Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: cmarken on September 22, 2013, 05:01:34 PM
-
During our session yesterday a question came up about how gangs take harm.
The PC's gang was doing a prolonged battle and the opposing gang managed to do 1-harm four times before they where defeated. We did describe some of the people getting killed but one of the PC's felt like the harm done their gang didn't correspond with it taking a total of 4-harm ("widespread serious injuries, many fatalities").
So, is 1-harm x 4 = 4-harm?
-
I'd say yes. And if the PC is the leader of the gang, they take the same amount of harm.
-
I'd say yes. And if the PC is the leader of the gang, they take the same amount of harm.
I thought so. But i forgot about the PC takes the same harm. Ouch. Thats a lot. Have to think about how to handle that. Thanks!
-
I'd say the gang would most likely suffer 4-harm.
As far as the PC, I think it depends on the situation. If the PC is describing being out among the gang, fighting with them, then he'd suffer the same harm, but if they describe holding reserves, attacking conservatively, using their gang as a buffer, maybe only some or none of the harm blows through.
-
As far as the PC, I think it depends on the situation. If the PC is describing being out among the gang, fighting with them, then he'd suffer the same harm, but if they describe holding reserves, attacking conservatively, using their gang as a buffer, maybe only some or none of the harm blows through.
The book's pretty clear on this point on Page 169. If the PC is hanging back trying to protect themselves they suffer 1 less harm than the gang. So, 4x0 harm = 0 harm. But remember, the gang holds together up to 4-harm if they have a strong and present leader, if not the gang starts to break apart at only 3-harm.
I thought so. But i forgot about the PC takes the same harm. Ouch. Thats a lot. Have to think about how to handle that. Thanks!
I wouldn't catch the PC up on the harm because they may have made different choices if they were getting wounded along the way.
-
It's a good question, because an okay-armed gang attacking an okay-armored gang (say, 2 harm versus 1 armor) will only deal 1 damage every time harm as established is dealt, and it doesn't sound like much.
But over four rounds, that means the defending gang is taking, say, a maor injury every round, and then there are the several people who take a minor injury, and then another, and then another, without an Angel (or equivalent) and crew patching folks up here and there... to me, seems quite like 1 harm can add up, all else being equal.
-
Four rolls for a combat seems like a lot. Sounds like you're describing a classic war of attrition, where the enemy just slowly ground down the attacker. So they won the battle, but each one of those 1-harms represents bullets hitting people. Some of them bled out, some were killed off one-by-one, and some just flee when they took a hit to the arm, yeah? All injuries and deserters added up, this protracted battle did 4-harm. Sure.
That said, if it feels wrong then don't do it. AW is a fiction-first game and you can dish out whatever Harm makes sense. I struggled with the Harm rules until I realized that they're not set in stone. You can totally say "a stray ricochet catches you for 1-Harm" or you can say "damn, the bullet slams into your gut for 3-Harm, you need a medic!" Whatever makes sense. I treat the damage ratings in the book as a guideline only: about how powerful is this weapon, on average?
-
Personally I would just apply the 1-harm cumulatively -- i.e. every time 1 harm is done, you enact the fictional reality that represents, then move on. Since the rules for gang harm don't scale linearly, that would not result in four 1-harms being identical to one 4-harm. A gang that repeatedly takes small arms fire is going to be much better off than a gang you shoot a rocket launcher into, or overrun with your own gang of machete-wielding motorcycle cavalry.
-
The by-the-book answer is that harm against gangs doesn't sum. Taking 1-harm four times isn't the same as taking 4-harm all at once.
The rules for PCs taking harm when a gang does are on page 169. They're easy: if the PC is a leader or prominent member of the gang, she takes the same harm the gang does. If she's just a regular member, or if she's actively trying to protect herself while the rest of the gang fights, she takes 1-harm less.
-Vincent
-
Ideally, none pf this harm was abstract. Like, each time harm was dished out, you describe who got hurt and how. So hopefully it's easy to look back and be all "hmmm, you've got X number of wounded and Lilly is dead, I guess mark 2-Harm for all that." That's a possible solution.
-
I'm actually a little curious what happened that lead to four "rounds" of combat doing 1-harm each. Did the gang's leader repeatedly Go Aggro, try to seize a bunch of different things by force, did he keep trying to hold an untenable position? AW has never struck me as lending itself to prolonged engagements because its rare that your only goal is "keep shooting until they stop moving" and any other goal is usually won or lost on a single roll.
