Sell me Universalis

[Morrius]

I've been hearing a lot about these collaborative-storytelling games like Universalis.  But I'm curious as to how this sort of thing actually functions in practice.  Let me put forth a few examples based on what information I was able to glean from the Universalis website.

Player A really wants to insert a certain aspect into the setting that he loves and inserts into his games whenever he can.  Player B, on the other hand, thinks that Player A's idea is stupid, and opposes him.  Both players have a bidding war, and spend all of their Coins.  The result is Player A's idea is shot down, and both players are effectively powerless until the next refresh.  Player A also now harbors a strong resentment towards Player B.

A player spends a Coin to make a statement: "Hey look, a helicopter!  It's a good thing Mr. Techno-wiz character can fly one of those!" even though there has been no indication that Techno-wiz can do such a thing.  While this might move the plot forward, from a storytelling standpoint it is completely absurd.


How would Universalis, or any other collaborative-storytelling game, resolve the above situations?  It seems to me like collaboration games would fall apart if there is anything less than complete cooperation.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Ralph or Mike - feel free to reply to this in a constructive manner. If you'd like for me to move it into the Universalis forum, I'll be glad to.

Outside of that, here is a moderator stance. These "sell me" threads that I've seen on other message boards are not going to become a new fad here. Even if your post asks good questions - which, by the way, this is not an example of, with the negative point-of-view that it brings - having "Sell me [X]" as the title will earn you, from now on, a stern warning, and possible dumping of your post in the Inactive File.

[clehrich]

I don't know Universalis as such; game-specific questions will get answered by the Universalis geniuses, Ralph and Mike, but taking this as a general question....

Player A really wants to insert a certain aspect into the setting that he loves and inserts into his games whenever he can.  Player B, on the other hand, thinks that Player A's idea is stupid, and opposes him.  Both players have a bidding war, and spend all of their Coins.  The result is Player A's idea is shot down, and both players are effectively powerless until the next refresh.  Player A also now harbors a strong resentment towards Player B.

This is a setup, not a reasonable situation.  You have players whose OOG disagreement about what is and is not cool takes them to the point of damaging the game and producing personal animosity.  Sure, dysfunction like this can happen, but I don't think it's the job of bidding or collaboration rules to deal with them.

The second example seems to me more reasonable:

A player spends a Coin to make a statement: "Hey look, a helicopter!  It's a good thing Mr. Techno-wiz character can fly one of those!" even though there has been no indication that Techno-wiz can do such a thing.  While this might move the plot forward, from a storytelling standpoint it is completely absurd.

Now let me add in the Player B thing, so we've got a total example:

Player A (Techno-wiz character): Inserts a helicopter and his character's ability to fly it.
Player B: Challenges one or both of these insertions, on aesthetic grounds; for example, he thinks the Techno-wiz character should be able to

fix helicopters, but not fly them.[/list:u]Bidding and resolution must now occur.

Okay, so first let's suppose each character has some sort of skill that allows them to bend reality in some way.  For example, if your special skill is Medicine, you might be able to walk up to a corpse and simply announce that the person died of tuberculosis.  Theatrix has a system like this, as does my Shadows in the Fog.  The idea is that you can't simply do anything at all, but must have some prior guidance in character structure.

Going with that for the moment:
Let's suppose Mr. Techno has "Technological Tinkering."  This isn't wonderfully defined, but that's OK.

