Here is my posting of our game on saturday last. Overall we had a good time, and made definite improvements on our first attempt two weeks ago. We decided to drop the storyline from our first game, rather than carry it over. Anyway, for your enjoyment:

Universalis – Game Two

Tenets:

15,000 years into the future.
No magic.
The universal standard power source is antimatter.
Uranium is used as fuel for all antimatter devices.
Earth is deserted, wrecked by uranium mining, which has rendered it basically uninhabitable.
There is only one operational spacecraft (very big) capable of faster-than-light space travel (using an artificial gravity well). It has a number of smaller spaceraft for local exporation missions.
The ship itself is controlled by a human female who is hardwired into the ship and has total control over it. In fact she is the ship. Both she and the ship (an extension of her body) are known as Pandora. It is a symbiotic relationship.
The crew of the ship is made up of a number of different factions, working against each other for control over the ship. Although Pandora makes the ultimate decisions, she is obligated to follow the wishes of the crew, and she is reliant on uranium which powers her antimatter system.
Pandora is a colony ship.
There is a second ship which was sent to find uranium and explore unknown regions. Although interstellar communication with this ship is very difficult, it is known to be damaged and stranded. This vessel is the male counterpart to Pandora, and is known as Prometheus.
Pandora is capable of reaching Prometheus, and she has a strong desire to do so. However, a planet with uranium deposits has been found as well, and she (and the crew) are faced with a difficult decision as to where to head to first: the stranded ship, or the uranium planet. These two objectives lie basically in opposite directions, and the crew and ship have only a week to make the decision as to which direction to head in. Pandora does not have enough uranium fuel on board to make both trips.
The factions are fighting over which direction to go, but Pandora has the final decision.
Pandora is dying.
One of the factions has a young girl that they hope to replace Pandora with.
Humans are the only sentient life on board Pandora.
Pandora has an psychic link with the child, who is being groomed to be her successor.
The child to be Pandora’s successor understands that Pandora wishes to find Prometheus, but also knows in her heart that her (the child’s) father (General Mordechai, see below) wants to head for the uranium planet.
Pandora speaks to the crew in a synthesized voice, except her successor, with whom she can communicate telepathically.
Her successor is the only one who can take her place.

Scene 1:

The faction leaders have just been informed that they have to make a decision. [Whether to head in the direction of the uranium planet, or towards the damaged Prometheus.]
A general (human male) dressed in a red uniform with gold braiding, and black cape and boots, bows low before Pandora. His name is Mordechai, and he has a dark visor over the front side of his face, obscuring his features underneath [like a welding visor – not all-concealing].
Pandora is suspended in a cylinder of life-sustaining liquid. She is dying, visibly weaker than usual.
General Mordechai bows low and says “We will continue to be of service to you, great lady. You can always count on our allegiance, we will follow the wisdom of your choice.”
Tenet established: General Mordechai is the father of the replacement child for Pandora. He hopes to “control’ the ship through his child.
A grey-haired, crone-like old lady – a faction leader by the name of Rhenwyn – approaches Pandora in her turn and shows concern for Pandora’s health, and asks, “Is there anything [we] can do to assist?”
Pandora responds, “I am fine, do not worry yourself, child.”.
Another faction leader stands up. She is a young lady, strikingly beautiful, tall, with dark hair. She says, angrily, “Cease this prattle! We control the ship, she must do what we say.”
The rest of the faction leaders start arguing, shouting and generally carrying on. Comments like “How can you talk to Pandora like that?”, “No, she’s right!”, etc.
Then the doors slide open, and ten ship guards enter. They wear black armour and each carries a large rifle. They are dragging a bloody human male. [Someone says] “He was attempting to enter the Womb.”

