[Universalis] Short, sweet, and what's the point?

[LordSmerf]

So Friday evening, as we were waiting for the rest of the group to show up, two of us played a game of Universalis.  It was a rather interesting game which we have retrospectively classified as a primarily Gamist session.

A quick note of context: the two of us that played are the same two that have "ruined" almost every other game of Universalis in which we both participated in.  We almost always get into a really inane argument over applying one stupid Trait to some conflict that goes on so long and gets so blown out of proportion that everyone else just says "Screw this, this is no fun anymore." and we stop playing.  Yes, i know that Universalis has mechanics in place for the group to impose its will (and honestly if people call attention to our outlandish behavior we usually cool down, it is a heat-of-the-moment type of thing), but none of the rest of our group does that very often.

There is some evidence of us maturing as will hopefully be seen below.

Tenets came rather quickly, we established that the game would take place in one of our local home-brewed game worlds, magic and combat would be involved, and one of the characters would be a Seer.  We paused for a moment to generate a Master Class for Seers and moved into play.

Scene 1: It is night* outside of a large walled mansion* in the country side*.  We have a Seer* and a Kunjel* (Kunjels are one of the races in our homebrew world).  The Kunjel-Rob* wonders if they have been spotted.  The Goblin* Seer notes that he could just check, and proceeds to enter a Seers Trance*.  We see inside the guard house and realize there are 15 Mook Guards (quick break to generate Master Class for Mook Guards).  Back outside we see that there is Anthony* a Human* wearing Goblin Powered Armor* and carrying an Acid Spitting Warhammer*.  He Grins Maniacally* and says "Let's get 'em." -SCENE ENDS-

Scene 2: Inside the guard house we find our 15 Mook Guards sitting around goofing off, they are On Hightened Alert*.  One of them looks up and says "Did you hear that?"  He is looking at the door as it flies off its hinges and hurtles accross the room to hit him in the face.  In comes Anthony weapon a-swingin'.  As he tears into the mooks the Seer looks at Rob, "Shouldn't you help him?"  Rob examines the situation for a moment... "Nah, i think he's got it."  It is here that we learn that Rob is Not So Good At Combat* and that he Is The Architect Of This Mansion*.  We start calling up dice for a Complication involving the 15 Mook Guards and Anthony.  A brief discussion regarding traits and dice ensues and we generate a new Tenet: Negative Traits for your side provide your opponent with dice instead of reducing your own pool.

The 15 Guards "won" the roll, so the other player narrates them getting torn up by Anthony, but then we find out that his Power Armor Malfunctions* and so some of them begin to escape.  Anthony flails around and hits the Reset Button*.  Eventually the fight moves outside and Anthony smashes a mook guard into a gong and discovers that He Really Likes Gong Music* so he continues to smash mooks into the gong.  -END SCENE-

Scene 3: (NOTE: about half way through this scene we determine that the game ends after Scene 6 with a Tenet)  The scene is shot from a high overhead camera.  Another group of 15 Mook Guards is rushing accross the courtyard toward Rob, Anthony and Jack* the Goblin Seer.  Anthony wades in and begins to slaughter them (this requires no Conflict), on the roof we see a Sorcerer* who is Summoning* and we see a Gnome* with a Staff* named Zacharias*.  The Sorcerer summons a Big, smelly, red* Demon* which is Clearly Homocidal* and Aggressive*.  Conflict time!  The Demon vs. everyone else, except that Anthony throws down on the Demon's side since they both represent the forces of chaos.  The Demon and Anthony "win" and chaos ensues with Anthony finally chasing the Demon around whacking it with his hammer to little effect.  -SCENE ENDS-

I shall (hopefully) have a chance this evening to expand upon events and provide you with: Scene 4 - In which our heroes run around in a silly manner.  Scene 5 - In which a talking lake of lava kills through both action and inaction.  Scene 6 - In which we see the final outcome of our heroes actions.

Additionally i will try to expand upon my impressions of the experience addressing why this game seemed predominantly Gamist and my overall impression of the experience itself both at the time and in retrospect.

Thomas

[LordSmerf]

Better late than never i guess...

Supplemental Note: I forgot to mention that in Scene 3 we discover that the Seer is armed with Jimminey, a named Dopplehander which resides in its own dimension.

