Okay... I've been mulling around a few thoughts on a potential new game. This is still in the "random bits rolling around in my head" phase. It started with a fixation on the name (Standard Deviants), some thoughts on group behavior, and an article I read on Heidegger. I'm debating whether there is something here that might be playable. Feedback would be lovely. I may actually come up with some coherent questions toward the end of my ramblings.

Premise: At what cost Individuality?

Characters:

Each player group will be a unit of genetically-altered clones designed for off-world work. Herd-instincts will have been magnified tremendously within each unit, probably reinforced with pheremones (or some sort of psionic group empathy/hive-mind thing if I go that route). Characters will have some degree of specialty within their group, and will have the potential to specialize more. This will include physical differentiation, as the characters have been genetically engineered to be capable of unnatural physical adaptability (possibly psionic in origin, otherwise through some sort of nanotechie/virus thing). However, the more differentiated the characters become (either physically or by their role in the group), the more unstable they become (both mentally and socially).

Game Mechanics Notes:

Groups will start out with all members having identical base attributes at the beginning of character creation. If one individual wants to increase, say, their strength another character will need to decrease their strength.

Each character will have a two scores which will limit each other (i.e., added together, they cannot exceed a certain number... say 20 for now): Individuality and Community. Your Individuality is your base score for determining how easy it is for you to mutate, to learn skills not possessed by others in your group, or to take actions that others in the group do not approve of. Your Community is your base score for your Sanity, your Stability (the ability to control your mutations), and for determining how well you can cooperate with others in your group. Individuality may increase when you successfully mutate or take individual action that the group considers deviant. Community may increase when you integrate your new abilities into the group or otherwise improve teamwork.



Setting:

Still a little fuzzy. Science Fiction, clearly.
Probably far-future, off-world.
Possibly an emphasis on exploration and terraforming of other planets.
Possibly during (or after) a revolution of the genetically engineered.

I'm leaning toward the psionic angle, btw, as it provides both an easy way of linking the characters and allowing for plausible differentiation between them (the same process that links them may make their psionic talents unstable).


I'm not certain about a couple of things here.

First, this game would, by its nature, necessitate a different sort of group interaction than most. I understand that it wouldn't be for everyone - the player who likes playing maverick-types might get frustrated. I suppose my question is whether it is likely to be enjoyable for anyone?

Second, and this is my big concern right now: I'm still trying to figure out what it is that the characters will do. My emphasis in thinking about the game has so far been largely limited to interaction within the group. Maybe there is something obvious implicit in this that I am missing. My concern is that I don't want campaign ideas to feel tacked-on.

Stuart
(who typically goes by szilard in gaming-related circles, but generally approves of this whole real-name thing on the Forge)

Hey Stuart.

1. Sure, pending 2.

2. You need some conflict. What price individuality? says that the conflict comes from individuality being expensive. Make it so. Not in a resource management sense, of course, but in a moral, interpersonal sense. During a revolution sounds likely, if the PCs are the revolutionaries and the revolution forces them to make decisions about individuality vs. collectivity.

-Vincent

szilard wrote:
Each player group will be a unit of genetically-altered clones designed for off-world work. Herd-instincts will have been magnified tremendously within each unit, probably reinforced with pheremones (or some sort of psionic group empathy/hive-mind thing if I go that route). Characters will have some degree of specialty within their group, and will have the potential to specialize more. This will include physical differentiation, as the characters have been genetically engineered to be capable of unnatural physical adaptability (possibly psionic in origin, otherwise through some sort of nanotechie/virus thing). However, the more differentiated the characters become (either physically or by their role in the group), the more unstable they become (both mentally and socially).

szilard wrote:
Second, and this is my big concern right now: I'm still trying to figure out what it is that the characters will do. My emphasis in thinking about the game has so far been largely limited to interaction within the group. Maybe there is something obvious implicit in this that I am missing. My concern is that I don't want campaign ideas to feel tacked-on.

Okay, some more detail on where this is going...

Standard Group: A group of cloned humans modified by the experimental
Li-Karovski Process. While not a true group organism, a Standard Group
demonstrates great abilities of internal coordination and cohesiveness,
while also exhibiting remarkable psionic potential and adaptability. This
makes them remarkably effective at a wide variety of tasks.

Deviant: A Standard Group member who has been cut off from its Standard Group or has otherwise abandoned its Standard Group in favor of individuality. Deviants are physically and mentally unstable and are considered extremely dangerous.

