I miss Going Aggro and Manipulate

I really like the new Basic Moves, especially Draw Someone Out. But I'm missing that step in between violence and demand; where a player shows that they're serious but gives them a chance to acquiesce. I miss Aggro or Manipulate. Check this out:

Player: "I yell at him: 'you swore fealty to my father! You will not deny me now! Join my cause and maintain your honor."
MC: Are you Claiming Your Right? Sounds like it. Roll Hard."
Player: "Sure, it's an... 11! Bite it! I stare him down, fiery."
MC: "The wayward lord stares right back: 'Times have changed. Lords have changed. I owe nothing to you.' He's calling you out, but you get a +1forward.
Player: "Damnit. I draw steel and hold out my blade, like 'Bend your knee or I'll bend it for you.'
MC: "Are you willing to kill over this?"
Player: "Uhhh, I don't know. Maybe, but I don't want to. I want him to know I'm serious, but I want him alive to lead his men."

...so is there a Move that comes next? I would've previously used Aggro or Manipulate, depending on how far the player is willing to take it. They deserve a roll because they've got that +1forward. What happens next?

You point your sword at him and then you draw him out
"How can i get this character to join my cause"

Which playbook is the player using?

edit: I hear you, Scrape. It's a good example situation. I'll look at it again.

edit 2: But give up hope for seduce/manipulate and go aggro. If I need to, I'll come up with something else.

-Vincent

Something else is totally cool, just expressing my feeeeeeelings.

There may be playbook-specific options, but I'm thinking it's a pretty universal idea. I feel like there's a step between threat and action, a hesitency that's missing. Especially with that +1 from Claim Your Right, and the target's ability to shake you off even on a 10+. It doesn't always go into violence, there's some kind of social pressure in there that comes up.

(I was envisioning the Outlaw Heir, but then just wrote Player because I think the Heir has some fictional weight to pull in this situation that other playbooks may not, and wanted an agnostic view)

You might just be underconsidering the 10+. On a 10+, the other person has to go along with you or else insult you to your face, not shrug you off or stand up to you without meaning offense.

Not just "times have changed," but "times have changed, you're a weakling coward, and if you think I'm committing my good name or my soldiers to your cause, you're a fool."

-Vincent

Wow, I had to look twice to see that you HADN'T written "Outlaw Heir" as the playbook. I think your assumptions really translated there ;)

Anyway, I don't have too much truck for playbook agnostic responses, but sure, Draw Someone Out would probably be my go-to there. It would end up something like:

Player: "Hang on, lemme back that up a shade. I draw my sword letting it hang gripped by my side, narrow my eyes and say, 'If you will not bend to your oaths, there will be war between us. Surely we can find ground before words cannot be taken back.' I'm drawing him out."
MC: Oooh, goody. Do your worst! Roll +hot.

Less agnostic-like, with the Outlaw Heir, maybe she Draw's Them Out, maybe she prays to Her Parents Blood.

Player: "I take out my sword and kneel, setting the point to the ground. I close my eyes and pray, saying to myself, "Mother, guide me. This oathbreaker will not aid me, not with what I have. I must convince him if I'm to have a chance at regaining our lands. Tell me what I must do, and I'll shed no tear until I sit in my rightful hall.'"

Or maybe she simply is a Supplicant.

Player: "After a tense moment with my sword out, I put it back in it's sheath. 'Please, dear lord, these times are unjust and you know it well. Surely you must be have some advice for what I must do, how I can gain your aid?' I'm not begging, but my question demands answer."

The War-Herald my likewise pray, but to the gods of war, loudly and to the sky, in full view of the oathbreaking lord, maybe breaking his sword in offering. Or perhaps he just gestures to his lieutenant and says something like you said, "If you won't bend your knee, I'll have it bent for you. Mharles, have the men kill our kindly lord's troops until such time as he kneels before me. Make sure those who are about to die know why." which maybe triggers Wolfpack, maybe doesn't.

The Wicker Wise just smirks and watches as the lord drinks from his goblet, remembering fondly his moments alone in the kitchens, before mentioning that he has an antidote in exchange for a new oath, "lords change, after all."

The Troll Killer probably just growls before she shouts at him, "You will do as I say! Kneel, and swear on your gods that you'll follow me into the gates of hell should I ask, or your blood will run through these halls," before rolling +hard on her Commanding Presence. I'd like to see the lord who freezes or backs away in his own hall, poor sot.