Scene 2:

1 hour later, General Mordechai’s quarters.
General Mordechai is flanked by two Ship’s Guards.
The bloody man is in a chair. General Mordechai says to him, “There can be no excuse for your actions, my son.”
Tenet established: This is in fact his biological son, and he broke into Pandora (the Womb) to try to convince Pandora to stop his father at any cost. He failed.
The General continues: “Son, you have angered me for the last time. Henceforth you will remain under heavy guard where you can do no more harm, you bumbling idiot.”
The daughter (successor to Pandora) comes into the room. Her name is Andrea. She pleads with her father: “Don’t do this to my brother!”.
Mordechai turns to her: “Andrea, when you wear the mantle of authority, you will come to understand that sometimes you need to make tough decisions.” He addresses the guards: “Take him away!”. The guards step forward and lift the son up by his arms.
Andrea responds: “I understand more about tough decisions than you ever would, father.” She says it with a strange look in her eye.
The son replies to Andrea as he is being taken away: “Don’t worry, I will be fine wherever they put me.”
Andrea bursts into tears and runs out. The lights flicker.
The General thinks, “How is she going to be once she’s running the ship?” and shakes his head.

Scene 3:

Corridor leading to brig, just after previous scene.
The son is being dragged away by the two Ship’s Guards.
The dark-haired, beautiful woman (from the first scene) appears with her personal guards (there are four of them).
She commands the Ship’s Guards to “Release the prisoner into my custody.” He is handed over to her without a struggle.
The son and the woman passionately embrace, as the Ship’s Guards leave.
As she ends the embrace, the woman steps back triumphantly; the son is still her prisoner.
“Malcer,” she says, addressing the son, “your actions have resulted in unforseen consequences, but not entirely undesirable. Now, did you get the sample?”
Malcer nods. “I ingested it, as you instructed.”
They are referring to a sample of Pandora’s life-sustaining fluid. This liquid is not normally safe for ingestion. The woman has also been exposed to the liquid after she kissed the son. The process of extracting the liquid from Malcer will kill him, and he suspects this.

Scene 4:

Pandora’s Womb (control room), next day.
Andrea is before Pandora, who is suspended once again in the cylinder of life-sustaining liquid.
Pandora tells Andrea that she is dying more quickly. She contracted a virus as a result of the breach into her Womb, and she has only two days left to live.
Andrea places her hands against the cylinder, and Pandora does the same, palms to palms.
Andrea says: “It is too soon, I am not ready.”
Pandora responds in her sythesized voice, “You are capable of this, even now. It is also your responsibility to unify the factions. It is easy to control the ship, but dealing with people is a different matter entirely.”
She continues, “I am not read to hand over to you yet, I still have many things to do. [There is a message I have received from Prometheus.] Whatever attacked and crippled him is bearing down on us at a rapid pace.”
A display screen lights up, showing a dozen conical, spiked spaceships, vicious and obviously alien in nature.
Andrea responds to this: “I have seen such things in my nightmares…” She looks pale.

- End of Session –

Notes:

Statements in square brackets are my own inferences, not explicitly stated or teneted. I made them when I was not clear about the exact situation.
The Ship’s Guards were created as master components, our very first.
We had a strong disagreement in Scene 2. The ladies wanted the lights to go out completely when Andrea left the room. The guys thought that was too overt. In the end we settled on the lights simply flickering. It went to negotiation, but no formal Challenge (see below).
Pandora clearly wants to go after her stranded “mate”, apparently even if she is to die en-route. She controls the ship directly, and therefore has the most decision-making power out of all the entities aboard the ship. However, since she is a colony-vessel, if she does this, she risks stranding herself and the colonists aboard, if no uranium can be found nearby.
Although I don’t think it was stated directly, Pandora should be sympathetic toward the wishes of the crew (or the majority of that crew), because they control her supply of uranium fuel somehow. This should be stated formally or an alternative be suggested.

Questions:

We are a very cooperative group, and as a result it is difficult to get Complications started. We are also unclear as to just when to start a Complication, as opposed to a simple challenge.
In Scene 3, I had wanted more Ship’s Guards to arrive on the scene as the prisoner was being handed over to the dark-haired woman’s personal guards. In order to do so, should I have just interrupted and introduced more guards comning around a corner, and said “I start a Complication involving the Ship’s Guards and the personal guards”?
Do I need to make clear (at the start of the Complication) the resulting events that I wish to narrate if I win the complication, or not? In the end we just settled on what is written up now. However, I wanted to win some chips, and there aren’t any given for cooperation!
We tend to resolve disagreements involving outcome by the Challenge mechanic, taking away the potential for winning chips through complications. When should a complication be used instead of a Challenge? Personally I feel that challenges should be used to resolve metagame issues as well as more abstract issues, like “No, I think Fido is not an appropriate name for the General.”
Taking our “lights flicker/go out” issue in Scene 2, should it have been resolved by means of a Challenge or a Complication?

