Denied right

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.

Sorry if I'm butting in, but have you had this problem in actual play? Or is it a purely theoretical situation?

Like noted before, that seems not to be within the rules at all, since it ignores a whole bunch of the MC's rules and instructions.

Part of my point is that in any game I'm actually playing, rights are likely to get treated as absolute - as if the Denied Right move included a line like "first, insist that they name another player's right that would be denied unless yours was granted - if they can't they must grant your right." So I can't actually see being in a game where it would be a problem in actual play - having taken up the task of playtesting I want to call that out: I'm having trouble imagining playtesting this rule as I understand it.

Conversely, imagine that I can make the case for MC moves and principles covering the above exchange. E.g. all of this is because the Lord's people are turning against him, and I'm showing evidence of what's coming and introducing complications. Heck, I could have decided, as MC, that I would start play by taking his power away from him, so basically none of his rights will be respected.

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.

Yeah, and I think that's the crux of my difficulty. No matter what the game, when we sit down to play it's in a social context that includes some notions of fair play. Rights are part of the rules, but the Denied Right rule reaches out of the game and says "if this part of the rules are broken, this is your recourse" - as substitute for the normal recourse of interaction between players in the outside-of-game social context.

I think the response to my little scene is telling: "you aren't playing by the rules because you have to say what the principles demand... etc." In other words: the MC is cheating in a way other than denying rights. As an MC here, I feel like I can say: if you feel like you've been Denied Your Right, invoke that move. Otherwise, what's your problem? ("I'm thinking offscreen, you don't know everything about how the principles apply.")

Ultimately, two things:

I suspect as a playtester I will do badly by way of testing Denied Rights. Maybe we'll run into something - I hope so. We'll hit the rest of the game twice as hard, Vincent.

I'd be really keen to hear someone else's actual play of Denied Rights coming up. That'd help me understand it, maybe.

Quote from: fealoro on September 05, 2014, 05:05:45 AM

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.

Yeah, and I think that's the crux of my difficulty. No matter what the game, when we sit down to play it's in a social context that includes some notions of fair play. Rights are part of the rules, but the Denied Right rule reaches out of the game and says "if this part of the rules are broken, this is your recourse" - as substitute for the normal recourse of interaction between players in the outside-of-game social context.

I think the response to my little scene is telling: "you aren't playing by the rules because you have to say what the principles demand... etc." In other words: the MC is cheating in a way other than denying rights. As an MC here, I feel like I can say: if you feel like you've been Denied Your Right, invoke that move. Otherwise, what's your problem? ("I'm thinking offscreen, you don't know everything about how the principles apply.")

Well, I think there are kind of two things here.

Let's start with the basic move: All of the options except the final one in Denied Your Right are in-game, right? They're largely narrative rather than mechanical, but they serve the in-game purpose of establishing conflict or motive or relationship. It's not that the MC is Denying Your Right player-to-player, but that some agent in the world is - another player, a powerful NPC, or what have you; your choice of response moves the story in some way. Do you have any problem with that part of the move?

As far as the last part goes, we aren't talking about an MC move called Deny Their Right. The MC shouldn't do that except if it falls out of the MC moves and principles. The denial isn't an invisible god-hand blocking things from happening, and what your example is lacking is any explanation at all about the in-game things that are denying your rights. I'm not suggesting the motivations can't involve thinking offscreen, but there has to be something for the PCs to respond to.

"Not gonna happen" isn't a valid response to "I demand that my daughter's suitor be brought before me". Who in the world is denying this right, and how? Did the suitor blow off your messenger? Did your Castellan intercept your messenger and tell him not to deliver the message? Did the suitor get caught in a sharknado on the way to the keep? The answers to those kinds of questions can move gameplay forward.

I feel like we're not talking about the cool thing that this move really allows.

This is an invitation to soliloquy and monologue!  I feel like the pure theatre of this move is passing by unacknowledged.  I think that as we fall into the politics and scheme of the game and become comfortable in our characters, the Denied Right move is going to allow for some fun and vehement monologue!

I LOVE running games but there are times that I REALLY want to be a player.  This move makes me want to be a player.  I want to stand in the council that has just Denied my right to speak my wisdom and call forth my right and declare the gods displeased!  I want to bemoan my fate and let them know that I shall not STAND for this crime against my personage and my will! 

