Explaining how to create stories with Uni

[Valamir]

In the discussions for this review Matthijs made the following really good observation that I wanted to open further discussion on

Seems to me there's a lot of talking past each other here. I go: "Uni doesn't help you do this thing." People answer: "Well, you can do that thing if you just know how to do it." I go: "Yeah, but what if I _don't_ know how? I want the rules to _show_ me how."

Knowing what a good story is when you read it, isn't the same thing as knowing how to put such a story together. So even if I might want to squeeze a different kind of story out of Universalis, I might not be able to if I don't have a clue how that story should be structured.

To me, it all boils down to what you expect from the game. I'm not saying Universalis is a bad game; I think it's a pretty good game. But it didn't do all that I, personally, expected it to.

I had two items I wanted to discuss about this.

1)   With regards to:  "Yeah, but what if I _don't_ know how?"

What if I said that I don't believe that's possible?  I don't think there is such a thing as not knowing how.  My position is that if a person has ever:  read a story, had a story read/told to them, or watched a movie / TV / play and has ever concluded either "that was good, I enjoyed it" or "that wasn't so good, I didn't like it much" then that person clearly knows how.

In Universalis someone is talking.  As a player you envision the scene being described in your mind same as you would if reading a book or listening to someone spin a yarn by the fire.  If you like it, you enjoy it as it continues.  If you don't like it, you Challenge, Interrupt, or Complicate.

Most people when they watch a movie / read a book, and get to a part they didn't like, will later be able to say something like: "That would have been so much better if instead of X, Y had happened".  Think of how many movie endings you didn't like and after leaving the theater you commented to a friend something like "Man, they should have let the girl die tragically at the end, that would have rocked" (or whatever).

If a person has ever done that (and I have difficulty imagining someone who hasn't) then that person not only has the skill needed to identify when they like or don't like something, but also to decide what they would have liked better...at which point they Challenge, Interrupt, or Complicate.

Do you disagree?  Do you think there are a significant number of people who aren't able to judge whether they like or dislike the direction a story is going and who are unable to form opinions on what they'd rather see instead?  Or are their other elements I'm missing that make the issue more complicated than that?



2) secondly, with regards to: "I want the rules to _show_ me how."

How can I do this?  I wouldn't have the first clue how to begin describing how to structure a story?  If you have some thoughts in this regard I'd be happy to put an essay up on the web page.  But it strikes me that there are about a zillion different ways to structure a story from the straight forward driving linear scene to scene action of a movie like Die Hard, to the disjointed in time sequences of Pulp Fiction, to the stream of conciousness writing of James Joyce.  How could I possibly describe in game mechanics terms how to structure such variety or even in general terms how to think about it?  How, certainly, could I do that in 86 half sized pages?


I guess ultimately, my question boils down to:  If the game didn't live up to your expectations, were those expectations actually reasonable?  And if so, what specifically could I have done to better meet them?

[CPXB]

In regards to 1, I think that a lot of people don't know how to make stories.  IME, most people are staggeringly uncritical towards the various media they observe; ask them why they like something and you're liable to get a shrug and a "I just do".  What makes a good story is something they've never had to think about, really, and they know very, very little about it despite their nigh constant exposure to various narratives.

But what is an even bigger problem is a sort of storytelling paralysis that falls over many players.  What Universalis does is stick people on the spot.  You pass your turn to the next person and they either have to perform or pass the turn along -- I've literally had the turn just circle back to me because no-one could think of something to say.  This anxiety paralysis is a big deal; when they're calm and talking conversationally they can come up with things but when they're on the spot they freeze up; they don't want to make decisions "for everyone". So in addition to the people who honestly just have no idea what a good story is there are the people who have this storytelling paralysis.

Further, just because a person in the abstract knows what a good story is doesn't mean they have any skill or experience bringing it to life.  Certainly this is part of the reason for the paralysis I was talking about above, but even if a person isn't so paralyzed what if . . . they're . . . not good at it?

