Two kinds of conflict - what does them well?

[Valamir]

Here's the "not quite":

a) In Universalis there's 2 disincentives to using the Challenge mechanic: 
On the one hand, it's economic: if you can get your way with the Complication mechanic you also make your $. 
On the other: Its the "don't be a jerk" mechanic.  Since nobody wants the stigma of being Challenged and losing (or even winning) its a problem. 
So I think there's reasons to try to not challenge in Universalis and that you need to have a pretty confrontational group to get it going (and a really confrontational group isn't exactly my favourite thing to manage in the first place).

Cool.

Here's a consideration for you in your thought process.  In practice, virtually none of the Challenges in Uni ever make it to the formal bidding process.  Most of the time things end with a quick negotiation and adjustment, or a quick negotiation and straw poll.  That means there usually isn't any stigma factor or confrontations needed.

So my observation is that alot can be accomplished just by people communicating at the table with the other people at the table...which is something alot of groups just do.  What the presence of a hard rule like Uni's Challenge does is remind people who wouldn't ordinarily be so inclined to speak up in play that not only can they do that...but they're supposed to.  And rather than being viewed as a troublesome interruption, its actually right there in the rules.  Once that is established, the rule itself has done 90% of its job and only rarely does it actually need used.

b) The two use the same currency.  That's the bigger one.  To keep everyone in line you need to be willing to spend the same $ that you would otherwise be spending in-fiction.  You also have to make in-fiction moves (conflicts, end scenes, get coins) in order to maintain that ability to have people respect the objectives.

If tying the Challenge to game currency is an issue, take a page from Dirty Secrets which was inspired by Uni's Challenges. 

In Dirty Secrets each player can veto anything someone else does that violates their "genre sensibilities" (for lack of a better phrase).  However, the veto is overridden if even just one other steps up and says "no I think its fine".

So its a much quicker kind of application, no currency, no voting, very little slow down in play.  Its basically the Uni mechanic stopping at the Negotiation and Straw Poll step.

But again its not so much the rule itself as it is the presence of the rule that makes it work.

[Noclue]

I guess I'm either looking at this with my wrong eyes, or I don't understand.

Player A says "No gore. Gore is a deal breaker for me. That's my line" and the other players agree. We have a Social Contract.

Player B starts narrating a gore filled scene. We have a violation of the Social Contract.

I just don't see the need for a mechanic here. Player B stops. Immediately. They had a contract. If Player B is a dick and won't stop, they don't need a new mechanic to force him, they need him to leave.

What am I missing?

[Valamir]

Missing thing #1:  There are many things that are assumed in a social contract that are not, and can rarely be, made explicit up front.  There are lines that can be crossed that had not previously been established.  Such mechanics are a tool to address those.

Missing thing #2:  There is a wide range between pushing the limit and being a dick that such mechanics can aid in addressing.

Missing thing #3:  Giving someone the boot is often like using a chainsaw to perform surgery...sometimes a scalpel is a better option.

Missing thing #4: There is a fairly embedded tradition in many gamers that discourage such meta level talk at the table -- saving "hey we said no gore" comments to after-session debriefings.  Simply saying "its ok to talk about your concerns in play" is often not enough to get them to do so.  Having it be an explicit rule in the game same as how to make a skill check can often encourage people to take a more active role in asserting their lines in play.

Missing thing #5:  The mere presence of a rule that discusses an issue is often enough to move that issue front and center of the group's awareness.  The group then handles the issue using other social mechanisms and never actually uses the rule.  But the rule was important because even unused, it did its job to raise awareness.


How's that?