DShomshak

This reminds me of Edgar Deal's sign back many years ago.
 
Mr. Deal had a used car lot-  it was just north of Darien on the coast on US 17 (been gone for a couple decades now).  He was also a very devout man (and may have been a lay preacher;  I no longer remember).  Either way, he was a very pleasant, personable man.
 
His sign, like the signs of so many small businesses here in the South, testified to his faith before all else:
 
"Jesus is Lord!
Ed Deals Used Cars."
 
 
Everything to its place, see.   
 
 

A further point of Moral Foundations Theory is that people place different weights on each foundation. This gets into politics, which I will avoid, but it's worth noting.
 
But it's also worth noting that just about everyone acknowledges the need for *compromise* between virtues. One way to create peoples whose motives are comprehensible but reprehensible is to pick one virtue and make it absolute, leaving no room for compromise. For one easy example, every member of a species might be totally loyal to each other, but regard all other sapient beings as enemies who must be eradicated to make more living space for themselves. Conversely, members of another species might be such libertarians that they refuse to give an inch to anyone else's will, even to respecting contracts or other free associations. (OK, we just re-invented Lawful and Chaotic Evil.) Or folk who are Purity/Defilement absolutists might fanatically seek to conquer everyone else to impose their dietary, religious, or other code. Even Care/Harm becomes supremely creepy in the classic SF short story "With Folded Hands," in which unstoppable robots invade Earth to keep humans safe and comfortable... whether we want it or not.
 
They are all, by their own standards, righteous. But their absolutism also makes them implacably hostile to everyone else. They must be fought.
 
Dean Shomshak

And by extension, a definition of good. I favor the anthropological/psychological approach of moral foundations theory, which seeks to study the moral reasoning of actual people to find the basis for their judgements. Here's the Wikipedia article:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
 
In brief, though, the researchers have identified six moral foundations that seem widespread across cultures. (More may be possible. Research continues.)
 
* Care/Harm may be the most straightforward, as it is individually observable and relatively non-contextual. The deliberate infliction of suffering on another is evil; the alleviation of suffering and active promotion of quality of life is usually considered good, all other things being equal.
 
* Liberty/Oppression is also pretty straightforward. Most people want to do what they want to do, and object to someone else forcing them to act or not act as they choose.
 
* Fairness/Unfairness: Humans are clearly born with an innate sense that it's wrong for some people to get more than others, or more than they've earned. (Though the definition of "earned" is of course subject to self-interest.) Any parent who has had one child complain that another child's slice of cake was a millimeter larger than their own knows what I'm talking about. Active cheating is, well, it's often dependent on who's cheating whom. But cheating your own group is almost always condemned.
 
* Loyalty/Treachery is more group-dependent than the previous. Very few people actually admire betrayal of the group. But what group owns your loyalty?
 
*Authority/Insubordination: Most people, in most societies, admire obedience to authority. But this gets even more conditional, as the authority must be accepted as legitimate, which gets into circular definitions. Also, this foundation is reciptocal: Whoever is in authority must do its duty in order to maintain legitimacy. Failure to do so makes rebellion righteous. It's not always good to be king!
 
* Purity/Defilement: This one is the most abstract and culturally dependent, but people tend to have strong feelings in favor of what they conceive as pure, and against what they regard as soiled, corrupted, or adulterated -- anything from a white bigot feeling horror at "race mixing," to an environmentalist's exaltation at experiencing "unspoiled wilderness."
 
People being complicated, moral judgements are rarely based on just one foundation. For instance, soldiers can fall into a competition of showing who's most loyal to the group and the leader by trying to outdo each other in harming the enemy. See: the Rape of Nanking and other mass atrocities.
 
One game application of Moral Foundations Theory is that it offers a way to make different groups "evil" in diofferent ways. But I've gone on long enough; examples are left to the reader.
 
Dean Shomshak

A further point of Moral Foundations Theory is that people place different weights on each foundation. This gets into politics, which I will avoid, but it's worth noting.
 
