"...and they complain and complain and complain..."

[joe_llama]

Hi everyone,

First of all, I'd like to thank Mike and Ralph for making me part of of the Universalis playtesting group. I see a lot of potential in this game with the majority of its power still hidden from the eyes of its users (and maybe even its makers).

Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to playtest the game this weekend so my feedback can only touch theory and editing issues. I hope that by the end of this week I'll gain some actual play experience.

Throughout this feedback I will probably repeat a lot of things other people already said. This sevres a double purpose: to emphasize problematic issues and to avoid mixing with other threads which I'd like to reply specifically. In addition, this feedback is my personal perspective and may not be like other playtesters - I hope you'll see it as a friendly suggestion rather than a disrespectful criticism.

The first big issue I'd like to mention here is the Universalis presentation. I believe it's a classic example of the 'messy manual' syndrome. I discussed this a bit with Mike and since then I've come up with a few other points:

a) What is the goal of the game?

It says in the manual (page 4): Conceptually, Universalis is a collaborative story telling endeavor whereby a group of players embark on a mission to design a world and populate it with interesting people places and things, while concurrently creating a series of events set in their world which will hopefully develop into a story worth telling.  

Hopefully develop into a story? You're giving the wrong message, guys. Your game is about telling stories, right? "On a mission to design a world and populate it" doesn't help either - I got the impression this is a storytelling game, not a world building game.

I would write instead: "Universalis is a storytelling game in which a group of players develop an interesting story by creating various story components like characters, places and things". Something of this sort.  


b) Presentation of examples

Someone else already mentioned this but I too have noticed the problematic examples given in the text. Some of these are very complex and therefore not fit for teaching game concepts. There is a need for simple and straightforward examples, even if they're made up and boring.

In addition, I've noticed the following text (page 4): If he wishes John Black to be hit by a car while crossing the street, then John Black is hit by a car while crossing the street.  If he wishes a lynch mob to march on the jailhouse to try and take One Eye Steve out for a hanging than the mob does just that.  If he wants the hyperwarp transducer on the ship's star drive to suddenly conk out than it does so.  If he wants "Dr. Cruncher" to hack into the secret database of the evil corporation and retrieve valuable information, then it happens.

Too long! One ,MAYBE two, examples are enough to deliver a point - no need to rub it in. The rule is: examples are short and to-the-point.

c) Glossary of terms

Even after reading the manual three times I was still a bit confused, so I made a list of all the terms that seemed to be necessery to understand the game. I came up with around 30(!) terms. How did I choose them? Simple. I wrote down every word that started with a capital letter and didn't start a sentence. I'd say this manual is around 10 pages, which means you have to learn in average 3 concepts per page! I don't know about you, but I thought Unversalis would be this friendly game that let's you tell a story without too much trouble.

I looked closer at the list. I believe there are around 10 terms that are important. All the others can either be grouped into one bundle or dropped altogether. Some of the terms were only used once or twice and some were wrongfully chosen as terms.

The term "Coin", frex, is unnecessery and confusing. Everybody knows what a coin (or even a token) is. People have seen other games before where such things were used, so in practice it's not a new term. I believe the whole confusion between Coin and Story Power grew up from this. Instead of seeing coins as tools to purchase Story Power they saw Coins and Story Power as two definitions that require their attention. Change "Coin" into "coin" and watch half the confusion disappear.

The term "Significance" is really just another word for Importance.

The term "Fine" is used only once or twice. Better call it a "fine".

The term "Originate" is just a fancy word for "Create".

The term "Edge Dice" is used only in Complication ties - better leave it as a rule with no specific name.

The term "Salary" is used only once - better just call it "starting amount"

The term "Dice Pool" means a pool of dice. Everybody knows what it means so let's just de-capitalize the word.

The term "World Building" is unnecessery - it's only an elaboration on what actually happens when you Create Components.

