The Man with the Twelve (no, Six!) Silver Darts

[joe_llama]

Hello everyone,

I was looking forward to playtest Universalis for quite some time and I finally got around to actually do it. I gathered three friends (2 guys, 1 girl) so we were a total of 4 players.

We played a "light" version of Universalis. Now before you chop my head off, I already warned you that I like simplicity. The group was in a light mood so I thought it would be best to run a light game. Most of Universalis was there except for those changes put in to make the game faster and more flowing.

1) Traits, Facts, Game Structure Items, World Components, etc are all just Components.

2) All Components (and sub-Components) are measured (only) by their Importance. 1 Importance level costs 1 Coin. All Coins go to the Complication pool.

3) Overcoming (Resisting) Components cost 1 Coin per 1 Importance level. All Coins go to the Complication pool.

4) Damaging Components cost 2 Coin per 1 Importance level. All Coins go to the Complication pool.

5) A Challenge costs 1 Coin to initiate. If negotiation fails, all players place Coins in favor of their chosen side. All Coins go to the Complication pool.

6) A Complication costs 1 Coin to initiate. All players place Coins in favor of their chosen side (including activated Components). Both pools are deducted from each other, leaving only the difference. This difference is used to narrate the outcome of the Complication according to the side which won (taking into consideration what was being activated in the Complication). The Coins in the Complication pool are rewarded to the winner.

We also used that nifty "time travelling" thing as it appears in the manual.

OK, this isn't exactly like Universalis but it was good enough to work.

Each player received 25 Coins in the beginning of the game. The game started with defining some structure. The scene was set in the early 1930's, in a desolate small town somewhere in the US. One player decided to introduce a mood Component of "Bloody" so we all knew that this game was going to be somwhat wacky. We went on anyway.

It started rather good. A mysterious man enters a small hardware store and asks for a can of cat food and a saw. There is no saw that he likes so he buys a hammer instead. He leaves the store, stops by a women's shoe store, stares at the display and hurries off to his hotel room. In his room, he opens up a small suitcase contaning twelve silver darts (Challenge drops it down to six darts). A blonde woman enters the room and surprises the man. "What's in the suitcase?" she asks. "Documents" he blatantly lies even though the woman is staring directly at the contents.

Now things started to go wacky. The man reaches in for a dart and throws it at the woman. FLASHBACK: It's Medieval Japan. A strange martial arts cult known as "Cult of the Lotus" trained her soldiers well in all forms of assassination. Apparently, this knowledge reached western civilization at some point and the man belongs to this cult. Back to the US: He misses (quite a few Challenges were made over this). We decide to narrate this as if he missed her on purpose and the woman was only warned of further advances.

From this point on, it was true chaos. I will not mention everything that went there (however hilarious it might be), but the point where I knew this game went off the rail was when someone introduced a "huge black and spikey dildo+7" as a valid Component. Even for a sex adventure it was pretty wild. Imagine carnal affairs meeting quantum mechanics. I think I'll call it "Quantum Sex". Anyway, we eventually realized the game was over and stopped playing.

Well, the session was a disaster. Don't get me wrong, it was pure entertainment but it wasn't serious enough. I take the blame on the choice of players (all of them good people gone bad on this Saturday afternoon). But that's not all. You can always blame the players because after all they're the ones playing the game. However, I remember some pretty wild parties around Monopoly but the game itself remained consistent and coherent.

So some of the blame lies with Universalis. Is it that bad? Not really. Just a few points that need emphasis, that's all.    

My conclusions:

1) More emphasis on game structure. Since each game of Universalis has a different structre, there is potential room for total chaos. This means the players should be responsible enough to introduce a pile of structure Components in the begining of the game. We started playing with four and look where it got us.

2) Every game needs a goal. "Not you and your not-just-RPG theory again!" you might say. I'm sorry guys, but this the truth. We were wondering around aimlessly during the whole game. Sure, the structure gave us a few tips and a bit of frame but it wasn't enough. Maybe this should be established in the beginning of the game, during structure determination. Maybe a gaol should be introduced after a few rounds, where enough characters are established. Some goal, ANY goal. Hoping that a story will grow from the game is not enough. Each of us was shooting in a different direction. We had no specific target to shoot at and no officer to command us "shoot that can over there, dammit!". I'm not talking about railroading and stuff like that. It's more like a flag you have to reach in any way you can think of. "You see that hill? I don't care how, but you must reach the top".