The plan, as it is evolving, is to set this on the brink of revolution. The masters of the Standard Groups, in the current plan, are known as the Lightbearer Collective, a religiously-based corporation which controls several planetary systems and aggressivelypushes its boundaries. Lightbearer dogma results in a niche that encourages extensive use of the Li-Karovski Process (which is not used elsewhere for a combination of economic and ethical reasons) - Standard Groups are considered natural but not human, and both artificial life and mechanical mockeries of life are prohibited. The Standard Groups are being used to explore a new world and establish bases in which terraforming equipment will be set up. Unbeknowst to the Lightbearer Collective, the Standard Groups discover signs of an ancient alien civilization to which they feel a strange affinity...

So... what do characters do? The game can support a few different types of campaign: exploration, politics, revolution, archeological mystery...

Stuart

What happens when a character does go rogue? I assume that the others are programmed to try to bring him back into the fold, or to retire him (ala Blade Runner)? My point is that this forces an end to the game, it seems to me, for at least one player. Unless that character is reintroduced successfully to the group. Is that the intent?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: What happens when a character does go rogue? I assume that the others are programmed to try to bring him back into the fold, or to retire him (ala Blade Runner)? My point is that this forces an end to the game, it seems to me, for at least one player. Unless that character is reintroduced successfully to the group. Is that the intent?

Right now, I know that I definitely want two set statistics. These are:

Unity – This represents the cohesion of a Standard Group, how well it works together, and how much strength and assistance each PC can draw from the group. It is a group statistic, and does not vary by individual PC.

Individuality – This represents the individuality of a Standard Group Member, both how well that individual can function without the entire
Standard Group and the lack of uniformity of purpose between that PC and the Group. PCs with high Individuality scores can be very effective, but run the risk of Deviance.


Beyond that, I have a lot of desires for how the mechanics should work, but that which I’ve come up with seems inelegant. Anyway, here is what I want:

(1) The Standard Group should, in every way possible, be the norm against which other things are measured. More on this below.
(2) The standard method of determining success should assume the presence and passive assistance of the entire Standard Group. There should also be a simple and straightforward method of treating the group as a unit for those times when it actively works together on a task (with greater chances of success than the standard method) – and this should somehow be based on the Unity score. There should be a way of determining success when a PC is isolated from some or all of the group or does not have the group’s support in the task being undertaken (with lower chances of success which can be mitigated at least to some degree by a high Individuality score).
(3) I’d like to refrain from having a specific list of attributes and skills. I’ll list some sample ones to give an idea of what typical Standard Groups are capable of, but they should be non-exclusive. The same will hold true for psionic attributes, though I will have a semi-comprehensive list of common psionic attributes.
(4) I’d like some sore of dice system that reflects the notions of unity and deviance. I’d also like to stick to my dice mechanics preferences: one type of dice (preferably d6, though d10 is okay), no huge handfuls of dice, and no need to have two different colors of dice.
(5) I want to keep this game relatively rules-light.

Given (1), I’d like to say that, by default, every PC has all attributes (other than Unity and Individuality) set to zero. This wouldn’t represent incompetence, but rather demonstrate that any skill level above or below that default is a deviation.

Under this system, all attributes are measured on a scale that takes the Standard Group as the norm. If Standard Group Members are stronger than average humans (as they typically are), then a Strength of 0 will represent a strength above that of the average human (who might have a Strength –2 on this scale). Similarly, if the PCs are wholly ignorant
of Quantum Mechanics, then a human physicist might have a knowledge of +18 (or whatever) in that area.

PCs wouldn’t all have identical statistics, however. PCs would have the option of specializing in some things. For each +1 in an attribute a PC takes at character creation, however, another PC will have to take a –1 in that attribute so that the group average is still zero (there may be some exceptions to this which would result in increased individuality and/or decreased unity).

I’ve been toying with a variety of die mechanics.

Method 1: 3d6, take the middle die. When the group as a whole is acting, take the top die instead (modified by Unity). When a single individual is acting with no support, take the bottom die (modified by Individuality). Doubles and Triples have special results when psionics come into play. Each +1 in an applicable attribute allows you to roll another die and add it to your total. Each -1 in an applicable attribute forces you to roll another die and subtract it from your total.

Method 2: As above, but attributes add or subtract directly from the result.

Method 3: Karma. Success at a task is determined by looking at Unity + appropriate attributes. When the group works together, each member adds positive attributes (but not negative). When an individual works without the group, success is determined by Individuality + attribute.

I’m torn on which of these (if any) to use. Method 2 is less clunky than 1, but it still seems a bit ad hoc. I’m not really a huge fan of all-karma systems. If there was some way of adding a bit of fortune to 3, it might make me happier. I might just throw a +d6 in there (or maybe a +d6-d6) and use that.

