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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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

Valamir wrote: 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 don't think there is such a thing as not knowing how.

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

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.

Re: (1)

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

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

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

Suggestions on how to end a game:

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

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?

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.

matthijs wrote:
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.

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.

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 wrote: 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.

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

Valamir wrote: ...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'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.

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.

(Careens wildly OT.) That was an interesting read. I especially like the techniques of breaking routines and re-incorporation. I've been thinking lately about systems where you buy relationships or are required by chargen to explicate your social circle. Then I compare those exercises with actual play and situations occuring along routes of vocation. And it just feels so much more natural and enjoyable to create relatives or henchmen or whatever as they are called for.

e.g. A hooded rider blocks the road. A pair of carriages halt. [Writes in two crossbowmen.] Crossbowmen flank the merchant party. The rider draws his sword and demands payment. [Writes in two looters with saddlebags.] His looters collect purses, jewelry and wares.