I have designed a game and uploaded it to the net. It is more a setting than a game actually, but it has some simple mechanics also. It is rather cyberpunkish. My main influences were W.Gibson, P.K.Dick and the old version of 'S c h i s m' by J. Sorensen. (Jared, I have taken the liberty to link to your site, I hope this is no problem)


Please feel free to criticise the game, mechanics, the concept, my English, whatever you can think of, I would love to hear your opinions.
The address is


Singularity version 1.0



And I would be honoured should you find it to be worthy of addition to your library of free games.


Thanks in advance,


Gizem


-gomi no sensei

Master of Junk? :smile:

Looks really cool -- and no worries about the link.

I like the look of the header graphics as well...obviously a strong Ghost in the Shell/Virtual Light vibe going (I approve! I approve!).

One thing though...right now it's an interesting "anime cyberpunk" setting -- but the mechanics are lacking something. Narrative drive, perhaps.

What is the game about? Answer that...then focus everything toward accomplishing that goal. What problem is facing every single character that every player will have to deal with?

Very promising start!

I have such a weakness for cyberpunk. Something about neon, chrome, nano, and AI... man, I'd give a nut to live in an alternate 1987.

Good work, Gizem. Damn nice.

Jared and Jason, thank you very much for your comments. I am glad that you liked the game.

My main intention in posting to the Forge was to get some narrativist criticism. Jared supplied some, and I am considering it. I did not want to use Humanity or Sanity in the game because these are cliché concepts. I want something new. I am thinking of a Stress rating, since this is something everyone in the gameworld has to cope with, but have no idea as to how it will work. Any suggestions?

As to the header graphics, they are from Ghost in the Shell allright, Photoshopped to various degrees. I actually did not intend to make an 'anime' game and included a disclaimer about this issue, but I am afraid the header graphics combined with the sample character create an 'anime' feel.

Optional question; how would you categorise the game? Simulationist? Narrativist? Gamist? And why?

Thousand thanks,

Gizem
- in exile

Wow! I have to say I'm impressed by what I see so far! So, you want criticism?

Okay, here's one thing I can figure out, but the English doesn't make sense:

Multiple Actions
There are no multiple actions rule are interpreted as a difficult single action. Increase the difficulty, roll once.

Hey, Gizem.

Here's what I would do:

Get rid of Stress. I don't understand how that relates to the inspirado. I'm ignoring the system as it doesn't really relate to the setting...it's a cool way of handling pass/fail but it doesn't mesh with any kind of premise (which rules out it being an N game).

You can go a few different ways with Humanity (it's not overdone in cyberpunk RPG's...it's just not done very well. At all):

1. The normal way: Humanity is good. Humanity is empathy and soft flesh and nature. As we move (have moved) away from this, our bodies have gotten stronger but we've lost something. We have to get it back (like that Midnight Oil song). Human interaction suffers through mechanization and de-personalization (email, cell phones, cars, big cities)...how do we as humans survive in such an inhospitable environment without paving over our souls (ahem).

2. The abnormal (ie: the Tetsuo: Iron Man) way: The old flesh is weak, long live the new flesh. The world is harsh steel, you must become harsh steel. You must evolve past Humanity, which is part of the Old Way. Embrace the New Way. Humanity loss is encouraged...irrationality and psychosis are systemic of the imperfect meat body. Lose it!

3. The in-between (ie: Ghost in the Shell) way: We as human beings are on the verge of becoming something new; a hybrid of flesh and technology. We should cast aside our mortal shells and become one with the universe as beings of pure thought/information. Fear of the unknown and a cyber-mysticism become key issues. Like fire, a dangerous creation can not only help us, it can lead us out of darknes (ho ho ho) and into the dawn of a new age of man. Humanity/Technology balance is important, up till both are cast aside...

Hope this isn't all too cheesy. It certainly reads that way. :smile:

_________________
jared a. sorensen / http://www.memento-mori.com
indie game design from beyond the grave

[ This Message was edited by: Jared A. Sorensen on 2001-06-29 02:20 ]

Damn, I knew I forgot something, I forgot to change the copyright notice. Well, Zak, I apologise for stealing your copyright notice. I am really ashamed. But I cannot stop smiling also, because this is kind of ironic, to steal the copyright notice. Does the copyright notice include itself? Somehow reminds me of the catalogue paradox. But I did not copy anything from anywhere else except the header graphics and I changed them a bit. I really liked Cthonian by the way. Also, thank you for pointing out the mistake in multiple actions, my English is not that bad really, just bad editing. And I should admit that I missed Bill Gates' legacy. One more thing, I also used myself as a sample character to see how much sense the system made. But in the end decided not to use it, in order to make the game more realistic. :smile:

And Jared,
Thanks for the advice. I actually did not set out to design a Narrativist game (I think I am a simulationist, but I dislike rules), but just want a N angle to it, so it will no more be a just setting but a real game.

The prototype of this game was quite different, where the PCs were opressed cyborgs fighting for freedom in a cyber-1984ish world. I got rid of the big brother thing, but this conflict could still be a major N point. In that game I had two opinions among the cyborg community, the strong-shall-protect-the- weak and the-strong-shall-replace-the-weak attitudes. And players had to choose one, it was quite N, I think. Note that it is still possible to play the game this way, but it is not the only way.

