Thought experiment - colonisers or refugees

[lategamer]

This is a deliberate thought experiment for a game design I'm playing with.

The Pitch
It's the 22nd Century and humanity has finally ruined the Earth with billions of deaths.
There's massive social issues but but we have a way to escape.
We make our way to another world that can sustain human life.
However it's occupied. Which makes sense - for there to be to be an ecosystem that we need, there's something down there making that.

So, we are the last ship, the only island left of Earth. We have maybe 100,000 people in cold sleep. And a further million embryos.
We have life support for the crew of maybe another 20 years. But then that's it. Humanity dies.

The world below has sentient life as well as an ecosystem.

You're the commander of the ship. What's your orders?

 

[sharps54]

 

[sharps54]

That said the PCs don’t have to agree or support the commander of the ship…

 

[Stumpydave]

We land. We seize a patch of defendable ground and we rebuild. It's what we do. It's what we've always done.

 

[lategamer]

That said the PCs don’t have to agree or support the commander of the ship…

True. So what are you doing?

 

[sharps54]

True. So what are you doing?

As the Commander in the OP? They would require more information.
What is the world like? One world government or many nation stats? Are we able to intercept, decode, and translate their communications? What is their tech level? Military capabilities?

Options range from asking for asylum as a ruse while we prep to play factions against each other to outright military action, it really depends on the details of the world.

 

[sharps54]

Let’s be honest this could turn out like anything between the movie Stargate to the movie District 9.

 

[sharps54]

Although a nice medium like the film Alien Nation could be interesting…

 

[lategamer]

Although a nice medium like the film Alien Nation could be interesting…

The tech level of the occupants does really matter.

If they're pre-industrial, it's very different to whether they're maybe 20th C tech.

I'm throwing in ideas like Apocalypto, The Mission, The Man who Would Be King, Medicine Man...

There was a 1950s movie where a futuristic society had a bit of a scrap and at the end the saucer arrived at a new planet....The EARTH!!!! (of course I can't remember the name of it)

 

[sharps54]

In that case the big question is do the humans present themselves as gods or just conquering aliens? Of course the geography matters as well, if there is an isolated land mass that would support humanity there may be no reason to even interact except to relocate or remove the locals. Yes, that sounds horrible but I could see humanity taking over Australia, setting up a ‘no sail zone’ and only monitoring the rest of the world as opposed to conquering it.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think much of the answer here depends on what kind of life is extant on the planet. How intelligent, how widespread and populous, of what disposition, and things of that nature. John Ringo's Empire of Man books touch on this sort of thing.

 

[Fenris-77]

Two competing ideas among the crew about how this should work would provide some nice tension (like Avatar I suppose). Maybe two opposed factions and a larger undecided lump. That sounds spicy.

 

[lategamer]

In that case the big question is do the humans present themselves as gods or just conquering aliens?

Well, in this thought experiment, that's up to the PCs. What would your group do?

Of course the geography matters as well, if there is an isolated land mass that would support humanity there may be no reason to even interact except to relocate or remove the locals. Yes, that sounds horrible but I could see humanity taking over Australia, setting up a ‘no sail zone’ and only monitoring the rest of the world as opposed to conquering it.

That's probably the best option.

I think much of the answer here depends on what kind of life is extant on the planet. How intelligent, how widespread and populous, of what disposition, and things of that nature. John Ringo's Empire of Man books touch on this sort of thing.

I will look those up, thanks!

 

[Mosker]

Although a nice medium like the film Alien Nation could be interesting…

A thousand times this. All of my questions regarding technology, biology and the crew (factions, beliefs, what they did to get on the ship) revolve around the million embryos.

Anyone read the Niven/Pournelle/Barnes Herorot novels?

Spoiler: Personal note on tunnel vision and screaming in response to the thread title:

[I've been all to aware of the venn diagram of :
People I know IRL.
People with UCLA or USC connections
Other Jews, including those like myself who are about as observant as a plastic pig.]

 

[lategamer]

A thousand times this. All of my questions regarding technology, biology and the crew (factions, beliefs, what they did to get on the ship) revolve around the million embryos.

