Seduce

Mike and I are chatting it up about this.

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.

The above is important. It means that this isn't two rules. There's no real seduction, in the sexual sense, for the sake of sex. It's all manipulation, offering something for something, with the caveat that the something in either case may be sex.

The promise the NPC asks for should directly address the
leverage the player’s character is using. The leverage is sex?
The promise should be sexual. The leverage is violence? “Just
promise you won’t hurt me.”

Here it is. There must be a promise, as stated in the rule.

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.

Yeah. So this:

...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."

...isn't really true, as such.

When you manipulate, tell them what you want.

The leverage comes as part of the manipulation; that's what manipulation means. Then comes the telling of what you want. On a 10, they WILL tell you how to make this possible.

They ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise.

Very clear. "They... do it if you promise."

Intentional by Baker or not, I like this as written, because it suggests that nothing is totally off limits. There's an offer, with the manipulate and then the telling, and then there's a counter offer, in the same move. Two points of negotiation: the initial leverage and the possible counteroffer.

And maybe they don't want to do it. Maybe Balls doesn't want to kill his grandmother.

Extreme example, but to that: contextually, if it wasn't possible, why is it being asked? Why are people approaching Balls to ask him to kill his grandmother? Is it arbitrary? Then someone isn't playing the game with everyone else.

And it further suggests that EVERYTHING is on sale, which is something I like.

Chris, you're making a lot of sense. But I think the bit that says "Before you even get to rolling, you need some leverage" is pretty important. Implicit or explicit, we have to know what your leverage is before you roll the dice. You can't roll up to Balls, ask him to kill Dremmer, and then wait for him to tell you what it will take, right?

Otherwise there's nothing stopping Balls from asking you to promise something you can't possibly give, and then the move is useless.

You start from a position of "here's what I'm willing to give" and the MC starts with "That might be worth enough", and then the move sorts out the specifics, i.e can you make that attractive enough to them that they'll do what you want for it?

Quote

The promise the NPC asks for should directly address the
leverage the player’s character is using. The leverage is sex?
The promise should be sexual. The leverage is violence? “Just
promise you won’t hurt me.”

Here it is. There must be a promise, as stated in the rule.

Quote from: Paul T. on January 26, 2011, 04:27:50 PM

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.

Yeah. So this:

Quote from: Paul T. on January 26, 2011, 04:27:50 PM

...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."

...isn't really true, as such.

It's kind of true. I mean, the leverage has to be leverage. If we're deciding it up-front, then it must count as leverage for the manipulate to even kick in right?

Also, "they can ask you to promise something else" doesn't make much sense considering the example: the leverage is sex? the promise must be sexual.

So, this 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."

From earlier is an invalid response (ask a promise) from the MC right?

The PC offered sex as leverage, and if June isn't interested, there shoudn't even be a roll right?

It should go:

"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?"

No Roll.

"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."

Chris, you're making a lot of sense. But I think the bit that says "Before you even get to rolling, you need some leverage" is pretty important. Implicit or explicit, we have to know what your leverage is before you roll the dice. You can't roll up to Balls, ask him to kill Dremmer, and then wait for him to tell you what it will take, right?

Yeah. Do it to do it. It's not "When you tell someone what you want". It's "When you manipulate". So do that, sure. Don't pop out of a barrel with "Hey, how about you get me some kid fingers!" When you manipulate....

My objection is when the leverage becomes an out-of-fiction thing. Too much focus on the leverage and we're not doing it to do it.

We're saying "Blah, blah, blah, and my leverage, people I'm at the table with, my leverage is this" "Well, that might be leverage, let me look at my principles and Balls's threat type.....    ....   I guess that's okay." No, get enough to say "Hey, I am manipulating" and move into the move, letting it do the heavy work/thinking part.

Whenever possible, I have the bearded RPG Yoda do my gaming thinking for me. :)

Fair call, Chris.

In my first few sessions of AW, I think this happened a lot, when the players and I were both getting our heads around the move. We'd go to out-of-character "My leverage is X" "Well, I don't think they really want X, so it's not a move".

I can remember a few times where I outright said "I'm being a dick. You're offering something she might want, let's see if it's enough" and roll the dice. I also remember a few times where I said "Manipulate is not mind control. You can't just make people do what you want".

Now we're all much more on the same page about what people might want or not want, and what counts as leverage, and it flows more smoothly, I think.

Also, "they can ask you to promise something else" doesn't make much sense considering the example: the leverage is sex? the promise must be sexual.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I don't play that way, just because one line is like "BTW, the promise must match the original manipulation". There are two points of negotiation going on, like I said.

This:

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.

... is too convoluted and MC-centric. I'm never going to say that they don't have leverage anyway. It just turns into a game of "fishing for the right thing that will appease the MC's idea of whatever keep AW real means to them."

It's just not worth the headache. If they are doing something can be reasonably considered manipulating, then go into the move. Fuck it. It works great like that without getting into some territory I don't want to get into as the MC, namely deciding pre-move if a move will work or not.

It would be a guessing game if you couldn't directly ask "How can I get you to..." on a 7-9 on Read a Person.

What principles do you use to decide what the NPC asks for?

This:

Quote from: Michael Pfaff on January 26, 2011, 04:45:32 PM

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.

... is too convoluted and MC-centric.

That wording is just basically how the rule works. That's not the simple version of it. That's just exactly how it works in the game as we've discussed.

