Advice to deal with some situations and moves

Daniel, I'm not sure what part of that seems unconvincing to you. I agree that the leverage is Soleil's life, but I'm not sure why it's all that unreasonable to demand Patriarch take Boiled Face too. Entertoise has the leverage for it, after all. It is threatening to let Tumtum kill Soleil, because that threat is the leverage.

I'm not sure why that isn't sensible. I don't think it's an "out" for Patriarch to take the deal, since that's what Entertoise proposed! That's a success for him.

But it's explicitly not. His goal is to keep Soleil, as stated. His goal is not 'either I keep Soleil, OR I get rid of Boiled Face' -- Boiled Face is if anything a totally separate type of leverage, which is why (IMO, obviously) the move would lack a clean resolution. Because the 7-9 reaction to Boiled Face leverage is totally different than the 7-9 reaction to Kill Soleil leverage. You could just pick one, of course, but then you end up with a situation where the player actually only wanted to keep Soleil, but the NPC ends up taking Soleil and Boiled Face on a 7-9. Proposing a deal that you absolutely do not want the other person to take is only effective manipulation if the deal is Absolutely Terrible, and this one doesn't really seem to be that bad on the face of it. Now I guess you can just let the roll cover that, but again, this seems to distract from the explicitly stated goal, which is actually 'remain guardian of Soleil' -- because now the roll is about Boiled Face, and actually nobody (apparently) really cares about that guy.

Actually, Entretoise's goal was to get rid of Boiled-Face. But he didn't tell me this so clearly at the moment we played the situation. The players has still some trouble to clarify what they want to do, sometimes they want to give some impression but without stating clearly what's there goal.

A new example with the same move : in yesterday's sessoin, we live an intense scene. There's a riot in the Camp while a strong tempest has arisen. The riot occured because TumTum just broke a taboo: he entered the Container of the oldest Patriarch of the Camp, the one who has power over him (Parchemin, for those who have read my alternate post with the threats). The scene we played was something like "Authority vs Tradition", where Parchemin (NPC) is the Tradition and TumTum (PC hardholder) is the authority. TumTum wants to interrogate one of Parchemin's favorite young lover and Parchemin says he can do it inside the Container. TumTum refuses and "go aggro" against Parchemin by putting a gun on its head. I decide the conflict is great and Parchemin forces hand "you can seize him by force but you will generate a crisis in the camp", and TumTum choose to do it. It happens in violence, with some people of the camp trying to protect Parchemin, and TumTum's gang (who's not unruly so I play them very loyal) who defends TumTum and shoot in the unarmed mob, while saying "wtf happens TumTum, wtf with Parchemin .."

The riot begins and TumTum, 2 of his Lieutenants, and Entretoise are in Entretoise's container to make interrogations of a few people.

There, I decide to push the "crisis". Entretoise (PC) is not a Lieutenant, but he's always with TumTum, providing advices. So here, I try the PC-NPC-PC triangle and the Lieutenants accuse Entretoise of being the source of the problem, the source of the moral crisis that pushed TumTum to break Tradition. They are loyal to TumTum after all, not the other PC.

Thus, Entretoise wants to roll for seduce or manipulate. This is what's happening :

Entretoise's player : "I want to seduce or manipulate NiceTeeths (one of the lieutenants)"
Me : "What do you want from him ?"
Entretoise : "I want him to come at me to ask me whatever questions in wants later"
Me : "Do you want something from him right now ? Not sure we need a roll for this"
Entretoise : "Non I want him to come at me for questions later"

I'm not sure about the player's intent here, I think we want to totally drive NiceTeeths in his pocket .. I finally made a roll, considering Entretoise's goal is "Avoid accusation of being a scapegoat", he rolls a 7. So I stop to accuse him with NiceTeeths, and the second Lieutenant points his gun at him, believing he's manipulating people again.

But I had the same trouble to deal with the move. I think my player is trying to use the move for other intents they declare but not sure .. The point is that they don't try to manipulate the MC or the system, but I have the feeling it's a misunderstanding.

