I'm a new member here, and a new Universalis player. I joined up for the express purpose of asking this question (though I will probably have more as time goes on):

I'm about to start a Universalis game on a vBulletin Board I belong to. We're planning to go slow, none of us having played before, but I already know there will be some interesting challenges for the game mechanics. Interruptions, Negotiation, and Challenges will be hard to coordinate, especailly if, for example, someone wants to Interrupt a 6 paragraph narration in Paragraph 3.

Between-player dialog will also be difficult - the players are scattered hither and yon across the globe in a variety of time zones.

I am considering the following Tenets (and would like to know a: are they reasonable, and b: are they considered Social Contract Tenets, Rules Gimmicks, or what.

A narration post is "in play" for a set amount of time (probably 24 hours) (a player may have many narration posts in their turn, if they can affort it, but we want to give others opportunity to react).
A player may Interrupt or Challenge an "in play" narration, targeting any point in their post's narration. If it goes, the narration affter the target point is nullified.
A player may dialog between Characters not under their control, but the players who control them can veto or re-phrase dialog at no cost while the narration post containing the dialog is "in play"

Thanks for any and all help.

I don't have any experience with BB play myself, but there's been lots of folks playing by Wiki. A search on "Wiki" in this forum should turn up a number of links. I believe there may even be a game currently in progress.

I'm sure some of the players of those games will be along presently with more specifics.

Ralph.

Hi Eye-Zee

I'm the fellow hosting the current incarnation of the Universalis Arena. Unfortunately everything there seems to have slowed to a sub-crawl. I'm hoping to revitalize it but you know how these things go.

Anyhow, if you go to this link:

http://wiki.trmfineart.com/bin/view/Unigame/RulesList

you'll see the conventions we decided to use. Most of which worked pretty well I'd say. As for what your tenets are they sound mostly like Rules Gimmick tenets.

best

Trevis

Thanks both for the replies!

The Arena looks interesting - and it has infrastructure I think I won't be able to bring to bear in a php-based bulletin board (over which I have no coding privileges or coding ability). I think our game will be limited to one or two threads in a single forum on the Board - Facts and other records will be maintained in edited top posts. At least that's how things are gurrently planned. Part of the experiment in our first game will be to see how unwieldy it gets.

The Arena has a starting Coin total of 40 - is this because web-based play is in effect more expensive than 'round-the-table play, or was it just a desired convention for more creative power early in the game?

As for my Gimmick Tenets - since the base environment is the Board, could/should I install those Tennets for free to start with?

I haven't yet decided whether the infrastructure we set up is more of a help or a hinderance. The sometimes unweildy development of it, I think, is what contributed to our current slowdown. Though as it now stands it is pretty useful.

The 40 coins was to encourage worldbuilding. The idea behind this last UA was to create a very rich setting without worrying to much about 'story' developing. We had scenes but nothing as unified as a plot. There is a reference to the thread that got it started there on the rules page.

That said, if you and your players would like a more open environment to try and play I'd be willing to set up a web for you at GCP. I'm wanting it to become something of a RPG laboratory for people, like Clinton's Anvilwerks site was when it was a wiki.

On the tenets, You might go ahead and set them up as ground rules. Most of ours were worked out as discussion before the actual game I believe rather than proposed as formal tenets.

best

Trevis

Yep, we took a lot of rules as "traditional" from other Wiki play.

I blame myself for the encumberance of the infrastructure - I was very excited about the possibility of automating some things that I'd seen as problematic in the past. But somehow the automation has been nearly as intrusive as the problems that it sought to solve. In fact, some things I had envisioned differently, but they ended up as they were because of how they were developed on the fly. If ever I learn to program a wiki, I'll set one up myself that fits my vision.

I think that, ironically for Universalis, that a wiki or board play of the game would really do best with somebody running the game on an administrative level. All of the metarules of play (like how to program things, or what main rule adjustments need to happen before play) should be one player's thing, IMO. What happens however, is that the democratic nature of Uni makes everyone feel that they should have some input. Again, if presented complete, I think this would be an advantage. Players who agreed to play would essentially be agreeing to all of the implied Gimmicks.

BTW, Trevis has done a tremendous job shouldering all of the actual work of programming everyone else's suggestions. If he's offering to put you up there, I'd jump on it.

Now, to discuss "interruptions" - I think that you basically have to throw it out. In fact, we throw out turns as a whole, and people just post whenever they post. This has tons of advantages in terms of theoretical speed, but a disadvantage in terms of spurring players into action. By dropping turns you say to a player that he never has to act. Well, since he can pass in the normal game, that's true there, too. But there's a social pressure against passing too often, which just isn't present in the turnless version.

For a PBP game, I'd suggest keeping turns, at least at first, and then interruptions just means taking your turn out of order. Otherwise, there's no "going back" and eliminating some of a player's post.

How's that sound?

Mike

We've begun setting up our first game. In addition to the gimmicks aboe, I added a few specific to setup on a Board:

* During Setup, a player has 24 hours to propose a Tenet or to Pass, after which they are automatically considered to have Passed. During play, the same 24 hour rule applies for narration posts. This rule will be loosely enforced , and is present mostly to maintain game flow. If you know you're going to miss the 24 hour limit, please notify the group, and either Pass, or ask for some extra time if you want to keep your turn.

* During Setup, a player can "Pass and Opt Out," meaning they will not contribute any more to game set up Tenets (of course, they may Introduce such later in the game, as appropriate). Since everyone must Pass to end the setup phase, this is designed to make that go a little smoother/faster

* After a Tenet is posted, if you have no objection to it, post a quick "OK" or "Go" post. If two thirds of the players post Go posts, then the Tenet is considered accepted and the next player in line can go (or they can wait the full 24 hours - their choice).

* A player wishing to end their turn should post words to that effect at the end of their narration post to inform the group that play is about to pass.

* Bidding/voting phases will also have roughly 24 hours to take place. e.g. Bidding to Frame the next scene.

We're definitely going to try it with turns, and use the interrupt gimmick in my first post. This is an experimental game for us, and I hope to report how well the different things we try work.

The game setup OP went out on Monday, and we have 7 Tenets in place so far. Assuming it continues at that pace and we'll be satisfied with 10-20 Tenets (not counting the Board play gimmicks), we should start play sometime next week.

Sounds pretty well thought out.

Good luck!

Mike