Character names: what are your thoughts on when to establish the name of a character/location, etc.? When it is heard in dialogue, or simply at some point in the narrative, eg. ‘The girl, whose name is Andrea, responds…’

Nice session, although I really would love to see where that other one goes. Nice thing is, you can always pick it up again later and continue it. To jump right into your questions

We are a very cooperative group, and as a result it is difficult to get Complications started. We are also unclear as to just when to start a Complication, as opposed to a simple challenge.
In Scene 3, I had wanted more Ship’s Guards to arrive on the scene as the prisoner was being handed over to the dark-haired woman’s personal guards. In order to do so, should I have just interrupted and introduced more guards comning around a corner, and said “I start a Complication involving the Ship’s Guards and the personal guards”?

Do I need to make clear (at the start of the Complication) the resulting events that I wish to narrate if I win the complication, or not?

In the end we just settled on what is written up now. However, I wanted to win some chips, and there aren’t any given for cooperation!

We tend to resolve disagreements involving outcome by the Challenge mechanic, taking away the potential for winning chips through complications. When should a complication be used instead of a Challenge? Personally I feel that challenges should be used to resolve metagame issues as well as more abstract issues, like “No, I think Fido is not an appropriate name for the General.”

Taking our “lights flicker/go out” issue in Scene 2, should it have been resolved by means of a Challenge or a Complication?

Character names: what are your thoughts on when to establish the name of a character/location, etc.? When it is heard in dialogue, or simply at some point in the narrative, eg. ‘The girl, whose name is Andrea, responds

Thanks Ralph!
I can see we don't do much Taking Over during a game. In fact I don't think that even once during this game anyone attempted to take control of another's component.
I can see you're saying that a complication is automatic, provided the criteria have been met.
Also as I see it, if I am initiating a complication between my component and another player's, and I win, and he is unhappy with how I narrate the result of the complication, he can always take it to a Challenge (I can see this is going to crop up, hence I am mentioning it).
However, what if that player has a problem with me even starting a complication? I suppose he can Challenge that too...?

Just to be clear, there's a rigorous set of rules happening here:

The player can Challenge another player stating that his Component is trying to change yours. But he can't Challenge that such a declaration causes a Complication. This is what you can do:
Mike (Controling Ragnar): Ragnar is going to argue philosophy with Valamir.
Ralph (Controling Valamir): No way, Ragnar just isn't the philosophizing type!

Challenge ensues.

This is what you can't do:
Mike (Controling Ragnar): Ragnar is going to argue philosophy with Valamir. That's a Complication.
Ralph (Controling Valamir): No way, I don't want to have a Complication.

This would be non-sensical, because we'd have no way to adjudicate what happens subsequently if the Complication did not occur, and it's against the rules. I suppose you could put in a Gimmick that said that you could Challenge a Complication with the result of it not occuring being that the Originator, or the Controller of the Target gets to decide what happens, but I don't see any advantage to that.

Take Overs sound hostile, but often they aren't. That is, quite often players will ask other players to Take Over their characters in order to facilitate the creation of Complications, or to avoid them. Complications are similar in that they're not really competitive. That is, players will often arrange to have another player Take Over one of their Components in order that they can both share in the profits of the Complication.

Yes, you can Challenge the outcome narration of a Complication, but, IME, it's no more common than any other place for a Challenge to occur. The "threat" of Challenge is enough to keep players in line during this narration as well as any other. So there isn't any more cause, on average, for Challenges to occur here. But, it's certainly possible.

