Utopias on Trial
The Commons Projects are sanctioned—but not protected—social experiments operating along the Fringe and within select interior districts of Commonwealth City.
They are not protest movements.
They are working prototypes.
Each Project tests an alternative model of collective living: governance structures, resource distribution, conflict resolution, labor organization, cultural norms, and even identity frameworks. Some succeed spectacularly. Others collapse with quiet devastation.
The City allows them to exist for one reason:
If collectivism is to survive, it must be tested honestly.
After the City stabilized its core systems, a new problem emerged—ideological stagnation.
The Unowned City worked.
But “working” was not the same as right.
Activists, theorists, and disillusioned civic workers argued that freezing one model of collectivism risked reproducing the very rigidity it sought to escape. Their solution was radical but pragmatic:
Let people try something else.
Let it fail if it must.
Learn from the wreckage.
Thus, the Commons Projects were born—granted limited autonomy, monitored for catastrophic spillover, and otherwise left alone.
Intervention is intentionally delayed.
Failure is considered data.
No two Commons Projects are alike.
Direct democracy vs. delegated authority
Full transparency vs. selective privacy
Equal labor contribution vs. role specialization
Cultural homogeneity vs. radical pluralism
Restorative justice vs. abolition of punishment
Projects range from a few dozen residents to tens of thousands.
Some are hyper-efficient.
Some are deeply humane.
Some are nightmares held together by belief.
Participation is opt-in
Exit is allowed—but complicated
Critique is encouraged
Collapse is not shameful
Members accept that they are living inside an argument.
The Commons Projects have no leverage in the traditional sense.
They exert ideological pressure.
Successful models embarrass the City’s compromises
Failed models arm critics with cautionary tales
Data feeds into policy debates—selectively
Movements gain legitimacy by pointing to lived examples
When a Project thrives, politicians visit quietly.
When one fails, they cite it loudly.
Public opinion on the Commons Projects is sharply divided.
Supporters see them as:
Proof that collectivism can evolve
Laboratories of social courage
The City’s moral conscience
Critics argue they are:
Human experimentation
Ideological vanity projects
Neglect disguised as autonomy
The City responds with the same statement every time:
“Participation is voluntary.”
Freeholders: Philosophical enemies. Voluntary collectivism still offends.
Block Councils: Mixed. Some councils collaborate; others isolate Projects.
Civic Systems Authority (CSA): Observers. Intervene only when spillover risks rise.
The Continuity Forum: Selective interest. Successes are contextualized; failures archived.
External Interests: Opportunistic. Some Projects are quietly funded to fail.
Players encounter the Commons Projects when idealism meets reality.
A thriving Project threatened by external manipulation
A failing Project hiding abuse behind ideology
A vote that could dissolve a community overnight
Deciding whether to intervene—or let failure teach
Smuggling aid without violating autonomy agreements
Players may:
Serve as mediators or observers
Protect vulnerable members during collapse
Expose bad-faith leadership
Decide whether success is worth exporting
The Projects respect honesty, patience, and people willing to live with consequences.
They resent saviors.
Every Commons Project eventually confronts the same fractures.
Idealists believe belief can solve anything
Pragmatists want safeguards and exit plans
Authoritarians emerge “temporarily” during crisis
When Projects fail, it is rarely due to scarcity.
It is due to power reasserting itself.
The Commons Projects are the Unowned City’s most dangerous idea.
They suggest that no system—no matter how fair—should be permanent.
They prove that collectivism is not a destination, but a practice.
And they ask the question the City must keep answering:
If people are free to build something better—
what does it mean if they choose not to?