Failed Parley = Defy Danger?

I'm having a little trouble grasping "If they refuse, it's defying danger".

What does that mean?  They have to defy danger in order to refuse?  Or is it something else?  For that matter, what's the "danger" supposed to be in a typical PC on PC parley?  Is the "danger" that they agree to the terms anyway?

Any insight would be helpful.

Hi Ludanto!
Sage says:

Danger, here, is anything that requires resilience, concentration, or poise. This move will usually be called for by the GM. She’ll tell you what the danger is as you make the move

So make it relevant in the context of the parley and the situation and the setting at the time of the refusal.

He also says that:

You know you’re using Parley when you’re trying to get someone to do something for you by holding a promise or threat over them. Nice or not, the tone doesn’t matter

So in the rare case that a PC is Parleying with another PC, make sure you identify the leverage, the threat. Make it explicit and concrete and irrevocable. The Defy Danger move is very adaptable, and can be based on any stat depending on the fictional requirements remember?

One of the simplest custom moves you can write is one that causes you to defy a certain type of danger with another stat. Most dangers can be overcome with quick feet and agility but you’ll encounter dangers to be defied by your strength of will or bodily fortitude, too.

'So I have the thief pinned with my sword against his throat? I use my incredible charisma and substantial positional advantage to suggest in a gravelly tone that despite him being in our group of rag tag adventurers, unless he gives up the gems he stole from me while I wasn't looking, I'll slit his measly little neck.' - So the danger being defied is the possibility of the theif's throat being slit. Ouch.

Or perhaps the fighter has the thief in a heated accusation about the gems and he says...
'Well, fine! If you don't give me the gems back, I'm gonna spill the beans on your little 'dalliance' with High Wizard's Daughter last session to the Archmage himself! He said he'd turn anyone who seduces her into a toad! Are the jewels worth that?!' - So the danger here could be a number of things. The Archmage's reaction if the fighter tells him, the daughter's reaction if she finds out, the possibility of the adventurer's being hounded by the wizard's guild.

Whatever. The source of the danger is deeply embedded in the parley. Drag it out into the open, ask the player if they really want to refuse in the light of that threat, that danger.  Does the PC still want to refuse the request despite the leverage? Then on a successful roll by the manipulating PC will cause the manipulated PC make a 'defy the danger' prior to any other move if the leverage has the potential of causing an issue.

So in the ist example the theif has to make a DEX or maybe STR based defy danger roll to avoid having the fighter's damage being dealt.

In the 2nd instance, the thief would have to defy danger once they returned the captured daughter to her father, perhaps based on CHA this time.

Its a fairly flexible move. Just make the consequences explicit. If the PCs still won't back down, Roll for it and start a moves snowball! Fun!

I'm having a little trouble grasping "If they refuse, it's defying danger".

What does that mean?  

If they don't want do it, they need to make with the defy danger move. On a 10+ it's no problem. On a 7-9 they stumble, hesitate or flinch and the GM offers them a worse outcome.

Hey, thanks for the reply.

I'm still not entirely clear, because some of that is less than intuitive.

So, the Fighter pins and threatens the Thief, demanding the gems, and on a hit picks "It's Defying Danger", the Thief wants to refuse, and rolls (per Defy Danger):

• 10+:  "Screw you!" *dodge*
• 7-9:  "Screw you!" *get stabbed* (worse outcome, for example)
• Miss: "GULP! Here!" (failure to refuse) + (whatever GM move)

Yes?

Sure. But that's not the only way to do it. On a 7-9 the GM could offer other worse choices, depending on context. Lose your footing, leave something behind, expose yourself to danger). And on a miss, the GM has all of his moves available.

It's a little weird.

Maybe it's because the Thief in this case is attempting to successfully "not do" something.

If the Fighter threatens to punch the Thief's mom tomorrow, what is the Thief going to do?  The mother-pummeling isn't a "danger" that can be "defied".  There's no "Defy Danger" roll that will stop the Fighter from going to the mother's house and slugging her in the face.  The Fighter has free will, and the Thief might not even be in town tomorrow.  Or the Fighter might change his mind.  And all of this is made weirder by the fact that the other PC is the opposition.

Or, consider "Charm Person".  If you resist, you "Defy Danger", but what danger?  The only "danger" is that you give in to the spell.  Or consider a trap.  The "danger" of avoiding the trap is that the trap works.  Maybe the "danger" of resisting a Parley is simply that the threat works, forcing you to capitulate.

I don't know.

Then give me the diamond or I'll punch your mom tomorrow isn't a move. But maybe it is, if the Thief is concerned about having a big bad fighter out to hurt his mother.