Player A now says, "Well, with my Technological Tinkering, I realize that that heap of scrap metal over there is actually a working helicopter, and I'm going to brush it off and fly it."
Player B doesn't buy this.  "Hey Dave, shouldn't Technological Tinkering allow you to fix the helicopter and recognize it and whatnot, but not actually fly it?"
Player A: "No, I think that's totally reasonable."
Player B: "Okay, I think that's way too powerful.  I'm challenging that."[/list:u]Supposing, alternatively, that there is no such skill/guidance system in place, and it's all done with Resource points or whatever,
Player A says "I spend 1 Resource" to make it happen;
Player B says, "I think that should cost way more than 1 Resource";
Player A says, "No, I think that's reasonable";
Player B says, "Okay, I'm counterbidding."[/list:u]

Important note at this point: the rest of the group should be able to give some input, implicit or explicit.  If the rest of the group seems to be thinking (or says outright), "Player B, you're being a jerk," then player B does need to retract his challenge; if you like doing it all mechanically, everyone else should be able to help Player A win this next round of bidding.  Conversely, if they think that Player A's use of his Tinkering is way too powerful, they should make clear that they support Player B's bid, and allow Player A to say, "Oh, fair enough.  Okay, it's a helicopter; sure wish I could fly it!"; if he refuses, they support Player B's bidding.  But suppose nobody cares much (indicating that both A and B are being quite reasonable, incidentally)?

Player A: "You challenge?  Hell.  Okay, I spend 1 [more] Resource."
Player B: "Oh."[/list:u]He now has two choices.  (1) Player A has clearly indicated that he takes this seriously, because he's willing to spend a not-rapidly-renewable resource on his assertion; Player B should think hard about whether blocking it is appropriate, and maybe say, "Well, okay, if you're going to spend for it, go for it."  (2) Player B thinks Player A is being a weenie, spending points to make his childish power-gaming work; Player B decides to up the ante, forcing more points from A.

Note that option 2 here is not a good one, because it is dependent on Player B's interpretation of Player A's actions as a player; personal conflict is a real possibility.  But if instead Player B figures that an assertion this big should cost a lot, he can bid up the price to reflect that; in any case,

he should make clear why he's bidding.

Player B: "I buy it, I guess, but it should totally cost you.  I bid another Resource."
Player A: "You are evil and you must be destroyed.  I bid another Resource.  Pass the Cheetos."[/list:u]In other words, Player A is not actually annoyed by this, granting that Player B has both the right and some reason to up the ante.
Player B: "If you're willing to spend two Resources for this, it's all yours.  But you're weird."[/list:u]

OR

Player A: "You are evil and you must be destroyed.  No way am I spending two on this.  It's a helicopter, ta-da!  Sure wish I could fly it!  Pass the Cheetos."[/list:u]End of issue.

----

The points of this little morality play are:
1. Collaborative structuring like this requires a certain amount of maturity all around.
2. Bidding on other people's ideas is dangerous, but can work smoothly if everyone gets what's happening.
3. Bidding should usually be explicit and public; that is, you shouldn't be able to say, "I bid 18 against you, ha ha," and not explain why you're doing it.
4. Such negative bidding isn't all that common anyway, because it costs me points to thwart you; I don't get anything for it but the sick satisfaction of thwarting you -- see point 1 above.
5. Negative bidding and challenging can be very useful as a check on enthusiasm gone a bit astray.  If Player A is checked, he may very well say, "Oh, you're right, that is too powerful.  Sorry.  Anyway, it's a helicopter I can't fly."  Without the counter-bid or check or whatever, he may not realize that he's gotten a bit out of hand because he's excited; the check makes him see this.
6. A great deal of this is really a way to make social dynamics explicit.  If everyone wants to cooperate on a good, exciting game, approval and disapproval is really just a bit of jockeying around about who thinks what is coolest.  If there is a deep social conflict, such as the Player A who always brings in giant robots (even in a fantasy game) and Player B who always wants to thwart giant robots (even in a scifi anime game), collaborative stuff may not work; on the other hand, there are a very wide range of gaming types that won't work with those two.[/list:u]Does that help?

Chris Lehrich

[Mike Holmes]

Clinton, we'll leave it here (unless Ralph as final authority objects) under the reasoning that this is a theory question that merely asks the final question in the post. Let's assume that the title has a sense of humor to it.

