitler) or small:

In 1993, one PC Archivist notices a weird slash on the ruined castle wall; a few minutes later in the game session (i.e. a few minutes later in Archivist time), another PC archivist in 1130 make sure to describe his Host's wild sword-swings gouging right into the castle wall -- and gets, say, a +1 bonus to his attack actually happening as he described, because he's helping cause an established event.

* I think this is the way Feng Shui handles it, but I've not read the game, let alone played.

Okay, I don't have a strong opinion either way, other than that the tunnels sounded cooler.

Thinking about the Einstein-Rosen bridges brought me to an idea which I think could be pretty cool, though. What if whenever an Archivist travels to Host time, he creates a portal? A two-way portal. Any random human can walk through into Archivist time. This puts a time crunch on any missions. Heck, maybe finding a portal and going through is what turns a human into an Archivist in the first place. Just a thought. It definitely needs some development.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Oh, and Michael asked about mechanics: I was thinking along the lines of giving events a "strength." High strength means well-observed and overdetermined by multiple causes; low strengths means little-observed and dependent on a single cause. Then, when you travel back to before a given event, anything you attempt that would make that event more likely to occur gets a bonus equal to the event's strength; anything you do that would prevent that event suffers a penalty.

Andrew Morris wrote: What if whenever an Archivist travels to Host time, he creates a portal? A two-way portal. Any random human can walk through into Archivist time. This puts a time crunch on any missions. Heck, maybe finding a portal and going through is what turns a human into an Archivist in the first place. Just a thought. It definitely needs some development.

First off, a request. Please, please PLEASE don't try to provide a realistic explanation unless you're at least a physics grad student! Better to leave it unexplained other than 'it happens. deal'. Few things are more painful than knowing enough science to realize that a core premise is completely bonkers (Matrix 1. Good wire-fu, but humans are the best possible source of power? GACK. Never saw 2 or 3)

Some suggestions I'd make:
1. Archivist time is time as viewed by an Archivist. Go possess a host for five minutes, thats five minutes for someone in the Great Library to realize whats up, go forward or back of you in human time, and try to stop you. Your deadline is to make your changes before anyone else can chip in.

2. Borrowing from Nobilis, possessing a host fixes a host in time. While you are possessing someone (archivist time), an enemy could travel to five minutes before the possession (earlier in human time, later in archivist time), kill your soon-to-be-host, and nothing would happen to you in the present. After you leave the host, either still nothing happens or time catches up. Dunno.

3. Events are strengthened by number of humans impacted, and by number of Archivists present. JFK - millions of people, hard. Exact time of death of someone not famous who dies in their sleep - no witnesses, low impact, easy. Same person dieing in their sleep, but 5 archivists present - hard, you'd need at least 8 archivists to make a change. So archivists have to work together to get enough temporal 'oomph'

4. Only stuff witnessed by intelligent life (however your game defines that) matters. A tree falling in the forest can be changed as long as no lifeform higher than a dog sees it.

Now, a question. Is it possible to do something so drastic as to 'damage' the timeline? Say all the Archivists work together to assassinate Hitler and prevent WW2. What happens? Time frays and the universe ends, or time makes a hard split and archivists can now go to 2 universes one with and one without Hitler, the Archivists get wiped out by temporal backlash, Germany vanishes from the universe, Hitler becomes an archivist, nothing special happens?

Actually, Hitler becoming an archivist sounds fun - archivists are people who have been affected so much by time-changing that they have been cut loose from time. The last Neanderthal, Rasputin, JFK, someone from the Midwest who would have become President except that time changed.

- Dan T

Actually, I think I brought up a significant chunk of examples of why killing Hitler just wouldn't do it, going back to the causes of the Great War and asassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which prompted someone else to go off on that set of events as well ^_^

As to changes to significantly damage the state of time, I'd have to say that much IS impossible. End Humanity as we know it? Distinctly possible. Time is, as we have established, fairly elastic. Change one thing, other things change, time moves on with its bad self. Kill Hitler as a youth? WW2 still occurs, this time managed by a board of German Directors. Holocaust may not occur or it could still, the RBD (Reich Board of Directors) deciding that the best way to solve Germany's problems would be to exterminate the poor or other subjugated enemeis. Instead of the Jewish Holocaust we could have the French Holocaust.

