Yet another stab at rewriting Parley for #Stonetop. Comments on the original thread, please!
Originally shared by Jeremy Strandberg
Fourth Draft: Parley (again)
So, I said I was done with this and I even changed my moves sheet to use a boring old crib on AW 2e’s Seduce/Manipulate. But then this happened.
It’s actually much closer to the root inspiration (Freebooting Venus’s Demand Something move, as described Johnstone Metzger) than any of the previous drafts. And it gives up on the Petitioner/Granter framework I was going for.
In the Demand Something move, the trigger is easily met (“When you demand something of someone”) and doesn’t require any leverage. The result then determines if there’s 1 requirement (on a 10+) or 2 (on a 7-9). But what goes unstated in the move is that the requirements can have already been met in the triggering of the move. So on a 10+, the GM could decide that they’ll do it if you have and apply leverage over them but you already did that, so whatever, they do it.
In this version, I tried to make that an explicit choice for the GM on a 10+. And on a 7-9, there will always be at least 1 requirement, no matter how well positioned you were before hand.
So, we keep the open trigger (“press or entice someone into a course of action”) without requiring the “do you have leverage” conversation, but keep the move from being mind control by allowing the GM to decide on a requirement on a 10+. And while there’s overlap in the 10+ and 7-9 results (e.g. in both cases, the GM could choose 1 requirement), I think this frames the decision for the GM in such a way that the results will feel different.
As always: feedback and questions appreciated!