Hoi!

I've an idea for a game, and I thought I'd throw it out there for comment.

It's a multifaceted game of exploration, war, intrige, espionage and trade set against a collossal, user co-defined galaxy.  The major empires (and some of the worlds) are pre set, as are the major races, and the rest can be made up by the players/GMs and submitted for acceptance and mapping (via an online starmap). 

Here's the pitch.

The fledgling human race is just entering into serious space exploration.  Among the hundreds of billions of planets and quadrillions of beings in the galaxy (most of them hostile) humans discover that they are among the smallest and weakest of all interstellar polities.  Free Traders (and pirates) can "update" their starcharts in real-time, learning about new systems, just explored, colonists can learn about new frontier worlds, each with their own dangers, waiting to be opened up, and inter-stellar mercenaries can get the latest scoop off the data-nets about border skirmishes and military "Hot Spots" around the galaxy.  Find allies, enemies, warders and tormentors across a swath of systems, grand adventure, interstellar politics and bloodshed on a planetary scale follow in the wake of human-alien interaction, among… The Scattered Stars.

I've mapped out the major polities, and the major races (including the relative average tech levels).  The Idea is to relase an alien critter, race, civilization, planet and system creation kit, either online or in conjunction with the core book, so that people that want to "homebrew" a race or homeworld or a minor empire can submit them have them approved for "legal" use (and use the online approved critters, worlds and systems) as part of their games, without having to buy forty-eleven splatbooks (one of my pet peeves).  Credit would be given as an "associate contributing writer", freeing me and mine up from the tedious task of inventing one hundred billion star systems, and adding an exciting new dimension to the gaming experience. 

I'm still trying to make the alignment system work the way I want.  It's actualy a matrix of Moral, Ethical and Social constraints that are maleable enough to allow for slow shifting, and "Going Native", but not for dramatic shifts.  The consequences of ignoring your morals, disobeying your ethos or violating your taboos would have more than simply metagame consequences.

I'm tinkering with a skill driven D% system.  The attributes used to describe a character are both randomly generated (to simulate the randomness of freebirth) and "built" based on species and background, using a Dark Conspiracy type background generator.  Each of the six "Prime" attributes is subdivided into two "Second" attributes used to add to skills and derive resistances (eg. Dodge is Agility + Insight /2, Pain is Resiliance + Willpower/2).

The skill system is an Attribute + Training + Background = Skill  system that advances similarly to BRP with a steep XP for training exchange.  Depending on the Technology level of the character's background, you might have access to a few archaic skills (Farming, Animal Care, Melee Proficency: Axe) or a whole Host of options (Pilot: Starship, Ranged Proficiency: Laser, Knoweldge, Cultural: The Ilkahni Confedracy).  New skills are simply obtained, proficiency is easy to achieve, mastery is difficult, almost impossible.

Combat is fast pased, realistic, and exciting, with all actions planned before initiative is rolled, and then excecuting in order of reaction.  Damage is either a minor inconvenience (bruises and scrapes, contusions, abrasions and minor concussions) or life-threatening (bullet holes, de-pressurization trauma, ruptured organs), and enough concussions, can lead to a damaged brain.

What do you think?

So it´s kind of a simulation of a fictional galaxis?

0. What does that alignment system do there? What purpose does it serve? I don´t get it.

1. It seems that you are fascinated (want /expect to be fascinated) by three things in your game, correct me if i got that wrong.

• Creating a gigantic world, a huge complex of different societes, fantastic worlds (pitch, player input)

• Emulating a reality (derivated attributes following some tradition of describing the physics of human action, random character creation)

• Exciting Combat (well, I´m kinda worried, if combat is to be fast-paced exciting, does that mean other means of conflict aren´t?)

Right?

2. If I got that right, if your goals are enabling players to have fun in these ways, I think you should clearly adress each one separately by a bunch of lean, focused rules; and you have to set prioritys because I expect there to be conflict between those agendas in some places. Say, if the players have fun by cocreating a huge world, are rules emulating physics the appropriate solution? Why not some kind of highly-structured metamechanical narr tool like Universalis? Say, if there is a conflict between realistic combat and fast-paced exciting combat, what to choose?

3. And, what. Alignments. What do they do. Why. (I never played D&D, but to me, they seem like a tool for making players "behave", and fuck that. If I want to play my space-aline space-alieny, I will if it doesn´t hurt me and if I don´t want to, I shouldn´t be expected to and especially not forced to do it.)

