It wasn't clear to me reading the rules as we played last night (great game, BTW!) - when someone challenges one of your statements do you take the coin you paid for that fact back if the challenge succeeds? Does it form the first bid in the challenge? Or do you only pay it if the challenge succeeds?

Thanks.

If a statement is challenged (potentially several coins worth if you're in the habit of making elaborate statements and paying for them in bulk) the Coins you were going to spend on whatever statements were overturned (assuming the Challenger is successful) are not spent.  Instead, those Coins ARE spent on whatever the "replacement" version is.

For instance if I say "The widget is Black (one Coin) and Round (second Coin)" and you Challenge that saying "No the widget is Blue and Square)" and you win...then my two Coins are spent to make the widget Blue and Square exactly as if I had said that to begin with.  Winning the challenge essentially lets you tell me what I'm buying with my Coins.

That's what I was trying to convey anyway with the example on page 27 "...the resolution cost is recalculated and play continues".

Now this does assume that the scope of the replacement challenge is approximately the same as what's being replaced.  In practice, I've never seen it otherwise, but in theory I suppose you could have a victorious Challenge that would require me to spend 10 Coins (to make the widget blue, square, heavy, hollow, with flashing lights, and sounds...etc).  The rules are kind of silent on that, but as written I'd be required to cough up the other 8 Coins...

If that started to get abused I'd probaby Gimmick that away and make the Challenger pay for the excess Cost.  Perhaps that should be an explicit rule...

Hi there!
I've bought my copy of Universalis less than one month ago, and I'm really looking forward to trying it. No opportunity yet.

Question:
If a challenger does not offer a "replacement" version, but he only ban a tenent/fact/trait/component he dislikes; as nothing is finally bought I assume that nothing is paid. Is it correct?

Example: I introduce a new fact/trait/component: "the man opens the drawer and there is a big device, it's a thermo-nuclear bomb!!". Someone challenges me... "C'mon it was a story about supernatural horror, this bomb is silly, I don't like that". If I insist and he wins a bidding I should forget about the bomb, but... I spend no coins because I'm buying nothing.
Am I correct?

Thanks in advance,
Arturo

correct

Gotcha, thanks Ralph.

Hi again!

I was reading again the rules, preparing for our first session when another question related to challenges arose.
It was about the possibility to challenge what the winner of a complication says. Fortunately, I did a search in this forum and it was already answered here: Challenge during Resolution of Complication? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8532.0).

I strongly agree with what you say there.

I only wanted to notice you that in the section about complications there is a grey box which says explicitly that the winner may discuss things with the loser, if he wants. For me, this clearly points in the other direction, and it is what made me confuse. I don't know if you are planning to do a second edition, or a reprint with minor corrections; but just in case this may help you I'm pointing you to the piece of text which created my problem.

Apart from these minor details the game is perfeclty clear and understable.

Thanks again,
Arturo

Thanks Arturo,
But I'm not sure what you mean.  How does indicating that the Winner may get ideas on how to spend his Coins from the Loser if he wants conflict with the earlier ruling that the Loser can Challenge narration during a Complication?

Uhh... perhaps it is my because of my english (I suppose you noticed I'm not a native english speaker).

Saying that "he may discuss options with the loser if he desires" sounds to me like only if the winner desires, and only when he wants, the loser may say something. At least in my group, this way of speaking could be understood as a polite way to say that you have not the option to say anything.
I think the effect was encouraged by the example, where the dear Fritz is killed without anyone saying nothing (until Bob finishes, when someone pittyfully complains).

For me is would me much clearer if the first point would say:
1) ... .... with the Loser if he desires. As usual, other players may challenge the winner as he narrates, although he may not be interrupted. (Something like this).

Or also if a challenge would be included in the example when Fritz comes to die.

I hope it makes sense to you and it helps,
Arturo

When writing the text, we originally included "Subject to normal challenges" and the like all over the text, in addition to other redundancies. The book was, I kid you not, twice as long as it is now, and a lot harder to read.

The Challenge rule itself was hopefully clear about it's use, and that it can supercede most anything else. That's the intent.

Yes, the sentence in question begs the question why do we have to say that you can discuss this with somebody else if not to imply that they are otherwise prohibited, but that's not the intent there. The best implementation would have been something like, "Consider consulting with the losers for ideas" or the like.

The book ain't perfect, but Ralph did an awesome job with the writing considering how difficult the subject matter was to get down. You're looking at about the seventh draft of the game.

Mike

Indeed, it is clear on the text that the challeges rule should supercede all the others. The more I think on it, the more convinced I am that my doubts appeared when I was reading the example (nobody challenges Bob killing Fritz).

Anyway, I must say that the book is very well organize and the text is perfectly readable. It's amazing that I had only this doubt after reading it a couple of times. With other more-classical RPGs I was always having more troubles.

I know how difficult is to write polished essays and I'm impressed that this work can be done so succesfully by an indie-publisher.

Thanks a lot for your advice.
I will tell you how our first session works (as soon as I manage to get my group of players together... it's becoming highly difficult)

Arturo