Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: Aetius on November 12, 2011, 08:45:24 AM
-
Hi to everybody.
I would like to continue more deeply the discourse started here (http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=2125.msg12652#msg12652) on variations for weapons in particular situations.
I'm talking especially about this (http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=2125.msg12631#msg12631) post of mine and the answer by gregorpogor (http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=2125.msg12633#msg12633).
Let's imagine this situation.
Fifi the Gunlugger is sleeping beside Rouge the Battlebabe. Rouge went out of her way to put Fifi out of the game. She fought to acquire a strong narcotic, she seduced him into drink it, she fucked with him all night.
The point here is: Fifi the Gunlugger is down, defenitively by means of several moves from Rouge. Fifi's player has got plenty of possibilities to interfere and whatnot, bun now he's out.
Now Rouge takes his faithful knife and thrusts through Fifi's right eye, down, into the brain.
If you don't like this, let's say she cut his troath, or paints the bed red with his brain shooting her 9mm. It works even with a granade in his as... mouth. Basically she does something to proof-kill him: no human being could survive this.
I think this isn't even a move, a going aggro. Fifi is out. Rouge does it, stop.
But, really, Rouge's knife is only 2harm (and so is the 9mm), and usually the mighty Gunlugger can just shake off this ridicolous damage!
But... in the fiction it happened! Fifi got his brain pierced. He is, basically, dead.
How can I resolve this situation?
I've got three hypotesis running in my head.
1) 2harm is 2harm. If you want to kill Fifi you've got to repetedly stab his brain, at least 3 times.
2) Fifi's dead. No debilities, nothing. Goodbye Fifi.
3) Fifi's countodwn clock goes instantly to 12.00. Now... are we talking about debilities?
I must be frank: i like the first one the least and the third the most.
The first one is... strange. Even in a Hollywood movie it would be ridicoulus to see someone stabbed three times throught the eye before dieing.
The last one is... elegant, I believe. Ad Gregpogor said countdown are descriptive and prescritive. If something happens to send me at 12.00... I go at 12.00.
What do you think?
I'd like very much an answer from Vincent: what is "kosher" for you? But, please, I'll like also to hear different opinions and reasoning on this matter.
-
I'm pretty by-the-book myself and should my players try to really kill each other the closest I'd get from "instakill" would be jumping directly to 12:00, thanks to your remark. All the other countdowns are both prescriptive and descriptive : what their segments mean works both way, either that's what happens when you tick it off or you tick it off when it happens. Why not the PC harm countdown? Seems legit.
With the debilities rule, it allows the victim to not really be that much dead and doesn't rob them from their character if they want to cling to it, and at 11:00 — 12:00 they still can be revived by an Angel or someone with a kit, but they still have to face the consequences of the fiction (-1 stat or serious medical condition).
-
Oh, well... I'm ok even with 2. Fifi had got a lot of possibility to avoid this situation before, so I would not feel an injustice: you played the game, Fifi, and you lost to Rouge. Goodbye Fifi.
It's less elegant, in my opinion, than 3 but... I can live with this (Fifi cannot XD).
-
As I mentioned in the other thread:
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 Fifi, or are you cool with him dying here?" If the player is cool with that, then he dies, and everyone moves on.
I think, with all the setup going on, Fifi's player has to be "in the know" and it's a "Tell them the possible consequences and ask" moment for the MC, well before the knife is in the eye... this might be a case of "make Apocalypse World real" and the target dies... but I think the target's player really needs a say in things.
And, again, the Debilities section deals specifically with a "proof-kill" event as its example.
-
Well... I considered specifically that Fifi's player had got a lot of possibilities to interfere with Rouge moves. The cards are all on the table, so... I don't think I'm denying anything to him. He played the game and... well... lost it.
I'm sorry, but shit happens and he could not say that this was unexpected ;-)
On the other hand I'm totally cool with all the player "in the known". I failed to mention this particular because I gave it for granted. All what is happening is happening at the same table, I don't run "separate session" for anyone XD
-
On the other hand I'm totally cool with all the player "in the known". I failed to mention this particular because I gave it for granted. All what is happening is happening at the same table, I don't run "separate session" for anyone XD
I meant "in the know" in the sense of the actual consequences, as in, "Fifi, you know that if Rouge gets you completely incapacitated, you will *DIE* when she knifes you, regardless of the actual Harm rules?"
