Shock: Social Science Fiction has just gotten to its coming out party at the tender age of 0.1.0.

You can download it here. I should very much like feedback on it, either here or over at the glyphpress forum.

Thanks, folks!

That's some cool mojo there.

I think that, honestly, you may need a whole section on "Why this game doesn't have mechanics for doing boring dreck that's totally off-theme."  The game will do precisely and only what it's intended to do, and that will clash pretty hard with the assumptions of blue-sky RPG players.

"Sure, the two Praxis are 'Violence vs. Empathy' and 'Self-awareness vs. Lying' ... but I want to have my character show that they're really intelligent, like Star Trek smart.  Is that Self-Awareness?"

Would you please present a sample of play? This style of play is so far outside my regular playing paradygm, I'm a little too lost to comment...but I'd like to. The possiblity of playing a game based on the social ramifications of science fiction environments gets my motor running.

C. S. Bone

Welcome to the Forge, C.S.!

I'm very interested in ways that can make this game clearer, so please stick around even if I'm being oblique. I promise it's not on purpose.

Um, lemme give you an overview of play because it will be much easier than making a whole little sketch.

[pre]
I. Make the world
  1. Set down some ground rules about the world: The far future or today? Area 51? Outer space? Giant robots? Psychedelia?
  2. Make the Shock/Issue grid - What matters to the players (Issue)? Through what lens are we going to look at it? (Shock)
  3. Decide on the Praxis Scales - How do people solve problems in this world?

II. Make Protagonists
  1. Place your Protag at the crux of a Shock and an Issue. - This will define both your Protagonist and your Antagonist.
  2. Decide where your Protag falls on the Praxis Scales.
  3. Write down at least one and no more than three of your Traits. - e.g. "I have a gun - coersion 1" or "I'm very handsome. - commerce 2" *
  4. Note at least one and no more than three Relationships. - e.g. "Alexa Duursh, my boss" or "Boku, C.S.'s Protagonist, the policeman." *
  5. Put four coins down on the Protagonist side of your Player Sheet.**
III. Make Antagonists
  1. For each Protagonist, there is an Antagonist at the same cross-point on the Shock/Issue Grid. No one can play two Antagonists and no one can play their own.
  2. The Antagonist Player now has control of this character from the basic sketch the Protagonist Player has given hir.
  3. Determine at least one but no more than five Traits for the Antagonist.
  4. Put five coins down on the Antagonist side of your Player Sheet.***

IV. Start the story
  1. The first player declares Story Stakes for hir Protagonist.
      A. The Antagonist Player provides opposition to the Protagonist. To be clear: the duties for producing opposition to each Protagonist fall to that Protagonist's Antagonist's Player. That player has a Protagonist of hir own, but who doesn't particularly matter in this scene.
  2. Either *Tagonist can declare the stakes for a conflict.

V. Moment-to-moment play
  1. Declare stakes in the conflict. - what the *Tagonists want to risk, e.g. "I either go with my daughter to her meeting, or she won't talk to me again."
  2. The Protag player says which end of which Praxis Scale sHe want to be a success and rolls, bidding to bring in a Trait, if desired.
      A. If the roll is off the scale, the Protag Player automatically wins unless the Antag Player can bid it down in one bid.
  3. The Antag Player then puts as many coins down as the Protag Player has put down, then can narrate what sHe's doing and bid more coins (at least one) for a Trait to bring in to substantiate that action.
      A. Each Trait changes the die roll in the direction and number indicated by the Trait.
  4. The Protag Player then does the same, back and forth.
  5. Eventually, either one player has run out of coins or the issue has been settled to both parties' satisfaction.
      A. If the Protagonist succeeds, hir Player wins the Stakes of the Conflict.
      B. The loser of the Conflict gets all coins used in the Conflict.

VI. Between Episodes
  1. Take one of these:
      A. Take a new, or add 1 to an existing, Trait and Relationship
      B. Move your Praxis Scale numbers.
  2. Decide if the next episode will be the last episode of the Protagonist's story, determining the fate of the Story Stakes. This shouldn't be much more than three episodes since the last story ended, and single episodes are viable as stories.