Or, in other words, if this wording is MC-centric, then the current version is entirely MC-centric because that's exactly the process used (well, except when you are the MC, then the leverage mustn't concern the promise).

I'm never going to say that they don't have leverage anyway. It just turns into a game of "fishing for the right thing that will appease the MC's idea of whatever keep AW real means to them."

It's just not worth the headache. If they are doing something can be reasonably considered manipulating, then go into the move. Fuck it. It works great like that without getting into some territory I don't want to get into as the MC, namely deciding pre-move if a move will work or not.

Right. You just wouldn't call for the move, like it says in the book: Absent leverage, they’re just talking...

But, you're still making a judgment call whether they have leverage or not in the first place when you call (or do not call) for the move.

It would be a guessing game if you couldn't directly ask "How can I get you to..." on a 7-9 on Read a Person.

Yeah, but now I'm asking them to read everyone they plan to manipulate.

What principles do you use to decide what the NPC asks for?

Yeah, I'm feeling what you're laying down. My argument is a sort of regression. But again, it doesn't solve my larger issue, which is that I'm usually only comfortable when I'm disclaiming decision making. So I'm fine with saying that Balls wants a new sniper rifle. We know that Balls fucking loves sniper rifles. But I'm not fine with saying what another player thinks is leverage isn't.

This could just be a me thing.

Well, you're still making a judgment call about leverage if you decide he wants the sniper rifle and not sex, right? Like, 'sex is leverage, so you're manipulating, roll' but then, 'sex is not leverage, because she wants this sniper rifle instead...'

You're still determing what is leverage when you counter-offer with something that does't directly relate to the leverage (sex/promise of something sexual).

Why not skip the rolling in the first place and just have the NPC come right out? "Nah, sex with you is no good. I might do it for a sniper rifle."

Why not skip the rolling in the first place and just have the NPC come right out? "Nah, sex with you is no good. I might do it for a sniper rifle."

And then roll for that? With my way, it would have happened in the roll. Same outcome. Nah, this argument is a regression, too. Neither of us are on it.

But you;re right about the judgement call. I guess it feels different, one being in play, with the back and forth and the other being a sort of above board thing. Like I don't worry about what to say as an NPC. But I hate games where the GM sets a target number.

I don't know. Must be a me thing.

Another thought:

What if the NPC asks the PC to promise something, directly addressing the leverage, but ups the ante?

"I'll give you sex if you fix my ride." Leverage + Tell them what you want.
"I want sex from both you and June." Ask you to promise something first.

How do you feel about that?

Quote from: Simon C on January 26, 2011, 08:06:18 PM

What principles do you use to decide what the NPC asks for?

So I'm fine with saying that Balls wants a new sniper rifle. We know that Balls fucking loves sniper rifles. But I'm not fine with saying what another player thinks is leverage isn't.

I think here, you need to go back to the MC principles and moves.

Okay, so Balls loves sniper rifles, and a PC offers him some tasty fresh food - how do you decide?

Look at the moves, find one that fits what's happening now: like maybe (make them buy) Balls doesn't care about his next meal right now, but he sure wants some new bullets.

That might be not exactly what you're saying - if your point is, a PC comes up and says "Well we know Balls likes *this* so I'm going to offer it" and you don't want to shut that down... that seems fine to me. I certainly wouldn't deny it unless we'd previously established something different.

Why not skip the rolling in the first place and just have the NPC come right out? "Nah, sex with you is no good. I might do it for a sniper rifle."

That "might" seems to be the key to me. If a PC seduces or manipulates and gets a hit, the NPC does what they agreed, no wiggling.

On the other hand, maybe it isn't the move. I've certainly had players say "I tell Roark 'Look, I need someone to take care of Exit for me'" and they're getting ready to bargain and roll the dice, but I already know Roark's just been waiting for an excuse to kill Exit. So, no move required, and Roark happily goes off to murder.

In my first few sessions of AW, I think this happened a lot, when the players and I were both getting our heads around the move. We'd go to out-of-character "My leverage is X" "Well, I don't think they really want X, so it's not a move".

This is my issue. Mike, you remember when I first had a problem with it, back in the Poppy/Hotrod game? We were doing this. So it might just be a misdirect thing. Because I want them to do it to do it. They have to manipulate. But I don't want the leverage being negotiated like a stake and I don't want it to be named.

On the other hand, maybe it isn't the move. I've certainly had players say "I tell Roark 'Look, I need someone to take care of Exit for me'" and they're getting ready to bargain and roll the dice, but I already know Roark's just been waiting for an excuse to kill Exit. So, no move required, and Roark happily goes off to murder.

YES. See, I ONLY ask for a manipulate if they wouldn't already do it. So having me make sure that they WOULD do it before asking for a roll seems ... pointless.

Simon and Mike seems to be advocating a middle ground thing: if the NPC kinda maybe would do it, then we roll. If they wouldn't, then it's not leverage. If they would, then there's no roll. But when we're in that baby bear range, THEN we roll.

But I play my NPCs fairly straight.

I can see that you don't want to talk about leverage explicitly, but that's still got to come into the game somehow. A PC manipulating or seducing has got to be saying something to the target, right? If a player tells me "I want Balls to do this thing and my leverage is sex" I'm not going to ask them to roll, I'm going to say "Okay, so I guess you are going to find Balls. What do you say to him?"

I don't think the fact that sometimes you might not roll for the effect really matters - the move seems to be exactly for the cases when maybe they'll do it and maybe they won't and perhaps the price isn't clear.