Fifi's player: "Yeah, I know, I played and lost... *sigh* Hand me the playbooks."
vs.
Fifi's player: "WTF? That knife is only 2-harm and I'll just take a debility if I go past 9:00, how the hell can she just kill me?!"
That kind of "in the know", since you are changing the rules of the game at that moment, and it's a pretty big moment!
I've had PCs in spots where I've told them, "You do this, you'll die, regardless of Harm." and they've been cool with taking the risk, since they KNEW it was there... to spring it on them, even after a series of unfortunate events, isn't being fair or a fan, since they've been operating under a different set of assumptions.
Me, I want to see how Fifi survives going around with no voice after Rouge left him for dead with a cut throat... *laugh*
-
I meant "in the know" in the sense of the actual consequences, as in, "Fifi, you know that if Rouge gets you completely incapacitated, you will *DIE* when she knifes you, regardless of the actual Harm rules?"
Fifi's player: "Yeah, I know, I played and lost... *sigh* Hand me the playbooks."
vs.
Fifi's player: "WTF? That knife is only 2-harm and I'll just take a debility if I go past 9:00, how the hell can she just kill me?!"
That kind of "in the know", since you are changing the rules of the game at that moment, and it's a pretty big moment!
Absolutely. I strongly belive in openess and honesty at the table. I'll expect by Rouge player, if the second situation arises, to stand back graciously, if Fifi's player is really surprised.
But I would made sure that ALL at the table know ALL the rules beforehand.
Me, I want to see how Fifi survives going around with no voice after Rouge left him for dead with a cut throat... *laugh*
Mee too. This is why I prefer number 3 ^^
-
Absolutely. I strongly belive in openess and honesty at the table. I'll expect by Rouge player, if the second situation arises, to stand back graciously, if Fifi's player is really surprised.
But I would made sure that ALL at the table know ALL the rules beforehand.
Always say what honnesty demands, both in the fiction and around the table, after all.
-
If I were the MC, when Rouge stabbed at Fifi, I would say, "OK, Rouge, that's going Aggro on Fifi, and it seems to me that what you want him to do is, die with his own knife through his eye. Cool?" And, if Fifi's player saw this as a good death scene for his character, he would cave. I see the going aggro move as ideal when one character has the drop on another, as with here.
Charles
-
Discussing about this on an Italian forum, I explained my doubt (that is Aetius') with an example: Chaplain is standing beside Doule, who is unconscious, and puts a grenade in his mouth. BOOM!
By the rule, this is 4-harm with the chance to take a disability to avoid any past-9:00 harm.
By the fiction... how can Doule survive? His whole head blew up.
If I look to the fiction, the second option (in Aetius' list) seems to me the only reasonable, if the player can't say how taking a disability can save his unconscious character from a granade exploding in his mouth; but obviously this ignore harm and clockdown.
Than I noticed this (page 178): "The players’ character sheets, like your front countdowns, are both prescriptive and descriptive. Prescriptive: changes to the character’s sheet mean changes to the character’s fictional circumstances and capabilities; that’s the game’s experience and improvement rules, following. Descriptive too: when the character’s fictional circumstances or capabilities change naturally, within the character’s fictional world, the player can and should change her character sheet to match".
So, I was wondering: "Your head blew up" can't be a change in the fictional circumstances, bringing to a change (to 12:00, if not dead outright) in the character sheet that doesn't follow harm rules? It seems to me the situation'd be quite descriptive of that change.
Edit: Doule and Chaplain are both PCs (a faceless and a gunlugger).
-
By the fiction... how can Doule survive? His whole head blew up.
I think you (and everybody else) are missing a point here. The "attacking" PC's player cannot say "I blow your head off", because he can only narrate what his character does and thinks. The rest is up to the MC. The player can only say "I activate the grenade". Then the MC says: "Ok, you're going aggro" and... lots of things can happen, including Fifi couching out the grenade and making it land directly under Rouge's crouch (a hard move from the MC). That's one of those things that make AW so interesting! Anything can happen.
-
I think you (and everybody else) are missing a point here. The "attacking" PC's player cannot say "I blow your head off", because he can only narrate what his character does and thinks. The rest is up to the MC
Yeah, sure; indeed, if you read carefully my post you'll notice I never said the player says "I blow your head off". I simply said, I quote, "Chaplain [...] puts a grenade in his mouth". So, no: I'm not missing that.
