Hi all,

Has anyone played Universalis by post or email? If so, how did you handle laying out narration so that interruption could happen? What other concerns does such a style of play have that would be specific to Universalis?

One issue is that it seems like the game is just going to be pretty different from face to face, to IRC, to email. Is that so? When trying to set up one of these styles does it even make sense to try to simulate the f2f experience or does it make more sense to just embrace and exploit the differences?

It seems that to make room for interruption, you'd have to either limit the amount of narration that can happen per player per unit time (when it's your turn, write one sentence per hour) or give the other players the ability to hop back to any point in the most recently narrated "paragraph" and interrupt, essentially annulling a chunk of what happened. I see pros and cons to each approach. The first runs the risk of losing player interest for the slow approach that requires many periods of attendance. The second approach allows a fire and forget style, but if there was a lot of retroactive "early" interruption, I fear that players would get tired of having their stuff thoroughly trumped.

Other than this issue, I think play by post is a great medium for this game because it allows time for proper record-keeping and presentation. You can have a thread for out of game BSing, a thread for in-game discussions, a thread for presenting and preserving tenets, a thread (or more) for component tracking, a thread for event narration per scene, and a thread that acts as an overall timeline, showing how the scenes are linked chronologically.

And does anyone have any ideas for handling player turnover? Is it a problem if players come and go? What is an appropriate coin-handling process when this happens?

I searched for earlier discussions on this and didn't turn anything up, but either I don't understand the forge search parameters or it's a pretty unsophisticated tool. Hopefully I'm not just replicating earlier conversation.

Chris

I made three separate forays into the world of Play-by-Post with Universalis. I can't report any successes, unfortunatlely.

Now, that said, I should give you some details. All the games were using Wiki technology. Are you familiar? Apparently Wiki appeals to some people, but not at all to others. So I think that the format may have been part of the problem.

Further, PBEM or PBP are inherently problematic for all RPGs it seems to me. Since the social pressure of performing FTF isn't present, the problem becomes participation. Which seems to dwindle in most games over time. Simply, the slow speed of the development of the plot means that you have to have an iron determination to proceed. Which apparently few people have.

That's not to say that all such games are doomed. But it means that unless people are engaged right off, that it's likely to fail. The problem with applying this to Universalis is that, despite the fact that the players come up with the setting on their own, ensuring that it's something that's potentially engaging, it's up to the players to provide their own engagement. With a GM, that participant often has the responsibility for hooking players. In Universalis people assume that they will be like a player, entertained. Wheras the truth is that all players in Uni are GMs and responsible for their own and others entertainment.

So what happens is that players wait for their chance to jump in and play. And little happens, because players aren't GMing to the other players.

Anyhow, that's my take on the problems involved. What I find is that the players who come to the game with a GM attitude post a lot, and the "players" don't post at all. Which means that unless you have a lot of "GM" players, that it all loses it's impetus. On the ones we played it always ended up being Bob McNamee and I posting, with occasionall support from others. That's just not enough to keep the ball rolling.

I have this notion that if there were many people playing, say 20 or so to start, that it would have a sort of critical mass neccessary to proceed.

There are a lot of technical differences that had to be fixed with rule changes to make it all work. One of the rules that I put in place, and may have been problematic, was to eliminate turn order. Philosphically, if you weren't posting, you were passing. So posting was allowed by anyone at any time. I reasoned that this would be of benefit to the players. That is, they could participate as little or as much as the liked. Again, I reasoned that if we had turns, that mostly what this would do was make us all wait for players to post a Pass. Why should those who want to play have to wait. Anyhow, this eliminates the problem with Interruptions.

But I think the other thing it does is to let people off the hook. They never have to feel bad about passing (so to speak). And, further, if the game got out "ahead" of them, then I think that they felt no longer part of the action, and had no reason to participate.

So, if you went with a more traditional turn order, then I think that might potentially ameliorate some of this effect. But, again, I think you might just end up waiting for a lot of "pass" posts from people who can't be bothered to add at the moment. Why participate actively, when you can just jump in when you like. In a traditional game, the responsibility to respond in the name of a character prevents players from being able to dodge play in this way. Maybe you could put in some rule that forced players to respond in some fashion (actually Complications did do this in our game if a player took as little action as to come into Control of any Components; maybe all play could be Complications...).

