My last (and first) game of Universalis had me coming up with the excruciatingly boring Roles of "Man #1" and "Man #2". I characterized them with dialogue (talking for two roles is less weird online).

Later, one of them was made an Outsider (a denizen of another dimension), which seemed to me to change his role, so I did that, and paid a Coin.

On thinking about it now, I assume the technically correct thing to do to change a Role, which isn't explicitly mentioned in the rules, would be to remove the existing Role and add a new one, for two Coins.

Anything obvious I missed? I know it's pretty well a nit-pick, but I'm wondering about other issues like the advisability of such incredibly vague Roles to begin with.

--JB

I think if I was doing it I would have just added Outsider as a trait of Man#1
It seems to me to be something that increases the importance of Man#1 beyond his original definition. He might change his role as well, but, I would only do that after the character showed it was important (waiting at least till after I had named it ).

Just my 2 pence,
Bob McNamee

Something just hit me about my post...

I would always do it this way in Play.
If no one Challenges the new fact that you've added as being an "Outsider"...
then, later, when you go to change its role to something "Outsider" related you can use that fact as justification for the role change, and the double dice defense against Challenge, probably.

Bob McNamee

I did something very similar to this in the first game of Universalis I played.

One of the other players had already created "Chief Romano" as the leader of a community. I later created "The Reverend" as the leader of a rival gang. A few scenes later, I "revealed" the fact that Chief Romano and The Revered were the same person.

While you could argue that I should have removed Chief Romano from play then give the relevant Traits to The Reverend, I took the simpler route. I just payed 1 Coin to link them together, the same way I would a possession.

Is this the "right" way to do it? Who cares! It was dramatically appropriate and it worked. If anyone had a problem with it, they could have Challenged me.

That's the beauty of the Challenge mechanic. Your group as a whole gets to decide if it's the "right" way to handle it.

Roy

Yeah, Roy, you got it.

There are occasionally places where the rules don't seem to apply, or where they do not seem right. When this occurs, give it a little thought. If you can't see how the rules apply clearly, just do what you think is right. And the challenge mechnic will slap you back down if you are out of line (actually quite often another player will tell you how to do it by the rules). Assuming that you aren't challenged, in effect what you've done is to institute a one-shot Gimmick by default. You payed for it as part of he cost for whatever you did. This "discount" is the same sort of thing you get when you link two things by a fact, or create something using a master component. Or when you create something and put it into the scene simultaneously. And the discount relates to the fact that you are only using it the one time. If you feel at all guilty, go ahead and pay that extra coin, and make it a real Gimmick.

This is actually described in the book in one place that I can think of off hand. And that is in contradicting Facts. The Soap Opera rule as I like to call it. If Fredrica has a Trait of Gorgeous Woman, and I suddenly reveal that Fredrica is a guy, then I have just violated the fact established by the First trait. It can easily be challenged away if somebody objects. But if nobody objects, then play proceeds as normal. In this way the rules ensure that they do not get in the way of a good twist, or change in perception.

This is the general ethic of Universalis. Use this principle to cover any ambiguous situation that you may come across. Whatever happens, never let your uncertainty of the rules hinder play from going forward. Frankly, in play I make up rules all the time to make getting through something easier.

That all said, I see a couple of possibly cool add-ons here. Perhaps we can make them official. Call it the Ambiguous Role Gimmick, and the Combining Components Gimmick. Neat.

OTOH, I probably would just have used the rules as written and added Outsider like Bob did. A Role is just a fancy trait, anyhow. As is a proper name. For a nearly as ambiguous entrance for a character, try starting with just a name (perhaps dropped in a snippet of conversation), and leave the Role to later. :-)

Mike

Is this the first thread where we've had players asking questions, to be answered by other players? This is Great! I'm so stoked.

JB, you pretty much did it exactly the way I'd do it. In fact, while I didn't explicitly highlight this, you can find a hint of this exact thing in the play example in the book. Initially, following the Creation of the Meadow, the first characters were Created with Roles of "Mysterious Figures". They later became the heroes of the story, and their roles would be changed accordingly.

I find myself using generic Roles alot, Thug #1, Thug #2, etc. For extras, that's all you really need. When an extra gets built up to something more important their role can be changed. The downside to generic Roles is that they can only be used to draw dice from if they'd likely apply. Simply being a "man" doesn't necessarily convey the same abilities that "secret agent" would.

Technically, you're probably right. There aren't any explicit rules for changing a Trait without eliminating the existing one and buying the new one.

I did present the idea of a "generic place holder" being replaceable in the example where General #2 becomes General von Stuben. The "#2" simply being a generic place holder until a name gets filled in. That's pretty much my view on generic roles like "Man" as well. I should probably throw that up on the site as a clarification.


Bob, your solution is equally valid (and one of my favorite things about the game...there are so many "right" answers). Especially if the character happens to be a "man" who is also an "outsider" as opposed to those things being mutually exclusive.


Roy, perfect solution. If it were Challenged, I'd argue that their existing roles and names are an existing "Fact" that they are seperate individuals and give double Coins to the Challenger. If it wasn't...so the correct answer is indeed "who cares". If none of the players do, why should the rules say otherwise.

For a related application (of what I call the Scooby Doo switch) see
Universalis at Origins

The Unspoken Law of Universalis: Make sure what you're doing is so damn interesting that nobody WANTS to Challenge you!

Roy

Roy wrote: The Unspoken Law of Universalis: Make sure what you're doing is so damn interesting that nobody WANTS to Challenge you!