Simply, I follow the logic I saw in the story: Doule is unconscious with a grenade in his mouth, the grenade explodes, Doule's head blows up. If I were MC, that is the logic I see in the scene.
The player can only say "I activate the grenade". Then the MC says: "Ok, you're going aggro" and... lots of things can happen, including Fifi couching out the grenade and making it land directly under Rouge's crouch (a hard move from the MC)
Assuming by "Fifi" you mean "Doule" and by Rouge, "Chaplain", there is a problem (I quote, again): "Chaplain is standing beside Doule, who is unconscious".
How can Doule do what you says, if he's unconscious? Keep in mind also that if the opponent is unconscious there is no roll to do (page 165).
Yes, sure, cool: if he's awake what you says is fine. But you changed the scene, so it's quite obvious also the results changes...
Edit: Beside, why a hard move from the MC? Chaplain didn't miss any roll, nor gave the MC a good possibility; in addition, both Doule and Chaplain are PCs (I didn't said that, sorry, but I thought them as PCs).
-
Assuming by "Fifi" you mean "Doule" and by Rouge, "Chaplain", there is a problem (I quote, again): "Chaplain is standing beside Doule, who is unconscious".
How can Doule do what you says, if he's unconscious? Keep in mind also that if the opponent is unconscious there is no roll to do (page 165).
Yes, sure, cool: if he's awake what you says is fine. But you changed the scene, so it's quite obvious also the results changes...
Yeah, I was still thinkin about Aetius' example and swapped the names.
Do what? Chough when a round object of metal is forced inside his throat? I think it would be hard to anyone not to do that while conscious, let alone while sleeping. :-)
Edit: Beside, why a hard move from the MC? Chaplain didn't miss any roll, nor given the MC a good possibility; in addition, both Doule and Chaplain are PCs (I didn't said that, sorry, but I thought them as PCs).
If Chaplain goes aggro and misses his move, the MC can make a move as hard as he likes.
-
Do what? Chough when a round object of metal is forced inside his throat?
I didn't understand by "couching" you meant "coughing"; it doesn't change the meaning of what I (and Aetius) am saying: stab Doule in the eye, shot him point blank with a 3-harm gun, put a grenade beside his head... the point is: if that happens, it's deadly.
If Chaplain goes aggro and misses his move, the MC can make a move as hard as he likes
Yeas, but that means that Chaplain has to miss; what if he didn't? The grenade is in Doule's mouth and it explodes.
And, as I said, Doule is unconscious, so no roll is required (again: page 165. Bran is helpless, Keeler doesn't roll). No roll, no miss, no hard move.
-
Another doubt: is Chaplain willing to take Harm too? Because that's what would happen if the grenade exploded immediately, close to him.
-
Could be, but a grenade doesn't explode at once, so he could run away.
Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying Doule is dead no matter what and the rules allow this; I'm wondering if the harm rules are strict and inavoidable also in such extreme (because they are extreme) situations, in which one PC is helpless and the other could kill him on the spot.
If they can be avoided, cool: I've no problem with that.
If they must be applied, cool: I've to figure out how to put together "A grenade explodes in your mouth" with "You're still alive" (for example: can the MC says, "Actually, the grenade doesn't explode, but make a burst: you still take 4-harm, but you're not dead"?).
It's why I'm waiting for Vincent: to solve a doubt.
-
If I were the MC, when Rouge stabbed at Fifi, I would say, "OK, Rouge, that's going Aggro on Fifi, and it seems to me that what you want him to do is, die with his own knife through his eye. Cool?" And, if Fifi's player saw this as a good death scene for his character, he would cave. I see the going aggro move as ideal when one character has the drop on another, as with here.
Charles
Ok, this is how going aggro normally works ^^ Fifi would choose between death and harm, and oviusly he would choose harm... unless the player want to kill the character for whatever reason.
I specifically said, in my example, that Fifi is totally defensless. Defensless in "this is not even a move, just stab it", and this has been obtained through a couple or four moves by Rouge.
I used the example to clarify the situation, but the core of my question could be: sometimes fictional situation in which a character, even a PC, is just killed, regardless of the harm for the weapon, could arise.
How to use the rules in these situations?
I can see how to go from rules to fiction ("You die for a knife wound, so I think the kinife enter in your eye, puncturing the brain"), but sometimes I found difficult to do vice versa (Rouge secured herself, throught moves like seduce and manipulate, or maybe an arresting Skinner, the possibility to stab Fifi in the eye and puncture the brain. I apply the 2harm damage of the knife even if Fifi should be "realistically" dead?)
-
In Apocalypse World, there is no move that allows you to say, "I have you helpless now; I can keep doing harm to you until you die, and there is nothing you can do about it." In stories, furthermore, when Fifi is lying there in a drugged stupor, and Rouge looks at him with murderous intent and then gets ready to stab him in the eye with his own knife, dramatic tension almost always goes up, not down, and an auto-kill with already established murderous intent means no dramatic tension whatsoever. So, neither by fiction nor by rules is an auto-kill supported.
Now, in the Going Aggro example, on a 10+, the choices are suck it up or cave. All well and good, these. If the result is 7-9, though, we see the payoff of Rouge having maneuvered Fifi into position. The additional options, at least in theory, that are available to Fifi in such a case are:
• get the hell out of Rouge's way
• barricade himself securely in
• give Rouge something he thinks she wanta
• back off calmly, hands where Rouge can see
• tell Rouge what she wants to know (or what she wants to hear)
Fifi's problem is that to do any of these, he has to, you know, do it. How is Fifi gonna do any of these, drugged and unconscious as he is? So, he's back to sucking it up (if he wants to live) or caving (if he wants to die).
Assuming he takes the damage and lives, I would, as the MC, turn to his player and say, "I'm thinking you want to defend yourself here. So, to do anything except take Rouge's next stab, you'll have to act under fire, and the fire is that drugged stupor you're in," and go from there.
As for the realism of knife to brain, assuming it went in as planned, there have been people who have made full recoveries from having chunks of their brains knocked out, so one stab through the eye isn't necessarily the end.
Charles
-
When you stab a helpless victim in the eye you do six harm.
"OK Rouge, the knife slides into Fifi's eye-socket like butter but you have to push hard to get it into the brain. Fifi dies, barely even twitching because of the narcotics. You want to get out of there before Uncle finds out what you've done?"
"Fifi, mark six harm and give me a harm roll. You want to just die or have anything else up your sleeve?"
-
One idea that has to go is that player characters have special considerations in the system when it comes to death. A dude's a dude, even if he's an especially interesting dude who's adventures you're comitted to following.
Moves are not the primary means of doing stuff in Apocalypse World. Doing stuff is the primary means of doing stuff. You do not make moves when the other dude is a PC. You make moves when the in-fiction situation demands it, and attacking a defenseless person warrants neither of the two of AW's basic violence moves.
Now, sure, the other dude gets to do his own moves when the situation warrants it (and in the example, it is implied he did do a bunch of them, and failed enough of them to end up in the situation he is in). No player character gets to roll as many times as he wants until he finally succeeds, though.
There is no conflict between making apocalypse world seem real and being a fan of a character here... Being a fan means being interested in what they do, not in being committed to them staying alive.
This is quite possibly an icky social issue at the table (which should be solved by social means), but I'm pretty sure the only thing in the game as written to lessen that is the fact that you really need a *bunch* of roll failures for a PC to get completelly incapacitated. But yeah... You fail enough, you become helpless. You become helpless? Anyone can kill you because by definition you can't do anything about it.
-
One idea that has to go is that player characters have special considerations in the system when it comes to death.
Errrr... they do. NPCs take 1/3 of the Harm to kill them and cannot choose to take a debility instead of dying, nor can they interfere with their aggressor. PCs do get a special treatment.
-
Yeah, sure. They also can pick a debility when they roll over 5 harm, and they get their fancy moves that lets them generally avoid death better than a NPC would.
My (improperly communicated) point is that the same kind of fictional situations that cause NPCs to bleed and die cause PCs to bleed and die.
PCs get all their mechanical goodies, but they don't get any special 'status' aside from what's provided in the agenda and principles. And there are no agenda or principle that say "make sure your PCs get to live a long as possible", nor can anything similar be derived from the ones that exist ("Be a fan" I've already covered).
It's my belief that the only reason one could want to give Fifi "one more roll" after she's already in a situation where she completelly lost any fictional basis for agency is because one ascribes a special value to "player characters." And that ain't playin' by the book.
-
Seriously, it's act under fire with the fire being the fucking knife in his eye and the drugs. The knife does 2-harm ap.