3) Go easy with the rules. I said it before and I'll say it again, this game needs simple rules. Not all games need simple rules, but this one does. I'm don't mean to offend you, but you guys are writing the rules as if they were made for a traditional Sim. You really don't need that - you've got a great idea and great basic mechanics. You actually produced a storytelling tool with a working communication protocol. That's quite an achievement. But some things are still a bit awkward. Complications are, well, complicated. The Complication rules span five pages!

If you want to reach the crowd (and this game has the potential to do that), you will have to tone things down, IMHO. Use simple rules and write simple words. I predict Universalis will have a great influence over the "gaming" world. You already have "One upon a time", "Baron Munchausen" and "Bedlam" but they are not "generic" in their structure. With little effort, Universalis could be used as a basis for an online storytelling netwrok - in your face MUD environment!

This was the first time I played Universalis but certainly not the last. We weren't playing seriously enough so things naturally went crazy. I intend to run a more serious game soon, this time with heavy structure in it (using Middle-Earth or Dark Sun as a setting). I hope it will work better. Anyway, this post wasn't made to depress you. I really enjoyed the game. I want Universalis to succeed and am willing to put some effort into it. Maybe my next game will bring better results.
 
With respect,

Joe Llama

[Bankuei]

Surprise surprise, I, too, got to test Universalis for the first time last night.  You can check out my experience and views posted in "yaay.  First playtest".    

Joe, I really like your rules for complication resolution.  They're really simple and I also like simple.  Your rules are also diceless, that too is a cool option.  My game had a tighter concept structure, but still broke down to collaborative storytelling, simply because we were unable to easily transfer using the rules towards our goals.

I look forward to seeing how your second playtest runs as well.

Chris

[Valamir]

We played a "light" version of Universalis. Now before you chop my head off, I already warned you that I like simplicity. The group was in a light mood so I thought it would be best to run a light game. Most of Universalis was there except for those changes put in to make the game faster and more flowing.

Well normally I prefer cooking with the recipe as written before I start playing with the ingredients, but I'm very happy you played and your ideas are certainly interesting ones.

1) Traits, Facts, Game Structure Items, World Components, etc are all just Components.

2) All Components (and sub-Components) are measured (only) by their Importance. 1 Importance level costs 1 Coin. All Coins go to the Complication pool.

Not sure I follow.  Can you provide a couple examples of a Components.

For example:  I might make a Giant
+4 Large and Tall
+5 Powerfully Strong
+3 Kind Hearted
+2 Mentally Slow
+3 Likes cats

These would all be Traits of the Giant Component, and the Importance of the Giant would be 6 (1 + 1 per Trait).

How would you make this Giant under your sub-Components mechanism?

3) Overcoming (Resisting) Components cost 1 Coin per 1 Importance level. All Coins go to the Complication pool.

4) Damaging Components cost 2 Coin per 1 Importance level. All Coins go to the Complication pool.

Let me see if we're on the same page...this sounds pretty much like the rule as it exists now.

Under the current rules, if I want to knock the Giant down, I'd spend 5 Coins 1 + 1 per Level of Large and Tall.  It sounds to me that you'd call "Large and Tall" a sub-component with an Importance of 4 (I'm not sure how this is easier or quicker than Traits and Levels, however).  Would you just spend 4 Coins to overcome this Importance?

6) A Complication costs 1 Coin to initiate. All players place Coins in favor of their chosen side (including activated Components). Both pools are deducted from each other, leaving only the difference. This difference is used to narrate the outcome of the Complication according to the side which won (taking into consideration what was being activated in the Complication). The Coins in the Complication pool are rewarded to the winner.

So ALL of the Coins that have ever been spent (you mention Coins going to the Complication Pool several times) go into a giant pot which is entirely won by the person who wins the Complication?

Seems to me this would lead to the Rich getting Richer.  After I've won one of these pools I'll certainly have enough Coins to ensure I win the next one too...or am I misunderstanding you.

Also, did you leave any possibility for the "loser" to gain any story power, or just the winner.

My conclusions:

1) More emphasis on game structure. Since each game of Universalis has a different structre, there is potential room for total chaos. This means the players should be responsible enough to introduce a pile of structure Components in the begining of the game. We started playing with four and look where it got us.

Most of our games have started with alot more structure.  Perhaps that should be made more explicit.