Chris has some good answers, but it all comes down to the fact that there are third parties. Like you say, if you do spend all your coins, then you're powerless. So this doesn't happen. It's an economy, and it all balances out in play. It might not look like it to you right now, but I've never seen it fail in the way that you're indicating it would.

Note that the game does assume that the players are there to cooperatively gain a story from play. Competition, interestingly doesn't destroy this, but it does make the process innefficient. Universalis encourages cooperation by making it more effective.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Well, it's time to provide final moderation for this thread.

Morrius, welcome to the Forge, and thanks for bringing up issues for discussing Universalis.

For everyone, the potential content of this thread is perfectly all right - "Let's discuss a game, relative to specific decisions or issues about play or design." Cool.

However, Clinton, you are 100% correct that "sell me X" is entirely the wrong title or approach to take. The principle is that no one ever has to sell someone a game; purchase and approval are considered to be matters of personal responsibility at the Forge.

So, the challenge implied by the thread title is not to continue, regardless of whether it was intended or whether anyone has tried to meet that challenge.

Instead, everyone is to continue with the discussion in the context of learning about the game and improving everyone's understanding of the issues that have been raised.

Clinton and I are completely agreed that threads which can't live up to these standards will be closed.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Hey Morrius, glad to respond.

The easy answer for me is simply to point out...this just doesn't happen.  Its one of those worries that folks have (especially folks who tend to be GMs) that if they give the players too much power, those dastardly players will ruin everything.

I've never experienced this or heard from anyone who has experienced it.  Its one of those kind of bogey men that causes game designers to write lots of rules and insert sections like "The GM is god" into game texts, in response to a threat...which really doesn't exist.

People naturally have a sense of what makes for a good story.  Story telling is about an old a form of human interaction as spoken language.  People can tell what feels right and what is just stupid without needing rules to reign them in.  

The interaction you have between Player A and B is pretty extreme, and a little bit absurd, but the game would handle such an event just fine.

First, however, what you have to remember is that there is a whole social contract among players at any game table.  Universalis relies on players having respect for their fellow human beings.  If player A's and B's actions are disruptive and ruining the game for everyone...my first question would be "why are you even playing with such rubes?".  If their actions are not disruptive and ruining the experience for everyone else, then why would you need a rule to stop behavior that no one minds?  

Yes, a game like Universalis does rely on player A having the maturity to realize "hey, I really like this idea, but no one else does, so instead of being a jerk about it I'll just let it go".  or player B having the maturity to realize "hey, I really hate that idea but no one else really minds, so instead of being a jerk about it I'll just let it go".

Trying to write rules to prevent people from behaving like jerks is pretty pointless, especially when the most powerful force to prevent such behavior is simply the natural social pressure of ones friends telling you to cool it.  If that isn't enough to squelch the miscreant behavior right there, then no amount of written rules will stop it either.


That said, there are certain rules mechanisms in place to address issues that are less extreme but along the same lines.

The Challenge mechanism you mention is one of them, but there are some additional subtleties to it.  First, every player at the table can participate.  So its probably not going to be just A vs. B.  If the group collectively hates the idea then they can get involved on B's side, and A is going to realize he simply doesn't have enough Coins to overrule everyone and quit before it gets to the point of spending everything he has.  Also there is the issue of Facts.  If as part of the tenets of the game it was established "in this world idea A doesn't exist", then Player A has a pretty strong signal that the other players aren't interested.  If he tries to introduce it anyway, then the fact that its already been established as not existing, will double the value of all Coins raised against it.  Making A unlikely to even bother trying.

There is also a Fine mechanic which players can levy against players whose behavior is undesired.  While it does take away Coins, its primary function is to send a message "hey, we don't like what you're doing.  You need to cut it out".  Again, mature players who actually respect and care about the enjoyment of the group should respond appropriately to this sort of pressure.  In reality, I've never played a game where a Fine has ever needed to be levied (except once as a fun joke) because situations never progress that far when players at the table respect each other.


