Barf Forth Apocalyptica
the swamp provides => AW:Dark Age => Topic started by: Scrape on March 11, 2014, 02:46:44 PM
-
I really like the new Basic Moves, especially Draw Someone Out. But I'm missing that step in between violence and demand; where a player shows that they're serious but gives them a chance to acquiesce. I miss Aggro or Manipulate. Check this out:
Player: "I yell at him: 'you swore fealty to my father! You will not deny me now! Join my cause and maintain your honor."
MC: Are you Claiming Your Right? Sounds like it. Roll Hard."
Player: "Sure, it's an... 11! Bite it! I stare him down, fiery."
MC: "The wayward lord stares right back: 'Times have changed. Lords have changed. I owe nothing to you.' He's calling you out, but you get a +1forward.
Player: "Damnit. I draw steel and hold out my blade, like 'Bend your knee or I'll bend it for you.'
MC: "Are you willing to kill over this?"
Player: "Uhhh, I don't know. Maybe, but I don't want to. I want him to know I'm serious, but I want him alive to lead his men."
...so is there a Move that comes next? I would've previously used Aggro or Manipulate, depending on how far the player is willing to take it. They deserve a roll because they've got that +1forward. What happens next?
-
You point your sword at him and then you draw him out
"How can i get this character to join my cause"
-
Which playbook is the player using?
edit: I hear you, Scrape. It's a good example situation. I'll look at it again.
edit 2: But give up hope for seduce/manipulate and go aggro. If I need to, I'll come up with something else.
-Vincent
-
Something else is totally cool, just expressing my feeeeeeelings.
There may be playbook-specific options, but I'm thinking it's a pretty universal idea. I feel like there's a step between threat and action, a hesitency that's missing. Especially with that +1 from Claim Your Right, and the target's ability to shake you off even on a 10+. It doesn't always go into violence, there's some kind of social pressure in there that comes up.
(I was envisioning the Outlaw Heir, but then just wrote Player because I think the Heir has some fictional weight to pull in this situation that other playbooks may not, and wanted an agnostic view)
-
You might just be underconsidering the 10+. On a 10+, the other person has to go along with you or else insult you to your face, not shrug you off or stand up to you without meaning offense.
Not just "times have changed," but "times have changed, you're a weakling coward, and if you think I'm committing my good name or my soldiers to your cause, you're a fool."
-Vincent
-
Wow, I had to look twice to see that you HADN'T written "Outlaw Heir" as the playbook. I think your assumptions really translated there ;)
Anyway, I don't have too much truck for playbook agnostic responses, but sure, Draw Someone Out would probably be my go-to there. It would end up something like:
Player: "Hang on, lemme back that up a shade. I draw my sword letting it hang gripped by my side, narrow my eyes and say, 'If you will not bend to your oaths, there will be war between us. Surely we can find ground before words cannot be taken back.' I'm drawing him out."
MC: Oooh, goody. Do your worst! Roll +hot.
Less agnostic-like, with the Outlaw Heir, maybe she Draw's Them Out, maybe she prays to Her Parents Blood.
Player: "I take out my sword and kneel, setting the point to the ground. I close my eyes and pray, saying to myself, "Mother, guide me. This oathbreaker will not aid me, not with what I have. I must convince him if I'm to have a chance at regaining our lands. Tell me what I must do, and I'll shed no tear until I sit in my rightful hall.'"
Or maybe she simply is a Supplicant.
Player: "After a tense moment with my sword out, I put it back in it's sheath. 'Please, dear lord, these times are unjust and you know it well. Surely you must be have some advice for what I must do, how I can gain your aid?' I'm not begging, but my question demands answer."
The War-Herald my likewise pray, but to the gods of war, loudly and to the sky, in full view of the oathbreaking lord, maybe breaking his sword in offering. Or perhaps he just gestures to his lieutenant and says something like you said, "If you won't bend your knee, I'll have it bent for you. Mharles, have the men kill our kindly lord's troops until such time as he kneels before me. Make sure those who are about to die know why." which maybe triggers Wolfpack, maybe doesn't.
The Wicker Wise just smirks and watches as the lord drinks from his goblet, remembering fondly his moments alone in the kitchens, before mentioning that he has an antidote in exchange for a new oath, "lords change, after all."
The Troll Killer probably just growls before she shouts at him, "You will do as I say! Kneel, and swear on your gods that you'll follow me into the gates of hell should I ask, or your blood will run through these halls," before rolling +hard on her Commanding Presence. I'd like to see the lord who freezes or backs away in his own hall, poor sot.
The Dragon Herald, as far as I'm concerned, just says something to the degree of, "Do be careful. When the dragons come for those of the blood of eagles, you will want me to speak on your behalf I'm sure," before dropping the mic and walking out. Maybe just after using The Sight to customize that threat to the lord's greatest fears and sins.
-
That's legit. I guess it seemed a little like they were still able to ignore your claim. Maybe it might help if the trigger was a little more "make a claim you're prepared to back up"? I was mulling it over and thinking to myself, what if it's not triggered until the player implies repercussions? This might be in the wording of the move, or just made clear in the book and applied at the table. So, like:
Player: "I ask him to swear fealty."
MC: "he's all, 'sorry kid.'
Player: "I pull out my sword and demand it."
MC: "ahhh, you're Claiming Your Rights? Roll away..."
Maybe I was jumping the gun on the trigger? Maybe it doesn't happen unless the character is serious serious.
-
Nah, I don't really think it's so much about winning your right so much as putting someone else in the position of either giving you what's rightfully yours or straight up denouncing you and all you stand for ( or at least a good chunk of it). It lays allegiances bare and allows for no equivocation. You're forcing someone to either declare themself your ally or your enemy, with no wiggle room. That's a damned powerful 10+ as far as I'm concerned. That's a win. Maybe an uncomfortable one, but a win.
-
I don't have a problem with Claim Your Rights; in fact I really like it. This is about me missing Go Aggro and Manipulate, and trying to see of Claim works for those cases. If it doesn't, then I'm curious what to do when a player uses leverage or threats to get what they want, or when they make a demand but aren't going full-on battle with it. Know what I mean?
I don't want to necessarily change Claim, I wanna know what to do with an Aggro type situation in Dark Age.
-
I think it does work for those cases, just not the way they do. To run with your initial example -
Player: "I yell at him: 'you swore fealty to my father! You will not deny me now! Join my cause and maintain your honor."
MC: Are you Claiming Your Right? Sounds like it. Roll Hard."
Player: "Sure, it's an... 11! Bite it! I stare him down, fiery."
MC: "The wayward lord stares right back: 'Times have changed. Lords have changed. I owe nothing to you.' He's calling you out, but you get a +1forward.
Player: "Damnit. I draw steel and hold out my blade, like 'Bend your knee or I'll bend it for you.'
MC: "Are you willing to kill over this?"
Player: "Uhhh, I don't know. Maybe, but I don't want to. I want him to know I'm serious, but I want him alive to lead his men."
MC: "Fair enough. Seeing your blade, he finishes what he implied before. 'You, fallen prince Stone, are a coward and a fool. Put your child's plaything away before you hurt yourself, and drag your yellow belly from my hall.' Moment of truth. Are you serious enough to follow through? He's calling your bluff. What do you do?"
We can move that further into Go Aggro territory by bumping all that posturing and follow-up insulting into the initial trigger, but it's not necessary.
Player: "I draw my sword and yell at him, 'you swore fealty to my father! You will not deny me now! Join my cause and maintain your honor, or perish on my blade."
MC: Are you Claiming Your Right? Sounds like it. Roll Hard."
Player: "Sure, it's an... 11! Bite it! I stare him down, sword glinting in the light."
MC: "The wayward lord stares right back: 'You are a fool and a coward, and your words mean nothing. Leave, before my guards are forced to throw your bloody corpse out with the contents of my chamberpot.' He's calling you out, but you get a +1forward.
I guess maybe a last ditch after that would be, say tackling the lord to the ground or throwing him up against a wall and putting the point of your sword against his gut, which might be a Hold Steady and might not, depending.
I think the larger part of the win there is that either they cave, or the ball is back in your court, /and/ they've given you reason to cut them down. The only difference is that its your choice to pull the trigger. Kinda rids people of the bitching that was often heard about Go Aggro vs Manipulate with leverage of "I'm totally gonna shiv you (but I won't actually but I want you to think I will)" by melding the two and then shunting all other manipulation into the drawing out of people and actually giving them reason to do what you want.
My simple answer at the end, then, is that it does work for some cases of Go Aggro and Manipulate with violence as leverage, it just doesn't necessarily get you what you want. Demands and threats of violence often don't, but they sure do draw a line in the sand.
-
For an even more "Go Aggro/Manipulate with Violent Leverage" example, more about demanding than claiming anything that is Rightly Due You, take Elain Stone, Troll Killer, as she discusses with a shady ass merchant who has implied he has information about a troll she's tracking.
Player: "Alright, he's been leading me on and giving me nothing. I draw my sword, shove him against the wall point to his belly, and say through gritted teeth, 'Listen, worm, you are going to tell me what you know of where the mother of Grendel makes her nest, or you will die.' I'm Claiming My Right." *rolls* "Heck yeah, boxcars. Now, what's he gonna do?"
MC: "Heh heh. He doesn't even blink as he spits in your face. 'Some hero of the people you are. You're nothing but a monster yourself. Do your worst, coward.' But hey, you take +1 forward. Whaddya do?"
Player: "Fucker. Well, I gut him, saying, 'Maybe it takes a monster to kill one,' before turning to his compatriots. 'Now, which of you will tell me what he wouldn't?'"
MC: "Whoa, hold on. You haven't down any inkling of being a cold blooded killer. I think you're going to have to Hold Steady to gut him."
-
Hmmmm, maybe my question isn't really about Claiming, it's about escalation. Let me try to phrase it a bit differently:
If a character says "I pull out my sword and demand fealty," right away just like that, you'd probably go "Oh, you're Claiming Your Right! Roll for it!" Makes sense, yeah?
However, if she says "I remind him who my parents are and demand fealty," then you're also probably gonna say the same thing: "oh, you're Claiming Your Right!" This also makes sense, right?
And then let's say the lord goes "No way, you cowardly swine" like in our running example. At that point, the circumstances have changed. The lord has refused and is insulting the PC; time for the character to react again. If she wants to attack and make an example of the lord, it's easy to see how the rules accommodate that. Buuuuuut, let's say the character doesn't want to kill this lord, maybe doesn't even want to hurt him, she just wants to show him she means business. So now she's all "I pull out my sword and demand fealty for really real this time."
This is, fictionally speaking, a totally legit next step. The player is escalating the situation: now it's all about threats and her willingness to back it up. The lord could totally change his mind- steel is drawn! Things got heavy! Maybe he felt confident before but is now shaken. Maybe not, maybe he's still gonna say "you and your fealty can rot in hell."
But I'm not gonna ask my player to roll another Claim right after the first one; that's weird, right? So right now it feels awkward to me, this idea that a player can make a legitimate escalation and I'm kinda wondering how to accommodate that with the new Moves. That's what the real crux of this question is: can you escalate your demand after a refusal? If so, is it just the same Move again?
Does this make sense?
(edit: I'm not trying to move the goalposts on this, I'm really curious how this would resolve with the new Moves, is all. Thanks for the discussion so far! I keep thinking that maybe just using social leverage isn't Claiming Your Right at all. Maybe the move doesn't trigger until the character has at least implied retribution or consequences, and that's what really makes it a Claim. I'm not sure, though.)
-
I feel like Praion already answered your question.
So I'll expand: Draw Someone Out is the manipulation move! After the lord insults you (or maybe before you demand something), you Draw Them Out and ask "how could my character get the lord to swear fealty / join my cause". Then the MC gives you the leverage you need to obtain in order to make him comply. No need to roll a manipulation move on him once you have whatever it is he wants.
Or at least that's how I read it.
-
I feel like Praion already answered your question.
So I'll expand: Draw Someone Out is the manipulation move! After the lord insults you (or maybe before you demand something), you Draw Them Out and ask "how could my character get the lord to swear fealty". Then the MC gives you the leverage you need to get in order to make him comply. No need to roll a manipulation move on him once you have whatever it is he wants.
Or at least that's how I read it.
Yeah, using Draw Out as a manipulation move is great. I like that move quite a bit, as mentioned in the OP, so the more I get to use it the happier I'll be. But I don't think it covers "well now I pull out a sword, last chance, buddy." There's something else going on there.
-
But I don't think it covers "well now I pull out a sword, last chance, buddy." There's something else going on there.
I'm not entirely convinced that needs to be a move I guess. I wasn't sold on Going Aggro myself, I prefered Manipulate with the leverage of violence. But I could be convinced.
If you have the leverage he should fold, because you used the Draw Someone Out move. If you don't have that assurance and you escalate the situation to violence I think it's your choice on whether you kill him or the MC's on whether he backs down if the face of bared steel. But to me that is how manipulation feels like it should work anyway.
It's possible that "how could my character get the lord to swear fealty / join my cause" could be, by the MC's choice, "threatening him with death, but he will hate you for it" as the answer.
-
Maybe I should add why I don't/didn't like Go Aggo as an MC? It felt like I was just making a judgement call anyway. Okay, so I can choose take damage or back down. Couldn't I have done that anyway? That's all covered by the fiction.
The first time I MC'ed back in early 2011 I had a player that went aggro on a 7-9 and I had the NPC "back up with hands up" and the players said, "WTF?!? I just shoot him then". And it was at that moment that I questioned what the move was really good for.
And Manipulate sometimes felt artificial. Like just going up and cold-reading somebody and just knowing innately how to manipulate them or just being so charismatic that they just blindly follow whatever you wanted them to do regardless of how ridiculous it is (which would be a good custom or playbook move).
