Adding traits, control, and other rules questions

[John Harper]

Hello,

We're playing Universalis like gangbusters over here in Seattle. I have a game that meets every Tuesday, and we usualy have 5-7 players each time. It's a total blast.

Anyway, we tend to play very fast and loose with the rules which is how everyone likes it. As we go, though, I tend to collect the odd question here and there about how things are "supposed" to be done. So, without further ado, here they are.

- Adding traits
If I want to add a trait to a character that someone else controls (during their turn) do I have to pay a coin to interrupt, then pay a coin to take control, and then add traits? I've been getting the impression from some Actual Play reports that buying control isn't always neccessary to add traits.

- Conflicts
We've had a few strange situations where someone has bought control of two characters to narrate their actions, then those characters have come into conflict over something. It's not a Conflict in a rules-sense, though, since one player controls both characters. What happens here? Can the controlling player simply narrate the outcome however they want, or can someone interrupt right then and take control of one of the characters, and then have a Conflict?

There have been a few cases where two different players wanted control of the same character, and interrupted at the same time in order to control that character for an upcoming conflict (hoping to win coins). Are these resolved like a challenge? Do the players bid coins to see who gets control?

Thanks for the help. These might be addressed in the rulebook, but I don't have a copy right now. I gave mine to my parents during their visit here. They want to take it back to Florida and start up their own Uni game. :)

[Valamir]

Hello,

We're playing Universalis like gangbusters over here in Seattle. I have a game that meets every Tuesday, and we usualy have 5-7 players each time. It's a total blast.

Sweet, that's awesome to know.

- Adding traits
If I want to add a trait to a character that someone else controls (during their turn) do I have to pay a coin to interrupt, then pay a coin to take control, and then add traits?

Technically, yes.

As veteran fast and loosers, I'm sure you've already realized the unstated golden rule of Uni.  If nobody minds enough to Challenge...its not illegal.

If you're adding a Trait to a character I'm in control of, and I like the Trait that you're adding...heck, who am I to argue, you're saving me the Coin from paying for it myself.

However.  If you were adding a Coin to a character and the other party absolutely did NOT want that trait, then technically, if they wanted to get rules lawyery on you,  you'd have to do as you described...OR...start a Complication.  Traits can ALWAYS be added to Components you don't control as the result of bonus Coins from a Complication.

Another alternative would be to Interrupt and perform a mini flashback scene.  Since its your scene anything you introduce you control.  Not the most cost effective way of doing it, but might feel more solid as a story aspect.

Of course, you can always rules gimmick this to whatever standard you'd prefer the rule to be.

- Conflicts
We've had a few strange situations where someone has bought control of two characters to narrate their actions, then those characters have come into conflict over something. It's not a Conflict in a rules-sense, though, since one player controls both characters. What happens here? Can the controlling player simply narrate the outcome however they want, or can someone interrupt right then and take control of one of the characters, and then have a Conflict?

Yes and Yes.  Another player can always Interrupt and begin a Complication by taking over a Component another player is attempting to do something to.  See 2nd paragraph of the Take Over section on page 20.  If no one does this then the Controlling playing can simply narrate anything he wants (and can pay for).

If I Control Joe Wimp and Jack the super ninja both, I can narrate Joe Wimp kicking the crap out of Jack and breaking both his legs simply by spending the Coins to do so.  That Jack is supposed to be a super ninja is totally irrelevant...unless another player chooses to make it relevant.

One way to make it relevant would be to Challenge and claim Jack's super ninja Traits as Facts to back up a Challenge stateing that there's no way Joe would win that fight.  A better, easier, and much more profitable way would be to simply Interrupt, Take Over Jack and make the fight into a Complication.

So my motivation (from a strictly gamey sense) to NOT have Joe Wimp beat up Jack is that I've set up a super obvious situation where you simply take Jack over and because the fight is so one sided in your favor in terms of Traits to draw upon (Jack being a super ninja and all) you score beau coup free Coin and I wind up pretty much with bupkiss...so I don't do that.

There have been a few cases where two different players wanted control of the same character, and interrupted at the same time in order to control that character for an upcoming conflict (hoping to win coins). Are these resolved like a challenge? Do the players bid coins to see who gets control?

Side bar page 16.  The player closest to the left (clockwise) from the current player has precedence in an Interrupt.  Meaning, if multiple people Interrupt the same player, the one closest to that player automatically wins and the others take their Coin back and have to wait to Interrupt that person.

By convention (and implication in the second paragraph from the bottom of that page, though I didn't make it explicit enough) a player should be allowed to spend at least one Coin to complete his thought before being Interrupted himself.

