Just think...

[Nev the Deranged]

This is totally offhand, but I was wondering what might have happened if they'd had a copy of Uni back in Lord Byron's infamous swiss chalet on that dark and stormy night...

Hmmm... *pondering*

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm. Well, given the Zombie factor, I think that they'd merely have gotten a collaborative version of Frankenstein instead of Shelly coming up with it on her own. Been watching Gothic, by any chance? :-)

I still think that individually written stories are always going to be better in terms of output. As a group they might have come up with something really messed up, but not great literature. Universalis doesn't do that. What it does, is to make for a fun night of play. That is, they'd actually probably have just had a lot of fun (not that they weren't already), and we'd not have Frankenstein today.

That's not an endictment of Universalis. It's just putting it where it belongs.

Mike

[Nev the Deranged]

Heh.

Haven't seen Gothic. I have recently read a review of Lord Byron's Novel: The Evening Land, the conceit of which is that Lord Byron did indeed finish the manuscript he began that night, and that his girlfriend Ada (a name recognizable to any computer nerd worth his salt) encoded it using Babbage's Difference Engine- of course to be unearthed and decoded centuries later by some erstwhile college student.

Also, The Book of Renfield, perhaps the ultimate MLwM reference, purportedly penned by the head of the psychiatric ward at which the Count's hapless minion was a frequent guest of the state.

I think you're right about a strong single vision tending to produce more coherent stories. Which probably has something to do with why so many players (and especially GMs) seem to enjoy Illusionism/Participationism. I know it's been a struggle for me to get over wanting to tell MY story because dammit my ideas are so cool!! But actually Uni was a big help in getting over that, since it attacks the problem from a completely different angle.

Anyway, just a thought ^_^

[Mike Holmes]

Do see Gothic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091142/). I don't have any idea if it's accurate at all, but it's fun, and looks at precisely what you're talking about. People tend to love it or hate it, I should warn.

I was just telling somebody about Lady Ada Lovelace. The defense department still programs in her language. But, um, century, not centuries. This was really not all that long ago.

Good point about Illusionism and coherent story. The problem with this is that it throws out one of the key elements of RPGs, the ability to make everyone a contributor to the plot. Sure this means mixed up stories at times, and dangling plot threads that never get wrapped up, etc. The fun of RPGs in not in the output, but in the creative act.

Mike

[Arturo G.]

Please, please, please!!!
The more I read about Universalis, the more I'm excited about trying it. I'm doing incredible efforts to get some people for this week-end. If not, I will need to wait 15 days more (I will travel for work reasons).

You know I've not yet try it, but my impressions from outside are also that these kind of stories, brought up by different people on the fly in a brain-storming flow, can achieve to be even highly focused, but not completely coherent. I cannot be sure until I try, but I would say that part of the power of Universalis comes from the fact that conflicts are encouraged to get currency, and they both, promote and channel the tension of the divergent creative efforts of the players. That's nice and fun, I think!

I'm wandering if there is out there any game/system/software/resource which really promote the creation of colaborative and completly coherent stories (no matter if it's not really fun or brain-storming oriented). I'm sure there must be something.

Cheers,
Arturo

[Arturo G.]

Nev:

Haven't seen Gothic. I have recently read a review of Lord Byron's Novel: The Evening Land, the conceit of which is that Lord Byron did indeed finish the manuscript he began that night, and that his girlfriend Ada (a name recognizable to any computer nerd worth his salt) encoded it using Babbage's Difference Engine- of course to be unearthed and decoded centuries later by some erstwhile college student.

Mike Holmes:

I was just telling somebody about Lady Ada Lovelace. The defense department still programs in her language. But, um, century, not centuries. This was really not all that long ago.

Just in case anyone wants to know the real history; the famous Ada Lovelace was a Byron's child. She's not related to neither, Frankenstein or the Ada language.

For those interested, let me give you some pointers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein

http://www.cs.fit.edu/~ryan/ada/ada-hist.html


And for those who want to have a look at the complicate history of programming languages:
http://www.levenez.com/lang/

Cheers,
Arturo

[Nev the Deranged]

Do see Gothic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091142/). I don't have any idea if it's accurate at all, but it's fun, and looks at precisely what you're talking about. People tend to love it or hate it, I should warn.

Interesting. I'll give it a look-see.

I was just telling somebody about Lady Ada Lovelace. The defense department still programs in her language. But, um, century, not centuries. This was really not all that long ago.

Fair enough. According to Arturo's page, the language was created by the DoD in 1984, unless I misread it. I had it somewhere in my brain that Babbage himself had named the first programming methods after her, but apparently he just used her for PR. I only vaguely remember reading about it way back when I was but a tyke, so inaccuracy is not really a surprise.

Good point about Illusionism and coherent story. The problem with this is that it throws out one of the key elements of RPGs, the ability to make everyone a contributor to the plot. Sure this means mixed up stories at times, and dangling plot threads that never get wrapped up, etc. The fun of RPGs in not in the output, but in the creative act.

Well, I'd argue that technically "role playing" just means playing a role. People in a play with a defined and rigid plot are playing roles. Even the most hardcore, fully veiled Illusionism gives the players a bit more room to define the character than that, even if it's just ad-libbing dialogue. The ability to make everyone a contributor to the plot has only been a "key element" of RPGs since, well, the Forge made it popular, as far as I can tell. It's still arguable whether or not it's a key element of most mainstream RPGs, especially to hear my d20/WoD playing friends tell it.

Lately I've more or less given up on getting my gamer friends into indie games, I have made some new acquaintances lately, who come from a variety of gaming and non-gaming backgrounds. Frankly, I think I'll have better luck with them.

D.

[Mike Holmes]

No, Nev, that's only plot by the definition of narrativism as it pertains to creating theme. Plot, as a series of events, can be created by gamism choices, or simulationism where the player has actual choices (this is why it's "story now" and not "story" anymore). And in Illusionism a player can even feel that he's affecting the series of events, in theory, but he is not. In participationism the player doesn't even feel that they're affecting what happens in any substantive way.

I'm not saying that participationism can't be a valid agenda for a player to have. I'm just saying that I don't think that it's much more interesting than having a story told to you. Certainly not what RPGs, even D&D, are capable of.

Mike