As for how you'd do Interrupts, I have no idea. If you limit posts to X words, then you have to limit the timeframe as well, or the player just posts several in a row. If the limit is for the turn, then you're just rotating all the time, and Interrupts become pointless except for skipping players. In any case, making delays like this threatens to stretch the game out further than it already is. Which might be problematic.

I think that the "Hopping Back" idea is really problematic. If I've posted something, I'm probably already emotionally attached enough to it that it would be upsetting to see it get smashed for just one Coin. A Challenge should be required to make that happen, IMO.

No, I still think that, despite the failures, that eliminating the turn structure was a better way.

Other rules issues got worked out fairly simply. We came up with a simplified Complication rule that kept them from taking weeks to accomplish. Recordkeeping was standardized. In one game, anyone could start a scene at any time, even if other scenes were going on. I think that's a good way to do it, personally. It allows players to stretch out quite a bit. The only problems were in trying to maintain a consistent timeline. In the games that had only one scene, we did bid for scene. There was a 24 hour limit from the closing of the last scene to get your bid in. High bid submitted in that time got to frame the scene.


Tellya what. I'm interested enough in such projects that I'd help you set it up, point by point. The thing I'd need to know is what sort of goals you have for the project. In order to figure out what would work best. I have several points for what I'd think would work in terms of goals, if you're interested at all.

Because, despite the failures, I do hope that someone figures out how to do this. I agree that the pacing of post play is perfect for Universalis, and have this notion that it ought to work. Like all creators, however, it may just be that I am more excited about the prospect than 90% of the people out there. Which means that getting together a group large enough to support play of a decent length might be difficult.

There's always Bob, though, isn't there? :-)

Mike

I tried to join two of the Wiki games, but as a relative newbie I felt intimidated by the technology and only figured it out as the games were winding (or wound) up.

I think any game needs instructions for:


* joining a game (especially if it's already in progress);
* any coding you need to know; and
* the social contract for when it's appropriate to contribute (turn order)

The instructions need to be easy to find and as clear as possible. Make it easy for new players to join, to help compensate for player attrition.



Mike Holmes wrote:

In one game, anyone could start a scene at any time, even if other scenes were going on.

Neat! I'm glad to see that there is experience out there. I am interested in putting such a game together if there enough interested parties. You mention 20 as a minimum critical mass and it's interesting that I was thinking along similar lines. In those previous three games, how many players started and how long did the games last?

I've never really worked with a wiki but I expect it's not rocket science. Is there someplace that hosts cheap or free wiki-space or did you just run it on your own webspace/server? What's better about Wiki than say rpol.net? What would a custom chat/message tool for Universalis include?

I think the issue of letting the players "off the hook" by eliminating turn order is closely related to the benefits of the social pressure in a face to face game. How can you maximize the likelihood of participation? I think that any play by post game is bound for attrition and in my estimation, the two most important factors to keep this from killing the game are to build in a good way for new players to join and to assure that the game has a hook is for each player. Would players be hooked by having a character component that is always under their control? I keep trying to see the removal of turn order as a good thing, but it seems more negative than positive. Can the positive effects be achieved some other way?

What if any new scene must include a component from a previous scene in the initial framing? Would that help drive a coherent storyline (as per Steve's complaint)? Would it be overly limiting?

ALong the lines of concurrent scenes, what if there were some limits, like n/4 scenes can be 'open' at any given time (where n is the number of players) and each player can only have one scene that they framed at a time? Would that help to prevent dillution while still providing an engaging ongoing experience? It's funny, on first reading that you set it up so that anyone could frame a scene at any time, I hated the idea. By the time I got around to responding (just a few minutes later) it seemed like a great way of keeping the players engaged in an otherwise slow medium. If there are multiple scenes going on, is the problem of slow progression as great a problem?

What effect would increasing the cost to interrupt have? I thought of this in response to "Why participate actively, when you can just jump in when you like" but it's a bit confusing to me to maintain a turn order and have multiple scenes progressing. But maybe you could maintain a master turn order and each scene could have it's own turn order that follows the same cycle, starting with the framing player and then just disappears when the scene closes. It sounds complicated but if the net.tool that you were using to enable the game were designed for it, it wouldn't be too bad.

It sounds like Steve found Wiki less than intuitive. What was done to provide documentation on the environment for the players? I don't know if this was the case in this event, but it is sometimes hard for those familiar with a technology to remember how alien it is to those who are not.

Mike, you ask about goals for the project. I'm not sure in what sense you mean that. The first goal in my mind is to figure out a fun and workable solution that would bring Universalis in a new and better way to the internet audience. My second goal is just to facilitate more fun play for me. Or maybe I got the two reversed. :-) What kind of goals did you have in mind? I started to think about this more because I'm not likely to be able to make Monday nights on a very regular basis and I really want to see more of this game first hand.

With all the talk of what to change to make it workable, how appropriate is it to set up a game of universalis with a bunch of tenets/gimicks in place before the players get together? It seems somehow philisophically impure.

Chris

THere is indeed always Bob...

Still think it could work someway.

Uni Fiend,

BTW: I enjoyed reading both the Wiki Universalis games. All my comments are based on wanting to make the next one better.

Focusing on a single storyline might be too dictatorial. I guess the goal is to use any strategy that sustains player interest until the story reaches a critical mass - that point where the players are invested in keeping it going.

. . . How appropriate is it to set up a game of Universalis with a bunch of tenets/gimicks in place before the players get together? It seems somehow philisophically impure.

And also, who's interested in playing in such a game if we put one together? If all four people who've posted to this thread are in, we're 1/5 of the way to 20. Anyone else?

Chris

One other idea we kicked around at the time of the last Wiki Uni game was to have an occassional (say once every couple weeks or perhaps month) get together in an IRC channel to play the Wiki game setting live.

That way you get small doses of live 'story jump starting' as a group.

The logs from this play can be posted to the wiki pages to keep the game up to date for those who couldn't make it.

Edit: This is also a good way to handle the intial Tenets session since you can get live feedback, and Challenges from the participants

Christopher Weeks wrote: Neat! I'm glad to see that there is experience out there. I am interested in putting such a game together if there enough interested parties. You mention 20 as a minimum critical mass and it's interesting that I was thinking along similar lines. In those previous three games, how many players started and how long did the games last?

I've never really worked with a wiki but I expect it's not rocket science.

Is there someplace that hosts cheap or free wiki-space or did you just run it on your own webspace/server?

What's better about Wiki than say rpol.net?

What would a custom chat/message tool for Universalis include?

Would players be hooked by having a character component that is always under their control?

I keep trying to see the removal of turn order as a good thing, but it seems more negative than positive. Can the positive effects be achieved some other way?

What if any new scene must include a component from a previous scene in the initial framing? Would that help drive a coherent storyline (as per Steve's complaint)? Would it be overly limiting?

ALong the lines of concurrent scenes, what if there were some limits, like n/4 scenes can be 'open' at any given time (where n is the number of players) and each player can only have one scene that they framed at a time?

Would that help to prevent dillution while still providing an engaging ongoing experience? It's funny, on first reading that you set it up so that anyone could frame a scene at any time, I hated the idea. By the time I got around to responding (just a few minutes later) it seemed like a great way of keeping the players engaged in an otherwise slow medium. If there are multiple scenes going on, is the problem of slow progression as great a problem?

It sounds like Steve found Wiki less than intuitive. What was done to provide documentation on the environment for the players?

What kind of goals did you have in mind?

With all the talk of what to change to make it workable, how appropriate is it to set up a game of universalis with a bunch of tenets/gimicks in place before the players get together? It seems somehow philisophically impure.

I'm still digesting and considering and maybe I'll come back with more questions and comments, but until then, I opened http://universalis.swiki.net/1 as an experiment. If anyone (Mike?) wants to take the time to see if http://www.swiki.net/ has the important features, that would be nifty.

