How Dystopian Are We Going?

[Sigfried Hunin]

(No idea how to make a poll)
PLEASE READ AND PARTICIPATE IN THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTING


Very Not-Dystopian
Before the fall (Brink)
Just after the fall (Decline)
Very Dystopian

I think it's important for me to quantify these:

Very Not-Dystopian
Yes, the Net is huge and everybody loves it, but they still go about their daily lives. There are plenty of addicts and people obviously spend more than they should, but it's not causing the world to fall apart.

Brink
Things are looking pretty bad. Most people spend most of their time online, and a lot of real-world activities are starting to go out. Sports, bars, and any kind of physical community is hanging on by a thread, but are still populated by old-timers (40 and over people) and a few young, interested parties.

Decline
Shit just turned for the worse. Almost everybody spends almost all of their time online. Almost all of the physical world is gone and there are no longer any big-time physical events that can sustain themselves. The only people that bother doing anything but the minimum in the real world are fogies or are medically incapable of getting the implant.

Very Dystopian
Everything is pretty bad. People are locked in their houses all day, the streets below practically a ghost town. There are no major physical events and everybody has almost no interest in anything that isn't virtual.

-

I personally prefer a society that is on the Brink because that were there is a good balance of waking world stuff to the stuff going on on the Net. You can say all you want about me being able to write as much as I want in either world, but in the Decline the big things like real world sports, small communities of old timers who like to do stuff outside of the net and a lot of cultural standards have already gone away, which doesn't leave a lot of room for writing.

I want a world where things are looking really bad for the future but there are still those people who like going outside and doing stuff. It's not like the cities are in droves or that everything is ok, but I want to be able to sustain a character that can have a job off the Net.




RUNNING TOTALS: (I'm counting everyone's preferences, so if they have 2 things they don't mind, a vote goes into both.)
Not-Very: ||
Brink: ||||||
Decline: ||||
Very:

Sigfried: Brink
Vic: Not Very or Brink
Sophia: Not Very or Brink
Blue: Decline
Piper: Brink or Decline
Orion: Brink or Decline
Tyr: Not sure yet?
Meer: Not here yet.
King B: Brink or Decline

[Victoria]

I'd love a cool setting like in Phantasy Star Online, where outside everything is all futuristic and fancy, and going online is the new best thing. Things aren't falling apart, it's almost like the world is thriving but not everyone goes online.

I want a good balance, otherwise what's the point in having a Waking World forum at all? The more options a person has, the more fun. It sounds like if things are just before the fall, on the edge, it provides more plot for those who want to be activists to do something.

I'm between very-not, and brink. Maybe there are slums where the poor people are who can't go online as much. Then there's the cities that are colorful, and thriving.

[Blue]

I'm in a Brink or Decline mindset. Either makes The Net a huge antagonist for activists, and while there isn't as many people in The Waking World, there's enough to start a revolution if one desires. The Decline, in particular, would make any victory against the world becoming an entirely Net-based one sweet.

I don't think we can consider The Net to be the best new thing if it's been around for 27 years. At best, we can hope that it hasn't insinuated itself so deeply into the culture of man that it'll be impossible to live without. I also think that the world's other technology would have fallen into a decline as well. There's simply little desire for flying cars and androids and what not when you have an entire virtual sandbox to play with. I can almost imagine technology actually receding a bit for those in The Waking World, especially if the big three corporations have any say in the matter. They'll want their revenues, and the less that is offered to people offline, the better for them.

For anyone familiar with Shadowrun, I think the world would be much like that. Sure, we have huge buildings and some futuristic stuff, but it's almost like no one cares anymore. The real world has begun to fall into disrepair, especially the poorer districts, and even the wealthiest areas have a noticible patina of... not giving a shit.

The best part of a Declining world, is that it seems most of us want to do more offline than on. It'll give us a reason to band together, roleplay together, and work together to bring the Net down to at least manageable levels. It'll also make us enemies in the three big corporations, which is also nice for a little bit of intrigue and the like.

[Tyr]

I don't know, I don't see why the universe can't have a waking world even if it's in the 'very Dystopian'-stage. I'm assuming that the people still need to eat and do errands. It would make sense that the poor(er) people would only be able to log into the Net via net cafes/rental places too, so maybe the other part of their life would be scrapping enough cash together to get online in order to improve themselves for a better life. I also think there's still room for activists, they'll just be fewer and probably considered much like the Amish.

[Sigfried Hunin]

Right, the the issue is that if we're in the Decline or Very Dystopian, there are much less hooks in the real world we can use. Not every character that does stuff in the physical world should be shoehorned into being in direct opposition of the Net and have all of their actions dominated by the net.