Certain items that should be included at the beginning of every Universalis session would include the various genre conventions to be adhered to and how closely the players are expected to adhere to them.  For example in a gritty police drama, Jackie Chan sillyness would be out of place.  Players should decide how frequently they will use the Challenge mechanism to clamp down on players who stray from that.

Hmmm.   In fact, it might be possible for players to purchase these "mood" and "color" items as Traits that would have to be overcome to be violated.  If it is very important to a player to not have a silly game he could purchase "No Sillyness +5" as a game Trait...

2) Every game needs a goal. "Not you and your not-just-RPG theory again!" you might say. I'm sorry guys, but this the truth. We were wondering around aimlessly during the whole game. Sure, the structure gave us a few tips and a bit of frame but it wasn't enough. Maybe this should be established in the beginning of the game, during structure determination. Maybe a gaol should be introduced after a few rounds, where enough characters are established. Some goal, ANY goal. Hoping that a story will grow from the game is not enough. Each of us was shooting in a different direction. We had no specific target to shoot at and no officer to command us "shoot that can over there, dammit!". I'm not talking about railroading and stuff like that. It's more like a flag you have to reach in any way you can think of. "You see that hill? I don't care how, but you must reach the top".

Well.  To be perfectly frank, our intention was that the players would provide that goal.  Universalis is a tool box.  If you go to Sears and buy a whole set of Craftsmen tools, its still up to you to come up with a project to use them for.  Are you going to build some furniture, remodel your kitchen, what?  Sears isn't going to tell you what to do with the tools once you have them, thats up to you.

So, I guess I would say, you're absolutely right.   Every game sould have a goal.  My first suggestion is that for your next session you and your players develop one and use that as your flag.

That said, I'd LOVE to hear suggestions about how to incorporate player designed goals into the mechanics.  Perhaps these goals should be bought as Traits of the game.  Mike and I have had several discussions about the idea of a "Conflict Pot" or something similiar that would serve to count down the steps of story resolution, but nothing has really clicked as a possible mechanic.  

3) Go easy with the rules. I said it before and I'll say it again, this game needs simple rules. Not all games need simple rules, but this one does. I'm don't mean to offend you, but you guys are writing the rules as if they were made for a traditional Sim. You really don't need that - you've got a great idea and great basic mechanics. You actually produced a storytelling tool with a working communication protocol. That's quite an achievement. But some things are still a bit awkward. Complications are, well, complicated. The Complication rules span five pages!

The process of game creation fascinates me.  You're not the first person to note that the Complication rules seem complicated.  Yet when I've played they've always gone extremely easily.  Sometimes they've balooned into something difficult to keep your arms around but the mechanics themselves are really very simple.  Perhaps the key is finding a simpler way to express them.

I've tried a great deal to keep the current version of the rules simple, but a good number of the issues that are raised leave me saying "well that used to be in there, but I took it out to make it simpler".

I'm not really sold on the idea that simpler is better.  It seems to me that too often simpler actually means ill defined leaving holes you can drive a truck through.  Older editions of the rules weighed in at 60 odd pages.  They covered EVERYTHING.  For example, a good number of the issues Chris raised in a recent thread were included in prior editions, and alot more detail on the Social Contract and selecting game structure itels were as well.

Part of the benefit of these exchanges to me, is to identify what information real players really need to know, so I know what to include in the final text.  So keep the suggestions coming.

If you want to reach the crowd (and this game has the potential to do that), you will have to tone things down, IMHO. Use simple rules and write simple words. I predict Universalis will have a great influence over the "gaming" world. You already have "One upon a time", "Baron Munchausen" and "Bedlam" but they are not "generic" in their structure. With little effort, Universalis could be used as a basis for an online storytelling netwrok - in your face MUD environment!

Thanks for the sentiment.  I hope you're right.

This was the first time I played Universalis but certainly not the last. We weren't playing seriously enough so things naturally went crazy. I intend to run a more serious game soon, this time with heavy structure in it (using Middle-Earth or Dark Sun as a setting). I hope it will work better. Anyway, this post wasn't made to depress you. I really enjoyed the game. I want Universalis to succeed and am willing to put some effort into it. Maybe my next game will bring better results.

Depressed?  Somebody halfway around the world spent their own valuable time being entertained by something I created?  Thats not depressing, thats awesome.

 


With respect,

Joe Llama[/quote]

[joe_llama]

Well normally I prefer cooking with the recipe as written before I start playing with the ingredients...

