WHO SHIFTS LABELS?
The move:
“When someone with Influence over you tells you who you are or how the world works, accept what they say or reject their influence. If you accept what they say, the GM adjusts your Labels accordingly; if you want to keep your Labels as they are, you must reject their Influence.”
Reading this, it seems clear the GM adjusts the labels EVEN IF the situation is a PC to PC interaction. Yet that is not the way we have played it; between PC’s we have had the Influencing PC say what is shifted. Is there a rule I am missing? Did I just get confused by the rule on page 77 which definitely says if you GAIN influence over a PC you already have influence over you (the player, not GM) decide which labels shift? How do you play this between PCs?
I let PCs do it.
I let PCs do it, but I do arbitrate in cases where the player names labels that don’t really match the fiction of what just triggered the shift. Mostly to the tune of “Are you sure that’s what you mean?” and “Help me understand that.”
Same as Alfred. That way something like “you’re an idiot” can be translated to Influences depending on what has happened in the game
Alfred Rudzki Hitchcock’s answer is exactly why the book says that.
Situation 1:
PC1 tells PC2 “You’re a danger because you fought the villain instead of saving those people!”, and has Influence, so it’s a Label shift. PC1 thinks that PC2’s Danger should go up, and Savior (let’s say) should go down. The GM is most likely to agree 100%, so the GM may not even need to say anything—the shift is exactly what the PCs say.
Situation 2:
PC1 tells PC2 “You’re a danger because you fought the villain instead of saving those people!”, and has Influence, so it’s a Label shift. But PC1 follows that up by saying, “Ooo, but I don’t want to lower your Savior because I want you to be able to defend me. So let’s say I lower your Mundane.” The GM has every right to say, “Nah, what you’re saying, the situation, it’s totally their Savior that goes down.”
Nearly always the PCs will pretty much shift each other’s Labels perfectly and the GM can just watch with glee, but final power rests with the GM, so that the GM can make the call and ensure the shift follows the fiction.
The reason the “Gain Influence over a PC over whom you already hold Influence” situation is different is because the trigger
is an exchange of Influence, not “telling you who you are or how the world works”—the Labels just shift, and it’s a-okay for PC1 to say “I think your Danger being higher would be useful, so I’ma do that thing.” And the GM should then ask, “What do you say or do that leads to that?”, but you work backwards from the Label shift, instead of figuring out what Labels change based on the fiction.
Got it, so it sounds like a) the rules really do make this the GM’s thing I didn’t miss a rule but b) in practice most people have the PC’s do it and that works just fine.
I have often seen label shifts done 2 ways in games that completely flips how the labels are adjusted.
“You were Reckless and a Danger” has had Danger Up, Superior down because its them telling you how you should be, but also Danger Down, Superior up because thats how they want them to be
Lian Rowan My first reaction is Danger up, Superior down, because the move states, “tells you who you are,” not “who they want you to be.” It seems the move shifts your labels towards others’ current perceptions of you. Their declaration is, “You are ‘x!” Their influence makes you question yourself and, if you accept it or cannot shake it off, so to speak, you change your self-perception to more closely match theirs of you.
I think this move was written from the point of view that it would be adults (always NPCs) “telling them how it is”. There are other moves that would be more appropriate for when it’s PC to PC, like “Comfort or Support”, or “Provoke”.
It’s somewhat assumed in the theme of the game that it’s the ADULTS who would “tell how the world works”, vs. PC’s teammates trying to counter or reverse that by encouraging or talking them down. (Via “comfort or support”)
The thing is, if the move was triggered by a PC, clever players could abuse the label switching mechanic to increase certain labels on the fly.
Example: A group is fighting a villain and have discovered that none of their powers are very effective against him except for those of 1 PC, but that PC’s Danger label is low and causing his “Directly Engage a Threat” rolls to fail.
One of the players has the brilliant idea to have them each in turn “Tell him how the world works”, and raising his Danger to a higher rating. (Which the PC gladly accepts in desire for better rolls. Therefore, that’s why I think that a PC telling another “how the world works” would more likely trigger the Provoke move, as per fictional positioning.
If someone is constantly yelling at you how the world works, that means you’re a teenaged superhero. It shouldn’t be discouraged.
Tim Osburn PC to PC influence move happen all the time in our game. By this point there is an intricate web of influence among the PC’s, so pretty much anything a PC says to another that touches on who they are or how the world works has the potential to trigger the move. This happens more often inadvertently rather than being planned, where I am the one (as GM) pointing out “hey, wait…didn’t you just tell Peter how the world works? Do you have influence over him?”
I know the players are clever, so of course if they want to they will figure out ways to trigger this move. But it will still be interesting, because they are clever, so when one PC tells another PC who they are or how the world works, it will be a cool bit, even if it was “manufactured” to allow for a shift in labels.
I was about to say… if the RP and fiction works, why not?
Tim Osburn I would agree, except that Provoke specifically mentions “foolhardy” action. But sometimes a PC in a fight might be yelling at their teammate to buck up and stay strong, or fall back where you’re safe. So there are situations where a PC specifically might want another PC to behave in a way that is not foolish and do so by telling them “who they are or how the world works.”
Hans Messersmith, I would agree with what AD Kohler says: if it works in both the RP and the fiction, why not? Yes, this could be gamed to advantage, but isn’t getting advantage the point? That’s just smart teamwork, and consistent with how these stories work in comics.
Adam West actually, Provoke doesn’t mention “Foolhardy Action” at all. Just “Getting then to do what you want them to do”. Foolhardy Action is only specified in clearing conditions. To clear “insecure”
Tim Osburn you are correct! My apologies. Was what I was saying in one of the earlier test versions of Provoke? Or maybe I just got that phrase stuck in my head from the Insecure condition text you pointed out.
That’s possible, I only have the most recent PDF and print copy.
Thanks for all the replies. Just to be clear, its working just fine for us, I had no worries about “gaming” the system on the part of the players, I just wanted clarification on the rules as written and some feedback on how people do this in actual play. I have that now for which I am grateful.