Hello all,

Well, Ralph and I feel that we want to write the final beta and move to Actual Version 1.0. We're looking closely at all suggestions so far. Given that there has been a lot of feedback to simplify the game, we're seriously considering measures in that direction, though nothing too drastic. We're also looking at a couple of structural things. I'll be replying with some of my own thoughts below.

In any case, once we have that written, we will begin editing in earnest (I can hear the crowd cheering, already). Hopefully we can tighten up things, and have a decent version ready for sale during Con season.

So, what I'm looking for here is last minute feedback. Is there anything that has come up more recently as a concern, or anything that has dawned anyone? Anything that you'd just like to reiterate before Ralph gets seriously into this last beta draft?

Mike

Hi Mike, here are my comments,

First I think that in order to engage people better that the game needs to reinstate ownership to an extent. In a recent playtest (with Ralph) I found that I was associating with characters that I had created anyhow. What I think there should be is an option to own things. By not making it default and by charging extra, ownership can be kept manageable.

Essentially what it will entail is paying a Coin to own a thing. Of course, another player can outbid you for it if they like. This can be done at any time, anyone can purchase any Component at any time. What this does is give you permanent control of that object. If someone else places that Component into a scene, you still control it, not them. This is good because it means that there are more chances for Complications to occur.

Once you own something, you can also sell it for a price agreed to by both parties.

The second thing that I'm thinking is to simplify by eliminating the Refreshment rules. Ralph and I have discussed this and it seems that since you are limited to activating something once per scene or Complication, that it's unneccessary to make distinctions between Free Coins and Wealth Coins (again I hear the cheering). Thus coins that are garnered as the result of a Conflict can be spent or hoarded. This "Profit" from Complications becomes the means of garnering Coins, and thus get our economy back to where it was a while ago, which was more stable, IMO. Essentially it forces people to have Complications or go broke.

In this case I would advocate that players start the each session with the same amount of Coins, say 25. This means that the player has no reason not to spend them all at the end of each session. Such excess as is available at session end can be used to either set the stage for the next session, or to finish up the story.

Any comments? Any problems with what I've presented? Any way to do these things better?

Mike

Hello,

I'm afriad that my summer is looking Bleak. I was hoping to help you guys out more, but it doesn't look like I'm going to be getting into any games any time in the near future (sometime in July if I'm lucky). And I'm not just talking about Univeralis, I mean *any* games. :(

Anyway. The suggestions Mike makes seem like good ones, though I must admit that I have not yet had the chance to even play the Version 6 rules, so I can't really speak for the need for them.

Since you will probably have this game up and running before I get the chance to get another game in, I wish you the very best of luck and apologize again for not being more help in your playtesting.

Looking forward to seeing the final copy,

Lael

Hey Lael,

You're participation has been very worthwhile, you've got nothing to apologize about.

Thanks for the comments and encouragement,
Mike

The suggestions made so far have merit...however:
I would like to see the possibilty of a butt ton of premade components to buy in the Final Version 1.0.
Also, the complication mechanic, fun but it seems a bit too complicated (of course, I get lost in my house occasionally).

Metric or long Butt Ton. That's a good idea. We will have more examples, so that should help there, but just a section of Componets would be cool.

As for comlplications:

1. Go around table and add dice to pool using Coins or Traits.
2. When everyone is done, roll dice.
3. Count the number that came up 1-5, the side with more of these dice wins.
4. The winning side gets Coins equal to the total of the success dice
5. The losing side gets Coins equal to dice rolled.
6. Narrate results winner first, loser last.

Does it seem simpler like that? Or is it still complicated? That's all there is to it, really. Hmm...

Mike

1. Go around table and add dice to pool using Coins or Traits.
2. When everyone is done, roll dice.
3. Count the number that came up 1-5, the side with more of these dice wins.
4. The winning side gets Coins equal to the total of the success dice
5. The losing side gets Coins equal to dice rolled.
6. Narrate results winner first, loser last.

Does it seem simpler like that? Or is it still complicated? That's all there is to it, really. Hmm...

Hey,

I need some time to crystalize my comments. Please give me a few more days.

Thanks in advance.

Nadav

I'm sorry I haven't been able to give much in the way of feedback, but based on my reading of the last set of rules (5.1), the main issues I'd have is (a) simplify formatting and use step-by-step sidebars to ease accessiblity to the rules, (b) separate design-philosophical asides from rules explanations, and (c) try to break up long blocs of text. The 5.1 rules set does a pretty good job of the first two, but the third still feels like a lot of dense prose to wade through and keep track of. Don't underestimate the value of solid layout with an eye toward ease of use. Stripped down bullet point summaries of the step-by-step components makes things a lot easier to grasp.

The number one thing I'd ask for, though, is: EXAMPLES. Lots of Examples. A lot of what y'all are trying to do with Universalis is so radical and potentially cool that it NEEDS concrete Examples to help the reader make sense of it.

Alrighty, then. Good luck!

Best,

Blake

Bankuei wrote: Geez Mike, could you have given that to me the first time? :P
That really really really makes it easy to follow.

Thanks Blake,

That sort of commentary is exactly what we'll need soon after we've finalized he rules. Any suggestions about rules before we get to that point?

Mike

You're welcome, Mike. And you know, a "Story Bones" stripped down summary without the nuances might be a great intro for getting the baseline concepts down. Personally, I think it's easier to get the basics down pat and then add the permutations and complications, but that's just my teacher experience and personal preferences talking.

Let me boink on the examples riff again. It's really, really important to give strategic examples of how Universalis play goes. Assume your market isn't as savvy as folks on the Forge. A lot of what I've read hints at incredibly cool stuff happening. Give the reader a look at that range. Try examples set in the Old West, Horror, stuff with floating cities, stuff where the "characters" turn out to be whole nations a la Aria, stuff where the players can run urban faerie tales set in Martian colonies. The storytelling emphasis is so different from the usual take on RP, I think you have both a challenge and an opportunity regarding how to convey the potential to players.

Again, good luck. If I can make it to GenCon, I look forward to seeing you guys.

Best,

Blake

Yeah, I know. Examples.

Just to be clear, examples have always been part of the final plan. Leaving them out of the play test copy was an intentional design choice, an experiment that unfortuneately has failed completely.

Earlier editions did have examples, quite a few, but they all seemed rather flat to me. They were all very obviously constructed to be examples. Plus, examples from my own games would serve to illustrate how *I* play and wouldn't capture the wide range of potential. So I hit upon what I thought would be great solution.

I left the examples out of the playtest copy. My goal was that playtesters (through the rules, and the forum, and experience with other player driven games like the Pool) would play, and in the course of giving the rules a work out, examples would be created. Examples that according to my theory would be based on real play and driven by the collective creative powers multiple testers (whose games were not unduly influenced by the presence of Mike and myself, or limited in form to following the examples he and I create).

For whatever reason, that plan has not worked at all. Likely I should have provided the crappy examples just to get the testers started -- and so I wouldn't have to listen to "need examples" advice (which I already know) a million times ;-) Live and learn.

My biggest fear with examples is that each example not only shows *a* solution, but could be taken to be *the* solution. Each time I put an example down that illustrates how *I* would handle it, I worry that I'm cutting off at the roots alot of other ways to handle it that people won't try because I gave them the "right" way. This isn't usually an issue because with most traditional games there is a "right" way. I certainly can be explicit about this in the text, but my hope was that using examples that came from real play by people who aren't me I'd be aided in that effort by including things I never would have thought of myself.