I felt like the player should have to have some leverage already in order to manipulate them. Which meant they had to talk to them and Read them or just already know what it is that can get them to do what you want them to do. But then I wondered what Manipulate was for because if they have leverage they don't really need to manipulate them, because a player can always choose to "not keep their promise". So really all I needed was a move that let the player find out what they needed to find out and the manipulation takes care of itself. And I went in circles.
EDIT:
That's what the real crux of this question is: can you escalate your demand after a refusal? If so, is it just the same Move again?
I think that the player in this scenario jumped the gun and now he has to deal with real consequences, maybe he should've Drawn him Out first or reinforced his position first. But also I think that +1 is awesome for now Drawing him Out at the point of your sword and getting the lord to say what it is he actually wants from you.
Like what Aaron Friesen said. You now know where the lord stands, he doesn't respect the sworn oath he made. Do something about it! (By Drawing him Out). Or get other lords to back you because they don't like that the lord is backing out of an oath (there's an adventure). Now that the situation has changed and you have some other lords backing your claim, I could see rolling for Claiming Your Right again. Or the MC can just decide that the lord isn't going to mouth off now, so he joins with you, but will probably backstab you the first chance he gets. And that's hot.
To tie it back in with what I said above: I actually prefer the way the moves work together now and they feel like they hold water now and flow from the fiction better.
I also think the problem is that Claim Your Right makes it sound like you can just claim whatever you want and on a successful roll you get it (like Manipulate does in AW). That would suck and make me cry.
-
That's what the real crux of this question is: can you escalate your demand after a refusal? If so, is it just the same Move again?
I believe you've nailed it! The answer is: you can escalate the force of your claim after you've rolled. Your roll stands. At each escalation, your counterpart has to choose again. You aren't making a new move when you pull your sword, you're continuing in the same move and the roll you already made remains in force.
You can roll the move at any point during your assertion of right, at the beginning, middle, or end. Play out the rest of your assertion of right according to the terms set by the move.
It ends when your counterpart caves, when you let it go, or when you stop escalating the force of your claim and try something else.
I'll have to make sure that's true, and revise the move, but I believe it works.
Thanks! This is good.
-Vincent
-
I'm happy with all these answers, thanks guys! I especially like the idea that the roll still stands, but the target gets to change their answer. That's cool.
@Irminsul: I just wanna say that you are a great poster, thanks for helping me parse this out. I never had problems with Aggro, personally, but those are all great examples. The whole aggro/seize debate was nervewracking so I'm happy with some more definite moves. This game is shaping up well, I think. Cool cool.
-
@Irminsul: thanks for helping me parse this out.
Super happy to help!
And I'm glad I got to talk about my experiences with Go Aggro and Manipulate in AW versus what I hope happens in AW: DA.
-
That's what the real crux of this question is: can you escalate your demand after a refusal? If so, is it just the same Move again?
I believe you've nailed it! The answer is: you can escalate the force of your claim after you've rolled. Your roll stands. At each escalation, your counterpart has to choose again. You aren't making a new move when you pull your sword, you're continuing in the same move and the roll you already made remains in force.
You can roll the move at any point during your assertion of right, at the beginning, middle, or end. Play out the rest of your assertion of right according to the terms set by the move.
It ends when your counterpart caves, when you let it go, or when you stop escalating the force of your claim and try something else.
I'll have to make sure that's true, and revise the move, but I believe it works.
Thanks! This is good.
-Vincent
So I get that both actions are claim your right, but are they really the same claim your right?
I mean, rather that do it your way, my natural inclination as a GM is to do something more like this:
Player: "I ask the duke to comply with his feudal obligations and send a group of archers to assist my knights in the north"
(rolls 10+)
MC: "The duke calls your campaign in the North a fool's errand, and insists that his archers will remain on the border where they're truly needed" (the Duke is calling the PC a fool and his mission pointless. He wants to use the PCs demand as leverage in a negotiation, so isn't bothered by the possibility that the PC will get +1 forward to draw him out.)
Player: "I signal to my knights. They raise their spear-tips and draw their horses as I unsheathe the lake-sword. 'I am king by right of all lands between the sea and the mountains. The oath you swore to my father binds you to me, and if you do not obey, then you will be judged traitor to the crown.'"
(Instead of drawing out the duke, the PC rolls claim your right again with the +1 forward, and gets 10+. So the Duke must decide how to proceed, knowing full well that a +1 forward from choosing to insult is going to be used on in battle rather than a less bloody move)
-
I really don't like asking the player to roll the same move twice unless it's really needed for some reason. It kindra reduces the importance of rolling, if you can just do it again. That's why I'm happy with Vincent's idea that the roll stands, but new circumstances give an opportunity for change, still.
I think if the player is demanding the same thing from the same person, it's still part of the same move.