Hey, all! This post is prompted by Ralph's Rant and follow up thread at RPGNet.

Basically, my challenge (a "question", really) is this, in two parts:

1) Say you're playing a game of Vampire or D&D or Shadowrun or whatever. Play Universalis as it is written to get down the Table Rules, Game Setting (or Story Background), Characters, etc. Then, when you've got everything ready to play, you stop playing Universalis and transition over to the game you were meaning to play to begin with.

How would you do that? You needen't translate "1 chit = +2 ability/skill in D&D" or anything that precise, but I would like to see some addressing the character abilities of the Original Game's ruleset through Universalis.

2) Let's say that Session 1 is the above Universalis session, and Session 2 and on is the original game. To make sure that you don't forget all the rules, conventions and characters agreed upon, you decide to write them up on a sort of "Campaign Character Sheet".

What would you see on such a sheet? List off the areas, boxes, blanks and the like you'd expect to see on such a sheet (Actually, if you have the drive and willpower for it, I'd LOVE to see someone actually map out something like such a sheet- But that's asking a little too much).

Thanks!

-Andy

For item number one, there's a couple of options. The simplest by far is just to use the fact creation method in Universalis to create mechanical facts in the world;

Player C: The town is lead by a 23rd level Cleric of Freya.

There doesn't have to be any currency exchanged because the "cost" of these facts will be determined by player Challenges, etc. If someone goes:

Player B: My character is a 47th level Ninja, 128th level Oni Demon.

Player C: Challenge. What are you, high?

If one wanted a conversion rate of some sort that could be done, but, frankly it sounds like more trouble than it's worth.


For item two, again, I'd just have the notes all translated across into the other system's notation already. Anything else that's non mechanical should be in the record.

It all seems so obvious to me that perhaps I'm not seeing what the difficulty is. Could you restate the question, perhaps?

Mike

Oops, looks like the title of the thread was cut off, and its too late to edit my original post.

It was meant to read:

Universalis Challenge: Make it into another RPG's "Pre Game"

Anyway, back to the topic.

In Challenge 1, I was looking for more "tricks" or "tips" to make the Tenents Buying/Setting session of Universalis game preperation more aimed towards use in other RPGs.

Here's just one way that I just came up with now.

There are Tenents of Story Elements, Social Contracts and Rule Gimmicks. I think maybe if you gear Universalis towards Pre-Play for another game, particularly with people that are unfamiliar with Universalis and its style of play, it might be best to make things a little more defined and clear.

Perhaps declare the first round of bidding "Social Contract time", to get those issues out of the way.
The second round of bidding may be "Rules System/Genre Selection time", if the GM hasn't already set a default genre/system/game for the group. And you could also request changes to the rules during this round.
The third round may be "Setting and Story Elements, OUTSIDE of characters and NPCs"
The fourth round may be "Characters and NPCs".
The fifth round would be a "Final round" where all loose ends are tied and pre-play is wrapped up.

And in each subsequent round after the first, above, you ALWAYS have the option of proposing something from the previous round. Ex: Even though you're on round four, proposing characters and NPCs, you can always go back and propose Social Contracts or Setting Elements.

In the end, since you're planning on taking the game and moving it over to a traditional RPG format with one GM and several players (rather than the "Everone is a GM" style of Universalis), I was thinking it might be wise, since the GMs gonna be the one to have to keep all this under control once gaming begins, to give the GM slightly more chits/coins than the rest of the players.

Oh, another question: If you're not going to actually PLAY the game using Universalis, just set up the game, how many coins does everyone get?

So, combining this with the "Give GM More Chits" thing, I'd see handing out 15 chits to each player, and 20-25 chits to the person who will be the GM. If your group is more laid-back, 20 should be fine. If everyone has varied interests, and frequently conflicts in what game, style, setting to use, maybe giving the GM 30 chits would be better- Not enough to Dominate everything, but enough to lend to others, spread on ideas she can work with, etc.