'Viewed by intelligent life'...dunno about that one. And I'm quite disinclined to agree with the number of Archivists impacting the HST events. As for the Archivists, their duty is to change time to either bring it back into proper alignment or change to avoid this Nemesis. All sorts of Archivists are going to be traipsing through time, doubling back on themselves and other insane temporal muck. They will, however FAIL. And heres the beauty of time line hopping- you blow it, you still have a chance to change it. Just go back. Too many Archivists working on something, the more unnessesarily difficult it becomes to change something.

A few things:

(1) I think the idea of humans finding open portals traipsing into Archivist time is a dead end. Interesting, but doesn't fit this game as it's evolving. So -- as semi-moderator in Tobias's absence -- I'll gently suggest we drop that idea. (If anyone objects violently, of course, post!)

(2) I think there are so many valid interpretations of how easy it is to change history -- from "oops I stepped on a butterfly in 1600, now penguins rule the world" to "I conquered the entire world in 100 AD, why does WWII still keep happening?" -- that this should be considered an adjustable option, a "dial" that different groups can set as they please.

(3) Pseudo-science is probably necessary, but we always want to create causes to justify effects we already want, hence effects come first. (By the way, BlueDanube, I had the similar momentary gag when the first Matrix casually defied the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but made the mistake of seeing 2 and 3. Painful).

(4) The key unresolved question, it seems to me, is whether (a) Archivists can travel to any point in space and time, although as a practical matter some points give you a lot more room (indeterminacy) to work with than others; or (b) Archivists can only travel to specific windows in time. Doug has made a strong argument for the "Anywhen Option," and I'd agree; Andrew has been the chief (though, it seems, ambivalent) exponent of the "Windows" operating system. But I think we need to nail this point before we move on.

So, again using my Acting (left) Foot mightiness in Tobias's absence, before we go into any other issues, may I ask for a quick poll from all participants: Do you prefer "Anywhen" or "Windows"?

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Andrew has been the chief (though, it seems, ambivalent) exponent of the "Windows" operating system.

My bid is for "Anywhen".
Too, a "Window" could be defined as the point prior to a Fixed Event that is far enough disassociated with it where the Archivists could jump to to start making changes.
So, rather than take one and pitch the other, why not have the one absorb the other?
Archivists can jump "Anywhen", but can't always make (significant) changes unless they happen to jump to a "Window" point. Too close to the FE and the changes are meaningless, just as jumping in too soon. Thus, this Window would fall right between the two so that the actions have the most effect.

Hmm...I don't think that really makes it any better, Nate. Combining the two in that way would seem to carry all the negatives without all the positives. It could still feel like railroading -- "Well, sure, you can go anywhen, but if you pick any period other than what I've determined as the best, you won't be able to do anything."

I'd rather go with either one than a compromise, unless the compromise solution kept all the benefits, without all the negatives.

I don't think you'll be surprised that my vote is for "anywhen."

But I just wanted to mention that daMoose actually has a point here:

daMoose_Neo wrote: Archivists can jump "Anywhen", but can't always make (significant) changes unless they happen to jump to a "Window" point. Too close to the FE and the changes are meaningless, just as jumping in too soon.

Re: Andrew

Okay, my terminology sucks, but my thought is this:
If you showed up the day Hitler was elected to the position to lead Germany (I can't for the life of me remember what it is) and killed him, WW2 would still happen, you may as well have shown up two weeks later.
If you jumped back 50 years and killed his grandparents, odds are strong WW2 would still happen. (I like WW2 ^_^) There might be a chance though, setting up certain events or what not, to arrive at just the right point to diffuse the tensions in Europe, the real cause of the Great War, long before Franz was killed.