Mike

Also as I see it, if I am initiating a complication between my component and another player's, and I win, and he is unhappy with how I narrate the result of the complication, he can always take it to a Challenge (I can see this is going to crop up, hence I am mentioning it).

ok, this is all very well and good, but i still reckon there shouldn't only be rewards to make complications out of things - insightful and creative ideas come just as much from co-operative compromise as it does from complications, if not more, so why is there no system for getting extra chips for working things out with the other players instead of just winning a complication and then dictating them (yes i know you can work on the outcome co-operatively and your result can be challenged, but after you've been through all the trouble of a complication you've pretty much said you're not intrested in compromise right there).. i just feel that will make people more intrested in making complications to the story no matter what they are, than building the scene and enjoying the story, it just seems to me a strange reward basis..
One good tenat we established although haven't used is to reward a really good idea in chips - unfortauntely we haven't actually given this reward yet in play, but it seems to me more what players should be rewarded for..
i agree with what one of you said, that is shouldn't be such a "hostile" competition for control, the smoothest scenes run when people work of each others ideas, but don't necesarily turn them inside out every chance they get, that's going to make for a very jumpy sequence, much like our first session. So maybe complications don't have to resolve in hostility or at least in total control for power of a situation, but that is the way it comes accross.
err, enough complaining (tho not really complaining, just trying to understand), one day the pirate captain will have his revenge!!!!!

There is always the Scene Refresh for co-operative play.

The Complication is somewhat better, to me, in that it adds a GM-like uncertainty to the game, where no player is really sure where things will go.

As you have done you could always add in a Rules Gimmick, although I'm not sure exactly how you would structure it.

Perhaps
Co-operation Gimmick: Any time two or more players Pool together Coins to create "parts of the gameworld"(edited in: Components,Events, etc) worth more Coins than the number of players, they are entitled to roll dice equal to the Coins they personally spent. Players earn back Coins equal to the numerals on the successful dice (1-5 on a 10-sided die).

Yeah, its interesting what comes across to different folks.

Some people read the rules (as you apparently have) and see head to head bloody knuckled competition screaming off of every page. Others read it and never get that sense at all.

Thing is...worrying about the rules "sounding too competitive" is a self fulfilling prophecy. A person reads the rules, gets that impression, relates the rules to his group where those concerns get passed on, and voila everybody sees "competition" and either ramps up on that aspect or goes out of their way to avoid those mechanics.

so why is there no system for getting extra chips for working things out with the other players instead of just winning a complication and then dictating them (yes i know you can work on the outcome co-operatively

but after you've been through all the trouble of a complication you've pretty much said you're not intrested in compromise right there

From a personal standpoint I see the Challenge mechanic as way more competitive than the Complication mechanic.

Sure it has the negotiation phase, but its primary reason for being is to ultimately force a change on the game.

Dragon, if you want a positive spin for it...Remember... Complications occur due to 'in game causes'.

a rock slide as the group is climbing the mountain.

or
Event: Tool slips from Belt.

Complication: Can the art thieves manage to stop it from hitting the floor and triggering the alarm?

Yes, no?...even if they don't stop it and the alarm goes off...the 'loser' could narrate that the alarm only sounds in the building...because a previously unknown member of the gang (just created) is outside preventing an alarm signal from going to the police or alarm company.

Thanks, my thoughts are beginning to crystallise on this.

I think there are two different ideologies at work here. Both are aimed at enriching the story and overall enjoyment of the game:

1. The main view espressed by most posters, is that complications are good because they win the winner coins and more coins = better story. However, this is done at the 'expense' of placing control of the story in the hands of the winner, and this is essentially the 'competition' aspect which Fenris is unhappy about.

2. Fenris' view, which is more of a kind of 'lets share control of the story and avoid any one person gaining too much power over the story'. This is like saying we're all in this together and no-one actually wins in a competition sense. We all win if we create an interesting and detailed story.

I believe that both views aren't perfect. I really believe that a bit of competition is healthy to the overall game and can improve on (2) a great deal. So what if one player gets control of the narration after winning the complication? It is a game, and so long as it is not to the story's detriment, this sort of competition should be encouraged, and certainly is.

The difference with (1) is really that it strikes me as a lot more "gamist" (sorry for the loose application of the term). I get the impression from reading Uni posts that a lot of players out there play this like roleplaying. Even the designers liken it to a RPG in some ways. I certainly don't think its a RPG at all, not even close. There is a sense that even though there are no player characters per se, there are definitely some characters "whom Bob likes" and others "whom Joe likes". In many of the examples I have read, there is definitely a sense of conflict between players, and complications therefore come very naturally because "someone is going to be the winner at the end". Articles regarding Uni strategy (from the homepage IIRC) definitely take this approach.