It appears that Wikis have been extended beyond the basic idea in some implementations including chatrooms, javascript, and other automation. Were previous WikiUniversalises dependent on such things? What about dice-rolling?

Chris

Christopher Weeks wrote: I'm still digesting and considering and maybe I'll come back with more questions and comments, but until then, I opened http://universalis.swiki.net/1 as an experiment. If anyone (Mike?) wants to take the time to see if http://www.swiki.net/ has the important features, that would be nifty.

It appears that Wikis have been extended beyond the basic idea in some implementations including chatrooms, javascript, and other automation. Were previous WikiUniversalises dependent on such things? What about dice-rolling?

Mike Holmes wrote: So, what do you think? Really not very complex, but yet totally effective at making records. So I feel that it's perfect for Uni play (especially the sort that I'd like to see). Do you see how you'd link locations to each other by adjacency so that you'd end up with a world like the old classic text adventures? Are you a Wiki lover or hater? :-)

Interestingly I had a design that used Lotus Notes as the interface that did what a Wiki does, but much more efficiently (if we're thinking about the same issues). The problem is finding someone with a Domino Server to run it. :-)

If you want players, you'll have to advertise, of course.

Mike

I just sent a note to indie-netgaming and popped over here to find your suggestion. How/where else would you suggest? This is probably a stretch, but does Ramshead Publishing keep a mailing list that is accessible? What about a note on http://universalis.actionroll.com/ directing people to our game? Is asking for players elsewhere on The Forge appropriate? (Actual Play or Connections?) Should I start a seperate thread in this group as a call for players or would that be wasteful?

People should start to feel free to enter stuff in the Opening Discussion page if you have comments.

Chris

This is probably a stretch, but does Ramshead Publishing keep a mailing list that is accessible?

Bob's signed up for more Uni wiki!

Heh, in making the leftmost part of the domain "universalis", like the Universalis site, Chris has inadvertently established a Universalis domain web. Maybe it'll spread. :-)

Mike

Actually, right after I did that, I wondered if it was legal or fair use or whatever. Anyway, I figure I'm on solid ground since both of the people who might care, know and haven't said anything, and I'm not making any money.

Chris

Is anyone else experiencing problems accessing the Swiki? I'm getting an "Internal Server Error" message.

Steve.

hix wrote: Is anyone else experiencing problems accessing the Swiki? I'm getting an "Internal Server Error" message.

Steve.

I too. When did it start?

Chris

I first noticed it this morning - so about 8 or 9 hours ago at least. I'm still able to access my other swikis though.

Steve.

Edited once.

Just chiming in with a "me too".

Mike

One of our trusty players emailed me the following:

I noticed on the Forge, people are having trouble accessing to The
Universalis Arena. I think it is because the URL has been changed (dropping
the inadvertent Universalis domain part) the new URL is

http://www.swiki.net/~clweeks/The%20Universalis%20Arena/1

I'm not able to reach the Universalis Arena- wiki website today (sunday Nov 9, 2003)

Bob McNamee

Hmm. That's weird, I get there with the new link above with no problem. OTOH, I've had some problems with the password...

Mike

I have to say, I think this is really bad. I can't get in either and haven't been able to do so reliably for a week. And Ralph's mailing just went out. And I haven't heard back from Swiki. Grrrrr.

But, what can you expect from a free service. I guess I'll have to start looking at hosting a wiki of some kind and maybe we can correct the bad URL somehow.

Chris

I'll chime in with a "me too" again; both swiki addresses are gone (And have been for quite a while).

IT seems to be working for me today

Bob McNamee wrote: IT seems to be working for me today

I think there may be odd browser/cookie interactions going on. That's my best guess.

Mike

It was strange. Clearing the cache, cookies, and autocomplete at work didn't do the trick-- I was never able to log on from there. But when I got home, I logged on easily.

I've logged out at home, so it'll be interesting to see if I can hop on from work at lunch, or if it keeps giving me grief.

