I recall there was a bit of controversy over what happened when two players invoked the same Trait. Has there been any progress in that department?
I still stick by my ruling that the player controlling the character should get the last word, but there's a chance that another player has a more plausible/cooler idea. With that in mind I propose the following:
Straight die roll. The better die roll gets control. Then the rest of the conflict is rolled, with alterations as required.
Given Alyria is a Fortune-minimal game (which makes the Fortune that is there all the more important), having one more roll in there should not slow down play significantly. Keep in mind this roll is only if two (or more) players are attempting to invoke the same Trait. If the controlling player doesn't invoke it for a reason, it's fair game.
I'd actually forgotten that that issue had been raised.
I think it might be rather difficult in play. In general, I think that for many traits, there could be a reason to use it in a character's favor and against the same character. In our play, I think there's been something of a tacit assumption that whoever names a trait first has activated it in his favor, and the other player has to name a different trait.
It is clear that if two players activate traits against the same die roll, they cancel and the players return to the attributes. You could use the same rule if the same trait is activated for opposing die rolls. I think, though that it would be better to allow both to activate it in that case. As much as I would prefer some method that determined who got to use the trait, there's nothing that really works.
- If the trait cancels, people would activate the same trait that was already activated if they perceived the attribute check as favorable to them.
- If the owner of the character gets to use the trait, it would become a strategic move to activate one of your own traits in your favor whenever that trait is activated against you, specifically to cancel it and return to the attribute check.
- If the first person to name it gets it, you'll wind up with a race to find the best trait to activate, and this temporal precedence rule would significantly change the relatively easy-going play style we've had with the game thus far.[/list:u]
So I think you want to encourage players to pick different traits, but if they pick the same trait you have to let them both have it.
Be mindful that both higher and lower traits have advantages. Although I've got a better chance to match or beat a crescent trait than a gibbous one, if I'm rolling against a crescent and my opponent is running against a gibbous and we both roll gibbous, he wins because he was rolling against a higher trait. Sometimes it may be strategically better to have to roll against the higher phase, because in doing so you improve your chance of victory in a tie. If you knew you were always going to roll full, you would always want the target to be full, because that's really the only unbeatable combination. If you roll full against gibbous and your opponent rolls full against full, he wins on the basis of the phase he had to beat.
For this reason, it is generally strategically better to be trying to beat a different phase from that of your opponent. If your phase is lower than his, you've got a better chance that you will beat it and he will fail; if yours is higher but your rolls are tied and successful, you've got the edge.
At least, that how it appears.
--M. J. Young