VII. Between Stories
  1. Take one of these
      A. Take a new Trait or add one to an existing Trait.
      B. Move either your Shock or your Issue.

VIII.

* These are likely to become four, rather than three. Please give feedback about this.
** Likewise, the Protagonist will probably start with five, instead of four, coins.
*** ... and the Antagonist will start with Six. All these numbers require a lot of playtesting, so I'd really like to know your experiences.

(I'm really blowin' it on the tags here, aren't I?)

TonyLB wrote:
That's some cool mojo there.

I think that, honestly, you may need a whole section on "Why this game doesn't have mechanics for doing boring dreck that's totally off-theme."  The game will do precisely and only what it's intended to do, and that will clash pretty hard with the assumptions of blue-sky RPG players.

"Sure, the two Praxis are 'Violence vs. Empathy' and 'Self-awareness vs. Lying' ... but I want to have my character show that they're really intelligent, like Star Trek smart.  Is that Self-Awareness?"

TonyLB wrote:

I think that, honestly, you may need a whole section on "Why this game doesn't have mechanics for doing boring dreck that's totally off-theme."  The game will do precisely and only what it's intended to do, and that will clash pretty hard with the assumptions of blue-sky RPG players.

You know, despite my normally snotty and elitist nature, I'm trying to not be too negative. I put all that crabbiness into the intro, where it kinda says that. That intro is unlikely to make it to the 1.0, though. It'll likely be something more positive.

I'm inclined to think that, if it needs to be said, it can be said in a sentence or two.

Joshua I got all that. Actually your .pdf is pretty well laid out.

My question was more in the vein of:

Could you take an illustrative story, perhaps Heinlein's short story from "The Green Hills of Earth" "The Long Watch" and show how your system would allow someone to explore it's social themes in an RPG environment.

Any story would do, I just chose the "Long Watch" because I've done other games with the plot and the message remains particularly poigniant to me.

My problem lies not in the description of the mechanics of the system but in the implementation during a session.

I can definately see how your Praxis Scales and World Diagram could be some great GM tools, I'm just not sure how I'd use them to play a character.

Could be I'm just too stuck yet in a different paradygm.

All right. I'm not completely sure about this. Let me go through it step by step.

So...

1. Set down some ground rules about the world: The far future or today? Area 51? Outer space? Giant robots? Psychedelia?

All right. It's a Bladerunner-esque near future, all dirty cities and neon lights.

2. Make the Shock/Issue grid - What matters to the players (Issue)? Through what lens are we going to look at it?

All right. So let's say I want education as the issue (because that's in the papers today). Specifically, the idea of an uneducated underclass.

So...hang on, I'm stuck. Do I decide the Shock in response to the Issue or do I decide the two independently and just see how they collide? Let's say I decide the Shock in response to the issue, so the Shock is going to be...let's call it Shepherding. All the people that can't write are kept in camps and forced to do manual labour.

3. Decide on the Praxis Scales - How do people solve problems in this world?

Let's say: Education / Creativity
Class / Street Smarts

How's this so far? Stop me any time.

II. Make Protagonists
  1. Place your Protag at the crux of a Shock and an Issue. - This will define both your Protagonist and your Antagonist.

Fine. Jed is one of the Shepherded underclass - he's a dirty street-kid who draws beautiful graffiti.

2. Decide where your Protag falls on the Praxis Scales.

Creativity 8, Street Smarts 6, say.

I'll skip the traits stuff. It looks straightforward enough.

That thing about the four coins - was that actually in the PDF? I must have missed it.

1. For each Protagonist, there is an Antagonist at the same cross-point on the Shock/Issue Grid. No one can play two Antagonists and no one can play their own.

Let's call the Antagonist "The Shepherd". He's going to control all these manual labour camps on behalf of a multinational corporation.

1. The first player declares Story Stakes for hir Protagonist.

Something like: Jed wants to escape and make his way to another city.

Was that what you expected or have I misinterpreted somewhere?

So, now what happens? The Protagonist sets up a scene? Throughout that scene, is the Antagonist acting as a GM-like figure, describing the environment in any way? Or do we collaboratively build up the scene? And, if there's other players, do they just watch or can they join in, playing NPCs?

