Universalis Arena- multiple target Complications

[Bob McNamee]

Heh, things are going well over in the Universalis Arena game.
http://www.anvilwerks.com/index.php/TUA/TheUniversalisArena
We still would like to get even more players involved.

Its running pretty nice so far, with about 4 scenes running concurrently most of the time.

We've also been getting very good input from multiple players... so the story load is distributed!

We had some question over the use of an optional rule
http://universalis.actionroll.com/multiple_targets.htm
for multiple target Complications...

The page that includes the Complication is here...
http://www.anvilwerks.com/index.php/TUA/Sunstroke
but this is the gist of the problem.

How do you account for the possibilities of ties, possibly mutliple, when using this optional rule?
We had several potentially...and are stopping to resolve this before narrating the Complication.

Right now Shawn De Arment has this to say...

SMD: Having had a chance to do some reading... I believe that Edge dice (and ties in general) are incompatible with split allocation. The first paragraph on split allocation from the web site reads as follows:
This method is very similar to Independent Pools above. However, the Complication Pool is not rerolled for each Target. Instead all of the Target Pools are rolled at the same time and the Complication Pool is rolled once. The Originator then takes the Successes he rolled and allocates them against each of the Target Pools in whatever manner he chooses. Each Target Pool will then Win or Lose based on how it compares to the Successes the Originator allocated.
Please note the last sentence in particular. I believe that the Originator must assign his successes in such a way as to either win or lose versus the targets. He can not assign successes to tie with a target.

Personally, I think this interpretation  is easiest for our on-line form.

Anyone out there have any other ideas?

[Christopher Weeks]

Bob, thanks for posting!  This is something that I'd been meaning to get around to for a long time.

Something that I want to add is to note that many issues of Actual Play and how we've resolved issues are available on the site.  You can follow the Opening Discussion links from the main page to see what kinds of things we thought to plan for.  And you can also see how we've worked through issues that cropped up at the bottom of many of the scenes.

I'd welcome input on how we set the game up, how it's playing, and concerns that you would have if it were your game if anyone has any thoughts.  And like Bob wrote, more players would be a great boon to The 'Arena.

Chris

[Bob McNamee]

Half Question, half Advertising!

I'm not used to doing Complications this way...where some folks on a side could win while others lose.

I've always done them as Everything on this side, and the Rest on that side....roll and count successes for each side (dice rolled by the player contribution) then each player gets Coins based on how many dice they personally rolled, and how well they rolled (for winners), and, whether they were on winning or losing side.

I'm hoping we can get some input from people who have actually used this variant.

Its a cool variant... I can see it being useful for things like the 'surprise' situation we have... or a group of folks crossing piranha (sp?) infested streams (a possibility in this game)... or many other cases where success is variable for each individual (rather than the usual "all for one, one for all" situation).

But a mess of Edge Dice tie situations will make things too messy.
Thus the appeal of "You have to assign your dice as either Win or Lose versus the other participants" NO TIEs...except perhaps when each person only gets 1 success....then pick which one is a Tie, and which all Win against you.

Mike or Ralph? Have you folks played with this one much?
Anybody else?

[Valamir]

Excellent question.

There's a good reason why that rule was offered up on the variants page and not in the book.  It hadn't been playtested.  I have vague recollections of using this method once or twice, but I don't recall the possibility of allocating a tie coming up.

...as I understand it the issue is whether or not the single side in the Complication can allocate his successes against the multiple targets in a manner that causes a tie with a target pool's roll or if each has to be a decisive win / loss.

...honestly I don't know why it wouldn't work either way.  I can certainly see the logic of requiring a win / loss condition.  Additionally it would be alot quicker, especially for online play to require this.  The alternative leaves potentially multiple tie situations to resolve which could take alot more time.  This alone may be reason enough to go with this ruling.

However, it is tactically interesting to allocate ties.  In fact, one could manipulate the dice such to ensure not only the tie but the edge also.  I kind of like the idea from a gamey perspective (but without playtesting it may be too great an advantage for the single pool)...but again is probably too involved and not really in the spirit of the way edges were supposed to work.  But it may heighten the tension on a particularly interesting Complication.

[Bob McNamee]

The initial roll we had in the Sunstroke Complication created one winning player...and two tied players against the Complication Pool player...

Lots of edge dice action... too much...

Then the question of order of narration, plus Coins won gets into it.

[Christopher Weeks]

I think that if you allow tie allocation, you would see a single pool with (e.g.) eight dice against (e.g.) five pools with one die each and the dice particularly stationed to provide four ties in which the large pool gets four edge dice and one win, ending up with (e.g.) 35 Coins of booty from what could (should?) have been a simple complication.

I like the mechanic -- and the story-power that it grants the user, but not with ties.

Chris

[ScottM]

Hmm... is there another way to make it work?  When I rolled up the complication in Landing, I compared the successes of the two sides, rather than each of the four individuals.  If the roll had tied, what would have been a good method for divvying the edge die coins? Because I agree that inflation will result if we count all ties between any players as generating edge dice.
 [There were 4 players (parenthesis is their contribution to the pools): Attacker1 (3 dice), Attacker2 (6 dice), Defender1 (3 dice), Defender2 (6 dice)].