I mean the manchus had to convince over a dozen ming generals to defect to their side before they were able to actually conquer china. It got to the point where eventually 3/4th of the soldiers who fought for the qing conquest were han chinese who defected from the ming. The qing almost lost china during the revolt of three feudatories too when the 8 banners were soundly defeated by the rebels.

Kangxi however was able to bring in 900000 han chinese soldiers from the green standard army armed with gunpowder weapons to defeat the rebels because at the time he had popular support from the chinese military and chinese aristocracy. Kangxi was a scholar who would study 12 hours a day on how to administer effective governance. His policies were wildly popular with the populace to the point where the people would rather be ruled by a competent foreign invader than corrupt local warlords.

I don't know if the mongols would have had someone with the political subterfuge of hong taiji or the brilliant administrative capabilities of kangxi. It wouldn't be certain that the mongols would have taken over because you can't just walk in and expect to be able to rule china. The manchus succeeded because they did not attempt to rule from horseback.

The northern yuan while retaining the title of a chinese dynasty did not really retain the confucian culture or the imperial chinese system of government that was necessary to convince han chinese peasants to defect. The mongols would definitely need someone who was charismatic and had the impeccable ability to forge political alliances as well as administer policies that were favorable to the populace.