And we get to a conflict of some kind. (Presumably it won't directly be Jed against The Shepherd all the time, it'll be Jed against The Shepherd's forces and defences). After that conflict, do we move on to the next Protagonist, or do we wait until the scene has ended? Should the next Protagonist have a story connected with Jed's story or can it be totally separate? Do we try to bring all the stories to an end together?

It's a very beautiful game, so if you could clear up those points, I'd be very interested.

Graham

What is written below should really be directly in the text of the game.

glyphmonkey wrote:

Um, lemme give you an overview of play because it will be much easier than making a whole little sketch.

[pre]
I. Make the world
  1. Set down some ground rules about the world: The far future or today? Area 51? Outer space? Giant robots? Psychedelia?
  2. Make the Shock/Issue grid - What matters to the players (Issue)? Through what lens are we going to look at it? (Shock)
  3. Decide on the Praxis Scales - How do people solve problems in this world?

II. Make Protagonists
  1. Place your Protag at the crux of a Shock and an Issue. - This will define both your Protagonist and your Antagonist.
  2. Decide where your Protag falls on the Praxis Scales.
  3. Write down at least one and no more than three of your Traits. - e.g. "I have a gun - coersion 1" or "I'm very handsome. - commerce 2" *
  4. Note at least one and no more than three Relationships. - e.g. "Alexa Duursh, my boss" or "Boku, C.S.'s Protagonist, the policeman." *
  5. Put four coins down on the Protagonist side of your Player Sheet.**
III. Make Antagonists
  1. For each Protagonist, there is an Antagonist at the same cross-point on the Shock/Issue Grid. No one can play two Antagonists and no one can play their own.
  2. The Antagonist Player now has control of this character from the basic sketch the Protagonist Player has given hir.
  3. Determine at least one but no more than five Traits for the Antagonist.
  4. Put five coins down on the Antagonist side of your Player Sheet.***

IV. Start the story
  1. The first player declares Story Stakes for hir Protagonist.
      A. The Antagonist Player provides opposition to the Protagonist. To be clear: the duties for producing opposition to each Protagonist fall to that Protagonist's Antagonist's Player. That player has a Protagonist of hir own, but who doesn't particularly matter in this scene.
  2. Either *Tagonist can declare the stakes for a conflict.

V. Moment-to-moment play
  1. Declare stakes in the conflict. - what the *Tagonists want to risk, e.g. "I either go with my daughter to her meeting, or she won't talk to me again."
  2. The Protag player says which end of which Praxis Scale sHe want to be a success and rolls, bidding to bring in a Trait, if desired.
      A. If the roll is off the scale, the Protag Player automatically wins unless the Antag Player can bid it down in one bid.
  3. The Antag Player then puts as many coins down as the Protag Player has put down, then can narrate what sHe's doing and bid more coins (at least one) for a Trait to bring in to substantiate that action.
      A. Each Trait changes the die roll in the direction and number indicated by the Trait.
  4. The Protag Player then does the same, back and forth.
  5. Eventually, either one player has run out of coins or the issue has been settled to both parties' satisfaction.
      A. If the Protagonist succeeds, hir Player wins the Stakes of the Conflict.
      B. The loser of the Conflict gets all coins used in the Conflict.

VI. Between Episodes
  1. Take one of these:
      A. Take a new, or add 1 to an existing, Trait and Relationship
      B. Move your Praxis Scale numbers.
  2. Decide if the next episode will be the last episode of the Protagonist's story, determining the fate of the Story Stakes. This shouldn't be much more than three episodes since the last story ended, and single episodes are viable as stories.

VII. Between Stories
  1. Take one of these
      A. Take a new Trait or add one to an existing Trait.
      B. Move either your Shock or your Issue.

VIII.

* These are likely to become four, rather than three. Please give feedback about this.
** Likewise, the Protagonist will probably start with five, instead of four, coins.
*** ... and the Antagonist will start with Six. All these numbers require a lot of playtesting, so I'd really like to know your experiences.

Hello Joshua

I must admit I am only half-way through your PDF, but I wanted to put in some comments now when they are fresh on my mind.

