Since we're (well I am at least) itching to talk about the game that Ralph and I am finishing up I thought that I'd bring up a relatively innocuous subject related to it.

Currently the working title is Universalis, or more properly, Universalis, the Game of Unlimited Stories. In testing I've had mixed feedback. The title is supposed to be evocative of the fact that the game is a Universal RPG, by which I mean to say that the rules really can handle anything. This may sound like a boast, but I can only say that I've used it to play RPGs in testing that did not exist before we used this game to play them. You will all, of course, have to judge for yourselves.

Another salient fact about the game is that all players are essentially GMs at the same time, and everything can be created on the Fly. No prep time necessary if you don't feel like it.

And one more thing. Lots of people who have played it say that it's not even really a RPG (still aimed at the RPG crowd, however). So whatever we choose I think we want to stay away from that particular apellation.

Anyhow, what do people think of the above title? Does it get the idea across well, make you want to buy it? Some of the people who say they don't like it have had odd reasons, so I'm looking for a more objective audience, here. Are you for subtitles or not? Anybody got a good idea for a name that would fit, or just advice on naming in general.

Naming a generic game has been really difficult, despite seemiong like a sort of minor thing. We may end up going with Universalis in the end, but I just wanted to poll the group and see what people thought.

Thanks in advance for your responses,
Mike

Hey,

I'm happy with "Universalis." What I'm not sure about is the pronunciation - is the accent on the third syllable or the fourth?

Best,
Ron

I believe the Italian world for Universal is Universalis...and the accent there is on the fourth syllable.

- J, amazing monkey man

Ha! There's one besides me :smile:

Actually Universalis was just a working title I'd given it when I needed to refer to it as something other than "this game I'm working on", but I've become rather enamored of it...probably due to familiarity.

I've always placed the accent on the third.
Uni-vers-AL-is or Universe Alice if you prefer :smile:

As I recall, I had mentioned the game Europa Universalis to Ralph which he had heard of and then he started using just Universalis for the name. The game is French, but as the name has an obvious Latin root (or may actually be Latin for all I know), I think that is what we were thinking in our Universe Alice pronunciation. At least I was.

Hey, while we're at it, Ron, did you say that a universal game could not be narrative, or was that somebody else? Better question, having read the game, would you classify it as G or N or S or would you be in the its not an RPG camp? If not an RPG what do we call it? I ask in part because I myself am not really sure.

I'm not sure that classifying it is critical, but, if possible , I'd like to use the GNS model to check the design. Do we have conflicting priorities? Any problems that may arise in play that we haven't seen in testing? Etc. See what I'm getting at?


Mike

To be perfectly honest, the title doesn't do much for me. I can't really say why I don't like it...it just doesn't convey any interest to me.

Which is not to say that your game is not interesting, but I had the opportunity to hear MIke's pitch at GenCon.

I like the subtitle though.

Take care,
Moose

(whose opinions of titles means next to nothing; he thought Sorcerer was a cheap White Wolf knock-off when he first heard of it).

I have to agree with Scott. The title doesn't grab me...it really doesn't capture the essence of what it's like to play the game. So...possible titles, in order of my personal preference:

Writ Large
Infinity
Disruption of Entropy
Aperture Contraction

Paul

Mike,

"... Ron, did you say that a universal game could not be narrative, or was that somebody else?"

I don't think anyone said that. My thoughts on the "universal" issue are listed in another thread at the Forge; I'll hunt for it and edit it into this post.

I think that what you mean by "universal" in Universalis is to create a universe (and more), whereas in gamer parlance "universal" means "sufficient for all modes and purposes of role-playing." I think that the latter is absurd.

"Better question, having read the game, would you classify it as G or N or S or would you be in the its not an RPG camp? If not an RPG what do we call it? I ask in part because I myself am not really sure."

As I see it, Universalis is a role-playing game, for whatever my opinion is worth. Its GNS tendencies are something that we should see emerge through play, not through a snap judgment. It's unusual enough that I'd like to consider the question for a bit.

"... I'd like to use the GNS model to check the design. Do we have conflicting priorities? Any problems that may arise in play that we haven't seen in testing? Etc. See what I'm getting at?"

Um, that I should really get to reviewing it carefully? That's true.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-09-25 10:12, Paul Czege wrote:
So...possible titles, in order of my personal preference:

Writ Large
Infinity
Disruption of Entropy
Aperture Contraction

I also dislike the title, but titles are funny things. Who in their right mind would've thought a game called GURPS would be successsful?

The problem is the title doesn't mean anything. That must be built. Just as GURPS went from a gutteral sound to a popular RPG line.

At this point, Universalis will be what you make of it.

On 2001-09-25 10:29, Ron Edwards wrote:
Mike,

"... Ron, did you say that a universal game could not be narrative, or was that somebody else?"

