Our Second Game

[dragon_of_colour]

Here is my posting of our game on saturday last. Overall we had a good time, and made definite improvements on our first attempt two weeks ago. We decided to drop the storyline from our first game, rather than carry it over. Anyway, for your enjoyment:

Universalis – Game Two

Tenets:

15,000 years into the future.
No magic.
The universal standard power source is antimatter.
Uranium is used as fuel for all antimatter devices.
Earth is deserted, wrecked by uranium mining, which has rendered it basically uninhabitable.
There is only one operational spacecraft (very big) capable of faster-than-light space travel (using an artificial gravity well). It has a number of smaller spaceraft for local exporation missions.
The ship itself is controlled by a human female who is hardwired into the ship and has total control over it. In fact she is the ship. Both she and the ship (an extension of her body) are known as Pandora. It is a symbiotic relationship.
The crew of the ship is made up of a number of different factions, working against each other for control over the ship. Although Pandora makes the ultimate decisions, she is obligated to follow the wishes of the crew, and she is reliant on uranium which powers her antimatter system.
Pandora is a colony ship.
There is a second ship which was sent to find uranium and explore unknown regions. Although interstellar communication with this ship is very difficult, it is known to be damaged and stranded. This vessel is the male counterpart to Pandora, and is known as Prometheus.
Pandora is capable of reaching Prometheus, and she has a strong desire to do so. However, a planet with uranium deposits has been found as well, and she (and the crew) are faced with a difficult decision as to where to head to first: the stranded ship, or the uranium planet. These two objectives lie basically in opposite directions, and the crew and ship have only a week to make the decision as to which direction to head in. Pandora does not have enough uranium fuel on board to make both trips.
The factions are fighting over which direction to go, but Pandora has the final decision.
Pandora is dying.
One of the factions has a young girl that they hope to replace Pandora with.
Humans are the only sentient life on board Pandora.
Pandora has an psychic link with the child, who is being groomed to be her successor.
The child to be Pandora's successor understands that Pandora wishes to find Prometheus, but also knows in her heart that her (the child's) father (General Mordechai, see below) wants to head for the uranium planet.
Pandora speaks to the crew in a synthesized voice, except her successor, with whom she can communicate telepathically.
Her successor is the only one who can take her place.

Scene 1:

The faction leaders have just been informed that they have to make a decision. [Whether to head in the direction of the uranium planet, or towards the damaged Prometheus.]
A general (human male) dressed in a red uniform with gold braiding, and black cape and boots, bows low before Pandora. His name is Mordechai, and he has a dark visor over the front side of his face, obscuring his features underneath [like a welding visor – not all-concealing].
Pandora is suspended in a cylinder of life-sustaining liquid. She is dying, visibly weaker than usual.
General Mordechai bows low and says "We will continue to be of service to you, great lady. You can always count on our allegiance, we will follow the wisdom of your choice."
Tenet established: General Mordechai is the father of the replacement child for Pandora. He hopes to "control' the ship through his child.
A grey-haired, crone-like old lady – a faction leader by the name of Rhenwyn – approaches Pandora in her turn and shows concern for Pandora's health, and asks, "Is there anything [we] can do to assist?"
Pandora responds, "I am fine, do not worry yourself, child.".
Another faction leader stands up. She is a young lady, strikingly beautiful, tall, with dark hair. She says, angrily, "Cease this prattle! We control the ship, she must do what we say."
The rest of the faction leaders start arguing, shouting and generally carrying on. Comments like "How can you talk to Pandora like that?", "No, she's right!", etc.
Then the doors slide open, and ten ship guards enter. They wear black armour and each carries a large rifle. They are dragging a bloody human male. [Someone says] "He was attempting to enter the Womb."

Scene 2:

1 hour later, General Mordechai's quarters.
General Mordechai is flanked by two Ship's Guards.
The bloody man is in a chair. General Mordechai says to him, "There can be no excuse for your actions, my son."
Tenet established: This is in fact his biological son, and he broke into Pandora (the Womb) to try to convince Pandora to stop his father at any cost. He failed.
The General continues: "Son, you have angered me for the last time. Henceforth you will remain under heavy guard where you can do no more harm, you bumbling idiot."
The daughter (successor to Pandora) comes into the room. Her name is Andrea. She pleads with her father: "Don't do this to my brother!".
Mordechai turns to her: "Andrea, when you wear the mantle of authority, you will come to understand that sometimes you need to make tough decisions." He addresses the guards: "Take him away!". The guards step forward and lift the son up by his arms.
Andrea responds: "I understand more about tough decisions than you ever would, father." She says it with a strange look in her eye.
The son replies to Andrea as he is being taken away: "Don't worry, I will be fine wherever they put me."
Andrea bursts into tears and runs out. The lights flicker.
The General thinks, "How is she going to be once she's running the ship?" and shakes his head.