If we're in Decline or Dystopia, no matter if you IN the net or NOT in the net, almost your entire narrative is going to be directly related TO the net. If you're in Brink or very-not, you can actually go about other activities without having to drone on and on about the Net constantly.

Any character idea that isn't directly related to the Net is just written off the moment we go into the Decline or Dystopia because even if they can somehow manage to find a tiny niche to fit into, the whole narrative will be about trying to work around the Net. When you get to that point, there's literally no possible way to avoid having a major part of your story bound up by it.

It's very restrictive, I guess is my point.

[Sophia]

I've read the entire discussion, but I don't have much to add in that particular area. This, however, I can contribute something to. Hopefully. If by participate in the discussion before voting, you mean make a token post in the other thread, then my bad. xD

I'm with Victoria in that while I'd rather it not be dystopian, I could deal with the "brink" option. I have reservations about the game becoming too political. Having to focus on the dangers of The Net and the implications of stim-jacking is interesting, but I could definitely see it become tiresome. It seems like it'd be easier for me to participate in one of the first two scenarios, if only because there's more freedom to choose there. I'm not sure actually running errands in the real world would be fun for anyone to play.

So while I would prefer a very not-dystopian setting, I think the "brink" option is a fine compromise.

EDIT: I suppose what I actually mean is that I think it's more fun if a play-by-post thing is character-driven more than being determined by the setting. I believe Blue could have his street-corner pastor cry out about the dangers of the net, Victoria could have her jaded prostitute who's losing business to the Net, and people could have stim-jack addicts just as easily in that first option. Some things might not be the same, but a very-not dystopian setting doesn't necessarily kill many ideas. That said, I definitely wouldn't want to go any higher (or lower) than "brink."

I'm also just tired of dystopian settings. xD I suppose I should mention that too. Zombie and Mad Max-inspired plots can't go away fast enough IMO.

[Blue]

I'm just worried about their actually being a theme to this whole thing. I mean, you wanna do future, that's great. But if we put it into the Very Not catagory, what exact motivations are our characters going to have? There's no real antagonist for us to rally against, other than whatever we write up. There's no real reason for us to write together, because there's no common enemy. And even in the Brink, the enemy is hardly an engaging foe. The corporations trying to take over the world hardly insurmountable foes. It'll be tough, but nothing like the struggle to preserve our very way of life that comes up in Decline.

I like having freedoms in my writing as much as anyone else, but if we don't have something big like The Net hanging over our heads, and yes it SHOULD be an almost all-encompassing entity, then what's the point? Are we just gonna write about this idyllic future, where dreams come true? If The Net isn't the crux of our stories, then what should be? Myself, I'd prefer not to write about the every day life of a man 60 years down the road.

As for why The Net should be so big, I mean look at the characters that have already been mentioned. We have a fighter who is losing patronage, a prostitute losing her job, and an evangelist trying to pull people back to reality. Already, three people have stated that The Net is going to be a crucial plot point for them. So, it only makes sense to make that enemy into something epic. There's no real gratification in defeating a weak foe.

[Sophia]

What I'm trying to get at is that the setting should just be a basic starting point. You know, a broad thing that ties us all together. I don't think the setting should be the enemy, necessarily. If you feel that there needs to be an enemy, make your character one. Or someone else will. Have him or her do something that threatens other people, and the plot conforms to that. I mean, it's the difference between something like .hack and something like The Matrix. There are a lot of things happening in .hack while still having a heavy focus on the game/the internet/etc, whereas in the Matrix you're either in the Matrix or life sucks.

A Non-Dystopian setting gives us the most opportunity, and it lessens as you go down that ladder. There can still be a dangerous element to it (stim-jacking, overall Net addictions, etc), but if we start out with our characters in a craptastic world, then my hand is forced. I'm not saying it's a deal-breaker for me personally. It's just my opinion.

[Sigfried Hunin]

ery Not catagory, what exact motivations are our characters going to have? There's no real antagonist for us to rally against, other than whatever we write up.

This is perfectly fine by me. Again, I in no way, shape or form desire to be shoehorned into a conflict because then that conflict is going to be boring and I won't care about it.

We aren't saying idealic future where all of our dreams come true, we're saying "not absolutely forced to deal with the Net with every waking breath."

I just really really don't want to have to deal with mentioning the net every sentence and I don't want all of my character conflicts to have to revolve around it.

I use the net in a very small way to motivate my character to do something else in the real world. He's not gonna stop being a fighter and then go do Net stuff or become an anti-net activist, he's gonna go do other shit. In a Declining world, that's not really an option.

