I'm designing Perfect (working title), a game about oppression and dystopia set in the high society of Victorian England.
For the first thoughts, check out:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19466.0

This conversation is splitting from the above link, because the conversation diverged greatly. For background, try reading that link.

Okay, I'm going to outline some things I've got rolling around in my head, as far as setting...
and what I want to know is:
1.) Do you, personally, dig the concept?
2.) Does the concept fit into the context?
3.) What do I need to elaborate on or clarify?
4.) What do you have to add to this world?

General

Historians now regard the Victorian era as a time of many contradictions. A plethora of social movements concerned with improving public morals co-existed with a class system that permitted harsh living conditions for many.

For most, the Victorian period is still a byword for sexual repression.

Critics contend that corsets constricted women's bodies and women's lives.

Homes are described as gloomy, dark, cluttered with massive and over-ornate furniture and proliferating bric-a-brac.

Hi Joe,

I see you took to the waist coat idea, cool.

I had another related idea: in order to enhance the effect of the freedom signifier (colored waistcoats) as well as impose a form of total symbolic control on the masses - what if the state outlawed all color ,except for the waistcoats.

Obviously natural colour of the sky and wood and such would be legal, but all other manufactured colors in art, clothing, decor i.e. any cultural production must be Dark gray, gray or white (only inspectors have black). This would serve two purposes; one the effect of the colored waistcoats and their importance in society would be magnified a hundred fold because - these are the only colours that are allowed. Secondly, I think, it might enhance the mood of the dystopian landscape.

A can see it mentally, as a bleak black and white period film, with the only colors as the waistcoats.
Any dabbling with color will become a capital offence - only the state may use color.

Sorry to double post, but the color thing got my head going, and I have some stuff I want to add to that.

If you like the color ban idea, I was thinking how this could relate to Images and other forms of conflict/resistance in the setting.

All Images would be vivid, full color things. Perhaps before the New Order, color was legal so all these memories are bright full color clips.
Traffic in full color photos; family photos, magazine or otherwise becomes a dangerous black market business. These are tied to Images as anchors for memory.

Creating colored art, or otherwise colored stuff becomes a metaphor for real freedom, a freedom that the state tries to simulate with the colored waistcoats.

Sounds like Pleasantville (the movie).

Hi!
  What if you turned this food pyramid upside down? What if at the Coming of Age, every citizen has a clean slate and all Freedoms, but every infraction forces them to wear an article of clothing that denotes their previous infraction. Like a scarlet "A" but more elaborate?
  So, the rulers of the world would be those who were of a certain age or older and had no demerits?

had another related idea: in order to enhance the effect of the freedom signifier (colored waistcoats) as well as impose a form of total symbolic control on the masses - what if the state outlawed all color ,except for the waistcoats.

Obviously natural colour of the sky and wood and such would be legal, but all other manufactured colors in art, clothing, decor i.e. any cultural production must be Dark gray, gray or white (only inspectors have black). This would serve two purposes; one the effect of the colored waistcoats and their importance in society would be magnified a hundred fold because - these are the only colours that are allowed. Secondly, I think, it might enhance the mood of the dystopian landscape.

A can see it mentally, as a bleak black and white period film, with the only colors as the waistcoats.
Any dabbling with color will become a capital offence - only the state may use color.

Traffic in full color photos; family photos, magazine or otherwise becomes a dangerous black market business. These are tied to Images as anchors for memory.

What if at the Coming of Age, every citizen has a clean slate and all Freedoms, but every infraction forces them to wear an article of clothing that denotes their previous infraction. Like a scarlet "A" but more elaborate?

joepub wrote:

Let's say the Government Reduces your Image of a ferris wheel.
If you have a colour picture of a ferris wheel, you can Restore the image.

Maybe at the sacrifice of a humanity (or whatever it will be named) point, you can Restore it.

And... I'd also say that if you use a Picture to Restore an Image, the picture is considered Expended...
ie, the picture in your hands has given you as much inspiration as it ever will, and it is basically dead to you after you use it to Restore an Image. So... you need to track down a new picture of a Ferris Wheel - or whatever it is.