Yes, here the humans come from is just as important as where they are landing. Shades of "Raised by Wolves". Reminded of the scene in Interstellar (which is also an inspiration.

• Brand: You know, out there, we face great odds – death – but…not evil.
• Cooper: You don't think nature can be evil?
• Brand: No. Formidable, frightening, but… no, not evil. Is a lion evil because it rips a gazelle to shreds?
• Cooper: Just what we take with us, then.

Anyone read the Niven/Pournelle/Barnes Herorot novels?

I read a review which ended with "I'm sure there are worse books out there, but I haven't read one."

 

[sharps54]

Well, in this thought experiment, that's up to the PCs. What would your group do?

Gather more intelligence and plan. If we have twenty years of life support left we can take a little time to do suitable recon and planning. The religion the natives follow will play a large part in the question are we gods or aliens.

 

[lategamer]

Gather more intelligence and plan. If we have twenty years of life support left we can take a little time to do suitable recon and planning. The religion the natives follow will play a large part in the question are we gods or aliens.

Twenty more if we don't defrost anyone. That was a theme we were exploring - there's only room for 10 people on board. But you can swap people in and out of cold sleep.

 

[Godfather Punk]

Two competing ideas among the crew about how this should work would provide some nice tension

 

[lategamer]

Image

What's that from?

 

[Godfather Punk]

Battlestar Galactica (the 2009 finale).

 

[Lofgeornost]

There was a Stargate episode somewhat along these lines--one of the planets SG-1 visited had the normal smallish human population, but a ship had just arrived from a nearly-extinct civilization (loaded with their embryos, or something similar--I can't recall) and was beginning to exoform the planet to fit with their environmental requirements--which would mean death for the humans there.

 

[sharps54]

What I think is interesting about the OP’s proposal though is that you are the aliens that just arrived which raises all kinds of wonderful moral dilemmas during play.

I haven’t seen the SG1 episode but they probably found another home for one of the two groups. It is easy to play the occupants of the world being colonized, we have a ton of games that do that, but to be the colonization force and treat it as mature gamers, that my friends is an interesting game.

 

[PolarBlues]

I never enjoyed serious moral dilemmas and hard choices. Old fashioned, Stan Lee comicbook melodrama is fine, but I don't want my gaming to get to uncomfortably real.

So in this scenario I'd frame it differently. Maybe the colonists find two factions on the planet, the good aliens humans can co-exist with and the bad aliens humans and good aliens can join forces to resist. I know, I know, that's impossibly bland, cheesy and takes all the edge out of the settup, but that's how I like it.

 

[Lofgeornost]

Fair enough. There were somewhat similar moral dilemmas in the SG1 episode, though:

• To the invading aliens--do you commit genocide as the price of avoiding extinction?
• To SG1--on whose side do you intervene? If any? IIRC it was not possible to evacuate all the human inhabitants in the time available.

On the whole, the setup seems more interesting to me for either (1) a story, TV episode, or film or (2) a 1-shot rather than an RPG campaign. It's basically one moral dilemma; you resolve it in whatever way and you're done.

Edit--just to be clear, this was a reply to S sharps54, not PolarBlues.

 

[sharps54]

I think I would be willing to run this but with the PCs as part of a minority faction opposed to the treatment of the natives.

 

[lategamer]

. I know, I know, that's impossibly bland, cheesy and takes all the edge out of the settup, but that's how I like it.

Cheese is good. Cheese is good.

 

[lategamer]

Fair enough. There were somewhat similar moral dilemmas in the SG1 episode, though:

• To the invading aliens--do you commit genocide as the price of avoiding extinction?
• To SG1--on whose side do you intervene? If any? IIRC it was not possible to evacuate all the human inhabitants in the time available.

The SG1 example is probably even more ornery because the inhabitants of the planet are human.

The episode is Scorched Earth. Month episode of the fourth series. I have them on iTunes (and haven’t watched them) so I’ll watch that tonight.

On the whole, the setup seems more interesting to me for either (1) a story, TV episode, or film or (2) a 1-shot rather than an RPG campaign. It's basically one moral dilemma; you resolve it in whatever way and you're done.

Well, no, there is more to it than that.

