First try - short comments, Complication question

[matthijs]

Monica and I decided to give Universalis a test run. Monica hadn't read the rules; I had, but told her there might be a lot of leafing through the book for definitions, and I was right. I had to check out the Complication rules several times, and still have questions. However, that's only as expected for a first trial of a fairly unique game.

Question: At a certain point, I'm controlling Gisle, Monica is controlling Geir and Aud. They're all vikings. I decide to start a complication, because I'm short of coins (which we both were, a lot, so next time we'll raise the refreshment rate). Aud is standing on some cliffs out in the ocean, and I want Gisle to save her. She's not under my control, but I want her to get saved. So I'm the Originator, Aud is the target.

Now, both Monica and I want Aud to get saved, so it's a weird feeling that we're kind of competing to get the biggest dice pool, while we both have the same goal for the characters: Aud should be saved, preferably by both Gisle and Geir.

We both had some trouble getting our heads around this. There were two reasons for us players to play out the complication: To narrate something exciting, and to get more coins.

At one point, Monica used a trait (an unknown god's hate of Gisle) to get a die in Aud's pool, narrating how the god sent waves crashing down on Gisle and Aud on the rocks.

Questions:

1. Was it a valid Complication at all? I was trying to save a character controlled by Monica, but she wanted that character to be saved.

2. Was it all right to add dice to Aud's pool even for things that affected her adversely (crashing waves)? Or should those dice have been removed from my pool instead?

Other comments:

It almost turned into pure competition: We both made one character each, and took "our" character's side. As soon as I saw that coming, however, I framed a scene where I controlled the character Monica had created.

We had a lot of difficulty defining what an "event" was. We also wondered a lot about how to treat facts in conversation - how much of what is said should be paid for? It seemed a bit fuzzy. We're probably going to make some gimmicks for that next time.

Monica found it frustrating to have to pay coins for everything; she had lots of stuff in her head she wanted to say, but had to stick to the bare minimum of description to get anything done.

Next time, we'll talk much more freely, use more negotiation, definitely set some more tenets before and during the game. (We only set 3: It's about vikings, something unexplainable is going to happen to them, and there's not going to be any science fiction elements).

So. Gotta read the rules again. I'll be running Universalis at a con at my house in a few weeks; I'll try to get some of the others to read the rules as well, and will definitely run a practice scene and complication before real play starts.

[Christopher Weeks]

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

Seriously, it is only a bit weird creating those kind of complications the first couple times.  Whether it's to hinder a character that you feel is "yours" or to advantage a character controlled by someone else who also wants them advantaged.  There's nothing wrong with it because you real people are telling stories and by making an event of whatever kind a Complication, you're merely throwing a spotlight on it.  You even know this -- you wrote you wanted an opportunity to "narrate something exciting."  Also remember, you can allow for "bad" things to happen to characters that you want to persevere as a result of these complications -- and still have the character protagonized by it.  If Monica won the complication, she could narrate a couple significant but not crippling facts and bank the rest of her Coins allowing you to narrate the rescue and everyone would be happy.

Now, if Monica won the Complication and spent coins to have Aud saved and nothing that supported the stated purpose of her dice pool, then I'd call bullshit because it hurts the story/game.  On the other hand, if thats how you both like to play, then my opinion doesn't matter.

Whether to add a die to pool A or remove a die from pool B is really just a matter of preference and sort of the like the decision to spend Coins reducing your opponent's winnings -- probably a bad idea from the perspective of the math.  If you guys think it seems better (makes more sense) to remove the die, then do it that way, if not, add the die and eat more Coins.

I think the competitive nature that you point to is a common artifact of two-player games.  Even just a third player wildly expands the dynamic of the system.

You should pay for as much or as little as you decide makes sense.  It seems to be pretty common for dialog to be free.  Also, in any game, Coins are tight at first when you're creating everything and become plentiful after you have a few master components already built up for reuse and several important characters.  This is much more true in a two player game where only two banks have to get the game into the self-sufficient mode.  But still, I think you'll find that you have too many Coins at the end if you up refresh too much.  You might instead have a conditional refresh so that when a defined condition (both players have fewer than five Coins) is met, refresh is doubled (or something).

Even with the speed bumps you hit, did you have fun?

[Valamir]

Yup, Chris pretty much nailed it across the board.

Your complication is a little unusual.  If I had been in your place I would likely have simply paid to take control of Aud and then narrated the rescue accordingly.  Some other player wanting to make things more difficult could then have set themselves up as the obstacle to overcome.  This would have given you a more typical opposition arrangement.  But there is nothing specifically wrong with what you did.

The opposition in a situation like yours would then come from someone taking advantage of Traits already present in the scene to get dice to roll.  For example you probably had some narration in the scene to the nature of "Aud is stranded on some rock cliffs in the middle of the Ocean".  This statement would have been paid for in Coins...say three:  1 for the Trait "Stranded on rock cliffs" for Aud,  1 for the Component "Rock Cliffs", and 1 for the Trait "Middle of the ocean" for the cliffs.

You started the Complication, so in Monica's place I would have jumped all over those three Traits (or whatever their equivalent was in your game).  I'd claim 3 dice for a pool to oppose Gisle's rescue with.  If I, as a player, really wanted Aud to be rescued than I probably wouldn't spend any Coins of my own making things more difficult.  I'd want you to succeed but with just enough difficulty to make it dramatic.  But even if I lose I get 3 free Coins out of the deal.  Enough to say "Gisle catches a severe cold from the wet and exposure" buying a "Cold" Trait for Gisle (maybe even making it a x2 Trait for being Severe) and pocket the rest.  All just for laying claim to the conditions that were already present in the scene.


