Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: Ernesto Pavan on November 10, 2011, 05:05:59 AM
-
A discussion arose on an Italian forum about this move and the possible choice of "taking definite hold on it". Suppose that my character is going barehanded for another one's throat, basically trying to "seize his life": would it be legit to "take definite hold on it" to kill him? I'd say a big "no" here, as it would basically bypass the whole Harm system and make armor useless, but I'd like some clarifications. ^_^
-
Yes, of course. I mean, the option is right there in the rules, why would it suddenly not be allowed?
I think it also useful however to consider seizing someone's life by force as a two-step process. I generally interpret 'taking definite hold' of someone's life as basically gaining such an advantage on them that their life is in your grasp. So in the example, you choke them nearly to unconsciousness, and all you have to do is continue if you wish to kill them. But in another case -- say, a large-scale gunfight -- then maybe it means you have them dead to rights with your rifle pointed at their head. Or you have a knife to their throat. Or you've hauled them into the back of your jeep and started to drive off.
The point is, there's still room for someone else to do something about it, even if they can't, prior to the point where you decide to kill them (if that is what you decide to do.) In the context of a battle, seizing whoever's life was your move for this tick, and next tick your move can totally be 'and then I kill 'em!' But it's possible someone else will do something between those two ticks -- and in the case of it being a PC seizing another PC's life by force, I would probably let the PC react as well, albeit heavily constrained by the fiction of the first move.
-
You have to keep in mind that only PCs can do this, and NPCs die very easily. If all you want to do is kill somebody then you can probably get away with just inflicting extra harm and they're gonna be dead, or close enough to it. If the NPC is heavily armoured or inaccessible in some way -- then this approach might make more sense, if the only goal of the PC is to straight up kill the person in question. And in that case it should make sense in the fiction as well, because the PC is taking some specific sort of violent action that gives them whatever advantage is necessary to kill the otherwise-unkillable NPC.
Definitely seizing hold of someone's life is a lot more interesting if your intentions for that life are not to end it as soon as possible. Taking a hostage, for example -- or rescuing a hostage, or killing someone else's hostage before they can get away, etc. If there's some innocent kid about to get gunned down by an NPC gang, and the Gunlugger leaps in the way, shoots a few of them in the head, takes a bullet, grabs the kid, and hauls him into cover -- that's seizing the kid's life by force. Nobody gets to kill that kid without going through the Gunlugger, at least until circumstances change.
-
Daniel Wood has explained this elegantly above.
To reiterate his point from my perspective: "I seize his life by force" means more like "I use force to seize narrative arbitration over the stakes of whether or not he lives."
-
You have to keep in mind that only PCs can do this, and NPCs die very easily.
The problem comes when a PC uses the move on another one and instakills him just by virtue of having rolled a 7 (which is the most common result on 2d6, so anyone with Hard >= 0 will pull it off lots of times).
-
If it's PC vs PC, remember that the intended victim can roll seize by force to secure his hold on his life too, and that both can and should roll to interfere with one another.
The 2-sided seize by force is wicked fun. There's only one exchange of harm, but both players get to make their choices from the list. Give it a try.
-Vincent
-
If it's PC vs PC, remember that the intended victim can roll seize by force to secure his hold on his life too, and that both can and should roll to interfere with one another.
The 2-sided seize by force is wicked fun. There's only one exchange of harm, but both players get to make their choices from the list. Give it a try.
-Vincent
That's interesting. I always thought that, in such a case, only one would be rolling at a time. However, in such a situation what's the use of "inflict terrible harm" when "take definite hold" can completely ignore the Har and armor system and prevent the other one from taking a debility and surviving?
-
Taking definite hold of someone's life doesn't allow you to bypass harm and armor and kill them.
-
Taking definite hold of someone's life doesn't allow you to bypass harm and armor and kill them.
That was the core of my doubts. Thanks!
-
So what, It'd be like Keeler tries to take Wilson's life by force, rolls a 8, and choose take a definite hold of it so the MC'd go
"Keeler, Wilson stabs you in the ribs but you fall on her and your hands find her throat. Take 2-harm, minus armor. Wilson, you try to free yourself but no dice. You take 1-harm, AP, because you don't have anything around your neck. Keeler, if you squeeze harder you'll kill her (tell the consequences and ask),what d'you do?
-I kill that bitch !
-Okay. Wilson, take 1-harm AP and roll the harm move. (inlfict harm as established). Ooh, hurts. It feels like your windpipe is crushed. Take 1-harm more. What do you do?"
-
So what, It'd be like Keeler tries to take Wilson's life by force, rolls a 8, and choose take a definite hold of it so the MC'd go
"Keeler, Wilson stabs you in the ribs but you fall on her and your hands find her throat. Take 2-harm, minus armor. Wilson, you try to free yourself but no dice. You take 1-harm, AP, because you don't have anything around your neck. Keeler, if you squeeze harder you'll kill her (tell the consequences and ask),what d'you do?
-I kill that bitch !
-Okay. Wilson, take 1-harm AP and roll the harm move. (inlfict harm as established). Ooh, hurts. It feels like your windpipe is crushed. Take 1-harm more. What do you do?"
I think that's the spirit!
-
A little clarification, Vincent (or anyone else), if I can.
Let's say I HAD taken definitive hold of the life of Snake Eyes the Chopper.
We fought, we shot each other, the dice rolled for a reciprocal Seize by Force and now all is still with a 7-9 for me and a failure for him. I choose to take little harm and to take definitive hold on his life.
In the fiction I'm now kneeling on a defensless Snake Eyes, I take out my knife and cut his throat.
He dies? I do a move? I do the 1harm of the knife?
-
I do the 1harm of the knife?
Yep, that's it... maybe 2-harm, and definitely AP, Snake Eyes makes a Harm move and gets asked "What do you do?"
As well, Snake Eyes's player may take debilities instead of the harm, if they so desire. Of course, Snake Eyes is in a position to keep taking harm unless he figures out a way to get out of that situation... such as trying to Manipulate someone there or Acting Under Fire to play dead and not flinch when kicked, etc, etc. The *characters* don't know what Harm someone is at, even as the players do, so there are "outs".
It's tough to kill PCs... the are the stars of the story! How many times in movies has a protanganist been surely killed, only to show up later with a nasty scar and a grudge? That's the way to look at it.
-
Taking definite hold of someone's life doesn't allow you to bypass harm and armor and kill them.
Even against NPCs?
-
Yep, that's it... maybe 2-harm, and definitely AP, Snake Eyes makes a Harm move and gets asked "What do you do?"
But now you're denying the full benefit of my move.
I've taken definitive hold of it, I did my usual damage, I roll my dice, he interfered and at the end... I've taken definitive hold of his life.
Now we're out of the conflict, the dice are still, and I've Snake Eyes' life in my hand. Whot do I do? I cut his throat. Must I cut it repetitively until the 1-2damage of the knife fill his countdown clock (it's like cutting turkey! XD) or now I've really got hold on his life and can simply end it?
The way I would play this is sending Snake Eyes straight to 12.00 on his countdown clock and then I'll allow him to take a debility, so we can have a coherent fiction: I'm in control of his life, I cut his throat (withouth chopping like I'm cutting some chicken), no interference in this, I already have the control of his life, I already won that conflict, I left him for death and THEN he could take a debility a come back... maybe as a Faceless XD
Let's see this other situation:
Ruby the Skinner got Fifi the Gunlugger sleeping in her bed. She worked for it. She spent a whole session trying to obtain a powerful narcotic from the Maestro d', she seduce Fifi to fuck with her, she seduced him to drink the spiked wine and now Fifi is sleeping, naked and heavly drugged, beside her.
Ruby drives a rusty spike through his eye.
What do I do?
It's going aggro? It's a "fuck up you got a lot of possibility to avoid this, you are dead (but take a debility if you want)" situation? Is something else?
EDIT: Sorry, crosspost with Moreno.
-
sorry, did a mess.
-
The way I would play this is sending Snake Eyes straight to 12.00 on his countdown clock and then I'll allow him to take a debility, so we can have a coherent fiction: I'm in control of his life, I cut his throat (withouth chopping like I'm cutting some chicken), no interference in this, I already have the control of his life, I already won that conflict, I left him for death and THEN he could take a debility a come back... maybe as a Faceless XD
Good one. Clocks are prescriptive and descriptive that's true.
I'd still leave a beat between the seizing succesfully by force and the actual killing, but that's just me.