My fiancee was running a Universalis game for some high school students in Upward Bound last summer.  It was a sort of Shadowrun game with dragons and cybernetics.  Things were going well -- well enough that one of the players is now playing in our HeroQuest game -- when one of the players described how he wanted his magical forest ranger to get to the big city with a palaquin carried by faster-than-light leprechauns.  The player certainly wasn't suffering from paralysis, but he sucked (or, more generously, what he wanted was not in accord with the general feeling of what the game ought to be).  Sure, it was challenged, but it wasn't a one time thing; he was a fount of comically bad ideas.  I know that the premise behind Universalis is to share story control, and as you know I love the game, but IME some people aren't ready for it or are so bad at it (or out of tune with the rest of the players) that they should avoid the game entirely, or at least me when I'm playing the game.

Likewise, I got Universalis for my friend in Texas and she has found trouble playing it.  A lot of the same thing -- players who were paralyzed, mostly.  They couldn't come up with complications or anything else to further the story in the context of playing Universalis.

As to 2, I have myself posted that I would like to see more concrete assistance in storybuilding in Universalis.  I have definitely played enough by now to know that a story is will not just magically arise from playing the game; a lot of people come into the game with that attitude.  That you make tenets and play the game and a story will just magically appear.  IME what is equally likely to happen is the story will go around in circles without moving towards anything like a climax; I was able to overcome this by and large through a variety of techniques I have shared with this forum, but from reading the rules I was wholly unaware of the kinds of problems unique to Universalis I'd face.  It would have been nice to know as well as having concrete assistance on what to do to overcome this.

I don't think that anything you put on your website or in the book, Ralph, will cure players of their paralysis.  I'm not sure what will.  But I do think providing concrete advise about how to build a decent narrative and how to overcome some of the more common issues in Universalis would be a very good thing.

[Valamir]

Good stuff.

I'm not going to respond right away, because I want to get a lot of commentary on the issue going.  So I'm going to bow out and hopefully a number of folks will chime in.

[Christopher Weeks]

I can't discount the other Chris' experience, but I haven't seen paralysis hit and I've rarely ever seen even a single player pass and my experience supports Ralph's conclusion about the ability of everyone to tell stories.  So I wonder if the kid who was a font of stupid ideas had some vision that might have been compelling under the right circumstance, or was he just a goon?  He must have been missing something fundamental.

As for the second point, I think that it might be useful to provide (and in the book would be better than on the website) templates of starting tenets/gimicks that would help to steer the narrative toward different kinds of play.  I think that I'm not literarily savvy enough to set up examples (e.g. I haven't read any of the books that Matthijs cited as alternative) but it seems like a relatively easy thing to do.

Set 1:

[*]Each scene will take place immediately prior to the previously played scene.[*]Each scene will have no more than two Character Components present.[/list:u]Set 2:

[*]Locations are to be played as active Character Components.[*]Every (human) Character Component created must also be created with a subconcious Character Component that has at least one psychological trait that is diametrically opposed to one held by the main Component.[*]Interruption costs three Coins.[*]Taking control of components is free.[*]No Character Components may be part of any Master Components.[/list:u]Set 3:

[*]Every Scene must begin with an italicized line that is the opening line from some piece of fairly well known literature.  This line can be used as a fact in resolving any Complications and as support during Challenges.  This line is to be paid for during scene framing.[*]Only Character Components named after real-world dieties may have Importance greater than four.[/list:u]

[ethan_greer]

I don't know, Ralph. Evaluation and creation are two very different applications of aesthetics.

Example: I can look at a painting and decide whether or not I like it, but I can't pick up some brushes and paints and make a painting of anywhere near the kind of quality you see at an art museum, or even a craft show.

Now, your point about people saying, "If this had happened instead, it would have rocked," that I can agree with. Presented with a situation and options, one can apply one's evaluation and push things in a different direction.

