In another thread, plausiblefabulist wrote:

Lastly, we ought to move this to another thread! Are you going to make one for this game?

Ask and ye shall receive!

Munin, very interesting, and this sounds good. Minor thoughts and quibbles:

I think my objection to Passion/Fury has to do with the English word, "passion". Passion originally comes from the root for suffering -- it's cognate with pathetic, and the German is the same, "Leidenschaft. Someone passionate about something feels strongly about it whether they want to or not; they are moved by it despite themselves. A passionate lover is one carried away by the storms of passion. A dispassionate lover is one who can say no, who can say "sure, I'll do you, but only if X." A passionate lover has no such option. A passionate artist paints what they are driven to paint; a dispassionate artist can decide what offers the best chance of advancement, etc.

True.  Terminology is important.  Ultimately I'd like to use Japanese terminology, but the downside of that is that it breaks many of the connotation links that non-Japanese-speaking people have for certain terms.  You think something particular when I say "Passion," which is interesting and cool.  I wonder if I used more obscure terminology if that would still be the case.

If anything, Passion suggests "roll-Passion to resist being seduced" -- and it might be interesting to flip the move around that way.

I had considered that.  But I'm not sure about "resistance" moves for various things.  AW has very cleverly lumped all of this stuff into Act Under Fire, but the downside of course is that resisting everything relies on one stat - your Cool.  With the possible exception of spotting a lie, which could fall under Read A Person.

I like where you're going with Composure, but again I do wonder there too a little about the English word.

I agree, that's why I used the Japanese terms "ochitsuki" and "gambarimasu" in my explanation.  Your further comments about the orthogonality of stats are good ones, and certainly worth considering.  It could very well be that roll-Fury is inappropriate, and that roll+Composure is what I'd use instead.  In which case, the term "Fury" should probably be rethought because it too has connotations.  I want Fury to be the stat that means "adept at inflicting physical violence," because I think such a stat needs to exist.  In AW, it's Hard, but that has connotation as well, which may not be appropriate to the subject matter at hand.

I like the moves. Notice that your "seduce" move is now constrained to an explicit, literal offer of sex, which makes it far more constrained, in context, than any AW-hack seduce move I know of...

Actually, the discussions in the AW rulebook (as well as here on the forums) make it clear that Seduce is explicitly using sex to get what you want.  It is the carrot.  It is the thing that you are offering when making the move.  And even in AW, on a 10+ whether you keep the promise is up to you later (i.e. you're could be just leading the person on).  But if you hit 7-9, they want something concrete now.  Quid pro quo, as it were.

Geishas have playbook moves allowing them to replace actual consummation with artful leading-on?

This I like.

Your seduce move and drive a hard bargain move are identical in their effects when you use them on PCs, which is interesting.

Not quite.  It depends on what you're offering them to entice them to do what you want.  And if that thing is sex, then you are seducing them (and use the appropriate stat).  And if they take it, that has further ramifications, especially when it comes to their Special moves.  As a vanilla AW example, say that I as the Skinner want to get the Operator to keep me happy (perhaps by giving me bling).  The best way to do that is to seduce him or her into having sex with me such that the Operator Special kicks in, because the Operator picks up the associated obligation gig of keeping me happy.

I think, for balance, if you have -Honor and -Fury moves, then you need -stat moves for the other stats too.

Perhaps, but the more I think about these, the more I wonder if they are appropriate.  See above under "resistance" moves.  It is touching on some player agency issues, though.  I don't ever want to tell a player, "because of the result of X roll, you must do Y."  Even in the case of massively flubbing the let an insult go unchallenged example, you only pick two of the bad outcomes, which means that you are never required to strike without warning.  You can if you so choose, but because striking is an action on the part of the character, the player should never be forced into it.

I'm also not sure the "-Fury if private, -Honor if public" distinction is crisp.

I agree, and think I would limit it to just roll-Honor.

(This is making me realize that one aspect of the genius of AW, and one reason it works, is the orthogonality of Hot/Cool/Sharp/Hard/Weird -- they really describe different things and don't overlap)

Agreed.

Shouldn't being caught in a lie have a consequence to Reputation?

It does, and was mentioned in the example I typed up that got eaten by the internet.

Why are PCs under obligation to you if you lie to them and they don't believe you? Because other people believe you? Do they have some option to expose your lie for what it is?