4. Personally, I like the idea of cocreating a galaxis the most. Also, it´s the only thing that hasn´t already been done. Oh, and I like the trinary wound system: nothing inconvenience wound. That´s cool. I did that, too, when I made up a combat system once.

I typed a massive response and it seems to have been vaporised, so I'm going to be much shorter here...

Not a fan of the alignment concept.  Even D&D has gotten very lax with its use, and this is largely because people didn't like it and didn't play strictly by it.  Unless you've got a good reason to include it and it is in any way "fun" for the players, I'd scrap this idea.

Soundmasterj might have jumped the gun a bit about your combat being fast paced and exciting comment - I get that you're comparing it to other systems, not other methods of resolution within your own game.  Personally, I'm somewhat of a skeptic on these things because I've read about combat being fast paced and exciting many times but played few games that lived up to the claim.  This is not to say that your situation isn't different.

Enough negativity, on to what I praise.

I, too, find your communal approach to galaxy building fascinating.  Also, I'm keen to hear more about your Creation Kit (for characters, races, planets, systems, etc).  Let me explain, quickly.  I have a relatively logical mind, but I was not very good at science in school.  I love sci fi and have run such games in the past.  However, I've always been limited by my capacity to create a "realistic" star system and so forth.  This Creation Kit, then, could be a real focal (read: selling) point of your game for gamers like me.  Yours will not be the first nor the last game set in the stars, but if you can devise a creation system that allows a science goober like me to create believable races, planets, systems and even galaxies, then you will have performed a service that makes your game totally worth the money.  Many games have sort-of tried this, particularly generic ones, but it's never quite enough, because it's not the focal point of the game.  Being that the alignment concept is possibly meh and the other aspects (D%, skill driven, etc) are nothing new to the market, your special niche in this oversaturated world could very well be the creation aspects (including the community approach to galaxy building).  I would really focus on this as a major driving force in your design, personally.  Bottom line, if you can enable a moron like myself to create star systems, their planets and even their races and cultures with relative ease, you've got something special there.  Furthermore, you might even consider such a toolkit from a more generic standpoint - applicable to any sci fi game.  This would make your game desirable even to those who are already well set in their ways with other games and systems much older than your own. 

My two cents, anyway.  I'm interested to hear more about your Creation Kit, if you've got more to tell.

Rauðbjørn wrote:
...can submit them have them approved for "legal" use (and use the online approved critters, worlds and systems) as part of their games, without having to buy forty-eleven splatbooks (one of my pet peeves)...

soundmasterj wrote:
So it´s kind of a simulation of a fictional galaxis?

soundmasterj wrote:
0. What does that alignment system do there? What purpose does it serve? I don´t get it.

3. And, what. Alignments. What do they do. Why. (I never played D&D, but to me, they seem like a tool for making players "behave", and fuck that. If I want to play my space-aline space-alieny, I will if it doesn´t hurt me and if I don´t want to, I shouldn´t be expected to and especially not forced to do it.)

Dementia wrote:
Not a fan of the alignment concept.  Even D&D has gotten very lax with its use, and this is largely because people didn't like it and didn't play strictly by it.  Unless you've got a good reason to include it and it is in any way "fun" for the players, I'd scrap this idea.

soundmasterj wrote:
1. It seems that you are fascinated (want /expect to be fascinated) by three things in your game, correct me if i got that wrong.

• Creating a gigantic world, a huge complex of different societes, fantastic worlds (pitch, player input)

• Emulating a reality (derivated attributes following some tradition of describing the physics of human action, random character creation)

• Exciting Combat (well, I´m kinda worried, if combat is to be fast-paced exciting, does that mean other means of conflict aren´t?)

Right?

2. If I got that right, if your goals are enabling players to have fun in these ways, I think you should clearly adress each one separately by a bunch of lean, focused rules; and you have to set prioritys because I expect there to be conflict between those agendas in some places. Say, if the players have fun by cocreating a huge world, are rules emulating physics the appropriate solution? Why not some kind of highly-structured metamechanical narr tool like Universalis? Say, if there is a conflict between realistic combat and fast-paced exciting combat, what to choose?

soundmasterj wrote:
4. Personally, I like the idea of cocreating a galaxis the most. Also, it´s the only thing that hasn´t already been done. Oh, and I like the trinary wound system: nothing inconvenience wound. That´s cool. I did that, too, when I made up a combat system once.

