I finally (finally finally finally) got a physical copy of Universalis (so I don't have to go off of my recollections of others games and a few handouts anymore).  I think it might be able to facilitate the top layer of my holy grail of gaming, which is a god-game between players that breaks into a GM-and-players game at the mortal level once in a while. 

So while I'm very positive on Universalis as a whole, there's one thing that really irked me in the presentation.  In the examples in the Teneting section, it seems like people aren't supposed to talk except as functions of the rules.  I think this comes across because each line in the example dialogue is followed by game-mechanics, rather than letting the dialogue flow like a natural conversation. 

Then I realized that it might not be a problem with the dialogue presentation, but it might instead be an actual intention of the game.  When I tried to play with indierpgtoronto, there was a real problem of "can I talk now?" that was holding back peoples' creativity on the first day.  Also, when we started off we started teneting right away, and I thought the game could have really benefited by some free dialogue with the rulebooks closed beforehand. 

So this all leads to a question: Is it wrong from a Universalis design perspective to talk about the story you want to tell before you're formally sitting down and teneting?

Through the use of Rules Gimmicks you can alter the rules however you like.

The official key rule of Universalis is this:  If you don't spend a Coin on it its just Color and Color is absolutely 100% non binding.

So if you want to spend time before hand talking about the sort of game you want, feel free.  Just keep in mind that until Coins are spent on it and the tenets are written down, you'll have to use regular old Challenges to enforce what was discussed without the benefit of added leverage from Facts.

When I play, I don't want predecided high level talky going on before play.  I want the total brainstorming creativity that comes from playing as written.  I want lots of stuff that don't seem like they go together being thrown into a big jumbled mix as each player says something one tenet at a time and then through play figure a way to bring it all together. 

At GenCon we played a game set in a world with no men where all of the women were old ladies and they could download their conciousness into younger manufactured bodies.  Chances of that having been invented through some mechanism other than the word association-esque brainstorming of the tenet session is small.  Played as written the game takes you to settings and worlds you never would have come up with otherwise.

That said.  If you have something in mind already, there are suggestions on the website for using the game for existing setting ideas.

But there should NEVER be any question of "can I talk now".  The rules are 100% clear on who gets to talk and what they get to talk about.

If its your turn you can say anything you want about any Component you Control.  If you say anything about a Component you don't Control you cause a Complication.  If you want to Control something you don't currently have, you pay a Coin to Take Control.

If its not your turn you can't say anything (peanut gallery suggestions are always fun, just have zero game impact), except if the person whose turn it is engages you in dialog.  If you want it to be your turn, you pay a Coin to Interrupt and now its your turn...until someone Interrupts you.

There is always a very clear answer to "can I talk now?" at all points of the game (where "talk" is defined as "say something that has mechanical meaning").  That's the key focus of the entire game.  The game does nothing other than organize who can say what when.  If you're having trouble with that, let me know, we'll work through your examples.

But you are correct.  Universalis is NOT a free form "talky" game, I've never been in one where the game sounded like natural conversation.

Thanks for that, Valamir. 

I think then what I'd want to emphasize in my Universalis game is that non-rules talking is A-OK, and even a good idea.  In fact, I might make a social contract Tenet along those lines to encourage more of it.

I think Ralph's response is confusing. That is, he tries to make a point of it, but he's talking about "Talk" where the statements have mechanical meaning. I wouldn't even put it as he does. That is, the words you say on your turn don't have mechanical meaning, either, until you spend a coin on them. So that's true of all speech in the game.

But we both agree with you that everyone should talk whenever they wish. The examples aren't intended to indicate otherwise, just to show how the ordering of things goes. In play with myself and Ralph at the table, and with every other game I've ever seen, nobody ever felt like they couldn't speak whenever they wanted to do so. And kibbitzing is not only common, but constant.

Which is to say that I find the trouble you had in play to be odd. Not sure how it came about, but it shouldn't be neccessary to have to have a gimmick to tell players that they can freely speak all the time when, in fact, nothing indicates that they cannot. But if you find it neccessary, go ahead and pay for it. It might simply do to set the example, however.

It should be pointed out that the player who is taking their turn is often defered to... after all, they do have to get done with their turn in order for them to pass so that it can become your turn, so you can do mechanical things. As such, often people will try to shush folks up to allow the current player to get on with their turn, so play can progress. But that's actually relatively rare in my experience, as compared with the amount of time where players are just chatting to each other in play or as part of play.

I hope that helps,
Mike

I think the Tenet I'm thinking of is along the lines of (and this may not work, but the idea is to increase the off-turn chatter):  If you use someone else's suggestion to create a Fact, you get to create a second Fact for free.

PS: Played another game last night and it was excellent.  Hard sci-fi, post-apocalyptic resource-crunch galactic diaspora, interesting villain situation, monastic maintainers of interstellar communications hubs, and poor, poor Pedro.  Just 3 scenes, 3 players, and I can definitely see myself getting hooked on Universalis.

Yes, poor Pedro! It's always poor Pedro...

<sigh>

That's an interesting rules gimmick you're considering. Don't let it extend to traits, however, or you'll be in for some odd dice inflation.

Mike

I definitely don't want dice inflation; as I've seen it I like how the economy drives things as-is. 

I realized I did the exact same thing I've been complaining about last night - there was a point where the ideas were starting to really roll out but we weren't in turn-order and when I said "OK, wait a sec, it's my turn, let's get some of those ideas as Tenets" I proposed one of those ideas, but the next turn all the other things we were talking about kind of disappeared.  Those would have been good contributions. 

Maybe it would be better to just keep a quick point-form list of "good ideas that are unbought" in the Tenet phase (since there's no log to worry about yet, just tenets).  That could be something people fall back on when it's their turn and they don't have an idea for a Tenet despite the fact that there's something essentially agreed on at the table that isn't on the list of Tenets.

OK, that sounds odd... people forgot during the time it took to record one Tenet what their ideas were for others?

Also, don't wait to pass while recording (if that's what you're doing). Often players will hemm and haw for a while on their turn anyhow, and you should have plenty of time. Abbreviate, too. The written item should just be a reminder of what was said, not a verbatim recouting.

Mike

I think it was more of a "maybe my idea wasn't worth teneting" combined with "we're basically on the same wavelength so I don't need to push" instead of a complete forgetting. 

Ryan wrote: I think it was more of a "maybe my idea wasn't worth teneting" combined with "we're basically on the same wavelength so I don't need to push" instead of a complete forgetting. 

I think one issue is I'd like a more heavily teneted game, but each time I've played so far some or all players are fairly new and there's a sense of "better get to the action and show off the system so it's not so abstract"

Yup, we often mention the game's learning curve - not so hard to learn the rules, but it takes a while to figure out how to use the tools at hand to create the sort of action you really prefer. Typically that involves people realizing the power of nailing things down in the Tenet Phase.

But there are some tricks that you'll discover in scene play as well later. If you do some reading of the forum here, you may well find some. Do a search for the term Samurai...

Mike

Hey Ryan, spending more time fleshing out Tenets is often a good idea to narrow the scope of the game to a more coherent form.  However, don't forget that you can also add Tenets during play, not just during the Tenet phase.  Also, check out the "Effective Use of Traits" essay by Tony Irwin on page 87 for another way of shaping the story and setting boundaries other than with Tenets (Tony would be one of those Mike has dubbed a Universalis Samurai).

The vibe I'm getting from this thread suggests you might want to check out the "Mini Interruption" Gimmick on page 35.  That might help get some of those ideas people throw out into play without messing with the turn order.