"I liked" section:
Issue/Shock matrix and the Praxis scales. Your intro at the beginning, explaining the aim of your design in terms that felt relevant for me. The fact that your PDF reformatted itself nicely on my PDA.

"Typo" section, I think:
- In two consecutive sentences you state that Antagonists can have Traits and Relationships and that they can only have Traits.

"Please explain more" section:
- Something more should be said in terms of Antagonist creation. I guess it's all clear to you, but I missed some guidelines on the order of Antagonist creation and placement on the matrix. Comments like "the same Antagonist can appear on several places on the matrix" are a bit confusing on first read - is the Antagonist then the same Antagonist, played by the same player, or two different "versions", played by two different players?

"Feels like here there should be some more rules" section:
- To me it feels like there should be some connection between the Shock/Issue matrix and the Praxis scales. (Perhaps there is, in the Conflict section. I did not get that far.) Feels a bit stupid, since I do not know what kind of connection would be most useful, but in "game design aesthetic terms" the game would feel more complete that way.

"Just a stupid question" section:
- What makes the mechanics especially suitable for exploring contemporary/old issues through the strangeness of new science? What would prevent using the exact same rules for a fantasy game, as long as the focus was on examining specific issues?

There's them quickies, back for more later.

Cheers,
+ Mikael

glyphmonkey wrote:
...
   2. The Protag player says which end of which Praxis Scale sHe want to be a success and rolls, bidding to bring in a Trait, if desired.
...
      A. If the Protagonist succeeds, hir Player wins the Stakes of the Conflict.
...

wrote: What is written below should really be directly in the text of the game.

(I'm composing answers to the most complex questions offline and will be back as soon as I have something coherent.)

glyphmonkey wrote:
That occurred to me as I was writing it. I gotta figure out where it should go, though. I'm inclined to think that it should go on the back of the character sheet, but maybe it should be at the beginning, as an overview.

Thoughts?

Here's the Wikipedia entry on genderless pronouns. It's science fiction in action!

I'm not under the misapprehension that these words will become in common use. I am certain that writing that way brings attention to a language-based assumption the reader (and writer, frankly) has. As such, it's a Shock.

This book clearly needs a glossary. The pronouns should be in it.

Everspinner wrote: "I liked" section:
Issue/Shock matrix and the Praxis scales. Your intro at the beginning, explaining the aim of your design in terms that felt relevant for me. The fact that your PDF reformatted itself nicely on my PDA.

"Typo" section, I think:
- In two consecutive sentences you state that Antagonists can have Traits and Relationships and that they can only have Traits.

"Please explain more" section:
- Something more should be said in terms of Antagonist creation. I guess it's all clear to you, but I missed some guidelines on the order of Antagonist creation and placement on the matrix. Comments like "the same Antagonist can appear on several places on the matrix" are a bit confusing on first read - is the Antagonist then the same Antagonist, played by the same player, or two different "versions", played by two different players?

"Feels like here there should be some more rules" section:
- To me it feels like there should be some connection between the Shock/Issue matrix and the Praxis scales. (Perhaps there is, in the Conflict section. I did not get that far.) Feels a bit stupid, since I do not know what kind of connection would be most useful, but in "game design aesthetic terms" the game would feel more complete that way.

"Just a stupid question" section:
- What makes the mechanics especially suitable for exploring contemporary/old issues through the strangeness of new science? What would prevent using the exact same rules for a fantasy game, as long as the focus was on examining specific issues?

Hi,

First off: I'm really interested in playing this game.

glyphmonkey wrote:

"Feels like here there should be some more rules" section:
- To me it feels like there should be some connection between the Shock/Issue matrix and the Praxis scales. (Perhaps there is, in the Conflict section. I did not get that far.) Feels a bit stupid, since I do not know what kind of connection would be most useful, but in "game design aesthetic terms" the game would feel more complete that way.

I feel similarly, but can't figure out how to connect them. The thing is, the vast majority of Conflicts are with your Antagonist, so your tendency is going to be to push toward your Shock and Issue, anyway.

I'm also not sure about the need for Shock/Issue Ownership, although I'm glad that it can (under the current rules) be switched between stories.

