When the Hocus doesn't believe

Ok, so I'm running a game right now, and I've got someone running a Hocus, Silver, who does not believe any of what she's preaching.  Which is fine, I can totally see that, I've seen TV.  But my problem is specifically the Frenzy move, specifically: "When you speak truth to the masses."

So I interpret that as the truth of your faith, what your character believes to be true.  But in this case, what Silver believes to be true is not what she preaches.  So when she's used this move, she's preached... resonableness.  Rationality.  It just didn't jibe.  But it's what her character believes is "The truth."  but but but... You're standing in the middle of the Angel's overcrowded infirmary supported by one of your followers (who you are very much lying to) barely conscious.  You get up on the table, face the mob of well-armed guys who have come to hunt out and kill your cult members because they've been running wild over the hold messing with everyone's shit.

And then you preach that Raf (the Angel) is overworked, we're messing with his shit, and you guys are coming in here with guns ablaze killing more, you should give up your stuff and go away.  I'm oversimplifying, but... it just didn't really work for me.

My problem here is that mechanically, she got a full hit.  As the MC, I want to respect the players right to fully play her character.  But this just felt WEAK.  I think what I did to make it work worked, but it still felt really unsatisfying.

I don't know.  what are peoples thoughts about Hocus' who don't really believe?  Especially if they have things like Augury?  It's really the only big sticking point I have in the game, and while it's been getting better I'm still wrestling with it.

(I fully intend to make my problems hers, by the way:  If I'm dissatisfied with it, I bet for sure some of her followers are as well.)

 Using 'Frenzy' to take control of a group of people and get them to leave you alone seems totally workable - "these are not the 'droids you are looking for..." Talking someone down can be really intense, -especially- if you don't believe it yourself! Did the player find it weak? Because if so, then the two of you might be able to figure out a way to handle it differently next time. If not, if the player was fully engaged and didn't find it weak, then just let it roll.

The question of belief is more interesting, and I think letting it rise as an issue between the PC and NPC followers is a great opening for not-boring!

I think the question is whether the fictional trigger of "When you tell the truth" is literal or not. I think it could be really interesting either way.

Yeah, opinions, I don't know. "When you tell your opinion to a crowd" is a totally different move.

yeah, it's causing me some flux.  Augury tends not to be a problem:  Most of the weird can be explained as "That's just how this world works, and your just saying it has to do with the religion."  My problems are still coming from just not getting the cult:  What they've been promised, what they expect, what they need.  And it's hard to take frenzy as anything but that, whipping people up in to a frenzy.  I guess this really is just a thing with me:  What was said in the example I gave didn't feel convincing to me, it wasn't impassioned enough.  I'll have to see how that plays out.

But I'm looking forward to seeing what happens next.  But Chris is totally right:  When you say "speak the truth to a mob" do you mean the truth of what you believe, or truth as you have presented it?  What's the leeway for the twofaced hocus?

I'm pretty sure it means the truth, regardless what the hocus believes or doesn't believe. The crowd has to recognize and respond to the truth in it.

I'm pretty sure it means the truth, regardless what the hocus believes or doesn't believe. The crowd has to recognize and respond to the truth in it.

That's... hrmm.  Something that I hadn't thought about.  I had been thinking about how this is one of those moves where the player gets to inject some "truth" in to the game, but recognizing the truth for what it is... hrm. 

So now I'm thinking about the "to do it, do it" thing.  When the player says "I'm going to use frenzy" she is then saying that everything said during the following bit is "the truth."  And when Silver finds herself in front of a crowd explaining things, and she's speaking the truth, then she's using the frenzy move.  This second bit is where my brain tends to flinch, but I've always been more yang than yin.  Hrm.

So now I think about the mechanics of the move:  It's a hold-and-spend move.  Let's say she's speaking to the crowd, and then throws in "And you should give me all your stuff because it's real pretty." in order to make them bring forward their valuables.  Everything else jibes, but this one seems kind of throwaway:  I as the DM can't see my guys buying it.  But she spends hold!  so it happens!  This wasn't the actual play in the session, but it's an odd situation.

Anyway, thank you for your feedback.  I'm definitely going to have fun playing this out.

Oh, you don't have to speak truth to spend the hold.

*grin* and with that answer, you clearly point out what's a problem here:  I'm applying judgement to the characters actions, demanding they live up to my standard rather than accepting and encouraging the play of that character. begin the rectification!

But an interesting and very telling point:  You speak the truth and gain hold but  spend it however you wish.    Which also means those listening can react to the spending however seems appropriate.

I don't have a Hocus in the game I'm running, but I think I'd be within my rights to tell the player, "I don't feel the love with that truth, I don't think it's going to get the crowd excited" and let them try again. 

Yeah, my interpretation of this move has always focused on the crowd. To "speak truth" to someone in the way the move implies suggests that it has to be something that they themselves recognize as truthful -- though they could only recognize it suddenly, in that moment, thanks to the Hocus' telling. Often this will be a 'true' truth, some fact of the situation that the Hocus is forcing them to confront or revealing to them; but sometimes it will be a purely subjective or psychological truth that speaks to the crowd on that same level.

So to my mind what the Hocus believes is not actually relevant, because it's not the Hocus' truth that is having the effect -- it's the crowd's truth. It's their truth that is being spoken to, or the truth of their situation, or something about their lives -- if the crowd doesn't care what the Hocus is talking about, then the Hocus isn't speaking truth, and so the Hocus isn't making that move.

 To "speak truth" to someone in the way the move implies suggests that it has to be something that they themselves recognize as truthful.

What Daniel said here - it doesn't have, in my mind, to be "the truth" but it does have to be their truth.

That includes -- especially -- the truth they might wish you didn't say out loud.

Surely it needn't always work that way: "when you speak the truth to a crowd" would include speaking the crowd's truth, but it should also apply when speaking a personal truth, one with no connection or relevance to what they thought their lvies were about.

A Hocus is a fucking wacknut--and that should come with the charisma to impose his personal vision on society.   

Moving personal truth into the realm of universal truth is part of what proselytizing is about, right?  I mean, if you believe in the BLACK VOICE OF THE MAELSTROM and nobody else does, you can start spreading your filthy gospel using the Frenzy move.