Barf Forth Apocalyptica
hacks => blood & guts => Topic started by: Michael Pfaff on January 26, 2011, 04:09:38 PM
-
So, the NPC is in control of whether you are seducing or manipulating right?
When you try to seduce or manipulate someone:
1) tell them what you want and roll+hot.
2) on a hit, they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise.
Seducing someone, here, means using sex to get them to do what you want, not (or not just) trying to get them to fuck you.
However, you can't use sex unless they ask you to promise sex, right? So, the NPC is in control of whether you're seducing them, yes?
I'm asking because I think I've been doing this wrong in my games. I've always allowed the PC to leverage sex against the NPC and determined whether the NPC was interested based on the roll.
But, in actuality, you tell them what you want, and then they decide whether it's going to be sex or not that is what they want you to promise.
Yeah?
-
Well, that's not how I play it.
You say "I sidle up to Balls, stroke my finger up and down his arm and say "y'know, I'd be real grateful if Dremmer were to run into an accident out in the waste somewhere. Real grateful."
Then I, as MC, decide if this counts as leverage on Balls. Does Balls want to fuck your character? Probably he does, unless there's a real good reason to think he doesn't. I'm making Apocalypse World feel real, but also I'm not preserving the dignity of my NPCs.
If it's leverage, we roll the dice for Seduce. If you have to make a concrete promise, maybe I'll say "Balls looks at you and he's like "For reals this time? You've jerked me around before." And you can make a concrete promise if you like. If you don't follow through on that promise, maybe you can't use the promise of sex as leverage with Balls in the future.
If it's not leverage, it's not a move. I'll probably straight out say "That's not leverage, he doesn't want that". And then be like "Balls looks at you and snorts "I wouldn't fuck you with his dick", pointing to Roark in the corner."
Does that make sense?
-
You're kind of right, but only half, I think.
Before you even get to rolling, you need some leverage. Sex can be that leverage; the NPC can then choose to ask you to promise that, or they can ask you to promise something else.
I'm pretty sure Vincent and/or someone else has said that they might occasionally say "Yeah, this person isn't interested in you at all, so sex doesn't count as leverage against them, find something else if you want to manipulate them." But the general principle that you're not playing to conserve the NPCs' dignity applies: as MC, why not assume that, hey, the PCs are sexy, and let them roll for it?
I might have missed something there, though... let's wait for an answer from someone more knowledgeable.
[cross-posted with Simon, above: clearly, we're on the same page here!]
-
It's cool that we both answered with exactly the same interpretation, citing the same sources in the principles.
-
Yeah, that's basically how I've been playing it.
Like, Simon, you say, "If it's leverage, we roll the dice for Seduce." And, Paul, you mentioned it too: "Before you even get to rolling, you need some leverage."
However, that method seems counter-intuitive to how the move is written. I'm just trying to make sure how the move is written (for a hack) reflects what happens in play, and it seems like it doesn't with this one.
So, shouldn't the move reflect the fact that we're determining if it's leverage first? Like this say:
When you hold leverage over someone, and want them to do something for you, roll+hot. On a 10+, they ask you to promise something [concerning the leverage of course] and do it if you promise. On a 7-9, they want concrete assurances right now.
You know what I mean?
-
Yeah, seduce/manipulate gets wonky for me sometimes. Mike's an expert at reverse leverage deals, where he wants someone NOT to do something and then promises that he won't do something in return, but now there's concrete proof of not doing something required and it's all... blah.
How I do it, as MC?
The way the move is written, in order:When you try to seduce or manipulate someone:
1) tell them what you want and roll+hot.
2) on a hit, they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise.
...with leverage being a question applied to the asking of the promise, taking into account the context in which the manipulation/seduction took place, the telling them what you want.
Getting all concrete about exactly what the leverage is prior to the roll, like we're setting stakes or something, can lead to weird/wonky stuff.
For example:
"June, baby, how about you let me hold that key card to the armory for a bit and I'll let you hold ... something else, gnome saying?"
