Denied right

No need to speculate. Give it a try in play and see how it goes.

-Vincent

I shied away from Liege Lord because its rights appeared to be a long list of ways to be disappointed and frustrated.

Yeah, I'll admit, Denied Right as a move makes me nervous. I want to stay the hell away from it. As an MC or player it'd probably mean avoiding challenging the rights of other players. And to be clear: not because I'm afraid they'll hold it against me, but because I'm afraid of engaging the the Denied Right move.

I'm really struggling with how Denied Right could not be re-written as "when your right is denied, throw a tantrum about it or not, as you see fit."

Conversely, it seems like rights also imply that other people could try to do a thing, just they've got no reason to expect the attempt will be supported. Thinking explicitly of enchantment - it seems like in isolation the Enchantment rules read that anyone can do enchantments, but without the right to them the MC could simply allow the sacrifices to be made and then deny that the enchantment works.

But if that were to happen, couldn't I hold it against the MC? (not in the rules, but isn't the game embedded in a social context?)

I'm happy with this analysis. I don't have anything to add!

-Vincent

One of the Keep Liege's rights is "you have the right to impose law on the villages under your stronghold's protection"
One of the War-Captain's rights is "you have the right to wage war as you see fit... without the liege's direct order"
Let's say the War-Captain goes to muster warriors and invokes his right to wage war against one of the villages the Keep Liege imposes law upon, but the Keep Liege commands the warriors of the stronghold to disobey the War-Captain, maybe dice are rolled, maybe they aren't.
Two outcomes can occur, either the warriors do not follow the War-Captain or the Keep Liege's laws are ignored.
In either case, one of these characters is "denied their right" which basically acts as a move that allows you to accept it, complain, or fight for your right. Right?
Denied Your Right (my interpretation in brackets)
When someone or something denies you your right, choose 1 of the following.
• Declare that you accept this injustice with dignity. (accept it)
• Declare that you are accursed and wronged, and bemoan your fate. (complain)
• Declare that you will forgo your right in return for __. If the MC or the other player cannot or does not grant it, choose another instead. (fight)
• Declare that your god or gods are outraged. (fight)
• Declare that you will not rest until your right is vindicated. (complain, fight)
• Declare that the MC or the other player should reconsider, or else you will hold it against them. (complain, fight)

So really, denied your right seems like a prompt to justify either an immediate resolution or an ongoing conflict.

I see Denied Right as a move clarifying the fiction.  In effect, it's a prompt, which ought to help us create interesting situations when (not if) our Rights are denied.

Consider these examples of recourse: 

— You have the right to a boon granted, unbegrudged, within your hostess’ power and honor.

— You have the right to confront your betters for justice. When you do, treat it as winning them over, but roll
Strong instead of Good.

— You have the right to write your betters for aid. When you do, treat it as mustering warriors from among
them, but roll Wary instead of Bold.

— You have the right to command others’ assistance, at your word, wherever you go.

— You have the right to demand and require someone to bring themselves forth to appear before you.

— You have the right to give justice to the people within your holding and your protection.

— You have the right to impose law on the villages under the stronghold’s protection.

— You have the right to slay whom you must for the protection of all.

The move is forcing your hand, forcing you to state your intentions.  I would hope that would set things into blessed motion!

I shied away from Liege Lord because its rights appeared to be a long list of ways to be disappointed and frustrated.

I would choose Liege Lord for that reason alone.

-Per

If the Liege Lord were a list of ways for the character to be disappointed and frustrated, totally. I think Josh (and my) anxiety is that it's a long list of ways for the Lord's player &c.

Really? That's interesting. I have to admit I have no idea what you mean - would you care to explain?

You pick a character, and in no small way the choice has to do with a list of rights.

Except as written, our read on rights is that they hinge on the Denied Right move, which amounts to "feel free to throw a tantrum."

In other words, this exchange is within the rules of the game:

P: I'm choosing Liege Lord, and I'm taking all the in fiction rights.
...
P: I demand that my daughter's suitor be brought before me!
J(MC): Not gonna happen.
P: A right denied! Instead, that my daughter be brought before me!
J: Nope.
P: Then I will hold it against you!
J: You do that.
J: Moving on as if none of that had happened...

Am I being a dick? Yeah. But I'm also being a dick within the rules. Your frustration as a player as I ignore all your mechanical effectiveness is part of the rules.

Normally, there'd be a conversation here about "um, but that's kind of what my character is about" and we find some middle ground or we don't in a way that's outside the game. I'm having a hard time working out how that interacts with the Denied Right move, though.

I'm taking a shortcut here but: it means that everything past basic moves is like an unreliable currency, which effectiveness depends 100% on the whim of the MC, and that objections to whimsical application might be cheating.

It's weird, and it's hard for me to wrap my head around in a lacking-fun way. As a result, I'm likely to avoid the whole circumstance by:

• never denying a player their right as an MC
• avoiding rights that are mostly in-fiction
• assuming that rights that are crunchier - with moves attached, or stat boosts etc - will never be denied

Conversely, for purposes of playtest, I don't even know how I'd go about legitimately exercising those rules. Like the above ("Nope")? I don't know.

That whole exchange is destroyed by the Master of Ceremonies Principle: Give the players' characters their due.

I'd actually suggest that you're not being a dick fully within the rules in your stated example. I can't see any principles you're following in the example, and the MC rules state to say what your principles demand. You're certainly not "giving the character their due," nor, "bringing action into the game," with your move there. It doesn't seem like you're "taking their

Here's the thing with this for me, at the moment (pending actual experience with a playtest, whereupon I may well change my mind): I'm reading "hold it against you" seriously. That is, if a players picking that option against me, the MC, then I'm taking it to mean they're actually upset at me about what I'm doing in denying their character their right. And since the person I'm playing with is my friend, at the very least that's going to make me think seriously about whether I really want to do it. Sometimes I still might: sometimes it's worth upsetting someone temporarily if you think something's that important. But a lot of the time, if it matters that much that someone's going to choose that option, I'm going to reconsider.

On the other hand, if the player isn't really that upset, than they can freely choose one of the other responses.

I suspect that if you're picking the hold it against you option, but you;re not /really/ going to hold it against them, you should pick something else?

I suspect that if you're picking the hold it against you option, but you;re not /really/ going to hold it against them, you should pick something else?

This puts me in mind of the Contempt Token mechanic from McDaldno's The Quiet Year -- you take and hold tokens when you feel you've been wronged, but they don't really have any mechanical effect, only a social one. (That mechanic really doesn't work for me in that game, but there it is.)

I can see that taking the "hold it against you" option might serve a similar purpose in saying "I feel like I was wronged here as a player, but not so badly that I want to interrupt the game to get my way; please do better by me next time".

I am still struggling with the rights, but this is my take on it:

Right is what define my character. Normally I already play with a right systems, only it is not so well-defined.
If I play a stereotypical paladin I play someone that want to defend the weaklings. If in my game I am not able to do that, for any reasons, I will be upset. Maybe I would be upset with with myself because I wasn't able to defend someone or with the GM because in game or out of game he did not let me do that, or with other players.

The bottom line is this, if I cannot play my PC in the way I intend I will be upset, that's like I have my right denied.
The rights system seems to put this thing in the rules system.

Is it necessary? I don't know, but it is the first time that I see this thing so clearly written.