[Universalis] No shoot out at the Space Western Corall.

[Jack Aidley]

This is only my second go at Universalis, you can find Dave's write up of our first attempt in [Universalis] First Steps and may also want to view [Feng Shui (partly)] Uninvolved player problems for some context to the game.

Our currently standard of players were there, myself, Dave (Stickman), Kev, Adam and Jude. Myself, Dave and Kev took part in the Universalis game mentioned above and had a reasonable grasp on the game before we started, Adam and Jude were totally new to it and hadn't even read the rules before. Dave being better than me at such things, explained the rules before we started.

Tenets We opened with the following Tenets (I may be paraphrasing some of these):

Western (Kev)
Has to involve a sheriff (Adam)
Space Western (Jude) - there was a fair debate about this one, but after some discussion we decided that provided we set the game on a single planet and scaled back the technology a reasonable amount we could keep the feel of a western. We set out these limits in the following tenets.
Only set on one planet (Dave)
Use Animals (Me) - cribbed, admitedly from the Meadow example in the rules, I felt it would work well with the western feel.
Gritty (Kev) - Kev initially proposed "Dark and Unpleasant" but I objected (and the others agreed), largely on the grounds that Dark and Unpleasant to me implied too close to things like "High Plains Drifter" which I had no desire to play.

I forget the order of the rest of the tenets but we had a lot of no's added in: No Lasers (Jude), No Magic (Dave), No Psionics (Jude), Droids (Adam) but No Cyborgs (Adam), Non-humanoid races (Jude), Generic enemy is AI (Dave), Valuable Resource Sought (Me) and, in reference to the first game we played, Mostly Played Forward in Time (Me).

We got through four scenes on the night, a little less than in the first game partly because we started a little later and partly because it took longer with more players I think.

Scene 1 I bid high to claim the first scene and set the tone of things to come. I opened in an anonymous bar, afternoon on Day 1. I began with the Sheriff who I defined as Middle aged, has a limp, had a gun, tries to be honest, has a drinking problem and set him up talking to someone before passing the play to Kev to fill in the details of who that someone is. Kev created Mr. Arbright, an Insectoid arms dealer and we kicked off some dialogue - incidently, we'd missed the whole dialogue thing in the first game we'd played and I think using it really helped this time - the discussion revolved about some deal between the two with Arbright claiming the Sheriff didn't have enough money and the Sheriff saying he had the money he agreed and finished up with the Sheriff threatening to arrest Arbright for breaking a deal if he didn't leave town sharpish. Play then passed to Adam who introduced a mysterious new character who slipped away in the opposite direction. Jude introduced the Barmaid (as a green-fured catperson) and was having her carry drinks over to Arbright when Dave interrupted and threw in a Mini-Scene describing an lizard-like alien (called Tictac, IIRC) poisoning Arbright's drink and looking at a wanted poster for Arbright. In a slight rules error we returned play to Jude who narrated her giving the drink to Mr. Arbright and then we had the first complication of the game between Dave (Tictac) & Kev (Mr. Arbright), Dave furiously bought up traits for Tictac about how his poison was deadly, carried Numibidian plague and was acidic but the dice fell in Kev's favour and he described how Arbright spat the poison out into the Barmaid's face disfiguring her.

I was really pleased with this first scene for a number of reasons. At the game level, we'd set up plenty of conflicts and intrigue for future scenes and bought into many of the Tenets we'd agreed upon, plus I felt the use of the Dialogue rules really helped shape up the scene in a co-operative manner and where the players weren't sure where to take it next; I don't think either Kev or I anticipated the outcome of the conversation between the Sheriff and Arbright. On the more human level, I was very pleased to see Adam and Jude getting involved in things. Near the start of the scene Jude had stated that she would sit this one out and get a feel for things, but by the time it was her turn she was ready to take part. At this point I wasn't really sure whether Adam's contribution was simply him feeling he had to do something on his turn or whether he had genuine plans for the character he introduced; judging by later scenes I'm guessing he had a rough outline in mind. I was pleased, as well, by how the simple running elements (e.g. when do you pay a coin?) got naturally and easily shared among us - as this is the group I usually run for I often find I end up in an authority role whether I'm GMing or not. Plus Adam and Kev liked my home brew, which was nice.