Dementia wrote:
Being that the alignment concept is possibly meh and the other aspects (D%, skill driven, etc) are nothing new to the market, your special niche in this oversaturated world could very well be the creation aspects (including the community approach to galaxy building).

Naaaah. Galaxis is german for galaxy and I forgot your word was different. Sorry I´m dumb.

Again: Galaxy Creation is where the gold is at. Digg there digg digg digg deeper. Tell us more. To be honest, I think RPG design is a lot more advanced around here than you know, but that part, nobody has tackled it yet to my knowledge. Elaborate your goals and means!

Ok. I don´t care how alignment systems work in D&D. For everything I know, they are a mechanism for making players behave and they don´t work. They won´t EVER work. This is why: D&D is mostly about being good at combat. Anything happens in that context. Players don´t get their D&D fun from being moral or amoral, they get their fun from being good at combat and they act accordingly. They´d be playing he game wrong if they didn´t.
Where would a alignment system help your game? If you want players to play moral characters, it won´t ever ever do that. If you do believe me, we could talk about alternative means (because having charcaters act moral is easy), if you don´t, I´ll explain myself more clearly.
Imagine how alignment would work in Star trek/wars. The whole premise wouldn´t work because neither Anakin nor Luke would even think about the dark side. Same goes for Star Trek and the prime directive.
Where does "alignment" fit into science fiction?
Do you believe me? If yes, do you want to know how I would solve it? If know do you want me to elaborate?

Roll-players suck

Obligatory link to TSOY / Solar System:
http://files.crngames.com/cc/tsoy/book1--rulebook.html
http://tsoy.crngames.com/

TSOY is designed so it works when you try optimizing your character. It aims to provide for BETTER stories when you do that, not worse.

Also sorry if I sounded kind of condescending up there, but I always get like that when I feel people read GNS as meaning "gamism is dumb" :)

Alignment systems are not a mechanism for “making players behave”.  They have worked in the past, and they can work in the future.  D&D 3rd & 4th editions were, and are all about combat and the gamist concept of “winning” the RPG session, by defeating the opponent critters.  And so the alignment system has been largely ignored (partly I think because of younger players, that have little acting ability much less critical thinking skill, and small if any moral/ethical code of their own) and in this most recent edition of D&D, practically done away with.  The alignment system is not there to “Help” the game; it is there to help the players and to teach them, and to cause them to question their own motivation for their character’s actions.  Basic D&D was very much gamist, what with the adventure modules having only the most limited of options available to the player for situation resolution.  But AD&D and AD&D 2nd edition, were very much about creating the story of your character, encountering scary critters (with nasty big pointy teeth), or fiendishly clever traps, and devilishly convoluted intrigues and finding solutions for them.  Now, if you’re a hammer (and I am) all problems tend to look like nails, so as a fighter (Barbarian, Ranger and to a certain extent Paladins), I tend to see things through the lens of “Can I Kill It? Can I  Loot it?”  When I play Thieves (Assassins, Bards) I tend to view things through the “Can I Loot It? Can I Kill It Without Being Caught?” lens.  When I play Clerics (Wizards, Druidsand to a certain extent Paladins) the world suddenly takes on a “How Can I Defeat This Challenge Accordance With My Deity’s Will?” or “How Can I Defeat This Challenge Without Expending Power, While Gaining As Much Power As Possible?”

I think you mistake “morality” for “moral”.  Moral indicates a certain positive degree of rightness or correct behavior and thought, whereas morality is merely the framework for what you believe is “right”.  For example, my morality indicates that killing people if they become a danger to you and yours is perfectly acceptable, as is robbing your enemies, which includes all those not a part of your social dynamic, but there is a catch.  In order for all of this to be “Moral” behavior, you must admit that you did it, never hide it, be proud that it was your hand that guides the blade, and accept any consequences that come your way, be it wergild or blood-feud.   I ask not that players behave in what I think is moral, but that they define what their character thinks is moral, and then have their character act within those boundaries.

