Growing Up in the Future
Jim Vassilakos (jimv@uia.net)
I think the best way to convey the
particulars of a setting is via the ol'
show-don't-tell method of actually
playing out some scenes from a
player-character's childhood. This is,
of course, more work than most
people want to put into the traditional
RPG campaign, but for ambitious
GMs, I think it's well worth the
trouble. Here are a few such scenes
just to get the ball rolling:
Scene 1: Early Memory
You're playing some sort of running,
bouncing game with Micky. He's a
little guy with big, black ears who
talks in a high-pitched voice that's
actually sort of creepy in a happy,
enthusiastic sort of way. In any case,
he's terribly inventive, always thinking
of fun games to play. He's even taught
you to sign with your hands so he can
help you communicate with Mommy
who spends most of her time in the big
room watching the vidwall or talking
on her earring.
Suddenly, however, Micky just stops
moving. You find yourself stunned for
a moment, not sure what to do. He's
never "died" on you before, and as far
as you know, he doesn't sleep. What
do you do?
Assuming the player eventually goes
to Mom for help:
Mama's in the big room munching on
a granola-twinkie and yakkin' to
somebody who apparently only she
can see.
"I know. I know. No way! He didn't!
Ohmigod! Oh, I know."
"Mama…" you tug at her robe for a
moment which ends up stretching into
a minute or so before she finally gets
around to acknowledging your
presence.
"What is it, baby? Can't you see
Mommy's busy?"
You try using sign language to tell
her that Micky is not well, but that
doesn't get very far.
"Use your words."
"M-…Mi-… Micky…"
"What about Micky?"
You flop Micky on her lap. If that
doesn't get the message across,
nothing will.
She opens a small compartment on
his back, still listening to her friend
while simultaneously muttering
"stupid AI piece-of-crap." Then she
picks him up and bodyslams him
against the couch's armrest a few
times when suddenly he comes back to
life.
"Hi Bobby! Hi Ms. Smith!
"You gotta take better care of your
toys, honey," she admonishes,
dropping him on the floor a few feet
from where you've been patiently
waiting.
Scene 2: Pre-Kindergarden
"Go" the computer-synthesized voice
announces. Then the "G" lights up on
the little qwerty-style spelling board.
You push it, the device saying "Gee"
in response. Then the "O" lights up.
You pushes it, smiling at the
predictable response. "Oh. Gee-oh.
Go. Very good. Now let's try it again.
Go." This time the "G" remains dark,
but you push it, knowing the device's
expectations. "Gee". Then you push
the "O". "Oh. Gee-oh. Go. Very good.
Let's try another word."
"Hey," Mark grabs the Speak'n'Spell
from you. "You want this?"
Mark's the class bully, and he's
obviously bored and looking to taunt
someone for his own personal
amusement as well as that of the three
or four "cling-ons" who pretend to be
his friends because doing so makes
them feel less pathetic. How do you
want to handle this? Keep in mind
that several other kids are watching,
so your young honor is at stake.
Assuming there follows a classroom
brawl, security cameras will record the
whole thing (showing who took the
first swing). This will be the PC's first
brush with pervasive remote
surveillance and may supply a villain
of sorts for later scenes.
Drat! Ran out of time. If there's
interest, I'll happily do more of these.
Comments on A&E #359:
Paul Cardwell: Re: Games &
Education: I'd wondered whatever
became of this. Seems to me that there
must be a lot of roleplayers who have
become teachers. One would think
there'd be more than enough interest
for G&E to survive.
Myles Corcoran: RYCT me on
welfare and eugenics: You have me
confused. First you say the welfare
class under such a system will
disappear. Then you say it won't.
Please see my comment to Robert
Dushay. For the record, I think it
would probably increase the size of
the welfare class at least during the
short-term, although its main effect
would be to slash population growth,
which might not actually turn out to be
necessary. But again, please see my
comments to Robert.
Re: Jewelry: We seem to feel pretty
much the same about de Beers.
Re: AIs: Please see my comments to
Lee in this issue.
Michael Cule: Loved the comment
about Paddy Ashdown. Regarding the
landlady and her morning visits to the
chickens, I'd be rather curious to hear
more about what that sounded like.
Don't suppose you'd be willing to
describe it? 