I think there’s a generational play aspect to it. And I have a heap of other plot ideas.

e.g.

Another human craft arrives.
Whether you reveal yourself to the natives
Whether you trade with the natives
The ship has a catastrophic failure
The natives have a faction who worship you
The natives have a faction who hate you.
The two factions begin to war.
A drought/ famine/plague hits (did we bring it? Was it intentional?)
Etc

 

[carpocratian]

In reality, my orders would be to keep looking. We already destroyed one planet. It isn't our right to destroy another. Inevitably, that's what humans will do.

 

[lategamer]

In reality, my orders would be to keep looking. We already destroyed one planet. It isn't our right to destroy another. Inevitably, that's what humans will do.

Ooooh, nice shot from left field.

This is a deliberately limited situation. The premise is that you’re on a ship a little like the Endurance from Interstellar. You’ve got limited fuel and life support.

Now I can see it might be worth trying to refuel, resupply and leave, and that presents its own challenges. With the lack of habitable worlds, it is the doom of humanity.

 

[carpocratian]

Ooooh, nice shot from left field.

This is a deliberately limited situation. The premise is that you’re on a ship a little like the Endurance from Interstellar. You’ve got limited fuel and life support.

Now I can see it might be worth trying to refuel, resupply and leave, and that presents its own challenges. With the lack of habitable worlds, it is the doom of humanity.

Yep. That's what I'm saying. If there is a way to refuel and resupply before leaving, we do that. If not, we just go on, and hope for the best, knowing that it is unlikely we will find anything. If humanity happens to chance across another world that is habitable (but not inhabited by a sentient species), great. Maybe we (the crew) freeze ourselves after 20 years if they don't find anything, and hope that some compassionate advanced aliens in the future thaw us out. Realistically, though, we pretty much choose to not continue as a species. We're a pretty crappy species as it is, and shouldn't be ruining the future of other species because of our bad choices.

That's if I were calling the shots on my own in a real-world situation, though. It wouldn't make for very dramatic gameplay. In a game situation, or in a real-world situation where the rest of the crew don't agree with the above, I would say we spend 20 years studying the planet, trying to contact the natives, and working out the least destructive plan we can manage.

 

[lategamer]

, I would say we spend 20 years studying the planet, trying to contact the natives, and working out the least destructive plan we can manage.

I asked my wife, the biggest hippy I know, and she said go in cap in hand and ask for help and if they say No, bugger off and find another world*

*this was actually her second answer. Her first tongue-in-cheek answer was "go in as a refugee, then colonise"

 

[sharps54]

I would expect if the commander tried to leave they would face a mutiny

 

[Dyrnwyn]

I would expect if the commander tried to leave they would face a mutiny

Yeah, given the scenario outlined, a mutiny would be arguably justifiable as a form of self-preservation.

I'd be on team "Colonize, while trying to work things out the best we can". But ultimately, the survival of humanity would be non-negotiable if push came to shove.

 

[Lofgeornost]

Well, no, there is more to it than that.

I think there’s a generational play aspect to it. And I have a heap of other plot ideas.

e.g.

Another human craft arrives.
Whether you reveal yourself to the natives
Whether you trade with the natives
The ship has a catastrophic failure
The natives have a faction who worship you
The natives have a faction who hate you.
The two factions begin to war.
A drought/ famine/plague hits (did we bring it? Was it intentional?)
Etc

That all sounds interesting. I’m not sure how it would work in an RPG—or rather, how I could make it work, myself. The key issue I find myself colliding with is: what do the p.c.’s actually do? When I imagine playing out the basic setup, about all I can think of is that they have a debate, either among themselves or with the gm acting as the other factions in the decision. Which is good for a story or drama—a fair amount of theater is just people debating—but doesn’t seem ideal for an RPG. YMMV.

To offer an imperfect analogy, it’s like an RPG that depicts a war. You could do this by focusing on the high-level commanders, with debates about strategy, etc. ‘You decide to invade France in 1943, not 1944. O.K., that has this result. What do you do next?’ For the most part, RPGs don’t take that approach—they focus on the small scale, where individual soldiers are facing threats and overcoming them (or not), trying to accomplish their mission (and stay alive). That creates a more ‘you-are-there’ experience than a game set at a meeting of Allied High Command, or some such.