Events are basically sentences.  Every sentence you speak is likely a single event.  Compound or highly complicated sentences may be more than one...basically if you have a single subject, a single action verb, and a single object you have a single event.  If you have a compound subject you may have more than 1 Event.  The subject will typically be a Component (noun).  If that Component hasn't been Created yet, it will cost a Coin as will any additional adjectivesdescribing that Component.

Now how much should be paid for is a question of Color.  Basically, anything that you want to be able to refer back to and use in the future...or that you want to firmly establish as being true and not subject to being ignored by other players should be paid for.  Anything else...can be treated as color.

For instance, take "Bob ran across the street".  Assuming Bob has already been Created and named the essential Fact here is that he is now on the other side of the street.  Does the street need to be Created as a seperate Component?  Depends.  If the scene was taking place in the middle of the Sahara desert where anything resembling a road would be highly unusual...than probably, yeah.  If the scene has already been established as taking place "Downtown" as the location, than we can assume that the Component "Downtown" has a ton of streets implicitly.  We COULD create THIS particular street as a Trait of the Downtown Component, or as its own Component with an additional Ownership Trait linking it to the Downtown Component...but why?  Why would you need to do that?  Is there something particularly noteworthy about this street?  If not, then you can probably get away with just treating the street as color.

Similarly if the next sentence was "He was nearly hit by a speeding bright red Corvette." There are numerous ways this could be handled.  Thinking it terms of a movie or TV shot, we've all seen dozens of scenes where someone crosses traffic in a hurry, wheels screech, and horns blare and then the scene moves on...that's just pure color.  Adds a little to the tension and demonstrates just how much of a hurry Bob is in...enough to cross against traffic.  

On the other hand...perhaps we want to come back to this event later.  Perhaps we want to have Bob shaken and frightened by his near death experience.  In that case, paying a Coin for the close shave is a good idea.  Is it necessary to actually pay a Coin to create the Corvette?  Certainly its a noun, and it could be Treated as its own Component...we could even buy the Trait "Bright Red" for it.  But why?  Is the Corvette significant?  Are we going to have Bob hunting through the city looking for the driver of the car that almost killed him?  Is the car actually driven by a professional hitman out to get Bob and will show up again and again?  Have we already established that Bob's estranged wife drives a bright red corvette and that we want to make sure everyone knows that it was just such a car that nearly ran Bob down...without revealing for sure if it was her?  If so...then it can absolutley be Created.  If not...then its just Color.

If we treat it as Color and then someone else later establishes that "Bob's estranged wife drives a Bright Red Corvette" than THAT fact should be established with a Coin.  ALSO, technically speaking the person establishing that Fact should also pay a Coin to establish the Bright Red Corvette that almost ran Bob down.  Previously it wasn't paid for because it was deemed to be just color.  As soon as it becomes something more than Color...it should be paid for.  I would probably recommend a Gimmick that forces the player who originally made the statement but didn't pay for it then have to go back and pay for it later...particularly if players start to abuse the Color rule and try not to pay for anything.


As for Tenets, some additional ones that might have helped in this initial game might have been to establish whether this is a historical tale about Vikings, or a Hollywood tale ala Kirk Douglas.  Whether its a tale set in Norway around the hall of some Jarl, or out on some raid plundering monasteries in Britain, etc.  In other words, narrow things down a bit.  The first scene then really should set the scope.  You may wind up throwing in a big unexpected twist somewhere, but, like a movie, the opening scene should set the audience's expectations about what is about to come.  It should provide some direction with enough intersting bits for players to chew on and riff off of.

Probably the biggest single reason for lackluster, meandering, or bizarre play is a weak opening scene.  Framing a scene is one of the most powerful things a player can do...and the first scene is perhaps the most important of all.  Tell the other players (through the characters you create and the events you narrate) exactly what will be happening for the rest of the story.  The game will never wind up that way, of course, but by setting the stage plainly you give them something to work with.


And Chris is absolutely right when he points out the dynamic with 3 or more players is much different than with only 2.

[Tony Irwin]

Hey there, the way I tend to play Universalis now is that if someone else wins the bid for the scene then I put myself in the role of the "antagonist". I start trying to think up the most imaginative opposition I can to what the other player is doing.

Obstacles are great for this as they don't require any planning - you just listen to what the other player is making a character do and then you think "What could go wrong?" or "What could get in the way?" then you throw down a coin and announce it happening.

What I've noticed is that if the controlling player doesn't have somebody playing the antagonist against them then they either get bored or confused. They end up having to create their own problems and difficulties for their characters to face and when it gets to the complication stage it can all feel a bit weird. I remember one friend narrating a duel between two characters he had created and becoming increasingly more frustrated before asking the group if anyone would mind taking control of one of the characters. We hadn't provided him the opposition he needed to make story (we were enjoying just listening to him!) and so he ended up getting tied up in knots.

As long as everyone understands that you're not trying to harrass them (and you can prove this to them by only using a single dice in each obstacle) then it's all cool and really energises the game. I find it helpful to think of it terms of Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park movies, they have great sequences where one thing after another goes wrong: tools break, ropes snap, an engine won't start, lots of different pressures coming one after another onto the main characters.

I realise this might not have anything to do with your game, but since I've started taking that mental approach I see fewer confusing complications.

I hope you enjoy your next game, I'll look forward to reading about it if you post it here.

Tony