Hi,

I wanted to get some advice on an idea spawned by this thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4170

RobMuadib, among many interesting comments, said the following:

RobMuadib wrote: To make it narrativist you would have to inject some kind of Theme like, Do you have a duty to a Human Society that you never see. Where the crux would be does the character act carefully and prudently to safeguard human societies interests in these things, or does he do what's good for him.

Either way it's a populace you don't really know. Which is a cool premise in my book. How would you go about reinforcing it, however? You have to make it possible to "quit" or at least fail to commit fully. Else there is no question as to what they answer will be. Every player will answer "Everything".

Rhetorical quesitons are also cool, but pretty Sim. Comes down to, "How do we make 'em pay?" Which could even be Gamist if looked at in a certain light.

So to make it Narrativist there has to be an answer that's "less than everything" that makes potential sense for some characters.

I'd play this premise in any of the three modes, actually.

Mike

Good points Mike, I'm not actually sure it is narrativist at present although I think you hit on why that might be.

Clearly an alternative to fighting is required. What if the enemy offer some form of deal? One that applies to you and your people here only.

What if it was apparent that you could live out your entire life on one of the intermediate target worlds long before the enemy got to it? Would that suffice? Probably not I suspect as it's a dull choice, not really that tempting.

More interestingly, what if the technology which allowed you to cross the stars would let you keep going? What if, instead of spending your precious ships fighting the enemy you could use them as mobile colonies, never returning, always travelling and forever safe from the enemy? What if that option would only work if enough ships committed to it so as to provide the necessary minimum parts and population?

So, fight or run. Fight or just live as you are, safe even if nobody else is. Hey, what if being spacebound rather than planetbound you could stay in the asteroid belt of the system you're in right now and not even take part in the war. If you do it, maybe others will follow your example and you'll build that critical mass sufficient to take the whole bunch of you somewhere safer.

Now we're getting into conflict between people, more sim I think but more interesting as ultimately people are what's interesting.

Balbinus wrote: Now we're getting into conflict between people, more sim I think but more interesting as ultimately people are what's interesting.

Good ideas again Mike, although I'd prefer to have the colonies spacebound as the inhabitable planet is already inhabited.

Still, loyalty to families and loved ones against responsibility for billions unknown. That's tough. Also, what of the inhabitants of the planet down there? So alien you're not sure you could even communicate with them. Certainly alien enough that their world could never support you. If you die for them, you die for creatures you barely comprehend who most certainly do not comprehend you, creatures you might well find disturbing or just too alien to feel any real empathy for. But, they remain sentient and you might well be the only hope of their entire race.

That's why no planetary colonies. There is nowhere habitable outside your ships. I want that sense of isolation, claustrophobia almost. A thin shell between your family, your loved ones, and the void. The only life the enemy and the locals who you don't understand. The folks back home no more than a memory, with no way to ever check if they're even still alive.

So, a small number of people you care about or countless strangers, who do you save?

I prefer the "on the wing" idea... hurtling at slightly less than c toward a probably horrifying enemy and having an argument about how its all a terrible idea or not. You could have a lot of fun with doubt here.

I think the lifeboat strategy might be quite interesting; it would be such an awsome betrayal, by weakening the ship/fleets combat capacity, that its personal significance would overshadow the probably dullness; in a very real sense, ejecting could be death i.e stop play. But, a cogent argument could be made to scatter and preserve the species in small clusters, hide out the storm - hence, another argument.

I like the idea. It would just have to be a oneshot, I think, but might be very good. I'm all for that sort of thing.

Oh, the locals may in time be capable of understanding, but the enemy are beyond communication. Too dangerous and they show no interest in it. Even their motives are pure speculation.

Anything else and you distract from the purity of the central dilemma.

As a side note, have you checked Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" for exactly these kind of issues?

Manu

How about this, playing off Gareth's idea above.

The ship is a "generation ship" meaning that its taken hundreds of years to reach it's destination at sub-light speed. As such, to support a massive invasion and ensure victory, the ship is titanic and has many of the elements of a planet in that it has an huge interior cylindrical surface that rotates for artificial gravity. Crops are planted, small towns exist, everything you need to sustain life for several generations. I am, of course, stealing this from Metamorphosis Alpha and a lot of venerated sci-fi. But in this case, all goes well, mechanically; no strange radiation clouds or anything to slow them down or lose their way. However...

To "ensure" that the final crew not only makes it there, but performs it's final duty, the original generation taught their children about their future duty via a psueudo-religious organization not too dissimilar from the Scouts. But over many generations the duty has taken on a completely religious cast, and the people of the ship now look forward to the day of Armageddon. To be precise, the players are members of the generation destined to reach the enemy.

But there's a fly in the ointment. A revolution led by one of the last generations who has decided that the whole story of Earth is an elaborate lie. His group is an underground that seeks to persuade the people of the ship to change course, and never reach their destination.

Into this throw the PCs who are, effectively, "Sandmen" from Logan's Run. They have been formed into an organization meant to bring the weak back into the fold (for they cannot succeed at their task if they don't have most everybody helping; or so the scriptures say). Do these characters go with the teachings, or do they join the heresy. After all, they are going to throw their lives away in a battle with an enemy they don't know, and aren't certain they can defeat, for a people they've never met. And it's not like they don't have what they need to live in comfort indefinitely. And even if Earth does exist, it's not like it'll mean the extinction of the human race; the ship will survive. Why should they die that others might live? Can this be the meaning to life?

Ooh yeah. That'd work. I see it as a finite game where the PCs actions would, in the end, after say five or so sessions (or less for con play), dictate what the ship decided to do in one massive answer to the premise.

Mike