But in Uni, there's not a lot of guidelines as to how to get to that point. You have the section on Tenets, but all it says in regard to creating story element Tenets is,

And so it continues, until the groundwork for the game is completely laid.

There needs to be some rules treatment of when that point is reached. How does a group know when the groundwork is completely laid? Concrete guidelines, or examples of complete Tenet sets, would go a long way in preventing later floundering, I think.

[Bill Cook]

I like Universalis. I want to play it a bit more. Next time, more aggressively and with infinite coins. Not to make a good story but to really break myself on rules application.

Re: (1)

I sort of do disagree. Sometimes, applying your opinion can compete with the spirit of collaboration.

Re: (2)

The various authorial approaches to narrative are red herrings. Matthijs wants some interaction. He wants the text to train him with exercises (not examples) that build on his input.

********

There's a big difference between (a) sitting around a table and freely saying what happens next in clock-wise order and (b) firing internalized functions like Challenge and Complication; and knowing what to expect so well that you start to form strategies to increase your coin yield so you can win a bid and create the scene you've been planning.

It's a great object model and toolset. But reading it doesn't make you a mechanic.

Universalis is a seminal achievement. Any new direction you take, I would apply it to your next game.

[komradebob]

A couple stray thoughts:

Pre-Bid Scene discussion:
A possible sidebar suggestion for new players is to allow each player, after the completion of a scene, to suggest one thing (at no coin cost) that they'd like to have emphasized in the following scene. After everyone has gone, then bidding for the new scene begins as normal.

Suggestions on how to end a game:
This is more generalized, but I've noticed that Uni has a really great way to start a game ( The tenet phase-my personal favorite thing since the invention of Guinness-Brilliant!), but not a lot of suggestions on how to end a game. Off-hand, the ones I can think of are the "time limit with warning" ( The game ends at 11pm. At 10:30 a warning is given. Players should start tying up loose ends) and the lit-101 approach ( the players collectively agree that a climax has been reached. Any further scenes, limited in number, are denouement or epilogue scenes). There are probably other endgame suggestions I'm not familiar with as well.

Reiterate that more ephemeral ideas have in game applications:
Besides component traits, tenets can also presumably give dice in complications. If I enter a tenet, such as "gritty realistic combat", presumably this could affect a complication later. Similar color or theme tenets could also affect complications. Perhaps this should be emphasized, again, as a sidebar.

Where to put this stuff?
Ralph, your website sold me ( finally) on Uni. The discussions here caught my interest, but the stuff at the website was what sold me. If I understand correctly, Uni is starting to move away from an internet phenomenon and appear on LGS shelves. I think that's great. I hope to see it in B&N someday. In the meantime, making the stuff on the website available either in printer-friendly version or as a printout  or disk by SASE request (for those without convenient internet connections) might be a great way of generating further interest. I say this after considering publishing forum discussions regarding the part that supplements play in core-book sales. In effect, I'm saying, use your website articles to play a similar role to supplements for hardcopy-only games, minus the cost to you.

Hope that's useful.
Good luck from a gushing fanboy.

Robert

[ffilz]

The font of out of place ideas:

This could stem from two different causes. The first might be that the kid truly is just out to torpedo whatever the group does. The second is that the social contract was not properly negotiated.

Hmm, I'm thinking that Uni doesn't prevent one person from being steamrollered by the rest of the group. If the group wants to disregard one person's ideas, they can easily out bid him in challenges (assuming there are at least 3 players, with more it becomes easier and easier).

I've got to agree with those who know what they like in paintings and stories, but know they don't have the skill to paint or write them. But then I don't think Universalis has to produce stories of literary quality.

If people are freezing up on their turn, perhaps the group needs to ease off on the pressure. Also, did everyone buy into the type of story set by the tenet setting phase and first scene? Are the players completely freezing, or do they just need a bit of nudging?

Frank
(who admitedly has not yet played Universalis)

[Eero Tuovinen]

Well, I've played Universalis only once, but then my experience was kinda what Ralph suggests. Of course everyone knew how to make a story. We've all played roleplaying games and GMed too, it's not that difficult.