I like the dramatic.  I WANT the drama.  THAT's what I feel this move is for.  This move is for Shakespearean monologues and fist shaking at the sky like no other RP has seen! 

Yeah, as Golux says, that's kind of what I assume the move is for. It's not about protecting your rights. It's about highlighting them when they're broken.  "Your right has been denied: how do you respond?"

And of course, I assume something says "You have the right" that's not an abstract mechanical term. You've been given this right somehow: granted by someone with the authority to do so, or the right is one accepted by your underlings. The difference between a character who has the right to do X and a character who simply does X is that the second character doesn't have the right to do it. What happens when you do something you have no right to do? What happens when you stop someone from doing something they have a right to do? These are the questions the game, and that move in particular, raise, and they're definitely (IMHO) interesting ones.

So, does it go like this?

- You have your rights, and you should totally feel obligated to them. It's your right, after all!
- Other people may not respect that, or feel you are totally obligated to them.
- There may be a clash. Your right may get denied.
- You should be outraged, because, darn it, that was your right! Do the Denied Rights move.
- You are then explicitly making it known to the table that this is an issue, and that you are planning to do something about. If another player denies my right, simply saying, "I hold it against you," doesn't do much, but it does announce my intent to totally do something about it soon. It's less throwing a tantrum and more adding a layer of player-to-player tension in a safe way, alongside a layer of foreshadowing and events-to-come.

Is that it, or am I way off?

And either way, what in the world does holding it against the MC do? I've yet to play a game where the MC wasn't on our side, a fan of our characters. I don't feel like there's a course of action I could take or an attempt to thwart them, because the MC should be engaging and helping us (within their principles and sense of accuracy to the game, that is).

You are then explicitly making it known to the table that this is an issue, and that you are planning to do something about

This. My feeling is that the main purpose of the move is to make sure one thing player does *not* or at least does *less* is pass someone denying his character's right because of shyness/being passive/etc. Because each character has big list of rights, and everyone (from other players to MC) is free to forget about some of them. it is player's own responsibility to remind "I have this right, and looks like you're denying it, are you sure?"
so others will either say "oh, I didn't notice, let me fix that" or go full "well, [sadly] it seems that your right is denied. What's your answer to it?"
and text clearly says 'it is ok to say that you'll fight for it. it is ok to voice frustration, or hold it against MC. it is not being selfish, it is respecting yourself and your rights"

I am not an authority, but it seems clear to me that Rights are real things IC in the game setting. If you have the right to claim.a sacrifice every year, that's your legal right and denying it might be a big deal. If you asked a neutral third party in the setting, like a wise old NPC, he/she would say the character has that right.  The thing is that the AWDA setting doesn't have lawyers where you can sue somebody, you have to start a fight, or plead your case to another strongman who might intervene, or pray for the gods to avenge the wrong done you.  And all of those are real options.

But I'm pretty sure that Denied Rights have nothing to do with OOC interactions or the player getting pissed off. That's a whole different thing.

- You are then explicitly making it known to the table that this is an issue, and that you are planning to do something about. If another player denies my right, simply saying, "I hold it against you," doesn't do much, but it does announce my intent to totally do something about it soon. It's less throwing a tantrum and more adding a layer of player-to-player tension in a safe way, alongside a layer of foreshadowing and events-to-come.

PERFECT!

I didn't really even consider it as a player to player interaction but that's probably another layer for sure!

For the same reason that monologues in Shakespeare have no action but inform the intent of the rest of the play the characters may bemoan their denied right and use that to push story along to avenge their right denied!

As far as mechanics.  Rights are given to be broken dramatically and cause the players to put words to the wrongs they have had thrust upon them.  They call themselves to action to make their own story.  This isn't about crunching numbers and giving players abilities.  This is about driving MOTIVATION. 

But I'm pretty sure that Denied Rights have nothing to do with OOC interactions or the player getting pissed off. That's a whole different thing.

We're all mature players and can appreciate a little woe heaped upon our characters so it's not players getting pissed off, but it can be an out of character communication that I intend to do something about this and YE SHALL BE WARY!  It's an invitation to get involved in the drama.  I think Caitie has it dead on.  In the same way Hamlet speaks to the audience and lets them know his intent and what he believes when he makes his speeches to thin air.  The actor and author (that's you the player) are communicating drama to come!