The term "Leverage" really means Activating Components and getting bonus Story Power. If everything is made of Components which all have bonuses attached to them, might as well just say it's Activating Components.  


There are other examples but I decided to not include them for reasons which will be clearer later in this thread.

d) The Complications chapter

Now, this one is a real mess. I'd like to post some theoretical remarks about this issue but I'm not sure I understand it completely because I'm not sure I can read it correctly. This chapter needs heavy editing, guys.


In conclusion, Universalis needs to be cured from the "messy manual" syndrome. I'm not really criticizing you here - I know the game is still in developemnt and the manual is just a draft. However, I feel that many playtesters are stuck because the manual isn't clear and simple to work with. I feel that most of the work for the next draft should concentrate on cleaning up and editing the manual so the next line of playtesters will be able to examine the mechanics in more meaningful ways.

I feel that content delivery is a major bottleneck in game design (not just in Universalis). It is very unfortunate since communication of ideas is THE most critical issue in gaming  (something that most people blatantly ignore). Since I seem to have a clear perspective on the issue, I think it's time for me to write an article on "how to properly deliver gaming content".

On to the second part of this feedback, let's take a look at game mechanics.

When I look at Universalis, I see a Storytelling game. This means the object of the game is to tell a story. But what connects the story with the game? Components. They come in many shapes, sizes, and meanings. The players are constantly playing around with these Components - changing, challenging, complicating, creating new ones and even destryoing them. It seems to me there are two types of Components:


Story Components - A new name for "World Components". Why change the name? I think it fits better with their function - they affect the story. I believe Christopher Kubasik was the one who said that Narrativism is about telling a story and shaping a world around it. While this isn't really an RPG, it's about storytelling so I think it's also valid here.

Anyway Traits, Packages, and Flaws are all Story Components. I believe it's a mistake to sepreate them and here's why:

Traits and Flaws are just two sides of the same coin (e.g. a "tall" person can reach the top shelf but can't hide under the desk).

Traits and Packages are different names of the same thing - they are simply locations in the Component hierarchy. Frex, the "tall" Trait also means heavy bone structure, social norms, psychological issues, and possible rollercoaster rides ("you have to be THIS tall to enter") - so the "tall" Trait suddenly becomes a Package. I remember Packages from the HERO system - no need for them here. You simply have Components, sub-Components, sub-sub-Components, and so on. You don't call them that in the game but they do present a workable theory.

For example:      

George is a Nice Guy+3 (Component)
                           Generous+1(sub-component)
                           Charming+2(sub-Component)
                                 Good with the ladies+6(sub-sub-Component)


Structure Components - Facts, Rules Gimmicks, Game Parameters, and Add-ons are all Structure Components. Why? They create a structure which defines where the story can and cannot go. Facts are also included here since they are passive in their behavior. You don't Activate a Fact - you Challenge it when it doens't fit with your needs. Frex, if Mike wants to create a "weak ogre" Story Component and Ralph placed a "All ogres are strong+2" Structure Component, then Mike is going to have to Challenge it first and only then to create his Component.

Now, all components are measured by their Importance to the story. I'd personally drop quantification of a Trait since this has little relevance to the game. The only thing that matters is Importance. The Incredible Hulk may be one of the strongest beings in the world but in a love story his Story Components would be "Incredibly Strong+3" and "Passionate+10". Another example: a "nuclear missile+2" and a "hunting knife+9" means the knife is more important to the story no matter how powerful a nuclear missile is in physical terms.

In general, this means that you can tell anything you like in the story. But until you buy Importance everything you say has a level 0 Importance - any player can verbally challenge you and win (and vice versa). Only when you put some coins into it the Components become an important part of the story and need to be Challenged with cold hard cash :)  

Structure Components work a little different. They can be destroyed like any other Component, but that might not be necessery. It's possible to Challenge a Structure Component in order to introduce a contradictory Component (see example above). So Structure Components with high Importance will be harder to Challenge.