Scene 3:

Corridor leading to brig, just after previous scene.
The son is being dragged away by the two Ship's Guards.
The dark-haired, beautiful woman (from the first scene) appears with her personal guards (there are four of them).
She commands the Ship's Guards to "Release the prisoner into my custody." He is handed over to her without a struggle.
The son and the woman passionately embrace, as the Ship's Guards leave.
As she ends the embrace, the woman steps back triumphantly; the son is still her prisoner.
"Malcer," she says, addressing the son, "your actions have resulted in unforseen consequences, but not entirely undesirable. Now, did you get the sample?"
Malcer nods. "I ingested it, as you instructed."
They are referring to a sample of Pandora's life-sustaining fluid. This liquid is not normally safe for ingestion. The woman has also been exposed to the liquid after she kissed the son. The process of extracting the liquid from Malcer will kill him, and he suspects this.

Scene 4:

Pandora's Womb (control room), next day.
Andrea is before Pandora, who is suspended once again in the cylinder of life-sustaining liquid.
Pandora tells Andrea that she is dying more quickly. She contracted a virus as a result of the breach into her Womb, and she has only two days left to live.
Andrea places her hands against the cylinder, and Pandora does the same, palms to palms.
Andrea says: "It is too soon, I am not ready."
Pandora responds in her sythesized voice, "You are capable of this, even now. It is also your responsibility to unify the factions. It is easy to control the ship, but dealing with people is a different matter entirely."
She continues, "I am not read to hand over to you yet, I still have many things to do. [There is a message I have received from Prometheus.] Whatever attacked and crippled him is bearing down on us at a rapid pace."
A display screen lights up, showing a dozen conical, spiked spaceships, vicious and obviously alien in nature.
Andrea responds to this: "I have seen such things in my nightmares..." She looks pale.

- End of Session –

Notes:

Statements in square brackets are my own inferences, not explicitly stated or teneted. I made them when I was not clear about the exact situation.
The Ship's Guards were created as master components, our very first.
We had a strong disagreement in Scene 2. The ladies wanted the lights to go out completely when Andrea left the room. The guys thought that was too overt. In the end we settled on the lights simply flickering. It went to negotiation, but no formal Challenge (see below).
Pandora clearly wants to go after her stranded "mate", apparently even if she is to die en-route. She controls the ship directly, and therefore has the most decision-making power out of all the entities aboard the ship. However, since she is a colony-vessel, if she does this, she risks stranding herself and the colonists aboard, if no uranium can be found nearby.
Although I don't think it was stated directly, Pandora should be sympathetic toward the wishes of the crew (or the majority of that crew), because they control her supply of uranium fuel somehow. This should be stated formally or an alternative be suggested.

Questions:

We are a very cooperative group, and as a result it is difficult to get Complications started. We are also unclear as to just when to start a Complication, as opposed to a simple challenge.
In Scene 3, I had wanted more Ship's Guards to arrive on the scene as the prisoner was being handed over to the dark-haired woman's personal guards. In order to do so, should I have just interrupted and introduced more guards comning around a corner, and said "I start a Complication involving the Ship's Guards and the personal guards"?
Do I need to make clear (at the start of the Complication) the resulting events that I wish to narrate if I win the complication, or not? In the end we just settled on what is written up now. However, I wanted to win some chips, and there aren't any given for cooperation!
We tend to resolve disagreements involving outcome by the Challenge mechanic, taking away the potential for winning chips through complications. When should a complication be used instead of a Challenge? Personally I feel that challenges should be used to resolve metagame issues as well as more abstract issues, like "No, I think Fido is not an appropriate name for the General."
Taking our "lights flicker/go out" issue in Scene 2, should it have been resolved by means of a Challenge or a Complication?

Character names: what are your thoughts on when to establish the name of a character/location, etc.? When it is heard in dialogue, or simply at some point in the narrative, eg. 'The girl, whose name is Andrea, responds...'