Have you even watched the Star Wars movies?!?  One of the constant themes, is “Unless you carefully avoid the dark side, you will fall from the light.  Question every motivation you have to ensure your purity of purpose.  Man is not automatically good, consciously avoid being corrupted by evil.”  Where do you think Darth Vader came from?  Episodes I through III are all about Anakin’s fall to the dark side.  Episodes IV through VI are all about Luke’s attempts to avoid the same fate as his father.  And the Prime Directive?!? The Prime Directive is the overriding ethical constraint of Star Trek.  And while it is usually obeyed, all of the great Federation captains and even Spock have been known to bend, and even break it.  Usually they must examine the situation carefully to determine is the moral value of their impending action outweighs the harm that violating their ethics may do, both to themselves as well as to their intended beneficiary.

Go re-read, Deborah Doyle & James MacDonald, Isaac Asimov, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournell, Holly Lisle, Spider Robinson, David Webber, Alan Dean Foster, Leo Frankowski & Dave Grossman, Sean McMullen and John Ringo.   After doing that you can come back and we’ll discuss the presence and/or the “fit” of morality in science fiction.  Go read George Alec Effinger, Philip Jose Farmer, and Harry Harrison and we’ll talk about the ethics of science fiction.  Go read Robert Heinlein and Pamela Sergeant and we’ll talk about societal restraints and cultural taboos in science fiction.  I think when you say science-fiction; you mean space opera or science fantasy (read as fantasy fluff).  Did you even bother to watch Babylon 5 or Alien Nation?  What about Firefly?  Stargate SG-1? Ever watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer for something more than boobs and hot, hot redheaded lesbians?  Thor’s Teeth and Freya’s Bountiful Bosom Man! One of the basic tenets of Sci-Fi/Spec-Fic is “Make the reader think! Make him question the boundaries of his world, cause him to wonder "what if?".”

Well, I have to ask you, about your “realistic” character.  Is 3 points in combat an average rating? Weak? God-like?  By assigning a value (3 points) to an attribute (combat ability) of the object (soundmasterJ’s character) you have just entered the realm of Simulationist play.  White Wolf LARP uses descriptors such as; brawny, dexterous, wise (et all) to use when making any kind of action with more than one possible outcome.  Players indicate what trait they are using and what they are attempting to do then play Rock-Paper-Scissors to generate a (supposedly) random outcome (IE “I am cunning enough to hack the Ventrue clan leader’s computer.”)  In case of a tie, players would then “bid” traits to win the tie, and success would depend on the relative value of the trait categories (IE “I have 3 mental traits.” “Sorry Bob, the computer security has more than that.”).  Narrativism is (as I understand it) the story end of the play, and the degree to which story is overriding in importance relative to the Simulationist aspect of the game (IE the “physics” of the game).  Gamism is the degree to which one can “win” the game, and the philosophy that winning is the important part of the game. 

You indicate that in “Traditional” RPGs, combat is the only important factor.  What about the bard who in 3rd ed, was able to adjust the mood of a mob (literally an angry crowd) throu a charisma based performance check.  This ability to make a large group of potential foes, leave the party alone is an outstanding way to defeat enemies, but hardly qualifies as combat.  Back in 2nd ed there was a cleric kit called the Medicus, that could swap out any of it’s spells for Cure Light Wounds (or better depending on level), and had the absolute worst combat abilities of any cleric (usually a pretty good fighter), putting it on par with a rogue.  On the other hand, the Medicus is a healing machine, and nothing else in the game would keep your party alive, useless in a fight, but with maximized low end healing and the ability to convert all his spells into heals, you could fight a losing rearguard action All. Day. Long. And still walk away from it.  Yes you can optimize your character for combat, but a combat optimized bard, is about a valuable as a druid in an urban setting.

The rules or “physics” of a game tell you what you can and cannot do, and expresses in unarguable, numerical values what occurs for any given situation.  So yes, in the rawest simulationist sense, smoke grenades ARE -4 dice.  This is where the GM and the players are supposed to kick in with the Narrativism.  Here is the same encounter expressed in purely simulationist terms and then again in narrativist form, describing the action (this is written using the mechanics of the Scattered Stars system.

