Hey guys,

I have a couple of questions about complications.  I read the rules (revised) thoroughly, and as far as I can tell, once the complication has started, anyone can join in by introducing new components and throwing them in, by adding new traits to an existing component and drawing on them (even if they don't control them), OR by donating coins to an existing pool.

My questions are the following

• Why would anyone ever just donate coins?  Why not just make someone up?  What the advantage there?
• Why wouldn't everyone jump in?  If everyone can create new components and add them in, won't they be encouraged to do so to get coins?  What if the contest is small/insignificant?  This seems to encourage people going into ANY complication just to get coins.
• Is there any disadvantage to investing in a complication at all?  I mean, why not just spend your coins like a maniac?  Even if you lose, won't you get them all back?

Also, I was playing a game with some kids (ages 9-15) and they got a little interrupt-happy.  I don't think I'm clear about the interrupt rules.  If someone interrupts, then another right after he starts talking, then another, etc, who gets to go?  Do the people that interrupted first ever get to go before the turn returns to normal order?

Thanks for your help!
-sean

The general answer to the question, "Why don't players just go crazy?" is that they have to create something in order to participate. Whatever that is has to survive any challenges to it. So it can't be crap. Meaning that the "disincentive" to participation is that you have to think something up.

Put another way, if they're making up stuff good enough to add to the complication...why would you not want them to "go crazy"?

Put another way, let's say you manage to get all of your coins spent into the current complication some how. And it doesn't get challenged away. You're really doing it for the big pile of Coins you'll get? And then what? You win because you have more than anyone else? All you can do with those Coins is to build more story stuff. So, in actual play, people only have incentive to gain coins in proportion to their desire to spend them.

If you're practical experience is otherwise, let us know, and we'll try to figure out why. But only in the rare case that I've seen players consider the game somehow a direct competition to aquire the most Coins have I ever seen this become a problem.

Further, depending on precisely how you're doing complications, it might not be legal to "jump in" with your own pool. See the website for lots of different ways to structure complications. For example, if you limit other players to only adding to the pools of the players who have control of the primary components in the complication (the complicator and complicatee), then, as you note, players are strongly disincentivized from adding anything into a complication.

But not entirely. The question "Why would somebody add something into another person's pool?" is answered by noting that in doing so they might gain some control over the nature of the complication. If the coin is to establish that the ground is slippery, then they've added that fact to the scene (and, if you want a mechanical incentive, perhaps they intend to do a further complication later in the scene where they can take advantage of the slippery ground).

BTW, there's another small disincentive to "frivolously" adding to complications. While the average return for the winner of a complication is 1.5 Coins per die added, the actual can be less than Coins. That's only for the winner, mind you. Yes, it's possible to win the complication, and come out with less coins than the losers. Less than you spent. So playing to win, actually, is a gamble to a certain extent. Incentivized by getting to narrate the victory first.

If you need to, point this out to the players.

"What if the contest is small and insignificant?" Well, one wonders why it was called at all, then. But, in practice, there are "smaller" contests, that don't have everyone jumping all over them. Because the players understand implicitly the dramatic impact of the conflict. Perhaps understanding that they'd be challenged if they tried to explode things too much.

Generally, if you find that people are jumping on contests "too much," if that's creating some feel you don't like, then challenge. That's what that mechanic is for. If you don't challenge, then, perhaps the expansion of this complication is warranted?

On the subject of interruption, you can interrupt a person immediately after they interrupt you. Cancelling their interruption, essentially. They do not get a chance to say anything, if you interrupt right back. Yes, occasionally this goes back and forth in "bidding wars" - actually games of chicken. These are economically disasterous, often times, but if the timing is right, players will beat the heck out of each other's banks of Coins trying to get control.

Same thing with taking control of components, by the way.

Both of these mechanics actually serve an important function, actually, which is if players are accumulating large piles of Coins then this gives them something to burn them on. That is, in an inflationary economy in Universalis, more coins will tend to get used on interrupts, taking control of components, and on challenges. Which usually rights the high influx naturally.

Occasionally you'll get odd balances of Coins...that's intended too. Each level of surpluss distribution will tend to have it's own effects, each of which will result in interesting pacing occuring. Or that's what we've found at least.

You wouldn't be the first to worry about these things, nor will you be the last. The "solution" to these problems is simply to play more and more until everyone playing starts to instinctively feel the pressures that the mechanics create. After a time some of the wilder swings will go away, and play just gets better and better.

