Topic: Universalis play at Origins
Started by: Ron Edwards
Started on: 7/9/2002
Board: Universalis
On 7/9/2002 at 3:39pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
Universalis play at Origins
Hi there,
So I finally lost my Universalis cherry, thanks to Mike's "No means Yes" approach to running a demo. Here are some of my thoughts and questions, and bear in mind that it was a very short, informal game - I'm sure we missed out on some system nuances because of that.
1) Do the dice ever come into play in the absence of a player-player dispute about what happens? Is there some way to accomplish such an event? (I think it would be fun - spend a coin or coins to bring the dice into play, etc.)
2) Does the pool of coins created by spending ever do or mean anything? It's a very visible, significant-seeming "object" during play, and it would be kind of a bummer if it never "returns" or "shapes" something. I kept looking at it and wondering what it would do.
3) How do you get coins back, again? If ever? I know this must be in the rules, but I'm basing the question on the session.
Best,
Ron
On 7/9/2002 at 5:03pm, Valamir wrote:
Re: Universalis play at GenCon
Ron Edwards wrote:
1) Do the dice ever come into play in the absence of a player-player dispute about what happens? Is there some way to accomplish such an event? (I think it would be fun - spend a coin or coins to bring the dice into play, etc.)
Well, I'm not sure how abbreviated your quick shot was, so I'll give the long answer while keeping rules terminology to a minimum.
The dice are only used when a player who controls one Component (character, etc.) attempts to effect a Component which is controled by another player. Effect here means having them act or be acted on, including changing Traits. Control occurs in one of two ways. If you introduced the Component into the scene you control it (who created the component initially is irrelevant). Also, by spending 1 Coin you can take control of a Component already in the scene.
For example: Ron introduces Joey the Weasle into a scene. Ron then introduces Tony the Hitman. Ron then has Tony shoot and kill Joey. There is no Complication (i.e. no dice are rolled) because Ron controls everyone.
Contrast with: Ron introduces Joey the Weasle into a scene. Mike then pays 1 Coin to interrupt Ron's turn and introduce Tony the Hitman. Mike then wants Tony to shoot and kill Joey. In this case there is a Complication (and dice) because its a character controled by Mike effecting a character controled by Ron.
As for your parenthetical, one thing Mike and I realized early on is that it is exceedingly easy to come with really cool extra features for the game. In fact, one of our obstacles was deciding which cool ideas to include. We solved this by making the game completely customizable.
Currently in the game, there is no rule for what you suggest. But there is a rule for "Rules Gimmicks" which basically allow you as a player in the middle of the game to spend a Coin and propose a rule that would let you roll dice like a Complication even though it wasn't really a Complication. If the other players don't Challenge you...you're good to go.
I currently have a ton of such rules that could be incorporated into a game already written, but they're from earlier editions of the rules and so need to be revised. Eventually they will be part of a supplement, or just free support on the website.
2) Does the pool of coins created by spending ever do or mean anything? It's a very visible, significant-seeming "object" during play, and it would be kind of a bummer if it never "returns" or "shapes" something. I kept looking at it and wondering what it would do.
Short answer: Used to, not any more. The Coins could just go directly back into the Bank (usually a bowl or cup in the middle somewhere).
The Coins spent on Complications used to get paid out to the originator of the complication as a reward for a job well done (using a voting mechanic to judge the quality of the job). That got axed a couple of versions ago.
One of the add-on rules uses the bank like a bag of Wyrd Stones as a pacing mechanic, with the game ending (or changing Acts) when the Bank runs out of Coins.
3) How do you get coins back, again? If ever? I know this must be in the rules, but I'm basing the question on the session.
There are currently 2 ways of getting Coins back.
One: At the beginning of each scene all players get a small number of Coins back (defaults to 5 but can be set by the group to any amount desired). This ensures that players who spend all of their Coins won't be on the sidelines for long. It also provides motivation to end a scene (rather than dragging it on forever).
Two: You earn Coins during Complications based on the roll. Whatever Coins you don't spend adjucating the Complication you can keep.
Any others I can cover?
On 7/9/2002 at 7:29pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Universalis play at Origins
Hi Ralph,
Your answer about the dice is very good for what it says, but it doesn't pinpoint my question. To use your example, if Joey the Weasel is to be shot by Tony (controlled by Mike), is a die brought into play even if I am perfectly happy with Mike's interference? This is crucial. I simply do not know whether dice are being used (a) to resolve an inter-player disagreement or (b) to bring randomness into play as a fun thing in and of itself.
Let me break it down, just in case.
1) I introduce Joey the Weasel.
2) Mike has Tony shoot Joey.
3) I, Ron, say, "Cool! Perfect!" and the group cheers.
*Are dice brought into the situation?*
(Oh, that opens up another question. In your example, Mike was interrupting my turn. Is this relevant? In other words, if Tony shot Joey on Mike's turn, are the dice brought into the situation just as if Tony had shot Joey on my turn?)