If you wanna make Christopher Week 6-harm move a thing in your game, that's your shit and no one needs approval from us to do that. So that's one way to deal with it. As it's been said before, people have survived worse situations and recovered, likewise people die all the time from trivial things. It's not really a matter of realism.
If this was the end of a long, multi-session, many-move affair, it'd still make the Gunlugger roll act under fire to live, unless they're down with dying.
Auto-kill is boring. Make the Character's lives not boring.
-
Also, be a fan of the PCs. An anticlimactic auto-kill of one PC by another is only being a fan of the PC doing the killing, and sometimes not even of her.
The only time I'd go forward with the auto-kill is if the one player really had worked hard enough to have killed the other, and the whole table knew it. The making of that judgment should take into account everything, including debilities, that make a PC hard to kill in the first place. 3-5 successful cascading moves to get a victim into position, by themselves, isn't enough for that.
"Gotcha! Auto-kill," is against the rules in Apocalypse World.
Charles
-
By the way, I'll remind you that even if you give PC 6-harm, he still can take a debility. And live, at least.
-
What's enough, then? More than 5-7 cascading moves? Something other than a [large number] of cascading moves?
Also, Fifi has already rolled act under fire and lost (because otherwise he'd not be there all helpless and drugged). Can he still act under fire now that he's asleep and drugged and helpless? Can you get an under fire roll whenever you're in danger just by virtue of being a PC?
I'd say no. Because? To do it, do it. You can't do "it" if you can't do anything.
Other stuff about realism and such... I don't know enough about human anatomy to know whether that's true or not. But I don't think that matters - the whole argument is just one example of a more general "PC1 makes PC2 helpless, then proceeds to make sure that PC2 is dead in some way that would definitelly kill a dude" argument. There's definitelly some kind of situation where that comes up. Right?
-
Right but drugged doesn't mean helpless or necessarily unconscious. Moreover, it still means the Player can say things like "I try and regain consciousness to prevent certain death." Keeping someone unconscious while you cut on them is a highly skilled profession that requires sophisticated equipment and specialized medicine, and even then it doesn't always work. I've personally been tied to stretchers and ignored copious amounts of sedatives administered via IV "to knock him out" only to continue trashing during a psychotic episode. I've seen friends tragically drugged helpless with GHB but they were unconscious but not inactive. So, it's entirely possible that the Gunlugger awakens right as they're about to strike, that their liver finishes breaking down whatever it was they were given or their metabolism means they're in a comparatively light sleep.
What's enough? I can't tell you. That's the call you make at the table as an MC.
Oh, yeah, they almost always get that act under fire move. Like I said, the fire is the knife in the eye.
-
Don't forget about reading a situation. Can Fifi read the situation even though she's unconscious? Maybe! Sometimes I can, when I'm sleeping in real life, can't you?
Also, the chart in the harm chapter that lists falling damage and getting hit by a truck clearly allows you to establish 6-harm for a knife in the eye, if you want to.
Hell, the existence of s-harm and psi-harm clearly allow you to invent knife-in-the-eye-harm and say that it's instantly fatal, if you decide that's the best thing to do.
The game's rules can deal with murderous PvP, but you as the MC have to really make a million judgment calls, case by case by case. Better to think about all the different ways you can handle it than to try to arrive at one unified way you should handle it. There is no such!
-
Yeah, but, sometimes you don't get to roll under fire because you just did. Like say (true story), if my character tried to hide from a bunch of angry dudes (act under fire, miss), they catch him and put him in a sack. I immediatially ask for another roll to escape from the goddamned sack one way or another, and instead I get "the fire was the sack. You're stuck there for a while. Lets see what this other PC does in the meantime!"
As in, past rolls have traction. If, in the implied under fire roll that Fifi made in this situation, Fifi missed, then Fifi has to endure that fire. Now, sure, the fire could have been "you're some kind of drugged", but what if it was "okay, miss! Fifi, you're unconscious," that's the way things are now and that's what Fifi has to deal with. Getting him to roll for un-unconsciousness right after seems like enough play wasn't given to him being unconscious.
I'm not saying that MCs should go out of their way to inconvenience PCs so they'd become fair game for other PCs or even NPCs. But, I am saying that, if that somehow happens in a moment-to-moment process, where you judge a roll without being invested in it going either way, a PC somehow made helpless can die at the hands of another PC without it being appropriatelly dramatic or based on player decision or table consensus or whatever.
