I just read Ron Edward's essay "Simulationism: The Right to Dream". Is Universalis simulationist? Every time I think I have this stuff figured out I realise I don't have a clue...

Tony

Tony Irwin wrote: I just read Ron Edward's essay "Simulationism: The Right to Dream". Is Universalis simulationist? Every time I think I have this stuff figured out I realise I don't have a clue...

That's my thought exactly Kirt. In fact, in earlier versions of Uni there was an extended discussion on how Traits and rules gimmicks could be used to model all sorts of crunchy bits usually found in Sim heavy games (like armor and penetration, cover, or blast radius, etc.) Most of that was scrapped with just a lone example of using rules gimmicks to make a limited use medical kit.

In fact, I had at one point envisioned a whole series of supplements complete with genre specific toys and chrome all stated out for it.

As for which is it. Don't really know. I wouldn't say that it's a "pure narrativist engine" the way the Pool's been described. It isn't a "play to win" by being the first to use up all of your cards type game like Once Upon a Time is. And while it makes sim elements possible it doesn't slavish hold causal reality in world building the Aria Worlds does. Yet all three of those were big influences on the game at various points in its development.

In another thread I suggested that GNS is primarily about play. Universalis really could be played in any of the three ways...if you drifted it enough.

You COULD play Uni very gamist, although I suspect the Coin and Complication mechanic may breakdown in the face of cut throat competition (but maybe not, its proven to be fairly robust). You COULD do like you suggested above and really go full bore Exploration with the setting being created in play in as much detail as desired (something I'd love to see actually). But I don't know that it really "supports" either of those methods.

One might say that Uni is very GNS incoherent while being exceedingly driftable into coherance of choice. Don't really know.

But for your purposes Kirt I'd say the following. GNS and the thought process required to absorb GNS theory was invaluable and of extraordinary importance to the creation of Universalis. Can I say for certainty what GNS mode Uni supports best? Nope. Can I create a "GNS design diary" of my theory related thoughts as we designed the game. I'm sure the jargon came up when Mike and I were tossing emails back and forth and brainstorming parts that weren't working the way we wanted...but I couldn't point to one that was some GNS epiphany moment.

I think if you're looking for that you'll be disappointed, and if you expected to be able to do that with absolute certainy I can see where your crisis of faith is coming from. But I suggest its more of a crisis of expectations. I'd venture to guess that Mongrel is probably the only game Ron's ever designed where he actually sat down with GNS theory as a roadmap to select design elements. I'd bet money that when he designed Elfs and Trollbabe the concepts of GNS were floating around in the back of his mind, but that he wasn't using the theory like some sort of design blueprint.

In short...don't worry about it. I suspect you already know all you need to know about GNS for it to have a favorable impact on the design of Unsung. If there should prove to be a point where the influence is obvious great...but I don't see it as necessary (or required for the theory to be useful for design work).

Well said, Ralph. Actually, Universalis does share some similarities with The Pool. That is, they both are really Narrativist by default. That is, without transition (would be drift but we have the Gimmick!), the game does not support Sim well as noted above. And I bet Gamism won't work either, and there's nothing to suggest it to a player. All the challenge rules and whatnot are there to say, "try all you want, but without Coins, you lose".

So, all that's left is to follow the remaining path. do as the text suggests, and use Universalis for what it can support which is to tell a story. Like The Pool, Universalis provides no Narrativist Premise. The players must. It's just that there's nothing else to do with these games, really. By eliminating the other modes as viable you're left with Narrativism.

Strange, no?

And I remember a lot more of the GNS moments as we went along. I think the decisions to remove some of the Gamist creep prevention tools and the Sim elements was an essential part of tthe final design, and all supported by our understanding of GNS.

Often that's the use you find. GNS tells you that you haven't messed anything up with the final design. Call it a final check before flight.

Mike

Actually Tony asked the original question but I appreciate y'all addressing my own issues from other threads here. It's been pretty helpful. Certainly it seems that GNS is more like a swiss army knife than a hammer when it comes to game design.