Remember that there is no "resistance" roll.  If you are lying and your roll is successful, it means that you have lied successfully.  But because I don't want to remove player agency, I want to leave players an "out" when another PC lies to their character.  It is exactly the same as AW manipulate - I am successful at my roll, but the option to go along with it is yours.  Same here, and I decided to use Obligation because if you refuse a reasonable request or treat someone as dishonest when all "evidence" points to the contrary, you incur a social debt.

I don't think High-Born Ladies really need to screw their way to the top. It's low-born ladies who want to ascend via that ladder who would need that move, right? Some kind of social climber through sex playbook (or playbook subset) would be interesting, though it ought to be available to both genders, wouldn't you think?

No, the High-Born Lady is attempting to advance her station within her overall class.  She is looking to marry up, make influential friends, and build a web of obligations from influential people.  In a society that has distinct class divisions, the low-born lady doesn't have as far to go, and her social climbing is of a different sort.

How are you handling gender anyway? Currently -- unless your Artist and Bandit can be either gender -- you only have two classes that are explicitly female -- the Geisha and High-Born Lady -- and so far (admittedly we only have a smattering of moves) you've characterized them both as mostly using sex to get what they want;

I am thinking that the best way to do this is to have gender-neutral playbooks with a few gender-specific moves.  So for instance, I might have the "Noble" playbook with "daimyo" and "high-born lady" as potential starting moves.  Similarly, you could have a Courtier playbook with "geisha" and "aide-de-camp" as opening moves.  Not all playbooks need these.  I could easily see female Ninja, Monk (Nun), or Bandit characters.  And historical record has ladies who became Samurai (or "onna-bugeisha" which is not exactly a samurai but has most of the same important qualities for purposes of the game), thus opening the way to Ronin and making these playooks gender-neutral as well.  And the interesting thing about the gender-specific moves within a gender-neutral playbook is that you don't have to take them.  So if you want to play a female Courtier without being a geisha, that should be an option.

We found that for XP, it served us well to only allow a character to benefit from a particular highlighted stat once per scene.  But if your players are sufficiently self-motivated, they'll still find opportunities to use their highlighted stats in every scene.

As for PC-PC drama, I think it's a question of your particular group of players.  I played in one game in which my character was a slimy douchebag currying favor with his superior until she relied upon him, at which time he planned stab her in the back and supplant her rule.  That particular game had rampant metagaming going on, with players not able to separate what their characters knew from what the players knew.  It was incredibly frustrating, and I had to keep reminding people that they had no reason to suspect my character of anything untoward.  If your players can't keep it straight and separate, keep it under wraps.

On the other hand, I've played in games where everything was out in the open and all the players "got it."  To the extent that people were like, "you should totally betray me right now.  It will be hilarious."  Mountain Witch is a perfect case study for this phenomenon.  If what you care about is the story, then having everyone on the same page working to create that story together (even if it is to the detriment of one or more of the characters) is definitely worth doing.

I'd say put it to your players (perhaps without naming any names or giving any details) and see what they think.

I thought for a bit before I decided to perform necromancy on this thread, but I think that given this subforum's intended purpose as a study for hacking it seemed appropriate to put my comments here such that further hackers can find it one thread rather than two.  So, without further ado...

I think the separation between Seize By Force, Go Aggro, and Seduce or Manipulate is very intriguing.  Each move occupies its own very specific niche within the fiction, and there are very specific circumstances where each is appropriate.  I think what got lost in the early part of this discussion is not so much the structure of the moves themselves, but rather the stats upon which they are based.

Seize By Force represents the conscious commission of violence.  AW is interesting in its use of violence in that it's one of the few games I've encountered that makes no allowance for the kinds of things that most RPGs care about when you talk about smacking people (speed, strength, skill, etc).  In AW, violence is all about having the will and aggressiveness to hurt somebody else in order to achieve your goal.  With everyone walking around packing guns, this sort of makes sense.  Any idiot can pull a trigger, but do you really have the stones to look a man in the eye and take his life?  It all boils down to how Hard you are, and the governing stat makes sense.