Okay, so for mechanics:
-Do you like the idea of Pictures being a mechanical element that affects Images?
-Do you like the idea that a Picture can Restore an Image that's been altered?

I would also say that during Inspector Interrogations, if they manage to hone in on an Image (which will be mechanically tested, I think)....
then they might have some way to reveal that you used Pictures to secure those Images.
Which means they'll be able to charge you with Posession of Colour.

-Does this make pictures dangerous enough, but also useful?

Very, very nice. That makes the loss of Images, and the risk, so tangible. I really like the restoration of images, that to my mind, can be a major drive for play. Say my dead wife was a butterfly collector, and my last fading Image of her is pinning this rare, but brightly coloured insect...I think search for these kinds of things could become painfully poignant, and poetic.

Finish this game already so I can play it!

Finish this game already so I can play it!

It took me a while to understand the use of the word "freedom". I gather that the meaning is "freed from certain thought, task or possession" instead of "able to think, do and have without restriction". The idea of status in terms of traditional exclusiveness now makes sense. To focus merely on the status and put great emphasis on desiring it becomes clear. A person must conform to the ideal of their status to maintain their status. Deviating from it pushes you in one direction or another.

The use of colors and garb is great. Their reverse meaning makes more sense to me. Articles of clothing, traditionally, were worn for functionality. Aprons allow you to work without harming or soiling your body or clothing. Hats protect your head. Scarves warm your neck while you work in the cold. Goggles shield your eyes from metal shards. When I see a person wearing a hardhat, I know he or she is in some type of construction occupation (purely subjective). Rawhide gloves give the impression of labor, while kid leather shows cultured society. When I wear a suit, I am free from menial tasks. I'm strictly a hands on the keyboard man. If I wore overalls then I would be expected to route cables and take out the trash.

Color reminds me of insignia; therefore, status. When I see a white hardhat, I assume the person wearing it is a supervisor or manager of that crew. Just as purple is a royal color, so the colors show status. In the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) color was a great indicator of status. It didn't matter how elaborate your garb was, only that you wore color appropriate to your status. Purple and ermin where reserved for the nobles.

In the school system, everyone had pins with the logo and an embedded crystal. The pin shown you were a representative of the school system (freedom) and the color indicated how many years you worked in the school system. The superintendent fussed about his pin and wanted one that reflected he had 30 years experience in education, although he only worked for the school system for 2 years. That opened up a whole can of worms, because the color changed its meaning. Eventually, the board voted to use only the number of years in the school system to determine the crystal color, and gave the superintendent a special plaque engraved with "30 years educating children". Within the school system, the pin had no status but the color was paramount. To the public, the pin shown we were school system employees and the color (guess what?) had no meaning.

This is beginning to look SO much like the way the world really operates. I'm creeped-out and fascinated at the same time. Remember the 50's shows where all the characters dressed and acted a certain way? June Cleaver in her dress, apron and pumps never contradicted Ward but just said "Oh, Ward." We never knew what Ward did at the office, but he had some nice suits and hats. Hmm. They were all grey. Everything was grey. So much for B&W TV.

I had an image of surgery used to permanently identify someone of a particular freedom. Would the loud-mouth idealist have his vocal cords cut to obey the law of Freedom of Thought? There is a Philip K. Dick story where people are handicapped to give everyone the same chance of success. There is a story in the Hard Shell anthology about a man who suffers horrible tortures to become leader of an alien race. That was very bizarre and gruesome. :)

What if the certifications were of two types: temporary and permanent. Citizens may adopt a Freedom and suffer the hindrance, having papers, smart ID card, register DNA, to take on the Freedom for a predetermined time. They could also elect to take on Freedoms that require a permanent and very visible modification that is looked upon with awe. Tattoos and implants, anyone?

One other way to determine certification is that of behavior. How difficult is it to fake the behavior of someone with a particular status or color? Are there secret handshakes, code words, choices that must be made? Drinking tea without extending your pinky is a sure sign of mental corruption.

