A couple of things got broken out of the Sci-Fi debate which seem to actually be genre-independent; there is a feeling that SF may benefit more from an exploration of this, because they're more common in that medium and inadequately covered in most RPGs, but they also have strong applicability to other genres too. So I'm going to break out of the SF-only mode, and start this thread to try and resolve some of the unanswered questions that thread left hanging.

It keys to a point Paul made, about the unique character. We all know the type, both from literature and roleplay: the first detective to be partnered with a robot, the runaway with experimental cyberware which does heretofore impossible things, the classic first-AI-made in a thousand incarnations, the bearer of the One Ring. Characters who break the mold of their setting, who are perhaps the first arrivals of a new thing upon the world stage, or the last relic of an era which predates the setting's assumptions, or perhaps simply a character whose essential nature could only ever occur once.

Now, I want to strip this of the tag "unique" because it has the potential to set up an unproductive controverse-fest. :) All characters are unique, we hope. Instead, I think the term "groundbreakers" would work well to describe the character type I described above, especially coming from within a discussion of science fiction. The most common source seems to be a character who is, or possesses, something unprecedented within his context.

Now, I will assume (without proof) a few things about gameplay involving these characters. They are a lot of fun to play, often extremely memorable. They can be bandwidth-hogs, assuming overimportance in their group; this can be bearable with one, but often breaks down with multiples or with the wrong player. Their unqiue element, the thing that makes them a groundbreaker, cannot appear in the game itself - it does not have an entry in an equipment or powers list, even in the GM section. If it is described in full by the game's author then its edge is blunted and savour lost; it should be the result of player creativity, not game designer cleverness. At most, it may be hinted at; preferably, it is something made possible in the game's context, but original to this instantiation of play.

The key question is, how do we write games so as to best empower players to create groundbreaker characters, when writing in the groundbreaker element blunts its edge?

Secondary to this, how do we (tactfully) regulate them? A group full of such is potentially less fun than one without any at all. GM recommendations is an obvious, but sometimes inefficient, mode. If we succeed in the above, then we need to consider this as well. Note that if we don't have a good way to do A, then B is irrelevant, so I'd prefer if initial discussion tried to stay focussed on A. It may also not be necessary at all, it's just a risk factor which (present in every group) increases if we succeed at the enablement step.

The enablement question may also bring us back to Big Idea stories, where the *setting* is essentially a groundbreaker itself. The two forms are similar; they're both about the ramifications of something novel, and have an underlying Exploratory tone. Interestingly, in The Limits of Sci-Fi, we did explore the possibility of a game system which enabled the GM to make his own groundbreakers - the Big Idea - and I think there's still meat on that bone. The line between Big Idea and Groundbreaker is blurry; many settings and stories find their uniqueness focussed on one individual, whose existence in the tale empowers Big Idea-like grandeur. I think I'm more interested in enablement of Groundbreakers, because a meta-setting which helps enable Big Idea settings has limited appeal, but Groundbreakers are everywhere, and turn up in many favorite forms (like the heavily mythic fable) of story.

So, how do you write your game such that it properly, maximally, supports this mode of player activity? I have my own ideas, but I'll open the floor for a bit first... I'm interested to hear other suggestions.

Harlequin wrote: I think the term "groundbreakers" would work well to describe the character type I described above, especially coming from within a discussion of science fiction. The most common source seems to be a character who is, or possesses, something unprecedented within his context.

[A little edit from me:] Now, I will assume (without proof) a few things about gameplay involving these characters.

• They are a lot of fun to play, often extremely memorable.

• They can be bandwidth-hogs, assuming over-importance in their group;


• This can be bearable with one, but often breaks down with multiples or with the wrong player.


• Their unique element, the thing that makes them a groundbreaker, cannot appear in the game itself.


It does not have an entry in an equipment or powers list, even in the GM section. If it is described in full by the game's author then its edge is blunted and savour lost; it should be the result of player creativity, not game designer cleverness. At most, it may be hinted at; preferably, it is something made possible in the game's context, but original to this instantiation of play.

[And again.] The key question[s are]...

• How do we write games so as to best empower players to create groundbreaker characters, when writing in the groundbreaker element blunts its edge?

• Secondary to this, how do we (tactfully) regulate them?

• So, how do you write your game such that it properly, maximally, supports this mode of player activity?

I have my own ideas, but I'll open the floor for a bit first... I'm interested to hear other suggestions.

Harlequin wrote:

....a point Paul made [in the Limits of SF thread], about the unique character. We all know the type, both from literature and roleplay: the first detective to be partnered with a robot, the runaway with experimental cyberware which does heretofore impossible things, the classic first-AI-made in a thousand incarnations, the bearer of the One Ring. Characters who break the mold of their setting, who are perhaps the first arrivals of a new thing upon the world stage, or the last relic of an era which predates the setting's assumptions, or perhaps simply a character whose essential nature could only ever occur once.

A group full of such ["groundbreaker" characters] is potentially less fun than one without any at all.

I keep thinking there has to be a better word than "groundbreaking"; but I don't know what it is, so it will have to do.

Harlequin wrote: The key question is, how do we write games so as to best empower players to create groundbreaker characters, when writing in the groundbreaker element blunts its edge?

MJ wrote:

Rod, I'm intrigued by your idea. In reading it, I wondered how it would work in a historic setting. As the civil war came to mind, I wondered whether your system would do well in treating John Brown?

