Universalis review at the Forge

[Ron Edwards]

Review's up!!

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

And what a review it is.  I think Ron set a new word count record on the Forge with this one.  Much appreciated.

When you've had time to read it (and I hope you will, its chock full of interesting commentary) there are some items he raises that I want to throw open for discussion.

1. Record keeping is a huge, huge deal, as Components' costs and relationships (e.g. nesting) are crucial to conducting Complications, and Complications are really the heart of "what happens" during the most interesting parts of the game. I can't imagine playing Universalis and just keeping all this stuff in mind at all times, without writing it down. I've toyed with the idea of setting up sticky-notes or 3x5 cards, which allows keeping track of the nested Components' organization, but in practice, we've just designated someone the note-taker.

I'm a big fan of the 3x5 card idea myself, but in practice it seems to work best as an "in between" session way of organizing the previous session's play than an at the table technique.  I've found trying to be too organized with the note taking at the table can really grind the flow of interaction to a crawl.

I've found in actual play the most seamless technique for me has been scribbling furiously in a note pad with different "quadrants" of a page dedicated to different things, leaving enough space in each for later additions.

But for multi session play I think organizing these things in between sessions is a huge help, especially as a hand out to players to remind them of what went before.  Setting up the actual Components on index cards at this point strikes me as a fantastic idea for codifying the world for an ongoing setting.

Anyone have any thoughts on how this has worked in play?

I think everyone should have access to these notes and get used to looking over them all the time, as otherwise the record-keeper tends to do a lot more Sub-Componenting than everyone else, and also people will tend to get confused about what's what during a Complication if they see the notes-list for the first time as they try to find Components to add into it.

I found this extraordinarily interesting.  In all of the games I've played this is the first time I've seen this done and I have to admit it threw me a little.  My own experience has been for the note taker (usually me and usually because no one else could follow my cryptic notes) would be the only person actually seeing the notes.  When a Complication occurs, I'd list off all of the Traits of the targets and as a group we'd establish which ones "obviously" apply (like a gun in a gunfight) and allocate those to the proper pools right off the bat before beginning to go around the table to add the more creative interpretation stuff.

How do you handle the record keeping at the table during actual play in your games?

2. The game includes a curious relationship between players and dialogue, in that if Player A begins his turn and includes Character X, but Character X is still controlled by Player B - suddenly both players are thrown into character and deliver the dialogue of the characters, just as in a traditional RPG. It's especially different-feeling for the player B, who is essentially "grabbed" into play. A lot of Universalis play is conducted in a "hovering above the fray" sort of way, so this sudden "descent" is something to get used to. It's not hard to avoid, if people don't like it (Player A has to buy control of Character X), but on the other hand, other people might find it to be the big role-playing strength of the game and play it up as much as possible.

Another really interesting comment.  Its never occured to me that the switch to dialog mode could be jarring.  Anyone else find the sudden shift from 3rd person to 1st person to be disconcerting?

3. The biggest conceptual difficulty in play concerns with assigning dice to pools during a Complication, which seems to be a point of procedural difference between the authors as well as sporting a fairly wide array of Add-Ons at the website. The most basic way is for only two players ever to be involved in a Complication, as the two sides; other people can add in Components (and do so round-robin), but only these two people roll. Also, the sides' goals are stated outright at the beginning.

However, two possible variants have cropped in play, and I confess to being confused about whether they are or are not explicit in the rules, looking across the text and the website-posted Add-ons. The rules do state that multiple pools are possible, but how that relates to the sides of the Complication is what gets tricky.

Anyway, in variant (A), each player sets up a dice pool, independently, so that everyone gets to roll. In variant (B), whoever has rolled (two or all players, doesn't matter) can assign which side his or her dice come down on after the roll. This can get weird; if (A) is employed and (B) is not, then each player might conceivably, individually, have two little pools to track . If (B) is employed, it's possible for the rolling players to have, individually, more than two little pools apiece, and the starting "sides" are wholly up for grabs. None of these options are unworkable, but some of them are incompatible, so it's important to get the procedure straight early in play.

Heh, heh.  Ron's confusion stems from a very specific source...me.  Yep...yours truly gave Ron an inaccurate ruling during our game.  Specifically item B (which he got from me at the table) is wrong.  The rules specifically state that you choose which side the dice come down on BEFORE the roll.

There is also a piece of the rules that was so intuitive to me that it never made it into the actual text.

Conceptually Complications should work like this.  There are 2 sides to any Complication.  One representing the source of the Complication and one representing the Components (usually characters) which are Targeted by the Complication.

Target pools are owned, managed, rolled, and narrated by the player who Controled that target at the time the Complication was Originated.  If all of the Targeted characters were Controled by the same player (often the case) there is 1 pool representing all of those characters rolled by that player.

All of the Traits of those Targeted Components which obviously apply to the Complication are added to the Target Player's pools.  Any Traits that obviously are opposing the Targets from the source of the Complication are added to the Complication's pool (this is the part that is vaguely implied in places, but never actually stated in the text).