Scene 2 This turned out to be the big action scene of the night and may well set the tone of things to come. Jude bid highest, and set out the scene outside the bar from the first scene with a tall cat person who Jude gave traits of The Barmaid's Brother and Has a Big Gun called "Sarah Jane" standing around and introduced Arbright into the scene (I think this is the order things happened, I'm a little vague) before passing play to Dave who described three Mechanical Drones flying into town, at this point Adam interrupted and described a mini-scene involving his character from the bar scene who he now gave the name Derrin, Derrin can be seen using a controller for the Drones, homing in on Arbright and then executed a "kill" order, at this point I interrupted and described the Sheriff and his two deputies stepping out in front of the Drones and telling them they'd be told before they're not welcome in this town. I was running very low on coins at this point and was hoping to kick off a conflict to get some back, as well as to establish the Sheriff as a man who does his duty even if it means protecting someone he doesn't like. Unfortunately for me, but as it turns out fortunately for the game, Jude then interrupted and narratted her Tall Cat Person pulling a gun on Arbright - before she could pull the trigger as it were I interrupted back and narrated the Sheriff intervening. At this point we kicked off a four way conflict with everyone but Adam involved, I had the most dice and got the best roll, notching up 19 coins from the win (!) and narrated the deputies arresting the Tall Cat Person (who I think we learned was called Grrrl), the Drones shooting one of Mr. Arbright's arms off and the Sheriff gunning down two of them. Kev added a trait to the Drones that they "belong to the Tommorow corporation" (?) Jude purchased a Ranger Badge for Grrrl. There was soem dialogue in which the Sheriff (now named as Murdock) expressed his displeasure at Grrrl taking things into his own hands rather than dealing with law and the Grrrl claimed a motive for the attack as the attack on his sister (the barmaid in scene 1). The scene wrapped up with Adam introducing a comic moment as a gang of kids snatched up Arbright's severed arm and ran off playing with it.

Again, I thought this was a strong scene. Adam's Derrin character was showing interesting potential, although I wasn't that keen on Kev's introduction of the Tommorow Corporation as it seemed rather too Cyberpunk to me. We had some action (the big complication was very tense), and I managed to rebuild my tattered coin stash. While the addition of Grrrl bought in a new big player with good potential and the addition of the deputies upped the Sheriff's ability to deal with any problems ahead.

Scene 3 This time Adam took the lead, framing what turned out to be the shortest scene of the night. The surviving drone returned to Derrin and was greated with a shout of "All hail the Arcitect" and Adam then traited up this mysterious AI entity "The Arcitect". I'm afraid I forget most of the traits other than "was originally a terraforming machine", "is worshipped" and "is insane". Then a buggy sped up to take Derrin and the drone away somewhere.

Although this was a short scene - a monologue, in fact - I was pleased by it mostly because Adam had taken such a positive step to move the story where he wanted it to go. I expect we'll see the Arcitect shaping up to be the big outside threat in the session(s?) to come.

Scene 4 Dave framed this one with five robed figures walking into town at dusk, initially he described them speaking in a robotic voice and then passed to me but when I muttered about the robotic voices spoiling my plans he dropped that, and I instead introduced the five as being Arbright's "Powerful Friends" that had been eluded to earlier. Arbright led them inside to his house, scanned for bugs, and then I passed control to Kev. Kev took control of Arbright and we had some dialogue but I then challenged the whole dialogue as it was taking the game off into the direction of high-powered organisations clashing rather than the gritty feel we'd agreed upon. Kev concured and it was struck from the record. No-one else really had any ideas for the scene so we called it a night.

This was probably the weakest scene of the night, perhaps we were getting tired or perhaps no-one was really quite sure where to go next despite that, the arrival of the friends should, I think, help build things towards a potential climax involving numerous big players.

At the end of the evening I had 13 coins, Kev 9 and Dave, Adam and Jude had over 20 each. I think both Kev and I came close to running out during the game, although I was saved by the big complication in scene 2. After play had ended we had a bit of a discussion about where to go with it all, and Kev came out with the suggestion of a Seven Samurai type of feel. We shall see when we continue next week.

Universalis once again delivered the goods, and although occasionally the system got in the way of what we wanted to do I get the impression that is mostly down to our lack of familiarity with it. Remembering the Dialogue rules helped a lot I feel. We did a much better job of defining Tenets and sticking to them this time than in our first Universalis game and there was more kibbitzing than in the first game as well (perhaps just because we had more players, perhaps because we were more familiar, I don't know).

When I said we were going to play Universalis this week, Jude had expressed her doubts but both her and Adam got involved and I felt the group as a whole came together in a functional manner much better than we had in the Feng Shui game while my own preference for games in which the players are responsible for creating content is getting more entrenched all the time.

[Mike Holmes]

...and although occasionally the system got in the way of what we wanted to do I get the impression that is mostly down to our lack of familiarity with it.

Which part was problematic particularly? Maybe I can give you some perspective that would help.

Mike

[Larry L.]

Hi Jack! Sounds like everything went really well overall. Do you have a sense of the other players' attitudes after this game? Are they all like, "Awesome! Let's play Universalis every week!" or "Uh, that was okay," or what?

although I wasn't that keen on Kev's introduction of the Tommorow Corporation as it seemed rather too Cyberpunk to me.

