[Universalis] A first session
Valamir:
Bernd, fantastic!
Thanks for writing this up. I'm thrilled that your group nailed down how to play so perfectly in the first session. The way you describe teaching the game, introducing things in stages when it seemed people were ready was great (did you get that from my "how to play" text? If so, I'm glad that text worked so well, you really nailed it). There were a number of "epiphany" moments in play as new things were introduced an I've found that to be far more effective at getting things to stick than an overwhelming data dump at the beginning.
I'm very happy that Stefan seemed to really engage with the game and give it an honest try. Sometimes skeptics try to sabotage play to prove their skepticism, but clearly he didn't go there, I think it sounds like you have a pretty great play group.
Some thoughts that occured to me as I read your posts:
Check out the rules for Mini Scenes. From your description, you might have found those rules helpful a couple of times (like Natalya outside the office). But, how generous or strict you want to be with such cut aways is really up to the aesthetic of your group.
I didn't see any mention of Master and Subcomponents...that's almost always a good idea to avoid those in first sessions, but it sounds like your group might be ready for them. The soldiers and the captives in the camp would be ideal candidates for such treatment, if needed.
It is legitimate to use Challenges to get a scene framer to end the scene. It sounds like you folks worked it out anyway, but keep that in mind as a tool if needed.
Your cutting to a completely different scene (the HQ with the inquisitor) was exactly right, and exactly the right time. Frank and Natalya clearly have a story...but clearly no one really knows what it is yet...so lets go elsewhere and see what's going on, and use that to inform what Frank and Natalya are up to later. That's a great technique that will serve you well in Uni play.
Having a player take a Coin lead through Complications shouldn't pose a long term problem for play. It likely will give Jan the ability to direct the story over the short term more than the other players (having the Coins to define Components and win Challenges and such) but that's fine. Eventually, he'll have spent more than the other players in order to do that. Also, whatever huge Component with a ton of Traits he builds...someone else can Take Over and use and gain the dice for in a Complication anyway. Unless Jan gets more Coins than all the other players put together, you shouldn't notice any problems. If you do, let me know, there are solutions. One of the simplest is to require the Winner of a Complication to spend a certain minimum amount of their winnings instead of just keep them. But that probably won't be necessary.
I look forward to your next session.
Ralph
aya_aschmahr:
You're right about Mini-Scenes. I am not sure I want to use them though, because I am not sure they will break the structure. The same goes for multiple conflicts. I so far have a feel they would divert from the focus of the original idea.
When you break a scene to frame a new one, you:
- Get a break from thinking about the scene itselt because you bid for a new scene
- Focus anew, after bidding, when you frame the scene
- You are interested in making an impact with the new scene, because you don't wanna waste coins
I like that. Same goes for Complications. I was amazed, how much a complications serves to focus on THAT aspect of a scene. Suddenly everyone is alert and tries to work out an idea to take part in the Complication.
We avoided Master- and Subcomponents. I am not very sure, where they should be used. To me it seems a bit, as if these structures could be used to easily generate many coins without a lot of effort. Once the master component is there, you can easily draw on traits to use in Complications without spending for them. Still you get Coins for them. Sounds a bit like Inflation. I might be wrong there.
And there sure will be situations, where master- and subcomponents will be fitting.
I didn't know that you could Challenge to end a scene. That's a bit of information I will keep in mind.
As if to the Coin imbalance, we will see if it really becomes a problem. I tend to jump to conclusions too soon and thus force myself to wait and see a bit longer before taking action. I'll voice myself, when we played a bit more. Sadly we can only play once a month.
And cutting fro and to between different scenes, different sides of a story, especially when you don't only have "the evil ones", but several parties simply trying to fulfill their goals are pretty interesting. To me it's actually the most fascinating aspect of Universalis. I can actually show the "enemies", their motivations and maybe make clear, that they are not actually enemies. They do have a legitimate goal, they are, from their point of view, on the right side. I can't do that in a normal RPG. There you can only focus on the characters. No way to convey that information. (well... there ARE ways, but it's very limited).
Universalis.... is... unlimited in regards to storytelling. I love that. I loved it from the first moment I read it, and I was right. I fear the problems with my group and mechanisms will have to show themselves. There sure are some. We'll see.
David Artman:
Quote from: aya_aschmahr on January 30, 2008, 02:50:44 AM
We avoided Master- and Subcomponents. I am not very sure, where they should be used. To me it seems a bit, as if these structures could be used to easily generate many coins without a lot of effort. Once the master component is there, you can easily draw on traits to use in Complications without spending for them. Still you get Coins for them. Sounds a bit like Inflation. I might be wrong there.
It's kind of a non-problem. A Master Component lets you make a "template" (ex: a class, profession, race, etc) so that you can have several Components draw on such "standards" without every mook being created with (frex) 6 Coins of Importance. A mook Subcomponent has only an Importance of 1 (for the Master Component Trait) and, thus, while it can pull Traits (sometimes, not always!) and generate Coins, it's easily destroyed (1 Coin).
Of course, your group's tastes will predominate. If y'all want to drop 8 Coins on every Stormtrooper #5 or Prisoner #22, go for it. Establishing your Coin economy and standards is part of the game.
HTH--sounds like you're having a great game!
David
aya_aschmahr:
Nah, we did handle that differently, by simply declaring the captives or soldiers as groups without much further information.
So you have:
Soldier
- group
and for bigger groups:
Soldier
- group (x2) (or more)
So we never encounterred that problem.
David Artman:
And those Soldiers, in turn, have no Traits to speak of: no "Guns," no "Coordination," no "Rucksacks," nothing. Put another way, they are indistinguishable, mechanically, from "Flowers -Bouquet" or "Logs -Stack" or "Puppies -Pack x2"; their "Soldierness" is mere Color. As long as they get introduced in a conflict, they get 1 die (though, yeah, it might be hard to go unChallenged if you narrate Puppies into a firefight to get their die).
Anyhow, whatever works for your group. But Master classes aren't "cheating" or "munchkinly" or whatever you might be fearing of them. They're an option for creating Components without breaking the bank during "mere" scene framing.
Peace;
David
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page