How Dystopian Are We Going?

[Kaden]

Decline.

I want rainy, depressing steampunk

I 100% disagree with the sentiment that:

if we're in the Decline or Very Dystopian, there are much less hooks in the real world we can use.

There are just as many "hooks" in a decline as their are in brink, they simply carry a different tone.

[Sigfried Hunin]

You can have rainy, depressing steampunk in the Brink scenario, it's just that there is shit to do outside while it's being rainy and depressing. Like any noir film ever made.

And no, you do lose a lot of interesting ways to integrate a character into the outside world is culture has abandoned it. If everybody is inside plugged into the net, there are less of them to actually do interesting things outside, which creates less opportunities to write about them or involve another character in them.

[Kaden]

And no, you do lose a lot of interesting ways to integrate a character into the outside world is culture has abandoned it.

We will never agree on this point.

The difference between brink and decline is not whether or not "everyone" is always on the net. It's how it's perceived by society and the attitude towards those who live more in the Net than anything else.

Building a mechanic, like The Net, into an RPG and then saying it's not commonly/regularly used is stupid and greatly mitigates the reason for it being there in the first place.

[Sigfried Hunin]

I'm not saying it isn't commonly used, I'm saying that it hasn't completely consumed society. Did you read the difference between Brink and Decline?

Brink:
"Sports, bars, and any kind of physical community is hanging on by a thread"

Decline:
"Almost all of the physical world is gone and there are no longer any big-time physical events that can sustain themselves."

The net is obviously a huge part of both of them, it's jsut that in Brink you have to option of exploring other things than the Net. Even if you chose to have a non-implant character in Decline, then your entire storyline is going to be consumed by how the Net has destroyed people's involvement in the physical world.

Hell, even in Not-Very Dystopian the net is a huge part of society, it just hasn't destroyed it.

[Kaden]

Right. Well the whole idea is that this is a democratically run RPG. My version of decline is not exactly the thing someone else wrote.

The difference you put between Brink and Decline is pretty absurd, imo. Decline sounds like what I would have put for a completely dystopian setting.

[Sigfried Hunin]

Well, the entire point of making a clearly defined etymology is so that everyone uses the same words to talk about the same things, which is why I posted that in the first place. That was the point of defining the vocabulary, so we'd have something to relate the terms by. That exact thing that you're doing.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you're saying that you DON'T want a Declining setting, and instead want a BRINK setting, but are, for no reason, deciding to use different terms to define both of them. Roger, carry on.

EDIT: What intermediate step were you looking for between "hanging on by a thread" and "gone"? The whole point of the phrase "hanging on by a thread" indicates that it's almost gone. What's between that?

[Kaden]

And the etymology that everyone uses should be decided by everyone. Not you.

But please, continue being a dick. It works well for you.

[Sigfried Hunin]

And the etymology that everyone uses should be decided by everyone. Not you.

But please, continue being a dick. It works well for you.

What exactly would be the point in arguing over semantics? Just use a word to describe a thing. It has literally NO bearing on the conversation.

EDIT: In fact, the previously described setting that I used for "Brink" is now called "Picklebears," and "Decline" is now "Shoodiliwhoop". Please give some pros and cons between picklebears and shoodliwhoop as opposed to whining that your version of "Brink" is my "Decline."

[Jonathan Meer]

I think it's interesting that we've directly mapped the strength of The Net in society to the level of dystopia in that society.

I think we're looking at the society with too much homogeneity. Our world today is dystopic. Here in America, we have millions of impoverished families. A whole continent is ravaged by a vicious plague. Theocratic rebels blow themselves up, all in the name of imposing their religious political system on the world at large. But for all this ugliness, there's still enough room for we lucky few to live a carefree life, playing video games and having enough food and clean water. And our world is less violent than its ever been.

Let's separate the influence of the Net away from 'dystopia', and talk about it on its own. Let's talk about the facts of this society, and leave it to our characters to make value judgments.

[Sigfried Hunin]

Ok I'm down for that. I think overall that this conversation is about how attached people are to the Net, and thus how much people do outside of it.

I just threw those terms up but the discussion, regardless of the syntax we use, is about the descriptions of those terms. I believe the question at hand is "How much of humanity has fallen into the Net and ignores physical reality?"

We can talk about politics and weather patterns later.

[Blue]

I would think The Net would have to be damn near all encompassing in order for it to even be topic worthy. Think about how many people in our day do little more than troll the internet nearly 24/7, yet it's barely even noticed in our society. After 27 years of something being around, it'd have to be a pretty huge deal for people to even bring up in casual conversation, let alone be a cause for concern.

I guess when I think of dystopia, I would think in relation to our modern day world. Not an apocalypse type thing, where humanity is on the brink of extinction, but where for a lot of people, life has become joyless. They trudge along in their daily activities in sort of a daze. Where things we consider horrific now, would be commonplace and even accepted.

[Jonathan Meer]

I would think The Net would have to be damn near all encompassing in order for it to even be topic worthy. Think about how many people in our day do little more than troll the internet nearly 24/7, yet it's barely even noticed in our society. After 27 years of something being around, it'd have to be a pretty huge deal for people to even bring up in casual conversation, let alone be a cause for concern.

Human beings care about the experiential. Components of the internet that are experiential (games, movies, etc) _do_ tend to be brought up in 'real world' conversation, at least with like-minded people. Facebook, on the other hand, isn't really experiential, so we bring it up a lot less (with exceptions for ridiculous arguments and the like, which are experiences themselves).

The Net, as described, is thoroughly experiential. I don't think personally that it needs to be all-encompassing to be real-world discussion-worthy.

I guess when I think of dystopia, I would think in relation to our modern day world. Not an apocalypse type thing, where humanity is on the brink of extinction, but where for a lot of people, life has become joyless. They trudge along in their daily activities in sort of a daze. Where things we consider horrific now, would be commonplace and even accepted.

You've just described 90's anti-establishment cinema. American Beauty and Fight Club come to mind.

[Sigfried Hunin]

So, to try and put a pin in this, it seems like the majority of people are either Brink or Decline, with more people preferring Brink. Unless Meer, Kaden and Tyr all go for Decline without accepting Brink as a second option, Brink wins.

Meer, do you think Brink is an acceptable setting? If so, Brink wins.

[Blue]

Human beings care about the experiential. Components of the internet that are experiential (games, movies, etc) _do_ tend to be brought up in 'real world' conversation, at least with like-minded people. Facebook, on the other hand, isn't really experiential, so we bring it up a lot less (with exceptions for ridiculous arguments and the like, which are experiences themselves).

The Net, as described, is thoroughly experiential. I don't think personally that it needs to be all-encompassing to be real-world discussion-worthy.

After 27 years, I can't expect that too much on The Net is still experimental. Maybe the stimulation hardware, but the actual action on getting on The Net is probably commonplace.

You've just described 90's anti-establishment cinema. American Beauty and Fight Club come to mind.

Is that a bad thing?

[Jonathan Meer]

After 27 years, I can't expect that too much on The Net is still experimental. Maybe the stimulation hardware, but the actual action on getting on The Net is probably commonplace.

Experiential, not experimental. =p

Is that a bad thing?

Not at all. I love that stuff, and it was what I had in mind while writing this stuff up.

[Jonathan Meer]

So, to try and put a pin in this, it seems like the majority of people are either Brink or Decline, with more people preferring Brink. Unless Meer, Kaden and Tyr all go for Decline without accepting Brink as a second option, Brink wins.

Meer, do you think Brink is an acceptable setting? If so, Brink wins.

We should let the discussion continue. The topic's been up for less than 24 hours.

[Sigfried Hunin]

We should let the discussion continue. The topic's been up for less than 24 hours.

Yeah but all the active members have already said their opinions and it's jsut becoming a pissing show.

[Jonathan Meer]

I'm planning to put together a wiki soon. (ie, tomorrow) In the meantime, we can start boiling down this section into fact-statements about the world (again, we should avoid value-statements where possible to preserve creative freedom; think 'dispassionate historian'), and arguing over that.

One of the reasons why this is a pissing contest is that we're dealing with very abstract themes, and arguing about something for which we haven't yet made a clear description.

EDIT: I would do this 'boiling down', but it's been a busy day, and I need to get work done.

[Blue]

Ha! Facebook and its plethora of misspellings has been my downfall.

In any case, even if certain aspects of The Net are discussion worthy, they're hardly worth any sort of real attention unless emphasis is placed on how strong a hold The Net has on the population. Basically, we need to ask ourselves if The Net should be conversation worthy for those with no interest in it. If it's not, then why is it such a big deal in the RPG?

[Jonathan Meer]

Because it's a completely different world. For the first time in human history, people have two worlds open to them, and 'complete' freedom to emphasize one over the other. A person can lead a very 'fulfilling' life without ever entering the Net, and a person can lead a 'stimulating' life spending as much time as possible in the Net.

By no means does every conversation in the grocery line need to revolve around the Net.

EDIT: To touch on an earlier point, it sounds as though you expect the setting to provide a direct, central conflict as a stimulus for writing. I intend, instead (and, again, checked by the intentions of other participants, including yourself), a world made up of fuzzy conflicts, where sincere and intelligent people with different value systems fundamentally disagree on issues. Is AkiraTech wrong to provide _only_ a 7% discount for people who are damaged or disabled by last-gen firmware?

Yes, it's their responsibility to ensure their product doesn't harm anyone.

No, this is the risk of technological advances. Everyone knows the dangers.

Yes, profits should not be emphasized over human lives.

No, profit drives advances, which benefit humanity as a whole.

The conflict should come from the diversity of our characters, as well as any NPCs we develop.