Thanks for the redirect, Rod... I really like your core concept and will definitely be tracking it, but I agree also that it's verging off-topic somewhat (esp. in the specific instantiations rather than general analysis).

There's still definite meat in the core thought, though. Because although I think the class of characters you're talking about are not the entirety of the Groundbreaker class - not all GBs are system-breakers - it's a rock-solid cardcarrying subset, for sure. Tying that sort to the integrity of their success at their objectives (which in your case is the Civilization Rating, but could easily be generalized, if something other than the System is your primary opposition) and giving them a fairly clear-cut pass/fail criterion is really interesting. Given that I'm already looking at using defined Objectives as a core mechanic, I may well come back to the Civilization Rating and its kin at some later date and abuse it wholeheartedly. :)

Which is not to say that the Civilization Rating thing is what has me most excited about your post. The central idea of the Groundbreaker ushering in a new age, even if not universally applicable to all GBs, does do a very good job of demonstrating the importance of the GB's interaction with the world; more on that in a sec.

The Mystery Options I honestly like less well; having things be entirely unknown to the player is not the style of gaming I prefer. However, I can see its validity as a technique, and if more restrained, could be very interesting. A couple of games do allow you to answer "up to the GM" to one or several of the blanks on the character sheet, and that's close to the exercise of the same option. (Generally it's done through a poorly-implemented Amnesia disadvantage, but hey, we knew there was room for improvement.) The problem I envision with it is that I can see it increasing artistic/aesthetic differences rapidly... if I opt for a Mystery Option with my hardnosed detective, and get "born sorceror" when I was expecting something like a love affair or MacGuffin, I may find my character losing coherence in my eyes. The GM merely thought he was giving me something cool to supplement a (to him) somewhat vanilla character concept, but did not properly realize how important that simplicity and earthiness was to my vision of the character. Oops. There are ways to rein it in, but I think it probably better to avoid the initial situation.

I think, though I couldn't have phrased it before, that Rod's phrasing gives me the werewithal to state the only thing I didn't like about Fang's comments (and suggestions)... that, although I agree that all characters should have an element of the heretofore unknown, there's a hidden requirement of the "pure" Groundbreaker type, independent of efficacy, which makes 'spotlight hog' issues nontrivial. The hidden requirement is in the form of the character's interaction with the narrative... because the novel element of the groundbreaker comes across as trivial, if it does not emerge as absolutely central to at least some respectable proportion of stories told. Rod's established type has this in strongest form, and thus he will necessarily suffer the spotlight issue in strongest form... because really, only one Groundbreaker or a single distributed-Groundbreaker can participate to the extent Rod is discussing, with the destruction of the System. This is not going to be resolved with the ordinary level of spotlight-hog regulation standard to other forms, it will need something stronger and more organic.

That being said, I do want to sideline for a moment and introduce the concept of a distributed Groundbreaker to our concept-space here. Not all GBs are single characters. In the Caves of Steel example, it's the partnership which is itself groundbreaking. Ditto for the character with the whispering AI in his ear... it's quite feasible to do both intelligences in the relationship as player characters, at which point they share the GB status between them. In most such situations, what's truly novel is in fact the unique relationship itself - possibly in addition to the unique nature of one or both (or all) participants, but that's not required.

This form of the GB concept has clear advantages and disadvantages in the metagame environment. The advantage - a strong one - is that it gets more players involved in the groundbreaking, allowing it to define the campaign more strongly without cutting anyone out. The disadvantage is that it also shares out the "cool factor," somewhat reducing the individual thrill. (Groundbreaker may well be tied into a form of ego play, alas, which means that part of those cool points come at the cost of ego gaming. If this is balanced, it's not necessarily unhealthy, but it's certainly a point to watch and may be a better way to phrase it than "spotlight hog" alone - that being merely a symptom. Let's leave the general advantages and disadvantages of ego-driven play for somewhere else, and merely treat how to reduce the interaction between GB status and unhealthy ego play, here. I don't think they're necessarily hard-linked.)

Introducing that concept is taxonomy alone... it doesn't get us anywhere, it just puts tools on the table. And I'm running out of room in this post and my workday, so the post I'd been planning (my own ideas on how to enable and promote GB characters) will have to wait. Sorry to be a tease... :)

This may not be surprising but I too have been thinking a bit about the whole idea of Character Empowerment. I was at first disturbed by the fact that I may not be empowering my characters I think and design as a GM because well I mostly GM, hard to find people willing to GM in my area.

Borrowing some from Clausewitz, the groundbreaker character or characters COULD be thought of as the Center of Gravity of the current universe. Yes clearly in any game they are the Protagonists, but but often small Quarks in a rather large Molecule. They often do not exert enough tremendous force in their gaming world.

So instead of treating them like just more stars in a rather large universe, perhaps we could look upon Characters as a sudden Singularity that has burst upon the scene. Suddenly, regardless of their true power level, the universe brushes them with great victory and tragedy, they find themselves at the center of events and can influence the world beyond the mechanical ability of just their stats. How often do we see low power or beginning characters make a real impact on their world? Though we know in real life those of supposedly small importance CAN make a huge difference.

Of course are they as a group this singularity or does each individual influence things in a noticably different way? I would think a combination of both would be most common.

Sean
ADGBoss