The things is, when I think over all the games I've played in, I've been part of creating tremendous stories but I'm not sure if any of them actually meant anything in narrativist terms! I think it was either you Mike or Ralph that first explained for me that a "story" is really just a sequence of interesting events and so a feature in G and N and S play. "Story-telling" doesn't equal Narrativist (I found that the hard way with VtM)

Any kind of "moral" or "message" to our stories was part and package of the game-world we chose, not any conscious choice on our part (like honour in a Samurai setting). So was that really Narrativist play? Looking back I think probably every Universalis game I've played in was "High Concept Sim" using one of Ron Edward's definitions: "Story," in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play. (Sim essay, p14)

Actually I think you might agree that all the ones on the web-site (including even "The Pregnant Pope"?) could be classed High Concept Sim?

Am I on the right tracks with this? GNS is something I can get very muddled over.

Tony

Hmm. Yes, you transitioned to High Concept Sim. Sorta. Let me explain.

In deciding to play in that particular universe, based on an extant game, the assumption was understood by all that the themes were already set. From one POV this is a sort of Uber Narrativisim where you decided the answer to the Narrative Premise once, early on. From then on, the play then does resemble High Concept sim.

It's Transition because you used the rules to lock in that single theme, thus preventing future Narrativism (but ensuring correct Sim of the agreed upon subject matter).

I find this all very pleasing.

Next time you play, instead of taking the themes of the world as given, actually rephrase them as a question so as to create a Narrative Premise (then assign the question as an Uber-Trait for the universe per previous discussions so that it comes up in play; you get a free die in any complication that deals with the question). Then let us know how this changed play. Would be a cool experiment. :-)

The idea is that the players would, instead of just simulating the events, instead construct events that would create theme as you went. The story would not be about Bushido or whatever the setting would imply, but more likley about other related issues. Who knows?

Keep in mind that "Vanilla" Narrativism does not require a lot of pondering on the idea of Narrativist Premise, and you may do it more than you think. Also, don't worry about the definition of story; as long as you think of Narrativism in terms of a Narrativist Premise, it's all good.

Mike

I certainly think you're on the right track. But as Ron has pointed out in the past, Narrativism doesn't have to involve alot of in your face navel gazing moralizing mumbo jumbo. For instance in the story set in the mining colony there would have been ample opportunity to raise questions along the lines of "justice vs. the needs of the many" or the rights of natives to resist occupation. Or the line between vengeance and enforcing the law. Or it could have been played purely as a high concept sim. In the Pregnant Pope there was ample opportunity for questions about the nature of duty, ends and means, lust vs love, etc.

In alot of ways I think High Concept Sim is probably the easiest form of Sim to drift to Narrativism because there is already a general acceptance that something other than pure "reality" is of prime importance. Its pretty easy to slip a narrativist premise into the middle of all of that color. In fact, as Ron pointed out many High Concept games come with a prepackaged theme specific to that genre. It isn't that far of a step from roleplaying to the canonical theme to creating theme by play.

So if the line seems blurry there, I think its probably because its an easy line to drift.

edite: wow: having just cross posted with Mike, is there any wonder as to how on the same page we became with this game.

Mike, Ralph,

Wow... I'm gonna argue with the designers! :)

I'd hardly call the Pool a "dedicated narrativist engine." Neither Universalis or the Pool have a built-in premise. In their undrifted forms, both are exclusively about exploration, and hence, facilitate simulationism. It's really eay to drift them because both rules-sets are primarily frame-works for distributing director power. IOW, the rules don't have much to say about what happens in the game, just about who gets to determine it.

You assume, Nathan, that simulationism is the default somehow. Exploration is the default. At a minimum, it could be said that Universalis can be transitioned as easily from one mode to another. The question is whether or not there is any slant toward one thing or another.

Given no player characters, we eliminate the competition. No player has an investment in any element that represents their success or failure. The Coins could be considered a personal meter, but the game does not support that. Therefore no Gamist support.