Roll. +10
"Eh, you know I don't swing like that, babsy. But I know why you want in that armory. Joe's Girl done fucked up, right? I hate her too. What say you let me have that sweet, sweet sniper rifle instead? That's more my kinda gun."
If the PC promises or does it, then the NPC does as well.
And yes, my NPCs talk like that. You better believe they do...
-
Well, you're right that it's not 100% set out in the wording of the move, but the book makes it pretty clear doesn't it?
Going aggro requires for you to have some means of threatening someone physically, seizing by force requires you to be able to reach and grab whatever you're seizing (I can't seize you by force across a raging river), and seduce/manipulate requires you to bring forth some leverage, whether it's a threat or putting the moves on someone who actually is likely to respond to that.
I suppose handling it this way allows the MC to make up their mind on the spot, right? Because I know that I, as MC, don't know for every NPC whether they have the hots for the player or not. More fun to let it emerge, and a successful seduce move is a fun way for that realization to emerge.
-
For example:
"June, baby, how about you let me hold that key card to the armory for a bit and I'll let you hold ... something else, gnome saying?"
Roll. +10
"Eh, you know I don't swing like that, babsy. But I know why you want in that armory. Joe's Girl done fucked up, right? I hate her too. What say you let me have that sweet, sweet sniper rifle instead? That's more my kinda gun."
If the PC promises or does it, then the NPC does as well.
I guess the problem in this example is that a roll took place with no leverage.
Like, Simon's example: You say "I sidle up to Balls, stroke my finger up and down his arm and say "y'know, I'd be real grateful if Dremmer were to run into an accident out in the waste somewhere. Real grateful."
MC, evaluating NPC and principles decides to say, "Balls pulls his arm away coldly. Don't touch me."
It's not leverage. No roll.
It's up to the player to figure out what Balls does want then I guess. Reading him maybe?
-
Yeah, read a person is what you need. One of the questions right there is asking what they'd need to do something, so if you can read them then it's all good. (And you get a +1 on your seduce/manipulate as sugar on top!)
-
Of course, then you're already in the know of exactly what he wants. Do you even roll then? Seems unlikely.
Hmmm.
-
I guess the problem in this example is that a roll took place with no leverage.
Yeah, but I don't use explicit, negotiated-at-a-meta-level pre-move leverage. It's not part of the move and leads to problems.
There is no problem with the example. It works fine and there IS leverage, in fiction, the offer of sex. The sex is turned down, but the move proceeds with built-in negotiation. The move works perfectly as written.
The leverage/physical threat/means-of-seizing are all things that are being looking into waay too deep here. If I'm fufilling the trigger of the move, any of the moves, then I, by definition, have enough leverage to start the move. In seduce, maybe they don't want that leverage, that's fine. They get the chance to ask for something. It's not two moves, it's one.
The way everyone else is doing it seems weird to me. You're ignoring part of the move. If you're setting the leverage explicitly, then what are they asking you to promise? The leverage again? And it has to be the pre-negotiated leverage? Then why have the bit about them promising in there to begin with, if you can only roll on something they want anyway? Why even have the move? The move you guys seem to be using is:
When you want something and the MC agrees that NPC wants it according to his principles, roll+hot. On a hit, he does want it!
If that's it, then why roll? You already decided that the NPC wanted it? To randomize NPC decisions?
-
Chris, I'm pretty sure the book is clear on this.
You need leverage for it to be a move. Otherwise you can be like "Balls, how about you kill Dremmer for me, just because I asked nicely?" and on a 10+, Balls goes off to kill Dremmer, just because you asked him to.
What "Seduce or manipulate" decides is not if the NPC wants what you're offering (the MC decides that), but how much they want it. Specifically, it decides if they want it enough (or if you can make them want it enough) to do what you're asking them in return. On a hit, yep, they want it enough. On a 7-9, they want it, but they want to be sure they're going to get it. On a miss, I guess they don't want it bad enough.
I am open to the idea that the move, as it appears in the summary, could be worded better.