If I'm not mistaken, we missed a lot of Complications. For instance, at one point, I spent a coin to establish that the porn-guy actor was actually his brother, who'd shot or hurt him in order to take his place on the film set. That sounds like a Complication to me, but I didn't get a coin for it. Am I on the right track?
Best,
Ron
On 7/9/2002 at 8:27pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Universalis play at Origins
Ron Edwards wrote: This is crucial. I simply do not know whether dice are being used (a) to resolve an inter-player disagreement or (b) to bring randomness into play as a fun thing in and of itself.
Some of each actually. On the player vs. player front it is a cleaner and less jarring way to resolve differences of opinion than the Challenge mechanic. So there is an element of competeing with another player for control of the story. He who is best able to bring Traits into play and most willing to spend Coins gets the advantage in narrating the events.
Outside of this, Complications have proven to be excellent sources of ideas for when the action stalls. Someone throws down an obstacle and the other players begin scrounging Traits to come up with a way to deal with it. The justification for why certain Traits apply can itself be great grist for the mill.
And, of course, its just fun to build die pools, roll them, and figure out what it all means, as you well know from Sorcerer.
Let me break it down, just in case.
1) I introduce Joey the Weasel.
2) Mike has Tony shoot Joey.
3) I, Ron, say, "Cool! Perfect!" and the group cheers.
*Are dice brought into the situation?*
Technically this requires dice as either Mike will have introduced Tony or taken him over from whoever introduced him. However, there's nothing that says that you (in control of Joey) have to make great effort to "resist". You could simply allow Mike to establish his die pool and not bother trying to build up a big one of your own. Through meta-game signalling you can let Mike know that he doesn't have to bet the farm to win this one.
Now if another player felt particularly attached to Joey they could build his pool instead and thereby still have input.
Of course, theres always the Rules Gimmick rule which simply allows you to pay a Coin and say "this doesn't need to go to a Complication I'm happy with what Mike's doing". i.e. Use the Rules Gimmick rule to alter the rules.
Note: Not to complicate things further, but if it was MIKE who didn't want to go to Complication, he could pay 1 Coin to take control of Joey himself, and then, having control of both parties, there'd be no Complication. The Rules Gimmick I mentioned, is basically nothing more than YOU paying 1 Coin to temporarily give Mike control of Joey (mechanically speaking) so there is no Complication.
(Oh, that opens up another question. In your example, Mike was interrupting my turn. Is this relevant? In other words, if Tony shot Joey on Mike's turn, are the dice brought into the situation just as if Tony had shot Joey on my turn?)
Technically speaking Mike is only having Tony shoot Joey on Mike's turn. He can not do this on your turn (slighly pedantic rules lawyer note).
The two basic ways of getting to Mike's turn are: 1) You pass, ending your turn and the turn passes to Mike, or 2) Mike Interrupts your turn meaning it is no longer your turn but his. So yes, assuming no other players did anything to alter the situation in the meantime the situation would be identical if Mike got his turn naturally or by Interrupt.
Mike, BTW, tends to believe in conserving Coins and waiting for his turn to occur naturally. I tend to believe that if I wait for my turn things might change enough to make my plans no longer applicable so I tend to Interrupt if there's something I want to do...of course, I also tend to run out of Coins before Mike does also.
If I'm not mistaken, we missed a lot of Complications. For instance, at one point, I spent a coin to establish that the porn-guy actor was actually his brother, who'd shot or hurt him in order to take his place on the film set. That sounds like a Complication to me, but I didn't get a coin for it. Am I on the right track?
Not surprising that the rules would be a little fast and loose given the venue you were playing in (which is a perfectly acceptable Social Contract choice for play). Ironically given his heavy sim background Mike tends to play a little looser with the Uni rules than I do also -- possibly because I changed them so many times on him ;-)
Not enough detail here to answer precisely so I'll give a couple if-thens.
If the "porn-guy actor" was a character currently in your control there is no default Complication here.
If the "porn-guy actor" was not in your control but you spent a Coin to take control of him there is no default Complication here.
I specify default here because its always possible for some other player to interject and turn the situation into a Complication (which is the usual way for Complications to occur).
There are a few ways depending on the context of the scene that you could handle this situation in the game.
1) "porn-guy actor" was an existing Component throughout the game. You are hereby tearing off the scooby-doo mask revealing that its really been his brother all along. This is simply purchasing a new Trait/Fact for the character along the lines of "Its really his brother". There are only 2 ways you can add a Trait to an existing character. Either you control it already, or (if you don't control it) you buy the Trait as the result of a Complication. Either way, if another player wanted to Challenge your revelation, I'd probably give the Challenge the weight of Fact (i.e. double his Coins in the Challenge) due to the guy's own existing identity serving as a fact that he is not his brother (it is this fact you'd be trying to alter).
2) "porn-guy actor" was an existing Component who was introduced into the current scene. You then Create the brother as a new character, pay to exit the first guy and introduce the brother using the switcheroo as justification for the exit/entrance. You'd have the same choices as above, since you cannot exit "porn-guy actor" from the scene unless you control him or as the result of a Complication.