Again, this never lead to problem between us or for the game, but we still have the feeling something's not right between the way the move is used and the feeling of the scene (am I clear in the way I describe the scene? Not sure).

I think there's a lilttle fine-tuning each group and MC need to work out for themselves, but in general I find it best to not have NPCs be that complicated. That means they'll respond to simple suggestions, not convoluted scenarios. Also, they'll follow simple impulses from Maslov's pyramid of needs, to the impulses of genitalia and triggerfingers.

In the first example, if I got it right (and with my approach I don't need to as an NPC), I'd have the patriarch respond with denying the subversive deal.


Entretoise (brainer PC): "Fine, you can have Soleil if you take Boil-face"

Patiarch (NPC):              "What? You're threathening me?" *points gun/have men pointing guns toward Boil-Face*

MC: "What do you do?"


Quite simply, the people of Apocalypse World respond immediately. The Patriarch might escalate (if he does't like being threathened). Offer him something he'd want (now), and maybe he will find it easier to let Soleil go (for now).

Entretoise: "Give me Soleil until the next desert storm (a few weeks), and I'll interrogate Dustwich/convince Lemieux to build that contraption/tell you how you can sleep with the light off again*/or whatever approriate to the characters, fiction andtable comfort." If leverage is held, roll to manipulate. (I'd let people help as they wanted, entaglements are gold! For the MC. Entaglements with mindfuckers, even more so.)




* Brainers are spooky. I've played a "clever" Brainer, I had much more leverage being spooky. When I stopped talking and just doing stuff the Hardholder (whom I loved) started to tell everyone how devoted I was. The people of Apocalypse World really aren't clever. At all. 

I'll readily admit, I'm not 100% certain what the situations you've described are, there's a lot of ambiguity in the way you've written them up.

Entretoise's player : "I want to seduce or manipulate NiceTeeths (one of the lieutenants)"
Me : "What do you want from him ?"
Entretoise : "I want him to come at me to ask me whatever questions in wants later"
Me : "Do you want something from him right now ? Not sure we need a roll for this"
Entretoise : "Non I want him to come at me for questions later"

First off. This is a really odd bit of conversation. There is no move happening. To make a move ,you must do it. So the very first question to ask is really the one you need to. Alright, how do you do that? He needs to actually do it before a roll comes into play, in other words, he must actually set up the conversation, start talking, say what he wants, and do it in a way where the fictions result becomes unknown, then you roll to solve the unknown. If he can't figure out how to convince the npc, then he cant do it. That's why Sharp has those nice read a person moves.

When Entretoise says he wants to seduce or manipulate Niceteeth, that's a big red FLAG. He should really know whether he wants to seduce them, or manipulate them. To manipulate you must say what you want, not to the MC, but to the NPC. I want him to come... is the second Flag. Manipulation is always done through first person conversation with the target, it cannot be settled with ambiguous convos with the MC. Resolving scene's like this is just wrong and will be fraught with problems. If it is all IC, then any ambiguity will be readily apparent, because the NPC doesn't have to try to guess what he means, he can just say shit simple like. "What the fuck you talking bout, I ain't your friend" or some other obvious signal that whatever is being said isn't clear.

To explain the difference... Ex: "I (being Entre) want you to stop waving that gun in my face, if you've got problems with what I'm doing, I'll promise to give you all the answers you need, AFTER." That is a Hot manipulate roll, it has a "I want this", and a "I'll give you this". The scene only involves the roll if: the MC isn't sure if the NPC will readily accept, AND what is being offered is something the NPC actually gives a shit about. If the latter isn't true, then sometimes I have the NPC's make a counter offer (something they do care about), but otherwise there isn't any reason to roll. You only roll when you must.

That hot roll above, assuming promising answers are enough to make the NPC stand down (...doubtful...) would on a 10+ get the gun lowered, it would not make them any friendlier. On a 7-9+ he'll demand those answers Now and lower the gun if you agree, and assuming you don't say anything to get the gun redrawn... well. On a miss, fuck that noise, HARD MOVE. Maybe he just starts shooting. NPCs don't need to think things through, they need Act.