Sorry bout that. I was so busy this week I never thought I'd have time to play. When the opportunity suddenly came up, I didn't want to throw it away. My players were all non-gamers and teaching them the rules wouldv'e taken me too long so I just cooked up something from what I remebered (including my personal modifications, apparently :).

For example: I might make a Giant

+4 Large and Tall
+5 Powerfully Strong
+3 Kind Hearted
+2 Mentally Slow
+3 Likes cats

These would all be Traits of the Giant Component, and the Importance of the Giant would be 6 (1 + 1 per Trait).

How would you make this Giant under your sub-Components mechanism?

The Giant(0) would be Large and Tall(4), Powerfully Strong(5), Kind Hearted(3), Mentally Slow(2) and Likes Cats(3).

In the version we played, this Giant could be removed without a Challenge since he has Importance 0, so you actually pay a few Coins on the character itself. Importance was measured per Component - I didn't use the standard Universalis Importance calculation. The Giant is a Component and the tarits mentioned are sub-Components.

Actually, the whole story is a kind of Component, with characters, locations, items and structure as its sub-Components, so character traits would be sub-sub-Components. I don't name them so, I just use the concept. This was useful when someone wanted to create an easily removable character with some fancy trait (e.g. Sniper(2) whose a Sharpshooter(5) ). It was kinda rare, but put to good use.  

Under the current rules, if I want to knock the Giant down, I'd spend 5 Coins 1 + 1 per Level of Large and Tall. It sounds to me that you'd call "Large and Tall" a sub-component with an Importance of 4 (I'm not sure how this is easier or quicker than Traits and Levels, however). Would you just spend 4 Coins to overcome this Importance?

Yes. Mind you, it would overcome the fact that he's "Large and Tall". This is a very specific issue. Might be useful if you're trying to reach something behind him, get to his head ,etc. It doesn't mean you overcome the Giant. Pretty hard to explain. There is plenty of room for interpretation here, so I guess you choose what best fits the case and get Challenged by the other players if they don't like your choices.

So ALL of the Coins that have ever been spent (you mention Coins going to the Complication Pool several times) go into a giant pot which is entirely won by the person who wins the Complication?

Yikes! I'm turning sloppy lately. This is the modification I eventually DIDN'T use in the game (for the reasons you mention). Somehow, it got stuck in my head and I posted it here. Here's what really happened:

All Coins from ALL actions go back to the bank. Ignore previous notions.

A Complication costs 1 Coin to initiate. All players place Coins in favor of their chosen side (including activated Components). Both pools are deducted from each other, leaving only the difference. The higher side narrates the outcome of the Complication, taking into consideration what was being activated in the Complication. The Coins left after deduction are rewarded to the winner.

Still not a very good mechanic but it worked. I made it up in a couple of minutes - I never expected it to work. Surprisingly, it made the game interesting. Since there was no source for winning more Coins, the players just used what Coins they had to activate Components instead of creating new ones. It did form some kind of stability near the end of the game (until one player decided to burn all his cash on something extravagant and then the whole game collapsed).

I think something along this line could actually be used to encourage more storytelling and less "scattered" world building. "Shopping frenzy" players would find themselves later on with very little money which will have to be used in a smart way, with "smart" meaning proper activation of Components (which leads to storytelling). If the players are "Wise buyers" then they will cautiously buy Components they actually need and save some cash for later developments (which will leave the story stable). In addition, if the players are "Cheap", they will be calm at the beginning (mostly activating Components) but would be able to cause major effects during the end (climax) of the game. What do you think? Am I being sensible or am I justifying my view of the mechanics?

That said, I'd LOVE to hear suggestions about how to incorporate player designed goals into the mechanics. Perhaps these goals should be bought as Traits of the game. Mike and I have had several discussions about the idea of a "Conflict Pot" or something similiar that would serve to count down the steps of story resolution, but nothing has really clicked as a possible mechanic.

If Universalis remains a toolbox, I suggest you include some obvious tips on how to create goals for the game. Universalis isn't as simple as a hammer. People might not know what to do with it.

I wish I could help you with this issue but I'm currently entangled with my own problems, mainly the game design theory I'm working on. It deals exactly with the issue of goals, and since the concpets aren't closed (or even coherent) in my mind I fear that instead of helping, I might hinder you.