Mike

In traditional RPGs, there's a referee there to keep things moving. Universalis doesn't have this safety net and can stagnate if people don't get involved. My group, to the person, seems to have accepted that the only thing that matters is a good story. No one really cares how it comes about. Those with temporary "writer's block" or other ailment encourage whatever they see as a "good story" (or at least "the best story available") and dissuade other stories. The underlying concept being "don't pick on a story unless you've got one more people think is better."

Challenges are probably the most common intrusion of mechanics into our sessions. Someone (I think one of the authors) posted somewhere all they have to do is raise an eyebrow and say "Really?" for the narrator to rethink their material. Most of our challenges are resolved this way. Even when informal negotiations don't iron out the problem areas, the players have gotten a feel for the majority opinion and don't often stand in its way. Less than 25% (?) of our challenges actually reach the "coin spending" phase.

A rules gimmick that's become rather common is a "reverse challenge." There are times when someone is on a roll and telling a great story. When other players see that said player is low on coins but has contributed good material, they flick some coins over to the player. A way of saying, "hey, I'd have spent my coins to say that had I thought of it so here" or "you're on a roll, keep going."

We had noticed the "play the system" proclivity to have every complication have tonnes of dice just to get a "piece of the action." There seems to be an unspoken social contract that those who don't like a particular escalation contribute evenly to challenge (and block) the perpetrator(s). Usually during negotiation, everyone sees who wants what. If a majority wants to prevent the escalation and the minority won't back off, the "richest" in the majority flicks in a coin. Then the next contributes and so on. Then back to the richest.

Another gimmick we use is a variable refresh rate. When a scene ends, we figure out who the "poorest" player is and, after some quick negotiations, agree on a refresh rate for the next scene. We've noticed a large deviation in this number. We had one instance were one person was poor while everyone else was rich. To the poor player's consternation, the refresh rate was pretty low. But then everyone gave all the coins they'd just gotten to that player for the great job they'd done on the last scene.

It all really comes down to the group accepting "it's the story that matters, not who tells it." Universalis is not an RPG nor is it a "game the system" system.

Great, thanks for all the help.  I think I'm getting it down now.  The good thing about universalis, is it seems that once you understand the rules, they're so straightforward that you can play without ever consulting the book.

Our challenges really never get into actual bidding either, it's just nice to know that the bidding is there to back things up.  I agree that this works very well, although knowing how to apply a negotiated challenge to get the game to flow is a skill that takes time.

Kayl, thanks for the suggestions, which as I understood, were to discourage investing in complication purely for the sake of getting dice.

The thing is though, is that I though universalis was designed to encourage "greediness," and that the player's natural instincts in this regard was supposed to encourage productive play while still competing.

Mike, thanks for the explanation, it helped a ton.  I think the easiest thing to do would be to challenge a contest I thought was pointless.  Also, I understand the interruptions now too.  However, my question still remains: if several people challenge, does play ever return to the earlier challengers before returning to regular turn structure?  (Like a 'stack' of players).

Thanks again!

Page 30 Under INTERRUPTION, first paragraph. "Play passes to the Interrupting player and proceeds clockwise from there when he is done, unless he is also Interrupted."

As for who wins simultaneous interrupts, see the box on page 30. It's the person closest to the Interrupted player's left.

As for "greediness," I think you may be right. Particularly how much one of the authors seems to be in favor of practically every scene have a Complication if not more. It really comes down to the group and the story. My group dislikes huge Complications for Complication's sake (which I'm not accusing the author of supporting). That's one of the reasons we Gimmicked the variable refresh rate. If the scene can support a big Complication, grand. If not, we'd rather not force it just because of an economic deflationary period. It also depends on the type of story being told. Of you've got a Star Wars type scenario, there's ample potentional for multiple Complications per scene. In fact, you're probably facing inflationary problems. If you're telling a more subdued story, deflation may be a problem.

Never followed up on this one, sorry (notification seems buggy).

With Interruption, we considered a stack operation, but it's too complicated. Plus, as it happens, the "go left" rule means that players get "skipped." And this is a good thing because either the skipped player has nothing to add, or he'll spend a Coin to get the order back to him. This is yet another economic pressure that keeps Coins moving.

Universalis does tend to "enforce" a pace to a certain extent. But that said, one can play in pretty austere conditions without many complications simply by paying for "large" events, or even by not paying at all. That is, if you're low on Coins try to "get away" with not paying for things, as though they are color. If everyone is strapped, they won't tend to challenge this a lot.

Conversely, when players have a lot of Coins, challenge a lot if they don't pay for things. Make them spend a lot of Coins, counting every individual addition. With a little attention, you can allow for the game to go back and forth in terms of wealth surplus, and not have it be a problem.

On the other hand, if you think that the game is dull, and needs more complications, put the challenge pressure on even when players are low on Coins, and Complications will sprout.

Mike