Forum

I've got a problem with the MANIPULATION rules, and I'm looking for feedback.

The rules were working well for my game until a player made a PC with 7 MANIPULATION dice, 3 gear dice for fancy clothes and jewelry, Path of Words 3, and Sharp Tongue 3, then started going up and down the Yender River trying to unite the various villages into a trade alliance to band together, destroy a nearby problem town, and supplant her as the leader of that former problem town.

Cool shit! She's gotta negotiate with like 8 different town leaders, each with various goals and alliances. Some think it's a great idea; some think, "cool idea, but who the fuck are you?"; some think it's a bad idea; some think "not on your life, and if you try this I'll kill you."

In other words, a spectrum ranging from positive regard to "completely against their own interests."

My Problem: In my reading of the rules, I wanted to simulate a difficulty factor other than reputation and bargaining position, a range of difficulties between “Acting completely against own interests” and “just needs to be convinced a bit.”

My First Attempt: I created a table representing degrees by which an NPC is hostile to an idea, and required the manipulator to generate EXTRA SUCCESSES on top of whatever the opponent's INSIGHT roll was:

1) Minor inconvenience. Reasonable/Businesslike. “Sure, if, unless.” Requires X over INSIGHT roll. (this is standard difficulty in RAW)

2) Too much trouble/bad idea. No. “I would much rather not.” Requires XX over INSIGHT roll.

3) Directly against interests. Vehemently against. “By all means, no.” Requires XXX over INSIGHT roll.

4) Completely violates own core values/interests. Won’t be caught dead agreeing. Req XXXX over INSIGHT roll.

This rule change did NOT go over well, as my player pointed out that it makes manipulation ABSURDLY difficult and the game already has rules for this stuff, and it involves die penalties, which are less brutal than requiring extra successes.

I looked it all over again, and realized that, yeah:

• Extra successes make things like twice as difficult as die penalties.

• My level 2, "too much trouble/bad idea" is equivalent of bargaining penalties like, "asking for something valuable/dangerous," and/or, "they’ve nothing to gain." -1 or -2 penalty.

• If an NPC is just bullheaded, lazy, wants a better deal, or just don’t like the PC, the PC's success means they'll either attack or demand something in return.

But I STILL have a couple problems with RAW in this regard.

1) Oh man does Path of Words/Lies Rank 3 get sand in my nasty GM craw. Propose a reasonable, fair deal to a bandit commander who is honestly just a brutal sociopathic grunt who doesn't like your deal because you're too pretty looking? Get a -2 penalty "something valuable", "more ppl" roll 8 dice, succeed, he demands a price because of course he would, and you spend a WP and now he's perfectly docile and goes along with your plan. Really? How do you GMs deal with Path of Words 3 rendering your "Game Of Thrones"-style social antagonists docile yes-men?

2) I don't like the HARD WALL of "your suggestion is against their interests? Manipulation is impossible." Completely against their interests, sure. But what do you all think of adding another bargaining factor penalty in addition to the ones already there like, “Largely against opponent’s interests, -3”? Something of a grey area between the possible and the not.

TLDR; uh it's complicated just read it, thanks.

The opponent may do what you are asking now - but who's to keep him from implementing their own hidden agenda and start working for their own good the moment you turn your back? Manipulation is not mind control, they still have a life. And you can disallow unreasonable demands. That being said, your player spent an awful lot of XP for this, so you should allow her to do some awesome stuff with it. To keep it interesting, I suggest:

Manipulation is usually an opposed roll, so giving some of the leaders good insight, makes it at least necessary that she spend WP to succeed. And you should build up at least one of them with similar competence levels in manipulating others and have them follow their own agenda, trying to undermine her efforts (or come out on top of the bargain, whatever) by in turn manipulating the other leaders to serve their interests. They may still look like going along with her plan, but maybe not quite the way she's expecting...^^

Edit: Also, not always will the player have "initiative". Your main opponent for her may start the encounter by manipulating her in turn. Being at the receiving end of Path of Lies may be an interesting twist and may lead to some fun roleplay.

Just my 2 cents

I think many leaders would have Incorruptible 3 so they can't be Manipulated. Then it doesn't matter if the person automatically succeeds, the target is immune.

I think the answer is in the political area of what the player is attempting. They're ostensibly making a power-grab and as such, draw the attention of other powerful figures. These figures might be playing the game through information warfare, politics, bounties for ways that 1) diminish the upstart's effectiveness or get them acting in the wrong place 2) leverage masses vs. decision-makers (basically undermine their efforts) and 3) cause them harm in different ways. So while the PC could influence these figures directly, getting to them or surviving through the web of conspiracies might prove difficult.

Note that the Berserker talent also makes one impervious to Manipulation, so a lieutenant outside the chief's house can easily challenge the silver-tongued fellow.
Another aspect is the order of action: if the Threatening lieutenant built like an oaken door uses Might against this PC before they can manipulate, and tells them to "get lost!" when the PC loses their Insight roll, then there's nothing they can to at that point.