There doesn't have to be a theme shoved down our throats. I don't want to be forced to deal with other people if I don't want to, and I don't want there to be this overt, looming theme or direct conflict over my head all the time. I'm sure that we're all adult enough authors that we can find some way to interact with each other if we want to.

[Blue]

I can only imagine it'd be like playing D&D without a DM. There's no overlying plot, no motivation for the group to roleplay together, and nothing of any real consequence happening. Say, if we do this in a Non-Dystopian world. What reason have you to roleplay with anyone else? If you just wanted to write on your own in a futuristic setting, you could do that without the website? Unless you purposely tie your character to another, the characters thus far have been so disparate that any sort of roleplaying would be forced.

I can see opportunity to do anything on any part of that ladder, if one merely thinks outside the box. Even at the far end, the physical world could still have a lot of interaction, if mostly among the poor, elderly, or unfit. But as we move back to the Non-Dystopian, it falls on each individual to come up with a motivation for their character to be doing what they do, and not only that, but to be doing what they do with others. Because, like I said, if I had wanted to write alone, I wouldn't come here.

[Victoria]

Blue, the problem is that you're seeing the setting as the be-all and end-all of the storyline. In a very-not setting, you could still have characters who see what is happening, and if it keeps going the way it is the world is going to fall apart. Your characters should be focused on the COMPANIES rather than the net itself.

You want the world to be made in a way so as to benefit the ideas you have, which is great, but as others mentioned, making it TOO dystopian makes it hard for those of us who don't like writing politics and revolutions. I'd much rather write a character in a setting where there are options. Where it IS every day life, for her.

And who says it has to be some grand storyline where we all write together? I found I did my best solo writing on here than anywhere else, and I'd do it again. Some people may want to do duo writing that involves no more than going online and having fantasy quests.

This world should be built to support customization of storyline.

EDIT: You make it sound like the setting is the plot. None of the story plot has been made yet. There could very well be a major bad company CEO that would be the big bad boss you need, and can gear toward defeating, while the rest of us who have no care for it can diddle around and fap all we want. It's the best of both worlds.

[Sigfried Hunin]

I can only imagine it'd be like playing D&D without a DM. There's no overlying plot, no motivation for the group to roleplay together, and nothing of any real consequence happening. Say, if we do this in a Non-Dystopian world. What reason have you to roleplay with anyone else? If you just wanted to write on your own in a futuristic setting, you could do that without the website? Unless you purposely tie your character to another, the characters thus far have been so disparate that any sort of roleplaying would be forced.

I can see opportunity to do anything on any part of that ladder, if one merely thinks outside the box. Even at the far end, the physical world could still have a lot of interaction, if mostly among the poor, elderly, or unfit. But as we move back to the Non-Dystopian, it falls on each individual to come up with a motivation for their character to be doing what they do, and not only that, but to be doing what they do with others. Because, like I said, if I had wanted to write alone, I wouldn't come here.

We don't want a DM. Fuck a DM for writing. We aren't leading a saga here, we don't need to all be writing about the same exact thing. When there are opportunities that arise, we'll write about the same stuff, and when we want to we'll contact other authors. If there's something interesting happening, people can group up, or not, and write about it.

[Sophia]

I don't really play D&D, but I imagine that and this are very different.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "forced." If you feel that way, then you must think everything that has ever been written on this forum was forced. What we'd do is what we've always done: we'd agree on a starting point for a thread, and work it out as we feel is best. No plot comes completely organically, and not to spoil anyone, but even if the Net was the whale that swallowed Jonah, you'd still have to plan how your characters come together.

Chubbs as it is right now isn't nearly as restrictive as you appear to imagine. At its height, we had a bunch of different people doing a bunch of different things, and if we ever needed something to tie us all together, then someone came along with a scenario that a bunch of people could fit into.

I'm not trying to be combative of what have you. I sincerely just don't get your point.

EDIT: Are you treating this more like a separate game, or like a saga? That could very well be the root of our disagreement. If we're treating this like a flash-in-the-pan, temporary thing, then yeah, I'm not sure what the point is.

[Blue]

D&D, at its core, is just a story that a group of people write together. So it's more similar to this site than one would think. The purpose of the DM, or in this case the setting, is to provide a... well, path for people to move along. It's not that one couldn't move outside that path, but it does provide some structure to the whole thing.

I suppose I may be trying to push this towards what my vision for the world is... but part of that IS to get us to write together. I like the social writing aspect of Chubbs. Outside of sagas and group storylines, I always falter. There's just little motivation for me to write the everyday life of a person. I enjoy writing about trying to acheive some goal, and the best part is that the way to do so is up to the writers. It could be that, even without knowing, each character's actions do something that together help to bring the world back into balance.