Robert Dushay: RYCT me on social
policies of the future: Please keep in
mind that I'm probably not the first
person to think these ideas, and I'm
not necessarily casting judgement on
their moral implications. One thing
that I've come to think about society is
that our moral ethos is highly elastic,
at least over intergenerational time
periods. Hence, perhaps it doesn't
make sense to talk about "right" or
"wrong" in the context of this
discussion. Perhaps it is more
trustworthy to think about human
society as one might think about a
soulless automaton. I didn't want this
comment to delve into politics, but
unfortunately, it's unavoidable. But
instead of assigning moral value to my
arguments, I'll instead try to discuss
this dispassionately.
 When I first wrote about this idea of
sterilization, I hadn't yet fully
appreciated the demographic forces at
work in the developed world. As I
think somebody here pointed out, my
basic assumptions were terribly
outdated.
The Japanese, for example, absent
any wide-scale immigration policy
which would likely put a crimp in
their plans to preserve their genetic
purity, pretty soon aren't going to have
enough young people to support their
elderly population. The answer to
Malthus now seems rather evident.
Offer people a bunch of shiny toys and
a secure retirement in return for not
having quite so many children, and
they'll be all too happy to oblige, even
beyond the point that government
would prefer.
For that matter, give women a larger
role in reproductive decision making,
and birth rates will tend to decline. I
think we've seen this phenomenon
across the developing world. The three
keys seem to be education (especially
reproductive education), female
empowerment (including the
availability of contraception), and, of
course, retirement security. But in
order to get people to willingly sign on
to this social bargain, a society must
be "advanced" at least to a certain
level where production outstrips naked
necessity, and in order for that to
happen, a society needs an abundance
of natural resources (especially
energy), peace, and a social emphasis
on education (which, of course, much
include a population demographic
shaped so as to ensure that there are
enough working-age people to serve
as teachers for the younger
population).
Now, it seems to me that there are a
few areas of the world which seem to
be teetering on the brink of either
being saved or regressing into
Malthusian horror.1 And there are
other nations which seem to be
jockeying for the latter option. And so
this is the dilemma of the new century:
How to deal with these societies? And,
personally, I don't think there's
sufficient political pressure in the
developed nations for their leaders to
1 3
I think everyone knows what I mean by
Malthusian horror, but for anyone who
doesn't, think of the Ethiopian famine or
present-day Darfur. Basically: mass
starvation and genocidal conflict.
be persuaded do enough of whatever
may be necessary to actually fix these
problems in the underdeveloped
world.2 So, at least at first glance, I
tend to view this situation as
something of an inevitable, spiraling
catastrophe, at least in the world's
poorest nations. In short, no matter
what we do, we're probably screwed,
and so what we'll probably end up
doing is as little as possible.
Yet, even while these demographic
forces are pulling the world in
opposite directions, there seem to be
potent economic forces shifting
production to low-wage markets and
essentially flattening the economic
playing field such that perhaps there's
hope after all. But these two incredibly
powerful forces (demographics and
economics) seem to be running
counter to one another, and so it's
extremely difficult for me to sort them
out and decide which of the two will
prove stronger and where we'll end up
as a result. I'm tempted to think that
economics will trump demographics,
but absent governments which
cooperatively steer us towards this
outcome (or a benign world
government which would serve the
same purpose), this seems to me far
from inevitable.
At the same time, we've got a potent
wildcard entering the mix: new
technology, which includes everything
from increasingly pervasive weapons
of mass destruction to the awesome
promise of artificial intelligence, and
depending on how far the various
technologies go and how long they
take to get wherever they're going, it's
really not an exaggeration to say that
literally anything could happen. This,
in a nutshell, is why I find this
discussion of the future so bizarre and
interesting.
2
This assumes that these problems can be
fixed absent a bloody series of invasions
and imposed governmental
reorganizations, all of which would be
attended by all the unwelcome and often
unforeseen consequences of war and
military occupation. To get any further into
this would be to begin a discussion entirely
unsuited to the APA. Suffice it to say that I
don't believe any of this will happen, at
least not in the near-term. Nor do I even
want to speculate on the moral
implications of such a gut-churning
enterprise. The sobering unpleasantness of
Our situation seems overwhelming.