You first HOT roll example has a similar issue. The I'll only do it if you also take so-and-so, should really be very clearly stated. I want you to take so and so, if you do I'll give you the girl. But really, if threats of KILLING anyone is on the table I almost always say its a hard roll if you're serious. Go Aggro. Do this, or Else. Sometimes that OR ELSE might be delayed, but the thing is with Go Aggro, if they force your hand, then you've done it. No changing your mind, it's a takes the commitment to roll. Threats, even ones against other non involved persons are always go aggro if they're real.

I fully endorse Maleficum's Post above.

TumTum refuses and "go aggro" against Parchemin by putting a gun on its head. I decide the conflict is great and Parchemin forces hand "you can seize him by force but you will generate a crisis in the camp", and TumTum choose to do it.

Um... No.

If TumTum pulls out a gun and puts to to the guys head by Going Aggro, he doesn't need to seize by force. He just pulls the trigger and the guy is dead. The Go Aggro roll already has the failures in mind. If the go aggro hits on a 10+, then that's all there is. He forces his hand, so.... BANG. Dead. No rolls. If the go aggro was a 7-9, then it gets more complicated, there are ways for the NPC to survive or not listen, but they involve some use of the "options". If the Go Aggro misses, well, then the tables get turned, shit goes south. Whatever the case may be, the result of this roll should really determine the result of the scene.

If the NPC has a bunch of guys with guns around, alright. He shoots the NPC, maybe the NPC's dead, maybe not, but now he might have to Seize the whole place by Force. When this is rolled, violence has already started, people are already getting hurt, harm is already being exchanged. You don't seize by force to cause conflict, you cause conflict so you can seize something by force. In order words, just having barged in with a gun, maybe some people screamed, or some people saw it, and that action is what caused the camp riots to start up. It should not have been conditional on the NPC saying JUST TRY IT.

Ebok, thanks, your post is really helpful.  Here's what happened. Sorry if my descriptions are not clear, as English is not my motherlanguage, don't hesitate to tell me what should be rephrased. But reading you I have the feeling you totally got it.

When Entretoise says he wants to seduce or manipulate Niceteeth, that's a big red FLAG. He should really know whether he wants to seduce them, or manipulate them. To manipulate you must say what you want, not to the MC, but to the NPC. I want him to come... is the second Flag. Manipulation is always done through first person conversation with the target, it cannot be settled with ambiguous convos with the MC. Resolving scene's like this is just wrong and will be fraught with problems. If it is all IC, then any ambiguity will be readily apparent, because the NPC doesn't have to try to guess what he means, he can just say shit simple like. "What the fuck you talking bout, I ain't your friend" or some other obvious signal that whatever is being said isn't clear.

Yeah, that's what I did, and what Entretoise finally said!

To explain the difference... Ex: "I (being Entre) want you to stop waving that gun in my face, if you've got problems with what I'm doing, I'll promise to give you all the answers you need, AFTER." That is a Hot manipulate roll, it has a "I want this", and a "I'll give you this". The scene only involves the roll if: the MC isn't sure if the NPC will readily accept, AND what is being offered is something the NPC actually gives a shit about. If the latter isn't true, then sometimes I have the NPC's make a counter offer (something they do care about), but otherwise there isn't any reason to roll. You only roll when you must.

That hot roll above, assuming promising answers are enough to make the NPC stand down (...doubtful...) would on a 10+ get the gun lowered, it would not make them any friendlier. On a 7-9+ he'll demand those answers Now and lower the gun if you agree, and assuming you don't say anything to get the gun redrawn... well. On a miss, fuck that noise, HARD MOVE. Maybe he just starts shooting. NPCs don't need to think things through, they need Act.

