Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: Ross Cowman on April 25, 2011, 04:55:49 PM
-
I'm not sure what to do with a fight between a pc and 2 or3 npcs. Stacking NPC harm seems a little wonky. If you have enough armor you'll probably be fine, but if you don't they end up being deadlier then a small gang. Any thoughts?
-
The extended combat example in the book is 1 PC vs. 3 NPCs. Did that make sense? Any specific questions that it doesn't address?
-
It's also super important to realise that 99% of battle, in real life, doesn't actually involve direct shooting at people. Suppressing and covering fire, movement, they're all more useful than just trying to shoot a dude, because they are actually possible to pull off.
Smaller combat between one or two guys, more often than not, only one person will actually be doing any "real" fighting, the others will be setting themselves up, covering exits, being knocked over by their buddies getting destroyed by the PC.
Always remember that, mechanically, the PCs are way more powerful than an NPC - 1-harm or 2 to an NPC can get them out of the fight entirely, which isn't true for the PCs at all.
-
Ok, I found in the rules that more then 2 NPCs counts as a small gang, for some reason I was thinking it was like 5 or more. That helps but still...
When Momo pulls a Seize by Force, against lets say, Tum-Tum and Balls both armed with shotguns. Do you take 3 harm twice, minus your armor each time? 6 harm minus your armor 1 time? My read is the former.
But then, this is where it gets weird, lets say Ula jumps into the fray, now they're a small gang and only do 4 harm once. Which makes no difference to Momo, if he's got 2 Armour, but makes a huge difference if he's got 0.
Is that how the rules are supposed to work?
-
"A guy or two" can be considered the smallest tier of gang (pg. 249). In the situation you describe, where Momo is making a Seize by Force move against a pair of people, Tum-Tum and Balls, Momo would take 3 harm once. The pair of them don't have enough of a numbers advantage to inflict any extra damage beyond what a single target would.
This resolves your concern about a small gang doing less damage than a pair of guys.
I can't think of any situation where you'd inflict harm multiple times in a single move, or multiply the amount of harm taken. Instead the harm is usually bumped up one or two.
As a related comment, I don't tend to see a lot of situations where someone makes the Seize by Force against two or three NPCs- usually it's either gang vs gang moves, or between pairs of individuals in smaller conflicts. But if it really did make sense to inflict harm with a small number of people, I'd decide whether they were big enough to count as a small gang or not, and they'd do one more harm if they were, and act just as an individual would if they weren't.
-
Imagine the rank stacking as: a guy or two < ten or twenty (small) < thirty or forty (medium) < fifty or sixty (large). Each one hits the next one down for +1 harm, and so forth, and -1 harm for each above.
In the example you're thinking of, with seizing against two guys, you deal harm against them normally, and they do the same - so it'd be 3-harm once, minus armour. If you want to think about it narratively, then keep in mind that being shot (or whatever Momo is doing to the poor saps) isn't exactly something you shrug off and retaliate from with pinpoint accuracy. Balls fires a shot that goes wide as he's hit, and only Tum-Tum actually makes an impact, maybe, there's a lot of ways to think about it.
Everything comes down to the narrative, really, and if you're trying to make it seem as real as possible (while still fun), stuff like this is going to come up, and you roll with it! Kill those NPCs with relish, burn it all down.
-
I thought it made sense, then I realized that it actually doesn't make sense.
Right now the break down is
[a guy or two], [small gang (15-according to the chopper and hardholder)],[ medium gang (30)], [large gang (no definition)]
So the rules call for treating a guy or two as the smallest size like you are saying. Then there is this weird no-man's land between that and a small gang. That is the hole I'm talking about. It should really be patched somehow, maybe with another group.
I'm not stoked about treating one and two NPCs the same either but I'm cool with it being kind of hand-wavy.
Still, the small scaled fight dynamic would benefit from some better definition.
-
There isn't a no-man's land, it's either enough people to be considered a small gang, or there aren't.
Now it is true that the rules aren't totally clear on where that cross-over is. I think this may be intentional- it might depend upon the context. I think if you use your best judgement on whether or not the NPCs have a big enough numerical advantage that they should be considered a small gang, you'll be fine.
In practice, I've found that it rarely comes up. If there aren't enough NPCs that I want to treat them as a small gang, then usually they aren't taking moves collectively, or being subject to moves collectively. They are usually acting individually and being acted on individually. If it really makes sense in the fiction that they are acting as a unit and being acted upon as a unit, then it probably makes sense to consider them a small gang.
-
Wot Ctrail said.
There is no hard line defining the categories. 'Aw, but I've got 16 folks now, so i'll upgrade them to a medium gang...' Its possible mechanically, but does it make sense narratively? That's the key.
In your AW, maybe 3 or 4 well trained thugs could constitute a small gang, maybe not. The rules don't specify - you and your group does. Remember to make the world seem real and not boring. You'll be fine :)
-
I wonder if it might be easier to go by relative size, rather than absolute?
Outnumbering 2-1, +1 harm/+1 armour
Outnumbering 3-1, +2 harm/+2 armour
That makes numbers VERY important when there are only a few people, which I kinda like.
-
This kind of starts moving into custom move territory!
Noofy has the right of it. The thing to remember is that the rules are vague in some regards, yes, but that's where you should come in and fill some of the spaces for yourself, by consulting the logic of the game and the logic of your game. There's a lot of stuff in the game which boils down to MC fiat, this isn't any different!
Do what you want to do with the game, and if it works, awesome job! Your mother would be proud. If it doesn't, report back, think about it, get some more opinions. Either way, you'll be fine.
-
I don't think 2 or 3 well armed guys count as a small gang. That steps on the Gunlugger's toes, or on the toes of anyone with a gang. Otherwise I'm all for defining a small gang by according to the narrative.
My issue is that according when, according to the narrative, a PC is fighting against a group of NPCs that are not a small gang. The rules of the game don't tell me what to do. This instruction could come in the form of; mechanics for harm coming from multiple threats in the same encounter, another category closing the gap between a couple of guys and a small gang (the simplest option), or something else.
Does that make sense? Oh I also wanted to be clear that I'm not having a problem making the game "work", I can make Dungeons and Dragons "work". Well, sort of.
I'm just interested in discussing what I perceive to be a hole in the mechanics that dosen't need to be there.
-
I agree with the folks that say there's not really a hole here. It's either a gang or its not, depending on what the MC decides. Gangs are mainly a shorthand that make it easier for the MC not to have to track the fictional positioning of a whole bunch of dudes all at once. If you've got some guys that aren't a gang, fine. Just track them individually.
And that means they act individually against the PCs too. Balls gets a clear shot off at you. Inflict harm. Tum-Tum lays down some covering fire to keep you pinned. Act under fire or maybe keep the fuck down, depending. Follow the fiction. Don't trade harm back and forth like its D&D.
And, remember, you don't Seize By Force against PEOPLE unless you declare that specifically, like "I want to capture Balls by force, mano-y-mano, it's him and me throwing down." Often times you're seizing some other kind of fictional objective. Like, "I'm going to run up that ridge, guns blazing, and take command of their machine gun nest." Still, that could be Act Under Fire too, perhaps, so it really depends on what else is happening in the fiction.
John Harper has a theory that Seize By Force is better thought of as an optional battle move, not something that gets used all the time, because it really means you're duking it out with somebody and that's pretty much a sure way to get killed in AW (since both sides take harm automatically when you use the move).
Hope that helps.
-
...when, according to the narrative, a PC is fighting against a group of NPCs that are not a small gang. The rules of the game don't tell me what to do.
...when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity
on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you
like.
...
When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses
the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an
opportunity on a plate.
That's the rules of the game telling you what to do. Make the move that you think is best. If you want a harder move, make a harder move. If not, not.
-
...when, according to the narrative, a PC is fighting against a group of NPCs that are not a small gang. The rules of the game don't tell me what to do.
...when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity
on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you
like.
...
When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses
the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an
opportunity on a plate.
That's the rules of the game telling you what to do. Make the move that you think is best. If you want a harder move, make a harder move. If not, not.
It's also worth keeping in mind that the MC makes moves, not the NPCs. Just because there's two NPCs in the scene doesn't necessarily mean you get to take two turns. When it's time for you to talk, you still only get to make one move, right? If the NPCs are shooting a PC, you'll use the Inflict Harm move. If you think there's enough guys shooting that you feel they should be hurting more, well I guess they're big enough to be a small gang. You don't get to Inflict Harm twice in a row.
-
What FigureFour said. Amen to that. You're playing your NPCs and getting them into position so you can make MC moves when 1) it's appropriate or 2) they fail a roll.
-
Thanks for all of this great feedback, it is really helping me to get at the core of my hang-up. I think it boils down to this...
I agree, an MC should not just inflict harm twice in a row. But what if they choose to Inflict Harm As Established and what has been established is that there are three people with shotguns?
Make them a gang? I think it takes away from the Gunlugger and the PC's w/ gangs.
Choose a harder/different move? Totally a better choice, but this doesn't address when you have to Inflict Harm because of a PC Seizing By Force.
It boils down to wanting a way to inflict more harm when appropriate, The Harm scale on pg 162 seems to address that the best, a Shotgun = 3 harm, so maybe a Shotgun barrage = 4 harm.
So this is where I am at, I'm feeling pretty good about this but I would totally welcome more thoughts.
-
If I choose to inflict harm as established, and there are three people with shotguns, it still often makes sense that my move is for one of them to harm the player. Often only one has a clear shot.
But yeah, if it really made since that all three of them hit the player, I'd either do 3 harm or bump it up to 4 harm if it made since that the multiple shots would do more damage, as I think you've settled on.