I agree Humanity is the obvious choice. But I still have doubts, because of moral implications that Jared pointed out. (As the ways of handling it-good thing vs bad thing). I do not want any morals in the game, I decided that before. So a hypothetical Humanity score should be created so that disadvantages and advantages would be balanced at both ends. And both ends should be equally natural. It is unnatural for an AI to be human, after all. One example I can think of is the old version of 'S c h i s m', where Jared had a similar approach by making emphatic characters more talented in psychic powers, but also more sensitive to psychic effects, whereas less emphatic characters would be closed, making them resistant to such effects.

A popular philosopher once said something vaguely like 'if you cannot teach someone how to fly, you should at least teach him how to fall'. The players should have an option to fall gracefully if they cannot fly.

I'll think more about Stress as a N game-mechanic device similar to Humanity or Sanity, because it has less moral implications, and it is one of the major forces behind change and evolution. In a game on post-modernity there can be no morals. And evolution is beyond good and evil. Und ze übermenschen are after mich, ich muss run...:smile:

Gizem
- I am a Byzantine. Byzantines never tell the truth.

Something associated with Schism and Blade Runner...

I'm gonna post it here because it's relevant and maybe you can use it for Singularity.

Mortality.

I want to make a gamist RPG version of Schism (computer RPG would be ideal). In Schism, you use your power and you get stronger but you get closer to death. Right before you die, your power goes up to ridiculous levels -- you literally cannot fail. Then you die. Sucks to be you.

The idea is that you have a real-world time limit. The GM says GO! and you're off and running...you have X hours to deal with your situation (kill your enemies, wreak vengeance, resuce a loved one, find out who you are) before you die. Every X minutes of game time, you lost "life" -- but you gain "power" -- the final minutes of the game will be the character rampaging through the city as an unstoppable, mutant juggernaut. Oh yes. :smile:

So give your cyborgs a finite lifespan (which is counter to most robot fiction, where the robots last longer than people) -- 4 years, maybe...like the Replicants. Nothing like impending death to shake up your priorities...

Oh yeah...and you should HAVE to play a cyborg/robot/replicant/whatever in Singularity.

On 2001-06-29 13:26, gizem wrote:
Damn, I knew I forgot something, I forgot to change the copyright notice. Well, Zak, I apologise for stealing your copyright notice. I am really ashamed. But I cannot stop smiling also, because this is kind of ironic, to steal the copyright notice.

Thanks for the advice. I actually did not set out to design a Narrativist game (I think I am a simulationist, but I dislike rules), but just want a N angle to it, so it will no more be a just setting but a real game.

I'll think more about Stress as a N game-mechanic device similar to Humanity or Sanity, because it has less moral implications, and it is one of the major forces behind change and evolution. In a game on post-modernity there can be no morals. And evolution is beyond good and evil. Und ze übermenschen are after mich, ich muss run...:)

I agree that Singularity is somewhat out of focus. This is because I am a bottom-up game designer. First I have a scenario idea (usually one-shot) and then I build a setting (and some mechanics-if I can) for it. For Singularity I had three such starting ideas:
1. The first question of Dick (Blade Runner question): 'what is a human being?' The prototype game I mentioned was about this, the players were cyborgs fighting for their rights, and yes they had a limited life span and were called replicants. It also had a meta-plot involving the secret agenda of an AI gone rogue. It was more N, I developed it around a moral dilemma. One interesting point is that one player insisted on playing a human agent masquerading as a replicant.
2. The second question of Dick (the Matrix question): 'What is reality?' I was planning to make a game where the players would have been prisoned in an artificial reality and then would 'wake' into another reality. Like Matrix right? Not really. Because then the players would 'wake' once more, into yet another reality. As any Stanislaw Lem fan knows the real terror starts after reality falls apart for the second time. I was planning a plot where the players would go through two such changes, one drug induced and the other immersive VR, as in the Matrix. I see great roleplaying opportunities along this way.
3. I wanted to have a means by which I can run a 'classical' Cyberpunk game without having to roll dice for everything.
So I wrote Singularity. I think it is a well developed setting where I can accomplish all three of my goals but is not a real game because it lacks a focus. I need to figure out some way to do this without losing my objectives.
'If you don't lose your objectives you can be long-lasting.'
says Lao Tzu, who am I to know better?

Gizem
- a part-time Taoist

PS: Jared, your idea for Schism is great. I believe in the slogan 'roleplaying is action', action should be in the gameplay itself, not in character backgrounds or in settings. The 'time for power' scheme seems an excellent way of creating action in the game, and maybe much more.

1. The first question of Dick (Blade Runner question): 'what is a human being?'
2. The second question of Dick (the Matrix question): 'What is reality?'

PS: Jared, your idea for Schism is great.

The 'time for power' scheme seems an excellent way of creating action in the game, and maybe much more.

Hmmmm... Having looked at the concept, it's quite good... I am, of course, reading the page as I write this, so if each bit seems a bit disjointed, that's why...

...The technology is most definitely believable, and the implications of the technology have obviously been well explored... :smile:... well done there!

One gripe about the site layout is that I'm not entirely sure how you're handling character creation, as, the moment I look at the "Character" section, it gives me what the stats *mean*, but not how you *get* to them...

...History is short and sweet, that's good... most settings I know try to write too much of the History, and that screws over the players *and* the GMs, 'cos they have very little room to maneuver in...

Organisations, like the history, are well thought out and it appears that you've decided to make this a very thoughtful setting, full of the Dick question of "what is human?" and "what is reality?", although currently more the former than the latter...

All in all, it looks like a good system, although character creation rules might be nice...:/