User avatar
GoblinLoveChild
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri 27 Nov 2015, 06:55

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Sun 25 Mar 2018, 10:25

let not forget that manipulation also covers intimidation. whare i think alot of the "they must do as you say or fight you" comes from
 
User avatar
9littlebees
Posts: 604
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2017, 14:22
Contact:

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Sun 25 Mar 2018, 11:21

let not forget that manipulation also covers intimidation. whare i think alot of the "they must do as you say or fight you" comes from
Sure, but having someone attack you during a social check doesn't feel natural as the default position. I think I'd be happier to have an intimidation-specific Talent which forces the other person to fight if they refuse.
I make YZE games (https://drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?author=Matt%20Kay) and produce predominately Free League content on my YouTube channel (https://youtube.com/@3skulls)
 
User avatar
Tomas
Site Admin
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri 08 Apr 2011, 11:31

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Thu 26 Apr 2018, 09:27

The idea behind the attack option is basically a simple escalation mechanic - if you can't win with words, you either fold or escalate to violence. This is of course unfeasable in many situations, which is exactly the point. :)
The rule also removes the "mind control" aspect of Manipulation - the are spells for such things!

Your suggestion of suffering doubt instead is perfectly reasonable, but I don't feel it will work well with NPCs. One of two things will happen:
1. The NPC is not broken by doubt. Then the Manipulation basically has no effect, as the PC can't just keep rolling again and again.
2. The NPC is broken by doubt. Then we're basically back at mind control.
I think none of the above outcomes is really desirable.
When a PC is the target of Manipulation, suffering doubt is more feasable, as the doubt will have consequences (not really so for most NPCs) - but that's rare in my experience. Manipulation is much more used by PCs than against PCs, at least in my games. :)
Fria Ligan
 
LupNi
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon 02 Oct 2017, 13:08

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Tue 22 May 2018, 09:03

I feel like this could definitely use some clarification. Maybe as a detailed procedure:
  • The Player Character demands something from an NPC.
  • The GM judges whether there is a chance the NPC could accept:
  1. If it makes sense for the NPC to just say yes, the NPC does so and the story carries on without a roll.
  2. Else, if there is no way the NPC would ever agree, the NPC refuses and the story carries on without a roll.
  3. Else, if the NPC could be swayed one way or the other, roll Manipulation.
  • When you roll Manipulation, opposed by the target's Insight, two results are possible:
  1. The PC fails, and the NPC will ignore their demand. The conversation moves on.
  2. The PC succeeds, and the NPC is pressured into reacting. The NPC has the choice to either do what the PC wants, or attack the PC.
As of now I fail to imagine a case where a PC's success could lead to the NPC attacking them. I can't imagine a case where violence would happen on a successful roll but not on a failed roll. If the NPC will react with violence regardless of success or failure, why bother rolling? If the NPC can't react with violence because it doesn't make sense in the fiction, why give them the option? An example in the rules would be very appreciated.
 
User avatar
Jurij 1138
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri 29 Apr 2011, 09:15
Location: Zonen på Öarna

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Tue 22 May 2018, 12:26

  1. As of now I fail to imagine a case where a PC's success could lead to the NPC attacking them. I can't imagine a case where violence would happen on a successful roll but not on a failed roll. If the NPC will react with violence regardless of success or failure, why bother rolling? If the NPC can't react with violence because it doesn't make sense in the fiction, why give them the option? An example in the rules would be very appreciated.
"Move out of my way!"
"You should probably give me all your jewellery - for safekeeping."
"We didn't kill him - the murderers went that way!"
________________________
Meka Extraordinaire
 
LupNi
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon 02 Oct 2017, 13:08

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Tue 22 May 2018, 14:44

So the difference is that if you succeed they can punch you and if you fail they can ignore you?
 
User avatar
Fenhorn
Moderator
Posts: 4429
Joined: Thu 24 Apr 2014, 15:03
Location: Sweden

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Tue 22 May 2018, 15:39

So the difference is that if you succeed they can punch you and if you fail they can ignore you?
You do know that you can apply some GM discretion what's appropriate and what's not.
If two PCs wants to buy a nice gun, but he shopkeeper say "It's not for sale, I only sell to members of the Jackass Gangbangers". The PCs try to manipulate the shopkeeper to change his mind. If they succeed, the shopkeeper has a choice, either to sell the gun to them for a fair price or to threw them out of the shop. If the players fail, then the only way they can get the gun is to take it. In this example a success can go either way, depending on if the shopkeeper has a guard or not.
A player is accused for murder and is sent to the tribunal. There he tried to defend himself by trying to manipulate the tribunal (by claiming self defense). If he succeed, the tribunal must free him or pick a fight. Fight is very inappropriate in this situation so that will not be an option. If he fails, then he will be sentenced for murder.
In both these examples it is the GM who is playing the shopkeeper and the tribunal judges. The GM simply has to go for what is logical for the situation.
“Thanks for noticin' me.” - Eeyore
 
LupNi
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon 02 Oct 2017, 13:08

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Tue 22 May 2018, 16:55

Well, thank you for taking the time to explain. It still doesn't completely click for me, I'm not sure it ever will.

Let's break down the "shady shopkeeper with guards" case.
Failure: The shopkeeper refuses to sell. The PCs may either leave or fight.
Success: The shopkeeper agrees to sell OR The shopkeeper refuses to sell and the guards kick the PCs' ass.
Conclusion: The roll determines how nice the GM is allowed to be. In case of failure, the GM may not be nice with the players. In case of success, the GM may either be nice with the players, or be really antagonistic and trigger an outcome that is worse than failure (since in case of failure the PCs at least have the choice to keep the status quo).

Do I understand it correctly that, when violence is on the table, manipulation actually has nothing to do with player agency but is just a way to constrain the GM's choices? On a success the GM can arbitrarily be "nice" or "bad" but on a failure the GM may not be "nice". In other words, a failure preserves the status quo, a success forces an outcome to happen but the GM decides if that outcome is good or bad.
When violence is not on the table, it's of course much easier.
 
User avatar
Fenhorn
Moderator
Posts: 4429
Joined: Thu 24 Apr 2014, 15:03
Location: Sweden

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Tue 22 May 2018, 17:32

Since it is an NPC that is the target most of the time for this skill, it falls to the GM to judge what is appropriate for the situation. The main difference between this game (and MYZ) and most other games is that in this game it is written in the skill description that in some situations the target may use violence instead of making a deal with the manipulator. This to avoid that the skill turns into charm person.
The players when they use the manipulation skill have to read the situation. In the shopkeeper example above, the players have to read the shopkeeper, why he is saying no and if they have any leverage to be used against the shopkeeper. The GM has to make a call on why the shopkeeper doesn't want to sell the weapon and how for is he willing to go. The GM, when he plays the shopkeeper has to read the situation, the players arguments vs. the shopkeepers reasons and so on and then make a call to either sell or start a fight. If he the GM thinks that the players arguments are good enough, he sells otherwise there will be violence or in this case, the shopkeeper will probably try to threw them out of the shop.
In the other example (the tribunal), it is totally inappropriate to turn into violence so if the player succeed, the tribunal has to come up with an alternative solution than murder. Exactly what depends on the arguments the player used in his manipulation attempt.
“Thanks for noticin' me.” - Eeyore
 
User avatar
Klas
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun 04 Nov 2012, 19:17

Re: Doubts about manipulation*

Thu 24 May 2018, 00:02

Although I have no trouble interpreting the rules flexibly it might make good sense to explain in the rules what the "will attack" outcome actually can mean in practical terms.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests