Dialog and creating traits

[Hudson Shock]

Hi. I just got Uni a few days ago.  I'm loving it so far and am looking forward to introducing my friends to it.  But I'm trying to get everything as clear in my own head as possible first.  I'll be asking a few questions over the next few days.

This one occurred to me:

Taking the example from the book (pg 20), where Bob takes over General #2.  Let's say the Queen (Dave) and General #2 (Bob) engage in Dialog.  The Queen/Dave says, "General Maximillian, let's hear your report."

Dave, who does not control General #2, has just given the general a name.  Oops.  How is this handled?


Here's another:


Let's say someone defines a character as having a Plasma Assault Rifle (1 Coin.)  Later, someone creates a character with a Derringer (1 Coin).

Both the Assault Rifle and the Derringer will provide the same advantage in a gunfight?  Seems odd.  

If the derringer had been created first, the Plasma Rifle could have been created with more dice, but since the Rifle was created first, how do you deal with someone creating something less powerful/effective later?

And I'm not trying to just think about combat - this seems like it could come up in any conflict where different traits do the same thing at different levels of effectiveness.

[Christopher Weeks]

Let's say the Queen (Dave) and General #2 (Bob) engage in Dialog.  The Queen/Dave says, "General Maximillian, let's hear your report."

Dave, who does not control General #2, has just given the general a name.  Oops.  How is this handled?

The name isn't a trait until it's paid for.  And it can't be paid for by a player not in control or complication.  So Bob could reply "I'm sorry, Highness, my name is Igor..." or he could just roll with it and leave it unspecified.  In any case, the name doesn't particularly matter since it can't be drawn on for complications.

Let's say someone defines a character as having a Plasma Assault Rifle (1 Coin.)  Later, someone creates a character with a Derringer (1 Coin).

Both the Assault Rifle and the Derringer will provide the same advantage in a gunfight?  Seems odd.  

If the derringer had been created first, the Plasma Rifle could have been created with more dice, but since the Rifle was created first, how do you deal with someone creating something less powerful/effective later?

When one Coin has been spent, one Coin's worth of story power has been exerted.  If you want to justify it in some way, go ahead.  But you don't have to.  If a player who first creates the PAR wants it to stay the ultimate weapon, she can give it more traits then.  If she thinks it's only worth a Coin then it's a nearly sure bet that other miscellaneous weapons will be of equal story power.  An example of the justification might be that the PAR requires all kinds of training to use.  So someone without the training is only as effective as a random Derringer user, but someone with the training can call on all the dice of training too.

See?

Try it, it works.

Chris

[Bob McNamee]

Chris explains that really well!

"Story importance" of an item is the way to think about it. Indiana Jone's Bull Whip probably has as much (or more) story importance than any generic Nazi soldier's rifle. Even if the rifle would do more "damage" in another game system.

Dialogue fun
One of my more favorite Rules Gimmicks lately is to declare that "Engaging in Dialogue costs no Coins, except for important Facts introduced by a player"

Enjoy,
Bob McNamee

[Hudson Shock]

Thanks for the help.

So, with the name, I'm thinking that General #2 may get a name that way, but if no coin has been paid for it, it's just "flavor".

I think the best answer I've seen with the rifle/derringer is for the person with the rifle to retroactively add more "power" traits to the rifle during the Complication, which I had forgotten you can do.

-Hudson

[Mike Holmes]

Thanks for the help.

So, with the name, I'm thinking that General #2 may get a name that way, but if no coin has been paid for it, it's just "flavor".

Yes, that's right. Or, the player with the character can Challenge stating that the person in question wouldn't have said that dialog since that's not the name of the character in question. That is, if he objects, he doesn't have to accept it.

Philospphically, however, all dialog is pretty malleable in that a character saying something does not equate to it being true. That is, I can have my character say, "There's an army with thousands of men on it's way, with lots of artillery support, and air cover as well." That doesn't cost anything other than the cost of the dialog." Because the army is not yet real, nor any of the other details. The person saying it could be lying, or mistaken, or the army could just be color.

So, if you say something, then either pay for what you say, or face the possibility that the statement could be made incorrect. To give someone a name, you have to take control of that Component, and give it a name (though see the recent post about the Gimmick that allows you to buy traits for things that you don't control).