But it's also worth noting that just about everyone acknowledges the need for *compromise* between virtues. One way to create peoples whose motives are comprehensible but reprehensible is to pick one virtue and make it absolute, leaving no room for compromise. For one easy example, every member of a species might be totally loyal to each other, but regard all other sapient beings as enemies who must be eradicated to make more living space for themselves. Conversely, members of another species might be such libertarians that they refuse to give an inch to anyone else's will, even to respecting contracts or other free associations. (OK, we just re-invented Lawful and Chaotic Evil.) Or folk who are Purity/Defilement absolutists might fanatically seek to conquer everyone else to impose their dietary, religious, or other code. Even Care/Harm becomes supremely creepy in the classic SF short story "With Folded Hands," in which unstoppable robots invade Earth to keep humans safe and comfortable... whether we want it or not.
 
They are all, by their own standards, righteous. But their absolutism also makes them implacably hostile to everyone else. They must be fought.
 
Dean Shomshak

I disagree almost with the premise of the thread, from a philosophical standpoint. I don't think it's possible to create a race to be evil, because evil requires a conscious choice made with free will. Acts are evil; we generally only consider a person evil if they know the things they do are evil but they refuse to stop doing them.  
 
What's an evil act?  Those are defined almost universally, by every culture on Earth.  Murder, kidnapping, rape, lying in court in order to harm someone else.  Killing in self defense is not evil, nor is killing the enemy in war, but acts of war against civilians are evil.  
 
Speaking of war, here's a point: almost every culture, probably throughout human history, has, when war is imminent, attempted through propaganda to define the enemy as evil.  They're evil because they're against us, even though their people are very nearly the same as ours.  Farmers, peasants, laborers, craftspeople, the religious... their people want a steady job, a roof over their heads, three meals a day for themselves and their families.  That's what our people want, too. 
 
A man-eating lion can't be evil. It can be "broken", as lions almost never eat humans. Even if the lion chooses to eat man over other meat, it can't be evil by definition, because it's not sapient. Note: that doesn't mean it's not dangerous, or that it shouldn't be destroyed; it's just that lions are not creatures of conscious morality.  
 
You can't create a race to be evil.  You can create a race to be violent, destructive, pestilent, dangerous, but if you do that it's you who are evil, not the beings you created.  Just the same as if you'd created a killbot swarm or a deadly virus.  
 
Without free will, they're robots, they're an extension of their creator's will, but they're not evil.  They can't be.

I checked through a few editions, and the qualifier that Universal Translator only enables one to speak or write a language "crudely" seems to appear in 5th edition. 4th edition version just says that, yeah, you can speak, read and write any language you encounter. (With a few qualifiers such as physical ability to "speak" in the mode presented). So one solution is just to use 4th edition. (I'm not checking previous editions.)
 
OK, so you're stuck with a particular edition and you don't want to say the Rules As Written for that edition are pointlessly limiting. Steve Long gave another way out in 5e by deriving Talents from standard Powers and Skills. Officially, Universal Translator consists of two Detects: Detect Meaning of Speech [10 points] + Detect Meaning of Text [10 points]. Except thi9s is wrong. BY RAW, a basic Detect only registers the presence and intensity of some object or quality. Detect Meaning of Speech will only tell you that yup, that's speech and it has more or less meaning. You need Discriminatory, at the very least. And you would also need Transmit in order to speak back.
 
So let's "correct" the derivation, while conserving the final cost, by treating it this way: Detect Meaning of Speech (3 points -- pretty specialized), Discriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points); + Detect Meaning of Text (3 points), Descriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points). Though by RAW you could reduce the cost to 15, because you can add a second class of entity to a Detect for a flat +5 points without needing to re-purchase all the added modifiers.
 
To Detect and Transmit the finer shades of meaning implied by true mastery of a language, add Analyze. For the verion of UT that conserves existing point values that pushes the final cost to 30 points. Using the two-categories hack, the final cost drops back to 20 points.
 
You'll still have to make a PER Roll to comprehend or communicate in the language, but getting a better roll for this single Enhanced Sense costs only 1 point per +1. Buy +3 and I think it's fair to say you'now effectively have 4 points of fluency in any language you enounter.
 
If you're *really* persnickety, add +2 points for "Sense", so you can use it without needing a half-Phase action. But I think you can bring the whole thing in at 25 points.
 