What I found interesting was the feeling of falsity this proficiency in story creation brought with it. We were quite literally bound by a story formula that nobody couldn't or daren't escape. Because all knew what this kind of story typically has, everyone just did the kind of stuff you'd expect from it.

I take this up just because I would imagine that including any kind of story structures or advice on story creation would make this effect even worse. My impression at the time was that the effect was caused by us all being proficient in story creation: there was no surprises or nothing radical, when everybody just crafted good form. If we had some players who'd disagreed more with each other the game would perhaps have been more exciting. I don't know, could be that we'd have just browbeated such players into playing the same way as others by explanations of why the story'd have to go to this particular direction, next.

I said before that I think that Universalis supports story creation in genre appreciation mode (that is, simulationism) rather than narrativism, but apparently our experience is atypical. I'm having trouble reading past the session descriptions to analyze why people seem to have so much fun with the game, though. How can they become so invested in the events as to actually resist some turn somebody else cares to include? Didn't happen with us.

[matthijs]

Okay, I'm going to answer Ralph's last question first.

If the game didn't live up to your expectations, were those expectations actually reasonable?  And if so, what specifically could I have done to better meet them?

I'm not sure. My expectations were based on what I heard about Universalis before I even saw it, specifically what was posted in the thread on Will the Emperor Fall. That game is all about providing a ready-made story structure that the players have to fill in. I was expecting Universalis to have mechanics for that, and hoping they'd be better than the ones I had, and was surprised when it had none.

If I knew how Uni could have met those expectations, my own game would have been finished a long time ago :)

I don't think there is such a thing as not knowing how.

I've read hundreds, perhaps thousands of short stories. I can tell after a few sentences if such a story is going to be crap or not. Still, I find them very hard to write.

It seems to me you're saying two things:
1. That people have a built-in "crap detector", so that when the story's going in the wrong direction, they'll know.
2. When they know, they can fix it.

I can agree with 1. I don't agree with 2.

And I'm wondering whether the stories might be better if the structure or theme were known before the start of play, instead of being made up and changed on the spot.

with regards to: "I want the rules to _show_ me how." How can I do this?

What I tried to do in WtEF was to pre-program the story structure. Play would go through 5 episodes, which were based on a straight Hollywood plot structure: Exposition, conflict, turning point/escalation, setback, climactic victory. However the players chose to fill this, with color, character development, setting info, different types of atmosphere etc, they'd still have to follow the plot. That's one way, for one game.

For Universalis, you could specify different story milestones in the Tenets. These milestones would have specific criteria, perhaps even a deadline to make sure play proceeded at a certain pace. Each time a milestone was reached, players could get extra coins.

Vague example of a milestone: "Turning point. The protagonists have understood that what they've been doing so far is part of a much greater plot. They've also been forced to, or chosen to, address this larger issue."

These milestones could be written down and put in a cup. Whenever one was reached, one of the players could choose the next one and explain it to the others. They'd all cooperate to get there.

[Valamir]

Great comments all, thanks.  I'm going to reply in somewhat scatter shot fashion with some of my thoughts and hopefully that will kick off another round of the discussion.

In regards to 1, I think that a lot of people don't know how to make stories. IME, most people are staggeringly uncritical towards the various media they observe; ask them why they like something and you're liable to get a shrug and a "I just do". What makes a good story is something they've never had to think about, really, and they know very, very little about it despite their nigh constant exposure to various narratives.

Evaluation and creation are two very different applications of aesthetics.

Example: I can look at a painting and decide whether or not I like it, but I can't pick up some brushes and paints and make a painting of anywhere near the kind of quality you see at an art museum, or even a craft show.

