New rules gimmick critique requested

[CPXB]

I'm thinking of proposing a rules gimmick and was wondering if y'all could point out how it might change the game.  It is:

"Back and Forth" Complications:  Probably my biggest problem with Universalis (and this is true of many conflict resolution games, but fewer of them as time goes on) is that everyone is done in one roll, and one brief description.  There is little interactivity in conflict resolution.  In Universalis, in a complication, the winner narrates, then the loser narrates, and it's over.

What I'm thinking of doing is creating a "round robin" narration where first the winner narrates, and then the loser, with a number of turns equal to the loser's number of successes (or, perhaps, a fixed number such as three).  These round robin narrations should take into account one of the traits that gave the player a die.  They, at the end of the round robin narration there will be a final narration, winner then loser, as normal.

So, f'rex:

We have Ralphie Jenks who is trying to intimidate a spy to get information out of the little creep.  Ralphie is using the traits of his name, Loud, Obnoxious, Big and Always Acts Tough.  The spy is resisting with Spy, Good with Bullshit and Snivelly.  Ralphie gets 3 successes, the spy gets 2, Ralphie wins.

So, there'd be the round robin narration, turn one, with Ralphie narrated as puffing out his chest and and physically intimidating the guy, saying that he'll tear the spy's limbs off if he doesn't give.  He adds the trait to the spy "Scared of Ralphie".  The spy's player uses the Snivelling trait and role-plays how he tries to distract Ralphie because of his pure pathetic-ness.  He adds to Ralphie the trait "Feels bad for leaning on this pathetic spy".  That'd be the end of "turn one".  In turn two, Ralphie just starts yelling loudly how he's gonna murdalize the spy if the spy doesn't give.  He adds to the spy's sheet "Flinches when Ralphie talks to him".  Then the spy starts trying to bullshit Ralphie about how he doesn't know anything, he's kept totally in the dark and adds to Ralphie the trait "Snowed by the spy".  That would be the end of the round robin narration because the spy only got two successes.

Then they have the final narration, where anything goes, so Ralphie's player narrates that he's about to let the spy go, but he comes to his senses and shakes off the "Snowed by the spy" trait, removing it.  Then he narrates picking the spy up and shaking him against the wall, saying that this is it!  Any more lies or bullshit and Ralphie is gonna hurt his punk ass.  He adds to the spy's sheet "Will tell Ralphie whatever Ralphie wants to know".  The spy's player says that the spy is cowed and starts to spill the beans.

Every complication wouldn't need to be like this -- and I think it's possible a fixed number of round robin turns would actually be a better idea, decided ad hoc.  In big complications that could lead to there being a lot of round robin turns which would be a LOT of narration.  But I think something like this might work and allow the players to play off of each other.

[Christopher Weeks]

Were you thinking that there'd be some Coins-spent min/maxima per exchange?  Or a requirement to participate?  Let's say my side loses a conflict with only one Coin and you win with four.  When do I spend my Coin -- any restrictions?  I think it's an interesting gimmick.

[CPXB]

I wasn't thinking there'd be any limit to the coins spent per exchange, no.  That would tend to be limited, I think, but the number of coins a person has after all.  The requirement to participate would be having components in the complication, of course.  And the restrictions of you spending your one coin would be the normal ones for a complication.

At least, that's how I envision it.  ;)

[TonyLB]

Then they have the final narration, where anything goes, so Ralphie's player narrates that he's about to let the spy go, but he comes to his senses and shakes off the "Snowed by the spy" trait, removing it.

Now wait ... was that narration or mechanics, or both?  What resource-expenditure or mechanical whosiwhatsis gave Ralphie's player the right to shake off that trait?  Can he shake off all the traits that the spy gave him?

[CPXB]

Both.  The narrative part was Ralphie "shakes off" the effect, and the mechanical part would be spending a coin to remove the trait the other player added. 

Any trait can be removed during a complication by spending a coin (the same cost as adding one).  If the spy's player objected to the trait being removed, he could challenge the removal.

[Valamir]

I don't see any problem per se with it conceptually, but in practice it seems to me like 1 Coin worth each go around would wind up being a little constraining.  Especially if Ralphie decides to kill the Spy and has to pay the Spy's Importance to do so.

As an alternative suggestion, how about running the resolution of the Complication using a "free and clear" method where Winner and Loser do the "back and forth" thing to establish how things wind up with the "Buck Stopping" according to the standard rules.  Would that give the participatory feel you're looking for? (its actually part of the standard rules that the Winner can consult with the Loser before spending their Coins).

[CPXB]

Ralph,

We do sometimes consult each other about outcomes, but not in the sense that the discussion was also, functionally, narration.  I like your solution, tho'.  I mean, all I'm interested in is the "back and forth" feeling.  So I suspect Monday we'll try it that way -- as it is the method of least alteration, which I tend to go for in a well designed game -- and if that doesn't work out we can try the more formalized approach.

[Mike Holmes]

If you want something more back and forth, but quite advanced, you might want to try "nesting" complications. It's hard to master, but, essentially, in the midst of a complication, you can start another complication. The first complication is suspended until you resolve this complication. When it's done, you can use the Coins from it to buy dice for the original complication. Of course you can complicate the complication to the complication as well. Or back and forth complicating the complication, and then complicating it again. Or whatever pattern seems to make sense.

Use at your own risk! :-)

Mike

[CPXB]

Mike, yeah, I'd considered that, too.  But part of the issue with the group I'm in is that our conflicts tend to be pretty broadly stated.  Like, "The two guys get into a fight" and we use all the traits we have that might be applicable to get dice.  To nest complications would require us to change our habits in a fairly large way.

[Danny2050]

How about this, the winner, and then loser, in round robin fashion can spend any or no coins. Once a player decides to spend none then they are out of the process. All other rules hold including non-interruption.