By the same token, Go Aggro is about being absolutely ready and willing to commit vioence, but still giving the other guy the option to back down.  But if he doesn't you're not going to waste a second thought to hurting him. You have already decided you're willing (and able) to hurt him.  You're not hesitating for your sake, you're giving him an out.  And maybe the only reason you're doing so is because this jackass isn't worth the bullet you're about to put into him and you're trying to save yourself some jingle on ammo.  But either way you are committed, and your opponent knows it.  He can look you in the eye, know that you are Hard, and know that if he doesn't do what you want he's going to suffer for it.

As an aside, I feel like a lot of the difference between which of these two moves is appropriate comes out in the fiction.  If I can realistically narrate that I've got the drop on you, then Go Aggro is appropriate, because I'll get a chance to inflict Harm before you can do anything.  But if we're already all guns-in-hand and looking at each other Mexican-standoff style waiting for someone to twitch, then if I choose to resort to violence I must put myself at risk.  I can maybe do things to minimize that risk (i.e. choose to "suffer little Harm" and narrate my actions appropriately), but I'm not getting out of this without a few holes in my hide.

But Seduce or Manipulate isn't about your Hard, it's about your Hot.  I've always seen Hot as how socially adroit you are, how much interpersonal acumen you have.  If you are threatening someone using Go Aggro, the other guy already knows you're serious.  If you're threatening someone using Manipulate, you trying to make the other guy believe you're serious.  Your threat is intrinsically empty because you have no intention of actually committing violence (because if you did, you'd be using Hard).  But the other guy doesn't know that, and you're using everything you know about how people tick to get him to buy what you're selling.

Anecdote time: I know a guy who illustrated this principle very well.  Picture if you will a crowded bar in a college town.  A big dude knocks into my associate, precipitating the spilling of some of the associate's drink on said big guy.

The big dude says, "What the fuck is your problem?"

My associate says, "You are, you idiot.  Watch where you're going."

Big dude: "Yeah?  How about I pound your fucking face in, you little twerp?"

Associate (looking over said huge dude): "Dude, do you play football?"

Big Dude (flexing): "Yeah, I'm a linebacker and I crush people for breakfast.  And I'm about to fuck you up.  Whaddya have to say about that?"

Associate: "Only that before you beat me down I'm gonna make damn sure I get in one good hit.  And I'm going to make sure that that hit explodes your knee and ends your career.  So let's get started whenever you're ready, tough guy."

Now my associate was no prize physical specimen, hadn't ever been in a serious fight, and had perhaps only the vaguest inkling of how to actually break a knee.  I'm not even sure he'd have been willing to try if push came to shove.  But he was so good at sizing the other guy up, deducing his motivations, and playing on his opponent's fears (i.e. ending his career, losing his scholarship, ruining his chances of going pro) that he was able to effectively bluff.  And he made himself seem more Hard than he actually was (more willing to actually put up a fight).  Had the big dude not bought the lie, he would have beaten my associate to a bleeding pulp and suffered no injury to himself.  But he hesitated, and ultimately backed down.  In my mind this is a perfect example of using the (empty) threat of violence to Manipulate someone.

Right, so the reason I bring all this up is as a prelude to hacking myself.  I'm thinking of going sort of feudal Japan in flavor, with traits like Honor, Composure, Passion, Insight, and Fury.  And I'm trying to decide how best to span the dimensions of attributes and basic moves to capture some of this same nuance.  I'm thinking of separating Go Aggro into two separate moves, those being Impose Your Will and Strike Without Warning.  This would split off the kind of "sniping from an elevated position" aspect off from Go Aggro, and let me do things like introduce some more finely-tuned stat-substitution moves (like the hypothetical Ninja playbook, which might let someone use Insight rather than Fury to Strike Without Warning, meaning that the Ninja is good at observing his opponent as a prelude to a surprise attack, but which doesn't also make him better at threatening people).

Seduce is obviously off Passion, that's a no-brainer.  But when I get to manipulation, deceit, and driving bargains, I'm at a little bit of a loss.  Hot is kind of cool in that it's sort of all things social, and includes figuring out how to apply what you know about how people tick to achieve the effect you want.  But some of that is Insight as well (i.e. Read a Person).  Do I have Passion serve as a direct substitute for Hot and tie both Seduce and Manipulate to the same stat just like in AW?  I don't really want to tie it to Insight, but I'd hate to have another stat just for lying.