The Dragon Herald, as far as I'm concerned, just says something to the degree of, "Do be careful. When the dragons come for those of the blood of eagles, you will want me to speak on your behalf I'm sure," before dropping the mic and walking out. Maybe just after using The Sight to customize that threat to the lord's greatest fears and sins.

That's legit. I guess it seemed a little like they were still able to ignore your claim. Maybe it might help if the trigger was a little more "make a claim you're prepared to back up"? I was mulling it over and thinking to myself, what if it's not triggered until the player implies repercussions? This might be in the wording of the move, or just made clear in the book and applied at the table. So, like:

Player: "I ask him to swear fealty."
MC: "he's all, 'sorry kid.'
Player: "I pull out my sword and demand it."
MC: "ahhh, you're Claiming Your Rights? Roll away..."

Maybe I was jumping the gun on the trigger? Maybe it doesn't happen unless the character is serious serious.

Nah, I don't really think it's so much about winning your right so much as putting someone else in the position of either giving you what's rightfully yours or straight up denouncing you and all you stand for ( or at least a good chunk of it). It lays allegiances bare and allows for no equivocation. You're forcing someone to either declare themself your ally or your enemy, with no wiggle room. That's a damned powerful 10+ as far as I'm concerned. That's a win. Maybe an uncomfortable one, but a win.

I don't have a problem with Claim Your Rights; in fact I really like it. This is about me missing Go Aggro and Manipulate, and trying to see of Claim works for those cases. If it doesn't, then I'm curious what to do when a player uses leverage or threats to get what they want, or when they make a demand but aren't going full-on battle with it. Know what I mean?

I don't want to necessarily change Claim, I wanna know what to do with an Aggro type situation in Dark Age.

I think it does work for those cases, just not the way they do. To run with your initial example -

Player: "I yell at him: 'you swore fealty to my father! You will not deny me now! Join my cause and maintain your honor."
MC: Are you Claiming Your Right? Sounds like it. Roll Hard."
Player: "Sure, it's an... 11! Bite it! I stare him down, fiery."
MC: "The wayward lord stares right back: 'Times have changed. Lords have changed. I owe nothing to you.' He's calling you out, but you get a +1forward.
Player: "Damnit. I draw steel and hold out my blade, like 'Bend your knee or I'll bend it for you.'
MC: "Are you willing to kill over this?"
Player: "Uhhh, I don't know. Maybe, but I don't want to. I want him to know I'm serious, but I want him alive to lead his men."
MC: "Fair enough. Seeing your blade, he finishes what he implied before. 'You, fallen prince Stone, are a coward and a fool. Put your child's plaything away before you hurt yourself, and drag your yellow belly from my hall.' Moment of truth. Are you serious enough to follow through? He's calling your bluff. What do you do?"

We can move that further into Go Aggro territory by bumping all that posturing and follow-up insulting into the initial trigger, but it's not necessary.

Player: "I draw my sword and yell at him, 'you swore fealty to my father! You will not deny me now! Join my cause and maintain your honor, or perish on my blade."
MC: Are you Claiming Your Right? Sounds like it. Roll Hard."
Player: "Sure, it's an... 11! Bite it! I stare him down, sword glinting in the light."
MC: "The wayward lord stares right back: 'You are a fool and a coward, and your words mean nothing. Leave, before my guards are forced to throw your bloody corpse out with the contents of my chamberpot.' He's calling you out, but you get a +1forward.

I guess maybe a last ditch after that would be, say tackling the lord to the ground or throwing him up against a wall and putting the point of your sword against his gut, which might be a Hold Steady and might not, depending.

I think the larger part of the win there is that either they cave, or the ball is back in your court, /and/ they've given you reason to cut them down. The only difference is that its your choice to pull the trigger. Kinda rids people of the bitching that was often heard about Go Aggro vs Manipulate with leverage of "I'm totally gonna shiv you (but I won't actually but I want you to think I will)" by melding the two and then shunting all other manipulation into the drawing out of people and actually giving them reason to do what you want.

My simple answer at the end, then, is that it does work for some cases of Go Aggro and Manipulate with violence as leverage, it just doesn't necessarily get you what you want. Demands and threats of violence often don't, but they sure do draw a line in the sand.

For an even more "Go Aggro/Manipulate with Violent Leverage" example, more about demanding than claiming anything that is Rightly Due You, take Elain Stone, Troll Killer, as she discusses with a shady ass merchant who has implied he has information about a troll she's tracking.

