Working on a verbal encounter move based on Jason Cordova Labyrinth move:
When you attempt to overcome someone through verbal means, roll +stat. Tell the GM your ultimate goal. You can roll +stat a number of times equal to your modifier of that stat until you have used all three stats in this way (scores of 0 or below must still be used once).
When you beg, schmooze, mask your true feelings, or flat out lie, roll +CHA
When you battle their wits, see the bigger picture, or engage in repartee, roll +WIS
When you interpret their real meaning, twist their words, or bark hard facts, roll +INT
On a 12+: You gain 2 hold
On a 10+: You gain 1 hold
On a 7-9: You gain 1 hold, the GM chooses one below
On a 4-6: You lose 1 hold or the GM makes a move
On a 3-: You have said exactly the wrong thing, lose all hold and the GM makes a move.
-You gain a debility based on the state you rolled
-A secret about yourself is outted
-The opposition reveals a truth that negatively impacts you
-You lose reputation with an important person; now or later
At any time you may spend 1 hold to learn a useful truth about this person or gain ancillary information in a minor slip up. Work with the GM for this information. You may spend 4 hold at any time to achieve your ultimate goal.
If you have no hold to lose, this encounter is over.
(Example: a character with +2 CHA, +0 WIS, and -1 INT would have to roll +charisma two times, +wisdom one time, and +intelligence one time before being able to roll +charisma again)
This format reminds me of D&D 4E’s skill challenge mechanic, but with juicy flexibility! I like it!
Thanks Andy Hauge . It a bit wordy. Custom moves seem to do that. Let me know if you use it and if it totally sucks or not.
I like it too. I feel like the limitation on stats you can use feels a bit confusing. I wonder if, instead of limiting stats, you could make a list of tactics like:
Choose your tactic below, each can only be used once per:
– you interpret the subtext, roll +Int
– you bring up the bigger picture, roll +Wis
– you flat out lie, roll +Cha
– you use facts and evidence, roll +Int
– you outwit them, roll +Wis
– you plead or beg, roll +Cha
– …
Aaron Griffin yeah, the limitations are clunky, but I just wanted to put something in place to limit spamming the same CHA attempt over and over, but your approach with using specific tactics sounds good too.
Robin Laws has a ton of ink spilled on this sorts of petitioner/granter conflicts – where one side wants something from another who is unwilling to give it. Might be worth poking through some of his work if you have it available.
Do you have the name of anything specific i should check out or do you mean in general?
Andrew Huffaker hmm I think Skullduggery is the game that most makes use of his techniques, if it is a bit complex.
I have a thought about an alternative to the limitation on stats.
Ideally, the narration of the opponent’s side of the conversation should prevent the spamming of the same approach, in the same way that the fictional positioning in a physical conflict limits how the players can realistically respond.
I had a few thoughts about how to achieve that, but where I ended up going with was to abstract it by adding another option for the 7-9 choices for the GM – something like:
* The audience’s changing mood or your opponent’s repartee limits your options – the GM nominates a stat which you can’t use in your next response.
(A more extreme version would be “… which you can’t use until you change the mood”, meaning it’s an ongoing limitation until you fictionally succeed in overcoming the problem).
It’s a bit meta, but at least it’s simple.
What I’m thinking fictionally is something like: if you’re relying on wise-cracks to score points against your opponent, they might choose to bring up the recent death of the princess, changing the mood of the conversation to something more sombre. Suddenly, your humour is inappropriate and you have to adapt your approach to avoid offending the audience.
I went for the meta level of “nominate a stat they can’t use” because it would be harder to adjudicate what is or isn’t appropriate if it wasn’t so starkly mechanical.
Robert Rendell that’s really good and doesn’t have to be used all the time, only when the gm feels like it appropriate.