-
I was a little curious, myself. Seize is often treated as the "combat roll," when it really encompasses much more. I think it can be hard to break out of that mindset, and realize that violence for its own sake is not really what the system is about. That said, it's totally possible to string together multiple goals and find yourself in the crummy position of rolling Seize four times in a row.
-
It is possible. I'm just saying for my MC money, as soon as someone says "we shoot them again" I'm going to back them down and ask "OK, So what is it you're trying to seize from them?" maybe the player says "their still beating hearts" in which case, fine. I still want them to stop and think about it for just a second because chances are if its not a battle, completely demolishing a gang was not their primary goal.
-
It is possible. I'm just saying for my MC money, as soon as someone says "we shoot them again" I'm going to back them down and ask "OK, So what is it you're trying to seize from them?" maybe the player says "their still beating hearts" in which case, fine. I still want them to stop and think about it for just a second because chances are if its not a battle, completely demolishing a gang was not their primary goal.
Absolutely. Needing four rolls to finish a battle seems like an edge case for sure.
-
Maybe we overdid the battle. It was the major showdown between the hardholder and the local warlord who tried to invade the hardholders island. Every roll some of the battlefield shifted owner. I did want to have a longer scene. Not sure i handled it the best way.
-
Don't let the armchairers get the better of you! They weren't there.
-Vincent
-
Yeah. I didn't mean to criticize. I was genuinely curious was all. "I can't think of a reason" should be read as "I'm interested to know your reason".
-
I think the climate of this forum is one of the best i've encountered on internet. I never feel criticized in a bad way here :)
I'll have a go at explaning the situation with the battle. Feel free to comment!
The hardholder knew there would be an attack from the local warlord. It's been brewing for a long time. When there was shouting from the north of the island he ordered his gang to move there and defend. The attackers was led by the warlord and his lieutenant so i say the need to take 4-harm to break (strong leader present).
The hardholder made a 10+ on his leadership roll so he decided to stand fast against an attack. We rolled for seize by force for the confrontation (question: maybe we should have rolled for act under fire here?). I think the results where something like 1 harm to each of the sides. I did however forget that the hardholder should take as many harm as his gang.
Now there is commotion for the center of the island where the holders live. An old enemy siding with the warlord have gotten behind the lines and started infecting people (we play a zombie game). The battlebabe handles the situation and starts following the old enemy.
Back to the fight between the gangs. The warlord and his troops have digged in among the rocks and there is some fire exchange. The chopper and his gang attack from the flank on their jetskis and smash into the ranks of the warlord with full force. We roll a seize by force (i don't think i used pack alpha here, maybe i should?) and harm is exchanged (1-harm to each side).
So now we have 3 gangs, 2 for the PC (chopper and hardholder) and 1 for the attackers (warlord). The warlord's gang has suffered 2 harm.
Now someone brings out and RPG in the warlords gang and aims it on the palisade. I think the battlebabe tries to hinder him but he misses his roll (act under fire i think i used). And the shot is fired. Hardholder rolls for act under fire, don't remember exactly what the result was but he suffered 2 harm i think so it must have been a miss. He lands on his as and there is splinters and debris everywhere :)
The hardholder gets all crazy and orders his troops to make an hard advance screaming from the palissade (he's got 2 holds left from his leadership roll). He rolls another seize by force and both sides suffer 1-harm. While this is going on both the battlebabe and the chopper moves for the lieutenant and the warlord. Lieutenant is dropped in an exchange by the battlebabe but the warlord gets away on a boat. I think this was from a missed act under fire roll and some goons get in the way due to that.
A boat chase commences where the chopper and one of his gang manages to catch up with the captain while he fires away with a SMG (successfull act under fire). The chopper boards the boat and a fierce hand to hand combat commences.
Anyways, this was about the gang combat. I don't remember where all the harm to the hardholders gang came frombut i did roll seize by force 4 times with them suffering 1-harm each time. It was in the spirit of this example. But the gangs had a strong leader present, so they fight to 4-harm, right? Maybe someone should have taken definite hold of the whole battle, but each roll we made where for a part of the battle, not the whole one.
-
OK, that sounds much cooler than four consecutive Seize rolls! Some of it just comes down to play styles, I think. If the Hardholder isn't trying to surround the enemt or force a surrender or something, he's just wiping them out then yeah, he's just wiping them out.