“Johnny, make a perception check +50%, everyone else can attempt one with a +100% penalty.” Said the GD
“I get 59, that’s a success” replied Johnny, after rolling, only one other person, Jane rolled as well.
“I rolled an ought-two, crits always succeed right?” she asked.
“Awesome Jane, right you are.” Was the return “You two can see a tall thin guy hiding in the shadows between the dumpster and the end of the alley watching you and your party.”
“Well we can’t have that, my character will pull his neural pistol and make a tactical advance on the hidden man” Johnny said nonchalantly.
“Hey, wait a minute, I’m going with you” cried Jane “I grab my sub-gun through my duster and follow him into the alley.”
“The tall man panics and tries to hide behind the dumpster” said the GD “give me your initiatives and prepare your actions.”
“65.  Move, Move, Move, Dodge, Contingincy: Parry, Contingency: Attack” spieled off Jane.
“80. Dodge, Move, Move, Move, Contingency: Parry, Contingency: Dodge, Contingency: Melee Attack, Contingency: Melee Attack.” Recited John.
“Allright, make your dodges and then move, both of you.” Replied the GD.
Johnny rolls and then reports ”Aw, crap 50% dodge, that’s a +10% penalty.  I then move in to the right and advance between the dumpster and the wall trying to flush him out.”
“I’ll block him in behind the dumpster and the nearest wall.” Exclaimed Jane, rolling the dice” Woot! 15% that’s’ a +40% penalty!”
“Excellent!” mutters the GD, rolling dice “Everyone else make a reaction check at +20% penalty”
No one makes the roll.
“Everyone except Jane is now blind and deaf, suffering a +100% penalty to all actions for 10 rounds and only ½ normal actions.” Says the GD smugly
“Jane roll to parry, the tall man is trying to kick you as you close on the dumpster.” He continued.
“30% parry?” inquired Jane.  At the GD’s nod, she rolled again “I but stroke him in the face.  01! Woot yeah!”
The GD looks stunned for a moment, then rolls dice several times “Gah! And the tall man falls at your feet, unconscious. Good job Jane.”

Now this is a narrative version as described by people that know the system, and how to narrate a scene.

“Standing in the pool of weak light at the center of the cul-de-sac, waiting on your contact is a boring proposition at best.  The oppressive gloom of the moonless Balhafran night seems to absorb light like a stealth coating.  It is a Non-Trivial task to search the shadows for anyone approaching.  Johnny and Sarafine, you manage to pick out the amorphous shape of someone standing near a dumpster at the end of an alleyway on the south side of the cul-de-sac.  The shape is very tall, approximately two meters, but no other features can be made out.”
“I dodge, making me an unusual target for attack while running towards the dumpster trying to flush him out from behind it.”
“I race towards the other end of the dumpster, to block the spy’s escape, rolling into a crouched position as I approach the giant bin.”
“Suddenly a small canister arcs out of the darkness at the end of the alley, bouncing to a stop at the mouth of the passage with a metallic tinkling.  The alien sound throws off your reaction as the tiny object explodes into furious light and thunderous sound making it impossible to think, much less act.”
{A chorus of outraged and terrified howling, blasphemy and profanity erupts from all characters save Sarafine.}
“The figure darts out from behind the dumpster, lashing out in a vain attempt to knock Sarafine to the ground, allowing his escape.”
“I lash out with my sub-gun, aiming for his jaw.”
“The butt-stroke connects and the tall figure crumples to the ground, insensate.”

See, simulationist play can be narrativist, if the players and the GD put forth a little effort to be descriptive and learn how the “universe” works.  Combat is relatively uncomplicated, fast paced and it is possible to be descriptive and maintain a decent narrative.

The combat system you described has one serious flaw; If I am a gamist player, every time I win the initial combat roll, you die, a quick painless death, because I shoot you in the head, or manage to drive my blade into your brain.  Every. Single. Time.  It is possible to have a “dice game” that is also a “story game”.  It is not possible to have a “story game” that encourages “winning” or is based on a gamist platform, because it encourages gamist behavior.  If you are a gamist when you play gamist games (IE Monopoly, chess, poker) and a Narrativist when you play narrativist games (IE Everway, old school White Wolf, Amber Diceless RPG) then good for you. If you think that playing narrativist games as a Gamist makes them gamist then yeah, you suck.

ODIN”S EYE!

I’ve just had an epiphany, gamists that play non gamist games as if they were are what we call Munchkins.  They seek to win a patently unwinnable game.  They do this by “min/maxing” characters, fudging dice rolls and exploiting rules loopholes.  In my part of the world, these people are mocked, shunned and if all else fails, beaten into unconsciousness.  Seriously, we hate these guys.  As Scott Kurtz put it in PVP “People like you are ruining this game!”