Anyway, that was the kind of thing I meant for that first challenge. Heck, I may have just answered my own question. :-)

As for Challenge 2, What I'm thinking of here is a Campaign Sheet, plain and simple, that keeps track of all the above for play.

In a one-shot game of UNIVERSALIS, you may not need such a sheet. Everyone can keep track of the setting, characters and changes in their head.

In a longer game of UNIVERSALIS, I'm assuming that someone (or everyone) is generally responsible for keeping a notepad and track of the setting, characters, elements, contracts, etc.

So why not have a Universalis Campaign sheet? (something that I found lacking in the rulebook) I'm a "visual" guy, and I respond better to a sheet with boxes, blanks, etc for writing down the info in, especially for a game that I've never played before.

I mean, even Sorcerer only has a few numbers, a handful of blanks and spaces, and by all means players should be able to just write all their character info out on an index card. Yet Sorcerer DOES include character sheets (probably just to ease new people into the game, but still), and they do benefit new players.

I'm hoping to see someone come up with a Universalis "Character Sheet" that takes note of the Tenents that are decided during the Set-Up phase, one that could be used by people who want to use Universalis as a stepping stone to play a better game of Their Favorite RPG...

I don't get challenge 2, why wouldn't a piece of lined paper work? As to challenge 1, I have some thoughts.

Define "round" as you used it. I'm thinking you mean that each player has one chance at that kind of Tenet before going on the next round and that feels rushed. But I guess it doesn't matter if you just let the fifth round iterate until everyone passes.

I think the GM should have zero Coins. His role is to guide the players as creative powers. If the GM wants to Challenge a Tenet, he can suggest to the table at large how and why it will harm the fun of all. He can also help to arbitrate Negotiation between player-challengers. I expect that his role as a guide would be heightened, not diminished, by taking no explicit Coin-based power.

How many Coins? I dunno, start with 25 and if the players want more someone will offer it up as a Tenet. In how much world-building do you want them to engage? If they're supposed to have enough Coins to detail the world from the level of the mythologies all the way down to the corner pub, you might start with 100.

I hope you'll do this and report back!

Chris

I'm actually starting something similar to this tonight. In past D&D games I've prepared vast amounts of information and backstory, but the players inevitable forget who's who and what's what. My hope is that by creating the campaign world together, everybody will have more invested in the stories, places, and characters.

My hope is that we can build up a nice backlog of history, then jump into a D&D game and get a little more personal.

What we're starting with tonight is a creation myth. We're going to create a god or gods and then we're going to detail how these gods created the world we will eventually play in.

Wish us luck!

Good luck, let us knpw how that turns out too!

Grimbot wrote:
My hope is that we can build up a nice backlog of history, then jump into a D&D game and get a little more personal.

What we're starting with tonight is a creation myth. We're going to create a god or gods and then we're going to detail how these gods created the world we will eventually play in.

BLAST! I had a huuuuge reply last night, and could have sworn I submitted it... oh well, we've all been there.

Sorry, since I don't want to recreate all that work, I'll give the brief version:

Christopher Weeks wrote: I don't get challenge 2, why wouldn't a piece of lined paper work?

Christopher Weeks wrote: I don't get challenge 2, why wouldn't a piece of lined paper work?

Christopher Weeks wrote: I think the GM should have zero Coins. His role is to guide the players as creative powers. If the GM wants to Challenge a Tenet, he can suggest to the table at large how and why it will harm the fun of all... I expect that his role as a guide would be heightened, not diminished, by taking no explicit Coin-based power.

'Mike Holmes" wrote: Instead, I suggest having a fifteen minute session before or after each session to add more stuff. That way these things will be fresher in the player's minds and can pertain more to the action of the game in question.

'Mike Holmes" wrote: Another idea is to somehow keep the Universalis going during normal play (I think a talented group could do it). That way the normal incentives apply. You'd have to have some method for deciding which "resolution" system to use for each conflict, however.

Lots of interesting ideas coming out here.

Probably the first hurdle that should be decided, and in the interest of maximum productive use of Universalis probably should be decided in advance rather than as a Uni tenet (though it could be done that way too) is to decide on the starting point. By that I mean, are you creating an entire game world from scratch (as Grimbot's endeavoring to do) or are you creating a specific situation to serve as a jumping off point for a new campaign in an existing world.

Both will have their advantages and disadvantages but IMO will really have a different feel for the incorporation of Uni.

If using an existing world, step two will be to decide on your approach. There are really 4 approaches.

1) use the existing world as inspiration, but actually go back and use the start from scratch method. In other words the existing world is boiled down to a single tenet that says "This world should have the same flavor as X" The creation of the world might then draw from the imagery and even locations and history of that world but should not be at all limited by canon being completely recast in Uni (most historical fiction winds up like this).

2) use the existing world as canon and spend a great deal of pregame effort defining that world in Uni terms before the game begins and then starting with them as a preexisting collection of Components that can be introduced into the game. I'd love to see someone do this and then proceed to play the full game in Uni. For purposes of using Uni to set up a game in another RPG, however, I think this is more trouble than its worth.

3) use the existing world as canon, but all Components must be Created in the game as normal. Start with the single tenet that all Canonical Components must be designed as accurately to Canon as possible and then let any differences in interpreting Canon amongst the players be settled with the normal Challenge mechanic. This I think is probably the best approach as it requires the least fiddling with Uni rules to accomplish.

4) as for #3 but assign all of the Canonical Traits for free. This is essentially the same as #2, but done in play instead of before play and only for Components that are actually being used. Sounds good on paper, but I suspect in actual play it would be more difficult than simply using #3.


If creating the world from scratch there are essentially 2 basic choices.

1) Actually create the world as a fairly complete setting. I like this as an approach, because I really think Uni makes a powerful world building tool. I've seen and used it alot myself as a pure story creating tool, but I haven't seen nearly as much world building as I would have liked to. I'd love to see an entire world get crafted through Uni rules.

2) Mike's suggestion. Take a more Howard approach and first concentrate on the mood and concepts of the world, but create the specifics like individual gods, myths, cities, and leaders as needed for a particular story. Over the course of several stories the history and geography and politics of the world gradually get revealed and fall into place.


The third step of the game, and one that probably should be given a bit of pregame (or post game) thought, is how to convert the Uni creations into game mechanics of the actual system being used. There are a couple of possibilities here as well.

1) Just play Uni the way you'd ever play uni. Then recreate all of the characters (and anything else requiring game stats) in the new game according to the games own rules using the Uni Traits and Components as guidelines. One Uni character has "Strong" and another has "Massive Muscles x2" and a third has "Powerfully Built". Simply design the characters as normal giving 1 above average strength, 1 higher strength yet, and one a combination of physical traits such as STR and CON.

2) Decide ahead of time that Uni traits will be described in game mechanics terms. A d20 character will never be described as "Massive Muscles" or "Powerfully Built" It will be described as "Strength x2" or "Strength x1", "Constitution x1" Decide on a rough conversion guide like equating each Coin of the Trait with a d20 Attribute bonus and then backing into the appropriate Attribute score. Traits such as "Really Good Magical Sword" should be avoided in preference to "Fine Long Sword +1" and so on.


The fourth step is to decide on player characters:

1) Are player characters going to be drawn from the characters created during Uni play? If so are they community property like any other Uni Component until play of the regular RPG begins; or will one of the special Player Character tenets be used. With the player characters be identified as such right off, or will the situation be developed and then after the fact players can simply select which of the many characters that have been created to use as a PC? (I recommend the latter and to hell with PC balance issues, but YMMV). If PCs are identified as such in advance, is there any limit to the number of Coins that can be spent on them? Will the character be translated into the regular game as close to its Uni version as possible or will it be understood that the PC will be starting at "1st Level" accordingly to the regular rules regardless of how many Coins were spent in Uni, with the Uni Traits being guidelines limited by the regular RPGs character creation rules.

2) No player characters will be created with Uni, just the setting, and then PCs will be created in the regular game as per normal rules. Much simpler, but in my opinion vastly inferior as an option.

3) A hybrid of the above two by making sure that PC character stats are not featured in the Uni game so they can be created in the regular RPG rules without problem but allowing the PC to be played in Uni so as to be fully integrated into the setting.

4) Create the PCs in the regular RPG first and translate them into Uni Components of "X" Coins each and allow no further Coins to be spent on them.


Some of these choices can be made as Tenets during actual play of Uni, but for maximum buy in they are probably better off being agreed upon by all the players before Uni play begins.

Actual Uni play (after any world creation sessions) should concentration on establishing a powerful situation and tieing the PC characters into it. By situation I mean a setting (which I distinguish from the broader and larger scope "world") in which something is going on and which the PCs are involved. Not involved as passive observors who just happen to be passing through and stumple into it, but involved intimately in the situation in a way they cannot simply ignore. This is why my favorite PC method would be to create the whole setting and characters and situation, and then pick from among the characters who the PCs will be. This will ensure maximum contact with the situation.

Well that covers things pretty nicely for me. :-)

Andy, as far as recordkeeping, physically, many people have found that 3 x 5 cards are great. You can record the details of one component on each and label them for easy reference. Tenet's should just be a list, IMO.

We used to have "character sheet" sorta recordkeeping sheets, but they didn't seem to help all that much. The more important thing is a "filing system" that work quickly.

Mike

Sorry I didn't give an update before, but here's the VERY quick and brief of what happened:

Overview: World, Setting, Rule and Character Collaboration? Thumbs up. Doing so as-is from the Universalis Chits/Coins system? Thumbs down with my group.

So, here was the setup: I declared the rules system, I declared certain parts of the setting, and from there we did Social Tenets, Rule Tenets and some Setting Tenets.

The setting was basically the same setting as the last mini-campaign we played (Kyuseisha: Post Apocalypse with martial arts, other powers). The other campaign was hundreds of years after the Big Accident, in a dusty setting ala Wasteland, Fallout, Mad Max, etc. I declared how the Accident happened, and the players started throwing out setting tenets from there, things like:

1) I want radiation. OK, radiated areas, check.
2) I want it to be set just 80 years after the Accident, not hundreds. Check.
I could list them all, but suffice to say aside from the Big Accident, the whole setting for the game was rebuilt from scratch.

Some Rule and Social tenets were thrown out, too: A few were actually directed at me: To have more opportunities for character power growth (ala levels), and a few rule changes and the like.

The only problem was, as we were building, knowing that we weren't going to play Universalis but just stop and use the setting with another system, the Coins rules felt really out of place for our group. We're all laid back, pretty open, and TOO willing to negotiate/comprimise. There wasn't a single challenge. Now, if we had gone on to create characters, adventure elements, and acutally play the game using Universalis, I'm sure there would have been challenges out the wazoo. But for the world-building, chips amounted to nothing more for us than "passing the conch". Someone threw in a chit, we talked for a bit, wrote down the conclusion, repeat, etc.

I like the idea of having a structure to the world building, but for our group the Universalis framework for 'setup only', using chits, wasn't the way to go. Maybe it was, but rather than 10-20 chits each player only receives 5 chits: That way what they suggest, and what they say is much more controlled.

In any case, we ended up doing Universalis-style setup even though the rules didn't really fit our situation. And, to be honest, it friggin rocked. It was the first time, for all the players, to actually have had a hand in the setup and world building process (even though I threw down a few elements to begin with that couldn't be changed). I think that, because of what we did, the setting is much clearer, interesting, and fun for everyone involved. The group even came up with a reason to adventure and some ideas for adversaries.