Scene 4: We find ourselves following the Seer and Rob up a staircase.  They are in pursuit Anthony who is in pursuit of the Gnome who is in pursuit of the Sorcerer.  The Demon brings up the rear looking for some carnage.  The Sorcer comes to a stop as the stair simply end.  "In a wall?" i ask.  "No, in a long drop into a Lake of Liquid Hot Magma*".  It turns out that the Lake has a name: "Voice" and the Sorcerer calls upon it to honor their mutual pact.  The Gnome is shocked that his partner would deal with such things and prepares to attack.  It is at this point that Anthony's power armor malfunctions again and it is Complication time: Anthony vs. the Gnome and the Sorcerer.  Anthony rolls all successes and thus the three of them are thrown from the top step toward the Voice.  -SCENE ENDS-

Scene 5: The camera is now an "underwater" shot looking up from beneath the lava toward the downward hurtling figures.  The Gnome attempts to use the Wind Spirits of the Staff of Frost to save himself.  Alas, he splashes down and cooks.  The Staff breaks and the room is Filled with Escaped Air Spirits*.  The Voice notices the Sorcerer falling and drains itself away because the Voice Likes the Sorcerer*, we find out that the Voice is Also Known as Larry* "...The master feeeds Larry."

With Larry now out of the way we see that the cavern floor is covered in Razor Sharp* Stalagmites*.  Anthony and the Sorcerer struggle with each other, each trying to be on top.  Anthony wins despite the Sorcerer having an Inhumanly Strong Left Hand*, and crushes him with his Inhumanly Heavy* weight.

Mini Scene:  Back at the top of the stairs we find the Demon has caught up with Rob and the Goblin Seer.  Complication!  The Demon manages to swallow the Seer whole, but as he is distracted Rob pulls a hidden lever which dumps the Demon of the steps (remember, Rob is the Architect of the Mansion).  As they fall the Goblin uses Jimminey to slice away at the Demon from inside ("It has exposed its soft, vulnerable underbelly to me in the form of its digestive tract!").  -MINI SCENE ENDS-

We are now looking over the Demon's shoulder as he hurtles downward toward Anthony who is standing on top of the Sorcerer's body which is in turn impaled on a stalagmite.  Complication!  The Demon will surely crush poor Anthony, except that Anthony whips his Acid-Spitting War Hammer around and smashes the giant head from the Demon killing him and reducing the weight enough to survive.  -SCENE ENDS-

Scene 6: It is night outside of a large walled mansion in the country side.  We have a Goblin Seer, a Kunjel named Rob, and a Power Armored Human named Anthony.  The Seer looks up at the other two and says in an aggravated voice: "If we had just killed them all the first time we wouldn't be here again." -SCENE ENDS-

-SESSION ENDS-

One of the most interesting things in this game was that we were pretty much in agreement over who should frame which scene.  Every scene up to the last one had bids of 2 and 10, or something similar where one player bid some token number of coins hoping that the other player would frame the scene.

Why was this a Gamist session?  Immediately after the game ended i looked at my buddy accross the table and said: "Well, we weren't competing for coins (aside: that is often what happens), and i did not really see a Premise, and i am not really sure we did any serious Exploration..."  He looked at me and said: "Gamist.  In this case the Step On Up was to not be a bitch and screw the game up for anyone else.  We both won."  And i must say that it makes sense.  Esepcially considering the trepidation with which i started the session.

Now, all that aside, in the immediate aftermath of the game, i felt... empty.  I do not believe that i really had all that much fun.  I mean, i enjoyed playing and hanging out, but i do not know that i enjoyed playing Universalis more than i would have enjoyed doing something else.  So me immediate reaction was a subdued sort of "meh."

Now that i have had some time to step back and reflect, i believe that i really enjoyed it.  The story was light-hearted and fun, and we were really just passing time.  We also managed to finish a game (albeit a short one) of Universalis without the game devolving into garbage.  So, i think that this experience was a highly valuable one, even if i did not see the value of it at the time.

Thomas

[Valamir]

Interesting Thomas, let me rattle off some questions.

1) When you play games with a traditional GM do you and your friend clash in a similiar fashion.  If so, is it primarily the GM who reigns you in and keeps things focuses?  If not, is it primarily because you know the GM would do that if you did, so you simply don't?