As for Sim, what particular support is there for that? At best one could say that the system allows one to create rules that explain the workings of the game universe, but the rules of Universalis as they come do not do this in any way. There is never any point at which the rules say that x costs more than y, or x causes y. The system does allow you to explore by creating, but that's necessary for all RPGs. What Universalis does not do is tell you anything about what's to be explored, or how thingws work in the universe.

What it does give you, the one thing that exists beyond exploration in the game, is the incentive to create conflict. Complications. Now, while conflict is, of itself not Narrativist, again, there is no support for Gamism or Simulationism in the Complication system, no way to "win" or to be "accurate". So what you're left with is the natural human storytelling drive that simply needs that conflict exist for a story to emerge.

Thus, in the absence of anything propelling play towards other modes, Universalis propells play with the lightest of touches towards Narrativism.

Now, that said, transition is not only possible, but encouraged. I think that one could get a lot of Sim milage, and even more out of Sim/Nar hybrid play. Gamism could even be done with further transition (quite a few rules are needed to make it work). But the default game, sans Gimmicks seems to me to promote Narrativism most. As I said, only slightly and only because the propelling mechanics, as light as they are, have nothing to compete against.

This is not to say that some people won't "swim upstream" and play the default game Sim. Given that the mechanics that produce Narrativism are do so only gently, this should not be difficult. I'd just advocate to the Sim player transition as it's very available to them.

Mike

This is kinda funny, Mike, cos I remember a while back (after my initial skim-through of the rules) you told me on IRC that I shouldn't assume Universalis was a Nar game. That it was, in fact, closer to a sim game than anything else.

I can see where you're coming from with this, but here is the way I see it:

I assume that Simulationism is the default mode of play for RPGs. Not because "most people play that way," but because Simulationism equals Exploration in which Exploration is prioritized. No, that's not a typo. After all, every role-playing experience consists of Exploration. Some role-playing is more than Exploration. Gamism is Exploration where competition is prioritized. Narrativism is Exploration where thematic decisions are prioritized. But if neither Gamism or Narrativism are encouraged, then the Exploration is all that's left, hence, Simulationism.

I don't see any overt Gamist or Narrativist elements in either the Pool or Universalis. They don't facilitate Gamism at all... player competition is potentially disasterous in both of them. Narrativism requires that the characters make ethically or morally weighted choices. Neither game has mechanics that promote such choices. So what's left? Exploration. Universalis and the Pool encourage the Exploration itself. If Simulationism is prioritizing Exploration, then how are these games not facilitating Simulationism?

Whup,

Nathan, you have stated the principle correctly (Sim = prioritizing Exploration) but you aren't applying it correctly.

The issue is a given game's means of facilitating a mode (or modes) of play. You're looking for very strict and overt means, like Trouble in Orkworld, the Devil in Dust Devils, or Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel. These are, if you will, big blinking red I Am Narrativist elements in these games.

However, a lot of people like their Narrativist Premise to be more subtle, both mechanically and verbally. This is what you'll find in Hero Wars and Trollbabe, which is exactly why people tend to ask me, "Where's the Premise" in these games, and why they say "Oh! Duh!" when I answer. The Premise is there - but it's not laid out in hard-core terms and mechanics for all to see. It's best described in terms of opportunities that can be constructed and realized through play itself. The Pool and Universalis are very, very far along this axis of variation.

The upcoming Narrativism essay is aimed at making this distinction very clear.

Best,
Ron

What Ron said. And as I keep saying, if Universalis does promote Narrativism, it's only be the slightest edge. Especially since it's so easy to transition to other modes of play.

Note, I don't agree with him, but Paul Czege would say that Narrativism is the "default" mode of play. Because to him, if there is nothing else, people fall back on their sense of the dramatic (or something like that). Still others contend that Gamism has the edge and will slip in wherever there's even the slightest opportunity.

I think that there is no "default". Each of us brings their own specific preferences to play. And, yes, those with a Sim bent are going to play Universalis that way, I think. But for those few who are, like me, sorta on the fence, the gentle slope that Universalis is in the Narrativist direction.

Slightly.

Mike