Waistcoats make sense for men. What about petticoats for women? The difference is that they are hidden and give women the great mystique. Women are treated the same until they desire to "expose" themselves and flag their freedoms. Men strut around like males of most species and it is the females' choices that determines the next step in the relationship. Her petticoat may be pink, showing that she has the freedom of reproduction (although she is forbidden to have sex). She may choose the most disgusting man to take as her husband, knowing that she will never be tempted. Its his gamble, her petticoat is hidden.

Time for dinner.

Troy

Hmm....

I thought you were suggesting earlier that waistcoat/petticoat colours pointed to status,
where articles of clothing pointed to freedoms.

That's the direction I'm moving in now....

But no, I don't think that I like the "hidden" element you are suggesting with the petticoats.
I want status colour markers to be out in the open.
I want the first thing you notice about someone to be that visible marker of status.

So that you can't help but think "this person is a low class citizen" before you think anything else.

I caught that too, about the petticoat and realized I was contradicting myself. Strike the petticoat from the record and change it to bodice as suggested by another. (Wasn't sure if I should include this, but I think we're all mature). The chastity belt could signifiy the freedom to reproduce without sex (in vitro fertilization). Only children of virgins are worthy citizens.

I still think color denotes status and attire indicates the freedoms. The "hidden" status was something that intrigued me.

What about the Freedom of Imbued Status? An umbrella effectively raises the status (although temporarily) of the person also beneath it. The holder can only go outside on rainy days. Too weird?

Is status indicated by a single color? What are the levels of color you will use?

Troy

An umbrella effectively raises the status (although temporarily) of the person also beneath it. The holder can only go outside on rainy days.

I like the story about Queen Abigail. Evita just sprang into my mind. The suffering of Abigail would be admirable in the Victorian era. Now the people strive to rise above what is normal (Abi-normal?) The MIBs are a good balance (for characters and antagonists). The Prisoner series has elements like this.

Another enemy could be the Divested (no clothes), rebels trying to tear down the government. They want everyone to be free without restraint. Its attractive but anarchy would ensue.

Are there other forces outside the government that are worse?
Does this political arrangement affect the world or just one part of society?
Do the characters enter into the game wanting to rise in status and freedoms?
At what point do the characters choose to break the rules?
Is there constant surveillance as in 1984?
Do some people have freedoms and are able to ignore the hindrances?
What are the laws governing identical twins?
Where are the children?

I'm sleepy.

Troy

Are there other forces outside the government that are worse?

Does this political arrangement affect the world or just one part of society?

Do the characters enter into the game wanting to rise in status and freedoms?

At what point do the characters choose to break the rules?

Is there constant surveillance as in 1984?

Do some people have freedoms and are able to ignore the hindrances?

What are the laws governing identical twins?

Where are the children?

Hi Joe,

I have been thinking a bit about queen Abigail, and here are some of my thoughts; they arent critisism for or against but just some of the stuff that I have been thinking will figure into the colour equation.

Many of the 'model' dystopian societies that have arisen in history (but obviously not all). The big ones that we think about and shudder have arisen out of a marxist type discourse. With which I mean a revolt against a beurgoises middle/upper class that 'opresses' a working class. Those societies then attempt to subvert that opression by turning the whole thing on its head. In order to do this a heavy policing of culture needs to take place, restricting all forms of cultural producion and expression. Much like your freedoms and status. However, often these reforms have been againts royalism. In an effort to create some eutopian ideal in which the working man is raised to the top of hierarchy.

In general your setting seems to tune into that kind of policed state, which happens after some major reform. Usually the previous order is overthrown, and replaced with a new policed 'ideal'. I think that is what bothers me about the story of Abigail - it seems to clash with that trope. Rather its seems to fuse a kind of fuedal regime (sans fuedal lords), with this classic dystopian state.

Not necesarily a bad thing, but I think people will be drawing on historical models, to some extent, when they role-play the setting. Am I reading your dystopia correctly?

Cheers,
Chad

Yeah, Chad...
you were reading it correctly.

There was no revolution birthed in the streets.
Abigailism is a movement that began in the high courts - it was a way for the rich to keep the masses that worked in the factories chasing the dream they were supposed to.

It was always an enforced dream...
But the fact is, it was presented as... "a revolutionary idea, a replacement of the throne with the self-moderation of the people. Avoiding the excess and frivolous indulgence that the kings were prone to. Abigail, the graceful deliverer, is our last monarch."