These quotes circle back and restate issue #1.  But I'm tempted to think (let's discuss) that this reflects more conventional wisdom than reality.  I fully agree that when most people are asked to give a critical review they'll mostly just grunt and shrug.  But this, to me, illustrates a lack of skill and training at critiquing stories in a literary sense.  Uni doesn't really require any player to critique their creation or those of other players at any depth beyond simply "I just do"

Now it is true that during the negotiation phase, a player who has a greater ability to articulate their thoughts might persuade other players more frequently without having to resort to Bidding in a Challenge...but that strikes me as true in every social endeavor.  There is an advantage to being articulate.  

I will concede that Uni doesn't give reticent players much of a place to hide (I remember a few D&Ders in my past who barely said two words and never looked anyone in the eye...they just nodded and rolled dice...Uni doesn't allow for that) but I would frame this rather as requiring a certain level of social interaction skill...not so much literary story knowledge skill.

Uni isn't going to create a great piece of literature on its own.  But does it reliably produce a quality of story at least on par with that produced in any roleplaying game?  GMs have been creating stories (to some degree) for decades without needing degrees in literature to do so.  Players may themselves not be skilled GMs, but if they're roleplayers they've at least witnessed GMs in action.

It seems to me that the only thing a player needs (beyond the aforemention social skills) is a model to work from.  That model might be a book, a TV show, a movie...whatever.  But as long as the player has some experience witnessing those things alls they need to do in Uni is model that.

I forget now who coined the phrase, but someone was referred to the game as Universalis:  The Game of Unlimited Homogenized Pastiche.  I didn't take that as an insult, because in point of fact, that's basically how all new players get into the game.  By taking bits they're familiar with and inserting them into the game.  With experience comes greater sophistication.

So, do players really need to know how to make good stories?  Or is it enough for them to get started simply by having a selection of stories they liked to serve as a model for them to draw inspiration from.  Remembering stories they liked seems to me to be a basic skill that can be expected from everyone...the result may be a homage at best or a caricature at worst, but for initial attempts to grasp the game...is that a bad thing?

Re: (1)

I sort of do disagree. Sometimes, applying your opinion can compete with the spirit of collaboration.

I'm not sure I follow here.  Universalis has never promoted giving the spirit of collaboration precedence over players asserting their preference.  I view the game as absolutely requiring consensus building, but actual collaboration is entirely optional and group dependent.

He wants the text to train him with exercises (not examples) that build on his input.

This sounds interesting.  Tell me more about exercises that train players and how that is different from examples.

It's a great object model and toolset. But reading it doesn't make you a mechanic.

Should it?  Is that a reasonable expectation?  Or should the expectation be that by practicing with the tools you'll develop the skills necessary to be a mechanic?

Suggestions on how to end a game:

I like that idea.  Perhaps I was clinging too much to the open ended RPG tradition when I overlooked including anything on ending the story.  As I've mentioned many times, my initial ideal had been for an ongoing cycle of stories building an entire world and world history over the couse of several games.  In practice, short stories and novellas have been far more common than multivolume epics.  

If I were to add some material on ending a story to the text, are we thinking a couple of paragraphs mentioning the idea of having an end in mind during play and a couple of techniques to spark further ideas...or are we thinking a full chapter like the chapter on Tenets.

Similar color or theme tenets could also affect complications. Perhaps this should be emphasized, again, as a sidebar.

You know...that just earned you a new higher color Uni-fu belt.  Would I embarass myself if I admit that I've never once even considered calling on a Color defining Tenet for dice in a Complication?  Thats kinds coo...

If people are freezing up on their turn, perhaps the group needs to ease off on the pressure. Also, did everyone buy into the type of story set by the tenet setting phase and first scene? Are the players completely freezing, or do they just need a bit of nudging?

That's very good advice.  I think I'll want to add that to the "Getting Started" essay.

We were quite literally bound by a story formula that nobody couldn't or daren't escape. Because all knew what this kind of story typically has, everyone just did the kind of stuff you'd expect from it.