Y’know, I like games that have clear cut rules.  I like being able to say “this is what my character can do in relationship to the universe, in relationship to other characters.  I want a game with clearly defined attributes.  People that can alter the universe on a moment’s whimsy should be called wizards (or a reasonable setting equivalent) and either be feared and reviled, or respected and revered (or a blend of the two) not players.  A world with no consistency, that changes with no rhyme or reason is madness, and should be played by those that enjoy such things.  There is a reason neither I nor anyone I know (and in Alaska that’s a significant portion of the gaming community) plays games like this.  We enjoy a determined attachment to realism, and find the idealism of Bishop Berkeley to be so much Matrix style bullshit.  I’ve also never heard of a “narr” game that had both a whole  lot of rules and a very well defined set of rules.  Either they leave as much open to “ST adjustment as possible, or there just aren’t a whole lot of them, because the players and ST are supposed to “make them up as needed”.  By definition, a rules heavy game is simulationist, because the rules are meant to simulate the physics of the game universe.  How well, is entirely a matter of opinion.

I will look into The Shadow of Yesterday, and thanks for the links.  I am hesitant to purchase narr heavy games, because no-one ever wants to play them, and usually, the kinda suck.  I picked up the Amber Diceless game and I played one game.  It was so bad, that we quit, and played Spellfire for the rest of the night to try to clear the taste out of out mouths.  I feel morally certain that game directly led to Roger Zelazny’s death.

The thing to remember about sim play, is that unless the rules framework is solid and overarching, all narr play (which admittedly is smoke and mirrors) will collapse on itself every time the “story builders” gat crosswise to each other.  Besides, how do you resolve anything without rules?  No need for probability curves (all probabilities are 50/50; either something will happen, or it won’t).

I also like my user Co-Defined reality concept.  It’s only really doable in the modern age, with the internet being so pervasive and all accessible.  I’ve not gotten the kinks worked out on the creation system yet, but as soon as I do, I’ll post a rough for commentary.  Thanks for the input, and the argument.  I rarely get to engage in intelligent discourse with adults anymore.

-Frith & Troth

You know what I´ve just learned? I learned I shouldn´t use forge terminology on the forge because people surprisignly don´t use them in the glossary sense. You got your terminology all wrong, what you call narrativism is, in forge terms, color or narration or low points of contact, what you call sim is high points of contact etc.

But AD&D and AD&D 2nd edition, were very much about creating the story of your character, encountering scary critters (with nasty big pointy teeth), or fiendishly clever traps, and devilishly convoluted intrigues and finding solutions for them.

Go re-read (... long list of people …)

I’ve also never heard of a “narr” game that had both a whole  lot of rules and a very well defined set of rules.

the rules are meant to simulate the physics of the game universe.

The thing to remember about sim play, is that unless the rules framework is solid and overarching, all narr play (which admittedly is smoke and mirrors) will collapse on itself every time the “story builders” gat crosswise to each other. 

Frith & Troth

Rauðbjørn,
 OK, I have some comments:

The major empires (and some of the worlds) are pre set, as are the major races, and the rest can be made up by the players/GMs and submitted for acceptance and mapping (via an online starmap).

I'm still trying to make the alignment system work the way I want.  It's actualy a matrix of Moral, Ethical and Social constraints that are maleable enough to allow for slow shifting, and "Going Native", but not for dramatic shifts.  The consequences of ignoring your morals, disobeying your ethos or violating your taboos would have more than simply metagame consequences.

Combat is fast pased, realistic, and exciting, with all actions planned before initiative is rolled, and then excecuting in order of reaction.  Damage is either a minor inconvenience (bruises and scrapes, contusions, abrasions and minor concussions) or life-threatening (bullet holes, de-pressurization trauma, ruptured organs), and enough concussions, can lead to a damaged brain.

You know, I think you may be right on a couple of points, I have not been using the terminology correctly.  I went back, and re-read the essays, and the glossary and I think I get it now.  I should have seen it, I mean the SenZar Rule was staring me in the face, and I didn't see it.  You know what gave it away?  You.

You soundmasterJ singlehandedly gave me the clues needed to understand the threat this place poses to my sanity and ability.

You misunderstand (and don't like) the Star Wars movies.  You've never played D&D.  You misunderstand Firefly.  You have no idea who some of the biggest names in Sci-Fi are, and you list, as one of your favorite authors, an experimental author that only counts as Science Fiction (as best I can tell) because all german fiction is divided into "serious" fiction and Sci-Fi.  You actualy like William Gibson.  The man hated and feared computers, Sci-Fi and RPGs (reading Gibson is important, like Joyce or Milton, but nobody likes to).  You're either 12 or you [URL=http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a62/photohosting1234/Fail/fail-1.gif]Fail[/URL] at fandom.

