Forum

The success and the failure doesn't have the same outcome. If the player succeeded with the persuasion attempt (assuming there that the GM have accepted the player's description of the skill roll), the enemy inside the barn either have to accept that or attack. If the players skill roll fails, he can do whatever he wants to inside that barn. Sure he can attack, but he can use any action he wants, even nothing if he wants to

That's even worse. You're starting a failed roll could result in no combat but a successful roll must end in combat. That's the exact opposite of how things should be. Once again, I'm fine with there being situations that players can't talk their way out of. I am fine with Kasia finding a marauder who just feels like marauding no matter what she says in that lonely barn. That's not the problem. The problem is that a successful use of a skill resulting in a worse (or at best same) outcome as a failed use.

I'm just saying the same thing over and over. I understand that some people can't be persuaded. That's not the problem. I concede that the option to ignore persuasion needs to be there. I just think there needs to be some kind of mechanical benefit for successful actions, especially if the successful action can be totally negated by player or Referee Fiat. A one step penalty on the followup attack or a bonus free action to the Persuader seem the most straightforward. Anything else would be too laborious or advantageous.

The success and the failure doesn't have the same outcome. If the player succeeded with the persuasion attempt (assuming there that the GM have accepted the player's description of the skill roll), the enemy inside the barn either have to accept that or attack. If the players skill roll fails, he can do whatever he wants to inside that barn. Sure he can attack, but he can use any action he wants, even nothing if he wants to

That's even worse. You're starting a failed roll could result in no combat but a successful roll must end in combat. That's the exact opposite of how things should be. Once again, I'm fine with there being situations that players can't talk their way out of. I am fine with Kasia finding a marauder who just feels like marauding no matter what she says in that lonely barn. That's not the problem. The problem is that a successful use of a skill resulting in a worse (or at best same) outcome as a failed use.

I'm just saying the same thing over and over. I understand that some people can't be persuaded. That's not the problem. I concede that the option to ignore persuasion needs to be there. I just think there needs to be some kind of mechanical benefit for successful actions, especially if the successful action can be totally negated by player or Referee Fiat. A one step penalty on the followup attack or a bonus free action to the Persuader seem the most straightforward. Anything else would be too laborious or advantageous.

The idea with this rule is to to avoid the skill to become a charm person spell. The example in the book might not be the best in the world, but on the other hand we don't know what happened before that situation. Just because the game using rounds doesn't mean that there are any combats. The GM might have decided to start combat rounds because of the risk that the situation escalates to a combat situation, then the player as her first action tried to avoid combat. In the example we also don't know what the situation at large looks like. Kasia will most likely not start doing this without being in cover and there might be a second player having overwatch of the barn making this a scheme to lure out the person inside the barn.

This rule exists in most YZ games and have done so for years. I am realizing that I am not explaining it very well.

I had the same issue with the specific example in the book.

If a successful roll to persuade was to have no effect, why allow the roll in the first place? Wouldn't it be better to use an instance of haggling over a price as an example?

This rule exists in most YZ games and have done so for years. I am realizing that I am not explaining it very well.

You're not, you just keep pointing to all these "could have" scenarios. The RAW in the book states that a SUCCESSFUL use of Persuasion in Combat either gets the player what they're asking for or immediately attacked. Whatever the fiction around it is beyond the point, MECHANICALLY you either get what you want (with or without strings attached) OR the NPC or PC can choose to immediately attack you. If you don't make the roll, the NPC/PC can do whatever they want, including giving in or immediately attacking you, or lots of other options. The success and failure conditions are the same. If all YZ games do it this way then they're all flawed.

As it stands now Persuasion is the equivalent of a Goading maneuver... you can either goad them into surrendering but will more often than not annoy them and force them to attack you.

Granting a bonus Fast Action to the Persuader if the defender chooses to attack isn't "turning this into Charm Person" nor would imposing a one-step penalty to the opponent for their next attack. It'd just give a mechanical benefit for a successful roll that the NPC or PC can willingly choose to ignore.

"I don't want to fight you over this... why don't we just both back out of here an forget we saw each other?" rolls persuade on scared civvie armed with a shotgun in the shop
On success, the civvie could accept my terms, offer a condition ("give me a ration and I'll leave") or the civvie MUST attack me. In this case, that shotgun will mess me up but good. If the civvie goes with the attack me option, that's a FAILURE to me, even if it makes sense fictionally or for the NPC. So the mechanics penalize me for trying something... I would have been better off just attacking or running away, since those have mechanical options that have clear success/failure conditions. Persuade's conditions are less clear-cut and thus riskier, but for no apparent reason. Why build a mechanic at all if the success condition still relies on fiat decisions? At least with a mechanical penalty, say that civvie has to attack me at -1 step or I get a free Fast Action to drop prone, that at least doesn't completely wipe my success from the story.

The example should be changed. As for the rest, it is easy to house rule.

The example should be changed. As for the rest, it is easy to house rule.

Why house rule when the Alpha document can actually change the rules to something functional? As it stands now, the roll of the player is subject to fictional fiat, so why roll at all?

I just pulled out my Mutant: Year Zero book and the rules in T2k are different. The rules in T2k use the Intimidation rules and completely ignore the Manipulation results from MYZ, which lack the "must attack" option (and even has rules for more successes meaning less conditions). Intimidate in MYZ (which combat use of Persuade most closely resembles) also allows for better success to inflict Doubt on your opponent if they choose to attack (which is, hey presto, kind of like what I've already suggested)

Mutant Year Zero is the first game in the YZ family and the rule has been changed for their other games (and in Mutant Elysium for example).

I would suggest that you commenting about this in the dropbox book. That would be easier for them to find it.

I just want to say that the Beta's version of Persuasion in Combat is SO MUCH BETTER! Good job, devs!