Problem with Universalis

Quote from: CPXB on December 15, 2005, 10:25:24 PM

I think negative refreshment is a bad idea.� The problem isn't that we never are low of coins, but that our throughput means we can continuously recover coins at a rate that, in whole, is much faster than outgo.� So . . . with negative refreshment and a little bad luck it would be possible for a player to have zero coins *with no possibility of gaining them*.� A gimmick that allows for that possibility is not, I think, a good idea.

You seem to be bringing up two issues which together pose a problem I think, but which can be addressed. I did mention that there would have to be some sort of rule to deal with the potential problem of bottoming out. Here are some suggestions that you can use with a negative refresh rate:

1. The current scene cannot end while a player has less than the negative refresh plus 5 Coins. That is, let's say that the negative refresh is -10. If any player has less than 15 Coins, the scene must proceed until he has more. Meaning that the player in question would be forced to make a complication to get more Coins. A player can never run out this way (he'll always get Coins back equal to at least coins spent if he loses, or at least one Coin if he wins). "Wallowing" where you'd have very few coins would be a very unlikely circumstance. Anyhow, essentially you have to pay to get out of the current scene.
2. Subsidy: Players always start each scene with a minimum of 5 Coins. In fact, a "Subsidy" instead of a refresh was something we considered as the general rule. But the problem is that it may foster a "use 'em or lose 'em" mentality. Basically why not spend down to nothing so you can get the five coins? In use, however, being that low is not effective, and people still avoid it. In this case, the problem may be more pronounced, since players know that they can parley 5 Coins into more quickly, and we're looking to take coins out of the economy. But it might work.
3. Character Control Subsidy: If you go negative, for the next scene you get to select one character (and component, really) to introduce which cannot be taken over by other players. You must use this character to get back in the positive. Should be possible if what you say about the trait situation is true.
4. Game End: use one of the subsidy rules, but the first time a subsidy is given, that signals that the following scene must be the last of the game. This one's for people who want to have a bit of fun with risking. But it does allow players to also control when they think the game should close out.

Now, if the problem is having too many coins after each and every contest, meaning that the refresh is only going to solve it too infrequently (perhaps you have long scenes), then negative refresh might not work. What I find interesting is that you cite 9 dice as being a big pile for everyone to have. That indicates to me that something else is out of whack somehow. Because I have nine dice in every pile in every game starting in scene one. Oh, maybe not for every complication, but nine just doesn't seem all that high. I carry around fifty dice minimum to play, and usually only play three or four player games. And sometimes we run out. So seeing fifty dice in a complication doesn't seem odd to me at all. Meaning that about 60 or so coins generated big complication.

I think we just spend more than you. If you can't bring yourself to spend more on things, then, yes, you are going to have to put a surcharge on complications or something, or find the economy becoming somewhat pointless.

Hmmm. Here's another idea. Limit the Coins one can spend to 5 a scene or something, and then decide to end the game in 10 scenes, or whatever seems appropriate. Declare the player with the most Coins at that time the "winner." Note that such gamism options may well not work as the game is not designed to support it really. But it might be interesting to try, that caveat aside.

Mike