I believe the original seperation of Components into smaller parts is an attempt to "atomize" Components into the "basic units of storytelling". Well, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. You see, it's always possible to find further smaller details or larger frames especially in a flexible gaming environment such as the one that Universalis is offering. The best you can do in storytelling is to place anchors and grab onto them. These anchors are the Components and Importance signifies how strong they are stuck into the storyline.

Another issue that bothers me is "Significant Declerative Statement" (SDS). I'd use a shorter term but I can't think of any right now. In addition, it seems a very clumsy mechanic - you have to analyze what you say and assign costs. Yuck! How about if anyone doesn't like my storytelling he could challenge me. If I win, the story goes on the way I planned to. If I lose then the challenger continues the story his way. Simple as that. This means that when you Challenge, you either do it against another player's storytelling or you Challenge a Component, which means that you Challenge the system rather than a player.
     
The last issue is that of Dice Pools. I don't like it. I think Universalis would be more special if it didn't use dice to determine issues. Someone suggested flipping the coins used in the Complication. I can't think of a better mechanic instead so I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens.  

Under these rules, you can also drop terms which lost their meaning, like Story Power (everything can directly be bought with coins) and Flavor (actual storytelling).


So what can a player do?

Tell a story (this is the Flavor thing - Importance level 0 storytelling)
Create/destroy/change a Component
Activate a Component
Challenge another player
Create a Complication
Pass the turn

That's it. As always, this is just how I see Universalis. It doesn't mean you have to see it that way or that I believe any of my concepts are absolute and inflexible (although I wouldn't mind starting an intelligent argument about them :)

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Mike Holmes]

First of all, I'd like to thank Mike and Ralph for making me part of of the Universalis playtesting group.

Thanks for participating.

I see a lot of potential in this game with the majority of its power still hidden from the eyes of its users (and maybe even its makers).

That's definitely a possibility.

I hope that by the end of this week I'll gain some actual play experience.

Look forward to the results.

In addition, this feedback is my personal perspective and may not be like other playtesters - I hope you'll see it as a friendly suggestion rather than a disrespectful criticism.

Fire away. Your opinions are very welcome, as are any thoughtful opinions.

The first big issue I'd like to mention here is the Universalis presentation. I believe it's a classic example of the 'messy manual' syndrome.

... I know the game is still in developemnt and the manual is just a draft. However, I feel that many playtesters are stuck because the manual isn't clear and simple to work with. I feel that most of the work for the next draft should concentrate on cleaning up and editing the manual so the next line of playtesters will be able to examine the mechanics in more meaningful ways.

What do you think, Ralph (for those unaware, Ralph is the author, I just provoke him)?

I feel that content delivery is a major bottleneck in game design (not just in Universalis). It is very unfortunate since communication of ideas is THE most critical issue in gaming  (something that most people blatantly ignore).

I think I agree. I might put it differently, but good communication of principles is undeniably important.

It seems to me there are two types of Components:

Story Components

Anyway Traits, Packages, and Flaws are all Story Components. I believe it's a mistake to sepreate them and here's why:

Traits and Flaws are just two sides of the same coin (e.g. a "tall" person can reach the top shelf but can't hide under the desk).

This is something that we've debated a lot. I think that we primarily keep Flaws separate as an opportunity to add an interesting mechanic. That being said, we have considered their consolidation.

Traits and Packages are different names of the same thing - they are simply locations in the Component hierarchy.  

For example:      

George is a Nice Guy+3 (Component)
                           Generous+1(sub-component)
                           Charming+2(sub-Component)
                                 Good with the ladies+6(sub-sub-Component)

This seems at first glance to be an OK idea, but I also feel that it's not fixing a big issue. Hmmm. Maybe.