-
Yeah, that makes sense to me. I don't think we're disagreeing as much as coming from different angles to the same point. You gotta have leverage, sure, but not, you know, Leverage. No need to write it on a flash card and make it a Big Deal.
You need leverage for it to be a move. Otherwise you can be like "Balls, how about you kill Dremmer for me, just because I asked nicely?" and on a 10+, Balls goes off to kill Dremmer, just because you asked him to.
In my example above, that not it at all. Follow the move.
I tell Balls what I want and roll+hot.
On a 10, he asks me to promise something. He doesn't just run off to do it.
If I agree, he does it. So he's like "Man, you want me to kill Dremmer? We could get in trouble for just talking about this. But... Marie, you're close with her, right? Get her to head up to the Cabin with me. Fuck, I'd kill three Dremmers for a chance to ride that mechanical bull, gnome saying?"
If I promise he does it.
On a 7-9, he'd want some proof right now, etc.
I like it because it suggests that everyone has a price for everything. Very AW. The question is not "Would you?" It's "what is it worth to you"?
-
Chris, I'm pretty sure the book is clear on this.
You need leverage for it to be a move. Otherwise you can be like "Balls, how about you kill Dremmer for me, just because I asked nicely?" and on a 10+, Balls goes off to kill Dremmer, just because you asked him to.
No, you're missing something. On a hit, the NPC asks you to promise something first.
"Balls, how about you kill Dremmer for me?" - Tell them what you want.
A hit. So, NPC Asks you to promise something. "Sure, if you suck my dick."
And, does it if you promise. "Ok, I will when you have proof it's done."
On a 10+, whether you keep your promise is up to you, later. "Don't worry, it'll be done."
On a 7-9, they need some concrete assurance. "How do I know you'll really do it?"
Right?
Edit: Oops. Cross-posted with Chris.
What "Seduce or manipulate" decides is not if the NPC wants what you're offering (the MC decides that), but how much they want it. Specifically, it decides if they want it enough (or if you can make them want it enough) to do what you're asking them in return. On a hit, yep, they want it enough. On a 7-9, they want it, but they want to be sure they're going to get it. On a miss, I guess they don't want it bad enough.
Interesting view of the move. Lemme think on this.
I am open to the idea that the move, as it appears in the summary, could be worded better.
Yeah, I'm trying to pinpoint the exact intent, so it can be worded perfectly (or, left alone if it already is), which is the purpose of this thread.
-
Oh hey you're right, I was forgetting that bit of the move.
Let me think about it more.
-
Mike and I are chatting it up about this.
Seducing someone, here, means using sex to get them to do what
you want, not (or not just) trying to get them to fuck you.
The above is important. It means that this isn't two rules. There's no real seduction, in the sexual sense, for the sake of sex. It's all manipulation, offering something for something, with the caveat that the something in either case may be sex.
The promise the NPC asks for should directly address the
leverage the player’s character is using. The leverage is sex?
The promise should be sexual. The leverage is violence? “Just
promise you won’t hurt me.”
Here it is. There must be a promise, as stated in the rule.
Before you even get to rolling, you need some leverage. Sex can be that leverage; the NPC can then choose to ask you to promise that, or they can ask you to promise something else.
Yeah. So this:
...has said that they might occasionally say "Yeah, this person isn't interested in you at all, so sex doesn't count as leverage against them, find something else if you want to manipulate them."
...isn't really true, as such.
When you manipulate, tell them what you want.
The leverage comes as part of the manipulation; that's what manipulation means. Then comes the telling of what you want. On a 10, they WILL tell you how to make this possible.
They ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise.
Very clear. "They... do it if you promise."
Intentional by Baker or not, I like this as written, because it suggests that nothing is totally off limits. There's an offer, with the manipulate and then the telling, and then there's a counter offer, in the same move. Two points of negotiation: the initial leverage and the possible counteroffer.
And maybe they don't want to do it. Maybe Balls doesn't want to kill his grandmother.