I guess I was thinking what I was saying: Give the players the chance to go anywhen, but make it more challenging to alter the events. We're almost agreed events that are well documented are Fixed. Thats nice, but there ARE lesser events going on around that CAN be changed. That would allow Archivists access to change.
So, you changed something at the Kennedy Assasination that allowed Police to uncover something else- jump ahead to learn this secret. Jump back a little before the assassination and attempt to change Event A associated with the Secret. Nothing happens. Jump back a little further. Change Event B, which impacts A. Nothing again. Jump waaaay back, Change Event D, which shows incredible promise...until Event C occurs, knocking it all back on track. Thus, you need to find some point between D and C to change the course to make a significant change at the acutal Event.
My emphasis was on "significant". You can't go right back and change the KA, but you could change a smaller event that allows a foothold or "window" (maybe Foothold is better term?). By only going with a "Window of Opprotunity", as you described, players would be limited to just a defined point(s) as opposed to the jumping around as such. Without possibly making subtle changes at the Event itself, certain Footholds couldn't be gained in other points.

Is it neccesarily GM determined what the exact point is? Not really. The GM can have an idea, but any good GM should be able to (literally in this case almost) "go with the flow". So, the PC Archivists uncovered an underlying reason for Oswald to kill JFK or something not even connected to Oswald by observing the actual event and subtle changes there- the GM never anticipated this. This creates new Footholds available for the PCs to attempt to change history.
For something like this, I imagine we'll need very loose, very openminded GMs. Like my Imps game, I doubt highly a GM will be able to sit down with more than a plot hook to play.

[Edit] Curse my skimming. Doug said it in fewer words. Poo.

Okay, Nate, I get what you're saying now. I thought you were suggesting some sort of mechanical limitation for effectiveness if players went somewhere other than the window. What you're describing sounds exactly like the "anywhen" concept, though. (Which, I've mentioned, I'm perfectly fine with.) How is what you are suggesting different? I guess that's the key point I'm missing.

I vote for "anywhen", for the record.

Andrew Morris wrote: As for providing a rational scientific explanation, I most certainly was not trying to do so. The thought of open portals was simply sparked by a current theory, it had nothing to do with the theory itself. The main reason I liked it was because I've had trouble coming up with a method of becoming an Archivist that allows a wide range of starting backgrounds. For example, if the method of becoming an Archivist was primarily philosophical, it'd be fairly hard to reconcile the character concept of, say, an Archivist who was a hardened criminal in his human existence.

...criminals, whose thirst for knowledge was so great that they were prepared to lie steal and murder for it... mad scientists conducting experiments in dimly lit basements, searching for the secret of everything...fanatics who were prepared to let the whole world burn in order to bring about their own vision of a proper society.

I don't think that Transcendence has to be about renouncing the world. Otherwise, why are Archivists (and especialy, the Nemesis) tinkering with History so much?

I suspect that Transcendence is more about exceeding your limits. Whether that's a result of meditation, discipline or unchecked passion, does it matter?

Re: Backgrounds

Say you have a 20 year old who is commited several henious murders (maybe a family?), is convicted and sentenced to Death Row. His appeals, pleas, retrials, postponements and what not end up taking another 40 years before they finally decide to carry out the sentence. He's a 60 year old man now, tired, locked away from socioty and possibly, genuinely reflected on his life and the mistakes that put him where he is. He's had almost as much time to 'meditate' as your monks or priests or others normally associated with Trancendance, he's had something to genuinely reflect on, not hypotheticals, and this guy might generally feel remorse and now understand the value of human life.
In my thinking, he'd almost be a prime candidate for our Trancendence. A for this game GM could do something evil and put him in a situation where he could have the power to stop the family he killed in life from running afoul his 20 year old self or stop himself from killing the family, and somehow tie that choice to the overall outcome of the situation the PCs are in.

Re: Andrew

I see somekind of difference in my mind, but I'm not getting it out I guess. You, Doug and I seem to be on the same page though, so lets leave it there.

Character concepts: way cool. (I love the brutal killer locked away for life, slowly mutating through meditation into a gentle mystic and potential Archivist -- particulary if he still has that dark energy on tap somewhere down deep...). Also off topic, though. So let me as pseudo-moderator remind everyone of what our real moderator said:

Tobias wrote: What we will do in this thread is:

1. Define (and write) the HTT as core element of the game and explain elasticity
2. Define (and write) optional ways of looking at human time if we think they're powerful and common variants (mentioning butterfly as well)
3. Define (and write) archivist time (AT) and how the players can have a deadline on archivist time (I don't want urgency to figure into this too much - just mention how, mechanically, a deadline is possible)
4. Define how the GL works as a 'switching' device between HTT and AT. We don't need too much details on the exact nature of the GL, but we do need to know which design parameters for the GL are a logical derivative of HTT and AT.

