Universalis Sim or Nar?

[Valamir]

Its not shaky ground at all Pete.  In fact, this thread, really highlights why GNS isn't really about categorizing games, but rather actual play.  

I'm not sure what you mean about creating or cementing theme.  What is your distinction between "Creating Theme" vs. "Addressing Premise"?

I'm certainly interested in where you perceive the step on up elements in the game.  I'd often worried that the game would engender an attitude of "winning = getting my story in and your story out" in a sort of Once Upon a Time fashion.  But I haven't actually seen that materialize in any play I've heard of.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I think Ralph nailed it. I also suggest that people who are interested in this issue pay special attention to the conflict mechanics, as opposed to the comparatively trivial challenge mechanics.

Best,
Ron

[pete_darby]

I was thinking more, for step on up, in terms of the old favourite of, we're at the end of the third act of four, time to put the protagonist down a big frickin' hole.

In fact, a recent RPG net thread discussing an idea for playing both sides in a Transformers game made me think immediately of Universalis: the proposed structure for a session was: players play the Decepticons coming up with a fiendish plan, and work to eliminate any possible loopholes. Then switch sides, and play as the Autobots, and pit yourself against your own plan.

I can totally see Universalis supporting this method, and it's almost entirely grooving on step on up, the whole group challenging itself.

I'm not saying that there's an element of step on up in the games emchanics as written, but only that it's as enabling to generating challenge as it is to adressing premise.

As for the line between creating theme and addressing premise: I'm seeing your description of play as exploration of possible theme, with each expenditure of coins cementing a more concrete expression of the theme. However, exploration of theme can of course happen without address of premise (but probably not vice versa). You can explore themes of loss, or revenge, or greed, without addressing a premise per se.

[Valamir]

However, exploration of theme can of course happen without address of premise (but probably not vice versa). You can explore themes of loss, or revenge, or greed, without addressing a premise per se.

Can you?  I have to admit I'm completely flumoxxed by that idea.  Care to start a new thread to discuss?

I don't know what you're envisioning when you say "exploring theme".  That isn't a term that's ever been defined as part of the model, so I'm not clear on what definition you're using.  To me they seem completely 100% synonomous.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Pete,

I think you might be confounding Challenge and Adversity. Almost all role-playing requires adversity, and certainly all Gamist and Narrativist play-experiences require it in spades. Adversity is often a key feature of "Situation" as a formal component of Exploration.

I also suggest that "engaged with passion" is not the same thing as Step On Up, which I define very carefully in the Gamism essay: putting social esteem at stake with special reference to personal strategy and guts.

So when you see people inject adversity into play, with passion, they are not necessarily introducing Challenge nor Stepping On Up. This behavior may be seen in any mode of play.

Best,
Ron

[pete_darby]

Ron:

No, but I see where you're coming from: and, absolutley, without adversity, without striving, there's little to be ultimately interested in. So I'm totally down with adversity being integral to all CA.

What I'm talking about is engineering of situation to present tactical challenge within the SiS, with the adjudication of tactics and risk being down to the players moderated through the conflict mechanism.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Pete,

What I'm talking about is engineering of situation to present tactical challenge within the SiS, with the adjudication of tactics and risk being down to the players moderated through the conflict mechanism.

The problem here is that, mechanically, Uni doesn't give any support to "superior" tactics or planning in the SiS. It's all about how many coins have been spent, and how many will be spent, in order to promote a particular outcome. No matter the situation in the SiS, spend enough Coins and absolutely anything can be made to happen.

That's why it's really bollocks for Gamist play. You've got some strategy on the meta level as far as Coin management, but it's really (as Ralph says) not deep or satisfying from a Gamist perspective.

-Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Chris nailed it too. As soon as you try to engineer ...

engineering of situation to present tactical challenge within the SiS, with the adjudication of tactics and risk being down to the players

... the conflict system breaks down. It does an absolutely horrible job of rewarding that tactical challenge.

I suggest that the aggressive player, Bob, in the rulebook is not playing Gamist in the slightest. The fact that he's introducing severe adversity for the other players (relative to the characters that they happen to control at the moment) is merely that - adversity. Not even his delight in doing so is Gamist; what engages all of the players in that example is merely the emotional commitment to the conflict per se (Exploration).*

I've been involved with the Gamist issues for Universalis from its first draft onwards. I've seen every possible permutation of whether negotiating about what happens, taking sides in a conflict, drawing upon existing components, etc, contributes to tactical or strategic confrontation. It got hammered to death through many hours of discussion, re-writes, re-playtesting, and audible gnashing of Ralph's teeth.

And since the publication of the eventual rules, I've never seen Gamist play arise using the conflict rules as resolving mechanisms. They simply don't work well. The only Gamist stuff that shows up in Universalis play is Hard Core powergaming, utilizing bullying and some calvinballing, at the challenge level - and play immediately becomes un-fun.

Best,
Ron

* And no, there's no Premise-addressing in that particular example. It's kind of dry from that angle.

[pete_darby]

Okay, cool. I mean, not having seen gamist play of Universalis "in the wild", I was concerned that it was being dismissed without it being attempted or assessed.

If, as it seems, when it's done it turns into a sucking abyss of not fun with a gamist whimpering "make it stop...", I'll concede that perhaps it's not ideal for gamist play.