As for your second example I have two answers.  First I think your conclusion that its absurd from a story telling standpoint to have Mr TW suddenly reveal he can fly helicopter is wrong.  That sort of thing happens ALL the time in movies, TV shows, even novels.  Pick any James Bond movie...who knew he was such a good skier until the movie where he first skis.  Who knew he could scuba dive, drive a tractor trailer or tank, speak Korean, or any of the other skills that materialize out of nowhere?  Take the long running dramatic TV show of your choice.  Chances are you'll find quite a few examples of "hey, good thing I picked up how to hot wire a car from watching my older brother when I was a kid".  Happens all the time.

Second answer, if that sort of thing is something you just personally don't enjoy...just don't do it.  If the people you're playing with also don't enjoy it, then they won't do it either.  It won't happen in your game, and it won't be an issue.  Now if the people you're playing with DO enjoy it, and its just you who doesn't, then you have to ask yourself why your preference is more important than theirs.  

Mechanically, its fairly easy to deal with something like this in Universalis.  You just spend a Coin to create a rules gimmick to the nature of "No Trait can be used in a scene, if it was just added to the character during that scene" .  Bang.  Right there it won't do any good to add "knows helicopters" to Mr TW in the scene where he encounters the helicopter, because he can't use it anyway.  Someone would have had to have added the trait previously.  If the other players don't over rule such a Gimmick by Challengeing then they are agreeing to abide by it.  Any time they don't you can Challenge them and have your Coins count double because they have the weight of Fact behind them.


In a traditional power split the GM's desire is the most important.  Everything in the game is subject to what the GM likes, what the GM's preferences are, what the GM feels is good or bad.  The only recourse players have is to be disruptive to try and get their own way sometimes, or to simply not play.  Its expected then, that a good GM will voluntarily curb his own biases and preferences in order to make the game more enjoyable for the players; that he will cater to things that he knows his players enjoy even if they aren't at the top of his list.    

In a collective game this is no different, except now every player is forced to acknowledge that their preferences, desires, and opinions on what is good and bad carry no more weight and are no more right or wrong than any other player at the table.  It is my belief that in every RPG, it is every player's duty and responsibility to see to the enjoyment of every other player at the table.  In a collaborative game this goes from being a nice ideal to being mandatory.

Does that address your concern?

[Morrius]

Okay, point well taken.  Thank you very much for your explanation, Chris.  That really cleared up a lot of things for me.  I'll take my further inquiries to the Universalis group.

[james_west]

You just spend a Coin to create a rules gimmick to the nature of "No Trait can be used in a scene, if it was just added to the character during that scene" .

Clever/subtle rules gimmick!

- James

[Don D.]

Isn't it perfectly acceptable as the current narrarator to spend coins saying that the techno-whiz, when he was yournger, was in the military (as a techie of course).  While there, a flyboy friend of his took him up one day and showed him the ropes about flying helecopters. (Not sure how many coins that would cost)  This would not only allow him to fly the helecopter but also added some history to the character and increased his Importance Points as well.  (and makes it possible for someone in the future to give him gun skill too).  It seems like if you are creative enough and are willing to spend some coins you can do about anything and make it plausable.
What do you all think?

Don D.

[Valamir]

Hey Don,

FYI, we generally try to avoid replying to 6 month old threads; but yup you're spot on.  That's exactly the sort of logic that Uni handles well.

As for how many Coins your example would cost, that all depends on what you want as a Trait and what's just color.

For example:

"yeah, I learned to Fly Helicopters [1 Coin] when I was in the army (just color and justification for adding the trait)"

Is mechanically different from:

"yeah, I learned to Fly Helicopters [1 Coin] from my Flyboy Friend [1 Coin], while I Served in the Army [1 Coin]"

In the sense that in the second case you spend 2 more Coins but add two more traits.

Either is perfectly acceptable and entirely dependent on your goals.

The difference is that using method one you can not then try to gain a die in a Complication for you army experience or your buddy, because those things "don't exist" mechanically in the game until they're paid for.