Structure Components - Facts, Rules Gimmicks, Game Parameters, and Add-ons are all Structure Components. Why? They create a structure which defines where the story can and cannot go. Facts are also included here since they are passive in their behavior. You don't Activate a Fact - you Challenge it when it doens't fit with your needs. Frex, if Mike wants to create a "weak ogre" Story Component and Ralph placed a "All ogres are strong+2" Structure Component, then Mike is going to have to Challenge it first and only then to create his Component.

Now, all components are measured by their Importance to the story. I'd personally drop quantification of a Trait since this has little relevance to the game. The only thing that matters is Importance. The Incredible Hulk may be one of the strongest beings in the world but in a love story his Story Components would be "Incredibly Strong+3" and "Passionate+10". Another example: a "nuclear missile+2" and a "hunting knife+9" means the knife is more important to the story no matter how powerful a nuclear missile is in physical terms.

In general, this means that you can tell anything you like in the story. But until you buy Importance everything you say has a level 0 Importance - any player can verbally challenge you and win (and vice versa). Only when you put some coins into it the Components become an important part of the story and need to be Challenged with cold hard cash :)  

Interesting. This might just simplify things more thatn we're interested in doing. Some of the complexity is intentional and has beneficial effects. Ralph?

I believe the original seperation of Components into smaller parts is an attempt to "atomize" Components into the "basic units of storytelling". Well, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. You see, it's always possible to find further smaller details or larger frames especially in a flexible gaming environment such as the one that Universalis is offering. The best you can do in storytelling is to place anchors and grab onto them. These anchors are the Components and Importance signifies how strong they are stuck into the storyline.

No, "atomization to primary components" was not the idea at all. The idea was to have a framework. You just see a simpler framework as better. Why are Components and Importance so atomic? I'm sure they could be combined, too. You've merely seleceted a comfortable level.

We picked a level that, again, allowed us to introduce a level of sophistication in the system that would (hopefully) allow the mechanics to propell the game. What you propose might be too simple for that to work. OTOH, maybe not, perhaps there are some simplifications that can be made and still have integrity in the rest of the system. As Ralph has said, this is not simply a formalization of "Pass the Stroytelling Seashell", we like some additional framework.

Another issue that bothers me is "Significant Declerative Statement" (SDS). I'd use a shorter term but I can't think of any right now. In addition, it seems a very clumsy mechanic - you have to analyze what you say and assign costs. Yuck! How about if anyone doesn't like my storytelling he could challenge me.

There's a lot of sentiment in that direction right now, and I see a change of that or similar nature in the works. This has always been a difficult part of the game.
   

The last issue is that of Dice Pools. I don't like it. I think Universalis would be more special if it didn't use dice to determine issues. Someone suggested flipping the coins used in the Complication. I can't think of a better mechanic instead so I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens.  

Is it just that dice are too pedestrian? You don't seem to be upset by randomizers in general. Possibly interestingly, this game did not start out as an attempt to create something totally Avant Garde. We started with a couple of odd ideas, and, as Ralph will agree, the game started to write itself (interesting that Chris and BW instinctively wanted to play like I do; it's the game writing itself again). Anyhow, I wouldn't change the dice pools for change's sake. A lot of math and design have gone into how they currently work. OTOH, if a better system comes along, I have no particular faith in Dice Pools. (One thing that I do like about them in Universalis is how they grow into litle piles in front of you during a Challenge.)

So what can a player do?

Tell a story (this is the Flavor thing - Importance level 0 storytelling)
Create/destroy/change a Component
Activate a Component
Challenge another player
Create a Complication
Pass the turn

That's it. As always, this is just how I see Universalis. It doesn't mean you have to see it that way or that I believe any of my concepts are absolute and inflexible (although I wouldn't mind starting an intelligent argument about them :)

It's an intersting perspective. And there's probably a lot we can get from it. Simplification is good, as long as it can be done without losing anything. I think with some work we can get closer to your ideal while still maintaining some of the concepts that we like.

I hope Ralph chimes in with what he thinks about these ideas. Ralph?