Dean Shomshak

And by extension, a definition of good. I favor the anthropological/psychological approach of moral foundations theory, which seeks to study the moral reasoning of actual people to find the basis for their judgements. Here's the Wikipedia article:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
 
In brief, though, the researchers have identified six moral foundations that seem widespread across cultures. (More may be possible. Research continues.)
 
* Care/Harm may be the most straightforward, as it is individually observable and relatively non-contextual. The deliberate infliction of suffering on another is evil; the alleviation of suffering and active promotion of quality of life is usually considered good, all other things being equal.
 
* Liberty/Oppression is also pretty straightforward. Most people want to do what they want to do, and object to someone else forcing them to act or not act as they choose.
 
* Fairness/Unfairness: Humans are clearly born with an innate sense that it's wrong for some people to get more than others, or more than they've earned. (Though the definition of "earned" is of course subject to self-interest.) Any parent who has had one child complain that another child's slice of cake was a millimeter larger than their own knows what I'm talking about. Active cheating is, well, it's often dependent on who's cheating whom. But cheating your own group is almost always condemned.
 
* Loyalty/Treachery is more group-dependent than the previous. Very few people actually admire betrayal of the group. But what group owns your loyalty?
 
*Authority/Insubordination: Most people, in most societies, admire obedience to authority. But this gets even more conditional, as the authority must be accepted as legitimate, which gets into circular definitions. Also, this foundation is reciptocal: Whoever is in authority must do its duty in order to maintain legitimacy. Failure to do so makes rebellion righteous. It's not always good to be king!
 
* Purity/Defilement: This one is the most abstract and culturally dependent, but people tend to have strong feelings in favor of what they conceive as pure, and against what they regard as soiled, corrupted, or adulterated -- anything from a white bigot feeling horror at "race mixing," to an environmentalist's exaltation at experiencing "unspoiled wilderness."
 
People being complicated, moral judgements are rarely based on just one foundation. For instance, soldiers can fall into a competition of showing who's most loyal to the group and the leader by trying to outdo each other in harming the enemy. See: the Rape of Nanking and other mass atrocities.
 
One game application of Moral Foundations Theory is that it offers a way to make different groups "evil" in diofferent ways. But I've gone on long enough; examples are left to the reader.
 
Dean Shomshak

If anyone says temporal physics won't allow <fill in the blank>, just raise your eyebrow and say, "Not if you apply a sliding Mobius loop matrix to the para-temporal manifold."
 
Or, you know, reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
 
Meet nonsense with nonsense. 😜
 
Dean Shomshak

Investigating an exoplanet's atmosphere:
 
https://www.nasa.gov/goddard/2023/webb-discovers-methane-carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-of-k2-18b
 
Dean Shomshak

I checked through a few editions, and the qualifier that Universal Translator only enables one to speak or write a language "crudely" seems to appear in 5th edition. 4th edition version just says that, yeah, you can speak, read and write any language you encounter. (With a few qualifiers such as physical ability to "speak" in the mode presented). So one solution is just to use 4th edition. (I'm not checking previous editions.)
 
OK, so you're stuck with a particular edition and you don't want to say the Rules As Written for that edition are pointlessly limiting. Steve Long gave another way out in 5e by deriving Talents from standard Powers and Skills. Officially, Universal Translator consists of two Detects: Detect Meaning of Speech [10 points] + Detect Meaning of Text [10 points]. Except thi9s is wrong. BY RAW, a basic Detect only registers the presence and intensity of some object or quality. Detect Meaning of Speech will only tell you that yup, that's speech and it has more or less meaning. You need Discriminatory, at the very least. And you would also need Transmit in order to speak back.
 
So let's "correct" the derivation, while conserving the final cost, by treating it this way: Detect Meaning of Speech (3 points -- pretty specialized), Discriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points); + Detect Meaning of Text (3 points), Descriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points). Though by RAW you could reduce the cost to 15, because you can add a second class of entity to a Detect for a flat +5 points without needing to re-purchase all the added modifiers.
 
