I miss Going Aggro and Manipulate

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.

Quote from: Scrape on March 11, 2014, 10:36:56 PM

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.