2) Building on this, when you are playing Universalis and there is no centralized figure keeping you from going at it, do you feel that the primary cause is the lack of such an authority?  If so, why do you think the other players are slow to take on the mantle of that authority in the game to similiar effect?

3) Since this didn't happen in a game with just the two of you, how much do you think the lack of argueing was due to the lack of audience?  i.e. to what extent are your efforts to out do each other in the game predicated on "winning" in front of others...without the others the contest becomes pointless?

4) To what extent have you attempted to add Rules Gimmicks that specifically address the issues where you and your friend start to derail the game?

[LordSmerf]

All good questions, let us see what comes of them.

1. In GMed games we do not argue over such things, though we did kill a number of games by arguing over specific applications of rules.  Calvinballing, if you will.  It is not a sense of "fear of authority" so much as it is that we have a very clear goal when we sit down to play i think.  We know that we are addressing Premis X or Exploring element Y.  At least that is the way i see things.  I think that a clear direction and focus is what keeps us on track, and the lack of such makes it difficult for us to play Universalis.

2. As per the above, i do not think that it is lack of authority that causes us to do such things.  As to why no one steps up to the plate and takes up the mantle, i think it is a matter of temperment.  We are probably the two most assertive (possibly arrogant) members of the group and i think to some degree we simply overwhelm the rest of the players.

3. I am not sure.  I hope none of it is due to winning in front of others, since we both freely acknowledge that our outlandish behavior is the single most disruptive and disfunctional type of play we end up having.  We play plenty of other games in highly competative modes (Chess, Go, Settlers, Citadels, whatever is at hand) with and without other people around as "audience".  Additionally, and this probably should have been mentioned above, we did have an audience, two other members of our group showed up around scene four and watched us finish up.  I do not know what that indicates (if anything) about the need for an audience.

4. We have tried a couple of different Gimmicks.  The first was: If you guys do what you did last time again we will collectively beat the crap out of you.  That proved ineffectual.  A note of context: most of our conflicts arise during Complications and most often over whether a given Trait applies for a single measly die.  One thing that happened this game is that i think we were pretty much in agreement with the outcome of all of the Complications, and in those cases where we disagreed we were not really all that invested in victory.  This allowed us to simply evaluate what worked, roll, narrate, and move on.  I do not know exactly what factors played into this, but it worked...

Thomas

[Valamir]

Thanks for the answers Thomas.

A note of context: most of our conflicts arise during Complications and most often over whether a given Trait applies for a single measly die.

The official way this works (and how I've had to do it on occassion in my own games when this occurs) is like this:

1) The person trying to use the die just uses it.  They take it, they give their required justification for it and they move on.  This does mean that there is a "first come first served" component to the Traits.  So if there is a Trait that could be used in two or more different ways...he who claims it first on their turn (going around activating Traits per the usual Complication rules) gets it.

2) If anyone has any issue or disagreement over the use of the Trait (a weak justification, or it just being over the top or completely inapplicable...whatever) they must Challenge.

That's it.  There is no allowance in the rules for any other outcome, discussion or arguement.  Its a Challenge according to the basic Challenge rules.

Now the Challenge does have a negotiation phase so this is where any reasonable requests or queries take place.  But at any time you can simply say "No" to further Negotiation.  At which point the objecting player (or anyone else so convinced) must put up a Coin or back off.

Very rarely is it worth getting into a bidding war in a Challenge unless there are a number of Traits at stake at once because spending 3 Coins to stop someone from getting 1 is pretty much a waste of Coins.  But if there are a lot of Coins at stake, or if the other players are each willing to take turns staking a Coin to stop the "abuse" then this is how its handled.


I recommend trying that the next time the situation come up in one of your games.  The mechanical process should function to resolve the issue with much less clash between players.  

If it works let me know.

[Tony Irwin]

Why was this a Gamist session?  Immediately after the game ended i looked at my buddy accross the table and said: "Well, we weren't competing for coins (aside: that is often what happens), and i did not really see a Premise, and i am not really sure we did any serious Exploration..."  He looked at me and said: "Gamist.  In this case the Step On Up was to not be a bitch and screw the game up for anyone else.  We both won."  And i must say that it makes sense.  Especially considering the trepidation with which i started the session.