To Detect and Transmit the finer shades of meaning implied by true mastery of a language, add Analyze. For the verion of UT that conserves existing point values that pushes the final cost to 30 points. Using the two-categories hack, the final cost drops back to 20 points.
 
You'll still have to make a PER Roll to comprehend or communicate in the language, but getting a better roll for this single Enhanced Sense costs only 1 point per +1. Buy +3 and I think it's fair to say you'now effectively have 4 points of fluency in any language you enounter.
 
If you're *really* persnickety, add +2 points for "Sense", so you can use it without needing a half-Phase action. But I think you can bring the whole thing in at 25 points.
 
Dean Shomshak

Investigating an exoplanet's atmosphere:
 
https://www.nasa.gov/goddard/2023/webb-discovers-methane-carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-of-k2-18b
 
Dean Shomshak

I have never seen any such rule. It's always been twice the BODY to Transform anything.
 
I haven't seen Scourges of the Galaxy, so I can't comment much on the specific example. But from my experience writing game supplements, I can say that writers do experience brain farts now and then, or one part of a text gets changed in revising a draft and other parts don't, creating contradictions or errors.
 
Dean Shomshak

I checked through a few editions, and the qualifier that Universal Translator only enables one to speak or write a language "crudely" seems to appear in 5th edition. 4th edition version just says that, yeah, you can speak, read and write any language you encounter. (With a few qualifiers such as physical ability to "speak" in the mode presented). So one solution is just to use 4th edition. (I'm not checking previous editions.)
 
OK, so you're stuck with a particular edition and you don't want to say the Rules As Written for that edition are pointlessly limiting. Steve Long gave another way out in 5e by deriving Talents from standard Powers and Skills. Officially, Universal Translator consists of two Detects: Detect Meaning of Speech [10 points] + Detect Meaning of Text [10 points]. Except thi9s is wrong. BY RAW, a basic Detect only registers the presence and intensity of some object or quality. Detect Meaning of Speech will only tell you that yup, that's speech and it has more or less meaning. You need Discriminatory, at the very least. And you would also need Transmit in order to speak back.
 
So let's "correct" the derivation, while conserving the final cost, by treating it this way: Detect Meaning of Speech (3 points -- pretty specialized), Discriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points); + Detect Meaning of Text (3 points), Descriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points). Though by RAW you could reduce the cost to 15, because you can add a second class of entity to a Detect for a flat +5 points without needing to re-purchase all the added modifiers.
 
To Detect and Transmit the finer shades of meaning implied by true mastery of a language, add Analyze. For the verion of UT that conserves existing point values that pushes the final cost to 30 points. Using the two-categories hack, the final cost drops back to 20 points.
 
You'll still have to make a PER Roll to comprehend or communicate in the language, but getting a better roll for this single Enhanced Sense costs only 1 point per +1. Buy +3 and I think it's fair to say you'now effectively have 4 points of fluency in any language you enounter.
 
If you're *really* persnickety, add +2 points for "Sense", so you can use it without needing a half-Phase action. But I think you can bring the whole thing in at 25 points.
 
Dean Shomshak

I checked through a few editions, and the qualifier that Universal Translator only enables one to speak or write a language "crudely" seems to appear in 5th edition. 4th edition version just says that, yeah, you can speak, read and write any language you encounter. (With a few qualifiers such as physical ability to "speak" in the mode presented). So one solution is just to use 4th edition. (I'm not checking previous editions.)
 
OK, so you're stuck with a particular edition and you don't want to say the Rules As Written for that edition are pointlessly limiting. Steve Long gave another way out in 5e by deriving Talents from standard Powers and Skills. Officially, Universal Translator consists of two Detects: Detect Meaning of Speech [10 points] + Detect Meaning of Text [10 points]. Except thi9s is wrong. BY RAW, a basic Detect only registers the presence and intensity of some object or quality. Detect Meaning of Speech will only tell you that yup, that's speech and it has more or less meaning. You need Discriminatory, at the very least. And you would also need Transmit in order to speak back.
 
So let's "correct" the derivation, while conserving the final cost, by treating it this way: Detect Meaning of Speech (3 points -- pretty specialized), Discriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points); + Detect Meaning of Text (3 points), Descriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points). Though by RAW you could reduce the cost to 15, because you can add a second class of entity to a Detect for a flat +5 points without needing to re-purchase all the added modifiers.
 
To Detect and Transmit the finer shades of meaning implied by true mastery of a language, add Analyze. For the verion of UT that conserves existing point values that pushes the final cost to 30 points. Using the two-categories hack, the final cost drops back to 20 points.
 
You'll still have to make a PER Roll to comprehend or communicate in the language, but getting a better roll for this single Enhanced Sense costs only 1 point per +1. Buy +3 and I think it's fair to say you'now effectively have 4 points of fluency in any language you enounter.
 
If you're *really* persnickety, add +2 points for "Sense", so you can use it without needing a half-Phase action. But I think you can bring the whole thing in at 25 points.
 
Dean Shomshak

I checked through a few editions, and the qualifier that Universal Translator only enables one to speak or write a language "crudely" seems to appear in 5th edition. 4th edition version just says that, yeah, you can speak, read and write any language you encounter. (With a few qualifiers such as physical ability to "speak" in the mode presented). So one solution is just to use 4th edition. (I'm not checking previous editions.)
 
OK, so you're stuck with a particular edition and you don't want to say the Rules As Written for that edition are pointlessly limiting. Steve Long gave another way out in 5e by deriving Talents from standard Powers and Skills. Officially, Universal Translator consists of two Detects: Detect Meaning of Speech [10 points] + Detect Meaning of Text [10 points]. Except thi9s is wrong. BY RAW, a basic Detect only registers the presence and intensity of some object or quality. Detect Meaning of Speech will only tell you that yup, that's speech and it has more or less meaning. You need Discriminatory, at the very least. And you would also need Transmit in order to speak back.
 
So let's "correct" the derivation, while conserving the final cost, by treating it this way: Detect Meaning of Speech (3 points -- pretty specialized), Discriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points); + Detect Meaning of Text (3 points), Descriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points). Though by RAW you could reduce the cost to 15, because you can add a second class of entity to a Detect for a flat +5 points without needing to re-purchase all the added modifiers.
 
To Detect and Transmit the finer shades of meaning implied by true mastery of a language, add Analyze. For the verion of UT that conserves existing point values that pushes the final cost to 30 points. Using the two-categories hack, the final cost drops back to 20 points.
 
You'll still have to make a PER Roll to comprehend or communicate in the language, but getting a better roll for this single Enhanced Sense costs only 1 point per +1. Buy +3 and I think it's fair to say you'now effectively have 4 points of fluency in any language you enounter.
 
If you're *really* persnickety, add +2 points for "Sense", so you can use it without needing a half-Phase action. But I think you can bring the whole thing in at 25 points.
 
Dean Shomshak

I checked through a few editions, and the qualifier that Universal Translator only enables one to speak or write a language "crudely" seems to appear in 5th edition. 4th edition version just says that, yeah, you can speak, read and write any language you encounter. (With a few qualifiers such as physical ability to "speak" in the mode presented). So one solution is just to use 4th edition. (I'm not checking previous editions.)
 
OK, so you're stuck with a particular edition and you don't want to say the Rules As Written for that edition are pointlessly limiting. Steve Long gave another way out in 5e by deriving Talents from standard Powers and Skills. Officially, Universal Translator consists of two Detects: Detect Meaning of Speech [10 points] + Detect Meaning of Text [10 points]. Except thi9s is wrong. BY RAW, a basic Detect only registers the presence and intensity of some object or quality. Detect Meaning of Speech will only tell you that yup, that's speech and it has more or less meaning. You need Discriminatory, at the very least. And you would also need Transmit in order to speak back.
 
So let's "correct" the derivation, while conserving the final cost, by treating it this way: Detect Meaning of Speech (3 points -- pretty specialized), Discriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points); + Detect Meaning of Text (3 points), Descriminatory (+5 points), Transmit (+2 points). Though by RAW you could reduce the cost to 15, because you can add a second class of entity to a Detect for a flat +5 points without needing to re-purchase all the added modifiers.
 
To Detect and Transmit the finer shades of meaning implied by true mastery of a language, add Analyze. For the verion of UT that conserves existing point values that pushes the final cost to 30 points. Using the two-categories hack, the final cost drops back to 20 points.
 