Extreme example, but to that: contextually, if it wasn't possible, why is it being asked? Why are people approaching Balls to ask him to kill his grandmother? Is it arbitrary? Then someone isn't playing the game with everyone else.
And it further suggests that EVERYTHING is on sale, which is something I like.
-
Chris, you're making a lot of sense. But I think the bit that says "Before you even get to rolling, you need some leverage" is pretty important. Implicit or explicit, we have to know what your leverage is before you roll the dice. You can't roll up to Balls, ask him to kill Dremmer, and then wait for him to tell you what it will take, right?
Otherwise there's nothing stopping Balls from asking you to promise something you can't possibly give, and then the move is useless.
You start from a position of "here's what I'm willing to give" and the MC starts with "That might be worth enough", and then the move sorts out the specifics, i.e can you make that attractive enough to them that they'll do what you want for it?
-
The promise the NPC asks for should directly address the
leverage the player’s character is using. The leverage is sex?
The promise should be sexual. The leverage is violence? “Just
promise you won’t hurt me.”
Here it is. There must be a promise, as stated in the rule.
Before you even get to rolling, you need some leverage. Sex can be that leverage; the NPC can then choose to ask you to promise that, or they can ask you to promise something else.
Yeah. So this:
...has said that they might occasionally say "Yeah, this person isn't interested in you at all, so sex doesn't count as leverage against them, find something else if you want to manipulate them."
...isn't really true, as such.
It's kind of true. I mean, the leverage has to be leverage. If we're deciding it up-front, then it must count as leverage for the manipulate to even kick in right?
Also, "they can ask you to promise something else" doesn't make much sense considering the example: the leverage is sex? the promise must be sexual.
So, this example:
"June, baby, how about you let me hold that key card to the armory for a bit and I'll let you hold ... something else, gnome saying?"
Roll. +10
"Eh, you know I don't swing like that, babsy. But I know why you want in that armory. Joe's Girl done fucked up, right? I hate her too. What say you let me have that sweet, sweet sniper rifle instead? That's more my kinda gun."
From earlier is an invalid response (ask a promise) from the MC right?
The PC offered sex as leverage, and if June isn't interested, there shoudn't even be a roll right?
It should go:
"June, baby, how about you let me hold that key card to the armory for a bit and I'll let you hold ... something else, gnome saying?"
No Roll.
"Eh, you know I don't swing like that, babsy. But I know why you want in that armory. Joe's Girl done fucked up, right? I hate her too. What say you let me have that sweet, sweet sniper rifle instead? That's more my kinda gun."
-
Chris, you're making a lot of sense. But I think the bit that says "Before you even get to rolling, you need some leverage" is pretty important. Implicit or explicit, we have to know what your leverage is before you roll the dice. You can't roll up to Balls, ask him to kill Dremmer, and then wait for him to tell you what it will take, right?
Yeah. Do it to do it. It's not "When you tell someone what you want". It's "When you manipulate". So do that, sure. Don't pop out of a barrel with "Hey, how about you get me some kid fingers!" When you manipulate....
My objection is when the leverage becomes an out-of-fiction thing. Too much focus on the leverage and we're not doing it to do it.
We're saying "Blah, blah, blah, and my leverage, people I'm at the table with, my leverage is this" "Well, that might be leverage, let me look at my principles and Balls's threat type..... .... I guess that's okay." No, get enough to say "Hey, I am manipulating" and move into the move, letting it do the heavy work/thinking part.
Whenever possible, I have the bearded RPG Yoda do my gaming thinking for me. :)
-
Fair call, Chris.
In my first few sessions of AW, I think this happened a lot, when the players and I were both getting our heads around the move. We'd go to out-of-character "My leverage is X" "Well, I don't think they really want X, so it's not a move".
I can remember a few times where I outright said "I'm being a dick. You're offering something she might want, let's see if it's enough" and roll the dice. I also remember a few times where I said "Manipulate is not mind control. You can't just make people do what you want".