The Parley rule stipulates that they have leverage, something you want. Something you want right now is implied.

The danger is that they will use their leverage. The leverage in your mom punching scenario isn't the actual punching...that's something in the future. The leverage is that if he doesn't give you the diamond, his mom is now under threat. Maybe he doesn't want his mom under that kind of threat.

In Charm Person, the danger is that someone will control you and make you do something you don't want to do.

Danger does not equal harm. And a 7-9 means the GM offers you a worse choice, doesn't mean your mom gets punched. It means you get choice that's worse than just walking off with the diamonds scott free. And a Miss doesn't mean your mom gets punched either. It means the GM gets to make as hard a move as he wants.

At least in AW, the Act under Fire roll is not to decide if you can refuse or not. The thief can refuse or not as his player wishes. The Act under fire comes to life when he actually does something that is contrary to the wishes of the fighter: try to run away for example.

This is the time when a Defy danger roll is necessary. This is when the images of his mom being beaten up appears in front of his inner eyes, as if it is happening right now. He might get distracted, he hesitates, gives away his intention to run or something similar. In this case, the fighter probably gets the initiative, that's wha this move is good for.

So the "danger" is not that the leverage comes true: it is that you worry about the leverage and it causes all kinds of concerns and hesitation in you.

Now, I am not familiar with the wording and the actual rules of Dungeon World, but this is how it's supposed to work in AW.

My original instinct is to say that "Give me the diamonds or I punch your mother tomorrow" isn't a move. On a 10+ nothing was resolved. The thief still has the diamonds, the fighter is still threatening the mother, but doesn't actually have the mother. There doesn't seem to be a move there.

On further reflection, I see this: On a 10+ the thief is free to act as he or she wants without regard to the threat. On a 7-9, the threat makes the thief hesitate, flinch or stumble. The MC offers up a choice, act as you want but with a consequence. On a miss, the MC makes a move.

So, as Way points out above, it works fine. It just has nothing to do with resolving the mother punching. Its about the threat and its effect on the Thief.

Thanks.

Hopefully, you can see why this is fuzzy, and I think some of the previous examples made it worse.

A better example:

"Give me the gems, or I tell the other PCs about the time you tried to kill them."

The Thief doesn't want that, but Defy Danger isn't going to make the Fighter not do it.  That's not a danger that the Thief can defy.

So, maybe the danger is simply the threat itself?  Not the execution of it, just the actual ultimatum.  Much like the danger of running across the icy floor isn't "falling", but actually "the icy floor"?  That doesn't leave much meat to hang hard choices or moves upon, though.

There's also a conflicting assumption that a "miss" doesn't mean failure, but only a GM move.  Like, "Yes, you refuse, but this bad thing happens."  But, by that same token, Hack and Slash would be "Yes, you do damage, but this bad thing happens", which isn't how it (usually) works.

Of course, Parley isn't supposed to be mind control, either.  Very messy.

Basically, "if there weren't things to go wrong, nobody'd be rolling dice", and I feel like this falls into that area.

Of course, Way's post makes a good point, kind of.  "Refusal" is just talking, but perhaps "Defy Danger" refers to a more active opposition.

The whole "punch your mother tomorrow" thing is just as much a move as "I'll give you this ring".  You don't actually have to mean it or even do it.  It's all promises anyway.

Ludanto, my revision may have cross posted with you.

So it did.

I'm still a little uncomfortable, but I feel a bit better about it, at least.

So, in your "give me the gems or I'll spill the beans" scenario. We need to back up.

The fighter says "give me the gems or I'll spill the beans." The thief doesn't want to give him the gems. That stuff happens in the fiction.

If this is a move and the fighter selects "do it or defy danger." The thief can defy danger or not, up to him. If he defies danger, he doesn't have to give the fighter anything. If he gives the fighter the gems, the fighter is perfectly free to spill the beans anyway.

The only thing that the Defy Danger mechanic decides is does the threat impact the narrative. Does the thief flinch? Or does something else happen to him, at the MC's whim (guided by the principals). The mechanics don't control whether the thief gives up the diamonds or whether the fighter tells.

So, the thief now has a fighter who is willing and able to divulge his secret and who wants the gems. The question is not really one of mechanics, it's "what does the thief do now?"

That's what it looks like.  My main issue is that the "danger" is all so internal that I don't know what the "flinching, hesitating" Thief means, or what GM move would "logically follow" that exchange in the event of a miss.

Its very hard to figure that out in a hypothetical situation.