Mike

[joe_llama]

I think that we primarily keep Flaws separate as an opportunity to add an interesting mechanic.

Flaws would be essential if you didn't have Complications. But since your game has this cool feature I find Flaws unnecessery. Flaws oppose Traits - if a player doesn't like the Trait he can challenge its existence, if he just wants to test this Trait he can create a Comlpication. See my point here?

This seems at first glance to be an OK idea, but I also feel that it's not fixing a big issue.

You're right, it's not a big issue. The idea was to cut down on unnecessery terms which might confuse players. If they're one and the same, might just call them by the same name, IMO.

You just see a simpler framework as better. Why are Components and Importance so atomic? I'm sure they could be combined, too. You've merely seleceted a comfortable level.

Yeah, I know. I like things simple and my "atomic" components are designed for convenience. I guess this is just a carry-over from Mindlink that's affecting my sound judgement :)

We picked a level that, again, allowed us to introduce a level of sophistication in the system that would (hopefully) allow the mechanics to propell the game. What you propose might be too simple for that to work. OTOH, maybe not, perhaps there are some simplifications that can be made and still have integrity in the rest of the system.

I have the feeling this issue is better examined by actual gaming experience. I will try to run both "versions" if you like. The only problem is how one game will affect the other. If I test both on the same group the results might not be "accurate".

Is it just that dice are too pedestrian? You don't seem to be upset by randomizers in general. ... Anyhow, I wouldn't change the dice pools for change's sake. A lot of math and design have gone into how they currently work.

The issue is minor. I just thought how cool Universalis would look if all you needed was a table and a piggy-bank :)  

Possibly interestingly, this game did not start out as an attempt to create something totally Avant Garde. We started with a couple of odd ideas, and, as Ralph will agree, the game started to write itself (interesting that Chris and BW instinctively wanted to play like I do; it's the game writing itself again).

Heh, same here with Mindlink. It started as a storytelling card game and ended as a collaborative writing tool.

OTOH, if a better system comes along, I have no particular faith in Dice Pools. (One thing that I do like about them in Universalis is how they grow into litle piles in front of you during a Challenge.)

Let me just mention here that if by any chance you come up with a 'randomless' mechanic for Complications I'd be very inetersted in playtesting it. I see your point about the piles, though. Any chance you might be willing to exchange it for piles of coins? :)  

Simplification is good, as long as it can be done without losing anything.

You said it, Mike. I'm a simplicity freak, yeah. But I wouldn't wanna play a game that's simple without a good reason, and losing parts of the game is definately not a good reason.

Keep up the good work :)

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Valamir]

The first big issue I'd like to mention here is the Universalis presentation. I believe it's a classic example of the 'messy manual' syndrome.

... I know the game is still in developemnt and the manual is just a draft. However, I feel that many playtesters are stuck because the manual isn't clear and simple to work with. I feel that most of the work for the next draft should concentrate on cleaning up and editing the manual so the next line of playtesters will be able to examine the mechanics in more meaningful ways.

What do you think, Ralph (for those unaware, Ralph is the author, I just provoke him)?

Heh, sure Mike. Be sure to take THIS opportunity to point out that the crappy rules are my doing ;-)

Actually, I think that given the nature of the game there is no possible way to write a manual that is easily accessible as a draft (save maybe for some manual genius). Meaning that I can't possibly know which parts do or don't mesh well until somebody reads it and lets me know. So any and all input in this regard is welcome. In other words...suggest away.

It seems to me there are two types of Components:
Traits and Flaws are just two sides of the same coin (e.g. a "tall" person can reach the top shelf but can't hide under the desk).

This is something that we've debated a lot. I think that we primarily keep Flaws separate as an opportunity to add an interesting mechanic. That being said, we have considered their consolidation.