You'll still have to make a PER Roll to comprehend or communicate in the language, but getting a better roll for this single Enhanced Sense costs only 1 point per +1. Buy +3 and I think it's fair to say you'now effectively have 4 points of fluency in any language you enounter.
 
If you're *really* persnickety, add +2 points for "Sense", so you can use it without needing a half-Phase action. But I think you can bring the whole thing in at 25 points.
 
Dean Shomshak

It seems that nature uses the Hero System character creation rules. Who knew? Lol
 
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-discover-pure-math-is-written-into-evolutionary-genetics

Finally: Depending on how long you want the campaign to run, you can combine these three models. For instance, you might structure the treasure hunt as a Jigsaw Puzzle in which the PCs have to gather a limited number of plot coupons. Say, the six parts of the treasure map that were scattered, or the six objects that hold the computer chips carrying the plans for the ultrawarp space drive. Each puzzle-piece, though, can come at the end of a short Trail of Breadcrumbs. Then when the PCs put the puzzle together and find the prize, you can pull a Russian Doll plot twist and reveal the "treasure" leads to something even more important. Sequel campaign, maybe?
 
Dean Shomshak

Third is the Jigsaw Puzzle. It's the least linear plan and offers the most freedom for both PCs and GMs. The clues to the McGuffin are scattered instead of in a neat sequence like the Trail of Breadcrumbs. The first clues might seem unrelated until the PCs gather enough to spot the connections between them. The storyline really gets going once the PCs realize there *is* a Jigsaw Puzzle and start searching for additional clues. Eventually they get enough to put the metaphorical (or literal!) picture together and learn the location of the prize.
 
The scattering of the clues avoids the failure-point problem of the Trail of Breadcrumbs. If the PCs miss one clue, well, there are others to find. When they learn more, maybe they'll realize they missed something and go back to seek what they missed the first time around.
 
Another benefit: Other searchers who are collecting their own pieces of the puzzle. These NPCs can be outright enemies, semi-friendly rivals, or potential allies. (and sources of replacement PCs if someone dies.) Create options for stealing each other's clue, information swaps, aliiances and betrayals. And of course defeating a rival searcher can reward the PCs with a big wodge of fresh clues.
 
OTOH this places more plot responsibility on the players' shoulders. If they want something more structured, well, you'd better be sure to provide enough leads that they always know where they're going. Or at least that there's someplace to go.
 
Dean Shomshak

The Russian Doll plan is similar but operates on a longer rhythm. In it the protagonists start out investigating one mystery or McGuffin. When they reach is, though, they find that it is only the surface layer of some other mystery or clue to some greater prize. The "Russian Doll" name is a little misleading, because typically each new layer is bigger than the one before.
 
Example: The PCs seek a lost ore freighter loaded with valuable rare earth metals. When they find it, they learn from the ship's log that it wasn't lost in an accident: It was attacked by space pirates whose ships are of an unusual design. When they find the space pirates (who are responsible for other mysterious losses to shipping), they find that the pirate leader is an android operated by an alien of a hitherto-unknown species. Seeking information about the alien, they find that other alien-operated androids have infiltrated government and megacorporations. It's a secret invasion! But the aliens also have advanced technology for a greater prize...
 
The advantage of the Russian Doll plan is that it gives players a greater feeling of making significant discoveries as the puzzles and prizes get begger. Just be careful not to string it out too long. And though a big reveal that the true situation is not what the players thought can be cool, goo many twists can make the storyline seem silly.
 
You also have to make each new layer sufficiently compelling that players want to pursue it. Like, if the PCs are just out for the money and won't give a rat's ass if aliens are secretly conquering the Galaxy, tempt them with ever-greater treasures and profits.
 
Dean Shomshak

The Russian Doll plan is similar but operates on a longer rhythm. In it the protagonists start out investigating one mystery or McGuffin. When they reach is, though, they find that it is only the surface layer of some other mystery or clue to some greater prize. The "Russian Doll" name is a little misleading, because typically each new layer is bigger than the one before.
 