#3 Deadlines

This is something I'm having a hard time dealing with. You can easily have deadlines HT, but AT?...

Ala Frequency you have time moving the same in both the present and the past.
Ala Quantum Leap...there weren't many drawbacks, simply blowing it and being stuck in the host's body from then on. Possible Mechanic: too long within the HTT binds them to a host? Becoming to 'in sync' with the host to 're-Acend'.

btw, I was told by a pal GURPS Time Traveler (anyone read?) might provide some brainstorm material...have to dig through this...

OK, #3 and #4

Earlier on, I suggested that when an Archivist possesses a Host, they extend part (but not all) of their Presence into a Host.

This means that part of the Archivist is still subject to Archivist time. Which means that Archivist time can (and should pass) in parallel with Host time. It also means that the act of possession forges a "link" between the two timestreams - which may be similar to the "tunnel" we were discussing before; the main difference is that only consciousness (Presence) can pass through the tunnel.

This brings a deadline smack back into the game. Time is passing in both "spacetimes" (and can be assumed to pass at the same rate, at least for now). This means that while the Archivists are messing with one part of the HTT "carrot", the Nemesis are doing the same.

And... the shape of the Carrot is constantly changing. Minor changes are easily accomodated - the Archivist and Host move with the shift, and the link is maintained.

But if there is a major change, then the part of History that the Host is in ceases to exist (no parallel universes.) This means that the link between the Archivist and the Host is broken, and the part of the Archivist that was inside the Host is lost. It's as if someone cut a finger off (or an arm... it depends on how much Presence the Archivist had invested.)

This may be a better implementation of the damage ("burn") mechanic for Archivists, it also helps to explain why Archivists may want to (a) remain secret and (b) invest minimal Presence in their Hosts.

As for #4, here is something Sydney said about the Great library in Mix Your Own Metaplot:

Sydney Freedberg wrote: The Great Library is the sum total of everything all Archivists are and know (not much of a distinction for a disembodied mind) -- even the repressed parts a particular Archivist wants to keep secret from its fellows and even denies to itself. Thus the Great Library comes into being with the first Archivist, expands with every new Archivist, and changes constantly, growing as new knowledge is added but also shrinking as Archivists' residual humanity is lost: "Weren't there books of poetry here before? Strange that they're gone....".

daMoose_Neo wrote: btw, I was told by a pal GURPS Time Traveler (anyone read?) might provide some brainstorm material...have to dig through this...

Doug Ruff wrote: But if there is a major change, then the part of History that the Host is in ceases to exist (no parallel universes.) This means that the link between the Archivist and the Host is broken, and the part of the Archivist that was inside the Host is lost. It's as if someone cut a finger off (or an arm... it depends on how much Presence the Archivist had invested.)

"windows" and "anywhen" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Lets say your time machine only works at 99.999% of the speed of light relative to the target frame. This might take a couple of weeks to accumulate even with extremely efficient drives, and be very expensive. You'd have to boost away, hit the machine, and come back.

This makes Anywhen available but the actual selection of a date quite conflicted, especially if the group has multiple agendas. Windows might be compromise dates... and if you miss the target timepoint by a few hours, it probably won't be worth the time and effort to do it all over again.

Note in this form, archivist time and human time are in fact the same, and archivists are material beings. This may not jive with other ideas floating about, but my main aim was to show that winbdows and free choice do not rule one another out.

The idea of collapsing probable events into certainty needs more attention as well. There is no need for a living mind to do this in terms of the science so if that is going to be adopted we are moving rather firmly into the territory of mysticism, in which consciousness is itself a special property. This is exactly why I'm inclined not to like the idea, it is sometimes abused by people making anti-science arguments and I'd not be keen to propagate that misunderstanding any further. But that might be the cue for moving more firmly onto mystic terrain.

