[Universalis] Meetup Group One-shot

[Bill Cook]

Well, we did it. I can't believe I finally got my feet wet in Universalis.

Logistics
Five people showed up to the event. We played at a tea shop in Plano (that's North Dallas) amid hip Asians playing Go and wireless internet laptop jockeys, surfing the web. Ron Pyatt (the group's organiser) recorded our play on his digital audio thingy. I believe he's already made correspondence with Ralph Mazza (Valamir) and plans to e-mail it. Ralph, I don't know if that's your hot button, but there it is:) I had to split at a quarter 'til six, so I don't know how things wrapped up. Our one-shots usually run about four hours long, though; we'd been going for a little over three hours when I left.

I, for some reason, was stressed and assumed that Ron might need to lean on me a bit to put the game across to the group, but not so. He had composed a two-sheet rules summary and fluidly guided procedures as they arose. Ron, Frank, Chris and I had all gamed together in the BW one-shot I ran; we met Devon for the first time that afternoon.

Tenets
Some tenets are more powerful than others. Also, the earlier they occur, the greater their reach. Ron's first tenent was "sci-fi." The next  whopper was "no sentient aliens." In an effort to provide some kind of premise-ful input, I added "imperial vs. colonial kinds of conflicts." Another big one (by Chris? Frank?) was "competition to recover alien technology from the ruins of a race long extinct." We got our fill of game-level facts after a few rounds. Devon said, a number of times, "So let's start! Let's play!"

Scenes
First eye-opener: turns chapter scenes. Devon won the bid to start and put three beaurocrats in the midst of alien ruins on a remote planet. We spent our turns inserting extra components (Capt. Theodin, who runs supplies and plays messenger to the expedition; Alan, a genetically enhanced consultant with a mind surpassing the fastest super computer; Bob, an insane archeologist that hears voices coming from the ruins; an alien artifact with a big, red button). On my turn, I bought an event ("Bob triggers the artifact. Its pulse spreads out in a 50' circle. All electrical components fail, including lighting and enviro-suit systems"), which initiated a complication.

The group was pretty clock-bound, party-bound, room-bound. I wanted to cut like a ninja and hop about like a timelord. For example, in anticipation of the scene with the EMP at the alien ruins finally wrapping up, I hatched, in my mind, a scene where, three months later, at a hidden installation on a frozen moon, a rebel operative would intercept a transmission from the imperial supply base back to HQ, reporting the finding of a new, alien weapon.  But I never won a bid to frame, so my input was relegated to tweaking other players' constructs.

Second eye-opener: the framing player declares the scene to end. This perpetuated a kind of Sims (i.e. the video game) expectation for input. I thought each turn would be its own scene.

Complications
My lord, we struggled with complications. Almost to a player, there was incredible resistance to starting dice pools for affected characters. We literally went several rounds adding more components, adding more traits, adding more tenets, even; but they just would not reach their hands over to the d10 bowl and cite traits in support. Or even make straight up purchases with coins. And I made the argument that inside a complication, we were beyond window dressing, but no one agreed; and I don't know if that's right or not, actually. But what everyone did didn't feel right. Anyway, after much cajoling, they rolled.

Third eye-opener: complications only arise between controllers of different components. So you could literally have two guys you control get into an argument, establish some highlights and declare the winner, all without complication. I read somewhere that spoiling for complications is a good way to pick up coins, but I didn't really experience that in play. I ended up spending my winnings to buy resolution.

Fourth eye-opener: the sum of your dice results determines your winnings from complication. Is this right? I thought it was a count of dice rolled. The  group expressed mild shock when I paid to delete the beaurocrats. ("They tug-o'-war over the artifact until they collapse from lack of oxygen and die in convulsions.")

Another .. weird thing everyone did was to narrate resolution when affected by complication; again, as resistance to building a dice pool. I mean, they'd even say, "I buy an event" and drop their coin (we used wood sticks) into the bank. And they'd sit there, like that was that.

Different players spent more or less freely. I tried, every turn, to spend every coin. Why the hell not? I came to play. Others complained (in jest) about having too many coins and needing to remove some important components just to lighten their pile.

