[UA] Stolze's Schaudenfraude (was: Re: [UA] Bill In Three Persons Survey)

[Chad Underkoffler]

> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:00:33 -0600
> From: Gregory Paul Stolze <holycrow at mindspring.com>
> 
> 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.

That's depressing, Greg.

> 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!

You enjoy not just other people's failure, but the fact that
*everyone* fails all the time, save those who aim low and
compromise everything?

> 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...

I'm not sure that that's the game's tone. Indeed, from at least
one unpublished review I've seen, the reviewer thought UA was
going the splatbook "bigger, better, tougher, now!" route.

I think UA's tone is overall one of humanity, and perhaps it
focuses a bit too much on how we are sneaky, neurotic, and
power-hungry. Tainted by selfishness. 

That's well and good, but I do feel that there's no enough
discussion of truly high-minded ideals-- just about everyone
posited as having ideals seems to either be deluded, or
off-kilter, or only marginally ideal. 

I mean, I don't get the feeling from UA that any of the
characters could be described as 50+% "good." Their flaws tend
to be so much more than the average person's, so that they are
on the whole, nasty people and fall on the 50+% "icky" part of
the spectrum.

Am I oversimplifying?



=====
Chad Underkoffler [chadu at yahoo.com]
http://www.geocities.com/chadu/index.html
"Hold your breath. Make a wish. Count to three."
  -- Willy Wonka

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

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