The process of game creation fascinates me. You're not the first person to note that the Complication rules seem complicated. Yet when I've played they've always gone extremely easily. Sometimes they've balooned into something difficult to keep your arms around but the mechanics themselves are really very simple. Perhaps the key is finding a simpler way to express them.

It seems to me the difficulty lies specifically with the Complications chapter. Maybe it's really just finding a simpler way to express it. I'm pretty good with these sort of things. When I have some free time, I could help you with this chapter if you like. Maybe I'll re-write this chapter and send it to you for comparison. I hope I'm not "invading your territory" or anything like that with my suggestions.

I'm not really sold on the idea that simpler is better. It seems to me that too often simpler actually means ill defined leaving holes you can drive a truck through. Older editions of the rules weighed in at 60 odd pages. They covered EVERYTHING. For example, a good number of the issues Chris raised in a recent thread were included in prior editions, and alot more detail on the Social Contract and selecting game structure itels were as well.

Not every game should be simple, but I admit I'm willing to try three simple games instead of one complex game. Sometimes I see it as a challenge to be able to encode a game into simpler forms. There's always the risk that I will lose "resolution" on the way. But if I do it right then I got myself a simple and ingenious mechanic. Even so, I always keep my eyes open for any kind of change that would not incorporate what I intended in the first place.

I have this belief that simpler encoding is possible in Universalis. Call it a hunch, call it wishful thinking. You say an earlier version was 60 pages long. You got it down to 17. OK, you lost some stuff on the way but look where you're standing now. I'm not sure I would've playtested Universalis back then. To drop the page count by half would probably be ten times more difficult then any compression you did so far.

Part of the benefit of these exchanges to me, is to identify what information real players really need to know, so I know what to include in the final text. So keep the suggestions coming.

OK, first suggestion: read my post to James V. West about TQB over here. It specifcally deals with presentation and expression of content regardless of the content itself. It's about manual design more than game design, really. I mentioned this article before so it's possible I'm just bothering you again and again with my ideas. Good. Go read the article :)

Depressed? Somebody halfway around the world spent their own valuable time being entertained by something I created? Thats not depressing, thats awesome.

Heh, sad but true :)


With Respect,

Joe Llama

[Bankuei]

I'm not really sold on the idea that simpler is better. It seems to me that too often simpler actually means ill defined leaving holes you can drive a truck through.

I think the major issue is that everything else in Universalis IS simple, so you'd think that it would retain the same level throughout the entire design.  Playtesting Donjon, we have been amazed at how solid the core mechanic is, and any tweaks have only been around making something work better or closer to, the core mechanic.  In this case, your core mechanic is, "spend coin, get event/component"  Complications change the idea significantly into,"spend coin, get dice(a chance to get coin to get event/component) with the express purpose of getting more coin".  

I agree that other players should have a means of input while on another player's turn.  For Fate & Tide, no matter how bad off you are, you can always choose to either take a complication, or spend a Fate die, allowing you to state a fact for the scene.  In this way, each player has a chance to add up to two facts for a scene that the Narrator has to work with.  In Universalis, players are limited to challenges and conflicts.  

On my playtest, the turn system broke down into, "I say, you say", where basically a turn was stating an event/intention from a character or component and pouring 1 or more coin into making it happen.  Since there was no challenges really, all of our coin went into adding traits to alter the characters to the situation, as well as activating traits.  In this case, the player input was kept open by us taking turns without requiring prompting.

So then the issue becomes twofold:  player input outside of challenges, and reward mechanic/replenishment.  Needs some thought.  I'll let you know if anything strikes me.

Chris

[Valamir]

[quote="joe_llama]
The Giant(0) would be Large and Tall(4), Powerfully Strong(5), Kind Hearted(3), Mentally Slow(2) and Likes Cats(3).
[/quote]

Ok, but I'm not really seeing where that is easier.  Isn't thinking of a single component and a number of rated Traits for that component more intuitive than thinking in terms of sub components?

In the version we played, this Giant could be removed without a Challenge since he has Importance 0, so you actually pay a few Coins on the character itself. Importance was measured per Component - I didn't use the standard Universalis Importance calculation. The Giant is a Component and the tarits mentioned are sub-Components.

Yeah, the way I did it allows the Component itself to have Importance without needing extra Coins be spent.  It also makes every Component have Importance based on how much effort has gone into describing it.

Actually, the whole story is a kind of Component,

Quite so.  I'm toying with some ideas of how to make actual plot goals into Components, or into Traits attached to the Component of the game itself.  

Yes. Mind you, it would overcome the fact that he's "Large and Tall". This is a very specific issue. Might be useful if you're trying to reach something behind him, get to his head ,etc. It doesn't mean you overcome the Giant. Pretty hard to explain. There is plenty of room for interpretation here, so I guess you choose what best fits the case and get Challenged by the other players if they don't like your choices.

Thats exactly correct and is 100% the rationale behind using Traits as Resistance as described in the current rules.  If you've been using them like that, that's how they're meant to be used.

Still not a very good mechanic but it worked. I made it up in a couple of minutes - I never expected it to work. Surprisingly, it made the game interesting. Since there was no source for winning more Coins, the players just used what Coins they had to activate Components instead of creating new ones. It did form some kind of stability near the end of the game (until one player decided to burn all his cash on something extravagant and then the whole game collapsed).

Hmm.  Seems to me there might be a disincentive to do oppose Complications in there.  If I spend 10 Coins and you Spend 7, then you get nothing and I get 3 Coins worth of story authority and 3 Coins back.

That means, I spent a net of 7 Coins to get 3 Coins worth of control.  I'd have been better off just waiting for my turn and spending 7 Coins to get 7 Coins worth of control.

Further you spent 7 Coins opposing my Complication and got nothing.  You'd have been better off spending 0 Coins leaving my Complication unopposed.  In which case I would have gotten 10 Coins worth of control for free.

It may have worked in your game, but I suspect thats probably because no one had spent much time trying to figure out how to "beat it" or optimize the choice.

I think something along this line could actually be used to encourage more storytelling and less "scattered" world building. "Shopping frenzy" players would find themselves later on with very little money which will have to be used in a smart way, with "smart" meaning proper activation of Components (which leads to storytelling). If the players are "Wise buyers" then they will cautiously buy Components they actually need and save some cash for later developments (which will leave the story stable). In addition, if the players are "Cheap", they will be calm at the beginning (mostly activating Components) but would be able to cause major effects during the end (climax) of the game. What do you think? Am I being sensible or am I justifying my view of the mechanics?

You've got it exactly.  In fact, once upon a time the above was explicitly stated right in the text.  This is the core relationship driving the game's economy.

It seems to me the difficulty lies specifically with the Complications chapter. Maybe it's really just finding a simpler way to express it. I'm pretty good with these sort of things. When I have some free time, I could help you with this chapter if you like. Maybe I'll re-write this chapter and send it to you for comparison. I hope I'm not "invading your territory" or anything like that with my suggestions.

Love to see it.  It may offer some key insights into what an outside reader sees as the most important points to cover.

[joe_llama]

Ok, but I'm not really seeing where that is easier. Isn't thinking of a single component and a number of rated Traits for that component more intuitive than thinking in terms of sub components?

The issue here is that in the current version you have Traits, Facts, and Game Structure Items. That's three things that every player learns and understands as seperate items with their own rules. When everything is termed a Component, you have just one thing to remember. Sub-Components are really just Components placed under another Component - very easy to learn and apply.

Well, there is a difference between two groups of: "setting" Components (Character, Location, Object) and "structure" Components (Mood/Genre, Language, Plot). Still, both groups function well under the same rules (at least IME), so it's reasonable to catalog both under Components and save the players additional thinking process. Again, this is my own personal observation of Components and I don't expect you to support it.

It also makes every Component have Importance based on how much effort has gone into describing it.

I think this is irrelevant. I see Universalis like this: "You can talk all you want but power over the story is gained only when you invest Coins into it". So a player could spend 30 minutes describing the most beautiful scene in the story only to find another player saying "that's not how it happened" and be right, all because he didn't use Coins to back up his tale! Effort means nothing, but cold hard cash does.      

I'm toying with some ideas of how to make actual plot goals into Components, or into Traits attached to the Component of the game itself.

Hmmm. This sounds interesting. Care to open a new thread for it?

It may have worked in your game, but I suspect thats probably because no one had spent much time trying to figure out how to "beat it" or optimize the choice.

True. Like I said, it was an improvised rule. However, I'm still interested in coming up with a randomless mechanic for Complications. Back to the drawing board :)  

You've got it exactly. In fact, once upon a time the above was explicitly stated right in the text. This is the core relationship driving the game's economy.