At this point is where the round robin begins and other players (including the targeted players) begin to contribute the non obvious stuff, and the new additions.  It is at this point where the multiple pools come into play.

There may be multiple pools already if there are multiple Targeted Components Controlled by different players, they are all read as part of the same Side.  The normal rule is that if other players want to contribute they can do so but they add their dice to a particular existing pool (either a target or the Complication).  The alternative roll is that instead of adding them to an existing pool they can keep them seperate themselves...but they DO have to declare which side they are for (just as the declaration would have been made if the dice where physically added to existing pools)...this is the part I told Ron wrong on.

The advantage of the alternative method is it gets all players involved in the narration and lets them win back the Coins they spent or even profit by it.  The advantage of the normal method is that it reduces the number of "frivolous" dice.  If you are paying for dice (or drawing on Traits) that will go into some other players pool for their benefit, you're likely only to do so if the actual macro outcome (i.e. win / loss) of the Complication is important to you.

GNS RISES FROM THE SWAMP
One of the key Component categories in the game is called "Social Contract," which is to say, explicit standards for play itself ("No Monte Python jokes," "Turn off cell phones"). This is an interesting term, because according to GNS Theory, Social Contract (the uber-one in which all of play is embedded) is largely nonverbal and is about things that people rarely if ever put into words with one another. Stuff like, no cell phones, sure, but also stuff like, I won't hit on your girlfriend's character, or Bob can take ribbing but Sam can't, so lay off Sam. All role-playing exists within such Social Contracts, including flawed ones which guarantee dysfunctional play.

Is the paid-for-in-Coins Social Contract in Universalis the *real* Social Contract? Not in my terms, it isn't. The question is whether the Universalis in-game Social Contract rules can reinforce a functional real/uber Social Contract. I think they can reinforce them, especially since, going by the rules, rules-Social-Contract Components can be altered or negated through spending Coins, which is to say, real Social Contract now has an overt means of expressing itself (about some things, anyway) and adjusting to circumstances as play progresses.

Thats actually entirely what they're for.  A game mechanical way to reinforce the real underlying Social Contract.  The rules actually state at some length that established gaming groups with a preexisting implicit Contract may function quite nicely without ever using the explict game mechanic tenants.

[Mike Holmes]

And what a review it is.

In-deedily-dodily.

I'm a big fan of the 3x5 card idea myself, but in practice it seems to work best as an "in between" session way of organizing the previous session's play than an at the table technique.  I've found trying to be too organized with the note taking at the table can really grind the flow of interaction to a crawl.

Seems to me that it all depends on how many components people come out with. More components means more cards means no way to keep track of them all. In affect, I end up using the cards the same way as note paper in most cases. So I have to agree.

I found this extraordinarily interesting.  In all of the games I've played this is the first time I've seen this done and I have to admit it threw me a little.  My own experience has been for the note taker (usually me and usually because no one else could follow my cryptic notes) would be the only person actually seeing the notes.  When a Complication occurs, I'd list off all of the Traits of the targets and as a group we'd establish which ones "obviously" apply (like a gun in a gunfight) and allocate those to the proper pools right off the bat before beginning to go around the table to add the more creative interpretation stuff.

Personally, I rarely take the notes. As such, I often grab the pad from the notetaker's hands and set it in the middle of the table so I (and others) can see it, and pick stuff off it. As long as I'm trying to use somthing off the list, the recorder will not need to have it in their hand.

Or so I figure.

Another really interesting comment.  Its never occured to me that the switch to dialog mode could be jarring.  Anyone else find the sudden shift from 3rd person to 1st person to be disconcerting?

Nope. But then I've done a lot of GMing, which is essentially the same thing. For people who have less such experience I suppose it could be more of a stretch.

This is why I wanted this to be more formalized in the rules. I had advocated that a formal "Dialog window" need be opened for dialog to occur. Set up like a sort of sub-scene, it would detail who would be allowed to speak, and who was playing whom.

That said, I think it works just fine the way it is. Add-on?

Heh, heh.  Ron's confusion stems from a very specific source...me.

Bad Ralph.

That's meant ironically. I am the one who usually messes up whole sections of the rules in play. What's always fascinated me is how the game keeps on functioning even when yu play a little different from how the rules are wriitten. This is, I think, what allowed us to feel so comfortable with the modular rules idea. The base is strong enough to support all sorts of deviations.

Mike

[Alan]

In the session I played, we used 4x6 cards.  I also introduced the gimmick: "Anyone who records components or changes earns an extra coin at the end of the scene." Everybody worked for their coin.

The cards weren't intrusive for our play.  They also proved to be very useful - a player put the cards he controled in front of him.  When the scene ended all cards went to the center of the table.  It helped both with tracking who controlled what, and in drawing dice for complications.

[Mike Holmes]

Excellent. As suspected, the freelance thing works like a charm. How do you decide who gets to record a component (and thus gets the coin)? Is it the player who makes it?

Mike