As far as the basic idea of the system goes, there are two basic problems that I can see. The first is that it assigns the same numerical score to a wide variety of competence levels (in different areas, at least). The second is that it necessitates comparing every NPC to the Standard Group (this would prohibit, for instance, publishing NPC statistics that could be used with any Standard Group). Do these seem like serious problems? Are there easy fixes that I’m missing? Is there another system that would do what I want? Does the system I’m proposing just really suck?

Stuart

Fix for comparing NPCs to the Standard Group:
Standard Groups have features just like characters do; these features indicate how the SG deviates from a larger whole still. This whole is some big standard against which you measure everyone, but the double layers of differentiation make it possible to distinguisg SGs from each other.

Then you can very simply cast NPCs against the Standard, or give them a group, etc. This layering could be repeated indefinitely. Whatever.

I don't have time to read through all of this 'cause I'm at work, but a quick skim leads me to believe that you should definitely check out an Ursela K. LeGuin short story whose title eludes me at the moment. It's about teams of cloned workers.

Boy, that's helpful, isn't it? :) When I get home, I'll post the story title and give some feedback. Sufficient to the moment to say I like this idea. Anyone else here familiar with the story I'm talking about?

four willows weeping wrote: Fix for comparing NPCs to the Standard Group:
Standard Groups have features just like characters do; these features indicate how the SG deviates from a larger whole still. This whole is some big standard against which you measure everyone, but the double layers of differentiation make it possible to distinguisg SGs from each other.

The name of the story to which I was referring is "Nine Lives" by Ursela K. LeGuin. It's in a collection of stories entitled "The Wind's Twelve Quarters" which incidentally has some other cool stories in it.

After reading a bit more of your idea, it is my opinion that you should really check out this story. :)

I'm liking system 3 the most out of your proposed systems. A suggestion: Fudge dice might serve you well for a bit of a randomizer. 2d6-7 works well also, and of course +d6-d6 as you propose is good too.

Another thought that occurs to me is that this game might lend itself well to one-on-one play - one player as GM and the other controlling an entire Standard Group.

Ethan,

Thanks for the story tip. I will check it out.

Stuart
just back from vacation

One thing that occurs to me: These are identical people. They're all the same and work together as a team. Tasks could be defined as purely deterministic in difficulty. This would re-inforce the sense of "sameness".

For instance, a task can be defined as doable by one standard. A harder task would only be doable by 2 or more standards working together. If a standard is somhow better or worse at something, or wants to try to acheive something that they usually would not be able to do, they can start rolling dice. But doing so increases their "deviance" (or something). Each extra dice they choose to roll adds one to the effective number of standards present for each 1 or 6 that comes up, but if a 1 is rolled they gain some deviance in whatever area they were working in.

For example, 2 standard (we'll call them Tim and John) are trying to open a sealed door. This is a job that requires 3 standards, but they are the only 2 around. they beth decide to risk deviance by rolling a dice. Tim gets a 4 and john rolls a 1. That means they are as effective as 3 standards, but due to rolling a 1, John can now be considered slightly stronger than a standard. Anytime from now on that John tries anything which involves strength, he is slightly stronger and counts more...

OK, it's still fairly half baked, but you get the idea...

Maybe they are part of a colony ship that left earth many years ago with frozen dna which would be "born" as colonists when it reached it's destination. Something has gone wrong, and now only one type of DNA can be used to create viable clones. This means that the powers at be hove no choice but to throw numbers at any skills shortage they have.

ethan_greer wrote: The name of the story to which I was referring is "Nine Lives" by Ursela K. LeGuin. It's in a collection of stories entitled "The Wind's Twelve Quarters" which incidentally has some other cool stories in it.

After reading a bit more of your idea, it is my opinion that you should really check out this story. :)

Weird, isn't it? The similarities, I mean.

Anyhow, how are things going with this project of yours? Any new developments?

ethan_greer wrote: Weird, isn't it? The similarities, I mean.

Anyhow, how are things going with this project of yours? Any new developments?

Okay, feel free to tell me I'm a raving freak here, but you did say this came up when you read an article by (or about?) Heidegger, so you asked for it.

It occurs to me that this game is in some ways tinkering with fundamental (which is not to say simple) concepts of reflection philosophy. I wonder if you couldn't foreground this a bit more, so that the premise becomes something that actually every player agonizes about too, like it or not; that is, what you're doing here is amplifying and emphasizing aspects of a fundamental human problematic, and by leaning on it a bit as a human problem (not just a clone thing) you might encourage deeper play.

Figuring here that some readers just said, "What the hell is he talking about?" and not knowing how many or which ones, let me put that a bit more concretely.

--------------------------- (brief intro)
Okay, so you've got the Subject, which is to say me, I, the little man in my head. I think therefore I am.

The problem is that if the Subject is in a total vacuum (of objects, ideas, everything), i.e. there isn't anything at all except the Subject, then the Subject can't say, know, or think anything. It can't say, "I think" or "I am" because these ideas imply "some things don't / aren't" and/or "thinking" as a specific idea/action different from "I", and so on.

So the way the Subject comes to know anything is by looking at other things, generally known as the Object. And since what it really wants to know about is itself, it's looking at the Object comparatively, trying to find out what about the Object will be most helpful for understanding the Subject. In essence the Subject is looking to interpret the Object as a mirror, so it can understand itself. This is called the reflection problem.

So the Subject can't know itself in any sense, including whether it exists or not. But we all make up stories about how real we are, and how well we understand ourselves, because we don't want to recognize the fragility of the Subject.
--------------------------- (back to clones)

Okay, so I'm a clone with a herd mentality. Everywhere I look, I see some nice mirrors.

The better I come to understand myself with respect to those mirrors (other clones), the more I am differentiating myself from them. And that pushes me, the Subject, more and more toward the original dangerous condition of unity and isolation, where I can't understand anything because I have no objects / mirrors. So the more I come to understand myself, the greater the danger of my total insanity.

On the other hand, the more I come to identify myself with the others, i.e. the more I treat the mirrors as true reflections, the less I am capable of maintaining the idea of a separation between Subject and Object, self and other. And if that goes all the way, the "herd" thing conquers: I become a cow, basically, placidly chewing my cud and happy to be like everyone else and with a vegetative mind.

So intellectually, the clone's most fundamental struggle is doomed from the outset, but it is that very struggle which nonetheless defines him morally, makes him a true person (cf. the replicants in Blade Runner).

And the trick is, of course, that the same problem applies to every intelligent being, because the Subject problem has nothing to do with being a clone as such. So the clone's problem is really only that he sees clearly what ordinary humans always try to forget: your identity as a human being and an individual is (1) unprovable, (2) inherently self-destructive, and (3) resting on a very fragile foundation.

--------------
Maybe that's all too much "high concept" for this game, but I'd love to see a Premise that's really a deep human concern; I think you've got that, but I would encourage you to emphasize it a bit. I for one am tired of games that have sophomoric Premises along the lines of, "How can we agonize about being weird/dead/ugly (and powerful)?"

Chris,

The struggle, as you describe it, is there. I think I pointed out that the premise of the game was, roughly, At what price individuality? You round that out nicely... and put it into some terms I hadn't considered. Thank you.

I think that this struggle will be, largely, in the foreground. Yeah, if you want to play the game as a crack-commando-unit who work incredibly well together, you'll probably be able to do so and (hopefully) have fun at it. That's not the real focus, though. I can't imagine that a game about playing clones would have a wide appeal unless it was used to illustrate something interesting about human nature. That is what I'm hoping to do.

The article, btw, was John Haugland's "Heidegger on Being a Human." Very good stuff.

Stuart

I've been toying with a few different formats, but I have - for far too long - left several basic questions about this game unanswered (to myself). Thus, I submit the subject of my internal debates for comment:

1. How many members should there be to a standard group in relation to the players? Should there be a set number? A ratio? If the latter, what should it be? Should the players, in character creation, be able to determine how many deviants there are in the group?

2. Who should have narrative rights over the non-deviants in the group? Currently, I'm working on the assumption that it will be shared between players with the players of more-deviant characters having less control.

3. Should the game be GM-less? I was toying with this for awhile, but I am really not sure if it would be a good choice.

4. Should I include an option for each player to control an entire non-deviant standard group? This would, essentially, be a game-within-a-game... and probably substantially more Simulationist than Narrativist. It might also be more popular...

Stuart

1. I think the actual numbers in the SG can be decided during character creation based on the desires of the players.

2. This is a difficult question, and I don't have any specific advice for you here. I could see a number of different approaches working. I would say, write up some different approaches, playtest 'em, and pick the one you like best. Or, present all the ones that work and let the individual group decide, ala a "dial" that can be turned.

3. I don't think the game should be sans-GM; that opinion is based on my own personal preferences, so take it with a grain of salt.

4. I think this would be an interesting dial setting you could include, and I would refer back to my response in 2 - i.e. playtest.

That assumes, of course, that you're ready to playtest... If you're still totally in the planning stages, the approach that works for me is to just go with what seems comfortable or correct based on what you envision the game to be like. Once you have a straw man put together you'll have something that's easier to tear at. Is all this making sense? I'm kinda rambling, sorry...