Universalis is hard to read, but its rules are clear and make perfect sense. It doesn’t tell you how to create stories. It helps you create interacting narrative elements, and decide who gets to say what when.
Post originally by Wulf Corbett at 2005-01-28 14:18:32
Converted from Phorums BB System
... glad to hear, that is, that it wasn't just me who had difficulty actually reading this book. I knew there was a great set of ideas in there somewhere, but it's as dry as a pub with no beer.
I can't say I agree with your complaint that there are no rules on what a story 'is' or how to tell it, that's up to the players I'd say. But even so, you don't mention the examples of play, which I found easier to understand than the rules, and give an idea what the author had in mind for how to tell a story.
very little about the defining structures of story
Post originally by Paul Czege at 2005-01-31 07:23:41
Converted from Phorums BB System
Hey Matthijs,
<FONT COLOR="RED">However, very little is said about the defining structures of a story. How to create mood? How to address a premise or theme? How to achieve a satisfying ending?</FONT>
I'm pretty keen to see your forthcoming actual play review. I think Universalis knows two things, and relies to good effect on the knowledge without getting unnecessarily into the theoretical weeds:
1. Stories are part of who we are. We've been telling them around the fire for thousands of years. And we know a satisfying story when we hear it. Without getting explicit, Universalis disavows roleplaying's dirty secret, the notion that players will mill about and contribute ineffectively to story without the strong hand of a wise GM on the rudder.
2. And that if the circumstance of our effort doesn't have room for reflection and redaction, we'll be better collectively at story making than we are individually. We know what details to challenge, without maybe knowing consciously why, and we know what details to support.
Post originally by Ralph Mazza at 2005-01-31 15:24:50
Converted from Phorums BB System
The book does read like a text book. That's partially my background in technical writing, but also a concious, intentional decision.
Many of the rules that we use when we roleplay are implied standard things that we're all familiar with from a dozen years of gaming in 2 dozen different games. Whos the GM, what are PCs. Combat always comes down to initiative order and to-hit rolls...its just a question of how any given game does it...etc.
But Universalis was so unique in the moment to moment specifics of how it plays (pretty much ignores all of the standard techniques of traditional roleplaying) that I thought it was most important to be very specific and very precise about exactly how the game works.
For that reason I didn't want people to do the usual "skim through the rules and fill in the blanks from my own experience" thing. I wanted to walk them through the game and how it works step by step.
So to do that, I wrote the book more like a technical manual rather than a game book.
I think it was the right way to go, but I can't argue with the fact that the writing is very dry and un-punchy. Fortuneatly, once one learns to play, there is little need to reread the rules.
RE: very little about the defining structures of s
Post originally by Ralph Mazza at 2005-01-31 15:30:42
Converted from Phorums BB System
That's it exactly. People with advanced educations in literature have been discussing the nature of a story and its components for centuries. I couldn't hope to even give a roughly adequate summary of the topic.
BUT, despite the fact that most people are not literature major...we all have a sense of what we like in a story...even though most times we can't even begin to articulate it.
The core mechanics of Universalis relies heavily on each player's innate sense of what they like in a story, and provides the means to resolve differences between players when they arise. That's the biggest distinction between Universalis and free form "pass the conch" roleplaying. A very specific (and I've found highly effective) mechanical way to resolve those disagreements.
I never cease to be astonished at the depth of good story telling that players (even in half hour con demos) arrive at in very short order...all without detailed background or scenario prep and without a GM to prod things along.
Post originally by Bill Cook at 2005-02-01 01:13:07
Converted from Phorums BB System
I guess, being a programmer, I didn't have an issue with the technical tone. I appreciated how the running example brought each section to life.
One thing I struggled with, that is only mentioned in passing in this review, was early referencing of later material. I know that can be a pickle, though. I would have preferred to not even know about complications before chapter six, for example.
I thought the ending to chapter three was particularly good at plateauing the concepts introduced so far.