 

[lategamer]

That all sounds interesting. I’m not sure how it would work in an RPG—or rather, how I could make it work, myself. The key issue I find myself colliding with is: what do the p.c.’s actually do?

Well, you have a mission. As a Referee for this sort of game (could it work GM-less?) I would dictate a few truths

- this is more about how you play
- if you choose to go back into Hypersleep and wait for the perfect planet, that is an outcome which is fine, though it’s the end of the human species.
- there are probably no perfect solutions. But the challenge is finding the one you want.

To offer an imperfect analogy, it’s like an RPG that depicts a war. You could do this by focusing on the high-level commanders, with debates about strategy, etc. ‘You decide to invade France in 1943, not 1944.

Not surprisingly I see this a bit differently.
Ok, that’s a war with, like, a million combatants. This is you and maybe 10-19 other people making choices about the survival of the human race. It’s not detached. When you decided that the mountaintop is a good location because it’s defensible then you choose what resources to commit to it. Five persons. One of the replicators. One of the three shuttles. Someone has to make the piloting rolls. Someone has to reconcile the difference between topographical scans and being on the ground. Someone literally has to deal with first contact.

O.K., that has this result. What do you do next?’ For the most part, RPGs don’t take that approach—they focus on the small scale, where individual soldiers are facing threats and overcoming them (or not), trying to accomplish their mission (and stay alive). That creates a more ‘you-are-there’ experience than a game set at a meeting of Allied High Command, or some such.

I hope I explained it a little more above. I think it’s a “vital” (meaning essential to life) mission. That will be done by the PCs.

There’s a base building aspect to it once you select your landing. Defences. Allocating staff to the facility that will grow the embryos. Allocating teachers.

 

[Lofgeornost]

Thanks. It’s a lot easier to see now what the player-characters would actually be doing.

 

[lategamer]

I thought about providing other worlds but I really want to cement the game loop as “there will always be an intervention”. It’s whether it’s benign, or sinister.

A second world would be an option perhaps if the colony ship was able to refuel, repair, resupply. It was my gut that the colony ship was not a Lander. It would always be in orbit. The limited use of Landers would be a plot point as they would need fuel and there are no refineries on these outlying worlds.

But enterprising PCs being what they are and having a replicator (really a sophisticated 3D printer. A Fab-Unit?) on site would mean a dedicated PC could probably survey for complex hydrocarbons or even manufacture them from organic waste. Then refine. Then ship them upwards.

 

[TristramEvans]

This is a deliberate thought experiment for a game design I'm playing with.

The Pitch
It's the 22nd Century and humanity has finally ruined the Earth with billions of deaths.
There's massive social issues but but we have a way to escape.
We make our way to another world that can sustain human life.
However it's occupied. Which makes sense - for there to be to be an ecosystem that we need, there's something down there making that.

So, we are the last ship, the only island left of Earth. We have maybe 100,000 people in cold sleep. And a further million embryos.
We have life support for the crew of maybe another 20 years. But then that's it. Humanity dies.

The world below has sentient life as well as an ecosystem.

You're the commander of the ship. What's your orders?

Need more info. Sentient life means nothing, everything is sentient - trees, fungi, ants (as opposed to sapient life, which would be a much more significant consideration). And the question of whether/how to adapt to the ecosystem depends entirely on what that ecosystem is.

 

[Stumpydave]

This reminds me of the beginning of Galactica 80 where they discuss setting down in the Arctic or Gobi desert to not impact on the Earthlings.

So even if we set down, there's no reason why we have to set down in an area that puts us into competition with native species. We just use our tech to make our immediate environs more suitable.

Or my preferred option... 'Nice planet. I'll take it.'

 

[sharps54]

I mean ideally you would come up with a compromise with the natives and if they are less advanced technologically you may be able to live in a tenuous peace. The problem comes if you have to terraform to survive, that puts you in Zod's position in Man of Steel. Do you wipe out a world to save humanity or let humanity just die? It is a horrible choice and there is no good answer.