What I'm confused by is why you say that you don't want to make them a gang, but then mechanically that's exactly what you do for this move. A small gang inflicts an extra point of damage due to numerical superiority. What it seems like here is that you are inflicting the extra point of damage for numerical superiority, but just not calling it a game. Why do you say that calling them a gang would step on the toes of the Gunlugger and PC gangs, but following the rules for gangs while not calling them that does not? I'm not seeing the distinction.
-
Choose a harder/different move? Totally a better choice, but this doesn't address when you have to Inflict Harm because of a PC Seizing By Force.
Is the PC Seizing All three NPCs? Like in a hold? Or what? If not, then it only the harm coming from the one being seized. And read this (http://mightyatom.blogspot.com/2010/11/aw-seize-by-force-is-peripheral-move.html#comments).
Basically, screw the rules. Try not to think so much about them until you trigger a When. And when you do, resolve that little bit and move on.
Proceed both narratively and chronologically. It sounds obvious, but just have everyone, PCs and NPCs alike, do one thing at a time and only use the moves when the Whens are triggered. Otherwise, it's up to your principles, prep, all that.
-
A middle ground solution I´d go for if you´re still not satisfied would be sth like this:
-Bo, Roark and Mari are really good fighting as a team. When they do, and they´re the only opposition the PCs have, they inflict +1 harm as if they were a small gang, but they don´t get the harm reduction benefit.
That should work as an intermediate point between a few combatants and a small gang.
In a game, when I was a player, the MC made a mistake and had two choppers with guns hit me for double damage (6). I was like "OMG did a piano fall on my head!", but I didn´t say anything because I wasn´t sure if he had done the right thing or not. I should´ve complained, anyway, because three more moves and I was marking a debility...
-
@ Ctrall
You are right, for dealing harm it is mechanically the same. The difference is that gangs take harm with a different table, and PCs, do -1 harm to a small gang.
@Chris
Yes, that is the kind of situation we're discussing. A PC Seizing multiple NPCs by force, and therefore suffering harm from multiple sources.
@Khimus
Cool, I'm glad I'm not the only one one who got tripped up by this. I like the idea of having that whole teamwork think counting as a custom move, though it might not be necessary to just add +1 harm. I think the MC just gets to do that when the Harm as Established warrants it.
-
So... the MC move "Inflict harm as established" and the harm that a PC gets when they choose to "Seize something by force" (a player move) are different things. And in neither case does it matter if you're taking harm from multiple sources/directions or not. All that matters is if you're taking harm from one or two dudes, a small gang, a medium gang, or a larger gang. Those are your choices!
If you're using the MC move "inflict harm," then you inflict harm based on the weapons and size of the person/group doing the harm.
If the player is "seizing by force," then -- doing this from memory -- they inflict their harm (based on weapons + size of their gang, and +1 if the player chooses "inflict terrible harm") and take harm from their opponents (usually 2 harm + size of their gang, and -1 if the player chooses "suffer little harm"). That's it.
AW isn't gritty and representational, mechanically. All the grit comes in the fictional description of how it goes down. If you want to make custom moves to do it differently, you can, but that's how it works, by the book.
-
@ Ctrall
You are right, for dealing harm it is mechanically the same. The difference is that gangs take harm with a different table, and PCs, do -1 harm to a small gang.
If you are inflicting harm as established, the second difference doesn't come up. If you are trading harm or using the seize by force between an individual and a small group, then it makes sense to me that they would take less damage, and use the other table, for the exact same reasons you'd want to increase the damage the player takes. If getting by three shotgun blasts means you should get hurt worse, than spreading your gunfire over a group of three should mean you hurt each opponent less, right?
Just because they are inflicting harm as a gang for one move doesn't mean they need to be treated as a gang for the entire conflict, if that's what you are worried about. If three NPCs are all trying to kill me I can see why I'd take one more harm, but if I was only interested in killing one of them, it would make sense to make a move against that individual and not the group, right?
-
Pages 155 - 158 of AW explain exactly how to handle 3 NPCs in a fight against a PC. Including how to take turns, how much damage they do and receive, and all.
I'll ask again: Is anything in there unclear? Do you have any questions about how that went down? If you do, I'd be happy to help.
-
Thanks for replying to this John, the example in the book makes sense to me. I was unsure about how to handle Inflicting Harm as established when it was coming from multiple NPCs, but I feel resolved about it now.
-
It's also good to note that just because you're fighting multiple opponents doesn't mean you're fighting a gang. Five or six guys could all be on the field with different objectives, different ways of completing the same objective, on different 'sides', etc.
The size tags are a little misleading. They don't correspond with a concrete number--it depends on your game, the MC, and the situation. A single Gunlugger can be a small gang, as Ross said two or three well-trained guys could count as a small gang, and fifty people could be just a medium gang.
Think of it terms of force rather than population (this is hard to do with the 'a guy or two' line); this has helped me out. Like horsepower! One car can be 200 horsepower, and one badass dude can be a half-dozen guys of forcepower wooooo. =D