Ironically, Honor might be the best stat here.  When you are lying to someone, roll-Honor.  So slimy characters who lack honor are good at lying, but upstanding dudes who care about their own integrity have a harder time with it.  And Reputation (one of the potential currencies within the game) certainly enters the equation - if I have a reputation for being an upstanding dude but am actually a slimy bastard, it should be a) easy for me to lie to you and b) more likely for you to believe it.  But then again not all manipulation is based on lies, so I'm kind of going in circles in my head.

Thoughts, suggestions, or ideas?

Yeah, my mind went immediately to Edge of the Empire as well.  I love that mechanic, but I think the biggest problem with it is that there are like 8 possible symbols, which can make it a little tough to sum up/interpret.  Fortunately, Fantasy Flight's dice roller app does it for you.  But then again, rolling physical dice is part of the charm of gaming, so I'm not sure where I stand on all that.

For this system, I assume that you have to let at least one dreidel stand, yes?  So if you have a skill of 1 and you only roll 1 dreidel, you can't actually take one away (because then there's no way to determine whether your attempt was a success or a failure).  OK, cool, but what if you have a skill of 0, roll one die, and it comes up HAY?  How is that result interpreted?  Or if it's a SHIN?

So for instance, I'm at the bar mitvah of Moishe's little brother and I've decided to try to steal a kiss from the rebbe's daughter.  I have a Charming of 2 and I choose to roll 3 dreidels.  They come up HHH.  Or SSS? Or HHS?  What happens?  Do I succeed?  Do I fail?  How does the fiction change based on the rolls above?

We tend to limit gaining XP from a highlighted stat to once per scene, though the goal is to keep scenes pretty short such that this isn't too much of an issue.  But we found that some characters (especially the Brainer, who uses Weird for basically everything) were advancing really really quickly if their Weird was highlighted.

As for using stat-substitution moves, I would be inclined to only allow XP if the highlighted stat is rolled.  So if I'm playing a Brainer with Unnatural Lust Transfixion and my Hot is highlighted, what that is telling me is that if I want to turn this person into a meat-puppet through seduction, sure, I can use my Weird and I will likely be successful.  But if I want to learn something (i.e. gain experience), maybe I should try it the old fashioned way and actually connect with the person on a more human level.  Just because you have a stat-substitution move doesn't mean you have to use it.

And remember, to do it, do it.  You can't just say, "Oh, yeah, I totally Go Aggro on this guy to get him out of my way."  You have to describe your actions, you have to add to the fiction.  And if you do have a stat substitution move, I want you to actually describe how you are doing what it is that you are doing that uses the substituted stat.  Playing a Battlebabe with Ice Cold?  Tell me what it is that you're doing that's so Cool when you Go Aggro on someone.  If the answer is, "Uh, I stick my gun in his face and tell him to do what I want," then I'm likely to argue that you're doing it using Hard, not Cool.  But if the answer is, "Without a word I draw my katana using flawless iai, cut the belt of his holster straight through the buckle, then perform a perfect flourish of chiburi and noto, returning my sword to its scabbard before his gunbelt hits the floor.  With my hand still on the hilt I say, 'We will be entering this establishment without further interference'," then hells yeah you can use your Cool!  And if it is your Cool that's highlighted, then mark experience because you actually did something Cool.

What stat highlighting means to me is not that someone wants to see you do a certain thing, but rather that they want to see you be a certain way.  They want to see that aspect of your character.  By highlighting your Cool, they want to see how you rise above stress, how you are graceful under pressure, or how you impress people.  By highlighting your Hard, they want to see you be aggressive or strong-willed.  Hitting your Hot means they want to see you connect with people, to see you as a social animal.  Highlighting your Sharp means they want to see your introspective side, or see you think before you act.  And by pegging your Weird they want to see your spiritual side, want you to reveal just a little bit of your soul.

Right you are!  I think the easiest alteration to convey the idea is to say, "if you are the only member of your crew getting laid, roll+hard..."

I think this makes it more clear, and furthermore answers both questions (do you share or does your partner bring friends).

That said, the idea that the Viking raid leader never shares and is thus always in tension with his crew is an intriguing one.  I'm not sure I'd go that far because I think it penalizes the Viking Special a little too much, but it's certainly an interesting twist.

It's also interesting to consider how this move plays with the special of the other playbooks.  For example, having sex with the battlebabe is "safe" because the Viking special is nullified.  Maybe your crew thinks you're crazy for going there.  And if the Skinner is actually willing to be shared with your crew there's all sorts of potential for disaster and hilarity.