Strange complaint. You know if it bugs you you have the rules to contest elements you hate, right? Me, I would've just co-opted it, and started throwing down facts about a Tomorrow Corporation that I was esthetically happy with. Make it the spacefaring analogue to the railroad or something. Turn that garbage into gold. (I blame/credit Tony LB of Capes fame for this line of thinking.)

[Jack Aidley]

Hi Mike,

Which part was problematic particularly? Maybe I can give you some perspective that would help.

The two things which occassionally seemed off from what we wanted to do were: not having interruptions return control to the person they interrupted and not being able to place traits on characters controlled by someone else. I realise there are solutions to both these, but I we there were times when it seemed we hadn't quite absorbed them into our thinking.

Hi Larry,

We were pretty much raring to go again. I don't think we'll play Universalis every week but I we'll definetly be playing next week, and after that we'll see. Dave, Kev & I were keen to play again after the first game and this second effort hasn't dampened my enthusiasm one bit.

Strange complaint. You know if it bugs you you have the rules to contest elements you hate, right?

I realise that. But the challenge mechanic requires you to challenge it at the time it occurs, at that point I didn't object enough to want to challenge it (and it was in the middle of a fairly hectic scene that it was introduced) it was only after I'd thought about it a bit that I realised I wasn't really comfortable with it. Still, part of the joy of Universalis and similar games to taking on the story elements others introduce that don't really gel with you.

Me, I would've just co-opted it, and started throwing down facts about a Tomorrow Corporation that I was esthetically happy with. Make it the spacefaring analogue to the railroad or something. Turn that garbage into gold. (I blame/credit Tony LB of Capes fame for this line of thinking.)

Good thinking. I may see try that out next session.

Cheers,

Jack.

[Mike Holmes]

The two things which occassionally seemed off from what we wanted to do were: not having interruptions return control to the person they interrupted and not being able to place traits on characters controlled by someone else. I realise there are solutions to both these, but I we there were times when it seemed we hadn't quite absorbed them into our thinking.

On interruptions, why did that seem disruptive? That is, what bugged you about it? Without knowing why its problematic, I can't really help. The reason that the rule is written so is becuse it's much, much easier to keep track of who's turn is next. With going back to the interrupted player, you have to remeber who that is. If you interrupt somebody who interrupted somebody else, and so on (which happens all the time when we play - order at some point is just who's grabbing the turn next), it rapidly becomes impossible to simply recal the order. You'd have to write it down. And I think it would lead to some odd snaking.

If you want your turn back after being interrupted (or even as you're being interrupted), simply interrupt back.

You could, of course, change the rule with a Gimmick to fix it quite easily, too, if you'd prefer to have it so that the turn goes back to the interrupted player.

As for not being able to put traits on other people's controlled items, this is what triggers complications, so mess with it at your own risk. If you change that, you'll need a new complication trigger. Again, however, the simple thing to do in this case, is to take control of the thing, and then add a trait. The other player can then just take control back.

Speaking of which, you might want to think about the "free release" Gimmick, where you can offer components to other players to take control of for free. So in the above case, you take control, add a trait, and then relinquish it back to the original controller. Or, should the controller want you to add the Trait, he can reliquish it to you for free, you add the trait, and then you reliquish back to him. Then there's no additional cost to adding traits this way, yet a player who prefers complications as the way to add to that controlled item can simply refuse to relinquish.

Mike

[Jack Aidley]

Hi Mike,

I realise why the rules are the way they are, and I don't think I would wish to change them. But, to me at least, play continuing as normal from the interuption seems less natural thus getting used to in play caused a few moments of cognitive disconnect. I commented more as reflection on play than as desire to change; like when playing football (soccer) I might say I found dribbling the ball tricky - it doesn't mean I want to change it. We haven't got into rules gimmicks yet (I introduced one so that we could have a 'world' component that automatically appears in every scene and contains things like "has three suns" but that is the only one so far) and I suspect that when we do we'll be able to produce the effects we want from them. At the moment, however, I think we need to understand the basic structure of the game better to really understand how a given gimmick will effect play.

It's a great game, Mike, you and Ralph should be justly proud.

Cheers,

Jack.

[Mike Holmes]

Thanks Jack.

And just trying to give the background with the options. So you can be be fully informed if/when you do make some gimmicks.

Mike

[Christopher Weeks]

This thread got me thinking about an alternate handling of interruption.  What if "big-I" interruption worked like normal except that the Coin paid goes to whomever is being interrupted and there's also a "little-i" interruption that allows a player to insert at most one Coin worth of reality during another player's turn at no extra cost.  Is there a down side?  You'd have to assume that it could only happen once per player-pair or something and maybe tracking that would be a zoo.  Anyway, it's worth considering further.

[Mike Holmes]

Well, the problem would be that you'd also have to include a "no counter-interruption" rule. Remember, as it works right now, a player can simply interrupt right back before the other player says a thing.

Mike