And it was enforced, and people were reminded of things that Abigailism had removed - war, improperness, impurity, uncontrolled enterprise, uncomformity.

And, the people for the most part were willing to do X and Y, if it meant an abolishment of those things which they were told were evil.

Hello,

Thanks for answering those questions. The whole air about this society suggests that people are best kept in their place, not so much people should be limited to their status but the status and freedoms they choose are enforced by the Investigators. Equations are balanced and that gives the impression that people should be quantifiably equal. Abigail seemed no better or worse than others. Her purity in mind and action was a transcendental state and very much touches on being a messiah. Low status and freedoms have less stress since there are less things to worry about. Greater status and freedoms place more emphasis on culture, dogma and rituals. Its possible that this purity affords something else that is unspoken and unseen -- ephiphanies and paradigm shifts. I wonder if Abigail was on to something but was unable to articulate exactly what she experienced. Maybe she found a level of consciousness that transcended the normal human condition. The doctrines of behavior were the only gifts she had for people to understand this. Maybe she was the only one who could attain that. Others followed but didn't put their souls into it.

I'm being followed by a moonshadow...

Rebellion is one of the great themes in RPGs. Rising against oppression is a noble and active cause. Its very possible there are two attractive paths for this game: rebellion and submission. Rebellion is exciting and full of civil unrest, intrigue and heroics. Submission is a very simple and self-satisfying way of thinking, immediately providing your choices without ambiguity. The destinations of these two paths is unknown. Possibly, the destination of these two paths are both spectacular in their own rights and are similar. The rebel wants freedom of thought and cannot be caught speaking such blasphemy. The citizen wants freedom of thought and voluntarily remains silent...the tight scarf is an indicator of this. One path suggests chaos and the other suggests strict order. Two paths leading to the same place? Abigail may have died with an unfathomable smile on her face.

That Abigail chose certain freedoms may indicate a progression of ideals regarding society. The freedom shows you can have a full cup as long as you empty it first. Freedoms are gained only when the burden of the past is relinquished. This has great potential to really mess with the players' heads. I like it. The mechanics may indicate skills that are available at a price. To gain an attribute that everyone normally takes for granted, you must give up a list of behaviors or skills. Otherwise you cannot have it. To be free of something is to be free of all of it, or you just can't have that freedom. To achieve a status means you lose the skills of the status you once had. Maybe this is where the objects come into play: they remind you of images of lost experiences. To keep something from your past invites investigation and modification.

This comes from a dream I had a few years ago and its modified to work with this game:

The rules for this game can be simple, but the role-playing experience will be unnerving. I can envision the players having the power as passive Investigators, to point out transgressions by other players. The accusers benefit when they show how the character doesn't follow in accord with their status or freedoms. If they falsely accuse another then they must accept the punishment ordained for the defendant.

Good night.

Troy

Abigail seemed no better or worse than others. Her purity in mind and action was a transcendental state and very much touches on being a messiah. Low status and freedoms have less stress since there are less things to worry about. Greater status and freedoms place more emphasis on culture, dogma and rituals. Its possible that this purity affords something else that is unspoken and unseen -- ephiphanies and paradigm shifts. I wonder if Abigail was on to something but was unable to articulate exactly what she experienced. Maybe she found a level of consciousness that transcended the normal human condition. The doctrines of behavior were the only gifts she had for people to understand this. Maybe she was the only one who could attain that. Others followed but didn't put their souls into it.

very possible there are two attractive paths for this game: rebellion and submission. Rebellion is exciting and full of civil unrest, intrigue and heroics. Submission is a very simple and self-satisfying way of thinking, immediately providing your choices without ambiguity. The destinations of these two paths is unknown. Possibly, the destination of these two paths are both spectacular in their own rights and are similar. The rebel wants freedom of thought and cannot be caught speaking such blasphemy. The citizen wants freedom of thought and voluntarily remains silent...the tight scarf is an indicator of this. One path suggests chaos and the other suggests strict order. Two paths leading to the same place? Abigail may have died with an unfathomable smile on her face.