Player: "Alright, he's been leading me on and giving me nothing. I draw my sword, shove him against the wall point to his belly, and say through gritted teeth, 'Listen, worm, you are going to tell me what you know of where the mother of Grendel makes her nest, or you will die.' I'm Claiming My Right." *rolls* "Heck yeah, boxcars. Now, what's he gonna do?"
MC: "Heh heh. He doesn't even blink as he spits in your face. 'Some hero of the people you are. You're nothing but a monster yourself. Do your worst, coward.' But hey, you take +1 forward. Whaddya do?"
Player: "Fucker. Well, I gut him, saying, 'Maybe it takes a monster to kill one,' before turning to his compatriots. 'Now, which of you will tell me what he wouldn't?'"
MC: "Whoa, hold on. You haven't down any inkling of being a cold blooded killer. I think you're going to have to Hold Steady to gut him."

Hmmmm, maybe my question isn't really about Claiming, it's about escalation. Let me try to phrase it a bit differently:

If a character says "I pull out my sword and demand fealty," right away just like that, you'd probably go "Oh, you're Claiming Your Right! Roll for it!" Makes sense, yeah?

However, if she says "I remind him who my parents are and demand fealty," then you're also probably gonna say the same thing: "oh, you're Claiming Your Right!" This also makes sense, right?

And then let's say the lord goes "No way, you cowardly swine" like in our running example. At that point, the circumstances have changed. The lord has refused and is insulting the PC; time for the character to react again. If she wants to attack and make an example of the lord, it's easy to see how the rules accommodate that. Buuuuuut, let's say the character doesn't want to kill this lord, maybe doesn't even want to hurt him, she just wants to show him she means business. So now she's all "I pull out my sword and demand fealty for really real this time."

This is, fictionally speaking, a totally legit next step. The player is escalating the situation: now it's all about threats and her willingness to back it up. The lord could totally change his mind- steel is drawn! Things got heavy! Maybe he felt confident before but is now shaken. Maybe not, maybe he's still gonna say "you and your fealty can rot in hell."

But I'm not gonna ask my player to roll another Claim right after the first one; that's weird, right? So right now it feels awkward to me, this idea that a player can make a legitimate escalation and I'm kinda wondering how to accommodate that with the new Moves. That's what the real crux of this question is: can you escalate your demand after a refusal? If so, is it just the same Move again?

Does this make sense?

(edit: I'm not trying to move the goalposts on this, I'm really curious how this would resolve with the new Moves, is all. Thanks for the discussion so far! I keep thinking that maybe just using social leverage isn't Claiming Your Right at all. Maybe the move doesn't trigger until the character has at least implied retribution or consequences, and that's what really makes it a Claim. I'm not sure, though.)

I feel like Praion already answered your question.

So I'll expand: Draw Someone Out is the manipulation move! After the lord insults you (or maybe before you demand something), you Draw Them Out and ask "how could my character get the lord to swear fealty / join my cause". Then the MC gives you the leverage you need to obtain in order to make him comply. No need to roll a manipulation move on him once you have whatever it is he wants.

Or at least that's how I read it.

I feel like Praion already answered your question.

So I'll expand: Draw Someone Out is the manipulation move! After the lord insults you (or maybe before you demand something), you Draw Them Out and ask "how could my character get the lord to swear fealty". Then the MC gives you the leverage you need to get in order to make him comply. No need to roll a manipulation move on him once you have whatever it is he wants.

Or at least that's how I read it.

Yeah, using Draw Out as a manipulation move is great. I like that move quite a bit, as mentioned in the OP, so the more I get to use it the happier I'll be. But I don't think it covers "well now I pull out a sword, last chance, buddy." There's something else going on there.

But I don't think it covers "well now I pull out a sword, last chance, buddy." There's something else going on there.

I'm not entirely convinced that needs to be a move I guess. I wasn't sold on Going Aggro myself, I prefered Manipulate with the leverage of violence. But I could be convinced.

If you have the leverage he should fold, because you used the Draw Someone Out move. If you don't have that assurance and you escalate the situation to violence I think it's your choice on whether you kill him or the MC's on whether he backs down if the face of bared steel. But to me that is how manipulation feels like it should work anyway.

It's possible that "how could my character get the lord to swear fealty / join my cause" could be, by the MC's choice, "threatening him with death, but he will hate you for it" as the answer.