Hi guys!
I’ve only recently started MCing (tonight will be our second session).
So bear with me for this question:
Let’s say someone uses Read a person on an NPC and asks “How can I get him to do xxxx?”
I answer the player.
If then the player uses that answer, do you have the NPC act on it automatically, or do you consider it leverage for a Manipulate roll?
We’ve also had some discussion and troubling determining how far could a successful Manipulate/Bluff get you? (Many PC had their Hot higlighted! 🙂 )
Two examples:
1. The battlebabe meddled in a love triangle and wanted the cute female NPC to go for the NPC biker, instead of the PC gunlugger. She made a “compelling” argument that the biker had bigger guns (going as far as to buy him said big gun!). So I let her roll for manipulate.
2. The savvyhead wanted to convince a captured teen raider to give up raiding and “being a parasite”. In that case, I felt that simple Manipulate roll couldn’t override years of “education”, so I didn’t even have her roll. Was I right?
How would you handle what seems to me like a long term project?
I got to say, the first session was a beauty to witness!
And one of the most fun I’ve had GMing a session for any game. 🙂
Thanks!
I’d have her act immediately, or if not, make it clear to the players that she’s putting up a front and will crumble soon.
You handled 1 the way I would, but 2 feels like it violates the rules to me. People get what they get from successful rolls, and it feels like the player was denied his successful roll.
Glad things went well.
As for your question, if you tell a player what it will take to have an NPC do something, and the PC does it, then the NPC complies. The player doesn’t have to roll again. The character has done what you’ve told them is necessary, and now they get their reward. The NPC might not comply immediately, but I feel they should at the earliest opportunity.
As for whether the Savvyhead convinces the teen raider? I feel you should have allowed a roll. When a move is triggered, you have to resolve it.
Interesting! I’ve always interpreted it the other way, that reading a sitch and asking “how could I get them to…?” was how you figured out how you could Manipulate them (with +1 to the roll).
Just because I know you like the guy with the bigger guns doesn’t mean I can seal the deal. There are tons of ways you could biff that interaction.
I’m not sure Example 2 is so straightforward: what exactly were they asking the teen raider to do? “Stop being a parasite” isn’t an action in itself, it’s just a promise to try to do better: if the Savvyhead just wanted to hear that promise, then sure, roll, but if they actually wanted the teen raider to have a change of heart, I’m not sure you can do that so easily.
Imagine a conversation like “Oh, you’re a Communist?” Rolls to Manipulate. “Well, now you’re a Capitalist!” It doesn’t seem very authentic to make such a compete change of heart without something really powerful in the story to back it up.
Yeah, what is the Leverage on Example 2?
“Stop being a raider, you’re a parasite!” isn’t leverage. That’s insulting someone you’re trying to appeal to. “Stop being a raider, I’ll give you a place in my hold” is leverage, for example.
No leverage, no roll.
From AW 1e:
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. On a 10+, whether you keep your promise is up to you, later. On a 7–9, they need some concrete assurance right now.
From AW 2e:
When you try to seduce, manipulate, bluff, fast-talk, or lie to someone, tell them what you want them to do, give them a reason, and roll+hot. For NPCs: on a 10+, they’ll go along with you, unless or until some fact or action betrays the reason you gave them. On a 7–9, they’ll go along with you, but they need some concrete assurance, corroboration, or evidence first.
The 1e move requires a promise, while the 2e move requires a reason. Both are motive.
“I want you to stop being a teen raider.” If you nail the 1e roll with a 10+, that NPC is gonna ask you to promise them something to change their ways. And on a 7-9 cough up some proof you’ll make good on that promise right now.
For the 2e move, what reason do you provide to convince them to give up raiding? On a 10+, they go along, until your reason proves to be false. On a 7-9, again, prove to them right now that your reason is a good one.
What she wanted (if I remember correctly) was for him to agree that his way was wrong and her way was right. I think she was also hoping to recruit him. I considered it and remembered that with the “advanced” version of this move, you could fundamentally change the nature of a NPC. It felt like this is what she wanted and she doesn’t have the advanced move. So I thought it would require more time and effort. No impossible, but it would take more time.
It is absolutely OK to pause the game and ask a player what they are trying to achieve Daniel Goupil. I have to do that fairly often.
Daniel, in that case, I’d say, “How are you changing his mind? What reason are you giving him?” And if there were none, I’d say, “I don’t see how that could work, then.”
I mean, a savvyhead could make a thing to change someone’s mind, right?
From both 1e (p. 197) and 2e (p. 142):
“To seduce or manipulate, the character needs leverage — sex, or a threat, or a promise, something that the manipulator can really do that the victim really wants or really doesn’t want.
“Absent leverage, they’re just talking, and you should have your
NPCs agree or accede, decline or refuse, according to their own
self-interests.”
Regardless of version, you need some form of leverage to trigger Seduce/Manipulate. So, Daniel Goupil, I think you handled #2 perfectly.
(And, again, I think that using Read a Person can identify what could count as leverage… but it’s not an automatic thing. If you use that information to manipulate someone, you’re Seducing or Manipulating someone and you roll+Hot.)
I think if you with the ‘how can I get x to y?’ It depends on the answer you give. You can denote that the npc would do it in a heartbeat if you make the offer, or make it sound like it would take some convincing. Either way, I’m a favor to make them roll, but not to see if they succeed, but as a chance to figure out the fall out. If the npc is willing and a 10 was rolled, no biggie, it happens. Roll a 6 and the npc can still be Gung hoe but you get to make a hard move to show that what pc’s think they want may not lead to thing they like.
