Well, if the character thinks it's his right, but the player hasn't chosen to make it his right in fact, that means that the player knows and agrees that the character is mistaken.That means that those without a right to impose law, hold the crown &c. will tend to be the ones better placed to actually impose law, hold the crown &c., right? In that, in place of the very deniable right, they will have something undeniable like +1 Strong?
I shied away from Liege Lord because its rights appeared to be a long list of ways to be disappointed and frustrated.
I suspect that if you're picking the hold it against you option, but you;re not /really/ going to hold it against them, you should pick something else?
P: I'm choosing Liege Lord, and I'm taking all the in fiction rights.
...
P: I demand that my daughter's suitor be brought before me!
J(MC): Not gonna happen.
P: A right denied! Instead, that my daughter be brought before me!
J: Nope.
P: Then I will hold it against you!
J: You do that.
J: Moving on as if none of that had happened...
Am I being a dick? Yeah. But I'm also being a dick within the rules.
The bottom line is this, if I cannot play my PC in the way I intend I will be upset, that's like I have my right denied.
The rights system seems to put this thing in the rules system.
Is it necessary? I don't know, but it is the first time that I see this thing so clearly written.
The bottom line is this, if I cannot play my PC in the way I intend I will be upset, that's like I have my right denied.
The rights system seems to put this thing in the rules system.
Is it necessary? I don't know, but it is the first time that I see this thing so clearly written.
Yeah, and I think that's the crux of my difficulty. No matter what the game, when we sit down to play it's in a social context that includes some notions of fair play. Rights are part of the rules, but the Denied Right rule reaches out of the game and says "if this part of the rules are broken, this is your recourse" - as substitute for the normal recourse of interaction between players in the outside-of-game social context.
I think the response to my little scene is telling: "you aren't playing by the rules because you have to say what the principles demand... etc." In other words: the MC is cheating in a way other than denying rights. As an MC here, I feel like I can say: if you feel like you've been Denied Your Right, invoke that move. Otherwise, what's your problem? ("I'm thinking offscreen, you don't know everything about how the principles apply.")
You are then explicitly making it known to the table that this is an issue, and that you are planning to do something aboutThis. My feeling is that the main purpose of the move is to make sure one thing player does *not* or at least does *less* is pass someone denying his character's right because of shyness/being passive/etc. Because each character has big list of rights, and everyone (from other players to MC) is free to forget about some of them. it is player's own responsibility to remind "I have this right, and looks like you're denying it, are you sure?"
- You are then explicitly making it known to the table that this is an issue, and that you are planning to do something about. If another player denies my right, simply saying, "I hold it against you," doesn't do much, but it does announce my intent to totally do something about it soon. It's less throwing a tantrum and more adding a layer of player-to-player tension in a safe way, alongside a layer of foreshadowing and events-to-come.
But I'm pretty sure that Denied Rights have nothing to do with OOC interactions or the player getting pissed off. That's a whole different thing.
The in-fiction rights give you some character motivation and plot hooks. If you are denied your rights, then you get the opportunity for cool monologues, vows, more character motivation and plot hooks. All good things.
But if I don't choose the in-fiction rights, I can do all that anyway.
Suppose I make a War-Champion or Troll-Killer who goes around imposing law, even though he has no right to do so.
If you want to play a knight, that's cool. If you want to play someone who falsly claims to be a knight, that's cool too.For me, it's that being a knight comes with the opportunity cost of not having picked +1 Strong instead, and RPGs in general have a long and frustrating history of offering choices between the evocative and the functional.
It is clearly different situations, but I don't see what the problem would be.
Here's a move that's implicit in all PbtA games (and most other RPGs as well).
Here's a move that's implicit in all PbtA games (and most other RPGs as well).
Move Zero: When you want something to happen that's logically supported by the established fiction, describe what's going to happen and how and roll+0. On a 2-12, the MC chooses one or more:
* Some or all of what you wanted to happen, happens; the MC explains how.
* Something else happens, expected or unexpected; the MC explains why.
* The MC incorporates suggestions from other players at the table.
There, presto, your narrative abilities are mechanical abilities.
Is that really something implicit? My groups have always taken a different approach. If you want to do something that is logically supported by established by the fiction, that no move exists for, it just happens. It only doesn't happen if there is a reason for it not to happen, which almost always triggers another move, in this case, denied your right.
As it happens, everybody gets 2 extra points. If I were to cut out all the non-mechanical rights, I'd also cut everybody down to choosing just 2.
But the game's philosophy is: players should choose the rights they want, for their own reasons. Any combination of rights is perfectly good. If people choose only the rights with rolls or mechanical implications, that's what they choose, and it's fine! There should be nothing to stop them.
-Vincent