tried out some Universalis

[Matt Wilson]

Friday night I tried my first game of Universalis, along with fellow Forge-ites John "Feng" Harper, and Jeff Miller.

I'm hesitant to post, having a few bits of confusion that reading the rules again might clarify, but I had a good experience, so I thought I'd go for it.

First: bravo, Ralph and Mike.

When we started up, John, who had played before (three of us hadn't), had created some genre ideas on index cards, and we used those to brainstorm. That was pretty useful, I thought.

Some things I noticed during play: I had a tendency to want to play characters I created, or at least characters I had invested traits in. Also it was strange to shift from playing a protagonist character to playing a villain character.

The interruption rules had me a little confused. Maybe I'll post on the Uni forum about that. It occurred to me that people who aren't comfortable interrupting in everyday situations might not like that aspect of the game much. However, in the game I played, the players were very considerate about the process, doing more of an "ooh, ooh, can I interrupt?" than wresting control.

Again, I'm a little weak on the rules details, but I found myself getting motivated by a certain kind of competitive aspect: wanting to have the story turn out a certain way. At times the group of us were very cooperative, and usually just interrupting when someone had a cool idea. But I had the most fun when my ideas for a story were at odds with another player's. That was, oddly enough, most prominent in the beginning of the game, as we wrestled a bit with the introductory scene.

Someone suggested at one point that we were instinctively looking to John as a sort of gamemaster figure, as he was the most veteran of all of us, and as a result he ended up playing antagonist characters more often. I find that pretty interesting, and wonder how different the experience would be with a bunch of non-gamers at the table.

[Valamir]

Friday night I tried my first game of Universalis, along with fellow Forge-ites John "Feng" Harper, and Jeff Miller.

I'm hesitant to post, having a few bits of confusion that reading the rules again might clarify, but I had a good experience, so I thought I'd go for it.

First: bravo, Ralph and Mike.

Glad to hear it.

Some things I noticed during play: I had a tendency to want to play characters I created, or at least characters I had invested traits in. Also it was strange to shift from playing a protagonist character to playing a villain character.

Nothing wrong with that.  Good characters speak to different people in different ways.  In most games I've played there have been some characters I've felt more in tune with than others, I suspect this is common to many players in most of their games as well.  Not surprisingly these characters are often the ones we've invested in.  After all if we felt them compelling enough to create or expand them, its likely that we also find them compelling enough to want to play.

One comment I'll make about switching over to the villain...many times the villain serves as a sort of foil to the protagonist.  By periodically taking control of and shaping that villain, you are also shaping your protagonist.

The movie Unbreakable is a great example of this...not surprising since the comic book genre hits this relationship with a pretty big hammer.  Batman and the Joker, Spider Man and Green Goblin, Dr.X and Magneto.  You can make good use of your time playing the villain to make your protagonist that much more interesting.

The interruption rules had me a little confused. Maybe I'll post on the Uni forum about that. It occurred to me that people who aren't comfortable interrupting in everyday situations might not like that aspect of the game much. However, in the game I played, the players were very considerate about the process, doing more of an "ooh, ooh, can I interrupt?" than wresting control.

I've seen a wide range of Interrupt useage.  As originally conceived in my mind the "Interrupt" was the standard mechanic for passing the turn between players, with "passing to the left" being the fall back if no one did.  In actually writing the rules it became easier to just describe a clockwise turn order with the Interrupt being a sort of exception rule.

I've played in games where turns passed primarily by Interruption.  Mike, on the other hand, rarely ever uses them.  I've played in games where the formal Interruption mechanic winds up informally merging with the Negotiation aspect of Challenges such that a player turn becomes filled with "Ooohh, what if just then X happens..." types of comments and suggestions flowing from the other players.  One could just Interrupt and make X happen...one could Challenge and try to get the other player to make X happen, or one can just use regular old social interraction and powers of persuasion.  

As long as its functional for your group, you're doing it right.