Hi Thomas, I feel that's a prerequisite for any type of play, I would think of it as social contract stuff: "Here is the way I promise to treat you, and here is the way I expect you to treat me while we play together". I'm really glad that it looks like you guys are working to clean up those issues, and I hope you'll be able to reintroduce those other players who were with you last time, and still keep the fun you're having.

Have you considered the possibility that you guys were just enjoying exploration with no real commitment to any agenda? You had some cool colour, you had some exciting situations, you had some characters that made you laugh. If you feel things are steady now and working smoothly, I'd encourage you to punch it up a level by taking advantage of Universalis' relationship traits, maybe a gimmick like this:

"Every character, even mooks, must have a relationship trait with at least one other character in the game."

Relationships could be X loves Y, X hates Y, X is Y's sister, X was Y's lover once, X fears Y, whatever.

It takes it beyond just imagining what your characters do, to really seeing meaning in what they do. I loved reading about how the sorceror and the pool of magma had a binding relationship, and the gnome's choice to attack his partner. Giving traits (and thus dice) to these relationships would really help to bring them into the fore of the conflict. Also don't be afraid to challenge and base your challenge on a trait - "The gnome wouldn't attack his partner". Suddenly its not about who's the toughest in a fight, its about whether friendship means tolerating evil. This is where its great to have more players, they'd hopefully feel now that they can spend coins to support your or Anthony's ideas and values, rather than support your or Anthony's attempts to win.

Now that i have had some time to step back and reflect, i believe that i really enjoyed it.  The story was light-hearted and fun, and we were really just passing time.  We also managed to finish a game (albeit a short one) of Universalis without the game devolving into garbage.  So, i think that this experience was a highly valuable one, even if i did not see the value of it at the time.

Really glad you're enjoying yourself with Universalis! I hope future games go equally well.

Tony

[Mulciber]

Hello. My name is Will. I was playing with Thomas in the above Actual Play experience. (Anthony was the name of the human wearing the Armor, above.)

I had an insight experience reading the Story Now essay, right after Ron's quote of Kubasik's excellent Interactive Toolkit '95 stuff. I think our best when playing Universalis is to think as if we were GMing. By which I mean, "considering others better than ourselves" we prioritize what the other wishes and work to facilitate it, rather than existing as players-only. (I am not referring to a situation in which no one, ever, acts as a player. Merely that we in this set of instances within the context of Universalis, Thomas and I should do so.)

Thomas, you have mentioned that you think you have different goals as a DM. In that light, what do you think of my assessment?

Howdy, Tony. I agree with you utterly that "not ruining others' fun" is an absolutely necessary, concrete thing that must happen at a Social level, way before we even get to the choice to do roleplaying together. I do think that in this instance, the Step On Up factor was precisely that we have played dysfunctionally before, and wish now to focus on facilitating functional play. As the man on the scene, I'd say that I at least also brought to the table a Sim exploration of Setting insofar as what magic does in our homebrew.

It sounds like you're really into the exploration of the Situations that can arise within a set of relationships, from your excellent advice above. Does that seem right to you? I find relationality incredibly interesting as I take it to be the foundation for identity, thus enabling the expression of personhood. But that may be an exchange to pursue through private messaging.

Best,
Will Whatley

[Tony Irwin]

It sounds like you're really into the exploration of the Situations that can arise within a set of relationships, from your excellent advice above. Does that seem right to you? I find relationality incredibly interesting as I take it to be the foundation for identity, thus enabling the expression of personhood. But that may be an exchange to pursue through private messaging.

Well you've put it very nicely - basically I just get excited when relationship conundrums start appearing in Universalis, and I've noticed that the other people I play with do too. Things really get punched up a level, and everybody really starts getting involved in the complications. I've really only been in one Uni game that kind of flopped for everyone playing - I noticed at the time that we didn't have any relationship traits in the characters.

I think Uni does relationship conflict well, just as well as it does inner conflict, and societal conflict. ie "What do my loved ones want from me?", "What does my heart want from me?", "What does my job want from me?". I've found bouncing around all three of these yields really amazing stories. Giving characters traits for each kind of conflict sets you up for a really amazing experience.

Tony

[Valamir]

I think our best when playing Universalis is to think as if we were GMing.

Spot on.

From the beginning Mike and I have insisted that Universalis is not a GM-less game but a GM-Full game.

In fact, check out the first sentence on the back cover.