What if the determinacy of an event is determined by the Eye of God falling on that particular event. Then our setting starts after the final judgement, even after the thousand years of gods peaceful reign on earth, and the archivists are digging through the now-defunct article of Creation that is nevertheless still accessible via divine hijinks. This makes sense of the "archivists" and "great library" concepts and opts straight out of scientific dilemmas. Archivists might arguably be similar to defence/prosecution lawyers investigating the facts to be brought before a divine court in the judgement of a person's goodness or otherwise.

Re: Devinity
I dunno that I'm too keen on that. Granted I myself am fairly strong in my faith, but I don't know if that meshes with the direction we're headed. Have we even defined what this Nemesis is?
Just a little concerned players might go "Bah it ends up okay anyway" with the whole "Its the end of the world as we know it and everybody is fine!" idea (Can't deny, God actively reigning over Earth for 1000+ years, be pretty nice) and tying it too tightly to any one faith (noted the singular use of God, hence the assumption) can be dangerous amongst players anywho (case in point: I game with a couple of athiests, a couple of Wiccians, a Catholic and I myself am Luthern).
I think we should stick with pseduo-science, even if we can't explain specific details.

I don't think we need any sort of rationale or explanation. We figure out how it works, and that's just the way it is. I'd rather that the Archivists didn't use any material technology themselves, but that's just because it fits my concept better. Sure, an Archivist might have a host build a piece of advanced technology, but I just see the Archivists' powers as being somewhat beyond the limitations of machinery and physical devices. As to the faith angle, I'd rather it was ambiguous. That's why I like the concept of the elastic timestream. Sure, you can claim it has a scientific basis, but it's just as easy to say that it's due to a higher power.

So, I don't think we even need a pseudo-scientific explanation. Archivists have powers, here's how they work. Done.

I'm going to agree with Nate and Andrew that fruitfully ambiguous pseudoscientific handwaving is easier to work with than explicit religion: It's less likely to explode in your face, and it allows all the mysticism with half the calories, I mean dogma. (Personally I do think there's gonna be a Last Judgment and am a bit worried about where I'll be afterwards, but I don't feel like bringing that into this game...).

{EDIT: And like Andrew, (a) I don't see Archivists as using technology so much as being "some form of energy I've never seen before, Captain!" aka spiritual beings; and (b) I am happy to leave the mysticism:pseudoscience balance in the hands of each playgroup, offering a few alternative explanations in the game itself but generally handwaving the issue.}

And on the issue of urgency, I'll agree with Doug on the issues of urgency and Archivist vulnerability. At the very least, once an Archivist possesses a Host -- which means, in the most interesting interpretation I've seen, that the Archivist now exists in both the HTT and the ATT at once -- that Human time and Archivist time are in synch and pass at a 1 second:1 second ratio.

Agreeing with Syndey on the 'energy beings' - I don't see the Archivists or even the Great Libary as having much of a physical presence so much as a mystic, spiritual or just disembodied energy feel to it. If I HAD to envision either, I myself picture like a grey/green wraith/mist like appearance set against a stary/cosmos-type background.

I'm going to lean on Polterguist (something to this effect was mentioned in the second one I think) and toss in this possibility: suppose these Archivists are
A) Beings of pure energy of whatever kind and
B) The GL is simply the accumulated knowledge shared among the Archivists, which is accessable to any Archivist in the GL (I had referred to it like a Network before). With all Archivists together it creates an energy field that 'surrounds' the universe and is everywhere, everywhen.

This energy field exists in such a manner that it is 'timeless' in that it always exists. New Archivists may come in to the GL Collective, but once in exist in the 'Now' of Archivist time. Because this field always exists and has always existed, it is present in all times, in all 'realities'. Jumping "back in time" is simply extending ones self in a specific direction of the field.
Time can still flow 1:1, no problem. The "timless" only means the field always exists, say in part a byproduct of energy existing all over.
Now:
While TOTALLY in the field, all of an Archivists knowledge is fair game.
While PARTIALLY in the field, the Archivist can 'choose' to take various pieces with it (Thus, Dark Archivists skipping along hosts aren't sharing their 'plans', but pieces can be glimpsed by the other Archivists still in the field.
IF the Archivist TOTALLY REMOVES itself from the Collective,
A) Its harder to re-enter of course
B) It takes all of its knowledge with it.