Example: The PCs seek a lost ore freighter loaded with valuable rare earth metals. When they find it, they learn from the ship's log that it wasn't lost in an accident: It was attacked by space pirates whose ships are of an unusual design. When they find the space pirates (who are responsible for other mysterious losses to shipping), they find that the pirate leader is an android operated by an alien of a hitherto-unknown species. Seeking information about the alien, they find that other alien-operated androids have infiltrated government and megacorporations. It's a secret invasion! But the aliens also have advanced technology for a greater prize...
 
The advantage of the Russian Doll plan is that it gives players a greater feeling of making significant discoveries as the puzzles and prizes get begger. Just be careful not to string it out too long. And though a big reveal that the true situation is not what the players thought can be cool, goo many twists can make the storyline seem silly.
 
You also have to make each new layer sufficiently compelling that players want to pursue it. Like, if the PCs are just out for the money and won't give a rat's ass if aliens are secretly conquering the Galaxy, tempt them with ever-greater treasures and profits.
 
Dean Shomshak

"Treasure Hunt" and similar "Search for the McGuffin" campaigns typically follow three possible storylines: the Trail of Breadcrumbs, the Russian Doll, and the Jigsaw Puzzle. I'll discuss each of them in turn in separate posts.
 
Trail of Breadcrumbs: This is the simplest and most straightforward search storyline. The protagonists start with a clue to the McGuffin. Following the clue leads them to another clue, which leads to a third clue, and so on until they reach wherever the McGuffin is hidden. Like, an unusual object and a code-key owned by a murdered man leads to a treasure map in an obscure language, which leads to a scholar who can translate the language, which leads to another location where the next clue is found, et cetera.
 
As a campaign, the Trail of Breadcrumbs has the advantage that players don't need to think very much. They just need the gumption to follow each clue to receive the next plot coupon. Though sometimes players can be amazingly obtuse in walking right by clues no matter how blatantly you place them. OTOH it's all a bit railroady and some players don't like that, no matter how much they actually need it.
 
The movie National Treasure illustrates a few basic issues with the Trail of Breadcrumbs. First, why would someone set up such an elaborate series of clues? If you want to hide the treasure for good, don't set up the Trail of Breadcrumbs in the first place. If you want to make sure the treasure can be found but only by the right people, don't hide the clues in a series of unique objects, any of which could be lost. (The Da Vinci Code is another example with the same problems.) All in all, a bad model for such a campaign.
 
Dean Shomshak

"Treasure Hunt" and similar "Search for the McGuffin" campaigns typically follow three possible storylines: the Trail of Breadcrumbs, the Russian Doll, and the Jigsaw Puzzle. I'll discuss each of them in turn in separate posts.
 
Trail of Breadcrumbs: This is the simplest and most straightforward search storyline. The protagonists start with a clue to the McGuffin. Following the clue leads them to another clue, which leads to a third clue, and so on until they reach wherever the McGuffin is hidden. Like, an unusual object and a code-key owned by a murdered man leads to a treasure map in an obscure language, which leads to a scholar who can translate the language, which leads to another location where the next clue is found, et cetera.
 
As a campaign, the Trail of Breadcrumbs has the advantage that players don't need to think very much. They just need the gumption to follow each clue to receive the next plot coupon. Though sometimes players can be amazingly obtuse in walking right by clues no matter how blatantly you place them. OTOH it's all a bit railroady and some players don't like that, no matter how much they actually need it.
 
The movie National Treasure illustrates a few basic issues with the Trail of Breadcrumbs. First, why would someone set up such an elaborate series of clues? If you want to hide the treasure for good, don't set up the Trail of Breadcrumbs in the first place. If you want to make sure the treasure can be found but only by the right people, don't hide the clues in a series of unique objects, any of which could be lost. (The Da Vinci Code is another example with the same problems.) All in all, a bad model for such a campaign.
 
Dean Shomshak

This relates to a book I just finished and which I will recommend: The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction, by Mark Lilla. He argues that reaction is just as important a political force as revolution, though much less studied. They are in a sense mirrors of each other: The revolutionary hates the world as it is because it isn't the Golden Age to come; the reactionary hates the world as it is because it isn't the Golden Age that was lost. But while the revolutionary is driven by hope, the reactionary is driven by despair.
 