Now we're all much more on the same page about what people might want or not want, and what counts as leverage, and it flows more smoothly, I think.
-
Also, "they can ask you to promise something else" doesn't make much sense considering the example: the leverage is sex? the promise must be sexual.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I don't play that way, just because one line is like "BTW, the promise must match the original manipulation". There are two points of negotiation going on, like I said.
This:
When you hold leverage over someone, and want them to do something for you, roll+hot. On a 10+, they ask you to promise something [concerning the leverage of course] and do it if you promise. On a 7-9, they want concrete assurances right now.
... is too convoluted and MC-centric. I'm never going to say that they don't have leverage anyway. It just turns into a game of "fishing for the right thing that will appease the MC's idea of whatever keep AW real means to them."
It's just not worth the headache. If they are doing something can be reasonably considered manipulating, then go into the move. Fuck it. It works great like that without getting into some territory I don't want to get into as the MC, namely deciding pre-move if a move will work or not.
-
It would be a guessing game if you couldn't directly ask "How can I get you to..." on a 7-9 on Read a Person.
What principles do you use to decide what the NPC asks for?
-
This:
When you hold leverage over someone, and want them to do something for you, roll+hot. On a 10+, they ask you to promise something [concerning the leverage of course] and do it if you promise. On a 7-9, they want concrete assurances right now.
... is too convoluted and MC-centric.
That wording is just basically how the rule works. That's not the simple version of it. That's just exactly how it works in the game as we've discussed.
Or, in other words, if this wording is MC-centric, then the current version is entirely MC-centric because that's exactly the process used (well, except when you are the MC, then the leverage mustn't concern the promise).
I'm never going to say that they don't have leverage anyway. It just turns into a game of "fishing for the right thing that will appease the MC's idea of whatever keep AW real means to them."
It's just not worth the headache. If they are doing something can be reasonably considered manipulating, then go into the move. Fuck it. It works great like that without getting into some territory I don't want to get into as the MC, namely deciding pre-move if a move will work or not.
Right. You just wouldn't call for the move, like it says in the book: Absent leverage, they’re just talking...
But, you're still making a judgment call whether they have leverage or not in the first place when you call (or do not call) for the move.
-
It would be a guessing game if you couldn't directly ask "How can I get you to..." on a 7-9 on Read a Person.
Yeah, but now I'm asking them to read everyone they plan to manipulate.
What principles do you use to decide what the NPC asks for?
Yeah, I'm feeling what you're laying down. My argument is a sort of regression. But again, it doesn't solve my larger issue, which is that I'm usually only comfortable when I'm disclaiming decision making. So I'm fine with saying that Balls wants a new sniper rifle. We know that Balls fucking loves sniper rifles. But I'm not fine with saying what another player thinks is leverage isn't.
This could just be a me thing.
-
Well, you're still making a judgment call about leverage if you decide he wants the sniper rifle and not sex, right? Like, 'sex is leverage, so you're manipulating, roll' but then, 'sex is not leverage, because she wants this sniper rifle instead...'
You're still determing what is leverage when you counter-offer with something that does't directly relate to the leverage (sex/promise of something sexual).
Why not skip the rolling in the first place and just have the NPC come right out? "Nah, sex with you is no good. I might do it for a sniper rifle."
-
Why not skip the rolling in the first place and just have the NPC come right out? "Nah, sex with you is no good. I might do it for a sniper rifle."
And then roll for that? With my way, it would have happened in the roll. Same outcome. Nah, this argument is a regression, too. Neither of us are on it.
But you;re right about the judgement call. I guess it feels different, one being in play, with the back and forth and the other being a sort of above board thing. Like I don't worry about what to say as an NPC. But I hate games where the GM sets a target number.
I don't know. Must be a me thing.
-
Another thought:
What if the NPC asks the PC to promise something, directly addressing the leverage, but ups the ante?
"I'll give you sex if you fix my ride." Leverage + Tell them what you want.
"I want sex from both you and June." Ask you to promise something first.
How do you feel about that?
-
What principles do you use to decide what the NPC asks for?