I don't think anyone said that. My thoughts on the "universal" issue are listed in another thread at the Forge; I'll hunt for it and edit it into this post.

I think that what you mean by "universal" in Universalis is to create a universe (and more), whereas in gamer parlance "universal" means "sufficient for all modes and purposes of role-playing." I think that the latter is absurd.

"Better question, having read the game, would you classify it as G or N or S or would you be in the its not an RPG camp? If not an RPG what do we call it? I ask in part because I myself am not really sure."

As I see it, Universalis is a role-playing game, for whatever my opinion is worth. Its GNS tendencies are something that we should see emerge through play, not through a snap judgment. It's unusual enough that I'd like to consider the question for a bit.

"... I'd like to use the GNS model to check the design. Do we have conflicting priorities? Any problems that may arise in play that we haven't seen in testing? Etc. See what I'm getting at?"

Um, that I should really get to reviewing it carefully? That's true.

On 2001-09-25 10:50, pblock wrote:
I also dislike the title, but titles are funny things. Who in their right mind would've thought a game called GURPS would be successsful?

The problem is the title doesn't mean anything. That must be built. Just as GURPS went from a gutteral sound to a popular RPG line.

At this point, Universalis will be what you make of it.

Mike

As with any discussion of terms like universal, the topic switches under us.

"I don't think that our game is the be all for every genre of play, certainly, but I think that it can work for any genre. Has to, as it has none itself."

Whoa - I did not mention genre. I said GOAL and MODE OF PLAY. I stick by my point that no RPG can satisfy any and all goals and modes of play.

If we're going to talk about genre, then I have to sigh and say, "genre is an undefined term," because it is. There's a whole thread on THAT, too, somewhere.

Let's say, for the moment, that a given genre is kind of an inclusive term for some specific setting, situation, color, premise, and character types. In my view, a game that is set up to build or include multiple genres (as defined here), is GENERALIST - not "universal." It can handle multiple setting/character/situation/color combinations, but that doesn't alter the various GNS or stance orientations of play that the game itself facilitates ACROSS this varieties of genre.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-09-25 11:11, Mike Holmes wrote:
I agree. But, um, Title Does Matter? Sure the title doesn't have to be gripping or indicative. But I was hoping that it would be anyhow. Perhaps I am too worried about it.

I have a very complicated sim game that I've worked on for years that right now needs spreadsheets to run effectively. My friends have dubbed it Holmes' Universal Role-Playing Entertainment System or HURPES.

I don't suppose that'd sell well. :wink:

Found them!

My thoughts on genre are in "The Role of Genre in RPG Design" last posted to on 9-4-01.

My thoughts on the "universal" label are in "The 'universal' issue" last posted to on 6-7-01.

Both are in this forum.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Well, then maybe we should call the game Genericus. The point being that what we were trying to imply by Universal is solely that it works for any genre of play, genre meaning more or less exactly that aglomeration of things that you are wont to attribute to it. It may be that this Universal connotation of the appellation that may be being interpereted as "Universally caters to all styles", is what is bugging some people about it. We wouldn't want to imply that.

In fact the style of play engendered seems pretty unique from my perspective, sharing some things in common with games like SOAP and Once Upon a Time. But that's just my opinion, which is biased due to my closeness to the project. Actuall play tests may promote another style entirely. We'll see.

So the queston becomes what title more intuitively might get across the idea that the game is generic? I'm startig to think that Paul's idea of just going with something provocative in general might be better, and have less maning in the title. As Pblock said, just let the reader figure it out, as that's more important in the end anyhow. Hmmm..

Infinity, while potentially pompous sounding, does imply the open range of possibilities the game possesses. And it packs some punch. Hasn't that already been done somewhere?

Mike

I just read your stuff on Universal vs. General, Ron. And I agree with the distinction. And upon recollection, in fact that is what the U in GURPS stands for Universal as in it works for everybody (which obviously it doesn't). It's the G in GURPS that indicates Generic as in omni-genera, which is pretty obvious when you think about it (and where GURPS succeeds occasionally and fails in others).

So that may be where a lot of people are getting their impressions of what Universalis might imply. Hmmm...I wonder if most will make a distinction between Generic and Universal? Is popular sentiment like PBlock's right now? Are such games out of Vogue to the point that indicating either would be a blunder? I'm liking Infinity more and more...

Mike

Hi Mike,

I'm pretty easy about titles. As I said earlier, "Universalis" doesn't bug me as a title, although the use of "universal" regarding role-playing DOES bug me as a concept (or rather, it's an absurdity). So even given that, I'm STILL all right with the title of the game.

Still, maybe we should all go the videotape in this discussion. Barring obvious titles like "Call of Cthulhu," "Hercules," and "The Dying Earth," which simply mirror their licensing sources, we get the following types.

