Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate

  • 12 Replies
  • 6134 Views
Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« on: August 06, 2012, 03:43:45 PM »
I have found in the games I have run (mostly store or convention one-shot pick-ups) difficulty in adjudicating situations when two PCs are trying to convince one another to do something.

Here's a truncated "Actual Play":

So the Chopper is trying to get his gang organized after a drunken party (and a botched Pack Alpha roll) to sack this caravan. However, the caravan is being guarded by the Gunlugger.

Some shots were fired, and the Chopper's gang is mostly dead and in disarray, but the Gunlugger and Chopper are friends, so they sit down to negotiate.

What followed was a half-an-hour if-you-do-this, I'll-do-this back and forth, where neither would agree to the other's terms, but would add one more conditional instead. Like the Gunlugger wanted to hire the Chopper and his surviving gang to protect the caravan. But the Chopper would only do that if the Gunlugger recruited replacement members. But the Gunlugger said he couldn't do that right now because he's contracted with the caravan, etc.

I normally let PCs negotiate between themselves before rolling, but I'm thinking I'm "doing it wrong" both in this case and with Apocalypse World in general.

I can break down all of the other moves into actionable bits, but with seduce/manipulate between PCs, I instinctually let it drag out until it's this tangled mess.

I'm thinking that I should have simply asked the Gunlugger to roll seduce/manipulate with the Chopper rolling Hx to interfere right away? And then, based on the way the rolls fall, have the Chopper do the same back for his conditional?

Any thoughts/advice?

Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2012, 07:01:30 PM »
I would say you want to roll Seduce/Manipulation when a request is made emotionally appealing.

Example: If the Gunlugger offers the Chopper some Barter to do the job right now, that's not even Manipulation, that's giving someone Barter with strings attached, which is almost always better (Automatic 10+) Because even socially stunted weirdos can make people's eye waters with a sack of dough (Actual sack, actual dough)

If he doesn't offer the barter like that (If I was playing, I would be all "OFFER THE BARTER! OFFER THE BARTER!") MAYBE any part of the negotiation is Manipulation, MAYBE any part of it isn't. If someone is like "Hey would you like a job at my compound" That isn't manipulation. If someone is like "Hey do you want to be a ROCKSTAR overlord at my LAST BASTION OF CIVILIZATION that is filled with DELIGHTFUL MALE ESCORTS. We have a CHOCOLATE FOUNTAIN" than that is manipulation.

You should also consider prompting people to make Sharp roll to Read a Person and figure out How To Get Them To Do What You Want.

But at the same time, the Moves can't cover all situations where you think people are dragging a scene's length. Sometimes people are just doing things that aren't Moves for a long time (Like *Possibly* in this case). In that case, you've got to cut scenes around to make sure everyone gets adequate time and the interesting parts are moved to (But be respectful, and keep in mind that this could be the interesting parts for that player.)

Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2012, 10:40:59 PM »
You should also consider prompting people to make Sharp roll to Read a Person and figure out How To Get Them To Do What You Want.

This in particular seems like good advice for advancing the scene, since that's basically "what do I need to offer to make a manipulate roll?" mechanically. It's also very put-up-or-shut-up fictionally and metafictionally, since you're putting the question directly to the player, and they have to be honest.

*

noclue

  • 609
Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2012, 02:02:52 AM »
Yup. If they're not interested in seducing or manipulating, go for the Read a Person. "How can I get you to do X...." works a charm.

Of course, if they're enjoying all the back and forth jibber jabber, there's nothing wrong with that, I guess. The GM should feel free to announce some future badness.
James R.

    "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
     --HERBERT SPENCER

Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2012, 11:22:19 AM »
In that case, I'd tell them they could make their manipulate roll whenever they wanted to and help or interfere as they saw fit.  And I'd let them negotiate.  If it went long, I'd turn to another player and start a scene with them and let the other  two keep at it until something outside interfered.

Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2012, 05:34:56 PM »
Remember that Seduce/Manipulate requires leverage.  Thats what Read a Person gets you: you learn what leverage you will need to offer.

Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2012, 07:31:29 PM »
You don't leverage with PC vs PC seduce/manipulate rolls. You only need leverage when dealing with an NPC.

*

noclue

  • 609
Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2012, 10:23:25 PM »
Page reference for that. To me, the rules are pretty clear that without leverage you're just talking.

Quote
Asking someone straight to do something isn't trying to seduce or manipulate them. To seduce or manipulate, the character needs leverage — sex, or a threat, or a promise, something that the manipulator can really do that the victim really wants or really doesn't want. Page 199.
James R.

    "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
     --HERBERT SPENCER

Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2012, 07:17:59 PM »
No page reference off the top of my head, but how about this thread with lumpley's reply?

http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=1565.0

Also, the examples in the book (with Bran and Keeler confessing love, or not, to each other) have no mention of leverage.

Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2012, 10:54:54 AM »
I think the intent is that the promise of XP and threat of having to Act under Fire counts as leverage - so for PCs you don't really need anything else. "If you like me back, mark experience."

Though the second Bran/Keeler interaction does have Bran offering Keeler a shot at a relationship, maybe, if she gets him what he wants - that's leverage too, given that he knows she likes him.

EDIT - or I could have read the link above, of course, and seen the answer.

*

noclue

  • 609
Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2012, 03:24:00 AM »
Interesting. You're right, it's hard to argue that like me back and mark experience is leverage.
James R.

    "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
     --HERBERT SPENCER

*

noclue

  • 609
Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2012, 05:17:21 AM »
Interesting. You're right, it's hard to argue that like me back and mark experience is leverage.
Actually, I think I've been out of high school too long. I like you. Do you like me back? Is chock full of social pressure, i.e. leverage.
James R.

    "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
     --HERBERT SPENCER

Re: Handling PC versus PC seduce/manipulate
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2012, 12:14:33 AM »
Yes, I think the move generally implies that the PCs are important enough people -- to each other, to the community, to the world in general -- that their social desire/will/what-have-you counts as leverage by itself, at least when it comes to interacting among themselves. Hx scores suggest the same thing.

The Gunlugger may not care if rando NPC hardholder Fucknuts decides they suck, but when it's the Angel's potential friendship -- or at least, respect and/or future assistance -- on the line, suddenly they need to pay a little more attention. They have more to gain and more to lose (and sometimes both) from that relationship.