So I'm fine with saying that Balls wants a new sniper rifle. We know that Balls fucking loves sniper rifles. But I'm not fine with saying what another player thinks is leverage isn't.
I think here, you need to go back to the MC principles and moves.
Okay, so Balls loves sniper rifles, and a PC offers him some tasty fresh food - how do you decide?
Look at the moves, find one that fits what's happening now: like maybe (make them buy) Balls doesn't care about his next meal right now, but he sure wants some new bullets.
That might be not exactly what you're saying - if your point is, a PC comes up and says "Well we know Balls likes *this* so I'm going to offer it" and you don't want to shut that down... that seems fine to me. I certainly wouldn't deny it unless we'd previously established something different.
Why not skip the rolling in the first place and just have the NPC come right out? "Nah, sex with you is no good. I might do it for a sniper rifle."
That "might" seems to be the key to me. If a PC seduces or manipulates and gets a hit, the NPC does what they agreed, no wiggling.
On the other hand, maybe it isn't the move. I've certainly had players say "I tell Roark 'Look, I need someone to take care of Exit for me'" and they're getting ready to bargain and roll the dice, but I already know Roark's just been waiting for an excuse to kill Exit. So, no move required, and Roark happily goes off to murder.
-
In my first few sessions of AW, I think this happened a lot, when the players and I were both getting our heads around the move. We'd go to out-of-character "My leverage is X" "Well, I don't think they really want X, so it's not a move".
This is my issue. Mike, you remember when I first had a problem with it, back in the Poppy/Hotrod game? We were doing this. So it might just be a misdirect thing. Because I want them to do it to do it. They have to manipulate. But I don't want the leverage being negotiated like a stake and I don't want it to be named.
On the other hand, maybe it isn't the move. I've certainly had players say "I tell Roark 'Look, I need someone to take care of Exit for me'" and they're getting ready to bargain and roll the dice, but I already know Roark's just been waiting for an excuse to kill Exit. So, no move required, and Roark happily goes off to murder.
YES. See, I ONLY ask for a manipulate if they wouldn't already do it. So having me make sure that they WOULD do it before asking for a roll seems ... pointless.
Simon and Mike seems to be advocating a middle ground thing: if the NPC kinda maybe would do it, then we roll. If they wouldn't, then it's not leverage. If they would, then there's no roll. But when we're in that baby bear range, THEN we roll.
But I play my NPCs fairly straight.
-
I can see that you don't want to talk about leverage explicitly, but that's still got to come into the game somehow. A PC manipulating or seducing has got to be saying something to the target, right? If a player tells me "I want Balls to do this thing and my leverage is sex" I'm not going to ask them to roll, I'm going to say "Okay, so I guess you are going to find Balls. What do you say to him?"
I don't think the fact that sometimes you might not roll for the effect really matters - the move seems to be exactly for the cases when maybe they'll do it and maybe they won't and perhaps the price isn't clear.
-
Cool, I think we're coming to an understanding.
Chris, I'm with you in that I also hate games where the GM picks a target number.
The way I see it, a lot of AW moves are about letting the MC make the easy decisions, and leaving hard decisions up to the dice. Is Balls carrying his shotgun, or his pistol? Easy decision, the MC decides. Does Balls blow your head off, or do you kill him first? Hard decision, it's up to the dice.
Same with seduce and manipulate: Does Balls want sex with you at all? Easy decision. He does unless there's some good pre-established reason for thinking he doesn't, is what the principles tell me. Same with "Does Balls want a handful of jingle?" and the like. But whether Balls wants sex with you or a handful of jingle enough to do what you're asking, whether you can be convincing enough, that's a hard decision, so it's up to the dice.
-
Here it is: It works like this:
You say "I sidle up to Balls, stroke my finger up and down his arm and say "y'know, I'd be real grateful if Dremmer were to run into an accident out in the waste somewhere. Real grateful."