Miscellanea
At first, we all tried to keep track of the components, but eventually, we just let Ron do it. I found I couldn't remember things as well if I split my effort between listening and writing, so I just listened.

There was a laptop loner with a three-day beard that couldn't help but listen in on our session. He laughed everytime we did.

We got into this amusing argument about whether Bob had posession of the EMP-pulsing, orbital defense remote after the energy well transported him aboard Theodin's ship. I explained that I'd paid for Bob to jump into the well while the beauracrats struggled over the artifact, so he couldn't have it unless he got back out, picked it up, jumped back in and was then teleported. Chris, Frank and Ron each picked up a wooden stick, simultaneously, and smiled at me. To which I replied, "Hey! Put those things away! Let's talk about this .."

Another funny thing happened. After the party returned to the captain's ship, its ascent triggered a device, hitherto dormant, among the asteroids, orbiting the planet. I said, "So, Chris, what's this thing look like?" He said, "Well,  it's like a larger version of the artifact Bob found on the planet. It's spherical, it has a big, red button on it .." I said, "So it's like a Pokemon ball, right?" Everyone laughed.

After several references, Devon said, "Can we please call it the defense artifact? I don't care if I have to pay to make it so!"

[Valamir]

Tenets
Some tenets are more powerful than others. Also, the earlier they occur, the greater their reach. Ron's first tenent was "sci-fi." The next  whopper was "no sentient aliens." In an effort to provide some kind of premise-ful input, I added "imperial vs. colonial kinds of conflicts." Another big one (by Chris? Frank?) was "competition to recover alien technology from the ruins of a race long extinct." We got our fill of game-level facts after a few rounds. Devon said, a number of times, "So let's start! Let's play!"

Cool.  That's how its supposed to work.  IME, things gel pretty quickly if people are actually adding elements that they themselves are interested in.  Once in a why you get people in the wrong creative mood (sometimes brainstorming can be painful) and they just add things to have something to say, and that can make this phase drag.  But if everyone is adding one cool thing to the pot, eventually those disparate elements will start to click together.  Once someone is able to visualize a way to kick things off because there are enough elements to start to see the outline of a plot...that's the time to kick it into the first scene.  

Scenes
But I never won a bid to frame, so my input was relegated to tweaking other players' constructs.[/quote]

I've often found myself in a situation where for much of the game I didn't win the scene framing.  Then at some point I'll get the epiphany of where the story "HAS" to go.  That's when I'll drop a ton of Coins into scene framing and try to tie a number of the elements together and start the path towards my perceived climax.  Then its everyone elses turn to tweak my constructs.

Second eye-opener: the framing player declares the scene to end. This perpetuated a kind of Sims (i.e. the video game) expectation for input. I thought each turn would be its own scene.

Not sure I follow this.  

Complications
My lord, we struggled with complications. Almost to a player, there was incredible resistance to starting dice pools for affected characters. We literally went several rounds adding more components, adding more traits, adding more tenets, even; but they just would not reach their hands over to the d10 bowl and cite traits in support. Or even make straight up purchases with coins. And I made the argument that inside a complication, we were beyond window dressing, but no one agreed; and I don't know if that's right or not, actually. But what everyone did didn't feel right. Anyway, after much cajoling, they rolled.

Why do you think this was?  Was it a concern that once things went to dice they might lose control of what they were trying to do and see it spin away in another direction?  Were they still struggling with understanding regular play and weren't ready to introduce a new subsystem yet?  Did it feel too much like player vs. player?  Any sense of what the reluctance was?

Its not unusual to have play go around several times with an open Complication and people continueing to add Traits for dice before deciding to finally roll.  But it is unusual to go around without laying claim to Traits for the dice.  

Third eye-opener: complications only arise between controllers of different components. So you could literally have two guys you control get into an argument, establish some highlights and declare the winner, all without complication. I read somewhere that spoiling for complications is a good way to pick up coins, but I didn't really experience that in play. I ended up spending my winnings to buy resolution.

That's exactly right.  Complications can be sidestepped if the same person controls both sides.  Player 1 can simply declare that Character A shoots and Kills Character B simply by paying a Coin for the action and then buying off Character B's Importance...if Player 1 Controls both Characters.  If Player 2 doesn't care for that, they can Challenge...OR...what's often better, is Player 2 can pay 1 Coin to Take Control of Character B.  Now A vs. B is a Complication and whether B lives or dies is now uncertain.