I've got a freind who is a partner on a site that hosts a TWiki, which has been very dependable. I've been running a play by post there for some months. http://www.nullnode.com/twiki/bin/view.pl Its also a faily easy version to use and edit. I could ask him if we could do it on that site.

regards,

Trevis

Ah, good. Maybe it is some kind of clumsy cookie duel. Here at work it seems to be working fine. I'll log out tonight and try again from home to see if it was my fault (sort of) all along. It would be better if we don't have to fall back on some other resource.

Chris

Today (wednesday) I'm getting

Page cannot be displayed
Can't find server

I always go to the site from home.

Oh well, perhaps I'll try a full reboot to see if that helps.

Since we haven't started yet...now would be the time to move, if we need to do that.

Still unable to access the page from work. At work I use IE6, while at home I use Netscape. I doubt that's the problem, since I first read and editted the site at lunch from work, but who knows?

Shrug. I guess as long as I can access it at home, I'll call it good. I agree with Bob that if we're going to move, it should be before the game starts.

Scott

As of right now, Friday morning (east coast, US), http://www.swiki.net/~clweeks/The%20Universalis%20Arena/1 is being very good. I'd like to see if it's just me or everyone. I'm still unsure about the cause of our difficulty and their support email has never answered any of my three notes.

Play is slated to begin this Sunday and I think we should continue with this notion as long as technical problems do not overwhelm us. Is there anyone at this point who is simply unable to access the site?

Chris

I'm able to reach it today..friday

I've had the ability to get there almost constantly. But I have to reset my password to get in each time. Which is a hassle.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I've had the ability to get there almost constantly. But I have to reset my password to get in each time. Which is a hassle.

I'm using more than one machine, but I don't use the autofil method because I don't want people at work to have access to my passwords. So I type it in each time. Then it tells me that it can't let me in. So I then use the "forgot your password" link, get a link to change my password mailed to me, change my password, and then log in.

To be truthful, it's only happened twice, and I've given up since. Really haven't had anything important to post. See, I can read it, I just can't edit it without the rigamarole.

Mike

Do you have the cookie set at home, but not at work? Or are you only doing it at work? (And anyone else who's been having problems is more than welcome to fill in the same blanks so we can get a bigger picture.)

I'm suspicious about my own problems, so I'm looking for similarities. I think that maybe swiki.net thought that I was logged in from work and thus wouldn't let me in from home. And maybe the reverse of that situation earlier. So I'm trying to figure out exactly what to do to make it work and what to write up so that other, new players don't get bit like many of us.

Chris

Suddenly, today, it's back to working fine for me from work. I didn't do anything new, so I'm going to assume it's swiki's end.

It appears to be problematic once again. Grrr.

Chris

Yep.

Have you talked to the site administrators?

Mike

I'm having trouble too..tuesday

Mike Holmes wrote: Have you talked to the site administrators?

I guess you'll all know this from the email updates, but we're up again. It looks like the outage was less than 24 hours.

Arrrgh. Now I can see the site fine, but the passord problem is back worse than before. Now when I try to reset my password, and link to the page where I'm supposed to be able to do it, I get a message that I don't have authorization to change the password. So I'm locked out of editing completely.

And I wanted to put in a Tenet. Could somebody post this for me:

- There was a World War between the Hemispheres (with some exceptions in terms of who was allied with whom) that ended just a few years ago leaving the world in a cold war situation.

Also, let's put in horizontal rules on the Tenet's page after each round, so its immediately apparent when you're eligible to post another.

And then where can I mail to complain about the password? Or, better yet, can we move this over to the Twiki mentioned? I don't see how we can trust the game to Swiki given the lousy service we've seen so far. A port at this point shouldn't be too difficult, but it will be if we wait for play to start.

Mike

I'll second a vote on moving.
My Tenet was late, and changed a bit, due to not being able to get there yesterday.

I've had a lot to say about topics like the scene Framing discussion, but can't get on to make my points.

Hopefully people aren't putting off joining because of the problems that we're enumerating here. If you're out there watching, things are starting to warm up, and I'd encourage readers to join right away. I'm sure we'll have the technical problems figured out in short order.

Mike

I've emailed Jon for permission to use the twiki but I'm sure he'll let us. Is everyone agreed to move?

