I’m interested in trying to adapt ‘Persuade an NPC’ to also include ‘Persuade a PC’ — probably modeling after vanilla AW’s Seduce/Manipulate move, which gives the following choices (7-9, choose 1; 10+, both.)
• if they do it, they mark experience [the carrot]
• if they refuse, it’s acting under fire [the stick]
Acting Under Fire — the stick — maps just fine to Keep Your Cool, but Urban Shadows does experience differently (and better), so a new carrot is needed. Anyone have any thoughts?
One possibility is either a +1 forward or something a little more complex like ‘Hold 1 for the remainder of the scene; spend your hold for a +1 to any roll.’
Is there a specific reason you want to replace Debts with this move? Remember that the absence of a persuade a PC is intentional… 😀
/sub
You’re already mapping relationships way better with debts imo.
The problem with offering a PC XP to do things your way is, like why does that get them XP basically? Fictionally, it’s not like they did anything to get it or earn it. In AW it works because of the theme and the other moves forming a style over substance for XP. You highlight how people act and that’s the drive for XP. Likewise, If they refuse you, why are they acting under fire…because it’s cool, right.
With US, you have the why rooted into the debt system already since they already know what’s happened to create the debt as well as how they feel about someone and said debt. The relationship map should already show how the PCs can manipulate one another and additionally how they feel about one another much more acutely then in AW.
I would just emphasize debts more in your games if your finding a need for this additional rule for PC manipulation in your games, Robert. Just my two cents though!
The Debt system already does most of what you are talking about. If the PC you are trying to persuade owes you a debt, you cash in that debt and they either get out of debt to you (carrot) or Refuse to Honour a Debt (stick). If they don’t owe you, then you offer them a debt.
The reason why I am reluctant to just use debts is because it doesn’t give a character a chance to shine. If someone makes a character whose thing is being socially adept, that matters only when NPCs are involved — when PCs are in the mix, it doesn’t matter. The parity issue is this: if I want to affect another PC via violence, I’m rolling Blood. The character who is better at violence is better at affecting another PC. But if I don’t want to use violence, the character with Blood is just as effective as the character with Heart.
For some context, I am thinking about this in line with an online game where the overwhelming majority of interactions will be only PCs.
Well urban shadows is a game were you need a lot f interactions with NPCs. It’s not designed for games without NPCs, because it’s about interacting with the urban society, finding where you fit-or just surviving the politics. However maybe you should look at the Fae, from the wild faction. It’s got a lot of punishing moves for social situations-might be better than just making a move for everyone to use.
Hence the notion “adapt”‘– I’m hacking at the game to see if it can fit into different spaces while still being able to tell the same sorts of stories. I don’t think this is a change that would be needed in a standard, 3-6 player tabletop game. Indeed, I don’t use it when I run tabletop. But I’m exploring other venues in my head right now, and hitting up the community to help crowdsource some of those thoughts 🙂
Ok, my apologies for misunderstanding your intent. This kind of information (like purpose of hack) is useful to mention up front, so we can adjust our advise accordingly.
It’s all good! I realized I wasn’t that clear; I’m a little more used to the Apocalypse World forums, too, where everyone is hacking everything all the time 🙂
Using debts definitely lets socially adept characters shine. I still don’t see the advantage.
A potential solution is to have the PCs control a couple of NPCs, if the GMs won’t be very involved, or PCs will be orchestrating their own plots. These would be vulnerable to persuade NPC rolls, like ghouls or plucky sidekicks, while PCs could only be convinced with debts.
Robert Veneman-Hughes – Thanks for making it more clear what you’re looking for. It helps us all a ton to figure out how to help you.
First, I want to note that I think the game does allow high Heart characters to be socially adept, but it’s subtle. Heart is the stat for refusing to honor a Debt, which means that high Heart characters enjoy a kind of negative freedom: they don’t have to honor all their obligations.
Urban Shadows isn’t Apocalypse World because it’s about a strong social fabric (as opposed to a weak post-apocalyptic society). In such a tight knit community, the ability to say “I’m not going to honor my Debt right now” is a huge advantage. PCs with a high Heart can offer Debts to get stuff done (“I’ll give you a Debt if you do what I want”) and then are much more likely to be able to delay when that Debt gets successfully cashed in.
That said… you might want to have more manipulation anyway. If so, I’d recommend pushing back toward the Debt system. For example:
When you try to manipulate or persuade a PC, roll with Heart. On a 10+, both. On a 7-9, pick one:
– if they do it, you owe them a Debt.
– if they don’t do it, they owe you a Debt
Mark Diaz Truman
If you do them a favor (something that they need to be manipulated into), wouldn’t they owe you a debt normally?
How loosely does everyone interpret ‘When you do someone a favor, they owe you a Debt’? Does this include small favors? What if you are paying off a debt, but you go above and beyond or things get more serious than expected?
It really feels to me like Debts are leverage. A Persuasion attempt is (often) going to start out with ‘I would like you to do X, and I will owe you a Debt if you do.’ That’s the offer and the leverage — what I’m interested in, I suppose, is a system that gives someone with a high Heart the mechanical pressure to put on someone to accept that deal.
I guess another part of this is that — and I acknowledge this is the AW player in me — I saw Debts and I was like ‘sweet, now I have something to offer as leverage all the time’, and so I am exploring whether that’s an urge worth satisfying.
I don’t see how it improves PC vs PC to permit people to force people to take deals. If they aren’t offering enough, they should offer more or unleash an attack and ask when the dude is bleeding.
Duane Padilla The definition of that move is expanded in the end of session move. It has to be a favor at significant cost or risk.
Jason Corley Thanks. I missed that.