I think the best answer I've seen with the rifle/derringer is for the person with the rifle to retroactively add more "power" traits to the rifle during the Complication, which I had forgotten you can do.

Yes, you can do this. However, it might not be a good idea. First, I want to check on your perception of the game. In Universalis, a Plasma Assault Rifle is not more powerful than a Derringer. Whales are not more powerful than ants. "Power" is entirely dependent on how important the thing in question is to the story. So, there's no imperative to make the PAR more powerful than the derringer at all. So it's not at all "odd" from the perspective of power. Remember that winning a complication doesn't mean that the character has accomplished some task. It's not about that. The rules don't model the physics or even cause and effect of the game world. They are only for measuring dramatic importance.

Assuming that you understand this, and that you want to add power to the PAR because you want it to be cooler than the derringer, well, why didn't you put more into it to start? That is, knowing that the minimum that a weapon can have in terms of story impact is a level one trait, if you wanted the gun to be cooler than that, they you should have thrown more levels in. So, when it comes to this point in the Complication, ask yourself if you really need the PAR to be more potent than the Derringer, or if you rated it correctly to begin with.

Assuming that you feel that you made a mistake in your first assessment of the importance of the weapon to the story, and you still want to pump it up, then consider that adding dice to existing traits without a reason is rather inelegant. It's somewhat equivalent to saying, "I don't just have a Plasma gun, I have a cool plasma gun. No, wait, it's really, really cool." You're really not doing it justice, or explaining at all just in what manner the weapon is cool.

So, if you're really thinking that you want to pump the item up, a better way, IMO, is to add new traits to the weapon. Give it a "High Power Setting." Give it "Assult Weapon." Give it "Advanced Optics." Give it "Plasma Agitation." Or whatever is suitable for the genre. Give traits that include a reason why the weapon is more important to what's going on, and which, more importantly, can spur on description of the resolution.

"Sven Raymond carefully aims the Plasma Assault Rifle, a potent bit of military hardware, using it's advanced optics system. He sets it to high power, and the resulting agitated plasma ball tears a new hole in the huge slimey alien!"

Mike

[Hudson Shock]

Yes, that is more elegant, and much more interesting.  It does require much more writing, though, than a simple x3.  :)

Keep in mind that this isn't based off real play.  I'm just trying to get as good an understanding before I try to teach this to a new bunch.

I think I have a pretty good understanding about the meaning of coins and story importance, and that a PAR isn't necessarily more important to the story than a derringer, which is part and parcel of the coolness of Universalis.

On the other hand, it seems clear to me that the importance of something can be somewhat situation-dependent.  So, while in general a PAR isn't necessarily "better" than a derringer, there are valid situations that I can imagine where it would be, both logically and for the sake of a better story.  That's why I framed this question, and my other Superman/Batman question, in terms of very basic straightforward situations.

It's only in that sort of situation that I think I would go for a retroactive power-up of the PAR.  The PAR may have only been a coin when it was created, because at that time, maybe the player just saw it as uninteresting standard equipment.  But when other players introduce personal weapons of much less power, it becomes interesting.

(And I hope I'm not giving the impression that I plan to run Uni as a wargame.  I'm just trying for examples with clear, easily visualized consequences.)

In any case, Uni offers multiple ways to keep this from being a problem.  Color me impressed.

[CPXB]

Mike, reading your post I thought of . . . Dirty Harry.  And what his traits would be, hehe.

Dirty Harry
Rogue cop
Dead shot
Owns .44 Magnum

.44 Magnum
"The most powerful handgun in the world"
"Can blow your head clean off"

It came unbidden to my consciousness how the gun might be bought in a crime drama sort of game.

[Mike Holmes]

LOL, yep, that's how I'd stat him out. That handgun is extrememly important worth the extra traits for sure.

Hudson, if the PAR seems like it should be more potent in a particular situation, consider buying dice for it just for the situation, instead of permenant Traits. That is, if what you're buying is "Especially good for blowing open Iris Valves when the electronics are off," then that's just not a Trait that's likely to come up again. Just say that, take the die for that situation, and don't record the Trait.

Mike

[Christopher Weeks]

Dirty Harry.  And what his traits would be...

And Feel's lucky . . . punk!

Chris