Despite the subtitle, not much of Lilla's book is about politics directly. He's a Humanities professor, not PoliSci, so he looks at philosophers, novelists, and other scribblers, not polirticians and activists; the people who provide the intellectual underpinnings and express cultural moods.
 
One chapter is, "From Mao to Saint Paul." Apparently the "apostle of the heretics" (early Church father Tertullian) has become rather popular with disappointed Marxists who sigh for the lost Golden Age of revolution. I won't even try to summarize the argument, but the Epistle to the Romans provides much to attract both Christian fanatics and secular revolutionaries:
 
One of St Paul's biggest recent fans is an unapologetic French Maoist who argues that the megadeath massacres of Stalin, Mao and other revolutionaries, Marxist and otherwise, are okay because revolutionary enthusiasm places a society "beyond good and evil," and "each revolution justifies the ones that came before" in a chain going all the way back to Moses. Though Judaism, he thinks, has become reactionary and so something must be done about the Jews.
 
Other topics include the perennial "Decline of the West" genre, Jihadists, French novelists, Jewish philosophers, Neocon fustian, and TradCaths sighing for the supposed "harmony and coherence" of the Medieval Catholic world. All in all, an interesting tour of people whose heads are in places I find very strange. Good inspiration for supervillains, too.
 
Dean Shomshak

Yep: linear campaigns are pretty common, as they are a great way to reach a system and /or introduce a world without any real,way for the players to knock things too far out of whack too soon.  they atent my favorite, but they have their  place, especially if you have a pre-planned start, middle, and end.
 
 
Now, as to sci-fi treasure....
 
What kind of campaign is it?   Firefly or Han Solo?  Well that's simple enough: a large cash payoff.  Rumors of an ore freighter from an abandoned mining operation that crashed but was _not_ destroyed completely as previously thought.  The ore may be currency: gold or what not-- or just a high-demand, low danger, medium margin non-descript ore that can be easily sold, legally, without raising any suspicions.
 
Actual _treasure_, like any beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.   For the majority, it is a ridiculous amount of cash or nearly-cash that means instant wealth.
 
Suppose the party is more politically-oriented?  The "treasure" may be anything from proof that certain lands are not owned by the peoples assumed to own them, or certain families are less noble or more noble than once believed.
 
For archeologists or, with a twist, scientists, "treasure" may be conclusive proof of the existence of a highly advanced star faring race that lived and died before the earth had cooled from spinning gases.
 
For the generally adventurous?  A new means of revel: a superior star drive, or a means to open teleportation gates at will.
 
For the affluent or even the con man?  An honest-to-goodness Fountain of Youth.  Go nuts.
 
Seriously, you might want to actively solicit player input into what might put an all-consuming "gold fever" into their characters.
 
Now as for pitfalls--  well, the best advice I can give you is to review other linear treasure hunt adventure fiction.  Specifically, watch One Piece.  Start with the first episode, and watch every single episode.  This should take about ten years.  Notice when you are done that they party is not one bit closer to the treasure, and seem to be sailing through the same,chain of equatorial islands, one after another.
 
Don't.... Don't do that.  Your players wont hang around for it.  Heck, I didnt even hang around for one piece.  I didnt even make it to the big voice-over change.  I left shortly after they took Chopper onto the crew. (just too stinking irritating).
 
Plan some encounters; plan some clues; plan some puzzles and setbacks, but definitely include actual progress in your plans.  You see, the problem with linear adventures is that rhe GM is in almost too much control.  The party isnt one-hundred-percent free to mive about as they please, meaning they arent free to complicate things for themselves they way that they are prone to do, so you will have to do it for them.
 
You will also have to keep in mind that your complications must be far more simple than what players usually do for themselves.  Interestingly, when players decise to examine a gun by loading it, staring deeply down the barrel, and pulling the trigger, shooting themselves in the face-- twice, maybe three times- well, "of course I did!  It was the only practical way to test the gun and be certain!"
 
But if you put them on a path, and place a gun in the middle of the path, next to a few ammo clips, _that_ is railroading, see?