[Valamir]

Nice session, although I really would love to see where that other one goes.  Nice thing is, you can always pick it up again later and continue it.  To jump right into your questions

We are a very cooperative group, and as a result it is difficult to get Complications started. We are also unclear as to just when to start a Complication, as opposed to a simple challenge.
In Scene 3, I had wanted more Ship's Guards to arrive on the scene as the prisoner was being handed over to the dark-haired woman's personal guards. In order to do so, should I have just interrupted and introduced more guards comning around a corner, and said "I start a Complication involving the Ship's Guards and the personal guards"?

How to initiate a Complication can be found at the top of page 62, but to completely understand this requires a good handle on the rules for Control from page 19.

In summary.  When you invent a Component for the first time in a scene it starts out in your control.  When you Introduce an existing Component into a scene for the first time it starts out in your control.  Later on someone elses turn (either through Interruption or default turn order) they can spend one Coin to Take Control of a Component from you.

If you just was to narrate a Component someone else Controls doing something, you can simply Take Control and then narrate it.  

Alternatively, any time you wish to effect a Component that someone else Controls you can start a Complication.  Since the idea of a Complication is to use Traits to generate free dice this usually takes the form of a Component you Control attempting to "do something" to a Component someone else Controls pitting the Traits of your Component (plus additional dice) vs. the Traits of their Component (plus additional dice).

I can't answer your question completely, because you didn't indicate who controled what at the time.  But, assuming the prisoner and the woman's guards were being Controled by someone other than you, mechanically you would have:

1) Paid 1 Coin to Interrupt
2) Paid 1 Coin to Introduce the guards (if their were an existing unit of guards you were using or a Master Component you were templating from), or more than 1 Coin if you were building the guards from scratch to give them whatever Traits you want them to have.
3) Since its your turn, and you Control the guards you declare "The ships guards attack" (or whatever they were going to do)
4) Since there is now a situation where Components you Control are "doing something" to Components someone else Controls, a Complication is the automatic result.


Another way to initiate a Complication is when someone else Controls two Components and narrates one doing something to the other.  If you simply spend a Coin to Take Over the second Component (which does not require Interruption (see page 20), the situation is no such that their Component is "doing something" to your Component...instant Complication.

Do I need to make clear (at the start of the Complication) the resulting events that I wish to narrate if I win the complication, or not?

Its not required that you indicate exactly what the end result will be if you win.  You do need to indicate enough about what the interaction will be (the guards attack, the guards try and talk to the other guards, etc) so that all players involved know what Traits to draw upon

In the end we just settled on what is written up now. However, I wanted to win some chips, and there aren't any given for cooperation!

Next time you play, try not to think of Complications as contests or competitions.  

Consider.  In the guard situation above where I outlined the steps for starting a Complication you alternatively, could have simply spent 1 Coin to Take Control of the prisoner, 1 Coin to Take Control of the woman's guards and then simply narrated any interaction you wanted (spending Coins as appropriate).  This can be very dictatorial.  Unless the other player gets into a bidding war of Taking Control back and forth you are basically doing what YOU want as a player.

Instead, if you start a Complication you are now actively soliciting input from every other player at the table.  Especially the player Controling the other Components.  Instead of the woman's guards acting the way you want, the other player gets to say what they do.  The back and forth nature of Trait activation adds alot of detail to what's going on that would likely have gotten brushed over in pure narrative.  In pure narrative you can just say what happens.  In a Complication you want to get those extra dice to have the privilege of getting to say what happens, so you spend the added time and effort to add in all of the little details ("My guard has secretly upgraded the power coil in his blaster rifle making it more powerful, +1 Blaster Rifle for another die", or "The prisoner is wearing a standard issue control collar which the woman's guards have the control chip for, they get another die", etc).

ALOT of the details of the worlds I played in were invented or fleshed out as a result of people searching for little extra ways to get dice in a Complication.  Its revealed that one combatant was a veteran in order to earn an extra die for a sword fight.  Its then revealed that he lost an eye in the war in order to earn an extra die for his opponent.  That sort of thing.

A Complication is not head to head bare knuckles, winner take all, competetion.  Its an opportunity draw upon the collective imaginations of everyone at the table in order to build an exciting scene.  The dice add that element of uncertainty and suspense but both sides will have the opportunity to narrate parts of the outcome, and both sides certainly had the opportunity to add input into the process.

