Author Topic: Future history  (Read 9543 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Future history
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2011, 06:09:43 PM »
No, I've never read him (assuming you mean the Canadian journalist)

Yes, I think he wrote a speculative fiction novel about the Americans invading Canada, circa late 20th century. It didn't go well for the invaders. :-)

Offline HardRock

  • Nightmare
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Future history
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2011, 04:26:27 AM »
John Ringo's Posleen series is set a year or two ahead. I thought of LoS's UNE when I read them. Very similar, horde marching through the galaxy, aliens federation contacts earth for help. Power armor vs waves of aliens. What's not to like!

Henry
Henry

"Don't worry, it'll be a piece of cake."

"You can have my slice!" Doc LeRoix - Roughnecks

Offline earthdog

  • Gremlin
  • Posts: 2
Re: Future history
« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2011, 08:35:20 AM »

While I’m unable to find the speech mentioned in the first post (imagine that, only a few posts and I’m already lost): Why would you need to change the background?

A: To present a more unified United Nations?:
 The fluff already states that both national and international composed units exist, everybody is supposed to fight happily together under the UNE banner.
I personally rather like the possibility of stabbing each other in the political back, gives you plenty of opportunity for human vs human action (evil grin)

B: Changing level of technolggy?
If you’re worried about technology levels, I don’t think that lasers and powered armour will become outdated in a few years time, simply describe the crunchies weapons as assault rifles rather than naming a specific type and you’re fine.

C: Changing the political state of a country?
People attitudes will change only slowly and a country’s popular name probably won’t change at all.

D: Incorporate currents events like 9/11 or Afghanistan?
What does that change for the need to fight against the Machines, just be sensible with your army composition and don’t put rival factions in the same company. I mean most of the allied units in WWII didn’t include British, American, French, Russian, and Polish troops in a single company or even army. Simply send rival units to different starsystems and you’ll have no problems.

E: Because nobody remembers a world without internet?
I don’t remember the Olympic games in which genetic manipulation was banned, but it simply serves to set the mood.

Only thing you could do is change a few dates. Just don’t refer to specific actions for an individual and you’re basically timeless. You can name specific actions in a units history (just don’t state they were this or that many years ago).

Offline grendeljd

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
    • My Deviantart Gallery
Re: Future history
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2011, 09:20:42 AM »
There was an incredibly good article about the future of military technology in the January issue of Popular science entitled 'The Terminator Scenario'.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-12/terminator-scenario


It discusses the explosive growth of AI tech and its place in the current American military. There is a demand to have as much as a third of their vehicles to be unmanned as early as 2015!

While AI tech may not replace humans in the UNE, perhaps incorporating this concept into some portable unmanned gunpods would be fitting... or perhaps it could be added to the background simply to acknowledge this new modern tech but state that they are unable to use AI tech against The Machine, as it is able to take control of such devices too easily and turn them against their users...

And speaking of that, with the modern advent of ubiquitous wireless technology, how could that be incorporated?  Imagine a Machine unit that could wirelessly hack a suit of power armour within a certain range...

In the same issue of pop science there was another cool article about current powered exoskeleton tech - the current real precursor to powered armour is becoming much more sophisticated, even though it still relies on having an external power source plugged into it. The suit is called the XOS 2;

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/09/27/sarcos-xos2-the-real-life-iron-man/
I hate people generally, but I like them specifically - John Malkovich

Offline sergeant_hastp

  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Future history
« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2011, 03:42:22 PM »
I imagine that it would be hard to 'trust' AI soldiers fighting alongside you, when you are battling for survival against intelligent machines.

Like dismantling the internet, the advent of the Legions of Steel might prompt humanity to shy away from its flirtation with AI. 

AI warmachines might encounter a state of 'internment' on Earth, along with AI utilities, manufacturing facilities and construction workers.

Human labour and craftsmanship might experience a revival.

Offline Dave Chase

  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: Future history
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2011, 05:43:08 PM »

While I’m unable to find the speech mentioned in the first post (imagine that, only a few posts and I’m already lost): Why would you need to change the background?
...

Ah, sorry about that. Maybe Clark or Kindred could post it as it's own thread (I don't want to be the poster of someone elses work as the thread creator.)

But I will post it here in quote for you. (Please note: the only editing that I did was format, so that it would fit properly in this window.)

Quote from: Clark Browning
Gentlemen, (and ladies, if there are any)

I’ve started working on the Legions of Steel 3e Compendium. It’s a project that probably should have been started 15 years ago, right around the time I ended up at law school and Global Games imploded. Instead, Planetstorm attempted to put everything in one place at one time, but with respect to an "outdoor" environs that wasn’t constrained by boards, squares, and mazes of halls, walls, rooms and doors. Of course, the games are different and Planetstorm itself had a number of issues. But the fact remains that after the release of Junction Point we had
over 300 pages of rules, background, figures, weapons, scenarios and such. There were inconsistencies, errata, and changes from the release in spring of 1993 to the end of 1995. Then came 200 pages of Planetstorm.

Personally, Marco and I went off to play some rather expensive games. He is now a film producer in the process of getting together $7 million dollars to finance his first feature film. I spent the last several years as a divorce attorney;
and being fed up with that I now have an application pending with JAG as I teach grade 12 in the meantime. Life is almost stable for a change. Marco doesn’t have any interest in getting back into games as far as I know. He still owns
all the original masters for the 100+ figures we developed for LOS and is open to putting them back into production again. I hold the intellectual property – the copyrights and trademarks – for LOS, so I can do what I want with the books, but Marco and I have to agree on what to do about the figures.

What I want to do is take the basic rules (Rules of Engagement from the second edition), Scenario Pack, Advanced Rules, Alien Sourcebook and Junction Point to streamline, re-edit, reorganize and republish everything in a single volume. It would be released online as well as a print-on demand option that I will be looking into for anyone who wants a professionally printed and bound hard copy.

I wanted to get as much input as I can on what people have been doing with Legions of Steel: their views on the rules as well as the material, and also the sort of cross-property mixing that has been going on (Assault Fiend vs Dalek,
Fantasians vs Gene Stealers, UNE fighting alongside the Rebel Alliance, etc).

I have a concept – structure – that I wanted to run by everyone to have a way of examining and classifying the rules and their mechanics. This is separate from the background material which, in light of 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rise of China as a superpower, needs a bit of a retcon. Maybe we need to rethink setting the opening events at the dawn of the 22nd century as well.

But to get back to the focus of this post, the rules and their mechanics. What I created I have posted in the files section as "The Rules Matrix" which is a visual guide to what I am describing.

Any game that is a simulation – whether of actual events or fantastic stories – has two basic requirements: the setting and the rules. The rules should simulate the setting, whether it is strictly historical or based on fictional elements.
The rules should both reflect and reinforce the genre of the source material. Legions of Steel is a science fantasy setting unto itself but the genesis was from a number of real-world scenarios in the late 20th century. First was the
idea of a small force of special forces troops – commandos – fighting a larger force of highly motivated militia or terrorists. Then we had the fantasy element of the enemy being soulless machines and the reversal of the commandos
trying to bomb the enemy rather than preventing the enemy from bombing them. (As an aside, the original - way back – draft had the human section facing 12 Nightmares. The artist who did the original (black) box cover said "There is no way you can not have the big guy - Assault Fiend, Mk I - in the basic game.") The game evolved intentionally to try and reflect Soviet vs NATO troops c1990, as I was a member of the Canadian Forces and had trained in section assaults with the FNs as well as retrained with the new 5.56 mm weapon set. But we added
fanciful elements to spice things up.

Given the setting and its conventions, you have to deal with the rules and their mechanics. A setting will imply in-game elements that need to be simulated. At its most basic, any small unit skirmish rules have to include a way for X to shoot at Y. Objectively speaking you, cannot have a gun battle game without rules on how to shoot guns. How you do this is not as clear cut. There is a question of what factors do you consider in your simulation. Some of these
factors might add to the game but are not strictly necessary. There is also the requirement of playability. A perfect simulation doesn’t necessarily make a great game if it sucks to be those people who get the short end of the stick.
This last point looms large in recent FPS computer games set in Iraq or Afghanistan. In reality, any time Al Queda or the Taliban stand and fight NATO or American troops, they get slaughtered, but that wouldn’t make a good game if
– as these games allow – you are playing one of the terrorists

Then you add additional elements that enforce or reflect the source material and playability, but less often or more obliquely. Leadership is a good example in that it adds to the game play significantly but not as much as the fire
resolution system.

The point being is that game rules come on a sliding scale from absolutely necessary to completely irrelevant. Furthermore, the rules will fall on a two dimensional grid when you consider a second factor: the designer’s preference.

While necessity is fairly objective in that people can largely agree on what you need or don’t need to reflect or enforce a particular genre, designer preference is far more subjective. First is in the interpretation of the source material. With art, the artist themselves has only one among many interpretations of the meaning of a work. So even if the source material is written by the game designer, there will be elements that reflect the author’s interpretation,
perhaps in contrast with the interpretation that a reader/player has.


Secondly is the selection of mechanics. While one can make fact-based, logical arguments on the relative merits of, say, 3d6 vs d20 to generate a random number with a mean of 10.5, how you incorporate those mechanics into a game is largely a matter of personal preference. And that personal preference can be shared by others who end up converting one game to another. However, it is not a completely solipsistic affair as designers generally design games for other people to play, so their preferences also reflect the desires, preferences and
behaviours of the players they write for.

So what you get is a two-dimensional array to describe rules and their mechanics in terms of how necessary they are to the game, and how much the designer prefers them over other options. This results in five basic classes of rules and their mechanics.

CORE RULES

The standard rules of any game will be those that people largely agree are necessary and, at a minimum, they are willing to go along with designer on how they are reflected in terms of mechanics and such. It covers a fairly large
section of mental real estate but the idea is that the core rules will simulate what needs to be done in the way the designer envisions. And your typical player will be happy with that.

Examples are easier to come by from Planetstorm as it was the last publication with the most rules.

Pinning is a core rule. It isn’t strictly necessary for a skirmish game, but to reflect the battle drills as taught by the Royal Canadian Regiment Battle School in 1990 as well as my personal preferences in that regards, and the simplicity of a near miss to pin you down, the rule would fall high and to the right on the rules matrix, well within core rule consideration.

ALTERNATIVE RULES

Variations on the core rules can be useful under particular circumstances. The initiative rules from the basic game will probably end up as alternative rules if the assumption shifts from a two-player, two unit engagement to a multiplayer with multiple units each.


The wounding rules from the Advanced Rules are presently incompatible with the pinning rules from Planetstorm. They could be used as alternatives unless and until an integrated rule is created to reflect both at the same time.

Overall, a set of Simplified Rules (Beginner, Cadet, whatever you want to call them) would be alternative rules. On the flip side, leaving out a core rule is an alternative, such as dropping leadership or suppression for the first few
games with a novice.

SUGGESTED RULES

These are very much a designer’s pet rules that can’t be justified by any objective need in the game itself. The Decimation rule from Planetstorm is an example. Randomly killing off 10% of your forces simulates pre-game combat and encourages a logical mix of troops while dissuading the use of one-trick gimmick armies, but it certainly doesn’t belong in the core rules, and wouldn’t be appropriate in campaign games.

OPTIONAL RULES

So-called "advanced rules" will fall in here as these are rules, mechanics and sub-simulations that are in the mushy middle such that people, including the designer, don’t get particularly passionate about them one way or another, but
they can make for a change of pace, or be included for completeness. Ammunition and Electronic Warfare fall into this category. They can add a new dimension of play, but tend to be heavy on the bookkeeping so they aren’t core, suggested or alternative.

Scarecrow’s artillery rules posted on this site could make for good optional/advanced rules for Planetstorm.

EXPERIMENTAL RULES

These tend to be house rules and otherwise player/fan generated add-ons. You definitely don’t need them to play the game as originally envisioned, and the designer has issues with them due to genre reflection, the mechanics aesthetics, or even out of legal concerns over copyrights and trademarks. They can also be tied to a particular scenario and may be difficult to export to other scenarios due to concerns over balance.

So you get collapsing roofs, low ammunition and powers using "the force" or "chaos" and such.

With some additional structure, these can become optional rules, and perhaps alternative or even suggested.

So that is where my head is at. Your comments are most welcome.

Clark Browning
los2010@ymail.com

Dave Chase
Freedom is the right to speak your mind.

It is also the right to walk away from those you don't want to listen to.

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Future history
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2011, 05:54:08 PM »
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AIIsACrapshoot

Check out this web page. There are more related to sci fi conventions on robots and stuff; in fact, just about anything from any genre or medium.

The update is to incorporate 9/11 in the future history while keeping the same characters at an appropriate age: keep everything more relevant to real world events. If Patterson was battling the IRA back in the '80s he'd be in his 50s now. If Date of Contact is kept as per the rule books, he hasn't even been born yet. If he served in Iraq or Afghanistan then he is like so many guys people know in the here and now.

If you read up on powered armour you will find that the key stumbling block is a mobile power source. Backpack cold fusion solves that problem. There are others in terms of actuator power, speed, preciseness and weight, and the basic ergonomic issue of laying an exoskeleton over a creature with a natural endoskeleton, and still have an acceptable range of motion.

While we were a bit idealistic I certainly didn't picture Earth's geopolitics as being all sunshine and roses. In fact, I figured that many countries would keep their best soldiers for their national forces while the loose canons and other problem children would get shuffled off for UNE duty. 

Offline smokingwreckage

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Future history
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2011, 10:54:02 PM »
... which makes the UNE forces very entertaining in terms of fiction or RPG potential. Mish mash of multi-national misfits, trained to elite levels and fed into a meatgrinder? The drama writes itself.

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Future history
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2011, 08:01:26 AM »
The scenario "The Misfits" sort of nudged up against that line.

Offline Kindred

  • Overlord
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 212
    • Turtle Shell Productions
Re: Future history
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2011, 09:09:50 AM »
it does open some stories that could be used in an RPG.

Actually, with the advances of airsoft and nerf technology, it might be interesting to LARP...

Offline smokingwreckage

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Future history
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2011, 08:03:11 AM »
Oh, I'd run LOS in an RPG in a heartbeat, but not a combat-focused RPG. Something like Burning Wheel. Beliefs regarding your squadmates, Instincts regarding racial prejudice, and Traits based around the array of twitchy, violent or incongruously pacifistic, scarred veterans. Plenty of room for combat, yes, but the combat vs the machines/GM is a backdrop for a basically PvP drama that might culminate in shining heroism or outright bastardry.

Offline grendeljd

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
    • My Deviantart Gallery
Re: Future history
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2011, 10:33:08 AM »
Somewhere in a post, Clark mentioned wanting to change the name of the League of Aliens. I had a  bit of 'anagram diarrhea' yesterday at work, and came up with the following list of ideas. Be forewarned, it may seem very repetitive, I got playing with variations on themes a lot. Also note - a few mention 'swap' in the brackets, I was just intending that the order of the words change without having to retype everything;


Union of Sentients [UoS]
Union of Sentient Species [UoSS or USS]
Union of Sentient Races [UoSR or USR]
Union of Intergalactic Sentients [UoIS or UIS]
Union of Pan-Galactic Species [UoPS, UPS or UPGS]

Pan-Galactic Union [PGU]
Pan-Galactic Coalition [PGC]
Inter-Galactic Union [IGU]
Inter-Species Union [ISU]
Inter-Species Coalition [ISC]
Inter-Sentient Species Union [ISSU]
Sentient Species Union [SSU]
Inter-Sentient Species Coalition [ISSC]
Sentient Species Coalition [SSC]
Inter-Sentient Race Coalition [ISRC]
Sentient Race Coalition [SRC]

Confederation of Intergalactic Species [CoIS or CIS]
Coalition of Intergalactic Species [CoIS or CIS]
Coalition of Intergalactic Sentient Species [CISS – the ‘Ciss Army’, ha ha]
Coalition of Intergalactic Sentient Races [CoISR or CISR]
Coalition of Pan-Galactic Sentients [CoPS, CPS or CPGS]
League of Intergalactic Sentients [LoIS or LIS, or swap to ILS]
League of Intergalactic Sentient Species [LISS, or swap to ILSS]
League of Intergalactic Sentient Races [LISR, or swap to ILSR]
League of Pan-Galactic Sentients [LoPS, LPS or LPGS or swap to PGLS]

The next batch could also work as a title for the united military forces of the LoA, along the line of the UNE/Infranite 'JEF';

Machine Elimination Coalition [MEC]
Machine Elimination Forces [MEF]
Machine Defense Coalition [MDC]
Machine Counter-Incursion Forces [MCIF]
Anti Machine Incursion Forces [AMIF]
Anti Machine Incursion Coalition [AMIC]
Anti Machine Incursion Union [AMIU]
Machine Repulsion Force [MRF]
Sentient Defense Force [SDF]
Sentient Races Defense Force [SRDF]
Sentient Species Defense Force [SSDF]
Pan Galactic Defense Force [PGDF or PDF]
I hate people generally, but I like them specifically - John Malkovich

Offline sergeant_hastp

  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Future history
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2011, 01:34:15 PM »


ISAF:  Interstellar Security Assistance Force.

 :D


Offline smokingwreckage

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Future history
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2011, 01:51:54 AM »
Why change the LOA? The acronym is a bit close to the LOS but it's a neat hat-tip to the League of Nations.

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Future history
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2011, 11:31:11 AM »
"League of Aliens" is what English speaking Humans call them. The propwr English translation is much longer and the real name is all but unpronouncible.