This allows for an interesting situation where say a PC learns something significant but is being closely watched by a DA. To 'flee', the PC can remove itself from the Collective and ride their host, trying to make contact with another operative in the era or find a way to re-enter the Collective and keep the knowledge hidden.

I still rather like the idea of each person having their own "view" of the Library. This concept would allow something like that, each Archivists mind catagorizing the knowledge in a way that is easier for them to comprehend (After all, that will be a LOT of information).

As to HOW Humans become Archivists:
Simply extend this energy field concept. All humans have a high amount of bio-electrical activity. Say a certain wavelength (fictional one, associated with extremely higher-order thinking skills such as Philosophy) at a certain point establishes a connection with the field. This can be as simple as a flash of insight of the future (momentarily connecting with the everpresent in Archivist time) to slipping into it (IE hits that point upon death and the 'spirit' of the person is translated to the energy wave and becomes apart of the field).
To look at my Death Row inmate, by himself he probably couldn't make the jump, especially reflecting on only the one event (thus might reflect on human greed, evil, lack of compasion etc). However, as he's strapped into the electric chair, his own bio-electricity kicks in of course (adrenaline) with a huge electrical pulse from the chair, sending the wavelength through the roof and into the proper levels to establish the connection.
In other examples, others could almost assist this accention. As Energy doesn't disipate, upon death a certain amount of energy would still remain (incorporeal/unbound or still contained within the body, I dunno). Mourners would be having their own 'spiritual' or deep thoughts, heightening their own levels of this wavelength. In an area where there is this high intensity, it might be possible for a connection to be established, the disembodied energies, with nowhere else to go, leaping to the field with the boost.
This also has the effect of 'explaining' sceances- multiple people, each slightly elevating the wavelength, collectively making a brief connection (reaching into the past, as that is the simplest for any person to connect with in their position in the 'carrot'- its already happened, so all they're doing is looking back along their own histories).

Ahkay, I better stop.
Tis an idea: keep it, scrap it, or part it out.

Re: "pseudoscientific" vs "mystical" explanation,

My main motivation for keeping the "fruitfully ambiguous pseudoscientific handwaving" (great phrase!) is that it avoids having an unambiguous verifiable explanation for why all of this can happen.

Which means that the Archivists can argue about it. I fully expect there to be Archivist (and Nemesis) "factions" whose main reason for existence is that they share a "mystical" explanation for all of this, which gives them a position of perceived moral superiority. So there will be dogma, but it will be on behalf of the characters, and not the players (or the designers!)

Re: Nate's last post,

I like this a lot, I won't quote as it's the very last post, but a couple of things I would like to highlight (OK, "steal" and "twist" are more accurate.)

Archivists as beings of pure energy: how about, beings of pure information? - my knowledge of thermodynamics is poor, but I believe there is a fundamental link between information and energy (it involves entropy and heat).

It gets more complicated (but more fun) if you consider that "shared information" could mean that the Archivists are somehow intertwined. How about, if an Archivist separates a part of themselves from the collective, and takes knowledge with them, they aren't just taking their own knowledge, they are taking a piece of everybody else's with them?

To take the analogy further,imagine a network of computers, with a central server. Information in the server is accessible to all the computers, but each computer has it's own hard drive, which can contain copies of information on the server, and backups of some of the server files.

OK, now imagine each Archivist is one of the PCs, and the server is the Great Library. When an Archivist possesses a Host, they can take information from their own self (the PC drive), and information from the Library (the server), and send this into a Host. If the connection is broken, both the Archivist and the Great Library are diminished.

It's an analogy only, but it may be useful.

As for Humans becoming Archivists: bio-electrical activity, wave functions etc - all good. My take (for this game) would be that the "soul" is simply that information that survives the destruction of the body. In most cases, this information is absorbed into the All, but in exceptional cases, it is projected somehow into the Archivist dimensions. How (and when) this happens may vary.

Doug Ruff wrote: It gets more complicated (but more fun) if you consider that "shared information" could mean that the Archivists are somehow intertwined. How about, if an Archivist separates a part of themselves from the collective, and takes knowledge with them, they aren't just taking their own knowledge, they are taking a piece of everybody else's with them?

Doug Ruff wrote: How (and when) this happens may vary.

