What exactly is the PC Gimmick I keep seeing mentioned in other posts? I've gotten hold of the rules, and think I might be able to get a small group interested. However, they are still going to have leanings toward PC's. If I started playing with a gimmick like this, I think they would enjoy the game enough to play without it later.

Also, any word on when add-ons are going to be posted on the website.

Can't wait to run the game, by the way!

Both excellent questions deserving excellent answers.

The ideal answer for both was last week...that was the plan.

Unfortuneately, real life intervened, and the current answer is by the end of this week, I hope.

Worst case, barring any other unexpected delays is this coming weekend.


Now, to address the more important imbedded issue in your question.

Playing Universalis with an angle on PCs changes the game quite a bit. Mechanically, it results in many more Complications. By rule, a Complication is any time a Component Controlled by one player, is attempting to interact with a Component Controlled by another player.

For a great many applications in the game, this interaction is fairly trivial, and it is quite acceptable for me to Control both parties and thus simply narrate the outcome as I desire. In a game where certain characters are always controled by certain players and no other (i.e. the typical PC paradigm) this sets the stage for either alot of Complications, or additional rules to avoid them.

From a game perspective it is almost universally true that if you play with PCs, your focus is going to be on your PC. Universalis pretty much requires players to take a much broader view of the game and story being created. It truly is much more of a GM position than a player position in this regard. The best explanation would be that your players attitude towards characters should be that of a GM's attitude toward NPCs. Imagine a game where you are all GMs and ALL characters are NPCs and you'll be pretty close to Universalis's take on characters.

That said. It is *possible* to include a more traditional PC-esque character in the game and I will have rules for it (at least one possible implementation) on the site. But I *strongly* recommend NOT trying to play that way for the first couple of games. Somewhat non intuitively the inclusion of the PC element in Universalis doesn't serve to make the game easier to pick up because its more intuitive. In fact, it makes it a good bit harder to get a handle on.

If your players decide they absolutely MUST play with PCs, then Gimmicks can certainly be added in that direction, but I do recommend getting a grasp of basic play first before trying it.

I am to blame for not getting the add-ons up. I will redouble my efforts. Amongst them will be the long awaited PC Gimmick. The reason for it's mention is that it's pretty intuitive, and simple. One could easily make one up themselves.

But as long as we're here, how about a preview? There's a number of ways to do it, but here's a simple and straightforward method that gets you something like a PC:

A player can, once during the game, spend 5 Coins, and permenantly Take Over a single character. This character becomes the Player's Character (PC). The PC can only therafter be controlled by a player, and is even owned by the player between scenes. Further Take Overs of that character are not allowed. The PC can only be introduced to a scene with the agreement of the owning player (who still retains control despite not having introduced the character), or by framing a cut-scene to the character in question, and performing a complication. If the later technique is used, and the PC wins the complication, the owning player may, of course, narrate the PC in question staying put, in which case he does not arrive at the previous scene.

There are two major effects of designating a PC. First, the player so doing becomes responsible for all dialog necessary from that character. No other player may speak for that character.

Second, and possibly more important, is that if anyone who is not the owner tries to affect the PC in any way, then a Complication is triggered. Thus the player becomes, to an extent an advocate for the PC.


There are lots of options as to how you can empower this Gimmick further. Watch the web site for more details. In the meanwhile anyone who likes can comment on this Gimmick, and put in their own ideas on how to accomplish the desired effect.

Mike

If you want something a bit milder for ownership
add a one coin Fact to a character like
Controlled by Bob

This won't mean you always get to control the character but it will create a Fact that gives your Coins double value when Challenging for Control.

Bob McNamee

Why Bob, that's devious. But if the players let you get away with it, then more power to ya!

Mike

Tried the PC gimmick last night in a 2 player game with a friend, Liam, who had only tried Universalis once before.

The game was essentially a dungeon crawl in the Legend of the Five Rings game-world. We were looking for the lost Thunder Tetsubo as it was the only weapon known to be effective against the general of an invading demon-monster army.

As there were only two of us, and we're a rather agreeable chaps, the "protection" aspect of the gimmick wasn't that necessary. There was (as there has been in previous games I've played) an implicit acknowledgement that whoever creates a character has a special kind of ownership of them. However with more competitive players (or just players with very different ideas) this gimmick could be a life saver.

What the gimmick was espescially good for was coin generation. After spending lots of coins creating stuff I could initiate a complication between one of the characters and Liam's character. For example Liam's PC was a Ronin who turned up at the last minute and claimed that the Thunder Tetsubo was in fact an ancestral heirloom of his family. I decided that a Scorpion Clan Courtier had his own agenda, to get the Tetsubo for himself and thus he looked for opportunities to get one over the Ronin.

Because all of the main challenges were physical (rusted doors, spear traps, bridgeless chasms, wandering monsters) some harmless social action helped to give variety to the game. We would use the coins generated by the two characters bickering to help fund the actual dangers in the adventure.

Of course a couple of won coins always went to the situation at hand, when the scorpion won I'd give each party member "suspicious of Nightwolf", when Liam's Nightwolf won he'd spend a few coins taking the trait away.

So anyway, in summary we found the pc gimmick very useful for generating coins to fuel other parts of the game. In previous games (just when we'd first twigged that complications are the way to get coins) we'd had to frame the scene, introduce all the characters, and ask the group nicely if someone would mind taking over a character and joining in a complication... kind of stilted - whereas last night the PC gimmick helped to make this strategy much more natural, and ensured that such scenes created interesting stories (the back and forth suspicions between the party) rather than disrupt them.

So anyway, in summary we found the pc gimmick very useful for generating coins to fuel other parts of the game. In previous games (just when we'd first twigged that complications are the way to get coins) we'd had to frame the scene, introduce all the characters, and ask the group nicely if someone would mind taking over a character and joining in a complication... kind of stilted - whereas last night the PC gimmick helped to make this strategy much more natural, and ensured that such scenes created interesting stories (the back and forth suspicions between the party) rather than disrupt them.

Valamir wrote: Interesting. I can't say I'd even considered this aspect. Can you give some more description of the difference between setting up a complication with a "generic" character vs. a "player" character.

Excellent! Your analysis of what makes for a good complication is 100% on the mark. I can't tell you how pleased I am to hear that that came through in the game exactly as I'd intended.

And I definitely see how the "PCness" of a character helps address those items.

In the games I've played (I've actually not used that gimmick in its current form myself) I think we'd developed a fairly communal sense of PC. In other words there was a protagonist I cared about...even though he wasn't necessarily "mine". Mike has noted how often times a sense of casual propriety affects our perceptions of the characters and a natural sense of ownership arises.

In the Zombie Western example on the site, I had created the old prospector and Dirk the famous bounty hunter, throughout most of the story, those were the characters I tended to do stuff with. Terry (Doc Midnight) was the ex-preacher. He treated that character as if it was a PC. IIRC he never really took control of any other characters, and no one tried to take control of his. In a way it was almost an unspoken PC Gimmick.

Codifying that sense as a Gimmick, seems to work well. A question I'd have is that one of the advantages of no PCs might be lost. That being, if I have a cool idea to happen to a character that isn't mine, how open to such outside influence over your PCs have you been / do you think you'd be. In a regular game, I just do it and any one with a problem can Challenge etc.