# Shock: Social Science Fiction tags: #game/rpg/shock ![[shock - social science fiction (cover).jpg]] *Shock: Social Science Fiction* – Because why shoot aliens when you can deconstruct late-stage capitalism through collaborative, dice-based narrative negotiation? Joshua A.C. Newman’s *Shock: Social Science Fiction* (2006, glyphpress) is a proudly pretentious, GM‑less indie role‑playing game that earnestly bills itself as “science fiction with meaning.” It’s what happens when a table of players decides that Ursula K. Le Guin, Philip K. Dick, and Kim Stanley Robinson are the blueprint, and that Flash Gordon can go take a long walk out a short airlock. Rather than tracking hit points or laser‑pistol ammunition, the game tracks Issues (the social or personal concerns you actually want to explore, like colonialism, gender, or faith) and a single Shock (the big science‑fictional conceit—think “immortality is cheap,” “the AI runs the government,” or “the vacuumorphs have prehensile ani”). Players collaboratively build a world, populate it with passionately flawed Protagonists, and then take turns making those Protagonists miserable via the Antagonists sitting to their left. The result is part short‑story anthology, part group therapy, and it is utterly convinced—sometimes correctly—that this is what role‑playing was always meant to be. ## Core Resolution Mechanics **Original Edition (v1.0–v1.3)** Conflict resolution in the “classic” line is a fiddly beast that wears its *Dogs in the Vineyard* and *Trollbabe* influences on its sleeve. The key bits: - **Praxis Scales & Fulcra:** During world creation, the table defines two opposed pairs of action‑methods (e.g., Violence vs. Compassion, Buying vs. Stealing). Each Protagonist then assigns a Fulcrum number (3–10) to each scale. When you act, you choose which Praxis applies. If you’re on the “easy” side of your Fulcrum, you want to roll **above** it on a d10; if you’re on the “hard” side, you want to roll **below** it. Thus, a character with Violence‑7 is a gentle soul who’ll probably fail at brutality but succeed at compassion. - **Dice Pools:** Protagonists roll a number of dice equal to their Features (which grow when they fail). They split their pool into **d10s** (which pursue their own Intent) and **d4s** (which sabotage the opponent’s Intent). - **Antagonist Resources:** Antagonists don’t have Features; instead they spend “Credits” (a dwindling pool) to buy dice for a conflict, choosing how many d10s and d4s they throw. - **Audience Meddling:** Any player not currently in the scene rolls a single d4; the highest roll gets to narrate a Minutia—a setting detail—that tweaks the outcome. *Net result:* a two‑axis tug‑of‑war where both sides can simultaneously win, lose, or deadlock exactly on the Fulcrum (triggering an “escalation” re‑roll), and the Protagonist player may deliberately choose a weak Praxis just to farm delicious failure and gain new Features. **Humanities at Play / “Hacked” Edition (v10)** This version, cheerfully gutted by Dominic Claveau and Richard Fortier for classroom use, throws out the Fulcrum/Fun‑Scale apparatus and embraces the d6. Key simplifications: - **One Die Type:** Everything is a d6. - **Strikes:** A ⚄ or ⚅ counts as a Strike. - **Protagonists** roll a pool equal to Features, +1 if using their self‑identified Favoured Praxis, +1 for each Link (relationship or ideal) that’s at risk in the scene. - **Antagonists** always roll 5 dice, +1 for their Favoured Praxis. - **Audience** rolls a single d6; the high roller may gift a Strike to either side (or abstain). Ties mean *both* sides get what they wanted—welcome to the moral quagmire. - **After the roll:** Protagonists spend leftover Strikes to pick consequences (e.g., “I achieve my Intent,” “I protect someone from harm”); whatever isn’t purchased the Antagonist gets to subvert. The trade‑off is palpable: the original’s baroque left‑brain precision is traded for a streamlined, teachable, genuinely fast system. Whether that makes it “better” depends entirely on how much you enjoy explaining what a Fulcrum is. ## Edition Changes - **1.0 (2006):** The ur‑text. Ambitious, typo‑riddled, and infamously missing crucial play‑advice. Reviewer consensus: “Great idea, nearly un‑playable out of the box.” - **1.1 (2007):** The real first edition. Added the missing guidelines, clarified the esoteric bits, and earned a loyal following. Most people who’ve played *Shock* played this. - **1.2 (2009):** A modest polish‑pass fixing typos and adding a “how to actually run this” outline. - **1.3 (2010):** The Italian translation; changed some metaphorical language but kept mechanics identical. - **Humanities at Play v10:** A full re‑imagining for pedagogical use. Kills the Fulcrum, switches to d6 pools, gives the Antagonist a static dice budget, and strengthens Audience power. It’s the “I want to play *Shock* in an afternoon and not need a PhD in Forge‑theory” edition. ## References - [Noble Knight Games – purchase page for physical copies (v1.2)](https://www.nobleknight.com/P/2147538438) - [Gnome Stew – review by Matthew Neagley](https://gnomestew.com/shock-social-science-fiction/) - [Goodreads – community ratings and reviews](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8593587-shock) - [Wikipedia – Shock: Social Science Fiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock:_Social_Science_Fiction) - [IPFS – Shock: Social Science Fiction entry](https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmehSxmTPRCr85Xjgzjut6uWQihoTfqg9VVihJ892bmZCp/Shock:_Social_Science_Fiction.html) - [Humanities at Play – article on the classroom adaptation](https://eductive.ca/en/resource/humanities-at-play-experiential-learning-through-role-playing/) - [Gamester at Large – actual‑play report “Shock: It Makes Stuff Matter”](http://gamesteratlarge.blogspot.com/2007/04/actual-play-shock-it-makes-stuff-matter.html) - [Shock: Humanities at Play edition on itch.io](https://humanities-at-play.itch.io/shock-humanities-at-play)