I would find it very unsatisfactory to fail to explain why and how this all works. That seems to me to deny the players - and the GM - the ability to engage intelligently with the setting. Thats fine if the setting is just backdrop - if for example play always started in one window and ended in that window. But if the players are expected to make decisions about time travel, or what to do, on their own, then this will need to be established firmly so they know what is feasible, and so the GM can judge their decisions. Or whoever fills that function, I don't think we have discussed that yet.

I'd prefer mysticism to pseudoscience becuase pseudoscience is so very unsatisfactory - its basically mysticism except without the moral significance.

contracycle wrote: pseudoscience [is] basically mysticism except without the moral significance.

contracycle wrote: ... pseudoscience is so very unsatisfactory - its basically mysticism except without the moral significance.

Besides, if we, as designers, marry one explicit explanation and set of morals to the game,
1) We'll probably disagree on details ourselves and
2) Alienate a whole segment of players because, as illustrated by us disagreeing, not everyone shares the same ideas and beliefs.

By providing the "pseudoscience" behind how it works, we provide the players with a structure where they can say why it works.
Personally, that *is* a little of my own belief- that science is the how, religion/faith/belief the why.
The game is about exploration. Sure, the context is temporal exploration, but what we'll really have going on is human exploration, how and why we do what we do.
Thus, provide a vaugely plausable pseudoscience reasoning for all of this and allow each play group to determine the specifics of why they're going about these grandiouse, time stream hopping adventures. They get to answer their own questions about morality, causality and why things are as they are.

Agreeing with Nate & Doug here. Contracycle's "Eye of God" post-apocalyptic vision -- and I mean Apocalypse in the Saint John the Divine sense, not the Mad Max sense -- is a wicked cool campaign idea. I just wouldn't want to make it the only option, which means, as people have said, that the core (default) setting needs to be explained in terms that are if not morallly neutral at least capable of multiple moral interpretations.

Then, with that leeway allowed, let a particular GM work his or her PCs up to the realization that the Armeggedon actually happened and they are gathering evidence for the Last Judgment -- or that The Matrix Has You and they're all brains in bottles hooked up to a big historical simulation -- or that enviromental collapse ruined the earth and they're all uploaded personalities in a big multi-generational colony ship trying to find a new home -- or whatever wild spin on the core "Schrodinger's War" scenario they want.

Doug, Nate, Sydney -- yes. No disagreement here. Now, my only question is whether we have "nailed" enough info on the two timestreams (or as Doug has said, it's more accurately "the two spacetimes" -- using the classical definition) or not. So, here's my summation of the product of this thread thus far. Please add anything I've missed or correct any errors.

The Dual Spacetimes Model
In addition to the known world and history of humanity, there exists another spacetime that can only be accessed by humans who have evolved into Archivists [still don't have a generic name for this]. This second spacetime is referred to as the Great Library, wherein is kept all the accumulated knowledge of the Archivists. From the Great Library, an Archivist can access any point in the spacetime of humanity [need a name for this that's more accurate than "human time tunnel"] and possess a human host. Time passes in a 1:1 ratio between the Great Library and the human spacetime. Archivists can communicate with each other instantly across any amount of distance in spacetime. By controlling a host, Archivists can alter the timestream of the human spacetime. Major events in history are more difficult to change than minor ones. In order to change major elements of history, significant work is required beforehand, in order to "weaken" the event's inherent stability. Time travel in the Great Library is not possible.

Unanswered Questions
• Are the Archivists the first residents of the Great Library? My vote is no.
• Does the Great Library actually represent the extent of the physicality of the entire Archivist space? My vote is yes.
• Can Archivists travel any distance instantaneously within either spacetime? My vote is yes, only travel between the spacetimes is (slightly) limited.
• Is the dual spacetimes model described above a core element of the game, or is it open for customization? My vote is core.

My 'Votes'
#1 Yes/No, vauge enough to let groups decide (or to throw a curve ball at 'em)
#2 Yes
#3 Yes
#4 Core. How exactly it came to be and why it exists can still be explained by the groups

Okay, the revised questions:

Unanswered Questions
1. Are the Archivists the first residents of the Great Library?
2. Do any other creatures reside in the Great Library?
3. Does the Great Library actually represent the extent of the physicality of the entire Archivist space?
4. Can Archivists travel any distance instantaneously within either spacetime?
5. Is the dual spacetimes model described above a core element of the game, or is it open for customization?

I'm with Nate on almost all of these.

1. Are the Archivists the first residents of the Great Library?

2. Do any other creatures reside in the Great Library?

3. Does the Great Library actually represent the extent of the physicality of the entire Archivist space?

4. Can Archivists travel any distance instantaneously within either spacetime?

5. Is the dual spacetimes model described above a core element of the game, or is it open for customization?

Rev. #2 - Agreed. 'Archivists' are the only creatures...*grins evily* Just to toss out a fun idea, what are the odds an animal of some kind attains Archivist-level enlightenment?

Andrew Morris wrote: 1. Are the Archivists the first residents of the Great Library?
2. Do any other creatures reside in the Great Library?

Andrew Morris wrote: 3. Does the Great Library actually represent the extent of the physicality of the entire Archivist space?

Andrew Morris wrote: 4. Can Archivists travel any distance instantaneously within either spacetime?

Andrew Morris wrote: 5. Is the dual spacetimes model described above a core element of the game, or is it open for customization?

In the main, what Sydney said.

Main difference is #4. Once an Archivist has a connection between Host and Archivist dimensions, travel between these is instantaneous. However, making the link may take time.

Thee are also limits to where the Archivist can travel. In the Host dimensions, there has to be someone to possess (a different version of Nate's question: could an Archivist possess Lassie?) In the Archivist dimensions, "travel" is between memories, if a memory is being actively kept secret, or is hard to find (obscure), then this takes time too. In the Archivist dimensions, travel is at the speed of research....

Michael: I so want to play around with "alien" intelligences in this setting, but I think it's Option rather than Core.

However, some Archivists may no longer be recognisably human, despite their origin on Earth.

daMoose_Neo wrote: Besides, if we, as designers, marry one explicit explanation and set of morals to the game,
1) We'll probably disagree on details ourselves and
2) Alienate a whole segment of players because, as illustrated by us disagreeing, not everyone shares the same ideas and beliefs.

They get to answer their own questions about morality, causality and why things are as they are.

contracycle wrote: ...then we should forget about time travel totally and build purely "moral conflict" systems.

~_-
Cross-post with Axes Thread:

The topic of aliens came up and Doug made a comment about 'Archivists [who] may no longer be recognisably human, despite their origin on Earth.'

Just a thought: Too much Trancendance and they become so alienly removed they can no longer possess a Host or care to (think trying to use Digital signals with an Analog-only reciever) or too much humanity/compassion they lose sight of their trancended state of mind.

Posting this both places because this *might* be a step onto explaining the Nemesis. We've already agreed for the most part Nemesis are Archivists as well, but how about Archivists taken to an extreme?
The Nemesis could possibly be a 'horde' of these Archivists who have forsaken so much humanity they no longer have their own identity, possessing only the Collective Mind.

In which case, mechanically, we'd still have Humanity and Trancendance as two parts of a scale, with the Archivist finding middle ground, the more sophisticated the Archivist, they more they can draw on both spectrums without slipping into either.

Contracycle, I'm not sure I agree with you here. I never thought that time travel was a central theme in the game at all. In much the same way that "horses" aren't usally the main theme of D&D, time travel in Schrodinger's War exists as a tool for the characters to use in the game world. Or did you just mean that you wouldn't like a game that has time travel without explaining how it works?

Time travel was one of the big ideas for this project. I don;t think we can just present players with time travel without explaining it in some degree, becuase otherwise it is not something they can think about, explore, or use, it's just a plot device for arriving at the action. Thats not necessarily a big deal but it has to be one or the other IMO.

Moose wrote:

Forge has a number of games that, yes, cater to a specific setting or character, but take a look at Sorcerror, one of the more (most?) successful around- the game deals with freaking demons! And yet, Ron does his best to avoid any specific religious affiliations- thus, it could be a demon in japanese terms which could be more or less a really foul/obnoxious spirit, or it could be a blood bathing terror ala the hell-fire and brimstone Christians

contracycle wrote: Time travel was one of the big ideas for this project. I don;t think we can just present players with time travel without explaining it in some degree