Again, I'm a little weak on the rules details, but I found myself getting motivated by a certain kind of competitive aspect: wanting to have the story turn out a certain way. At times the group of us were very cooperative, and usually just interrupting when someone had a cool idea. But I had the most fun when my ideas for a story were at odds with another player's. That was, oddly enough, most prominent in the beginning of the game, as we wrestled a bit with the introductory scene.

I've noticed the same thing.  I think every social situation involving friends there's a little bit of competition present.  Sometimes its very overt like in the scene at the beginning of A League of Their Own, when the two sisters seek to out do each other by getting home first while pretending they aren't really speed walking.  More often its pretty subtle.  When a group of guys are clowning around cracking jokes is not at least a part of the motivation to score invisible social points for getting the biggest laughs.  I think Universalis provides a big outlet for this sort of "friendly" competition.  Play cutthroat to win and there is no point.  But play with the idea of seeing if you can convince your fellow friends that your idea is the coolest...and I think you're right where you're supposed to be playing the game.

Someone suggested at one point that we were instinctively looking to John as a sort of gamemaster figure, as he was the most veteran of all of us, and as a result he ended up playing antagonist characters more often. I find that pretty interesting, and wonder how different the experience would be with a bunch of non-gamers at the table.

I've found that to be the case when introducing new players.  I'm not sure if its a gamer attitude that a non gamer wouldn't experience or more of a normal looking to the guy who knows the rules for guidance.  I suspect that once you are all equally "veteran" that this effect won't be so noticeable.

[Mike Holmes]

Ralph covered most everything, but I've got a couple of comments.

Also it was strange to shift from playing a protagonist character to playing a villain character.

Was it uncomfortable? Do you play more than one character in a single scene often? Do you find it comfortable to be playing two characters talking to each other?

That was, oddly enough, most prominent in the beginning of the game, as we wrestled a bit with the introductory scene.

I find that a lot of the time there's some "wrestling" at the start. This is good play. It means that players are trying to make the game into something that they'll enjoy. It's when players don't argue at the beginning that you get the game where later some player says, "Eh, not really what I wanted to do."

Later in the game, once things are flowing, and everyone understands what the other players want, players tend to cater to each other, and less challenges and that sort of thing occur. Again, I find this a sign of good play. Basically it's no surprise that you start out not knowing how everybody wants to play, and later, when you do, you incorporate it all together.

That said, are you comfortable with the competition? Did it seem to cause any problems? As long as what you're arguing over is the story itself, you should have no mechanical problems.

Someone suggested at one point that we were instinctively looking to John as a sort of gamemaster figure, as he was the most veteran of all of us, and as a result he ended up playing antagonist characters more often. I find that pretty interesting, and wonder how different the experience would be with a bunch of non-gamers at the table.

Actually, I think that with non-gamers, the same thing would occur. I mean, think about the last time you taught someone to play Monopoly. Despite there not being a singled out player, there's often one player who knows the rules better, or is just a natural leader. Other players look to this player for leadership on certain issues. This all exists at the social level, and is not part of the rules per se. That is, it's normal, and not something you can really "do" anything about.

In early playtests, we actually had a rule called the "first player" rule. This player is like the Speaker of the House. No real additional authority other than administrative traffic control. We got rid of the rule because it happens anyhow. If one player knows the rules, they'll lead the game anyhow. If everyone is an expert then everyone contributes equally. If you want to gimmick in a "first player" just to be more comfortable in the role, it's a simple matter of giving him rights to Interrupt freely with administrative notes, after which he returns the turn to the player interrupted.

Other than that, such a player, official or not, just moves the game along by saying stuff like, "OK, Jake ended the scene, it's time for us all to collect our Scene Reward." Stuff like that. This is almost mandatory, really. It just doesn't have to be enumerated in rules unless you really want to do so.

BTW, in COTEC, there is a player who has this specific duty. Pretty cool in it's rigor that way, IMO.

Mike