Complications really are a very cooperative process.  With the added bonus of being able to add all that detail essentially for free because you'll win Coins back as a result.

We tend to resolve disagreements involving outcome by the Challenge mechanic, taking away the potential for winning chips through complications. When should a complication be used instead of a Challenge? Personally I feel that challenges should be used to resolve metagame issues as well as more abstract issues, like "No, I think Fido is not an appropriate name for the General."

I think that's a good rule of thumb.  Not a law, of course, but a good guideline.  If the Challenge would be over something that a character is doing or going to do, then often it is a good time to handle the situation with a Complication.  The Complication then represents the "difficulty" of the action or an obstacle preventing the character from doing that.

Taking our "lights flicker/go out" issue in Scene 2, should it have been resolved by means of a Challenge or a Complication?

That one actually says "Challenge" to me.  One could conceive of a situation where you have the Component of Andrea "doing something" (in this case making the lights flicker) to the Component of the ship which could be handled as a Complication if these were a) Controlled by two different players, and b) an event significant enough to warrant rolling dice over.

But in this instance it appears to be largely a mood setting "special effect" and a Negotiated Challenge to determine where the other players are in relation to it seems perfectly appropriate to me.

Character names: what are your thoughts on when to establish the name of a character/location, etc.? When it is heard in dialogue, or simply at some point in the narrative, eg. 'The girl, whose name is Andrea, responds

Entirely a matter of personal taste and the needs of the story.  A name serves as a Trait to generate a free Coin in any Complication involving that Component, and as a Trait also serves to increase the Importance of the character making it more expensive to remove them.  Beyond those mechanics either way works perfectly well.  I've seen names tacked on to characters in the middle of a scene where the character wasn't even actively doing anything because one of the players thought of a good name and wanted to get it in.

[dragon_of_colour]

Thanks Ralph!
I can see we don't do much Taking Over during a game. In fact I don't think that even once during this game anyone attempted to take control of another's component.
I can see you're saying that a complication is automatic, provided the criteria have been met.
Also as I see it, if I am initiating a complication between my component and another player's, and I win, and he is unhappy with how I narrate the result of the complication, he can always take it to a Challenge (I can see this is going to crop up, hence I am mentioning it).
However, what if that player has a problem with me even starting a complication? I suppose he can Challenge that too...?

[Mike Holmes]

Just to be clear, there's a rigorous set of rules happening here:

The player can Challenge another player stating that his Component is trying to change yours. But he can't Challenge that such a declaration causes a Complication. This is what you can do:
Mike (Controling Ragnar): Ragnar is going to argue philosophy with Valamir.
Ralph (Controling Valamir): No way, Ragnar just isn't the philosophizing type!

Challenge ensues.

This is what you can't do:
Mike (Controling Ragnar):  Ragnar is going to argue philosophy with Valamir. That's a Complication.
Ralph (Controling Valamir):  No way, I don't want to have a Complication.

This would be non-sensical, because we'd have no way to adjudicate what happens subsequently if the Complication did not occur, and it's against the rules. I suppose you could put in a Gimmick that said that you could Challenge a Complication with the result of it not occuring being that the Originator, or the Controller of the Target gets to decide what happens, but I don't see any advantage to that.

Take Overs sound hostile, but often they aren't. That is, quite often players will ask other players to Take Over their characters in order to facilitate the creation of Complications, or to avoid them. Complications are similar in that they're not really competitive. That is, players will often arrange to have another player Take Over one of their Components in order that they can both share in the profits of the Complication.

Yes, you can Challenge the outcome narration of a Complication, but, IME, it's no more common than any other place for a Challenge to occur. The "threat" of Challenge is enough to keep players in line during this narration as well as any other. So there isn't any more cause, on average, for Challenges to occur here. But, it's certainly possible.

Mike

[Valamir]

Also as I see it, if I am initiating a complication between my component and another player's, and I win, and he is unhappy with how I narrate the result of the complication, he can always take it to a Challenge (I can see this is going to crop up, hence I am mentioning it).

True, although I would direct your attention to item #1 in the text box on page 69 "Rules for Using Coin's from Complications"

"The Winner of the Complication narrates his Coins first, although he may discuss options with the Loser if he desires".

