Topic: Universalis and semantic nets
Started by: wburdick
Started on: 12/6/2005
Board: Universalis
On 12/6/2005 at 7:11pm, wburdick wrote:
Universalis and semantic nets
I searched the web a bit for this, but no luck.
Has anyone else noticed the similarity between Universalis and semantic nets (or Aristotelian logic, or object-oriented models) used in classical artificial intelligence?
I'm going to play my first game and I'm planning on borrowing a few bookkeeping techniques from OO design. I'm thinking that we'll put scenes on pieces of paper and use an index card for each component (or group them with paperclips for larger components). Then, when a component is introduced into a scene, we can just plop the card on the table.
Is this helpful or it is overkill? Do people tend to have trouble keeping track of components and their traits during scenes?
-- Bill Burdick
On 12/6/2005 at 9:39pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
Re: Universalis and semantic nets
Well as a programmer, object orientation was on my mind when we came up with stuff like Master Components. I've said it before, but Master Components are classes, and objects with that trait are instances of that class. The only difference, really, is that the class only contains literals (no variable properties, methods, or events).
So, yes, such recordkeeping should work to the extent that you use such. Keep in mind, however, that the use of these is usually relagated to games intended to go very long term. Otherwise they don't tend to pay off.
Mike
On 12/6/2005 at 11:24pm, wburdick wrote:
RE: Re: Universalis and semantic nets
Mike wrote:
Well as a programmer, object orientation was on my mind when we came up with stuff like Master Components. I've said it before, but Master Components are classes, and objects with that trait are instances of that class. The only difference, really, is that the class only contains literals (no variable properties, methods, or events).
So, yes, such recordkeeping should work to the extent that you use such. Keep in mind, however, that the use of these is usually relagated to games intended to go very long term. Otherwise they don't tend to pay off.
Mike
Cool -- I'm actually trying to convert my current tri-stat campaign to Universalis, but we'll see what actually happens (I'm not going to try to impose my will on anyone). So I'm HOPING this will become a long-term game!
On 12/7/2005 at 8:18pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Universalis and semantic nets
Cool -- I'm actually trying to convert my current tri-stat campaign to Universalis, but we'll see what actually happens (I'm not going to try to impose my will on anyone).Whoa. That's about as radical a change as I can imagine. My advice, don't do this. Just don't. I know that it seems conceptually like "just using another system" but that idea has proven over time to be a very harmful one. It's akin to saying, "I can just convert my chess club to playing basketball - they're both games, right, and we can call the forwards rooks, and the guards Knights..."
You're talking about two entirely different activities. I don't even recommend switching between RPG systems, but for effect here, I'll point out that Universalis isn't an RPG by many standards. Basically you have a group that's signed on for one sort of activity, and you're asking them to take the same committment to that activity and convert it to something else entirely, perhaps without realizing what they're getting into.
Here's what I'd do. Put your other game on hold. Play some Universalis as written where the world and all are derived in play. Get players to understand what the game is. Then, at some point when you're playing Universalis (and this assumes that they like playing Universalis, of course), at the start of a game, suggest as a tennet the idea of using the same world and/or characters (whatever specific elements you'd like to see come across) from the other game as components in this game of Universalis.
That might fly. But even then don't suggest quitting the other game.
If you really don't like the other game, then talk about that with your players. And perhaps quit. And then maybe start it up with Universalis. But don't switch systems on them. That's asking for them to not want to play either game.
Mike
On 12/8/2005 at 3:13am, wburdick wrote:
RE: Re: Universalis and semantic nets
Mike wrote:Cool -- I'm actually trying to convert my current tri-stat campaign to Universalis, but we'll see what actually happens (I'm not going to try to impose my will on anyone).Whoa. That's about as radical a change as I can imagine. My advice, don't do this. Just don't. I know that it seems conceptually like "just using another system" but that idea has proven over time to be a very harmful one. It's akin to saying, "I can just convert my chess club to playing basketball - they're both games, right, and we can call the forwards rooks, and the guards Knights..."
Too late! We played last night and I sent a transcript to Ralph already. So far it's working really well, IMHO. To tell you the truth as GM, I was already making up most parts of the adventures on the fly, so this just shifts some of the burden off of me and onto the other players! I only had one player in my campaign anyway; tri-stat doesn't have a very big draw around here.
To make sure we didn't 'bias' the game, we started with a clean slate and only the potential of recreating the campaign. A few very important premises from the campaign did make it into the Universalis story. There was another player who was totally unfamiliar with the campaign (who had never played an RPG, but had seen many sessions, working at a game store).
I really like our story, so far -- I can forward you the transcript if you want to judge for yourself. I can't say for certain at this point, but it seems to me that we aren't going to go the one-shot 'save the universe' route with this story. It seems to have a lot of potential to be a campaign.
You guys came up with a really elegant game. I like Universalis complication resolution much better than Illuminati's attacks -- adding dice to a pool instead of points to a fixed die roll is a very powerful system. It still leaves a real possibility for an underdog to win the roll. Really, using an economic solution to settle arguments instead of complex simulation rules was a truly great idea.
Thanks for publishing it!