You're right! What was puzzling me is that the NPC had actually NO questions. Entretoise proposed something he didn't care about. The NPC was like, "TumTum this guy is manipulating you". And Entretoise was like "Ask me any questions you want later". To me, (A) I was not sure how the NPC would react, (B) the NPC gives no shit about the proposition. But I felt the PC was beginning to feel tricked, he was like "I'm giving him something, why should it fail". Hesitating, I roll. Roll+hot. 7. Thus I ask a question NOW : "Are you involved in this situation ?". Entretoise IS involved, there is no ambiguity as he choosed to be involved in a list of questions in the beginning of the session. Entretoise answers is smoky bullshit to the NPC. So you're right, I should have gone HARD move.

You first HOT roll example has a similar issue. The I'll only do it if you also take so-and-so, should really be very clearly stated. I want you to take so and so, if you do I'll give you the girl. But really, if threats of KILLING anyone is on the table I almost always say its a hard roll if you're serious. Go Aggro. Do this, or Else. Sometimes that OR ELSE might be delayed, but the thing is with Go Aggro, if they force your hand, then you've done it. No changing your mind, it's a takes the commitment to roll. Threats, even ones against other non involved persons are always go aggro if they're real.

Oh, this is really important. Actually, Tumtum said "I'm pulling the gun at his face." I said "ok, do you Go Aggro?" The PC forces his hand. But then TumTum says "I don't want to shoot him. So I pull the gun down and I'm going to bring him". That's when I asked for a seize by force. I understood go aggro as an "aggression", even a threat. But now I read the Move description and I see When you go aggro on someone, make it clear what you want them to do and what you’ll do to them. If I understand well, I should have said something like "you're pulling your gun at him and he's like 'go on, shoot me but I won't follow'; he's not gonna move if you don't give him a good reason". But what if the PC tells me "[To NPC] I'm going to shoot you now [To MC] But I won't", it's in fact leverage. And if he just say "I'm going to shoot you", I answer "ok, cool, you go aggro if you're really gonna shoot him, or leverage if you're bluffing". Do

I missed this in the flow of the game (still have trouble to manage the flow).

The difficulty is that when I'm trying to clarify things, one of my PC (Entretoise) says "You're forcing a situation for me", "you're forcing me to behave in some way I wasn't engage", generally when there's a move going on (the manipulation roll we discussed" and I'm asking for what's the clear want. We already discussed about the "to do it, you do it" rule, and pretty sure there's a little thing for me to identify that will finaly make it right.

If the NPC has a bunch of guys with guns around, alright. He shoots the NPC, maybe the NPC's dead, maybe not, but now he might have to Seize the whole place by Force. When this is rolled, violence has already started, people are already getting hurt, harm is already being exchanged. You don't seize by force to cause conflict, you cause conflict so you can seize something by force. In order words, just having barged in with a gun, maybe some people screamed, or some people saw it, and that action is what caused the camp riots to start up. It should not have been conditional on the NPC saying JUST TRY IT.

The crisis don't come from he fact the NPC says "try it". It comes from the fact that the NPC is the embodiment of traditions, that the PC is clearly breaking it (and it's totally assumed and explicit between us), and that the situation is being public. So I think I'm ok with that. But what you say is really interesting: you seize by force when in conflict, not to force conflict. In my view, the conflict has been provoked by the "Go Aggro" move just before (even if I think it would have been a move trade-off or a leverage move.. I think the best think I could have proposed is that TumTum shoots in its legs or something like this).


Ok so what I have to improve the game after reading all theses posts:
- Make NPC behaviour simpler: if they want something, they want it now. If they do something, they do it now. If they disagree, they it now.
- ask for clear actions, reasons and motives : and hard move if it's not convincing for the NPC

This is really helping, I think it's just a matter of getting use to the game, as it is our first game and we play once a week since 1 month. I just don't want to get bad habit and discuss everything to be sure I'm getting it and play wonderful sessions. I must say it's already the case: we really have excellent time, we were beginning a game of pathfinder and we started AW as a one shot test while one of our player was absent, and everybody wanted to drop pathinder to continue the AW OS as a campaign. So. Great.

What was puzzling me is that the NPC had actually NO questions. Entretoise proposed something he didn't care about. The NPC was like, "TumTum this guy is manipulating you".