Also: It seems like Conflicts are resolved in one die roll. Are there mechanics forthcoming for those situations where a player is unsatisfied with the outcome, and can somehow request a "roll-over"?  Is there a system where the roll is "best out of X", where X is 3, or it goes turn-by-turn in really interesting Conflicts?

BTW: I like where I believe this game is headed. Social Science Fiction has gotten really short shrift in RPGs, and it's good to see a game where the issues being raised are forced to the front of the stage, rather than languishing behind the action and "kewl stuff", deperately hoping that someone, somewhere, somehow will notice them and pay attention.

Jon wrote: First off: I'm really interested in playing this game.

My gut instinct is not to connect the Shock/Issue Matrix and the Praxis scale (at least through an explicit mechanic).  After all, I can imagine an Asimov story and a PKD story that both have the same Shock/Issue, but deal with them in completely different ways (i.e., a different Praxis scale).

Otherwise, my only concern with the game as written was that I was a little fuzzy on what might happen when you get a 4 or 5 people playing.  Is everyone supposed to own a shock AND an issue?

Can protagonists share a space on the shock-issue matrix?

  If 4 people sit down to play, coming up with four "Shocks" that fit well together might be a little much.

Also, I wonder if the idea of shock/issue  "ownership" is important, or if the same effect can be achieved by choice of who plays an Antagonist.

Hey, Spooky, what's your name, anyway?

Spooky wrote: I'm also not sure about the need for Shock/Issue Ownership, although I'm glad that it can (under the current rules) be switched between stories.

Also: It seems like Conflicts are resolved in one die roll. Are there mechanics forthcoming for those situations where a player is unsatisfied with the outcome, and can somehow request a "roll-over"?  Is there a system where the roll is "best out of X", where X is 3, or it goes turn-by-turn in really interesting Conflicts?

BTW: I like where I believe this game is headed. Social Science Fiction has gotten really short shrift in RPGs, and it's good to see a game where the issues being raised are forced to the front of the stage, rather than languishing behind the action and "kewl stuff", deperately hoping that someone, somewhere, somehow will notice them and pay attention.

glyphmonkey wrote:
Hey, Spooky, what's your name, anyway?

Spooky wrote: Also: It seems like Conflicts are resolved in one die roll. Are there mechanics forthcoming for those situations where a player is unsatisfied with the outcome, and can somehow request a "roll-over"?  Is there a system where the roll is "best out of X", where X is 3, or it goes turn-by-turn in really interesting Conflicts?

glyphmonkey wrote: You gotta read the game, man. That's what bidding is for.

Part of the idea here is that you and your friends can generate your own kewl stuff. The Minutiæ Sheet is for that stuff. The only caveat is that's it's actually gotta be cool to at least one other player. So if someone else thinks that a huge caliber handgun is cool, that's cool, and using the BFG gets you a bonus. Likewise, if you describe that a particular genemod is having lungs like a dolphin and someone thinks that's cool, you get a bonus. It depends on the tastes of the players. Eventually, if you play long enough, you'll have sheets and sheets of descriptions, drawings, maps, all sorts of stuff that you get a bonus for using.

Spooky wrote:
AHA! I am a bad reader! So, to make sure I grok it, it still comes down to one roll, but the tension and "never-say-die" of the characters is expressed with the Tokens. Negotiation after the roll, in this case. The more they care, the more they spend. Right?

Part of the idea here is that you and your friends can generate your own kewl stuff. The Minutiæ Sheet is for that stuff. The only caveat is that's it's actually gotta be cool to at least one other player. So if someone else thinks that a huge caliber handgun is cool, that's cool, and using the BFG gets you a bonus. Likewise, if you describe that a particular genemod is having lungs like a dolphin and someone thinks that's cool, you get a bonus. It depends on the tastes of the players. Eventually, if you play long enough, you'll have sheets and sheets of descriptions, drawings, maps, all sorts of stuff that you get a bonus for using.

I like it, and have one request: when you find the time, could you take a fairly familiar science fiction novel and break it down into your game, showing how the World Creation steps and character generation for that might go?

