Add-Ons

[Mike Holmes]

We really like how the game can be modified in many directions successfully. In order to allow players access to these methods, while not unnecessarily encumbering the game for them with things they might not want, we have included these methods as Add-ons. Some have said however, that optional rules are not a good idea. The statement usually goes "Either a rule is good and should be included, or forget it." Or somethiong like that.

If we could I'd appreciate some rational arguments for and against these optional rules, especially as it pertains to how Universalis has presented them, and whether they are a benefit to the game.

Any thoughts?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

I'm all for a general rules-set that operates all the time, and then sub-sets that operate only under certain conditions. Ideally, these sub-sets don't contradict or replace the rules, but they do hone or focus them.

A good example might be the Humanity rules in Sorcerer, and then the honed/focused version of the same rules in The Sorcerer's Soul.

Less elegant, but at least acceptable, is to provide a rules-set in the basic package which is just fine for a widely-understood mode of play, and then provide a switch-it rules-set to replace that set under some circumstances. As I say, it's not anyone's idea of Perfect Design, but there's nothing terribly wrong with it either as long as either set fits nicely with everything else.

Best,
Ron

[Balbinus]

I would support some rules optionality.

Lets say I am in two different Universalis games.

In game one I, with the other players, have created a country in the throes of a terrible civil war.  We are playing out the story of that war, the conflict itself and the conflicts of a number of protagonists caught up in it.  In this game PCs as such are not necessary, protagonists are but they are used to illustrate details of the greater conflict, they are not the focus of the story we are telling but rather a highlighted aspect of it.  We don't, therefore, need rules for PCs.

In the second game we have the crew of a sunken pirate ship who have finally reached an unknown island in their life raft.  Only six initial characters exist, one per player, and it is intended that each player enjoy exclusive control over one character as we play through what they find on the island and how the strains of their marooning affect their relationships.  Here I need rules for PCs as the protagonists are now the focus of the story.

Does that make sense?  That's just one example based on the PC rules, I'm sure other examples for other optional rules exist though.

[Mike Holmes]

Thanks for the POV clarifcation, Ron. That's assuring.

Max, great example of what we're interested in enabling.

I feel better about the add-on idea now. Anyone want to burst that bubble?

Mike

[Valamir]

Balbinus, thats EXACTLY what we're going for with the Add-ons, and yes, there are parallels with this concept and other non PC Add-on rules.

One set of Add-ons will add a significant amount of additional structure to the way Complications are framed.  For instance if you wanted to do a Complication where the Target would have 3 chances to succeed before the Complication "wins" or one where there are several Targets who can succeed or "fail" independently, or one where several Targets can make the attempt but only the best (or worst) result is used.  

Another set of Add-ons will involve not starting the world from a blank slate but using a world from outside source material and starting with several Components already Created and Facts established.

They will take me some time to work through as there are enough mechanical differences between V3.4 and V4.0 that a simple cut and paste won't work.  I'm going to do the Player Character one first.  I'd like to send it to you specifically to see if the rules would satisfy your concerns.

Everyone, of course, will see them all when I've gotten them all together.