The full details of our tenents, etc. can be found here: http://roleplayers.meetup.com/261/messages/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3087998

- feel: Buck Rodgers Raygun Sci-Fi

Tenents

* Science-fictiony space adventure
* Buck Rodgers Rockets and tight 1-piece uniforms
* World War II in Space (w. traditional colour to uniforms and space armour)
* Nazis! and their 13th Reich
* Space Nazis building ginormous "Deathstar" (frex, a ginormous carrier)
* Science is ... "forgiving"
* Protagonists have shared origins and goals
* Pokemon-like talking creatures are present
--- they are like "little Gremlins"

Episode 1.

1st Scene
Where: Starship "Atalanta"
Time: Now
Doors open and out steps Frau Leiber. She hails Captain Jorgensen cockily. They are wary of each other. Then the Atalanta's alarm goes off, signaling a security breach in Engineering.
<Mini-Scene 1a
Where: Engineering
Time: Now
Nazi Spy is setting a device to blow up the ship, to create a pretext for war. Jenny surprises the Nazi and shoots him with a ray-gun. Much chaos ensues. Nazi succeeds in detonating an explosion by killing a poke-creature, which then falls on a crucial button and ignites a destruction sequence..
Jorgensen and Leiber are at odds, she swears she has been double crossed, Jenny and the two others run to try to prevent the explosion.

2nd Scene
Where: NU Headquarters/Military Base
Time: Subsequent to 1st Scene, 3 days
General Kratin is there, talking with people about the events aboard the Atalanta. They get a message from intelligence that scavengers have found the Atalanta. The Admiral and Captain Rutherford are concerned about the ship, and the Admiral is worried about his daughter. A news bulletin comes in concerning ships exchanging fire.

3rd Scene
Where: Orbital space about NU Military Base
Time: Immediately after.
There is a confusing barage of gunfire. The Doenitz, the Atalanta [nearly destroyed but knitted together by Klee t'alk], the Japanese ship Akagi and a fleet of scavenger ships are all there. The Akagi opens fire on the Doenitz, the Doenitz on the Atalanta. Present in the scene are Leiber, Hank, Missouri Rivers, Klee T'alk.
<Mini-Scene 3a
Where: Prison chamber on the Doenitz. Leiber is gloating over the capture of Hank and Jenny when Missouri bursts in demanding that they be released into his custody: he as a writ of ransom for Jenny AND a copy of the space law statutes that gives him the right to the goods and chattels that HE found floating near the scene of the Atalanta's destruction. Leiber has no time for his legal maneouvering and tries to blast him with a pistol. He is wounded and his favourite hat is destroyed. But in the subsequent fight Jenny and Hank make their escape and in escape pods they reach the wreckage of the Atalanta.>
The cryptic Klee T'alk has knit the ship together but is hiding some nefarious scheme. The Akagi opens fire on the Doenitz and the Doeniz is blasting at everything in sight. The Akagi manages to cripple the Doenitz and sends its remains careening into the planet below. Then, the ship-to-ship transport of the Akagi is activated and Klee T'alk ends up on the command deck, looking at the poke-creatures wired into the ship's navigation systems.

Hi Erik,

Once again showing off your ability with Universalis. I love the Engineering Mini-Scene, so reminiscent of the Star Trek episodes where Kirk will call down to Scotty, and the scene will shift there to show him working frantically to save the ship.

How "complete" do you feel the story was? When I run Uni at cons, I tend to do it as a "demo" meaning that I don't even try for closure (often just not enough time). How did this game feel vis a vis closure?

Mike

"Again?"

Dude, it's the first time I ran the dang thing.

For real? I could have sworn you gave previous play experiences. Who am I thinking of, then? :-)

Anyhow, if that's the case, then kudos on what looks like an excellent first outing. Pretty impressive. We often say that Universalis has a learning curve to becoming good at it. You seem to have gone right past beginner to doing pretty well.

Did you feel like you were just "geting it" right off the bat? You and all the players?

Mike

I was there for the game, and there was a definite "Ummm.. who can talk now?" vibe on the first day.  There was a follow-up session I heard about from Rob (Valvorik on these boards) where some of the things that didn't make sense were explained with backstory scenes.

I'm cautious, but I've ordered my own copy of Universalis and am thinking about it for the god-game I want to put together.

Hey Erik - I love reading people's Universalis' play reports and seeing how it differs/matches my own games. Thanks for posting all this!

Did any one use the challenge mechanic? If so can you give us the run down of how it came up?

The other thing that always interests me is identifying with particular components. Did it feel like anyone present was moving towards "this guy is my character" or "this stuff is my stuff"?

Thanks,

Tony

There were a fair number of challenges -- it seemed that some people prefer a looser game where other players are not constantly criticizing and blocking others' creativity.

But that game was a long time ago ...

I was there for the 2nd session, that was done online.

Really only 3 of us active with Eric providing most of the "push" as the one most knowledgeable (at least that's my sense) but in a "sharing" fashion.

I had fun ~ it was a first time experiment with the online medium being used and a bit klunky on that front but still fun.  I would be happy to continue session sometime though my personal time has gotten a bit scarcer.

That the first session generated "questions" in terms of apparent inconsistencies etc. became, for me, something of interest to see explored.  How to explain those things in a dramatically logical and satisfying fashion.

Speaking for myself, I can say I definitely ended up more interested in some characters than others.  Not coincidentally these were the ones I had control of at one point or another (you can debate chick or egg on the issue then of interest).  The two that interested me most are on opposite sides of the story and they interested me as 'character studies' (e.g., flesh out a fully explained character with sensible motivations and a role in story that would then fit with whatever fate the story held for them).  For example, I haven't had chance to explain "why is the Pilot Jenny a Private when in military conventions pilots are officers?  Could her temper have something to do with that???"  The original creator was good enough to explain he was winging it and didn't know about rank conventions.  That's cool, it created something (an inconsistency in the character) that called out to me "explore, explain, develop".  Having "more of a question" to answer, she interests me more than the other character I controlled through a conflict (Captain Nitz) ~ I had fun fleshing him out and of course enjoyed the conflict going my way when I played him but I would in a future scene be more likely to take Jenny in order to "create stuff I think she needs" rather than Nitz.

I don't think this leads me particularly to "want to play" Jenny as a character.  For example, I would be equally satisfied inserting an explanation of her Pilot but not Officer standing while "controlling her" as would a roleplayer control a character, or by taking control of her father (also a character in story) etc. if mechanically it allowed me to create the necessary facts (since they're about her it's likely mechanically best to do that controlling her).

My other ambitions for the story (as far as I know there hasn't been another session of this story) were to "get it on track" towards the initial tenets that spelled out the basic situational conflict ~ which hasn't been on stage much yet (the German death star thingy).  For example, I was going to make the planet the characters had crashed onto turn out (in best space opera style) to be important as it was the source of critical elements being used in the creation of the German "death star".

I admit I RPG mostly as a GM.  I look at the "situation" and "characters" created in a "make them all fit together in a dramatically satisfying way", rather than "this character must live or die" way.  As a GM "I must be open to any character living or dying and cannot railroad etc.", which carries over to Universalis as a player.  I see part of the fun of Universalis in this case as being "tenets and prior play create the puzzle pieces and rules to work with in fitting them together, let's see what picture we can make".  The equal presence of other players makes this a dynamic process.

For example the Pokemon critters are a cipher to me not only "in story" but in terms of "what the heck to do with those things".  They're not something I would ever have created.  But accepting stuff that didn't come out of your head (and wouldn't have) is the quintessential Player experience in RPG's and is where Universalis isn't all about "being a GM" even though it's all about "having GM like creative power".  I think on that front, it's therapy for traditional GM types - learn to play nicely sharing authority!

Based on my limited experience, I thus see a Universalis game as a "dynamic, changing, jig saw puzzle" essentially where the "puzzle picture" is a "a good story that honours the tenets" and the puzzle pieces are changing # and shape constantly.

Thanks for the comments, that was a very thoughtful post.

I think that, just sometimes, people feel somewhat guilty about liking the characters that they create. As though they should be sharing them more. But, frankly, it's only natural that you're interested in the characters you create. I mean, you have a sense of ownership as part of your contribution to the game. Shouldn't you feel some affinity for them?

In fact I think that conflicts are much harder to come by without this sense of ownership.

Now that's not me saying that everyone should play with the PC Gimmick or something. Just that it's a normal part of play to want to play certain characters.

Mike

Thanks for going into it in such depth Rob, I found it really insightful.

Particularly what you said about Universalis being therapy for GMs - I don't really GM any more - all the games I play and design are GMless. I find Universalis perfect for letting me enjoy the things I love about GMing (driving play forward, shocking and suprising players and forcing them to make tough decisions, providing satisfying fun for friends) without actually having to GM. Its like I can pick up the GM hat, wear it for a while, and then toss it back in to the ring when I'm done. In that sense Universalis has "cured" GMing for me, which was previously a wonderful yet hateful job at the same time.

Its cool that you can articulate so well what it was precisely that attracts you to certain characters and styles of play, it was a really interesting read.

Tony