Trevis

Well, tonight (wednesday) I could see the Tenets page, and a question about my tenet, but can not get to the edit, or anyother pages (includung the negotiation question page...

Sigh,

Just to put in my thoughts on Zeppelins...

With no steel, it would have to be created out of some other material.
And engines would be a problem.
I'm assuming that bronze is the most common metallic tool. With strong advancements in ceramics, composite materials like wood and concrete. Most probably very advanced glass working, along with ceramics, maybe lots of fiberglass too?.

It wouldn't be unlikely to assume that semi/super conductors, solar panels, and electric engines could be fairly common

I'd accept Zeppelins-like tech. With a resonable explaination.

Heck some richer governments might even pool together what Iron they can get...for 'secret weapons' like internal combustion powered -steel airframed ships... or the odd cannon.

I've gotten an initial reply from jon and he said he has to query his partners as they have limited space. I'll look for his reply in the next couple days, but it might not work out.

My other suggestion is RPOL (www.rpol.net) Granted its all in thread form, like this board, but its worked out well for our Sorcerer Game.

Trevis

Moving on is fine if we have a stable place. I'm not even opposed to paying a fee if that makes it easier for your friends to justify.

And I have no idea what zeppelins are made of, but as you suggest, alternate materials -- aluminum and fiberglass maybe could replace ferous technologies. (So do I owe a coin at this point?)

Chris

OK Mike, I tip my hat to you :-) Only just this morning did it finally sink in how cool Wiki is for this kind of game. Thanks.

Chris

<Mike does that thing with the eybrows where they go up and down as if to say, "Yeah, pretty neat, eh?">

I'll send a message to Travis (not Trevis) on Indie Netgaming. He hosted the last game, and I'm betting would be willing to host this one. He provided great support.

Mike

Clinton posted the following to Indie Netgaming. I don't know why I didn't think to ask him. Sounds like the perfect thing.

>From: "Clinton R. Nixon" <crnixon@anvilwerks.com>
>
>Mike,
>
>I'll certainly host it for you - hell, everything's set up currently to
>run it at The Anvilwerks RPG Laboratory [1].
>
>[1] http://www.anvilwerks.com/RPGLaboratory/RPGLaboratory
>
>- Clinton

What do you think, Chris? You could post the question to the Swiki to get a general consensus.

Mike

It looks like the URL should be http://www.anvilwerks.com/index.php/RPGLaboratory/RPGLaboratory unless I'm missing something. It would be a new set of text formatting conventions, but if it's usually up, that's a small price to pay. I have posted about it and we'll see how it shakes out. And you should get over to the Tenet page and speak up! :-)

Chris

Christopher Weeks wrote: It would be a new set of text formatting conventions, but if it's usually up, that's a small price to pay.

I have posted about it and we'll see how it shakes out. And you should get over to the Tenet page and speak up! :-)

Mike Holmes wrote: I would if I could. Pass me this round if I'm last.

Yay for moving to Anvilwerks. And I actually like that set of text formatting rules better. Its what make Wiki worth using anyway.

Trevis

Count me in favor of moving.
I've posted on Tenets today (sat).
Looks like its only mike left... unless he's passing?

Hey for everyone. I'm for moving to the Anvilwerks or the Nullnode Wiki. I've gotten confirmation that we can host on nullnode if we want to provided we 1.) allow the six paying partners of nullnode to play (heh, I said that wouldn't be a problem and they could play even if we didn't host there.) and 2.) didn't post any pictures on the wiki as they are memory intensive.

Wow...looks like when we need a place we just get a bunch of opportunities...

Trevis

I started setting up on Anvilwerks. In mid process, swiki crashed on me, but I did get 2 pages over before it happened.

The two pages I managed to get across are: The Universalis Arena and Tenets. If this looks reasonable, we can continue when swiki returns for pillaging. If it doesn't look right, if the new text rules are too funky, or for any other reason, we can look into Nullnode or elsewhere.

Sound good to everyone else?
-Scott

Sounds good to me. My only concern is not losing anyone in the transfer. We should at least leave the home page up there as a notice that it's moved.

Mike