Now all you need to do is make sure this is encoded properly into the rules, NOT the explanation paragraph. After all, the game is eventually played with the rules, not theory.

Love to see it. It may offer some key insights into what an outside reader sees as the most important points to cover.

Well, OK, but it might take a while. I'm pretty busy this week so I'll give it a try when I can spare the time.

[joe_llama]

1)How long did your game last? And more specifically, how long did specific parts of your game lasted? (i.e. the first world building round, the big Complication, etc.)

50 minutes. Short, I know. Prep time was around 5 minutes. The "stable" part of the game was around 25 minutes, most of it introducing Components, pure storytelling and a few minor Challenges. The chaotic part was 20 minutes of pure mess with frequent Challenges, fast Complications and strange Components.  

2) Did you have any goal during the game? Did you make one in the beginning of the game, during the game, or none at all?

Obviously not. If we had one, then the game wouldv'e far more stable.

3) What was the status of your Wealth during the game? (in the beginning; crucial points during the game; in the end)

Cautious spending at first and then burning all the money on alcohol and hookers (in the game).

4) Why did you stop playing? This is very important to me. Did you get bored, ran out of Coins, finished the story?

Well, the story was finished. Kaput. We ran out of Coins and out of our minds.

1) Was it fun

Very much, though a very strange kind of fun.

2) Was it fun enough to play again.

Only if it turns out different than the first time.

3) Is it the type of game you'd a) play on a regular basis or b) relegate to the dust bin as an interesting experiment you tried once.

The answer is (a). I think it would be on my top three games (assuming the rules will remain simple :)

4) What part of the game did you find most enjoyable or exciting or empowering.

The level of control you have over the story and the ability to share this power with others. Collaborative storytelling at its best!

5) What part of the game did you find unenjoyable, or frustrating.

That would be Complications, again. The manual is a bit messy, too ;)

7) Would you recommend playing this game to friends.

Hell yeah.

8) Would you pay money to own your very own final copy.

Yes. Just make sure it isn't too expensive when shipped overseas :)


OK, that's all the time I have. See yall later.

[Mike Holmes]

A week in Florida and all Israel is scandalized by an RPG put together by Ralph and I. I should monitor more closely. ;-)

Early in design, Ralph noted that many Narrativist games end up being pretty silly. There is a lot of speculation as to why this is true. In some games (SOAP, frex), the genre just lends itself to sillyness. But even in games that seem to be written more seriously, you still see the phenomenon. Another theory says that players, after being bound up tight with the average set of RPG rules just kinda go nuts on their first attempt at using lots of Directorial Power. Another theory says that, being afraid of making up something crappy, players just go straight for crappy or some lowest common denominatior.

Some of the layers of structure that we include were intended to make the game so that this would not always be the result. Apparently it's not working quite right, or all the time.

One solution would be to require more game element discussion. Perhaps the first few rounds of play should consider things like "Sillyness Factor" and Premise automatically. I'm thinking something like a checklist. Not to say that these things must be decided on, but just to make it understood that these are options for making the game more serious (or even less serious if you like), or giving it a particular direction. Just so it's decided before hand. In your case, Nadav, nobody saw fit to add a game structure item at any point restricting such sillyness. Such an item may have been very helpful (it sounds like the game started with some interesting elements).

The tools exist, we just don't currently mandate that you to use them. You have all the power necessary to come to an agreement on how to play, or any goal you want. It might not be explicit (and maybe should be), but under the heading "Social Contract" you can agree to pretty much anything that you want to. Do you want the goal of play to be a literary sort of story with lots of serious introspection? State that at the outset. Or whatever style you like. Players who don't challenge are tacitly agreeing. If they really want to play silly, they'll challenge then and there. If they go silly later, just point out the contract item that says that they are playing out-of-bounds.

Or, if you all really wanted the sort of relaease that you did have, then leaving it open might have been the right thing to do. You did say that you had fun, right? Well, perhaps that's the game of Universalis you needed that night? Your point about goal is well taken, however. Perhaps even a silly game should have a point. Or at least some way to end it without it just disintigrating.

The more I think about it, the more I think that thse things should be on some sort of list available for players to consider. Perhaps presented just as a list of things to consider for better play. Or, as I mentioned above, perhaps a few rounds of mandatory thought about it. Five minutes of consideration can make a lot of difference in ensuring that the game goes in a fashion that is more satisfactory to all.

Mike