What this means is that it is perfectly acceptable for the Winner and Loser to collaborate on what happens in the resolution.  I've played demo gains at cons where people jumped right into this, scripted out the events that happened together and even negotiated who'd pay for what Winner or Loser.  

Also keep in mind item #5 from that list

"The overall outcome should be narrated with a bias favoring the Components of the Pool that won or to the detriment of the Components of the Pool that lost."

What's important here is what's not said.  Its not a question of the winner emerging universally triumphant and the loser getting hosed.  The outcome should be "biased" in the winner's favor but that doesn't mean the loser is required to get completely shafted.

The Losing player will have a decent number of Coins to make sure the outcome doesn't totally go the Winners way.  In fact, the rules for awarding Coins guarentee that since the Loser will get 1 Coin per die automatically that they will get exactly out of it equal to the effort they put into it.  If the Complication was really important to them, and they activated lots of Traits and introduced lots of new elements by buying dice...yet they still lost...they'll still have a substantial number of Coins to spend.

In my experience its far more common for the Loser to get the resolution headed the way he'd like using these Coins than resorting to a Challenge.  Also, the Winner (especially in Complications where the Winner didn't get that many more Coins than the Loser), is thusly encouraged to collaborate with the Loser in how they get spent or he may find that, since the Loser gets the last word, his "victory" was a Pyhrric one.

A final note in this direction from item #6

"The Events and activities narrated should tie in or reference, at least tangentially, the Traits that were drawn upon and the justifications given for dice purchased"

What this means is that the players have another lever to pull to lean the resolution in the direction they want.  While the dice pools are being built, all players can introduce new Components, activate Traits, and buy dice for a variety of things.

Both the Winner and the Loser then have to take those things into account when they narrate the result.  Thus, the player can ensure that certain elements they want included in the resolution get included in the resolution, win or lose, because they introduced those elements into the Complication.


To be sure, you can play a Complication as a cut throat hose job if you want.  The only thing preventing you from doing that is what I call the "Diplomacy" factor from the great classic game Diplomacy.  Theres no way to win that game by yourself, and he who screws over the others soon finds himself isolated and alone.

Universalis has the same kind of built in social balancer against players who want to play the game in a manner others find distasteful.  They are quickly run out of Coins and find themselves sitting most of the game on the sidelines.

I've never played in a game where this actually happened.  Its usually immediately obvious where that "lone wolf going it alone" road leads and most players immediately grasp that working with the other players instead of against them is far more efficient.

[Fenris_]

ok, this is all very well and good, but i still reckon there shouldn't only be rewards to make complications out of things - insightful and creative ideas come just as much from co-operative compromise as it does from complications, if not more, so why is there no system for getting extra chips for working things out with the other players instead of just winning a complication and then dictating them (yes i know you can work on the outcome co-operatively and your result can be challenged, but after you've been through all the trouble of a complication you've pretty much said you're not intrested in compromise right there).. i just feel that will make people more intrested in making complications to the story no matter what they are, than building the scene and enjoying the story, it just seems to me a strange reward basis..
One good tenat we established although haven't used is to reward a really good idea in chips - unfortauntely we haven't actually given this reward yet in play, but it seems to me more what players should be rewarded for..
i agree with what one of you said, that is shouldn't be such a "hostile" competition for control, the smoothest scenes run when people work of each others ideas, but don't necesarily turn them inside out every chance they get, that's going to make for a very jumpy sequence, much like our first session. So maybe complications don't have to resolve in hostility or at least in total control for power of a situation, but that is the way it comes accross.
err, enough complaining (tho not really complaining, just trying to understand), one day the pirate captain will have his revenge!!!!!

[Bob McNamee]

There is always the Scene Refresh for co-operative play.

The Complication is somewhat better, to me, in that it adds a GM-like uncertainty to the game, where no player is really sure where things will go.

As you have done you could always add in a Rules Gimmick, although I'm not sure exactly how you would structure it.

Perhaps
Co-operation Gimmick: Any time two or more players Pool together Coins to create "parts of the gameworld"(edited in: Components,Events, etc) worth more Coins than the number of players, they are entitled to roll dice equal to the Coins they personally spent. Players earn back Coins  equal to the numerals on the successful dice (1-5 on a 10-sided die).

[Valamir]

Yeah, its interesting what comes across to different folks.

Some people read the rules (as you apparently have) and see head to head bloody knuckled competition screaming off of every page.   Others read it and never get that sense at all.

Thing is...worrying about the rules "sounding too competitive" is a self fulfilling prophecy.  A person reads the rules, gets that impression, relates the rules to his group where those concerns get passed on, and voila everybody sees "competition" and either ramps up on that aspect or goes out of their way to avoid those mechanics.

so why is there no system for getting extra chips for working things out with the other players instead of just winning a complication and then dictating them (yes i know you can work on the outcome co-operatively

Alls I can say is you've answered your own question.  I can't count the number of games I've been in where (and Mike has mentioned this numerous times) people have asked other players to please take over one of their Components so they can work on a Complication.  Its designed to be, and normally plays out as, a very cooperative process.

I've seen numerous times people making suggestions about what the other party should activate to get dice or moments of "ohh, what if your guy does this..." and all sorts of things like that.

A complication is the system for getting extra chips for working things out with other players.  There is no rule that says "once a Complication starts all other players must be silent".  Ad lib, offer suggestions,  give ideas.

What's preventing you from all simply agreeing on what the resolution should look like and spending the free coins if that's what works best for you?  

but after you've been through all the trouble of a complication you've pretty much said you're not intrested in compromise right there

Not in any game I've ever played.  I really don't understand where this dichotomy between "compromise means working things out without resorting to Complications, and Complications mean you're dictating and not being cooperative".

It sure isn't in the rules.  

They are called Complications.  They are not called Competitions.  I suppose I could have chosen different words for "winner" and "loser" but I figured there was already enough specialty terms in the game.  If it helps, replace those words with "First Speaker", and "Second Speaker" or something like that.

Honestly, I've never seen the concerns you're describing materialize in any game I've played (except ones where we put it in on purpose).  

Embrace the Complication mechanic.  It is your friend.  And it is a POWERFUL cooperative tool.  In fact, given the way the payoff works...it makes for a pretty lousy competetive tool.

[Bob McNamee]

From a personal standpoint I see the Challenge mechanic as way more competitive than the Complication mechanic.

Sure it has the negotiation phase, but its primary reason for being is to ultimately force a change on the game.

Dragon, if you want a positive spin for it...Remember... Complications occur due to 'in game causes'.

a rock slide as the group is climbing the mountain.

or
Event: Tool slips from Belt.

Complication: Can the art thieves manage to stop it from hitting the floor and triggering the alarm?

Yes, no?...even if they don't stop it and the alarm goes off...the 'loser' could narrate that the alarm only sounds in the building...because a previously unknown member of the gang (just created) is outside preventing an alarm signal from going to the police or alarm company.

[dragon_of_colour]

Thanks, my thoughts are beginning to crystallise on this.

I think there are two different ideologies at work here. Both are aimed at enriching the story and overall enjoyment of the game:

1. The main view espressed by most posters, is that complications are good because they win the winner coins and more coins = better story. However, this is done at the 'expense' of placing control of the story in the hands of the winner, and this is essentially the 'competition' aspect which Fenris is unhappy about.

2. Fenris' view, which is more of a kind of 'lets share control of the story and avoid any one person gaining too much power over the story'. This is like saying we're all in this together and no-one actually wins in a competition sense. We all win if we create an interesting and detailed story.

I believe that both views aren't perfect. I really believe that a bit of competition is healthy to the overall game and can improve on (2) a great deal. So what if one player gets control of the narration after winning the complication? It is a game, and so long as it is not to the story's detriment, this sort of competition should be encouraged, and certainly is.

The difference with (1) is really that it strikes me as a lot more "gamist" (sorry for the loose application of the term). I get the impression from reading Uni posts that a lot of players out there play this like roleplaying. Even the designers liken it to a RPG in some ways. I certainly don't think its a RPG at all, not even close. There is a sense that even though there are no player characters per se, there are definitely some characters "whom Bob likes" and others "whom Joe likes". In many of the examples I have read, there is definitely a sense of conflict between players, and complications therefore come very naturally because "someone is going to be the winner at the end". Articles regarding Uni strategy (from the homepage IIRC) definitely take this approach.

I think our group's approach during play is that we are very much more distant from the individual characters in the story than I have seen with other groups. As an example, when I started to give General Mordechai a couple more traits, someone in the group commented about me 'making it harder for him to get killed' or 'toughening him up' or something like that, as if that was unusual. However, I was simply getting 'closer' to the character and making him more important to the story, for sure.