Most Coins from a Complication should be spent on resolution.  A Trait costs 1 Coin, but provides 1 Die to each Complication where it applies.  So as the game progresses after you've accumulated a fair number of Traits you can engineer a Complication where those Traits apply (lots of Weapon and martial training Traits are crying out for a combat oriented Complication.  Lots of relationships and emotional traits are crying out for a dramatic confrontation).  At that point, you can generate a lot of Dice for free.  The more dice you have, the more Coins you'll generate, the easier it is to afford what you want in resolution and still have Coins left over.

Fourth eye-opener: the sum of your dice results determines your winnings from complication. Is this right? I thought it was a count of dice rolled. The  group expressed mild shock when I paid to delete the beaurocrats. ("They tug-o'-war over the artifact until they collapse from lack of oxygen and die in convulsions.")

Its both.  The Winner (who rolled most successes) gets the sum of the dice (that are successes, not all dice).  The Loser gets 1 per die rolled.

Was the shock that the rules allowed this, or was the shock that you would callously wipe out some of the main characters (or what were assumed to be main characters at the time)?

Another .. weird thing everyone did was to narrate resolution when affected by complication; again, as resistance to building a dice pool. I mean, they'd even say, "I buy an event" and drop their coin (we used wood sticks) into the bank. And they'd sit there, like that was that./

I'm not sure I follow this.  You mean players were attempting to solve the Complication (resolve the Conflict) by spending their own Coins rather than build dice pools and roll and use the bonus Coins to do that?  If so, that would have been incorrect by the rules.

You can't do anything to a Component you don't Control.  So you can't buy an event that effects a Component you don't Control.  And you can't Take Over that Component once a Complication has started.  So the only way that you can buy an Event that effects that other Component once a Complication has started is with the Bonus Coins from the roll.

Much of what was said in terms of Events, probably were actually opportunities to buy dice.  

Different players spent more or less freely. I tried, every turn, to spend every coin. Why the hell not? I came to play. Others complained (in jest) about having too many coins and needing to remove some important components just to lighten their pile.

Its not uncommon in early games to horde Coins.  Coins are often seen as a limiting factor. In reality, Coins aren't a limiter at all.  The game is set up so that its very difficult to run out of Coins and be effectively taken out of the game for any length of time.  Once people master the use of Complications they tend to realize that they can get more Coins almost whenever they want.

So Coins then become less of an absolute limit and more of a pacing mechanic.  The number of Coins you have on hand is not the total control you have over the story...its the control you have right now....your ability to impact the direction of the story in this particular moment.

By spending alot now, you put your stamp on the story NOW.  But you've reduced your ability to influence the story in the future...until you manage to acquire more Coins.  To do this you'd look for a situation where you can engineer a Complication during which you'd have Control of a number of Components with Traits that can be activated (for free dice).

Miscellanea
At first, we all tried to keep track of the components, but eventually, we just let Ron do it. I found I couldn't remember things as well if I split my effort between listening and writing, so I just listened.

Some groups have everyone record their own Components, but I've always found it easier to have 1 recorder.

[Bill Cook]

Not sure I follow [how turns perpetuated a Sims approach].

One player would frame a scene, then someone would say to the player to his left, "Ok. It's your turn." But we're still in that same scene. With four players to go. It creates pressure to .. add something, or change something. Ron actually said to me at one point, you can pay a coin to end the scene, but I was worried that that might be impolite to the framing player.

I had envisioned each player making their own scene with turns of scene updates occuring with uncommon frequency. What happened was the reverse.

Why do you think [there was resistance to starting dice pools]? Was it a concern that once things went to dice they might lose control of what they were trying to do and see it spin away in another direction? Were they still struggling with understanding regular play and weren't ready to introduce a new subsystem yet? Did it feel too much like player vs. player? Any sense of what the reluctance was?