Characters: This week (either tomorrow or Thursday, depending when we can game this week) will be the character generation session. Instead of chits and equal joint creation, I'm going to lean more towards Sorcerer's character creation: One person throws down an idea for a character, everyone gives their input and suggestions, which will help shape the character, but ultimately the final character will be decided between the player and GM. Repeat with each player. Then even go for some kickers.

I think that I'm also going to take the suggestion that was written above and, at the beginning of every session, do another 15 minutes of "setting retouching" collaboratively: Either give each player 3 chits, or just shoot the shit and talk about what should stay, what should change, etc.

All in all, what we have going on right now isn't exactly Universalis, and the way we're headed is probably in a different direction (although I might swing back around to Universalis, but using a VERY SMALL amount of chits), but I still feel like it did have a big impact on us for the beginning of this campaign. More than ever, ALL of the players are fired up and ready to go.

SIDE NOTE 1: The players didn't like the idea of "full world/background building". I like it, because it gives me so many elements to work with. However, ALL of the players resisted a little. Like, we worked out some ideas for some possible future adversaries, but there was definite resistance, even to the point where two players, upon asking for more feedback about this or that, said "OK, that's enough for now", basically blocking any more developlment.

The reason? Well, again, since we're going back to the traditional model of Me as GM and Them as PCs, they did not want to get too deep into the setting. They wanted mystery- Craved it, even. They thought that going too deep into the setting would spoil it.

ex: One of the ideas that someone threw out, that we decided to include, was "Vampires". Post-apocalypse vampires. So, how they work, where they came from, if they infiltrated other groups or not, or whether they were loaners... all that I tried to get feedback on, but they flat out refused, leaving it up to me to provide the mystery. I'm flattered, but I'm also hoping that I can pull it off without making it suck. Basically, they want other adversaries as well, but they don't want to decide on them all as a group: Otherwise, if we had decided to include "humanoid killer robots ala terminator", then they (as players) would be constantly looking out for all the NPCs, guessing which ones were the terminators, as if they were watching a M. Night Shyamalan flick trying to spot the 'trick'.

But I let that slide, figuring it's what I'll have to accept if I'm going back to the "GM and Players" model from a collaborative model. I was just surprised how many folks in the group were really in it for the surprise. It also kinda gave me the sense of how delicate mystery really is in an RPG for a GM: Seriously, even if the players decide all the elements, and it's up to the GM to put it all together, the way that the GM puts it all together may ruin some of the fun of the players if they think the 'assemblage' lame. Again, just another trigger that made me think, "One of these days we REALLY gotta try out Universalis as-is, even if it's just a one-shot..." :-)

SIDE NOTE 2: One of the players suggested that we share the chargen process, creating a group of characters, using chits to seggest backgrounds, abilities, defects and advantages, then everyone picks the character they want to play and use them for the campaign. Nifty idea, but I think I'll save that for an evening when we go full-on Universalis. I'm trying to use the lessons that came to mind after reading Universalis and Ralph's posts at RPGNet to make a really cool narrativist (gah) adventure game to the nines: Group character creation, kickers, me working with their ideas for the world instead of vice-versa, all in a "traditional" environment of 'X Number of Players and The GM'.

SIDE NOTE 2: One of the players suggested that we share the chargen process, creating a group of characters, using chits to seggest backgrounds, abilities, defects and advantages, then everyone picks the character they want to play and use them for the campaign. Nifty idea, but I think I'll save that for an evening when we go full-on Universalis. I'm trying to use the lessons that came to mind after reading Universalis and Ralph's posts at RPGNet to make a really cool narrativist (gah) adventure game to the nines: Group character creation, kickers, me working with their ideas for the world instead of vice-versa, all in a "traditional" environment of 'X Number of Players and The GM'.

Andy Kitkowski wrote: But for the world-building, chips amounted to nothing more for us than "passing the conch". Someone threw in a chit, we talked for a bit, wrote down the conclusion, repeat, etc.

I like the idea of having a structure to the world building, but for our group the Universalis framework for 'setup only', using chits, wasn't the way to go. Maybe it was, but rather than 10-20 chits each player only receives 5 chits: That way what they suggest, and what they say is much more controlled.

I think that I'm also going to take the suggestion that was written above and, at the beginning of every session, do another 15 minutes of "setting retouching" collaboratively: Either give each player 3 chits, or just shoot the shit and talk about what should stay, what should change, etc.

Well, again, since we're going back to the traditional model of Me as GM and Them as PCs, they did not want to get too deep into the setting. They wanted mystery- Craved it, even. They thought that going too deep into the setting would spoil it.

ex: One of the ideas that someone threw out, that we decided to include, was "Vampires". Post-apocalypse vampires. So, how they work, where they came from, if they infiltrated other groups or not, or whether they were loaners... all that I tried to get feedback on, but they flat out refused, leaving it up to me to provide the mystery. I'm flattered, but I'm also hoping that I can pull it off without making it suck.

they want other adversaries as well, but they don't want to decide on them all as a group: Otherwise, if we had decided to include "humanoid killer robots ala terminator", then they (as players) would be constantly looking out for all the NPCs, guessing which ones were the terminators, as if they were watching a M. Night Shyamalan flick trying to spot the 'trick'.

One of the players suggested that we share the chargen process, creating a group of characters, using chits to seggest backgrounds, abilities, defects and advantages, then everyone picks the character they want to play and use them for the campaign.

It sounds to me like a really fun experiment to play AD&D or something encapsulated within a Universalis game. So you Uni to get the world built, and Uni a few scenes to get story going and establish a few characters and then whenever characters are suitably developed, any player can throw down a Coin to own a character. And there's a whole new point of tension...

"Do I keep making that character more nifty so that when I own him he has all the cool stats and skills and abilities that I want, or do I own him now so that someone else doesn't snatch him up after I poured all the work into him?"

And then, as previously discussed, fall back out of D&D mode into Universalis between game sessions or adventures or segments of the story arc or whatever.

And since there's still a DM, that player still has all the opportunity to provide mystery. You could even implement a Coin-based mechanic for doing so. Maybe the person taking the role of DM for the night/story receives n Coins, but anything substantively new introduced during the D&D segment still has to be paid for out of those Coins.

The idea of pursuing such an agenda just seems really fresh to me...a fun way to co-enable nar and gam on different levels of the game without letting them get in each other's way.

Chris

Hey Mike, just a quick point or two:

Mike Holmes wrote:

My Own Self Said wrote: ex: One of the ideas that someone threw out, that we decided to include, was "Vampires". Post-apocalypse vampires. So, how they work, where they came from, if they infiltrated other groups or not, or whether they were loaners... all that I tried to get feedback on, but they flat out refused, leaving it up to me to provide the mystery. I'm flattered, but I'm also hoping that I can pull it off without making it suck.

Well, that's always the traditional GM's responsibility. In a normal game of Universalis, the only "responsibility" is to the story. So a Component like vampires sinks or swims on the continuing support of the players. If you didn't think that you could do a good job of it, you should have Challenged.

You did have your own Coins, didn't you? You didn't ignore my admonition not to leave everything to the players, did you? Please say it ain't so.

...For example, in a fantasy game using D&D, one player wants to play a Gandalf-like character. Another wants to play Frodo (can you tell I'm going to see LOTR at midnight tonight?). The Gandalf player says that his character is 20th level for one Coin, explaining his concept. Now, the other players have the choice to accept the consequences of that character concept, or to Challenge it away. So you get the sort of finegling that often occurs at chargen but in a mechanical fashion. And the GM doesn't have to be some paragon of fairness, acting like a parent who says that all of their children's paintings are just as good as the next. "Imbalances" can be allowed if the players decide that it's a good idea. The system takes care of the fairness, and the GM can just sit back and rely on that (hopefully he has some Coins too...)

All sounds good Andy. I look forward to seeing how it goes.

This flu is awful. My son has it, my wife had it, and I think I'm getting it. Ack.

Mike