I kind of think that the "Denied right" move is actually really awesome (sorry Vincent, I'm gushing again). My view on it is actually more focused on an in-the-fiction dynamic than most of the OOC situations people have been talking about. The MC should give the players their due as per the principle, so "denying someone their right" for no reason isn't actually playing by the rules. If I have the right to confront your betters for justice, and in attempting to do so am denied it, that's happening for a reason. Assuming my MC is not simply being (passive?) aggressive (which to me suggests a much deeper social problem that something the game mechanics can fix), my right being denied means someone in the fiction is intentionally denying it. Why is that? Are my betters conspiring against me? Have I been deemed unfit for my right by some prior (mis)deed? I want to know why I'm being denied my right, and can act as per the "denied right" move to express this.

I think the "openness" of this move also really speaks at the design intention (again, I think - could be way off here). The game isn't designed to make you always be able to have all of your "powers" all of the time. Think of the setting. Think of real life! How often are rights denied us? How often does that make us with to bemoan our fate; how often do we accept the injustice with dignity? The Dungeons and Dragons game system is about fighting tooth and nail for every little power you can get your hands on to fight against a pretty much purely antagonistic world (an oversimplification, I know). But AW: Dark Ages seems to be more interested in the lives of people in the dark ages - powerful, impressive, notable, and exceptional people, but people nevertheless living 'real' lives. Sometimes in life we are denied rights we should have access to. The "denied rights" move actually empowers us to respond to these denials by mechanizing options for our responses to them.

I'm also wary of the "denied your right" move, and the Liege Lord specifically.

The in-fiction rights give you some character motivation and plot hooks.  If you are denied your rights, then you get the opportunity for cool monologues, vows, more character motivation and plot hooks.  All good things. 

But if I don't choose the in-fiction rights, I can do all that anyway. 
Suppose I make a War-Champion or Troll-Killer who goes around imposing law, even though he has no right to do so.

-I still get character motivation from creating his personality and goals, without spending character resources on them. 
-I still get plot hooks, because I'm drawn to perceived infractions of the law. 
-NPCs will probably not respect my authority, but that seems just as interesting as if the NPCs do respect my authority.
-If no one respects my authority, I can still rant about it, or vow revenge in character.  I can also still express my dissatisfaction to the MC and the other players out of character.
-I also get whatever cool mechanical powers (+1 Strong, an enchanted weapon, tracking, etc.) I spent my right on instead.

If a player wants to give a cool monologue, I'm not going to not listen, as an MC or as another player, just because there's nothing on his character sheet to back it up.

So the character who takes in-fiction rights is giving up some amount of mechanical power they might have had, but I don't see that the character who takes mechanical rights instead is giving anything up. 

The in-fiction rights and "denied your rights" move seem like really innovative, important aspects of the system, and I want to engage with them in our playtest.  Is the best way to test these rules by playing a Liege Lord and using the "denied your rights" move?  Or is the best way to test them to play a character who claims rights he doesn't have, gives soliloquys and vows revenge without the mechanical weight of being "denied rights", and seeing whether I wish I had access to the "denied your rights" move.

Either is fine with me! I'm interested in both.

Now, if you want to play a character who really does have the right to slay whom they must for the protection of all, you should obviously choose the right. That's what it's there for. If you don't choose the right, you should remember that your character doesn't, in fact, have that right, no matter what they claim.

When you play a character who claims to have a right you haven't given them, you're playing a self-aggrandizing fool or a boasting liar, and we all know it, and you're doing it on purpose.

-Vincent

The in-fiction rights give you some character motivation and plot hooks.  If you are denied your rights, then you get the opportunity for cool monologues, vows, more character motivation and plot hooks.  All good things. 

But if I don't choose the in-fiction rights, I can do all that anyway. 
Suppose I make a War-Champion or Troll-Killer who goes around imposing law, even though he has no right to do so.

Sounds cool. That's like playing a vigilante who pretends to be police even though they are not. That's just going to be a different thing than playing a cop whose badge is bona fide.

If you want to play a knight, that's cool. If you want to play someone who falsly claims to be a knight, that's cool too.

It is clearly different situations, but I don't see what the problem would be.