When you try to seduce or manipulate someone, tell them what you want and roll+hot. For NPCs: on a hit, they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise.

I usually let the PC make the offer, but you have every right to ignore it. It only triggers when they demand something in return, of course, if the PC hits the hot roll, they should demand something in return. ex: "This is your fault, (if you take all the blame / you stand down / you do this other thing I want to do) I'll get over it."

=====================================

If I understand well, I should have said something like "you're pulling your gun at him and he's like 'go on, shoot me but I won't follow'; he's not gonna move if you don't give him a good reason". But what if the PC tells me "[To NPC] I'm going to shoot you now [To MC] But I won't", it's in fact leverage.

Yup. If he's not serious, Its Manipulate.

Player walks up the the NPC (acting under fire if people want to stop him).
Player rips out his gun, points it at the man, and says. "You're coming with me, now."
You ask the player if he will really shoot the man, and if so, shoot to kill? If it's not shoot to kill, then depending on the level of damage he's trying to avoid, this might still be manipulate.

GoAggro (player is serious)

10+: The NPC swallows hard, looking nervous. If he is willing to die for this cause, then he can refuse. BANG DEAD or soon to be after. Important NPCs do not get extra protection from the MC, they might be harder to get to, or better armed, but that's it.

7–9: The NPC swallows hard, looking nervous. Maybe some of his guys get in your way, buying him time to slink back into cover. Maybe he offers something that the PC wants, like the girl instead. Maybe he backs away, saying "take it easy... take it easy", and the PC wasn't Hard enough to pull the trigger before he rounded the corner. There are other options. One of my favorite is, "he doesn't think you're serious, you might have to hurt/scare him a bit. If you do he's putty in your palms"

Miss: Shit goes sideways, someone jumps on the PC from behind, screaming, 'TRAITOR', and the others that had been gathering angrily, decide that's a good time to charge in. FULL-ON RIOT

Manipulate (player is bluffing)

10+: The NPC swallows hard (buying into the lie), "promise not to shoot me and I'll come!", "promise that you wont hurt me/her/us/whatever (in front of all these people)", "I... I'll come... but you have to promise that if I do, I will have the final say on the punishments handed out". "You have to promise to make amends for for forsaking the traditions". You must offers terms. Not doing so, or finding a cop out is not being a fan of the PCs. Look at the NPCs through the crosshairs.

7–9: The NPC swallows hard (buying into the lie), "put away your gun and be show contrition for your arrogance (apologize), first" , "turn over a hostage first, if I/she/we leave unharmed so will yours, first". Keep in mind here, that if the PC doesn't accept the terms, and doesn't have an immediate counter, you need to change the scene and make shit happen, after someone rolls no matter what the roll is, they should not be in a position to simply try again. If they are, it tells you that there wasn't enough at stake to make the roll in the first place.

Miss: The NPC Laughs in your face, "No." And the crowd surrounds him, pushing you and your men back as he makes his way to safety. If you go against him now, you'll have to fight through all these people, and they'll or they're families will remember this.

=====================================

The difficulty is that when I'm trying to clarify things, one of my PC (Entretoise) says "You're forcing a situation for me", "you're forcing me to behave in some way I wasn't engage", generally when there's a move going on (the manipulation roll we discussed" and I'm asking for what's the clear want. We already discussed about the "to do it, you do it" rule, and pretty sure there's a little thing for me to identify that will finaly make it right.

Sounds like too much of your conversation is OOC. Remember to ask the character what they do, describe the situation. If they say something that doesn't make sense, pause only long enough to make sure you and they both understand the situation. Sometimes, there is not a move to be made, sometimes it's just a conflict and attitudes change. If they say they want to make a roll, very clearly outline the conditions as written, and only make the roll if they do it. Otherwise, don't.

Ok so what I have to improve the game after reading all theses posts:
- Make NPC behaviour simpler: if they want something, they want it now. If they do something, they do it now. If they disagree, they it now.
- ask for clear actions, reasons and motives : and hard move if it's not convincing for the NPC

And always make sure actions are described in the fiction first, and only when those actions match a move do you bring out the dice!