Yes, the game I'm daydreaming about making is.... Shtetl World!

Hahaha.  Nice!  My wife would be all over that.  :)

Coming to this one late, but this is something that screams for a countdown clock.  These kinds of arrangements are always about the process.  There are lengthy and complicated negotiations involving numerous participants, many of which will have been underway long before the potential bride and the groom ever meet.  At any of these steps, things can break down, but once things reach a sort of "critical mass," they're hard to stop.

So maybe it's something like, before 9:00, parties are interested, negotiations are ongoing, the idea is being given weight but no one is committed yet.  Without active participation to advance the pact, both families will entertain other offers and passing time will mean a weakening of the prospects.  In other words, if no one is actively trying to advance it, the countdown clock will tick backwards, much like Harm before 9:00 healing on its own.

After 9:00, however, the negotiations have been largely settled, a good-faith agreement has been made between the families, and preparations are actually underway.  This is when the aroma of inevitability begins to permeate the proceedings, and unless someone is actively trying to stop it, the deed is going to be done whether the bride or groom want it or not.  In other words, Harm after 9:00 gets worse with time.

And after 12:00, it's time to head to the wedding chapel.

Adding even more fun, there could also be additional Threat Clocks representing the proposals of other suitors.  This gives more opportunities for both hilarity and fuckery, as discrediting other suitors becomes an additional aspect to the battle.  And if two PCs are both vying for the same PC/NPC's hand?  Hilarity indeed.

To handle these complicated negotiations, you might have some custom moves like:

Gifts Befitting a Blushing Bride
When you give gifts to the family of the bride, roll+barter (up to N barter may be spent this way).
10+: The bride's family is greatly impressed.  Advance the countdown clock by one tick, and take +1 forward on your next interaction with the bride's family.
7-9: The bride's family is duly impressed, but there's a complication.  Advance the countdown clock by one tick, and choose 1:

• The bride's family lets it drop that there's another offer on the table.  Create a new Threat Countdown representing this alternate merger and set it at 3:00.
• The family likes the gifts, but can't help comparing them to the gifts brought by the family of suitor X.  Advance suitor X's Threat Countdown by one tick.
• One of the bride's relatives takes an instant and intense dislike to a member of the groom's family, and begins trying to put on the brakes.  Take -1 ongoing to all future negotiations with the bride's family.
• Perhaps all is not as it seems.  Some member of the bride's family lets something slip that indicates that perhaps she is not quite the catch she has been talked up to be.  The bride's "Eligibility" score goes down by one.

6-: The bride's family is insulted.  Maybe they feel like the amount was not commensurate with what their daughter is worth, maybe they just didn't like the gifts themselves.  Or maybe they're just looking for an excuse because they've had a better offer.  Either way, pull the countdown clock back two steps.  If this drops it to 0:00 or earlier, this window has closed irrevocably.

First Impressions
The first time the bride and groom meet, roll+Hot.
10+: The bride thinks you're a smoking hottie and stops (or at least greatly slows) throwing tantrums to daddy about not wanting to get married.  Advance the countdown clock by one tick and take +1 forward to your next interaction with the bride herself.
7-9: The bride thinks you're decent looking, but isn't blown off her feet.  Advance the countdown clock by one tick and choose 1:

• The bride's chaperone doesn't like the look of you.  Take -1 forward to your next interaction with the bride where the chaperone is present.
• The bride isn't all that impressed with you, but the bride's little sister is completely smitten, to the point that she's on you every chance she gets.  Any time you are doing anything in the presence of the bride's family, you are Acting Under Fire as you try to keep the little minx's lascivious attempts to get at you from being discovered.
• The bride likes you but doesn't find you as attractive as suitor X.  Advance suitor X's Threat Countdown by one tick.
• Turns out those pictures of the bride were pretty well-doctored "glamor shots."  She's not nearly as attractive in person.  Reduce her "Eligibility" score by one.

6-: The bride finds you revolting.  Maybe she really doesn't like your manly unibrow.  Maybe she doesn't like tall men.  Maybe she doesn't like men.  Either way, she has threatened to throw herself out the window in the tallest tower if forced to marry you.  Daddy still remains resolute that this is a good match, so while your countdown clock is safe, take -2 ongoing on all future interactions with the bride-to-be.  Yeah, she hates the look of you that much.

Matchmaker/Homewrecker
Any time you undertake negotiations on behalf a suitor (or a smear campaign against one), roll+Sharp.
10+: You make your case convincingly.  Advance the countdown clock of the suitor in question by one tick in the direction you desire.  Additionally, your arguments are so well-stated that you may advance the countdown clock of another suitor in the opposite direction.
7-9: Pick 2:

• You are well spoken and the family seems receptive to your ideas.  Advance the countdown clock of the suitor in question by one tick in the direction you desire.
• You are treated as a valuable source of information by the bride's family.  Take +1 forward with them in your next interaction.
• You don't have to lie through your teeth to get what you want.

6-: The bride's family sees you as either an intrusive busybody or a bitter harridan.  The countdown clock of the suitor in question goes one tick in the direction opposite to what you intend.

Throw a Tantrum
You rave like a lunatic, throw things, break stuff, behave badly at social functions, and generally make a pest of yourself.  Once per session or after a suitable amount of downtime has passed, you may roll+Hard.
10+: In an effort to get a little bit of peace in their household, the family relents and agrees to take a step back from the negotiations.  You may pull back the countdown clock of a single suitor of your choice by one tick.
7-9: Your parents offer you the kind of choice that parents tend to offer - pick one:

• Pull back the countdown clock of a suitor of your choice but take -1 ongoing with your family whenever marriage negotiations are concerned
• Suck it up and mark experience

6-: Your parents have had enough of your shit.  Now they just want you gone, and the sooner the better.  Advance the countdown clock of the suitor who is the front runner by one tick.  In the event of a tie, use the suitor with the highest "Eligibility" score.

Any of the above described moves could have an Advanced Form: on a 12+, the desired change in countdown clock is doubled, or two clocks may be moved.  Plus also, it would be awesome to have a character who had Advanced Throw a Tantrum.  ;)

And certainly some of the basic moves work too, particularly things like Seduce or Manipulate.  The actual mechanical effects might be more nebulous to adjudicate, but at some level it's all about positioning the characters within the fiction in order to set up the next move.  So as a suitor who has attracted the unwanted attentions of the bride's hussy of a little sister, I could roll a Seduce or Manipulate on my buddy Sergio to be my wingman at the big feast the bride's parents are throwing and keep that little minx occupied (meaning I wouldn't have to Act Under Fire as described above).  I could even drop him 1-barter to hit the 10+ without having to roll.  "Seriously, Sergio, I'll even outfit you with luxe new threads for the party.  But I need you, man."  And if Sergio is a PC, well, it's his choice and further hilarity will ensue.

For "Eligibility," I'd rank it from -3 to +3 (with a -1,0,+1 value for each of wealth/prospects, beauty/temperament, and breeding) and subtract this from any rolls for negotiation.  The thinking behind this is that highly eligible brides or grooms will have lots of offers to choose from, whereas the families of less desirable candidates will be much more willing to get them married off with less hassle or haggling.  Even for something like a First Impressions move would use this - after all a rich, beautiful girl from an important family has seen lots of pretty-boys come and go.

Alternately (or additionally), you could use the combination (probably the difference) of the bride and groom's Eligibilty scores as the negotiation modifier.  So a suitor with +3 Eligibility isn't penalized for trying to land a girl with a +3 Eligibility, but a suitor with a -3 Eligibility is going to need a miracle to make that match happen.  And if a family with a +3 child wants (for whatever crazy reason) to marrying that child off to a -3 suitor, that shit should be super easy (i.e. taking +6 to the rolls) because the parents of the less eligible partner are thanking their lucky stars their child is getting married off at all.

And for the next generation, maybe the children's base Eligibility will be that of the average of the parents.  I mean, it's always in peoples' best interests to marry up, right?  So after the PCs manage to arrange marriages for themselves and start having kids, they'll start haggling to advance the prospects for their children (and subsequent generations).

Obviously this is written from the AW perspective (using terms such as barter and attributes like Hot or Hard or Sharp), but I think it gets the point across.  But I think the idea of a process of negotiations is interesting.  it certainly gives plenty of opportunities for things to go badly, for other suitors to pop up as Threats, and for the whole process to feel like a giant, organic, delicate social process, which is what I've always imagined an arranged marriage to be.

Is this at all useful to you?