So, since my last chat with Ron, I've been playing around with loose revision ideas for The Exchange, one of my little "freebie" game things.  You can see the second draft of it here:

http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Exchange2.pdf

Now, here's what I'm thinking about.  First, Ron's concept for narrative order, in simultaneous-action situations, goes in.  Second, the types of traits will be "Core Traits" and "Circumstance Traits" - replacing just plain "Traits" and "Injury Traits". 

Core Traits will act just like regular traits act in the draft there, with the single exception that any time a character has a changeover (what the draft calls an advance, and which I may end up calling something else), they'll *also* be able to shift a trait from core to circumstance, and vice versa.

Circumstance traits do everything that injuries did before, but can now also be positive or neutral.  That is, you could have "Captain of a ship" as a circumstance trait, just like you could have "battered and bruised" as a circumstance trait.  Now, you still can't use your own circumstances to help yourself and give you more dice (though you can call the circumstances of an opponent to help you).  However, the *other* players at the table can call your circumstances to help you.

So, you might call in three core traits, grabbing a die each time - and then, one of your fellow players might decide that one of your circumstances (rated 4 or higher; those rules still apply) is helpful.  They can call it for you, and you get the extra die.

Like much else in The Exchange, it's pretty counter-intuitive.

My question is simple:  Does this idea make *sense* to you?  Does it seem like something a group that *you* play with could go for?

Hi Levi,

I like the change from "injury" to "circumstantial."

I wonder, though, if you need to bar the owning player from calling their own circumstantial traits? Maybe policing by other players (the "weak" call) is enough. That policing means that the player has to have a good reason for getting a dice for being bruised, but he can if the situation suits, eg, he's appealing to his girlfriend's pity. Granted that in your current system, the player could just ask another player to call the die for him, but do you need that extra barrier?

I think the fundimental coolness is the distinction between traits that only the owner can call on and traits that others can also call on.

Hello,

My current call on that suggestion is that it will prompt wrangling. I realize that sounds weird, as the big fear about The Exchange seems to be about letting the call go to the group, and on the face of it your suggestion seems clear ... but here's my reasoning, based on experience with Hero Wars and The Legend of Alyria.

Actually, all Traits in The Exchange are circumstantial in the sense of "use." You can't use a Trait unless it makes sense to everyone else there. That has been borne out as a real limit by playtesting so far and I think its function should be taken as a given.

With that as a given, the new circumstantial category is key not because of who calls it, but whether it's positive or negative in a given moment. "Who calls it" is not an issue because it's always subject to the same hard limit. Further splitting it up, I think, is adding needless complexity.

I also draw attention to the desirable tendency within groups to call out suggestions for traits to be used for other people's characters. By imposing the "who calls it" limit, I think the effect will be to impose a blanket of silence as everyone looks dumbly at the one person who's supposed to announce the Trait, and I think that's not desirable.

Best, Ron

On Levi's original question (just to be clear):  The thing I'd be concerned about, in terms of getting people to actually call circumstances for another player, is how to make sure that they're paying attention.  It's really easy to be drifting and only think two minutes later "Oh yeah!  I forgot he's got the Khufu Kurse!  That's why he was doing all that winking and nudging ... he wanted us to call the circumstance for him.  Whoops!"

Is there any benefit to the player who calls a circumstance for someone else?  Any reward that would give them the eager "eyes on the prize" focus to pick up on the opportunity immediately?

Ron,

You're saying that the important axis is whether the trait works for or against the owner, rather than who calls it?

That suggests a field of two axes (help/hinder and you call/they call/anybody calls) that Levi can choose from for handling this in the rules.

My reaction to the idea of having someone else call a good trait for me was that it was an added level of complexity, requiring a channel of communication. I suppose one channel might be body language and hinting (wrangling?) and the other would be a reward mechanic like Tony suggested. Tony's solution is more elegant In fact, it's inherent in an opponent getting a die for calling your injury. I can't think of an equally elegant solution for rewarding the call of a die that benefits someone else. Maybe you get to promote or demote a trait?

Anyway, I do want to emphasize my central point, which was that the "Lame" call in the rules is the final arbiter of how a trait is used. Could Levi just leave that and not apply further rules like who gets the die. Let the the play determine when a player suffers from a "bruise" and when he or she can use it to appeal to an NPC's pity, for example.

Ron wrote: My current call on that suggestion is that it will prompt wrangling.

TonyLB wrote: That's why he was doing all that winking and nudging ... he wanted us to call the circumstance for him.

Alan wrote: I think the fundimental coolness is the distinction between traits that only the owner can call on and traits that others can also call on.

Ron wrote: I also draw attention to the desirable tendency within groups to call out suggestions for traits to be used for other people's characters. By imposing the "who calls it" limit, I think the effect will be to impose a blanket of silence as everyone looks dumbly at the one person who's supposed to announce the Trait, and I think that's not desirable.