Hi Joshua,

First off I think you are dead on when you say that this is the first Science Fiction game,  to qoute Wikipedia:
Science fiction is a form of speculative fiction principally dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology upon society and persons as individuals.

Dead on.

I also like the way you have everything boiled down to what the games is about. Both Issue - Shock and praxis scales.

I read the Actual Play:[Shock:] Digging for Mold in the Company town and I must say I understand it better now.

I'll have to let it stew in the brain before I come back with more concrete feedback. Right now it is late and bed time.

Kaare

Excellent link, Negligent. I'm'a make a copy of your link as a Sticky at the glyphpress forum.

Thanks!

glyphmonkey wrote:
Ah, that's probably just unclear. Antagonists don't start with Relationships, but they can have them later. Do you have page references?

This is a biggie: the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy is that Science Fiction starts with the world we all know, then adds changes one by one.

Everspinner wrote: Well, maybe I should have given some examples of what I meant with fantasy. I most decidedly did not mean your basic "fantasy heartbreaker", but more something like what you described as "fantasy color": start with a standard fantasy world, but with humans and very low magic only. Define Issues like racism, combined with Shocks like Progenitors - we were all created by elves, and go from there, creating Praxis scales and using Minutiae sheets.

Or another example, from our Everway game, where I am currently running a "Nature of Magic" trilogy. In the first scenario, a peaceful farming society is reeling under the impact of freely available magical powers. In the second, we essentially have a modern society where the laws of rationality start to break, and it is discovered that science is a religion. And in the third, we have a completely modern society, but all the conveniences are fueled by magic (we have magicians instead of electricians, for example), and the power for all of that magic is taken from the carcass of a god, soon depleted.

Please do not get angry with me, I am not trying to remove or dilute the focus of your game. I was just interested in how your mechanics would support this angle. Right now my assessment would be - why not? Most technology is as good as magic to the common man anyway, and "we all live under the sea" seems further removed from our daily life than a low-magic fantasy society. But perhaps that´s just me.

Hey Joshua,

Got a few comments for you, but let me first say that Shock definitely has me interested. So first, I think you've got a couple of typos in your examples, or at least some inconsistencies that make them somewhat more confusing:

Page 8: in the character praxis number selection, it should be 7,5 to match the picture.
Page 10: Neither Soul, nor Coercion are on the Praxis scales you keep referencing, but they show up here.

Some other stuff I'm not clear on is:

Coin Spending? You talk about spending more than one coin on a trait, does that double/triple its value in moving the die? I don't think that's explicitly stated if so. If not, why/when do you ever spend more than one coin to activate a trait?

Shifting Praxis scale with a relationship? I understand what's going on mechanically, but I really want an example to help me get my head around how it works in the SIS. On this I also think the whole conflict section needs a heavier spattering of examples.

Multiple Protag contests? I'm pretty confused by these directions. When they're mutually exclusive you have two die rolls that you're modifying simultaneously. This means both can win and or lose and I'm like... huwah? By contrast contests that aren't mutually exclusive you have a single roll with one person taking the lead? I'm lost.

World Facts? Who decides what Praxis these align with? Does using them cost a coin in a conflict?

Last, I agree you need your play outline above somewhere in there, as well as a section that fleshes out the conflict to conflict cycle a bit more. As it is I'd have a hard time playing Shock and being confident I'm playing by the rules. I'd really like to play though.

-Tim

I have a question, regarding character numbers. You leave the character's number for the Praxis Scale blank, coloring all the other numbers in. The larger side is a success, the smaller is a failure. What happens if the character rolls exactly that number? Is it a success?

I feel dumb for asking, but...

Ah, that's not strictly correct.  You can want to succeed by either means. You're just more likely to succeed by one.

Now, if you roll on exactly that number... holy shit, did I never write this down?

Anyway, your Antagonist can push you toward failure if sHe's got the coins for it. Bidding happens normally.

Even so, you can land exactly on that number. That means that the Stakes are raised and you declare and roll again. Something has gone wrong — things went in an unexpected way in some way, and now there's more at risk and more to gain. The go back to bidding normally. Eventually, someone won't have coins for bidding and it will go one way or the other.