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?