I'm familiar with that phenomenon.  I believe its tied into the "Unlimited Pastiche" comment above.  I actually don't mind it for first games...so if that's what happened in your first game I wouldn't worry about it.  I consider Pastiche to be the equivelent of Uni Training Wheels.  You stick with what's safe and confortable while you're figuring out the game...then you get more exotic once you've got it handled.

Come to think of it...more good advice for the "Getting Started" essay.

[Valamir]

I'm not sure. My expectations were based on what I heard about Universalis before I even saw it, specifically what was posted in the thread on Will the Emperor Fall. That game is all about providing a ready-made story structure that the players have to fill in. I was expecting Universalis to have mechanics for that, and hoping they'd be better than the ones I had, and was surprised when it had none.

You know.  I don't remember ever having seen that thread.  Thanks for linking to it.  Uni definitely does take a different approach.  Conceptually it seems like WtEF takes a top down approach with a lot of high level stuff already filled in (with the cards providing parameters) and then play drills down to specifics.  Uni, on the other hand takes a bottom up approach where you start with nothing then begin building the specifics piece by piece and those eventually accumulate into the high level stuff.

I can see how one can design a basic story structure into the top down method (because the basic framework of that structure influences and is influenced by the high level stuff you start with)...but doing something similiar bottom up would be a challenge.

...Actually...if you took your cards and Created them like Components in Uni, with other cards representing Traits and events...and then built your framework for drawing and using those cards as Uni Gimmicks...you could pretty much do WtEF as a Uni Variant...which is pretty exciting (I'd be happy to talk further with you on that if you'd be interested).

I've read hundreds, perhaps thousands of short stories. I can tell after a few sentences if such a story is going to be crap or not. Still, I find them very hard to write.

It seems to me you're saying two things:
1. That people have a built-in "crap detector", so that when the story's going in the wrong direction, they'll know.
2. When they know, they can fix it.

I can agree with 1. I don't agree with 2.

Well lets talk about #2 then.

What's actually involved in fixing it?  Do players really need any sort of understanding about stories and story quality in order to fix it?  We agree that players have a built in crap detector that allows them to say "aha...I really don't like that".  so what's the next step.

Can we agree that people also have a built in "kewlness" detector?
And that over a life time of reading stories / watching movies they've had many "wow, cool!" experiences?

Can we then agree that those "wow, cool!" experiences form a library of "kewlness" that most people have access to in their memories.  I offer as evidence the many people who can talk movie scenes, quote favorite lines of dialog, or can recommend books they read several years ago on the basis of some interesting part of them that seems relevant at the moment they make the recommendation.

If we can agree to those things, then I submit that Uni requires nothing more than:

1) Crap detector goes off.
2) Player mentally scans library of coolness for inspiration
3) Player thinks: "that crappy scene would be way cooler if <insert inspiration source here>

This is the point that Uni Mechanics are built for.  Now you have Alternative #1 the original idea vs.
Alternative #2 the replacement (would be way cooler if) idea.
and possibly additional Alternatives if other players simultaneously come up with their own source of "way cooler" inspiration.

This is then just straight forward Uni Challenge mechanic which is predicated on nothing more complex than "I want to replace your crappy idea with my cool idea".

That's why I don't think any special skill is required.  Just the ability to judge Crap and Kewl (at whatever level of story sophistication your group has).

What I tried to do in WtEF was to pre-program the story structure. Play would go through 5 episodes, which were based on a straight Hollywood plot structure: Exposition, conflict, turning point/escalation, setback, climactic victory. However the players chose to fill this, with color, character development, setting info, different types of atmosphere etc, they'd still have to follow the plot. That's one way, for one game.

I actually toyed with this idea.  I think the Add-on section on the website still has "Coming Soon" for the add-on I designed to accomplish this.

I had it written for an earlier version of the game but never bothered to update it to the final version, because my playtesting experience indicated that people went through those stages on their own without prompting...perhaps something that's not as universal [heh] as I'd believed at the time.

I'd be happy to send you a draft of those ideas (if I can find them) if you'd like to see if they're the sort of thing you're talking about.

For Universalis, you could specify different story milestones in the Tenets. These milestones would have specific criteria, perhaps even a deadline to make sure play proceeded at a certain pace. Each time a milestone was reached, players could get extra coins.

Vague example of a milestone: "Turning point. The protagonists have understood that what they've been doing so far is part of a much greater plot. They've also been forced to, or chosen to, address this larger issue."

These milestones could be written down and put in a cup. Whenever one was reached, one of the players could choose the next one and explain it to the others. They'd all cooperate to get there.

Hmmm...a Tenet Milestone Gimmick...that has potential.  Maybe something to the nature of refreshment after any scene where a Milestone is reached is increased with an added bonus to the framer of that scene.  Or perhaps a layer more complicated, instead of an increased refresh players get awarded with Climax Coins which cannot be spent but accumulate to the side of the players wealth to be "vested" when the "Climax" milestone is reached...

hmmm....I might have to write that up...unless someone else wants to take a stab at it.


BTW  to all:  Feel free (please) to take some of these items to seperate threads as this discussion starts to sprawl out.

[Bill Cook]

I'm not sure I follow here. Universalis has never promoted giving the spirit of collaboration precedence over players asserting their preference. I view the game as absolutely requiring consensus building, but actual collaboration is entirely optional and group dependent.

I agree with the above. To return to your original questions, I agree that we all have an innate aesthetic sense. (Obviously, there's going to be some variety.) I think there is an element beyond having preferences, and it's the consensus requirement you mention.

And I don't mean to overstate this. I've only played once:) I experienced an assumption that play should be collaborative. And I didn't want to, really. I wanted to embroil factions, wind a clock of doom, things like that.

I'm reminded of the challenge mechanic in Scattegories. My brother likes to drag this game out whenever my family gets together for the holidays or a birthday. Probably because he's so good at it. I challenge more than anyone else. And he hates it. I guess he thinks it's rude or breaks game flow. I think it's one of the fun parts of the game.

I wouldn't dream of behaving like that with a group of gamers. I might win the dice roll, but I'd lose too much goodwill. Same goes for Interrupt and (to a lesser degree) Complicate.

This sounds interesting. Tell me more about exercises that train players and how that is different from examples.

Here, I was speculating what matthijs meant. Now that he's spoken up, feel free to ingore me:)

What I was getting at, just to clarify, was something like a French lab book; you get this little prologue, you hear some sentences and then you write down the verb tense you heard (for example).

For story creation using Universalis rules, you could frame a scene (time: now; location: a dragon's lair; cast: a big, damn dragon, a sacrificial virgin and a sword-swinging barbarian in a leopard skin), set up some requirements for a complication (e.g. in response to the originator announcing that the dragon eats the virgin (what a waste), you take control of the barbarian) and then instruct the reader to complete it (i.e. define the dragon's threat and the barbarian's opposition; draw from the traits listed below to create dice pools; roll to determine the victor; narrate the result.) And I mean, literally, provide blank lines on the page for them to write in their narration.

Now that I write it out, I don't know that this adds much. Oh, well; sometimes when you think outside the box you wind up in an alley.

[matthijs]

...you could pretty much do WtEF as a Uni Variant...which is pretty exciting (I'd be happy to talk further with you on that if you'd be interested).

Well, kinda :) I'd really like to develop the ideas behind WtEF, but must confess I want it to be My Game, so I'm not necessarily going to take it in a Uni direction. However, I have absolutely nothing against anyone else borrowing/mutating ideas from WtEF for use with Uni (or anything else).

I'd be happy to send you a draft of those ideas (if I can find them) if you'd like to see if they're the sort of thing you're talking about.

Definitely!

[pete_darby]

In a shameless piece of self promotion:

my Improvisation article for Daedalus

It's in desperate need of a good rewrite, and doesn't directly refer to Universalis, but hopefully it should give some tips on overcoming "freedom paralysis".

Well, that and the best advice it gives is to check out "Impro" by Keith Johnstone.