[UA] Bill In Three Persons Survey

[Gregory Paul Stolze]

At 12:32 PM 12/12/2000 EST, you wrote:
>I just ran this one for my players, so here's the results...
>
>They failed *each* one. They never figured out what they were supposed to
do, 
>and were quite confused the whole time. Perhaps this was my fault.
>However, this gives me an idea for a "Servants of the Comte" game.
>Since my entire campaign has been "weird stuff happens..."
>(High Weirdness), it should fit in perfectly. 
>Bi3P didn't take very long to run. 

More and more, I'm starting to suspect that the high incidence of failure
is what makes UA so special in RPGs.  Not just player failure either.  More
and more, it seems like everyone involved in a conflict is just flailing
around blindly until one gets tired first or gets a lucky shot.  In fact,
in the UA novel I wrote, that's pretty much EXACTLY what happens.  I don't
think ONE SINGLE CHARACTER gets what they want.  Wait, one TNI guy maybe --
but he sets his sights pretty low, is willing to do some evil deeds and
takes a big risk.

Now, a high degree of randomness was built into the mechanics.  That was
intentional, and it's turned out the way I thought.  I just seems to turn
out MORE SO.  But I like it!

The dirty secret of gaming (well, one of them) seems to be this: A game's
tone really takes a year or so to reveal itself.  The authors would like to
think we set it, but we really only influence it.  The rules contribute,
the writing contributes, the setting contributes, but that stuff all gets
mixed in with the decisions of the people who were attracted to the game.
It's so contingent...

-G.
Only bad stories need fine language and fine words.  Good stories find
their own words and their own language and do well in all tongues.
		-Milorad Pavic

http://www.waylay.com
http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html




_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua