A friend and I were fiending for some roleplaying, so I broke out Universalis 5.0 last night. I explained the rules in under 10 minutes, which wasn’t hard to grasp, and we began laying down bits of setting and background by taking turns spending coins to state facts about the game world. We had decided to run a Dragonball Z style game, with Streetfighter type competitions. The only actual challenges in the game occurred maybe twice during this phase.

We created some characters and also by doing so helped define some of the background history of the world. By the end of creating the players and props, we had spent all our coins, and decided to replenish to actually start the game.

We found the rules for giving characters new or previously unknown traits to be a great way to work with the story, as well as being able to add characters or traits on the fly. This, we found, created great complications(in the classical story sense of the word). We also found that not having to roll task resolution speeded up the game significantly.

What we did have snags with was complications. Complications worked fine when it dealt with a clean event vs. character or character vs. character competition. But many times we were trying to resolve events that were happening simultaneous to the complication that may or may not have later consequences on the complication itself. We had some trouble really figuring out how each links together or not. Perhaps the rules for nesting complications or simultaneous complications would give better insight.

We also found that by the time the complication resolves, the originator of the complication may have a different(and more interesting) results come from the complication, making the dice pool gamble a little questionable in terms of results. I would win a complication, end up with 25 storypoints/coins, and really only need 3 or 4 for the resolution I was thinking of.

It also seemed a little unfair in the amount of coin/sp value the originator gets over a story overall. First they get the Complication Pot to fuel some major action, then they get more from the dice resolution, and finally they get ahold of the Bonus Pot. That alone is almost a triple reward.

We also reached a point where the game de-evolved(or evolved) into collaborative storytelling, simply because we weren’t using our coins to challenge or counter each other, pretty much rendering them useless as necessities for limiting a player’s control. We had found up until that point, that figuring out how to spend the coins in order to enact a narrative description ate up more time and somewhat interfered with our ability to concentrate on the story. While I’m sure that with practice it becomes not a problem, considering that we weren’t doing challenges, we found it cumbersome.

I want to be able to try out Universalis under different conditions, like with 4 players who have competitive views about the story. Also, we found that we ended up with 2 pages of characters, location, props etc. I'm not sure how well that'd run with a more complex game.

Chris

I'm glad to hear you got play the game. For the most part it seemed like it went pretty well.

Complication: They're a little problematic at this point. You see they worked EXTREMELY well on about version 3.x But as the focus of the game has changed through V4 and V5, the Complication mechanic no longer fits quite as well as it used to.

On your specific issue of more complicated Complications...we had ALOT of rules explaining all kinds of permutations (timed Complications, multiple attempts, Multiple Targets trying where only 1 needs to succeed, etc), I left most of those out of the core rules for brevity and clarity. Some of them don't really apply now that Complications are deeper than simple Task Resolution.

Nested Complications are alot of fun. In fact, Mike managed to spend an entire 2 hour demo resolving a single scene where Complication was nested into Complication several layers deep. We actually had a play aid worked up to fill out pertinent Complication related info to help keep track of this.

The general concept is pretty simple. If you introduce a new Complication nested within the first, you pause the first, and resolve the new one. You can use the free Coins generated from the new one to add Dice appropriately to the first one. Simple...but can rapidly snowball into something fairly involved.

That said, Mike and I spent a number of hours tossing around ALOT of ideas some evolutionary and some revolutionary regarding Complications. In the end we decided to leave them as they are until some other folks had a chance to play them, and comment.

So once you've played with them as is, please do offer suggestions.

Also, if possible, while you still remember, if you can work up a kind of transcript of the Complications you were trying that weren't working well I can see if 1) the rules handle it, but I need to explain how better, or 2) there's something that doesn't work well in there.

I've found that the Complications we tend to create work, because having written the rules, I know how they're supposed to work, and likely only Originate Complications that fit within my perceptions. If you're doing things substantially different, I need to know what you're trying because it just may be I hadn't thought of that when I wrote them.


Thanks again.

Well, to summarize the biggest complication issue we had, it was a fight scene. It began with two fighters, Khazmat and Inman, going toe to toe, there was a ghost ally to Khazmat, unbeknowsnt to Inman, a "spoiler" was helping him out, and finally an assassin working both sides to acheive his own ends. The battle field was on a planet filled with sentient plants at war, who were hostile to EVERYONE, but tended to concentrate on the folks who were causing the most havoc at the time.

Things that made complications difficult:
1) We were of the mindset that the initial complication was the match between Khazmat and Inman.
2) Some of the other characters did actions that either aided or hindered both sides, in which case we split the dice equally.
3) Some of the characters who aided one side(the spoiler helping Inman), were later eliminated, in this case BY Inman, we left the dice in.
4) Some characters switched sides as to who they were helping, we left the dice in this as well, but were wondering if the person's traits could be activated for the other side as well, and if so, what is the limitation on how often a trait can be activated for a single complication.
5) Some of the secondary characters were in conflict with each other or the plants, but their actions would ultimately aid Khazmat or Inman.

Since the complication was to resolve the entire battle, all the individual parts had to be subsumed into it, many of the actions were NOT resulting in immediate dice to either side, especially since other characters were changing sides according to their motives.

Perhaps we had overshot our goals, but going with the idea of creating a story as it goes, this is what we had come up with.

Chris

Damn you went right for the big prize :-)

There are a couple of different ways Universalis could handle this (all of which were edited out of the core rules for brevity and simplicity...should have guessed people would try extreme right away)

1) Nested Complications. Once the fight began, another player could have introduced a new complication in the middle along the lines of "wait the hostile plants are attracted to the fighting". The new complication would have had a new Originator, the players with the fighters would be the targets, and whoever wins that complication could narrate what the effects of the plants were on the fight and add dice accordingly. In this case, both targets should keep and roll their own dice as they would likely use their successes to harm each other.
As Originator, I'd probably point out that unless the plants are defeated they are going to continue to interrupt and wind up wipeing out both combatants, so there'd be an advantage to working together to finish off the Plants countered by the desire to use the plants to help win the fight. Finishing off the plants would involve buying off their Importance. Hidden Coin expenditures would probably be useful for resolving Target successes.

2) Each element of the fight could have had its own pool. In this case there would be no clear difference between Originator and targets. Their would be a pool for the plants, a pool for each fighter, a pool for the ghost, and a pool for the assassin. Obviously this would work best if each pool was initiated and run by a different player, but could work in a two player game if you were sufficiently schizoid.
What would happen is the dice rolls would basically determine which of these elements had the biggest impact on the scene, because the winner should get alot more free Coins than anyone else. If the Plants win, that could mean any number of things (from killing or crippling either or both of the combatants, to driving them away, to spending most of their own successes tearing themselves apart. This last might not have much impact on the fight itself, but would tend to make the plant battle the "main effect" and the other fight an "also going on" one.


One difficulty in the former is who gets the Complication Pot, as if it gets passed to the new Complication, it totally upsets the purpose of the Pot (which is to provide a degree of pacing between Complications).
One difficulty in the latter is who gets the Bonus Pot, as the Originator may in fact have been completely marginalized by the events.


Both the Complication and Bonus Pots are somewhat up in the air right now. We hashed out alot of ideas regarding them, but left them in for the time being. We're hoping that someone who plays will hit upon that Complication epiphany that has eluded us. It works as is, but isn't nearly as elegant a solution as it used to be.

Ok, the idea of having everyone get their own pool works better for me...
We were pretty schizoid anyway, helping either side at a whim.

Worry not, since this was DBZ style, of course it involved planet wrecking consequences, it was unneccessary to work together to obliterate the plants(they ended up being property damage anyway :P ).

I think what you need to address is the purpose of the complication pool. It seems that there can only be two reasons for its existance(a means to replenish the coins of players), and a random means of influencing who controls(mostly) a conflict. We had plenty enough conflict outside of the complication pool, and since we never knew what the other person would introduce, it was more than random enough.

I think if you look at replenishing coins as the issue, you'll find the heart of the matter. Conflict is something players will come up with on their own, otherwise it wouldn't be a story.

Chris

The source of the complication Pot is basically this.

What motivates me to start a complication other than the fun of doing it (is it possible that the fun of doing it is enough).

The purpose of complications in general, is that if you are doing something on your turn, that I'd like to see go a different direction, I can compete with you for control of that aspect of the scene (there are other reasons as well but that is a key one).

Mike was worried that there woudn't be enough motivation to compete with you for control. Instead he feels I'd be better off "financially" speaking, to wait for my turn and use my scene to simply reverse whatever you did that I didn't like.

Therefor the complication pot was one way of encouraging the use of Complications, by helping the Originator foot the bill.

The other purpose of the Complication Pot, is to provide some element of pacing between Complications. Complicate too often and the pot is small meaning more of your own Coins spent. Wait too long for it to build up and someone else takes it.

As a mechanic it worked well allowing each play group to determine for themselves how many free Coins from the Complication Pot was worth starting a Complication with.

It is possible that the game would function perfectly well without either the Complication Pot or Bonus Pot mechanic. Thats an area we are still investigating.

Chris,

How strange that we both chose the same day to playtest Universalis. Makes you think, doesn't it? :)

Anyway, it seems that your playtest was more "in tune" with the original intent of Universalis. It makes me wonder where my game went "wrong". So I have a few guiding questions about your experience with Universalis which I hope will clarify some issues that bother me.

1) How long did your game last? And more specifically, how long did specific parts of your game lasted? (i.e. the first world building round, the big Complication, etc.)

2) Did you have any goal during the game? Did you make one in the beginning of the game, during the game, or none at all?

3) What was the status of your Wealth during the game? (in the beginning; crucial points during the game; in the end)

4) Why did you stop playing? This is very important to me. Did you get bored, ran out of Coins, finished the story?

I suppose other questions will surface but this is a good start. Thanks in advance.

With respect,

Joe Llama

1) How long did your game last? And more specifically, how long did specific parts of your game lasted? (i.e. the first world building round, the big Complication, etc.)

2) Did you have any goal during the game? Did you make one in the beginning of the game, during the game, or none at all?

3) What was the status of your Wealth during the game? (in the beginning; crucial points during the game; in the end)

4) Why did you stop playing? This is very important to me. Did you get bored, ran out of Coins, finished the story?

Bankuei wrote: The game was close to 2 hours to 2.5.

Bankuei wrote: World building took about 20 minutes in a coffee shop.

Bankuei wrote: First major complication lasted around 40 minutes, second one about 30 minutes.

Bankuei wrote: After the second complication, we felt it was getting in the way of the story and dropped the rule entirely.

Bankuei wrote: a) we the story had reached a nice climatic stopping point

Bankuei wrote: b) we had just blown apart two planets, had the spirits of one of the planet form into an uber being fighting a superhero gone mad to a standstill, and the other hero use his wish granted to him to banish them all into a black hole to contain the rampaging superpower

Bankuei wrote: c) we felt we had explored Universalis as much as we wanted to that night.

>Interesting. It seems much shorter than an "average" RPG session. How would you rate your level of enjoyment compared to other RPG's dealing with the same issue (i.e. DBZ or similar action-anime games)?

We had a great time. The shortness of the session is probably due to a few factors: Only two players, no challenges, very short mechanics handling time-about as long as it takes to throw some coins, say what you're activating and what someone is doing.

>So prep time is around half an hour. Ralph, is this normal? I admit my playtest was ready in 5 minutes. What is the standard (or maybe optimal) range of preparation time? Could there be ways of cutting some of this time?

We had made almost all the major characters to begin with. I think had we started with just one or two, and continued as we went along, prep time would have been shorter, but the story would have been less focused.


>Very long. What took the major part of this time? (e.g. writing, throwing Coins, arguments, etc.)

Our complications were...complicated. We had betrayals, switching sides, actions that were simultaneous that either benefited or hindered both sides, etc. etc. We had a hard time trying to figure out how to manage the dice pools with it. Plus the complications were being used to resolve conflict, not simple bouts, so everything that could have led to a complete victory had to be taken into account before finally rolling the dice.

What are the reasons for dropping the Complication mechanic? I realize you mentioned some of the reasons earlier. I was wondering if you could list the 3 (or less) most burning reasons that made you do that.

1) Confusion about how to run it interfered with story
2) More than enough complication, conflict, and random result came from us playing without the complication rules...seemed redundant and unnecessary.
3) Um, I think the other two reasons sum it up. Oh, and I started running out of d10's :P

>So the game stopped at a point you felt was good for an ending. Did you get that feeling some other time during the game?

Not really, I think we hit a climax point, wrapped up the loose ends, and were getting tired.

>Ahem. What does this mean? Were you bored, annoyed, or just tired of Universalis? I'm sorry if I'm getting too personal here. I just think it's important that Ralph and Mike would know what causes their players to stop playing.

We had done pretty much everything listed in the basic rules: Creation, creation on the fly, modification of characters during play, complications. The only challenges we did were at the setup/world creation stage As far as a mechanical standpoint, we ran through everything we could as best as we could. There wasn't too much in terms of emotional reasoning behind this.

>Oh, here's another one: What is your general impression with Universalis? What makes this game more attractive then other role playing or storytelling games?

This game has a lot of good ideas, very similar to where I've been going about player narration and control, the ability to adapt on the fly and not use prescripted stories. The basic mechanics work well enough, excepting the complication rules, as I stated. We had a good time and a much tighter story than I've seen with pregen rules heavy games. I would also like to get a chance to test Fate & Tide which has similar rules and compare the systems.

How about you? How would you answer those same questions?

Chris

wrote: uote>joe_llama
So prep time is around half an hour. Ralph, is this normal? I admit my playtest was ready in 5 minutes. What is the standard (or maybe optimal) range of preparation time? Could there be ways of cutting some of this time?

Honestly, its been all over the place. We had one group decide to base their game in WoD Vampire setting. They actually spent a more traditional pre-play session, pointing out the key locations and NPCs from their WoD campaign they wanted to use.

On the other side of the spectrum there have been games that had a minimal amount of "game structure" because someone got an idea for an opening conflict and immediately started a complication with only the faintest hint of the world. The eventual resolution to that complication wound up giving the the story its initial focus.

If one were to sit down and use Universalis as a vehicle for an actual campaign or mini campaign (one of my ideals is to play a series of mini campaigns set in the same world, building upon the Components that have been created previously), then the initial set-up should take somewhat longer and could include pregenerating that part of the world the characters will initially be located.

In my experience 10-20 minutes of selecting and discussing game structure items, and building a few central components will lead to a more focused game. But we've had other games where the total prep time was 5 minutes of free association. We wound up with an anthromorphic fantasy set in a large human research facility (like the rats of NIMH), with a bear character with a +5 Flatulence Trait.

Bankuei wrote:

Throwing out the complications rules:
We threw out both the rules and the bonus pot. When we ran out of coins, we just started taking turns making statements. Since there wasn't any challenges, there wasn't any problems.


1) Was it fun

yes

2) Was it fun enough to play again.

I'm definitely going to give it a second or third run

3) Is it the type of game you'd a) play on a regular basis or b) relegate to the dust bin as an interesting experiment you tried once.

It really depends on a couple of factors there. The base mechanic is solid, but the complications throw me. I'd really like to see some of the more complex rules to really see what this is capable of. Of course, if I get the same amount of entertainment from Persona or Fate & Tide, I'll be playing those(no offense guys, everyone makes the games they want to play, right?)

4) What part of the game did you find most enjoyable or exciting or empowering.

I found the freedom to add components at will, add to characters, or narrate freely without having to throw dice for each "attempt" being the best part.

5) What part of the game did you find unenjoyable, or frustrating.

Trying to understand the complications rules.

6) If you answered "b" to number 3 above what would need to change before it would become "a".

Clarity in the rules...the whims of the rest of the group.

7) Would you recommend playing this game to friends.

Yes, at least once.

8) Would you pay money to own your very own final copy?

Depends on the artwork and production :P No, really. Otherwise a text or pdf copy is just as good to me. This isn't the kind of game that is going to be filled with background info, so really the rules are all you're paying for. You might as well make the hardcopy worth keeping.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: How about you? How would you answer those same questions?

Sure, I go to Florida for a week and everybody plays...

Ralph has covered your responses pretty well, so far.

Of course, if I get the same amount of entertainment from Persona or Fate & Tide, I'll be playing those(no offense guys, everyone makes the games they want to play, right?)