Thanks for the help. These might be addressed in the rulebook, but I don't have a copy right now. I gave mine to my parents during their visit here. They want to take it back to Florida and start up their own Uni game. :)

Now THAT is freaking fantastic news.  Tell them that if they get a bunch of their friends playing I'll cut 'em a deal on multiple copies.

[John Harper]

Cool, Ralph. Thanks for the quick response. I'm sure we'll continue to play fast and loose, but these rulings are good to have in a pinch.

[Mike Holmes]

As veteran fast and loosers, I'm sure you've already realized the unstated golden rule of Uni.  If nobody minds enough to Challenge...its not illegal.

I mostly agree. But that's only if I feel that people are playing in the spirit of the framework. As soon as I see people traipsing off down the road to freeform, I club someone over the head with a Challenge that's meant to say, "I want to play Universalis! Not freeform."

If I wanted a freeform game, I could have started a freeform game.

That said, if your group drifts into Freeform and nobody opposes it then who's to say that this isn't what you really should have been doing all along? Also, if something seems to work better for your group make it official with a Gimmick. A very simple version of the game can be had without Complications that just involves anyone adding Traits to anything whenever they want. Basically it becomes all about control via Challenges.

Yes and Yes.  Another player can always Interrupt and begin a Complication by taking over a Component another player is attempting to do something to.  See 2nd paragraph of the Take Over section on page 20.  If no one does this then the Controlling playing can simply narrate anything he wants (and can pay for).

What I often see is players asking other players to Take Control of something. It's always been my interperetation that a Take Over can be done off turn without interruption, but does not then interrupt the current turn; the current player continues. Occasionally nobody will take the player up on it when they ask for help. This usually indicates that nobody thinks it's interesting enough to partake of the intended Complication. Which should tell the person thinking about it something.

Good Scene play entails only entering only one "side" in a scene. Other players will introduce the "opponents". Overeager players will spend more points than neccessary to get opposing forces present in a scene, and then find out that they have to cajole people into paying to set up the Complication that they want.

There have been a few cases where two different players wanted control of the same character, and interrupted at the same time in order to control that character for an upcoming conflict (hoping to win coins). Are these resolved like a challenge? Do the players bid coins to see who gets control?

By convention (and implication in the second paragraph from the bottom of that page, though I didn't make it explicit enough) a player should be allowed to spend at least one Coin to complete his thought before being Interrupted himself.

We've also played a one sentence limit.

But by my interperetation Taking Control is possible Off Turn. So players can Take Control back and forth on a whim, and before other players can even do anything with the character. So, it's like bidding when players do this, but they both spend down as they go.

Smart players, when they see this happening to certain characters a lot will try to institute permenant control Gimmicks like the PC Gimmick. That way you only have to deal with one Challenge at the beginning, and thereafter hav the weight of the rules on your side.

Mike

[Valamir]

Mike is correct, I apologize for being unclear by throwing an extraneous "Interrupt" in my explanation above.

You can ALWAYS Take Control when its not your turn.  Nor does Taking Control give you the turn.  You cannot add Traits (rules as written) when its not your turn, however.

You can, as Mike describes, Take Control back and forth repeatedly.

Re: Interruptions, Mike's "one sentence" limit is a bit more forgiving and flexible than the 1 Coin limit I mentioned, and closer to rules as written also.

[Mike Holmes]

Holy crap. That's gotta be the first time my off the cuff rulings were closer to the actual rules than Ralph's! I'm usually the one making up rules in my head as I go. Will wonders never cease.

Mike

[Andrew Martin]

I'm usually the one making up rules in my head as I go.

That's one book I'd like to see for Universalis second edition: the rules in Mike Holmes head! :)

[Mike Holmes]

I'm usually the one making up rules in my head as I go.

That's one book I'd like to see for Universalis second edition: the rules in Mike Holmes head! :)

Well, it comes down to the Challenge and Gimmick mechanics, essentially. Basically, play with the rules as they make sense in your head at the moment. If players object that it's not by the rules and Challenge, then either change to the "correct" way, or make a Gimmick to change the game to what you're doing, depending on how compelling the challenger's objection is.

That's Mike's Corrolary. I don't have a separate set of rules, but a corollary to the Challenge and Gimmick rules, instead. That is, given these two rules it must be true that if you play some way and nobody objects, then it's not "wrong". Do something long enough with nobody objecting, and it becomes defacto legal (usually the law, like ones for public cursing, are just discarded when people come across them).

Don't abouse that, though. If you catch people abusing the rules using this principle (and, yes, that's a completely subjective call on the player's parts), then make them desist, and fine the heck out of them if they're incorrigible about it.

Mike