Seduce

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.