I find, when play and moves are confused or unclear, that it is often helpful to wait with the dice a little longer than I initially want to. To keep moving forward with the dialogue and the actions until the point comes where it is absolutely clear what move we need to roll for. Especially when it comes to judging between going aggro and manipulate, or going aggro and seize by force.

Ebok's got this. I'll only add that I think a lot of the problem is that you're letting the
Player's decisions decide what your NPC wants, and frankly, the player doesn't have a clue. The Patriarch comes to get paid for the theft of Soleil and TumTum plays Solomon and threatens to saw the baby in half. Which works...if both parties care about Soleil. However, now we learn that Entretoise doesn't care about Soleil. The cutting in half is irrelevant now. It's become, "take this girl or we kill Soleil." The assumption here is that the Patriarch cares about Soleil. That's a GM call. Only you know that. If not, don't get yourself twisted in a knot. Just tell the players "I don't give three shits about Soleil. This is about you stealing what's mine. I'm not playing wet nurse to your brood for free. You want me to take her off your hand, you pay me. If not, I'll kill Soleil myself." Then you ask them what they do. They thought he cared about Soleil, but they were wrong. Next time, maybe they could read a person, eh?

Same with the second situation. The player wants him to question him later, but the NPC has no questions for him. Don't think "what roll do I make here?" Just tell the player that the NPC isn't talking to him at all. He turns to TumTum and says "this guy is totally got into your head TumTum. He's the reason this shit's going south. We should put a bullet in his head right now." Then turn to Entretoise and ask "What do you DO? What do you SAY?" After that, you can nail down intent by asking if you're not clear, "are you trying to get the lieutenant to shut the fuck up? Why would he do that? Are you offering sex? Are you threatening him?" Then you decide if there's anything there.

Hi all,

We played our sixth session of AW yesterday. I want to thank you all for your answers and participation, this really helped. The problems I mentinonned in this post are being solved. These problem didn't appear even some of these situations occured. Again, thank you. Here some stuffs I did, I hope it will help some new players too.

- I stopped trying to put situations in the right "box" of the system. I don't try to roll, I just play until roll become obvious.
- Precision: Most of the OOC dialogue I've posted before had not take place during the session, but after. Anyway, during the game,
- I only roll when the conditions of the move are there. If there's not, I'm not trying to ask them or to think about them. There' not there, no roll.
- We clarified with the players that if something doesn't exist in the situation, it doesn't exist. They are not hidden threats. There are explicit threats,  or none (understand: the NPC doesn't act as there is a threat even if he can understand there is one).
- I simplified the behaviour of the NPCs: everything is instant. No big plans. Their intentions are clear to the PCs. I googled the Maslow Pyramid of needs and wrote each of them on a index card. I keep this kind near me when I activate a NPC behaviour, so I can choose him a need easily. I used this visual: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/2000px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png
- (relating to my other post asking for advices to design threats here http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=7623.0) : I wrote each threats on Index Card with: NAME, TYPE, IMPULSE, and thus the list of Moves. This allowed me to "mix" some of the moves or to make specials moves on the fly when I write it, if I'm creative (if I'm not, no big deal, it has his generic threat moves). I write custom moves or Clockwork on the back of the index card.
- I also wrote MC moves on an index card.

I want to say that we never had big problems with the situations I previously describe, just looking for a nice RP flow. Now it's flowing!

There's still one thing I have trouble with, the psychic maelstrom, but I'm opening a new thread for this.

That sounds like great work, arakn_e! :)

As an AW MC, you could have had Patriarch take both girls, then later mention that Boiled Face was sold as a slave or that her body was found out in the wasteland.  There's no law forcing him to take care of this person after he takes her, after all.  Maybe even have her come back as a threat some time in the future?

How it played out seems very reasonable to me; Patriarch felt he was being offered a bad deal and got offended, the player characters could have made nice and offered him some presents to get him back on side, but shot him instead, and now there's a blood feud.  That sounds very much like the kind of AW games I've run and played.