The1TrueFredrix
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri 12 Aug 2016, 16:36
Contact:

Doubts about manipulation*

Sun 11 Mar 2018, 21:47

I have just had a thought about the manipulation resolution. For reference it says:

When you try to convince or bluff someone, make an opposed roll of MANIPULATION versus your opponent’s INSIGHT. It only counts as a (slow) action for you.

If you successfully MANIPULATE your opponent, he must either do what you want or immediately attack you with physical violence. Even if your opponent chooses to do what you want, he can still demand something in return. The GM decides what that entails, but it should be reasonable enough for you to be able to meet those demands. It is up to you to accept the agreement or not.

Very similar to Coriolis, but I have never been massively impressed with the “immediately attack you with physical violence” bit. It always rubbed against the Arabic themed stories I have read, where intense negotiation took place over extremely civilised hospitality. And affronts against honour were not revenged in and angry and violent outburst, but rather in a cooler more subtle assassination days or months later. 

Perhaps in the Forbidden Lands, things are generally more prone to violence, and it fits better.  BUT in a game which (unlike Coriolis) has an actual “doubt” mechanic, I am surprised that the manipulation “attack” doesn’t somehow use that. For example, if you successfully MANIPULATE you opponent, they must either do what you want or take Doubt misery accord8ng to the number of successes you rolled (or the difference, I guess, that you won by). They can then CHOOSE to attack you physically I would think, in defence of their doubt, but if they are broken by doubt they flee the scene. 

Any how what does everyone else think?

*Do you see what I did there? :) 
The Coriolis Effect - a fan podcast about Fria Ligan's Zero Engine games, featuring discussion of the rules and ideas to expand the setting of the Third Horizon and well as Actual Play episodes. http://feeds.feedburner.com/fictionsuit/tCE
 
User avatar
King_Kull
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2017, 16:11

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Mon 12 Mar 2018, 08:57

Your solution is more to my taste than RAW. As I have read it I found it quite disturbing but I have suppressed the memory - or so it seems ;)
In Coriolis I had thought to give the GM a Dark Point instead of attacking the manipulator.
Last edited by King_Kull on Mon 12 Mar 2018, 10:43, edited 1 time in total.
I am king!
 
User avatar
9littlebees
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2017, 14:22
Location: Rural Germany
Contact:

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Mon 12 Mar 2018, 09:12

Great solution to an awkward rule! In Coriolis, removing the attack bit is one of my major houserules.
I'm an English game designer working on Nordsaga, a career-focused dark Viking game, powered by the Year Zero engine: https://9littlebees.com
 
User avatar
King_Kull
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2017, 16:11

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Mon 12 Mar 2018, 13:49

9littlebees wrote:
Great solution to an awkward rule! In Coriolis, removing the attack bit is one of my major houserules.


What’s your solution for Coriolis?
I am king!
 
User avatar
9littlebees
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2017, 14:22
Location: Rural Germany
Contact:

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Mon 12 Mar 2018, 13:56

King_Kull wrote:
What’s your solution for Coriolis?

Limited successes mean that the "victim" is likely to obey the Manipulation, otherwise doubt kicks in and I would think of something narratively.

Inflicting stress (or Doubt here in FBL) is a great alternative, and I'm a bit embarrassed I didn't think of it myself (though to be fair, I have very little experience of Coriolis compared to MYZ and TFTL).
I'm an English game designer working on Nordsaga, a career-focused dark Viking game, powered by the Year Zero engine: https://9littlebees.com
 
User avatar
King_Kull
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2017, 16:11

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Mon 12 Mar 2018, 15:43

Thank you :)
I am king!
 
nifoc
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue 31 Oct 2017, 14:35

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Mon 12 Mar 2018, 16:22

The1TrueFredrix wrote:
I have just had a thought about the manipulation resolution. For reference it says:

When you try to convince or bluff someone, make an opposed roll of MANIPULATION versus your opponent’s INSIGHT. It only counts as a (slow) action for you.

If you successfully MANIPULATE your opponent, he must either do what you want or immediately attack you with physical violence. Even if your opponent chooses to do what you want, he can still demand something in return. The GM decides what that entails, but it should be reasonable enough for you to be able to meet those demands. It is up to you to accept the agreement or not.

Very similar to Coriolis, but I have never been massively impressed with the “immediately attack you with physical violence” bit. It always rubbed against the Arabic themed stories I have read, where intense negotiation took place over extremely civilised hospitality. And affronts against honour were not revenged in and angry and violent outburst, but rather in a cooler more subtle assassination days or months later. 

Perhaps in the Forbidden Lands, things are generally more prone to violence, and it fits better.  BUT in a game which (unlike Coriolis) has an actual “doubt” mechanic, I am surprised that the manipulation “attack” doesn’t somehow use that. For example, if you successfully MANIPULATE you opponent, they must either do what you want or take Doubt misery accord8ng to the number of successes you rolled (or the difference, I guess, that you won by). They can then CHOOSE to attack you physically I would think, in defence of their doubt, but if they are broken by doubt they flee the scene. 

Any how what does everyone else think?

*Do you see what I did there? :) 

I fail to see the problem. You certainly have the option of attacking someone trying to manipulate you but that would probably have severe repercussions in most societies, at the very least it would be a severe breach of honor and trust. It also means that trying to manipulate someone is best done in the open with plenty of witnesses (note that manipulation and outright blackmail are two different things), lashing out and attacking someone is certainly an option but will likely have legal consequences or cause blood feuds meaning that societal norms prevent most sane people from choosing that option.
 
User avatar
Klas
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun 04 Nov 2012, 19:17

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Mon 12 Mar 2018, 19:10

Giving the victim an option to take doubt instead of attacking seems quite sensible. Not all NPC's/players act the same.

But there is also a talent, SHARP TONGUE, that specifically lets the attacker inflict doubt. What to do with that if the core rule is upgraded?
 
The1TrueFredrix
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri 12 Aug 2016, 16:36
Contact:

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Mon 12 Mar 2018, 21:46

Klas wrote:
Giving the victim an option to take doubt instead of attacking seems quite sensible. Not all NPC's/players act the same.

But there is also a talent, SHARP TONGUE, that specifically lets the attacker inflict doubt. What to do with that if the core rule is upgraded?

Without sharp tongue the defender has the option of taking stress or doing what the attacker demands. Given that level one of sharp tongue only counts on successes above what you need to win, I’m inclined to rule that you take the doubt even when you agree to do what the attacker says. But it’s all open for discussion :)
The Coriolis Effect - a fan podcast about Fria Ligan's Zero Engine games, featuring discussion of the rules and ideas to expand the setting of the Third Horizon and well as Actual Play episodes. http://feeds.feedburner.com/fictionsuit/tCE
 
User avatar
King_Kull
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2017, 16:11

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Mon 12 Mar 2018, 21:48

Klas wrote:
Giving the victim an option to take doubt instead of attacking seems quite sensible. Not all NPC's/players act the same.

But there is also a talent, SHARP TONGUE, that specifically lets the attacker inflict doubt. What to do with that if the core rule is upgraded?


Didn’t remember this talent... Yes, that’s difficult. But if you attack you don’t get doubt. With the talent you always can inflict doubt.
I am king!
GZIP: Off