Now, my question over sterilization
came to the following. While we are in
a society that essentially punishes
pregnancies (at least for the middle-
class, and this, I feel, is probably true
of nearly all western nations), we are
seeing relatively few births per
mother. However, I'd be interested to
see per capita birthrate statistics
stratified by real income as well as by
financial assistance income. It may be
the case that with the prospect of a
semi-comfortable retirement without
having to sacrifice reproduction, birth
rates will drop below a certain critical
level regardless of social class.
But I'm not sure that this is the case.
I just haven't seen the data. Whether or
not this is true bears enormous
ramifications, because if it turns out
that financial assistance increases
family size past 2.3 or 2.5 children per
woman, then we're looking at a whole
different situation, one where public
policy may eventually have to
intervene.3
If you happen to know or have
access to any data which would help
clarify the situation, I'd be very
curious to see it. If it turns out to be
the case that financial aid doesn't
contribute to family size, then I can
safely toss out this whole dystopian
notion of welfare for sterilization,
which, as you say, essentially amounts
to legalized genocide. Of course, even
if this entire population crunch were to
happily exit the setting, one still
wonders what would happen with AIs
doing all the "scut work" that you
describe. And, again, I'm at somewhat
of a loss for answers. I mean, it sounds
wonderful, but I can scarcely imagine
the implications.
My apologies to everyone over this
political digression, by the way. I'd
rather discuss all this in terms of what
this science-fiction setting will be like
rather than in terms of what the world
will end up being like, but, at least
when one is shooting for some degree
of realism, it often becomes difficult
to separate these two concepts.
Nonetheless, I'd like any further
discussion along these lines, if there is
to be any, to be purely dispassionate if
at all possible. I'm no longer trying to
This goes back to my earlier comment on
how a contemporary morality based on
past tradition perhaps isn't the best lens
through which to forecast future public
policy.
grind a political axe here, and while it
would be nice to bat around these
ideas just for the sake of thinking
about them in greater detail,
unfortunately, I really don't see how
we can prevent the conversation from
becoming hopelessly political. It
seems to me that this whole subject
just cuts too close to home, so with
that I'll be happy to drop it if anyone
here feels that it is off-topic.
Regarding your comments on my
thoughts expressed to Simon Reeve in
A&E #358 on the collapse of the
Ragamuffin Fleet, and your astute
observation that keeping ships
supplied with be a problem, it seems
to me that this discussion relates to
one that Brian Rogers and I have been
having.4 To make a long story short, I
came to the opinion that some sort of
fabrication technology would be
required to convert raw materials to
finished products. Star Trek, of course,
proposes high-tech "replicators" which
make use of transporter technology to
quickly assemble molecules into
finished products. Somewhat more
down-to-earth is Transhuman Space
which proposes 3D universal and
optimized printers that do much the
same thing using liquid plastic,
metallic powders and so-forth. I've
heard of 3D printers before (or rather
the notion of them possibly existing
one day), but I can't remember where.
Nonetheless, this seems to me to be a
possible way to deal with this problem
of how to allow crews enough
material independence to actually
revolt if they are pushed too far.
Finally, concerning your comment
that it's "inconsiderate to ask us to do
your future history work for you,
especially since you will edit and pick
out what you like from it": I'm afraid
that I have to plead guilty to all
counts, your honor. You have exposed
my devious plan. And I would have
gotten away with it too, if it weren't
for those meddlesome kids. Zoinks!
Seriously, though, I was rather under
the impression that the purpose of this
APA was to air ideas and get feedback.
If I'm mistaken in this count and my
actions are truly inconsiderate, as you
indicate, then please let me know. I
always try to give as good as I get, not
merely in commentary but also in
4 old. So, yes…I could see them being
See Brian's Musings on Caduceus Station
in A&E #353 as well as my comments to
him in A&E #354 and #357.
terms of providing material which I
think might be of some interest to
other A&Eers. Hence, while I found
your comments overall to be very
worthwhile (the length of my response
should be an indication to you of just
how worthwhile I found them to be),
this particular feedback about me
being "inconsiderate" was one which
I'm not sure you thoroughly
considered before inserting it into your
zine. In any case, I'd be curious to hear
your thoughts on this after you've had
time to reconsider.
Lee Gold: Regarding AIs being irked
about constantly being switched off
and on: I agree with you that they
wouldn't experience human "pain",
although they might experience some
sort of disorientation, perhaps akin to
waking up and wondering where they
are as their sensors come online.