Robert Bohl
“I mean, a savvyhead could make a thing to change someone’s mind, right?”
Ohohoho, totally. I love Workspaces.
I was gonna post first, then I went out and bang, ten replies, so yeah. Leverage! It’s what’s for breakfast.
Yeah, it sounds like your second situation is a matter of stakes. Maybe changing his mind completely was too far, but she could heavily impact his world view, make him think about it.
Daniel Goupil Those are basically related questions. You need a reason to manipulate someone, right? So, you start with the read a person. The player asks the MC, “How can I get him to do XXX?” That’s your queue to decide what it would take. Tell them. Now they have to do that or provide that reason to execute the manipulate. No screwing around with any “sorry, but that’s not good enough” or hiding what the answer is from the players.
“How can I get them to do something” should just work if you do the thing. They key is what the thing is, in a lot of cases the thing should be difficult or something the PC won’t want to do.
“They’ll let you in to see Bulldog if you give them that sweet rifle.” Sure, if you hand over the rifle they just do it. Making someone roll again seems like a terrible idea. It’s important not to fall in to the trap where you keep getting a player to roll until they fail (or succeed).
“They won’t pull the trigger and splatter your brains all over your bunk if you convince them you’ll never be a threat to them again.”. How do I do that? Dunno, you tell me… There’s a good chance this requires another roll to deceive or manipulate. Maybe they can reveal some secret that makes it clear they won’t be a threat in future. If they’ve been a kill crazed psycho with a rep for enacting blood drenched revenge for even minor slights, well maybe it’s impossible to convince the girl with the sawn off there is no need to pull those triggers.
Eric Nolan depends. I agree with not wanting to delay success with another roll. Me, I delay success with some drama. A complication. Which means they won’t be jumping right into that manipulation roll. I.e. “Sure, I’ll let you through the door if knock out all of Tum Tum’s teeth for me.”
The point is more…if the player jumps right into the manipulation, they will have to provide their own reason. The MC can decide they don’t like the reason and say no — even on a 10+. The reason is just not interesting to the NPC. To stop the MC’s power and take it back, the PC has the read a person tool to force the MC to say what is interesting.
Wow, I didn’t expect to get that many great replies!
Thanks to everyone who chimed in. 🙂
I think I now have a better understanding of how to handle those moves.
For situation 2, remember that we play to find out what happens. Unless it had been previously established in the fiction that the raider would not be influenced by the offered leverage, you need to allow the move be triggered. Otherwise you are violating a base premise of the game.
My game group had to teach this to me when I started MCing.
Gonna disagree with Jim hardcore here. Yes we play to find out, but that doesn’t mean we roll for everything the first time it comes up because we’re “finding out.” The MC makes judgment calls all the time, based on the fiction — this is also finding out. If they realize, right then and there, this raider doesn’t like your tone, or that it goes against his simple straightforward motivations, then it is 100% legitimate for the MC to just say “seems like he doesn’t give two fucks. Maybe try a different way.”
/sub
Alfred Rudzki, you said it yourself, “based on the fiction”. If it had been established that the raiders were brainwashed since birth that this was the only method of survival, then offering a better life would have no leverage because it is totally unbelievable. If it had not been established, then the move should trigger with reasonable leverage. On a failed attempt, it could then be explained that all of the raiders are “educated” and future attempts will not be possible.
Yeah, it should trigger with reasonable leverage. But the MC is the MC, they run the world, they’re making the judgment calls — they should never go “oh, uh, well I was thinking based on a bunch of stuff you guys said last session, maybe this guy wouldn’t listen to you… but I just thought of that, so uh, i guess it doesn’t count? So you can roll anyway?” Weak sauce. The MC runs the world. If the MC realizes — makes the connections — right there that your leverage isn’t really leverage, then they should follow that. It’s their job.
Alfred Rudzki “thinking based on a bunch of stuff you guys said last session…” Established fiction. Use it. Explain it if needed. Clarify and ask. But if the raiders are new to the fiction without a well established background, the MC should not on the spot decide that an offer with reasonable leverage should automatically fail.
Agree to disagree 🙂 I’m not ready to make the sweeping generalization that an MC doesn’t get to make decisions about things recently added to the fiction.
I see that not everyone has the same interpretation. 🙂
How I ruled for #2 is pretty much how James Mullen put it:
Imagine a conversation like “Oh, you’re a Communist?” Rolls to Manipulate. “Well, now you’re a Capitalist!” It doesn’t seem very authentic to make such a compete change of heart without something really powerful in the story to back it up.
There wasn’t much established about the raiders, since they came into play in some of the love letters I prepared for that session.
But the Savvyhead wasn’t in a position to make such a bold statement either, since she was still a stranger to the teen. Not much of an authority figure.
After the past session (last Friday), where she went many times out of her way to protect him from the abuse of 3 of the other PCs, the teen raider has started to view her differently, wondering why she’s been his “guardian angel”.
Now her words will probably carry more weight.
Ironically, the other PCs don’t have much qualms about raiding and pissed the Savvyhead by undermining her efforts. 😉
Making PC–NPC–PC triangles has worked wonders in the campaign so far and has been driving the action/drama very well! Fortunately, improvising those triangles seems to be coming easily to me. 🙂
So now we’re playing to find out what happens to that teen raiders (among many other things).
That sounds awesome!