The two approaches aren't really flawed inasmuch as they are just different. I want to encourage complications 'cos I like the approach of (1). I guess the game can accommodate both approaches quite comfortably though.

Dragon, if you want a positive spin for it...Remember... Complications occur due to 'in game causes'.

This is a good rule of thumb.

What's important here is what's not said. Its not a question of the winner emerging universally triumphant and the loser getting hosed. The outcome should be "biased" in the winner's favor but that doesn't mean the loser is required to get completely shafted.

Yes I mainly agree here, but what's the deal with this buying dice thing? As I see it, if the winner buys off all the loser's dice, the loser is getting completely shafted, at least potentially...

The Complication is somewhat better, to me, in that it adds a GM-like uncertainty to the game, where no player is really sure where things will go.

Yeah sure, but do you want a game or a story, i.e. approach (1) or approach (2)? I cannot help thinking Bob is approaching this from the perspective of an RPG. Nothing wrong with that of course, just a particular perspective I am trying to highlight.

Alls I can say is you've answered your own question. I can't count the number of games I've been in where (and Mike has mentioned this numerous times) people have asked other players to please take over one of their Components so they can work on a Complication. Its designed to be, and normally plays out as, a very cooperative process.

Yeah, okay... I'm beginning to see how this happens. However currently I can't see our group doing anything of the sort (yeah okay we're still newbies). Can't see Fenris asking me to take control over 'his' (there we go again) component so I can get it into a complication with 'his' other component. I think we have trust issues though :-) A few more games and I'm sure we'll iron it out.

I hope I have contributed positively here and not confused the issue...

[Valamir]

Yes I mainly agree here, but what's the deal with this buying dice thing? As I see it, if the winner buys off all the loser's dice, the loser is getting completely shafted, at least potentially...

If I were to make a list of rules that I'm not completely satisfied with, this one would be on it.  To tell the truth, I've NEVER seen it actually employed, and a rule that never gets used, is pretty pointless.

The idea was to allow a winner who REALLY had a powerful important thing he wanted to do with the resolution, to more or less pay for the privilege of having the sole say by canceling out the Losers Coins before the Loser could use them to move things in a different direction.

In practice it proved much more effective to simply spend the Coins to establish various facts that the Loser then has to take into account.  A positive reinforcer rather than a negative one.  Same cost but it actually creates something lasting.  If the Winner has the Coins to spare, its almost always more advantageous to simply save the Coins than to spend them to blow out the loser (mathematically adding a Coin to your own Wealth increases your Wealth in relation to all other players, subtracting it from 1 opponent's wealth only increases your Wealth relative to that one player).

So really...its a rule that probably wouldn't survive into a second edition.

I hope I have contributed positively here and not confused the issue...

Absolutely.  I'm a big fan of open discussion, and this thread has helped me crystalize my thoughts on the matter also.  

I highly encourage such topics.

[dragon_of_colour]

I couldn't agree more. It means that even the loser has some way of contributing positively to the outcome, or in some way moderating the winner's resolution. I think with this rule out of the way ("Everybody shout...one...two...three...RULE GIMMICK!!!) there really isn't a loser in a complication. if the winner blows his chips on an interesting resolution, the loser might choose to have his piece of the pie, or simply hoard his chips away for a later stage (or trait-up some components for the next complication - grin!).

[Bob McNamee]

In at least one game I was involved in I put in a Rules Gimmick of "Winner cannot 'buy down' the Coins of the Loser in a Complication"

Precisely because I didn't want to see any 'total victory story narration'.

[kwill]

wow, I just want to say this thread has really clarified some of the conceptual problems I was having with Complications (must be a south african thing :D )

in the only game I've played so far (work, bleh) there were some basic
rules issues (we counted *all* Traits for Components in Complications), but underlying that I realise now, also some unclear thinking as to the
purpose of Complications (somehow we also managed to play the game without referring to Component ownership, just choosing sides as we felt like)

I've now got a much better idea on how to introduce concepts in my next demo at the end of the month

[dragon_of_colour]

Hiya d@vid,
That's what you get when you help me with ordering the book! Positive feedback. Glad to have been part of the process. Our next game this coming saturday so I'm sure some more questions, but at least we'll be going into it a lot clearer on things... and a ready to tackle Complications!
Jason