A strange case of inverted favours.

Favours, as I understand them, are &quotYou have done something to cause this faction to appreciate you. They have agreed -or been coerced- to give you a favour of your choosing at a later date.&quot

There’s an opportunity card, unlocked by having Favours: Criminals, called &quotDemander for a day.&quot &quotA local villain needs some muscle to shake down shopkeepers. This will call in one of your Favours.&quot


Doesn’t this card look a bit like the criminals are trying to call in a favour from you, rather then you calling them in? Or is it that I’m calling in a favour to demand that they let me play heavy for a day? If that’s the case, it isn’t made terribly clear.

It is a rather profitable card. Plus, unlike other kinds of favours, Criminals (along with urchins and revolutionaries) cannot be cashed in in a fixed location - you need to draw a card in the Flit for that. So it is quick way to profit from the criminals card.
In narrative terms, they allow you to profit from their activities, even if you are not one of them.

Is it universal? And are there requirements? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it.

[quote=Jolanda Swan]
In narrative terms, they allow you to profit from their activities, even if you are not one of them.[/quote]

Yeah - the favour you’re getting here is a well-paid job.

Easy locked out of it.

Here it is. It requires A Name Scrawled in Blood 1-3, so it’s a low level card. And not particularly profitable for higher levels, as it generally requires one Action to gain a Favour, and then another Action to play this card for 250-300 Nodules of Deep Amber, which means 1.25-1.5 Echoes/Action. Good profit for those very low levels (Dangerous 15 or 40 = 100% success), but not compared to what Favours usually get you.

I’m not interested in the profit, I’m interested in the lore, the plot, the meaning.

This card appears to be the criminals calling in a favor, but it uses one of your Favors, which are meant to be for YOU to call in a favor, not them. Right? Am I the only one who thinks this is odd?

I see your point but this is the underworld we are talking about. Allowing you to get involved in their lucrative activities, is a boon they would not bestow on everyone, right? You have proven yourseld trustworthy somehow, you did them a good turn… and not they offer you the chance to take advantage of their network.

[quote=asinineFlatfoot]I’m not interested in the profit, I’m interested in the lore, the plot, the meaning.

This card appears to be the criminals calling in a favor, but it uses one of your Favors, which are meant to be for YOU to call in a favor, not them. Right? Am I the only one who thinks this is odd?[/quote]The reason behind it is the profit, though. It’s a game mechanic.

If you want an alternative view based on the plot, though, you can imagine at the end of a long, hard day of shaking down the shopkeepers, your criminal associate slides you a good cut of the cash and says, &quotHey, why don’t we call this even for ________?&quot Your character at this point is only a local tough - they haven’t yet made their name as a dangerous person to be crossed. Your character takes the payment and the favour is called in because if you try to call in that favour again, the criminal will simply say, &quotI already gave them __% of the cut - more than fair - of the time we shook down the shopkeepers, and here they are, coming back for more.&quot Whether or not this was the intent is debatable, but it can explain it.

The guy on the card is a single lone criminal, without connections or muscle of his own to call upon. He is asking you to gather a crew for him, for which he is willing to pay by giving you a cut of the take. You can gather a crew by calling in the favor that you are owed.

He is not calling in a favor to you. He is offering to pay you for access for your connections. He is, in essence, buying your favor.

I think it costs favors as a finder’s fee. There could be a middleman who sets up these meetings.

Yeah, labour agents charging for access to jobs is 100% era-accurate.

Quite a few theories. Not much of a consensus though… and nobody seems to agree with me that it’s odd at all. Ah well.

[color=#ff9900]People upthread are right about the intent of this storylet, but you’re also right – the prose didn’t match up well with the mechanics. I’ve revised the words to make it all a bit clearer. Thanks![/color]
edited by Chris Gardiner on 7/6/2018

The new text, just in case anyone is still interested: