Universalis; Character Power vs. Plot Control

[The Hive Custodian]

Universalis

Recently the game Universalis (http://www.ramshead.indie-rpgs.com/) was mentioned to me. Has anybody played or heard of it?

Reading the website, it is very different from most RPGs. There is no GM, and the players don't control single characters. Instead, each player has a number of Coins with which they can create and describe elements and influence events in the game. These elements do not "belong" to any one player, however.

What do you think of it?

Character Power vs. Plot Control

On a similar note, Universalis brings up an interesting issue. Its Coin system is essentially an economics of plot control in a purified form. The purpose of this economics is to make sure that everyone has a fair shot at influencing game events.

I don't know how well it fulfills this purpose, since I've not actually played it. However, this might not be so much different from more traditional RPGs, where each player controls a character. In theory, the more powerful the character, the better chance the character has of influencing game events. This is the purpose of game balance, via character points or other methods: to make the characters equal in power, so they have an equal chance of influencing game events.

Except it doesn't quite work out that way, because character power often isn't directly related to plot control. First of all, in some sense the GM actually has the bulk of the plot control in most games, regardless of character power. Second, character power can only do certain things with the plot--a powerful character will use that power to benefit themselves. If the player wants their character to succeed, this is all well and good. But what if the player, for story purposes, wants their character to fail? Then character power is useless or even counterproductive.

Given this, I find it a little surprising that games where the focus tends to be more on balancing characters mechanically rather than balancing the influence of each character on the plot work so well. Is it really true that most people get more enjoyment from having a powerful character than influencing the plot? Or am I missing something?

[LeadPal]

I've seen Universalis before, though I've never played it. I simply have little interest in doing so. To me, it offers an experience akin to sitting down to write a novel under the watch of several editors who would rather see something else; or, alternatively, under the watch of several editors that thoroughly enjoy the novel and are therefore superfluous. I just don't see the appeal.

Personally, I prefer to leave all of the in-game plot decisions in the hands of the DM*, and as a player only put in some minor input at the beginning of the game, mostly for background purposes. As I see it, it's the DM's world, and I'm just playing in it. That said, I do feel it best that the DM play fair, and allow the characters to chart their own course in the game as their abilities permit: that's where PC balance comes in.

I've never seen character balance as allowing to give each player an equal chance to influence the plot: I've always seen it as a way to prevent one character from dominating it. If the characters are all balanced, it keeps one person from hogging the spotlight (through brute force, at least...) and makes the DM's job easier, as it no longer becomes necessary to cheat and twist the game to keep things in order. Which characters end up influencing the plot the most (assuming balance) is really dependant on how the DM intends on running things, and also on which players choose to take charge IRL.

For an analogy of the two methods, consider a group of architects trying to get a house of their design built. In a traditional RPG, like D&D, the DM designs the city and countryside that the house may be built upon, decides what materials are available and the work that the architects can hire to do the work for them, and any complications that may arise during construction. For all this, the architects receive the funds they'll be spending, and are free to design whatever house they want, as long as can figure out how to make it happen. On the other hand, in Universalis, the architects have total control of everything: the city, the materials, the hired help, and even the complications. The only trouble is that it'll take all their funds together to build anything.

*Most of my gaming is D&D and "GM" reminds me too much of the company; hence I never use "GM".