Failing on Leadership

Hey all!
Here is a hypothetical inspired by play: The Hardholder fails his leadership, and later, when his lieutenant confronts him, it leads to a heated exchange. The Hardholder fails to manipulate the lieutenant, and then asks whether or not he can't just order the lieutenant to quit bickering. The table agrees that it fits within the parameters of holding discipline, but we're still unclear on the legality of solving a failed leadership roll through another leadership roll: It can quickly turn into a situation, where you can never really fail Leadership. On the other hand the player should enjoy the full benefits of the move.

My question is this: What would you rule and why? And if you'd let the Hardholder use leadership to shut down problems originating in a failed leadership, how would you then make failure feel real and consequential?

He can threaten and cow a particular lieutenant, but Leadership on a miss doesn't say you have to put your guys in line (that's pack alpha), it says your rule is contested. Presumably this means a large sub faction of your holding is defined as "rebellious" for whatever ethical, religious, or popular reason, people have decided enough is enough and they showcase it in some way. Sure the Lieutenant might decide to be the spokesman, thinking he's got a chance to take over, or maybe earn concessions at least, but the fact is.... That does not change magically the attitudes of the others involved or even majority of the people, and their vocalizations, their strikes, their terrorism, is still present and a problem.

Plus when someone fails Leadership, you get to define these fracture lines in the culture of the holding. This becomes awesome, because that polarization might get shut down by force, sure--but that doesn't change the fact that people pay a cost. You can divide families down the middle, people can get killed. Maybe someone the Hard-holder likes gets lynched. Maybe someone the hard-holder likes lynches someone unforgivably. 

This move also doesn't say you've lost all control, just some. So careful how far you push it. I like to build up the threat over multiple misses, and then snowball the effects through good times and bad. Just remember the move is decided who has control. If its contested, then that control is not absolute, show this--and let them force that shit back into line on their own terms. Just remember, those lines? They just don't go away, and now you've got civil chaos too you can play with.

Also you don't get to roll leadership because you want to. You roll it only at the start of the session. If they then try to manipulate someone and fail, you should immediately push a hard move that changes the scene to such an extent that repeating that move would be impossible. Take the reigns for a second. Capture someone, split people up, announce badness (the roar of the mob when the guys throws open the window and declares they have been denied). If the hard-holder then wants to threaten the life of their lieutenant... lol. let him. But remember he did it, and make sure that Lieutenant remembers too. I guess next time there wont be people talking first, they'll just come violently and hard.

Also you don't get to roll leadership because you want to. You roll it only at the start of the session.

Uh, no. You're thinking of Wealth. You can use Leadership whenever you like.

Yeah, Ebok, it seems you're writing about wealth, which I don't have any issues with at all 😊

(I just looked over the move... wow, it's become a whole lot more forgiving since first edition!!! Perhaps it's a step too far?)

To respond to the original question:

I think the example works right up until the Hardholder fails a manipulate roll. At that point, things should have definitely spiraled out of control, and thus likely disallowed the second Leadership roll. Though, frankly, even without that...I don't think questioning a previous decision you've made once the crisis is over constitutes 'breaking discipline'. That's actually pretty solidly within the scope of disciplined behavior, and thus Leadership won't work to do anything about it.

In short, I think you can use Leadership to put down a riot or spontaneous revolt, but not to quash reasonable disagreement or probably even stop a planned and disciplined insurrection. It's leadership, not 'everyone has to do what I say no matter what under all circumstances'.

I see this as totally legit, it comes with the territory of being a prince. 

This is the scene that appears in like every Hollywood movie about cops or soldiers where the lieutenant confronts the old captain and says you're doing this all wrong, you're going to let the bad guys get away or get us all killed. Then the older guy's jaw tightens and he tells the lieutenant to stand down and follow orders, and the younger guy salutes stiffly and walks out looking pissed.  It's pulling rank, basically. It might be a good time to make some notes about the pissed off young lieutenant who's going to start talking to his friends about this bullshit. Maybe even start a countdown clock if the Hardholder's been doing this a lot. So, like with everything the Hardholder does, you solve the obvious problem in front of you but you might create a much bigger problem behind your back. 

So I was.

With that in mind: If you hear about it later, it doesn't mean you'll hear about it from them later. It just means "this aint over" and when you hear about it, it might already be too late, or already have cost you something. They're not likely going to repeat the same argument...

Thx all! You've given me a lot to think about.

I think I'll play it like this: Leadership can be used to prevent fallout from a failed Leadership roll, but if the hardholder does that, it's a que to me to setup further consequences down the road for the next time he fails; the gang follows orders but the issues do not go awayy. Like Ebok seems to say: maybe next time he hears about it from the victims of the gang needing to vent their frustrations or in some other way.

I don't think the leadership move triggers in the second case. The move is "when you have to order your gang to..." (emphasis mine). So if the lieutenant giving the Hardholder shit is part of the "hearing about it later," then that's a personal interaction, not a gang interaction. Yeah, the lieutenant is part of the gang, but the Hardholder is dealing with him or her one-on-one, in which leadership doesn't really feel appropriate. And failing the manipulate roll means the MC should absolutely be making a hard move, as the situation has been well and truly set up. Having the lieutenant make an immediate, dedicated, violent play for control would not be out of the question here. The lieutenant wouldn't necessarily have the backing of the gang (as the fiction might not support that, and again this seems like a one-on-one interaction), but in my mind this is how regime-change starts.  ;) Giving the Hardholder the ability to essentially make the leadership move again feels weak here, especially given the wording of its trigger in relation to the fictional situation as established.