Then I, as MC, decide if this counts as leverage on Balls. Does Balls want to fuck your character? Probably he does, unless there's a real good reason to think he doesn't. I'm making Apocalypse World feel real, but also I'm not preserving the dignity of my NPCs.
If it's leverage, we roll the dice for Seduce. If you have to make a concrete promise, maybe I'll say "Balls looks at you and he's like "For reals this time? You've jerked me around before." And you can make a concrete promise if you like. If you don't follow through on that promise, maybe you can't use the promise of sex as leverage with Balls in the future.
and it works like this:
"June, baby, how about you let me hold that key card to the armory for a bit and I'll let you hold ... something else, gnome saying?"
Roll. +10
"Eh, you know I don't swing like that, babsy. But I know why you want in that armory. Joe's Girl done fucked up, right? I hate her too. What say you let me have that sweet, sweet sniper rifle instead? That's more my kinda gun."
If the PC promises or does it, then the NPC does as well.
But this:
When you have leverage on someone and want them to do something that the MC thinks that they ordinarily wouldn't, roll+hot. On a 10+, they ask you to promise something [concerning the leverage of course] and do it if you promise. On a 7-9, they want concrete assurances right now, if possible.
-
The way I see it, a lot of AW moves are about letting the MC make the easy decisions, and leaving hard decisions up to the dice. Is Balls carrying his shotgun, or his pistol? Easy decision, the MC decides. Does Balls blow your head off, or do you kill him first? Hard decision, it's up to the dice.
I don't know. We're deep into the weird forum discussion territory, but it's a weird thing. Like a decision the MC makes is "Does Balls fight back, with his death as a possible outcome, or is he trying to run?"
Seems like a big one. But I also don't have a problem with it, because I, the MC, am not making it, Balls is. Weird. Same issue as the leverage line. Need to post about disclaiming decision making and what that means. Need to take a shower. Unpack the brain. Do some dishes. Watch my exgirlfriend make me a grilled cheese sandwich. The usual thinking activities.
-
Fair enough.
What makes for hard and easy decisions is an interesting subject. Also, what is a fun hard decision, and what is not fun?
-
I'd like to add to the discussion in the beginning. We've always struggled with this move, and our best interpretation (or modification to be exact) is the following.
When you try to get something from someone that is not for sale, roll+hot. On a 7-9, it turns out that it is for sale after all, and the other character tells the price. On a 10+, it is for sale, and you can choose to reduce the price or just promise the full price. The details of the action - whether you seduce, manipulate, threaten or offer something - sets the arena, the general type of the price the other party asks for.
This worked quite smooth in play and has some nice features:
- you might try a different approach on a failure: bribing if seduction does not work
- can be used if something's for sale, but you want to pay with something different
- no awkward "prenegotiation" phase
- the MC has some options as the NPC might want different things in different arenas
- plays well together with read a person, as there are multiple arenas
- both parties have a say in the outcome
- some negotiation can still happen after the roll
- you might decline smoothly in the fiction if the price is too high
- can be used for bargaining as well: 7-9, full price, 10+: reduction or credit
-
Way, very nice.
-Vincent
-
Agreed, that's cool. I really want to get the bargaining aspect out of the move in my hack. I dig that.
How did it work for you in play for the 10+ results? You can "reduce the price" right? How does that work? I mean, how much can you reduce it by? If it's sex, it becomes kissing or oral sex? If it's murder it becomes beating someone up?
How did you adjudicate that?
-
Exactly, as you say, but that's where the real bargaining starts. The GM just tells the price the NPC wants and then we negotiate. Not much structure, actually, we just go through a couple converging offers at most from both sides, but there were options: the player could decline totally or choose the "promise the full price in the future" option anytime during the course of the negotiation. We never felt it required more rules.
You know, the details of the bargain never caused any pain, the pain was that something had to decide if making a deal is possible in the first place. I think this move is good at this and the consequences crystal clear, with the actual economical benefits less important than the fact that I've made a bargain. Sometimes, of course a reduction or a negotiation does not make sense in the fiction, no problem, default for a future promise.