As a newbie to universalis, it sounds like there is a lot of record keeping involved.

I know about the rule: If something is important enough to write down, then pay for it.

I just want to know what needs to be written down during play.

Does every trait for every component, scene, event, etc. need to be recorded?

What does everyone else do?

I've only played online (though I think I might have a f2f game planned next month) so in some ways recordkeeping is easier there. I do/would record every component's every trait. Otherwise, how would you know it existed?

You can just narrate, but unless it get's written down (and thus paid for) it doesn't force future narration to respect it as having existed at all. It might make for an interesting and surreal Universalis experiment to somehow encourage such narration, but I don't think it would lead to solid story-building.

So, I've been envisioning a a few decks of 3x5 index cards in various colors as the tools to make that happen, and maybe a post-it roll-on or paperclips or something to be able to affix cards together sometimes. Then, whenever a character component is created, you write it up on a white index card. And whenever a place is created, use blue. Etc. Then you could file when not in use and have the current scene laid out on the table. Maybe some kind of sticky-tag (there are small post-it bookmark kinds of things that would work) for marking ownership is good too. Then scenes could be recorded on another kind of card or maybe just in a notebook.

Are these the kinds of explorations you're looking for?

Chris

Truthfully, what I normally do is have a designated recorder with a notebook and a pencil. That person (usually me) just jots them down in quick and dirty form as play is progressing. A simple header for the name/role of the component with a single column list of Traits below. Things get added and scratched off during play.

Most players can keep a pretty good grasp of the general nature of the Components in their heads, but its a simple matter to pass the book around so they can specifically identify any Traits they missed (as for a Complication).

I've found that just about the time a page or, at most two, is starting to run out of space and Components need to be scrawed sideways in the margins, is right about the same point that its about time to call play for the session.

If the story is going to go on to multiple sessions, the notes are best written up more carefully and better organized because memory (which was sufficient during play) will fade between sessions and the notes will need to be referred to more often.

Index cards are a particularly effective way of organizing the notes, especially if you have alot of Components with multiple Traits.

OK, I like the "one page" you mentioned. That gives me a general idea as to how much information is going around during a session.

So how many traits are average for a "main" character has vs a minor one?

Also, this one is probably a BIGGIE question...I would like an example of how to create a "super-villain." It seems like a super villian, say a big crime boss that controls a city, would take FOREVER to pay for while creating. How does that work. Also if it does not take forever to build up dozens of traits, then it seems like he could possiblybe defeated fairly easily, early on in the game.

Is a character like that created out-of-play and just brought in for a coin during play?

motherlessgoose wrote: OK, I like the "one page" you mentioned. That gives me a general idea as to how much information is going around during a session.

So how many traits are average for a "main" character has vs a minor one?

Also, this one is probably a BIGGIE question...I would like an example of how to create a "super-villain." It seems like a super villian, say a big crime boss that controls a city, would take FOREVER to pay for while creating. How does that work. Also if it does not take forever to build up dozens of traits, then it seems like he could possiblybe defeated fairly easily, early on in the game.

Is a character like that created out-of-play and just brought in for a coin during play?

Bob McNamee wrote: Rules Gimmick: The first 5 characters denoted as Important (a zero cost designation) have an automatic Importance of 10 until their Trait-based importance level surpasses it...then they lose the protection permanently.

Thanks!

This way lets the 'Supervillains' or even the "Empire State Building' be pretty immune until play has gone on long enough for it to gain lots of traits, ...and then it can be can be eliminated through some focused play.

The other thing that can happen is you can use this rule to make "Batman" a fairly protected character...as much as "The Joker" at the start...even if they are fairly undefined from the start. Then pay for appropriate Traits as individual scenes & complications require them.

If "The Joker" is defeated during early phases in dialog...he practically has to be narrated with either an escape or a short stay in Arkham.

Uni is really cool this way concerning customization!

Re: number of Traits.
Bob's absolutely right (hmm...funny how I say that alot). This is quite intentionally left wide open. I've seen games where the main characters never have more than 3 or 4. I've seen games where the supporting characters have a dozen. I've never once had a discussion with the other players at the table about how many were suitable. The group just seems to naturally arrive at a level of comfort.

Its highly involved in personal thought processes. Some groups are going to be perfectly comfortable giving a character just a general role Trait and a few key identifying features (much the way a character synopsis for a book or movie works). Others wind up with a list of "stats" more like a typical RPG. Some will feel the need to know in advance whether Joe is "Strong" or not. Others will not define it one way or the other until a situation testing Joe's strength comes up.

Its a fairly organic process though and an equillibrium is reached fairly easily. Its also a process where the true hero (or villain) of the story get determined in play. If everyone is cruising around with 2-3 Traits and someone begins a Complication there is the motivation to use the Complication to add Traits to the Components involved. If one (or more)of the Components is mentally seen as more important then the other(s) (or one of the outcomes) then that/those Components will generally wind up after the Complication with several more Traits then they went in with. At that point it becomes more cost effective to use those Components over again in future Complications, and so they tend to gravitate towards the more important role.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the dynamic of the game is very different than a typical RPG. Instead of 4 players trying to deal with what 1 single GM has up his sleeve, each player is trying to deal with what 4 other GMs have up their sleeves. Its entirely possible (indeed likely) that each of the players might come up with their own villain in such a game. That during play, some would get eliminated, others get invented, and a couple experience Trait expansion. Eventually, through play it gets revealed just who of all of these multiple villains is the most powerful and players then start to tie everything together in a way that makes that villain the super mastermind. By this time he already has a bunch of traits to be significant.


Re: defining the super villain to make him hard to defeat.
Bob's Rules Gimmick is a great idea. There are so many possible genre variations and so many possible audience expectations within those genres that the Rules Gimmicks were created precisely to cover any such expectation a group had. I've seen them used to create a rule to track Ammo, I've seen them used to give a grenade the ability to damage more than one opponent (a Gimmick that gave turned the Trait "Burst Radius" into "Burst Radius x the number of enemy Components...later amended to an escalating scale).

There are a couple of ideas in the book to take note of also. Check out the Possession rules. Specifically item #4 on the bottom of page 39 and top couple paragraphs of page 40. The Importance of a Possession increases the Importance of the owner, and people can be used as possessions. So a Villain with 5 Importance of his own, plus he wears the 3 Importance "helm of smiting", plus he's the CEO of the 4 Importance "Mega Corporation", plus he has 2 Lieutenants of 2 Importance each, now has 16 Importance.


Also check out the explaination for Eliminating Components in the Importance rules, bottom of page 47 top of 48. If the Villain is only 3 Importance, 3 Coins can be spent to Eliminate him. BUT Elimination does not have to be permanent. Perhaps he wasn't really dead but had escaped to a pocket dimension, or had amnesia for 3 years, (or whatever). 3 Coins can be paid to bring him back...subject to the Challenge of other players, of course.

I like the "bring back from the dead" rules. I'm into pulp-era fiction.

Also, I guess another thing that could happen is the players early on during the Story Elements phase, could decide upon the protagonist(s) and villian(s). That way everyone knows early on who will be important in the story and will pay for the traits accordingly. I don't know if this would work in person, but it sounds good on paper.

It works to do this explicitly, but it also works to just leave it to play to determine who the protagonists are.

I can only suggest trying a game out. Once you have, these things sorta become clear. We don't include guidance on these issues because, quite literally, it doesn't matter. The "right" thing just occurs naturally.

Mike