I was thinking as I read, "This sounds like a narrative object model," and I kept expecting to see a tree. I would have enjoyed seeing portions of a complete model diagram revealed as they were introduced, ending with the whole thing at the end.
Post originally by Big Ry at 2005-02-01 01:49:59
Converted from Phorums BB System
I too had difficulty reading it. Put it down after reading about 30 or so pages. Perhap the first part of the book is a bit dry and textbook-y. The latter part seemed to pick up, and the examples made everything clearer, but the first part was a bit of a struggle.
RE: very little about the defining structures of s
Post originally by Jim Bob at 2005-02-01 17:12:54
Converted from Phorums BB System
Paul Crege writes,
"Without getting explicit, Universalis disavows roleplaying's dirty secret, the notion that players will mill about and contribute ineffectively to story without the strong hand of a wise GM on the rudder."
But... the notion is pretty much correct.
You talk about someone telling a story around the campfire? Fair enough. But ONE person tells ONE story. No-one else has input on that story. If they did, the story would be pulled in several directions at once. Ug tells his story, finishes it, then maybe Og tells his story.
A story which everyone has input, that's a roleplaying game session. To avoid it being dragged in several different directions, we have a GM.
I mean, even with a GM, we get,
"I walk away from the party, leaving the dungeon. It's what my character would do."
Now, if all the players are intelligent, mature, imaginative, accomodating of one another's wishes, and equally committed to the joint story, then Universalis and other GM-less systems works wonderfully.
But I would say that if you have these Perfect Players, then you don't need _any game system at all_. You can just sit in the park on a sunny day without any books, and roleplay without a GM.
RE: very little about the defining structures of s
Post originally by Ralph Mazza at 2005-02-01 20:36:54
Converted from Phorums BB System
Interesting remarks Jim. I think you illustrate perfectly Paul's point. See, everything you just said...is exactly what most gamers believe and would say if asked why a GM is necessary...thing is...its not accurate.
I've run several dozen demos over the last 3 years. Other players have run many more at other cons. Not every game has been perfect...no RPG can claim that. But I've NEVER witnessed the sort of dysfunction you assume would happen without a GM. And that's not with "perfect players" (whatever those are). That's with whoever stops by the booth and wants a demo. A very broad selection.
People resort to "My Guy" because in most games their character is their only avenue of influence on the game at all. If the GM starts meddling with that (as is often the case) then the players' have no real power left. So retreating into "My Guy" is a defense mechanism against unwelcome interference.
Universalis avoids this problem quite neatly in 3 ways. First...no one has ownership of any single "player character" all characters (indeed all setting elements as well) are held in common and run by whomever controls them currently). Thus, there is no "My Guy" to run to.
Second, all players have 100% equal power with each other to control the story and the entire game world. They are all essentially GMs (so far from being GM-less, the game more accurately could be said to be GM-ful). There is no motivation to limit oneself by retreating into "My Guy", since the character in Universalis is just the beginning rather than the limit of the player's influence.
And third, there are 5 mechanical elements built into the game to deal with any unwelcome interference when it does occur (Complications, Challenges, Fines, Tenets, and clever use of Facts).
I'm also very curious about the following statement you made. "If all the players are intelligent, mature, imaginative, accomodating of one another's wishes, and equally committed..."
Ummm. Why wouldn't they be? Isn't that a prerequisite before you even sit down to play ANY roleplaying game with them? Scratch that...isn't that a prerequisite before you even engage in any social activity at all with them? Far from that being the definition of a "perfect player" that seems to me to be the minimum requirement to be even worth spending time with a person.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to spend many hours of their time with people who weren't mature, accomodating, and committed to everyone's enjoyment.
No set of rules, and no draconian GM techniques can "protect" you from players who are immature, refuse to accomodate the preferences of other players, and remain uncommitted to anyone's enjoyment but their own. Those player you simply don't play with. Hell, why even hang out with people like that?
Linear Mode