-
Yeah, I think this is the "correct" answer because there is a strong back-and-forth between fiction and system ^^
I will leave a beat too... but Snake Eyes' life is now mine and this is a fact. I think (and this is just theory, not actual play, so this coul be a logical jump a little too far) I could certainly allow a Manipulate, to convince me to do something else of Snake Eyes' life ("Please, don't kill me, I can tell you where Harridan is!") but defenitively not another try at violence... at least if Snake Eyes cannot alter the fiction in a significant way while I've got his life in my hand and without contradict my success.
Mr. D. Vincent, are you cool with this?
Someone elso got something to add?
-
It's going aggro? It's a "fuck up you got a lot of possibility to avoid this, you are dead (but take a debility if you want)" situation? Is something else?
You've got to remember, this is describing a PC vs PC conflict, which is different from dealing with NPCs... with NPCs, the MC is looking through crosshairs at them and if they "should" die... they die! No one is going to complain... except their pissed off lover or some shit... *LAUGH*
With PCs, it's entirely different, you're attempting to deny the other player the use of their character, and that's not something easy to do in this game. First off, in this situation, the MC should probably ask the defeated character, "Do you want to keep playing Snake Eyes, or are you cool with him dying here?" If the player is cool with that, then he dies, and everyone moves on.
If the player is not cool with it, then the rules take over, and I'll refer specifically to the the Debilities section of the rulebook, page 165: the example there is a helpless, unconscious PC taking a shotgun blast to the head!... it's not even a PC move, per se, it just happens, but the player on the receiving end still has some choice.
-
"I seize his life by force" has a very serious to do it, you have to do it problem when you try to use it on a PC. It's this: in order to kill a PC, you have to inflict 6 harm, and they have to choose no debility. To seize their life by force, you have to have some way you can actually do this.
Player: "I seize Snake Eyes' life by force."
MC: "Well, in order to do that, you'll have to be able to inflict 6 harm without him choosing a debility. How are you going to do that?"
Player: "Maybe I should revise my expectations. I'm going to keep him from getting away, seize HIM by force."
MC: "Perfect."
Most of the time, "I seize his life by force" is fine, as shorthand, because we all understand that what you're seizing isn't his life, which is beyond your grasp, but an advantage over him in these immediate circumstances, which will allow you to do future violence more readily.
-
A note to Moreno: NPCs take only 2-Harm to die and this is exactly the damage dealt by most weapons. If they are not wearing armor, simply Seizing by Force will kill them.
-
Actually, an NPC with 2 or more harm might live, if helped in time. Taking definite hold of such an NPC's life would seem to mean being able to make sure the NPC lives long enough to get help, or dies too soon for it.
Charles
-
Actually, an NPC with 2 or more harm might live, if helped in time. Taking definite hold of such an NPC's life would seem to mean being able to make sure the NPC lives long enough to get help, or dies too soon for it.
Charles
Or, you can just choose to deal terrible Harm and kill him on the spot. XD
-
Taking definite hold of someone's life doesn't allow you to bypass harm and armor and kill them.
Even against NPCs?
I would say yes, even with NPCs. Now if the MC is looking at them through the crosshairs, they may decide that you kill them, but that's a different issue. That's the MC following their principles.
@vincent, that's why I've never liked the term "seize their life by force." it's too abstract. You can't really seize a life by force. You can strangle someone by force, or stab them, but seizing their life is a poetic turn of phrase for what's really going on. When you seize their gun, you're grabbing their gun. That's clear and concrete. But if you seize their life?
-
Yes, this was my point. And as Vincent says, against a PC -- that PC could just do the same thing back to you when they react. Mexican standoffs are fun!
As for whether it lets you bypass harm, I guess I disagree with Vincent, or I'm thinking of different situations. Of course it depends on what your definite hold looks like in the fiction. But there's lots of times in games where the fiction makes the harm rules irrelevant. Helpless people, situations set up beforehand, etc. And the MC in those cases has the option of just saying 'ok you kill them', when a move doesn't seem necessary. So it's not really a big deal to say that you don't use the harm rules for something.
Of course when the person you are trying to kill is a PC then the MC is going to want to give them a chance to react, of course -- he doesn't look at the PCs through crosshairs, after all.
-
I realized that the discourse over going aggro and killing someone with weapons that normally would not do could be off topic in this thread.
I'd like to continue it here (http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=2136.0)