I think our group's approach during play is that we are very much more distant from the individual characters in the story than I have seen with other groups. As an example, when I started to give General Mordechai a couple more traits, someone in the group commented about me 'making it harder for him to get killed' or 'toughening him up' or something like that, as if that was unusual. However, I was simply getting 'closer' to the character and making him more important to the story, for sure.

The two approaches aren't really flawed inasmuch as they are just different. I want to encourage complications 'cos I like the approach of (1). I guess the game can accommodate both approaches quite comfortably though.

Dragon, if you want a positive spin for it...Remember... Complications occur due to 'in game causes'.

What's important here is what's not said. Its not a question of the winner emerging universally triumphant and the loser getting hosed. The outcome should be "biased" in the winner's favor but that doesn't mean the loser is required to get completely shafted.

The Complication is somewhat better, to me, in that it adds a GM-like uncertainty to the game, where no player is really sure where things will go.

Alls I can say is you've answered your own question. I can't count the number of games I've been in where (and Mike has mentioned this numerous times) people have asked other players to please take over one of their Components so they can work on a Complication. Its designed to be, and normally plays out as, a very cooperative process.

dragon_of_colour wrote:
Yes I mainly agree here, but what's the deal with this buying dice thing? As I see it, if the winner buys off all the loser's dice, the loser is getting completely shafted, at least potentially...

I hope I have contributed positively here and not confused the issue...

I couldn't agree more. It means that even the loser has some way of contributing positively to the outcome, or in some way moderating the winner's resolution. I think with this rule out of the way ("Everybody shout...one...two...three...RULE GIMMICK!!!) there really isn't a loser in a complication. if the winner blows his chips on an interesting resolution, the loser might choose to have his piece of the pie, or simply hoard his chips away for a later stage (or trait-up some components for the next complication - grin!).

In at least one game I was involved in I put in a Rules Gimmick of "Winner cannot 'buy down' the Coins of the Loser in a Complication"

Precisely because I didn't want to see any 'total victory story narration'.

wow, I just want to say this thread has really clarified some of the conceptual problems I was having with Complications (must be a south african thing :D )

in the only game I've played so far (work, bleh) there were some basic
rules issues (we counted *all* Traits for Components in Complications), but underlying that I realise now, also some unclear thinking as to the
purpose of Complications (somehow we also managed to play the game without referring to Component ownership, just choosing sides as we felt like)

I've now got a much better idea on how to introduce concepts in my next demo at the end of the month

Hiya d@vid,
That's what you get when you help me with ordering the book! Positive feedback. Glad to have been part of the process. Our next game this coming saturday so I'm sure some more questions, but at least we'll be going into it a lot clearer on things... and a ready to tackle Complications!
Jason

We use index cards for Component notation.

When we add in components to a scene, the person who controls the component puts the card in front of them, and transfers it to another player in the case of a takeover.

Bob McNamee wrote: We use index cards for Component notation.

When we add in components to a scene, the person who controls the component puts the card in front of them, and transfers it to another player in the case of a takeover.

magependragon wrote: Just question about paying for traits on components. If I was to say introduce a the following character how many coins shoud I pay: Samantha the white haired sage leaned heavily on her old knarled walking stick.

I think what I am trying to ask here is do you pay for purely descriptive traits that would never have any effect other than setting up what the character looks like so I would say 1coin to create the character, one to make her a sage and one for the walking stick which could be used as a weapon. Possible another one for the fact that she leaned heavily on the walking stick but that would be iffy to me.

Chris nailed it perfectly.

I don't have a copy handy to give a page reference for the Color rule, but this:

You can pay for as much of the description as you want. Paying a Coin enshrines however much or little you can get away with as a Fact of the game. And different groups have different levels of acceptance for how much a Coin will buy.

Even if you don't buy the walking staff as an item early on. There's nothing from stopping you from dropping a Coin or two on it later, say during a Complication, when you could use a Trait or two.

The previously stated description, even though not bought, gives you a good rational for introducing it later.