Maybe they didn't perceive the sub-system as such. Every trait they added was relevant. (e.g. "I add a ring of asteroids. As an event, the defense artifact uses its dimension-warping trait, which I also add, to fling some of them at the oncoming rockets.") They just figured event add's settled things, whereas I was like, "Ok, so that's one die for the asteroids and one for the gravi-wave power. Let's roll!"

Was the shock that the rules allowed [removing components], or was the shock that you would callously wipe out some of the main characters (or what were assumed to be main characters at the time)?

The latter:) But honestly, how much can you cry over a beaurocrat?

You mean players were attempting to solve the Complication (resolve the Conflict) by spending their own Coins rather than build dice pools and roll and use the bonus Coins to do that?

Yes.

You can't do anything to a Component you don't Control. So you can't buy an event that effects a Component you don't Control.

I think this is what we were missing. And Ron didn't allow it. It just created another complication. This happened several times.

[Valamir]

One player would frame a scene, then someone would say to the player to his left, "Ok. It's your turn." But we're still in that same scene. With four players to go. It creates pressure to .. add something, or change something. Ron actually said to me at one point, you can pay a coin to end the scene, but I was worried that that might be impolite to the framing player.

I had envisioned each player making their own scene with turns of scene updates occuring with uncommon frequency. What happened was the reverse.

Ok, so this was different than you'd envisioned it?

The scenes aren't owned by any one player.  The framing player has a great deal of power to influence the game simply by right of establishing what the next scene is.  Also because this is the only time (outside of resolving a Complication) where a player can add Facts without being interrupted.  The framing player is immune to Interruption until he narrates an Event (a character actually doing something).  Until then he can add numerous elements which will help shape the course of the story such as:  "John and Bob are both here.  John is here to kill Bob, but Bob has no clue and thinks John is his friend" etc...in this way lots of facts can get established that put parameters on where things are going, but no actual Event has happened yet.

However, the scene doesn't belong to that player.  In fact, ones the framing is done the Framing Player has no special privilege other than being able to end the scene.  During the rest of the scene all other players are contributing and influencing...collaborating on how the scene will go.

I think this is what we were missing. And Ron didn't allow it. It just created another complication. This happened several times.

Nesting Complications within Complications is a valid technique, but a pretty advanced one I certainly wouldn't have recommended trying for a first game.  Mike actually played an entire game with what was essentially a series of nested complications so that the last thing done in the game was to resolve the first Complication that was started at the beginning.

But probably, you could have handled the scene without having to resort to that.  If John is attempting to kill Bob as the Complication and then Sam arrives and tries to stop him, that isn't Sam engaging John in a seperate Complication which gets resolved before John and Bob's (usually).   Rather its Sam adding his dice into Bob's Pool making it more likely for Bob to win.  Exactly what Sam did during the scene that enabled Bob to survive (or what he did that failed if Bob didn't survive) will be determined after the dice are rolled.

[Tony Irwin]

Logistics
Five people showed up to the event. We played at a tea shop in Plano (that's North Dallas) amid hip Asians playing Go and wireless internet laptop jockeys, surfing the web.

Hey, good for you for playing it out in the "real" world where other people can see it. I think Universalis is the best spectator roleplaying game I've played. Regular GM set up games feel a bit weird when I've played them in an open environment.

What I wanted to ask you was if the two guys who were new to it showed any interest in playing it again. And also how did you or Ron "sell" trying a one shot of Universalis to them?

Cheers,

Tony

[Bill Cook]

Unfortunately, I had to leave early, so I didn't get to absorb any "so how'd you like it" reactions. I know that Chris found it weighty. I'm sure we'll play again. Ron really likes the game, and so do I.

We set it up as a one-shot event for our roleplayers meetup group. We spent a few months debating how to do it. Should it be its own event? Should it become the agenda for a regular meeting? And then we just did it. We've done Universalis, Fate, Shadowrun, Burning Wheel, D&D on the Fly (Ron is obsessed with Fudge) and others; all one-shots. I'm going to do Dogs in the Vineyard in April.

They got sold by group inertia. Ron wrote a little ad for the one-shot. (Click on Events: Past Events and scroll down a bit.) There's about a hundred members in the group. Probably 30 are active. Two to three people join every month. With those numbers, it's a given that we'll see between five and eight people at any event, up for anything.