I hope I didn't muddy things further with too many tangents...one of the difficulties of explaining Universalis rules is that there are many different ways to accomplish the same thing so there often is not a single "right way" to do things.
Basically, the "easiest" way of handling this (i.e. involving the fewest steps) would have been for you to pay 1 Coin to take control of "porn-guy actor" (assuming you didn't control him already) and then pay 1 Coin to add the scooby-doo Trait to him (which could then be Challenged).
This *could* be handled via a Complication, although I'm a little hard pressed to see the source of the conflict. Complications by definition are Component vs. Component in some fashion.
How's that?
On 7/9/2002 at 11:57pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Universalis play at Origins
Hi Ralph,
Excellent explanation. It so happens that the porn-guy actor was under my control already, and so it makes sense that tearing off the Scooby-Doo mask simply cost me a coin, and that was that. So Mike handled it by the rules after all.
Now I want to play with lots and lots of Complications in order to see the dice in action. On the other hand, I also want to play with minimal player-conflict involved. So that might take some doing. I think I get how that might be done, but just to help me out, how would you explain doing it?
Best,
Ron
On 7/10/2002 at 2:17pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Universalis play at Origins
Well the root of the Complication mechanic is Component vs Component conflict...character vs. character, character vs. environment, environment vs. environment type stuff.
There can be an element of player vs. player when two players have different ideas about where a story should go. This often occurs when harm is done to a favorite character, a character is portrayed "out of character", or someones "disbelief suspenders" gets snapped for some reason. The reaction can be a negotiated challenge ("hold on, why don't you do it this way instead") or the dissatisfied player can create a Complication which, if he wins, likely provides him enough Coins to handle the event in a manner of his own choosing.
However, that's certainly not the only reason to have Complications.
1) Complications as a source of income. One thing I found in my play of the newest rules is that Complications can either wind up in a net gain or a net loss of Coins. If the situation is "forced"...i.e. the player spends alot of his own Coins to create a Complicating situation where there had been none before, that player will often come out of the Complication (even with a win) with fewer Coins because he'll have spent more than he earned. Thats ok, if its a situation he really wants to accomplish he's paying for the right to accomplish it.
However, some scenes really scream out "complicate me". Physical violence is usually an obvious one, but any kind of character vs character or character vs environment can be suitable. This is usually the case when the key ingredients for the Complication are already in the scene (ideally introduced (and paid for) by someone else). By this I mean there are already alot of Components with alot of Traits that are relevant to a complication. The character already has "athletic" and "swimming" Traits and the river already has "raging torrent", and "icy cold" Traits for instance. What this enables is a sizeable dice pool to be built from Traits already present in the scene and thus costing nothing. Such low cost complications generally enable the winner (barring a lousy roll) to resolve the Complication and pocket a few extra Coins.
2) Christopher mentioned another key reason in his and Jessie's Sorcerer thread regarding Jessie's bangs. Something to the effect of his best bang of the night being the one he improvised just to see what would happen. I've found Complications do this alot in Universalis. In Mike and my first playtest ever our space ship was hauled out of hyper warp by a mysterious drone pursuers as the result of a Complication. We ended the session there, but both of us really wondered who sent the drone and what they wanted, niether of us knew, it was just a pure "what if" Complication.
In fact, as I recall, the initial complication was me telling Mike (who'd created an Engineer character) that alarms were going off in the engine room. His success at that Complication allowed him to narrate the idea the the problem with the engines was being caused by a mysterious outside force throwing a new Complication back on me. My success at navigation and sensors resolved the mysterious outside force into the drone ship, and so on. The whole meat of the plot was coming as a result of such improvised "what will the other player do with this" type of play.
I remember an author (I believe Raymod Chandler) saying that if he ever got stuck for ideas he just had some goons kick down a door guns blazing and trying to figure out who they are and why they'd do that would get ideas going. Complications are a great way to do this in Universalis.
On 7/10/2002 at 4:11pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Universalis play at Origins
Great explanations, Ralph, you're really on it.
I think that I violated few rules, but keep in mind that this was actually the first time I'd actually playeed with the finalized rules. So I may have missed something here or there. There is a learning curve in Universalis, and until players actually get the rules themselves, it's can be confusing when the pace gets really going. Once you have more than one player who knows the rules, it's much easier to keep things going as everyone monitors themselves. Even by the end of the first long session you see players picking it up, and starting to play with the nuances.
Players pick up these techniques instinctively. Like in the Origins game where one player had "somebody" show up as a silohuette in the door framed by lightning. They didn't know who it was, but it made for a dramatic entrance. And then it became someone when another player had an idea for who it could be. Lots of other techniques as well. Like the classic creation of mobs. I've seen that happen instinctively three times now. A player just goes ahead and creates a gang of outlaws or mooks, hordes of beasties, or a squad of enemy soldiers. Realizing intuitively that sets of things are just as valid as an subset (how could they not be).
This intuitiveness is the one thing that combats the learning curve.
Mike