Actually Flaws are long gone. There is apparently 1 stray reference to them that I hadn't edited out, but if you check the actual descriptions there isn't one for Flaws. Actually someone pointed out there was one description missing on another thread and I didn't know what they meant until I found that last reference. A vestige of earlier editions.

Packages originally had a fairly crucial role in the game. In V3 that role was eliminated but they were kept as more or less "extra broad Traits" Looking back we should have just called them Broad Traits and Narrow Traits. With the toning down of much of the competitive nature of the game, it may no longer be desireable to distinguish between broad and narrow.

Structure Components - Facts, Rules Gimmicks, Game Parameters, and Add-ons are all Structure Components. Why? They create a structure which defines where the story can and cannot go. Facts are also included here since they are passive in their behavior. You don't Activate a Fact - you Challenge it when it doens't fit with your needs. Frex, if Mike wants to create a "weak ogre" Story Component and Ralph placed a "All ogres are strong+2" Structure Component, then Mike is going to have to Challenge it first and only then to create his Component.

Now, all components are measured by their Importance to the story. I'd personally drop quantification of a Trait since this has little relevance to the game. The only thing that matters is Importance. The Incredible Hulk may be one of the strongest beings in the world but in a love story his Story Components would be "Incredibly Strong+3" and "Passionate+10". Another example: a "nuclear missile+2" and a "hunting knife+9" means the knife is more important to the story no matter how powerful a nuclear missile is in physical terms.

In general, this means that you can tell anything you like in the story. But until you buy Importance everything you say has a level 0 Importance - any player can verbally challenge you and win (and vice versa). Only when you put some coins into it the Components become an important part of the story and need to be Challenged with cold hard cash :)

Interesting. This might just simplify things more thatn we're interested in doing. Some of the complexity is intentional and has beneficial effects. Ralph?

The thread on Traits as Resistances touches tangentially upon this issue. The Trait (Traits are also considered to be Facts by default) has a certain level and that level makes it more difficult for another player to alter aspects of the story that would oppose that Trait. The value of the Trait essentially becomes akin to the level of Importance you place on that Trait.

I have been toying with the idea of allowing Facts to similiar be rated by Importance to have a greater or lesser ability to "defend" in a Challenge. Of course at that point, one can eliminate "Facts" altogether and just treat them as +1 Traits, able to be activated like anything else.

That is probably the result of overthinking the relationship, and certainly too much to change all at once.

Another issue that bothers me is "Significant Declerative Statement" (SDS). I'd use a shorter term but I can't think of any right now. In addition, it seems a very clumsy mechanic - you have to analyze what you say and assign costs. Yuck! How about if anyone doesn't like my storytelling he could challenge me.

There's a lot of sentiment in that direction right now, and I see a change of that or similar nature in the works. This has always been a difficult part of the game.

I'm currently working on a draft I'm cleverly calling V4.1 It isn't an "official" update to the game yet, more or less an exercize to see if regulated scene framing could be instituted in the game. When complete I'll make it available to see if it is better/worse than the current more "stream of concious" method of story assembly.

A by product of the technique is that Declarative Statement, Flavor, and Significance all go away. Instead we Establish a Location, Introduce Characters and Props and then define Events. Given the preexisting framework of locations and characters, "Events" become a much simpler thing to qualify than the more open ended "Declarative Statements" were.

More on this anon.

I hope Ralph chimes in with what he thinks about these ideas. Ralph?

Thou hast spake my name three times and I hast come.

[Valamir]

OTOH, if a better system comes along, I have no particular faith in Dice Pools. (One thing that I do like about them in Universalis is how they grow into litle piles in front of you during a Challenge.)  

Let me just mention here that if by any chance you come up with a 'randomless' mechanic for Complications I'd be very inetersted in playtesting it. I see your point about the piles, though. Any chance you might be willing to exchange it for piles of coins? :)

Ahh, but this is what Add-ons are for :-)

Design a diceless alternative you think manages to accomplish the same thing, playtest that, and if it works we'll include it as an Add-On.