- codename/acronyms: GURPS, FUDGE.
- imitators of D&D: Tunnels & Trolls, Chivalry & Sorcery, Swords & Spells, Heroes and Heroines, Villains & Vigilantes.
- interwords: DragonQuest, RuneQuest, UnderWorld.
- one-word-wonders: Vampire, Sorcerer, Swashbuckler, Toon, Universe.
- descriptors: Orkworld (which is not an interword), Blue World, Macho Women with Guns, Army Ants.
- evocators: The Whispering Vault, Nobilis, Champions, Hero Wars, Maelstrom, Little Fears, Fading Suns, Unknown Armies.
- provocators: Ninja Burger, Zero, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Obsidian, Everway.

These categories overlap to a large extent; I think the one-word-wonder is basically an evocator, for instance, just with a very recognizable "ah ha" rather than "what's THAT" as the result. And a provocator is an evocator intended to inspire curiosity.

I'm trying to think about RPG titles that simply don't work for me ... I guess the worst (relative to the game itself) is "Epiphany," which conveys literally nothing about the pulp-fantasy, Hyperborean material of the game, nor does it bring up any interesting thoughts or curiosity on its own.

Best,
Ron

Eh. Calling a game Universal or anything like Infinity triggers the nasty little nitpicky part of my brain which says "right. You're universal are you? I want to run a game involving a sentient toadstool in the year 3 billion bc, a artificially intelligent starship the size of a small moon, and God. In a dungeon. In four different parallel universes. And the mechanics have to account for the importance of Tori Amos in all things."

Basically, the more pretentious you sound, the more I want to break you. "Writ Large" sounds ok, though...

If you'll accept me as a random consumer sample, and as someone who has never seen your game and knows nothing about it, I really like "Writ Large". Of all the potential titles mentioned on this site so far, that is the one that makes me say, "Boy, I'd better check that out."

On 2001-09-25 12:24, Mytholder wrote:

I want to run a game involving a sentient toadstool in the year 3 billion bc, a artificially intelligent starship the size of a small moon, and God. In a dungeon. In four different parallel universes. And the mechanics have to account for the importance of Tori Amos in all things."

On 2001-09-25 13:09, stimuli wrote:
If you'll accept me as a random consumer sample, and as someone who has never seen your game and knows nothing about it, I really like "Writ Large". Of all the potential titles mentioned on this site so far, that is the one that makes me say, "Boy, I'd better check that out."

There's a Hyprborean pulp game with the name "Epiphany"? That is sad, unless there is something you missed. Epiphany should be a game that's a combination of Trivial Pursuit and Pictionary or something.

Cool analysis, Ron. I'm starting to feel like using something provocative. Actually, I think that would be the category that Universalis would fall into, but it might evoke some of the wrong things, too. Infinity is apparently provocative, as it got a rise out of Mythie. Perhaps that's a good thing. I would want people to challenge it's dimensions as I think that may be one of its greatest strengths.

Hey, Ralph, when we were brainstorming a long time back, didn't you suggest Infinity as a possibility? I probably dismissed it as too bombastic. Reconsidering now.

Mike

How about "Ad Nauseam?"


Or, why not "Ad Infinitum?" That way you could have the cool abbreviation "AI." Of course, if you go that route, you could also call it "Haley Joel Osment: The RPG."

Then we could do a cross-over with LF. :wink:



_________________
Jason L Blair
Editor-in-Chief
Key 20 Publishing
www.key20.com

[ This Message was edited by: Key20Jason on 2001-09-25 14:47 ]

I had just looked up the Latin for Infinity: Infinitum. I like that, Jason. Ad Infinitum, not Ad Nauseum, haha, very funny :wink:

I also did a search for "Writ Large" and apparently this is one of those cases where a person can go through life without bumping into something fairly common. I honestly have never seen the phrase before. Is this one of those obscure phrases that suddenly gains a burst of great popularity after being relatively dormant for a while (I hope so). Anyhow, from context it would appear to mean "presented larger than normal" or something like that. From a litteral meaning of written large? Makes sense. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that it's probably from Shakespeare. Might make a good title as well.

Mike

Does it refer to anything Paul, or did you just divine that out of thin air?

I thought the game needed a name that conveyed a sense of collaborative and contentious epic-scale craftmanship, which from playing it at GenCon was my overriding impression of it. Universalis is too stern for my taste. I like Infinity, because it feels like more of an artistic endeavor than Universalis. But I like Writ Large the best. Disruption of Entropy is perhaps the most high concept of the titles, and I do like it, God and the Author as forces of science and mathematics. I rather thought there'd be a few advocates of Disruption of Entropy. I did not, however, think there'd be any advocates of Aperture Contraction. It's too quirky, and overly focused on the idea of starting with the whole field of view and narrowing the focus of attention.

