I was wondering about the option for take a powerful blow, “you lash out verbally: provoke a teammate to foolhardy…

11 thoughts on “I was wondering about the option for take a powerful blow, “you lash out verbally: provoke a teammate to foolhardy…”

1. Sub and Mario Bolzoni Stefano Cuoghi Nicola Urbinati Fabio Succi Cimentini 

2. I’d figured it did, otherwise why use that word?

3. Is the word “provoke” in intalics or bold? If not, I wouldn’t assume it relates to that move. I’d consider it fait accompli: You hereby require another a character to take a foolhardy action.

4. From the move’s description in the corebook: “Lashing out verbally means you’re thrown off your game, and you release the tension by snapping at someone you care about, usually another teammate. You have to immediately provoke them to take a foolhardy action, or you have to take advantage of your Influence over them to inflict a condition—any condition. Those are the only actions that satisfy “lashing out verbally.””

   Since it’s describing provoking and another strictly-mechanical action in the same breath, I assume that yes, it’s referring to the provoke move. Though skipping fiction and going straight to mandating mechanics seems reaaally backwards. Brendan Conway, Magpie Games, any insights here?

5. I think this is one of the “to do it, do it” things. yeah, it’s the mechancial “provoke” move, but that’s what it is because you’re taking an in-fiction action to provoke.

6. The trigger is “When you provoke someone susceptible to your word”, so also if it’s the mechanical move (unfortunately, the example in the rules cuts just short of that moment), it is only if the teammates you’re provoking is susceptible to your words.

7. Mauro Ghibaudo If your teammates aren’t susceptible to your words then there’s something very off with the team.

   I always took that clause to mean the subject is capable of understanding what you are saying. No language barriers and no mindlessly raging berzerkers, robots, etc. Also no Super-Douches who are perfectly capable of seeing that you are talking but are incapable of giving a damn about what some kid has to say.

   Of course powers and circumstances can get around those. Telepathy ignores language barriers. Emotion Control can calm or redirect a berzerker. Hacking might work on the robots. Fearsome Reputation/ invoking your Legacy/ being a Star with your Audience watching might get the SD to actually listen.

   So basically nothing short of sensory deprivation or mind control should keep your teammates safe from your words. Otherwise why are you on the same team?

8. “Can understand what you’re saying” it’s very different from “is susceptible to you words”, if the rules mean the former it’s a very bad wording; I alway took it at face value – to be able to provoke someone, they have to be susceptible to your words, i.e., maybe the city’s big shot thinks little of you, so who cares what you’re saying?

   I think it just being “They can understand you” undermines a point of the game – you’re just making a name for yourself, that you have a shot in forcing anyone to do as you say just by provoking them seems to kinda undermine this.

9. Jared Abad I believe the threshold is higher than that; the person you’re trying to persuade doesn’t just need to be able to understand your words, they need to have a reason that they might listen to what you’re saying and take the action you suggest. Having Influence is a pretty good indicator, but that’s not perfect either; Magneto isn’t likely to endorse the Mutant Registration Act even if he respects you as a person.

   Though I agree that in most cases your teammates are probably susceptible to your words, it’s perfectly plausible to have situations where they aren’t. If you just had a big fight and you’re not past it yet, or you’re trying to get them to do something that goes against their personal code of ethics, it could be any number of things. Being on the same team doesn’t mean agreeing on everything, and being young adults is practically a guarantee that you don’t.

10. Teammates should always be susceptible to your words but that doesn’t mean they always do what you say when you provoke them.

    Even if you do succeed in the roll to provoke, pc’s always have the option of saying “no”. Maybe they get angry with you for bossing them around even after that fight. Or maybe insecure or guilty because you think they’re the kind of person who could do something outside your moral code.

    Or maybe they just say “nah” and don’t take the +1 team they would have earned for going along.

    It should never be that a teammate can’t be provoked. Only that they won’t.

11. Saying “Nah” could be a condition (if the option is chosen), it isn’t just not having a team. But that aside: why should someone always have to be susceptible to a teammate’s words?

    As far as I remember, nothing in the rules say so, and it possible that sometimes you just don’t care what a teammate says; the rules are quite clear on this (as long as Rampage is the Transformed, as is my understanding):

    →

    You can only provoke someone susceptible to your words. If you have Influence over someone, they are, by default, susceptible to your words, but otherwise it’s down to what makes sense

    ←

    So “susceptible to you words” isn’t just “able to understand you”, otherwise having Influence wouldn’t matter; and if there isn’t Influence you have to look at the fiction and see what makes sense. And, as for PCs not being automatically susceptible:

    →

    other times, they can shrug off your words—for example, Rampage, a dangerous and powerful monster, might not be susceptible to your threats of violence. But if you prod and taunt her about her transformed, inhuman form, she might be susceptible to those words

    ←

    So, here we have a PC that just ignore threats of violence, because she isn’t susceptible to them.

Comments are closed.