It would seem, that I have stumbled upon the RPG equivilant of the Art Department.  The twisted phrasology, the counter-intuitive neo-logisms, the fact that everyone here seems to be concerned with the "Form" of the story, and not the "function" of the game.  You people are Poseurs. 

Unable to produce a playable game, and failing to really understand either the function of, or the creation of, you settle for appreciating the idea of an RPG and create odes to the wonderfulness of the form, but never the function.

Those that can, do.
Those that can't, teach.
Those that can't teach, write textbooks.

Sayonara Suckers, I'm off to write a game that works, if fun and will sell.  Enjoy your coffee, and mind you dont think too hard.

You didn't mentoined Heinlein in your List,that makes all your posts invalid.

I won a battle I shouldn´t even have started. I am sorry. It will not happen again. Hopefully, I learned my lesson.

Rauðbjørn, I don´t represent the Forge; I´m not even a good example (as I´ve just shown). Good luck with your gaming. To be honest, I think you just acted pretty immature (what with all the name-calling). But if you somehwat prematurely decide this isn´t the place for you, well, I hope it works out for you.

Also, Arno Schmidt actually wrote some Science Fiction (post-apocalyptic stuff with centaur mutants and brain transplants form man to horse). It´s really interesting.

Sayonara Suckers?  Really?  Off to write a game that works, is fun and will sell?  Give Bill Gates my regards.  Wow, grow up man.

All right, let's take a look at what happened in this thread.

1. The guy showed up here in good faith and presented some game ideas.

2. People flipped their lids because he used a word ("alignment") that meant so much to them, they couldn't take the time to ask "what does that mean in play" without criticizing first.

3. Jona, never use GNS talk in First Thoughts with newcomers. Why? Because they're trying to use it to fit in without understanding it a bit (usually), not actually to apply the ideas. So when you correct them, all it means to them is a put-down, a refusal to let them fit in.

4. A geek-fight started about what kind of science fiction is good and what kind isn't.

5. Everybody used fake courtesy in practice. It is absolutely wrong to use phrases like "Don't try to win an argument against me." I don't care what you meant by it, it could have been the most benevolent and helpful intention in the world, but it will be read as "Fuck you, I'm bigger than you."

6. You all insulted him, shut him out, shut down any talk about his game, and basically insulted me and this site in doing so.

All of you have just conformed to every bad stereotype of what people claim about the Forge. This is not acceptable. Do not ever treat anyone this way at this website again.

Best, Ron

...sadly, I agree, apparently posthumously, with Rauðbjørn on many topics. How in the hell did I even type his name just then? I can't even pronounce the damn ð.

As a person who, honestly, couldn't give a shit about GNS if it stole my girlfriend from me, all this talk saddens me. Don't get me wrong. I like GNS, just not one specific element of GNS. I like games that are heavy on the story, defined as per the rules, and feature some form of loss or victory so I have a goal. So, generally, I'll be just fine.

If you're here still, Rauðbjørn, I would like 1) to provide slight critique on your post, and 2) to perhaps recieve further e-mails about it. Because I like it. I'm not a fan of random stat gen, as a rule, because usually the system makes you pay for. Hard. However, in the context, I'd love to give it a try. I like the the-tier alignment system, and I understand where you're coming from with it. I always thought the alignment system in D&D was a little too undefined. As a DM, I appreciated the ability of my players to let me know their characters moral standing in the world. As a tool for roleplaying, it seems like you've put a lot of thought into it.

The wound system seems just gritty enough for my tastes. And I have to remark upon the nature of your design, wherein you call upon many thousands of potential players to easily contribute usable material for the many other potential thousands to work with. Reminds of SPORE. =)

A couple of questions.
Rule-wise, how would combat work? And since we're on the topic here, how fatal would it be? Call of Cthulhu fatal, or not so much?

If it was in one's moral code (for whatever reson) to be a murderer or thief, such as a pirate, would it be possible that sudden changes in environment and culture could force a change (if reluctantly and perhaps with accompanying mental side-effects) on their social mores?

Finally, what kind of structure would you have for levelling up or in some other way incresing one's skills or abilities?

That's about it. Hopefully, you reluctantly came back in time to see this post. =) If you did, keep me updated.