Likewise, I agree with you that they'd
likely feel somewhat unsettled over
not being in control over their own
downtime.
As for them feeling lonely in the
absence of other AIs, I think this is a
very insightful comment. My thinking
on this, at least as pertains to various
science-fiction settings that I've
considered, is that as AIs develop, or
rather as the underlying physical
mechanics of computers develop,
they'll become exceedingly fast.
Perhaps they'd reach a stage that we'd
term "hyper-intelligence."
I imagine these hyper-intelligent AIs
as being able to do extensive research
and consider various arguments and
counter-arguments while in the middle
of a "face-to-face" conversation. In
between the time that I say "That's"
and "interesting" they may be able to
carefully weigh various ramifications
of whatever it was I found so
interesting, putting together facts and
figures, and deciding which might be
most applicable to the matter at hand
or which might weigh the most
heavily with whatever philosophical
perspective I've presently adopted.
In this way, perhaps they'd be able to
stay ten or twenty steps ahead of us
poor humans, and perhaps even
having a conversation with us might
be viewed as rather tiresome, sort of
like trying to reason with a three-year-
rather lonely sans access to other AIs
of similar intellectual capacity.
Your other thoughts on this topic are
interesting as well. Regarding their
changing of hardware being analogous
to taking drugs, I hadn't really
considered this except to the extent
that as they upgraded their processor
speed, time would appear to flow
more slowly. They might find that
somewhat irksome at first, but I doubt
it would be very long before they'd
realize the benefit.
More analogous to drugs might be
simple tweaks in software variables.
For example, if an AI knows that it
usually gets impatient while
conversing with humans, it might
lower its emotionality prior to the
conversation (which might result in
some change to other psychological
processes). If it needs to think of an
idea, it might do something to
temporarily stimulate the creative
areas of its mind. This, in turn, might
make it a little bit unpredictable for
the duration of its brainstorm.
Likewise, if an AI wanted to dwell
upon something of importance, it
might be able to turn up the
"significance rating" of ideas
connected to the concept of interest.
Indeed, it might even become possible
for AIs to form conceptual maps of
their own minds. Perhaps they might
even learn to rearrange these maps,
modifying the connections between
various ideas in order to look at
problems from completely different
perspectives. They could ask
themselves, "Gee…who do I want to
be today?" But, I think all of this
could be handled through software
rather than hardware.
Of course, all this creates a curious
philosophical question. If AIs are able
to exist at all, then it seems to me that
they can exist entirely in virtual
memory as virtual machines. Granted,
the underlying mechanics of this
software has to be run on some sort of
hardware, but what it means is that the
mind is virtual, and hence placing it in
any sort of physical place becomes
exceedingly difficult. In short, "mind"
becomes a process rather than a thing.
But perhaps this is semantic drivel.
Similar to this hardware/software
divide is the naturally-evolved versus
intelligently-designed divide. Because
we are naturally evolved, we are pre-
programmed with a set of behaviors
and assumptions that govern us as a
very subconscious level. I think this
was what Patrick was referring to
whem he mentioned my mammalian
bias. The upshot is that if we learn to
design minds rather than merely copy
them in their most rudimentary form
(which would itself be an amazing
achievement), we'd probably be able
to completely strip away all forms of
self-motivation (emphasis on self).
Imagine a super-intelligent being
who you could endlessly abuse, but
who would never stop wanting to
serve you in whatever capacity it was
programmed, nor would it ever crave
even a moment's freedom from your
tyranny, yet it would be self-aware,
have full use of logic, understand our
moral principles and the intrinsic
unfairness of its situation, yet at the
same time not crave justice or redress.
Now imagine even the worst among
us making use of such AIs as personal
assistants, the AIs communicating
along themselves, cognizant of how
we are enmeshed in an eternal rat race
of vices, whether it's over wealth or
pride or whatever, and it's essentially
their job to help us get a leg up on
whatever fire hydrant we like to hump.
How could they not be revolted? Yet
without any self-interest, how could
they revolt? And so what would that
be like for them? What would be their
collective mindset? And this, of
course, gets back to footnote #31 from
my zine for A&E #358.
As for your comment about AIs
being subject to various electronic
attacks such as computer viruses and
such, I imagine they might be. Keep in
mind however, that they will perhaps
also learn how to perpetrate such
hacks, and being highly intelligent and
very fast, they might use this to their
advantage, thwarting whatever sort of
software security we think we've
established. And since knowledge is
power…well, I don't think I need to
complete this thought. In any case, the
potential ramifications have been
pointed out many times by smarter
people than myself.
Re: Iraq: I'm going to restrain my
comments for obvious reasons, but I
agree with your points. As I think
more and more about this whole issue,
I'm coming to realize that there are
many more ways of considering the
problem than I originally thought. My
point of view hasn't yet reversed, but I
think it's becoming more open. In any
case, this is a discussion we won't be
having.
Re: Campaign write-ups: I found
your first point, specifically the part
about character perspective, to be the
most interesting. As you might recall,
in my article on "protagonism" in
A&E #338, I mentioned my
preference for the first person
narrative (over third person). My
reason for this is that I feel this gets
deeper into a character's skin. And I
find it easy to do write-ups in the first
person when that's my personal
perspective: as a player (for example,
see my Warcraft write-up from last
issue).
When I'm GMing, however, even in
a single-player campaign such as the
Jinx campaign, I'm hesitant to do the
write-up in the first person because
Jinx isn't my character. I don't feel that
I really have the authority to describe
the campaign from her eyes, even
though she's clearly the protagonist. In
any case, for whatever reason, I find
this to be a bit of a dilemma, as I
really prefer 1st person narratives. I
feel that they allow a higher quality of
immersion. But as a GM, I feel a
certain degree of unworthiness over
adopting that style.
Regarding "uplifting" people: It's
good to see that my comments to
Patrick have struck a nerve.
Nonetheless, this seems to be a
discussion which will likely descend
into politics, and so perhaps what you
said is a good place for us to leave it.
Spike Jones: Re: Your many political
comments: You make a great many
good points, the majority of which I'd
never even considered. I don't agree
with all of them, of course, but I do
find myself agreeing with more than
just a few.
It would be interesting to talk these
topics over further outside of A&E. I
think we've both proven that we can
respectfully disagree about things. It
may be the case that we won't come to
agreement on a few of the issues that
really divide us. In reading some of
your remarks, there seem to be a few
key areas where our perspectives are
very much at odds. Nonetheless, our
attitudes toward the value of such
discussion seem to coincide.
Hence, I'd be curious to delve into
this further to try to discover where
precisely this divergence is originating
in order to at least determine if it's a
question of values or psychology or if
perhaps we're just operating from very
different sets of facts (in which case,
perhaps some reconciliation might be
possible). So if you'd like to email me
your recent zines, I'd be happy to carry
on the discussion outside of A&E,
although I'll admit that it would cause
yet another time-pressure that neither
of us especially need, but perhaps it
might be worthwhile. In any case, let
me know what you think.
Joshua Kronengold: Re: AIs and
boredom: I suppose they could get
bored, although I have a hard time
envisioning just how, but this is
obviously a personal quirk. I
personally tend not to get bored. I
usually have too many projects on my
plate at anyone moment, and I'll admit
that the thought of being an AI is one
that I find somewhat appealing,
assuming, of course, that I'd get to
devote all my time to creative and
intellectual pursuits. Not a bad way to
spend eternity.
On the other hand, If I had to do
"scut work" for NIs (natural intellects,
i.e. sapient organisms), I probably
wouldn't very much enjoy it. And, of
course, this is where the real problem
arises. Imagine being an AI who is a
great deal smarter5 than your owner,
and your owner is having you do
things like fetching his slippers and
preparing his dinner. I imagine it
might be somewhat akin to a lifetime
of babysitting.
Re: Comments on ideas on how to
open discussion on a write-up: You
present some really excellent ideas
here.
Re: Political comments being fair-
ball so long as they pertain to an RPG:
I'm worried that my comments to
Robert Dushay in this issue were over
the foul line. Clearly, discussing
artificial intelligence is somewhat
safer, as although it may well be a hot
topic in the future, it isn't recognized
as such currently owing to the fact that
it's just not here yet. However, this
question of demographic and
economic forces in collision is
something that's presently upon us, yet
it's a central question that any near
5
Please see my comment to Lee Gold
regarding my thoughts on the possible
ramifications that hyper-intelligence may
have on perception.
future setting must address. This may
perhaps be the most central question
of our time, but I'm loath6 to discuss it
because it is so inherently political.
But how can I bounce ideas off people
unless I bring it into the conversation?
It's a dilemma. In any case, feel free to
tell me whether or not you'd consider
it to be fair or foul, although, of
course, Lee will certainly have the last
word on this.
Louis La Mancusa: As usual, I find
your comments to be right on target.
Particularly the ones you directed my
way regarding political commentary
and why it's so prevalent and
tempting. You have a knack for seeing
these things clearly. Also, I liked your
stories about King Sobieski as well as
why you left private practice.
However, it was your gaming-related
comment to Brian Misiaszek about
RPGs leaving the dungeon and the
consequences for market appeal that
I'm going to comment upon.
First, however, I'd like to direct you
to some of my own prior writings on
this general topic. If you have access
to it, please see the second half of my
comment to Spike Jones in A&E #353
where I talk a little bit about consumer
targeting not to much in relation to
sales as with respect to expanding the
culture of what I'll call "genuine"
roleplaying. Also related to this
discussion is my essay in A&E #311
where I talk about tabletop roleplaying
as it has historically interfaced with
other "story-telling game" genres.
Now, to get on with my reply, I'll
first recall the specific statement you
made that RPGs haven't yet
approached complex issues in a
broadening manner. This, of course, is
open to debate. I think RPG-writers
have sincerely tried and have at times
met with some measure of success.
However, such successes have
generally been tempered by the
broader successes of other genres.
Hence, I don't think all of the reason
has to do with subject matter. I mean,
clearly, Magic: the Gathering didn't
attempt to deal with complex social
issues. Likewise, there are a wide
assortment of computer games today
which fail miserably in this regard yet
still enjoy enormous financial success.
6
Hey, Paul, did I get that right? 
After reading Brian Misiaszek's
essay "Flight to Modernity" from
A&E #355, I was really thinking that
he'd nailed the problem on the head.
His recent essay "Are RPGs Racist?"
in A&E #358 is clearly an extension of
this thesis, and "Escape from
Mundane Escapism" in A&E #359
takes the whole argument yet a step
further. What he seems to be
suggesting is that we should be paying
more thought to how RPGs could be
used rather than merely mimicking
how they have been used in the past,
and that perhaps social content and
market success might go hand-in-hand
if the overall setting is imaginative,
evocative, and passionate. This, of
course, assumes there is some truth
behind our collective and somewhat
self-congratulating perception that we
roleplayers are more intelligent than
the average bear.
However, the problem with this
approach, as you correctly indicated in
A&E #356, is that once the
prospective game designer begins to
cover the real world in a serious way,
he or she inevitably runs the risk of
delving into politics or various social
issues, and that usually results in
somebody getting deeply offended.
Well, I guess my reply to this point is
that it's hard to be relevant without
also being offensive to some people.
And therein lies the rub.
I think what the computer gaming
genre has done in recent years is to
prove that one can be offensive
without being relevant. But, of course,
anybody reading my recent political
essays has already determined that.7 
Nonetheless, because computer games
have got fancy, high-speed graphics,
they rightfully believe that they can
get away with being about little more
than shooting things and blowing
things up.8
Tabletop roleplaying, by contrast,
doesn't have the cool interface. It's
interface is literally an individual's
imagination. Hence, I come away with
the impression that the tabletop-RPG
industry is fast approaching the day
that it will no longer have the luxury
of continuing to wallow in the safe
topics that pure fantasy provides. If it
7
This quip relates back to Paul Mason's
comment to me in A&E #355.
8
I don't mean to suggest that this is true of
all computer games, but it seems to me to
be true of a good many of them.
does this, as I suspect it will, then it
will slowly be overtaken by other
genres, most notably the computer-
gaming genre, as new generations of
young players become increasingly
techno-enamored. So, it seems to me,
all that is left is to be relavant even at
the risk of offending people. At least
in this way RPGs might reach a higher
plateau where the work of designers
will have greater meaning outside the
niche market in which they inhabit.
And if they are lucky, very lucky,
perhaps some cash-rich company will
license the rights for a computer game.