The basic premise of a cyber-punk world is that it IS supposed to be kind of shitty. Otherwise, we'd simply be writing futuristic. It's supposed to be almost a noir type of setting. The best part of it is that the badguys are so larger than life. In Shadowrun, corporations make up a lot of antagonists, and they really do have a deathgrip on society. I'm not saying that The Net needs to be the only thing you talk about, or that you even talk about it at all. But it should always be on a character's mind, because of how encompassing it is. Kind of like Facebook now. No one here may focus on it, but it's a lot like a pebble in your shoe. You know it's there and you don't like it.

I dunno. You're free to disagree with me if you like. I just remember how much more active this site has always been during a saga, and how little people tend to write on their own. It may not be a trouble for you, but I'd like to see this hubb flourish, and how better than to make the storyline into a long-spanning saga? People could still work on their own things, branch off and come onto the main storyline as they want, but working towards a goal... well, it just seems natural.

[Sigfried Hunin]

But the difference between a very restrictive setting and a saga is big. The difference being that people are going to get bored because they can't think of anything that they want to do. A setting isn't supposed to give your character's motivations, it's meant to allow you to make your own motivations, and I really don't think it's wise to force people into the kind of system you're thinking of.

[Victoria]

What Sig said.

You keep referenceing Shadowrun, this isn't Shadowrun and honestly I don't even know if it's supposed to be like Shadowrun.

You want a certain thing, a certain way, to do a certain plot, which is fine. The problem is that you want to make it one solid thing, while we want to make the setting fluid. A place where if we want to branch off, we have more to do, while with your idea, it would be rather barren and boring if we branched off. All we WOULD have to do is go with your saga idea and, take it from me, I'm not very fond of highly political plotlines.

The kind of story I like is usually dramatic and full of romance. I highly doubt that this saga-setting will allow me to do that. At least in a setting with a Waking World that's more active than what you're suggesting I could have my character find a guy in a bar and start some cool dramatic storyline involving sex, drugs, and rock and roll. The net, itself, is something in the background that can be used to utilize an on-going plot that can be used to craft a member/staff saga where we can get together if we so choose.

I think you're the one that may need to think outside the box on this one.

[Blue]

Why is it restrictive at all? I'm still trying to come to terms with that. Even at the very end of the spectrum, you could be a fighter, as you say, and have your loyal following of people who either watch you via The Net, or come in person because they aren't able/willing to be on The Net. The only difference is that the end of the spectrum sets a darker tone to the game. It gives more than just a feeling that things aren't quite right. It's already ingrained in your mind. And it provides a ready scapegoat for any feelings your character may have towards this new world. It provides a rallying point for characters to write together, rather than having to come up with one yourself. If anything, it provides more options for a fighter down on his luck than the opposite. In the first two settings, it'd be hard to see that any industry has really been hurt too much, because there's nothign really there to hurt the industry. The Net just isn't big enough yet.

[Sophia]

I dunno. You're free to disagree with me if you like. I just remember how much more active this site has always been during a saga, and how little people tend to write on their own. It may not be a trouble for you, but I'd like to see this hubb flourish, and how better than to make the storyline into a long-spanning saga? People could still work on their own things, branch off and come onto the main storyline as they want, but working towards a goal... well, it just seems natural.

The passive aggressive part aside, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. The difference is that a non-dystopian setting allows the most opportunity. There is absolutely no reason why there can't be a group storyline under a non-dystopian setting. Under a dystopic world setting, I'm forced to have my character live in shitty conditions, whereas I can make that choice myself otherwise if I so desire. That's the difference, and why it's so restrictive.

[Blue]

Passive-aggressive is kind of my bread and butter. It's been a hard-knock life, so to say.

A look into the What is Vostok thread pretty much concludes that The Waking World is supposed to be shitty and that people who spend a lot of time in it kind of make the best of a bad situation. Hell, 90% of the description in that thread involves The Net, so it's hard to consider that it isn't a big part of everyone's lives.

But I'm starting to feel like I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, and not making much sense in any case. If anyone else feels the way I do, they're free to take up the mantle. I need to organise my thoughts a bit.

[Piper Juunanagou]

I just read over all of this, so I'll just ramble on my opinions in short-form.

Brink or Decline. I want rainy, depressing steampunk rather than bright and colorful (Not) or gray and desolate (Very).

I don't want to have to feel goaded into writing with other people nor do I feel the need for a DM-type thing. I don't want the setting to be the plot. I kind of just want to be a dude who does stuff that's not necessarily affecting the world at large or somethin'.

Don't know if that adds to anything, but I thought I'd spew out my words and make my opinion out there n' stuff.