Paul

A more concise version of "Disruption of Entropy" might be "Ectropy" (or "Extropy," if you prefer).

I like the term "Ectropy." It makes me happy. Ectropy, ectropy, ectropy.

Hey Paul,

I like your ideas more and more. You've been a very important inspiration in general during this later phase of the game's design. We'll have to consider these each carefully.

The game has tended to play a bit epic, but that seems to be a side effect, and was not a design goal. I'm not sure if we should embrace it and go with the flow or check it to see that something about it isn't prohibiting non-epic play. I think that just the idea that players get at first that they have control of everything and that they have to be considering the big picture is the cause. I'm certain you could get around that by playing in established settings, for example.

Still, I don't mind the game soundig Epic by its name. I think that's probably attractive to lots of players.

Thanks,
Mike

On 2001-09-25 15:46, Epoch wrote:
A more concise version of "Disruption of Entropy" might be "Ectropy" (or "Extropy," if you prefer).

I like the term "Ectropy." It makes me happy. Ectropy, ectropy, ectropy.

I think I'm pretty much obliged by the way my brain is hardwired to buy any print RPG that I name, yes. :razz:

"Extropy" sounds sexier, yes. Because it's got an X in it. X's are sexy. Look, see, I'll even ask the marketting lady. Yup. She agrees. Sexy as hell.

I was going to use "Ectropianism" as the name of a faction in a game that I will doubtless never get around to writing.

Y'know, I'm liking Ectropy quite a bit. The game plays as a process of forging a homogenous aggregate of points into a highly organized, heterogenous game reality. And if that ain't ectropy, I don't know what is. How about:

Ectropy: Build a Universe Tonight, from the Homogeneity You Have on Hand

Paul

:)

On 2001-09-25 12:21, Ron Edwards wrote:
- one-word-wonders: Vampire, Sorcerer, Swashbuckler, Toon, Universe.

Hmmm. Sorcerer, an intense role-playing game. Is that part of the title? If not, what do you call it. Yeah, I used to love colon separated subtitiles. Then at some point they became mandatory. About the same time as ST:tNG.

Well, what does everybody think? You certainly get more bang from your title with a subtitle. And Paul's is hytsterical. Homogenaity on hand. LOL That's precious. We may be forced to use that at least in the advertising. Or something about Jungian Dialectics.

But are people just tired of subtitles like I am, or does anybody think they still have some milage left?

Mike

I think you're about a decade late to be using a subtitle. It's old hat now. In another five years it'll be retro-cool.

An Intence Role-Playing Game isn't part of the title. It's a descriptive statement. Ron could follow it up with Apothocary, An Intense Role-Playing Game or Barbarian, An Intense Role-Playing Game, etc. It wasn't Wraith: The Masquarade, right?

(Not to plug my own crumby work but I'm calling The Wheel An Active Role-Playing Game. God, that's pretentious.)

It's got to be past time for the old D&D-type titles to be cool again.

Maybe you could combine it with the subtitle. Kit & Kaboodle: The Whole Ball of Wax.

Hmm... maybe not.

Mike,

"An intense role-playing game" is NOT part of Sorcerer's title. The phrase is an advertising tagline, nothing more.

Oh yeah - and the game was never called "Sorcerer RPG," which somehow got established a while ago, to my aggravation.

Best,
Ron

Jack, I agree that a subtitle wouldn't fly these days. But I thin that Ron's tagline is a good idea. I now have waaayy to many ideas all of which I think are pretty cool. This is where I let Ralph at them and he chucks most of them out until we get down to the best.

And we still might use Universalis. Who knows.

Mike

P.S. if we don't snatch up the Ectropy... title as Paul put it out there, somebody else should use that one. That's just too cool an idea. :smile:

On 2001-09-25 12:24, Mytholder wrote:
Eh. Calling a game Universal or anything like Infinity triggers the nasty little nitpicky part of my brain which says "right. You're universal are you? I want to run a game involving a sentient toadstool in the year 3 billion bc, a artificially intelligent starship the size of a small moon, and God. In a dungeon. In four different parallel universes. And the mechanics have to account for the importance of Tori Amos in all things."

pblock sayeth:

"I used to be part of Crtters, an on-line critiquing group, but I quit because I was too damned lazy to be a worthwhile member."

Me too!

"Durning my time there, I submitted two stories for critique. One was titled "My Baby Will Have No Head" and response was unbelieveable. Moreso because the story came up in the queue around the Fouth of July holiday and it was a double sized bundle of manuscripts to cover two week due to the holiday and all of that. More than one person mentioned that the title was the reason why they read my manuscript."

I was one of the folks who critiqued your story. Check your emails and you'll see James V's name there. Small world, huh?