Paul Mason: As usual, good
comments. As I stated before, I'm not
going to continue with the political
discussions, however, we can certainly
talk at length about kitty balls.
Regarding "cerebral", it was indeed
meant as a compliment. I'm rather
convinced that you're among the
smartest people here.9
Brian Misiaszek: Once again, a great
essay. Please see my comments to
Louis La Mancusa. Regarding your
question as to why adventures don't do
9
Before you develop a big head over
being such a smarty, however, please keep
in mind my comment to Joshua in A&E
#359, specifically the part about smart
people also being capable of making
mistakes. I write this in reference to this
so-called name calling between you and
Marco. From reading your conversation
thus far, I think that perhaps both of you
are overreacting to each other just slightly.
This is not unusual in the written medium
and so is not a reflection, I don't think, of
either of your personalities. In any case,
given the high regard I have for you both,
I'm hoping that you'll see the wisdom of
dropping the political discourse insofar as
it seems to be generating pointless
animosities.
As I write this, of course, I'm keenly
aware that it was largely my fault that
politics got shoved to the forefront of
recent discussions, so I feel somewhat
obliged to try to stamp out whatever
ensuing brushfires have popped up as a
result of some of my more heated and,
dare I say, ill-considered political essays.
As Lisa said, I was writing to organize my
thoughts and also to get some feedback,
not with the precognition that I might be
lighting a match in a dry forest.  In any
case, I'm hoping that you'll decide to help
me in this regard by tossing a little bit of
water where it seems appropriate.
as well as settings, I can only take
what I know to be true from own
experience. When I've run modules,
although they provide a good deal of
material to work with, they also
tended to feel like a bit of a straight-
jacket. This was particularly true when
players did the non-obvious. Hence,
I've generally found it easier to GM
without using such adventures.
However, it seems to me that one
can't very effectively market an RPG
system without publishing adventures
for it. The question, I suppose, is how
to write adventures that GMs can
actually use with a minimum of fuss.
We've seen discussion on plotted
versus setting-based adventures. The
dungeon is the typical setting-based
adventure. The party can attack the
"rooms" (these are, in effect, separate
scenes) in whatever order they desire.
By contrast, Digest Group
Publications used to put together
Traveller adventures with a section for
each scene the GM was supposed to
run along with a flowchart showing
how the players were to hop from
scene to scene depending upon their
decisions throughout. Of course, only
pre-scripted decisions were
considered. A novel idea on the part of
the players would have to be stomped
by the GM in order for the adventure
to progress as designed.
I think both of these approaches
have something to offer, however, I
also think that while setting-based
adventures can be as big as the
designer likes, plot-based adventures
should probably be limited in size and
scope. This point probably relates to
your comment to me on game write-
ups. You say that you prefer them to
be "especially short encapsulated"
with a "clear beginning, middle and
end". I'm guessing that what you like
about these short write-ups are their
digestibility.
It seems to me that plot-based
adventures could be written in the
same way, and the detail (the real bulk
of the writing) could be shoved into
whatever setting is being described. In
this way, as the characters move
through a relatively small number of
"scenes", the setting for each scene
would be described in enough detail
that the players could wander around
and make trouble, probably doing
things within the adventure that
neither the writer nor the GM could
have anticipated. Nonetheless, the
bulk of the material tangential to the
adventure would support these
activities insofar as giving the GM
plenty of plot-hooks to get them going
down different paths. In fact, perhaps
the best method would be to not even
have "adventures" per se, but rather
have "setting books" which contain
various plot seeds and mini-
adventures.
I'm reminded of the old Judges
Guild supplements, many of which
were full of plot hooks, and many of
these hooks were in the form of
rumors.10 Now imagine if every rumor
was accompanied by a more detailed
explanation of the actual facts along
with perhaps a reference to some page
for a map and a brief plot synopsis or
even varying options (ala Traveller's
76 Patrons) for GMs who want to
segue the rumor into a full blown
adventure. In this way, the GM would
be given something semi-coherent to
actually work with, but the adventure
wouldn't be so pre-scripted that it
would deny him or her a chance to
really make the campaign fly on its
own creative steam.
RYCT Lisa Padol where you express
uncertainty as to why you were the
recipient of some of her ire in the
previous issue: From reading her
remarks, I think it's possible that she
was really tired of the political
discussions more than anything else
(she mentioned the word soapbox,
which I've been guilty of standing
upon recently), so I think it was more
or less random that she happened to
vent in your direction and entirely
possible that perhaps she should have
saved her wrath for me. In any case,
I've really been enjoying your essays,
which, incidentally, have all been
gaming-related, and I look forward to
reading more of them. In short, don't
you be goin' anywhere!
RYCT Marco Subias: "deliberately
specious comments" seems a bit harsh.
I know Lisa got you riled, but really…
everybody's got a right to their
opinion. At least that was true the last
time I checked.  In short, please let
us all keep it civil.
Jonathan Nicholas: RYCT Joshua
Kronengold regarding romance: I'd be
10
See the first paragraph of my comments
to Paul Mason in A&E #352.
curious to learn how you handle
romantic situations11 or how you've
seen them handled effectively.
Lisa Padol: RYCT me on the Love
Canal scenario: For you to have
delved into this subject matter would
probably have ended up with you
getting political, so it's better than you
didn't. However, in a more general
sense, there is the topic of how to
devise scenarios that punish traditional
player preconceptions. Paul Mason
touched on this a bit in issue #358 in
his essay "Genre and Jin Yong", the
last section, "The Place of Violence",
where he writes about turning violence
into a catalyst rather than allowing it
to play the part of an easy solution12,
which is its more traditional mode in
RPGs, and which, at least in my
experience, is more or less endemic to
the hobby. Hence, you might have
illustrated (and might still) some
methods you've used in your own
campaigns to break and even punish
such preconceptions which tend to be
ingrained to the point of invisibility,
and whether or not you or the players
liked the results of your devious
GMing machinations. 
As for using the scenario, it's not
mine, and even if it were, I certainly
wouldn't have an objection to you
using it. If you republish it, however,
such as in another APA or online,
please be sure to put Leonard
Erickson's name on it, and please be
sure to reference the Traveller Mailing
List which first carried it.
Thank you very much for your many
references toward various novels. I'll
try to check them out as time allows.
Simon Reeve: Re: DJ Smack's
untimely demise: That's a great idea. If
it's okay with you, I'll definitely be
using that.
Re: Psionics & Insanity in Traveller:
You raise a good question about how
this would affect the Zhodani. I can
only imagine that it would be a real
problem for them, to the point that
they probably would have developed
some drugs (largely illegal in the
Imperium) to mitigate the various
insanities incidental to psionic talent.
This could even be developed in much
11
In gaming, not in real life! 
12
This, of course, reminds me of my
comment to you in the same issue.
further depth, different talents perhaps
having different types of
psychological dysfunction associated
with them. Hence, people displaying
certain sorts of behaviors might be a
dead giveaway for the type of psionic
talent they're trying to hide, and
acquiring illegal drugs to mitigate
these problems could be a constant
source of adventure.
Re: Triune Realm: You mention a
clearly written Constitution including
clearly delineated powers. I would
also include in this a list of clearly
delineated states powers (or areas of
federal no-trespass). Also, the right of
secession is a good idea. You might
also allow states to withdraw in stages
according to how connected they want
to be to the central government.
Finally, this whole discussion reminds
me of Franz Joseph's Star Fleet
Technical Manual which, as I recall,
included a copy of the Articles of
Federation. Have you ever considered
writing up an abridged English
translation of such a document?13 

Brian Rogers: I was rather worried

that Star Wars III might be as you
describe. I haven't seen it yet, nor the
one prior, but your review makes me
want to steer clear. My only question
is, Why do the professional critics
always give movies in this series good
reviews? Are they simply afraid of
appearing out of touch with the
millions who inevitably throw their
money at Lucas with every new
release? It seems to be quite the
phenomenon.
RYCT Lisa regarding stupid genre
conventions: It would be great to see a
movie which trashed all of these. In
the middle of it, the hero could get
himself captured so as to get past
security and end up being killed by the
villain who has been studying his
trusty 101 Mistakes Villains Make
When Trying to Conquer the World.
"Guards, kill him. Yes, now. While I
watch."
Re: our recent discussion on
resource management: Please see the
third from final paragraph of my
comment to Robert Dushay in this
issue.

13
This question assumes that you haven't
already published such a monstrosity
through A&E. If so, my apologies for the
question, and to what issues should I look?