PC death is a possible result of MC'ing fairly, is all I'm saying.
-
The MC should not be looking at PCs through cross-hairs; the AW rule book pointedly fails to tell the MC to do this, and indirectly tells the MC not to do this. A player looking at another player's character this way, therefore, is on his own.
DWierd, how many successful, cascading moves directly dedicated to the murder of another PC does it take to kill that PC? I'm saying that non-direct murder shouldn't be any easier than direct murder, from the way I'm reading AW rules. For perspective, you can see how 5 6-harm stabs to the eye won't quite kill a PC, can you?
Also, DWierd, past rolls can have traction without granting the auto-kill, as my previous example showed. Looking at your latest example, I myself wouldn't have declared your character to be in stasis in the sack. If you wanted out, I'd have asked, "How? Muscle your way out? Cut your way out? Try to wrestle the sack's holder?" and gone from there, all the while envisioning what it means to fight your way out of a sack when some angry dudes want you to stay in it. On the other hand, if I wanted one hard move to trap you for awhile, I'd have described something more constraining than merely being stuffed into a man sized sack.
Charles
-
I'll briefly echo Charles and say, yeah, totally the sack is a different situation than the dudes putting him there. That certainly could call for another moves.
The players should be making tons of moves. No like one per scene, like ten per scene.
-
The players should be making tons of moves. No like one per scene, like ten per scene.
In this I'd object. I've had sessions with as much as ten moves per player. That's with almost no fighting(hard fighting), given, but still. Characters can do many things without making moves at all. And there're times when character can't make a move because it's not their move.
In short, yes, characters CAN make tons of moves. They don't always have to, though, as well as MC don't have to make them roll for everything.
-
Sure, but Moves Snowball, y'know?
I aim for 2 or 3 advances per player per session.
-
Sure, but Moves Snowball, y'know?
I aim for 2 or 3 advances per player per session.
Would you recommend that as a target? It certainly sounds like one that gears you up to make it fast-paced...
-
It's not something I necessarily do directly or consciously, but it's a useful metric to see who's getting spotlight time and who needs some more love.
Some player's will do everything to advance as hard and as fast a possible, other don't really care at all.
-
Sure, but Moves Snowball, y'know?
I aim for 2 or 3 advances per player per session.
As a player, I consider it a successful session if I advance once, usually aiming for 4-6 XP ticks per session.
That said, I've had great sessions where I only got 1 xp tick, and others where I got 4 advancements.
I don't think there is a real status quo (in AW the Status is NOT quo) with respect to advancements, however I agree that it can be a good gauge of how much spotlight each player is getting.
-
2-3 advances per session, meaning like 3-5 sessions to finalize character?(15 advances is max IIRC). And if we want a campaign with the same characters?
-
2-3 advances per session, meaning like 3-5 sessions to finalize character?(15 advances is max IIRC). And if we want a campaign with the same characters?
Changing playbooks, new custom improvement options introduced by the MC, retiring and getting a new character... lots of things draw it out... heck, we've had players even ask people to highlight "unused" stats to slow things down at times.
And just because the character is "finalized" don't mean there isn't a whole heapin' helpin' of trouble still out there to be dealt with!
Actual play example: October, the Skinner in my "Red Skies" campaign, has already hit "ungiven future" options by the middle of session three, just because his Hot was highlighted the previous two sessions... and, Betty, the Gunlugger, who is hiding herself and trying to stay out of violent situations, well, she's had a whopping *two* advances in that time, because she had Hard highlighted... it can so depend on what's going on.
How long are you looking for a "campaign" to be? I've run two to "significant" conclusions, one went six sessions and the other went thirteen, and both were extremely satisfying to play.
That said, I think this has really drifted off topic... *LAUGH*
-
Don't forget about reading a situation. Can Fifi read the situation even though she's unconscious? Maybe! Sometimes I can, when I'm sleeping in real life, can't you?
Also, the chart in the harm chapter that lists falling damage and getting hit by a truck clearly allows you to establish 6-harm for a knife in the eye, if you want to.
Hell, the existence of s-harm and psi-harm clearly allow you to invent knife-in-the-eye-harm and say that it's instantly fatal, if you decide that's the best thing to do.
The game's rules can deal with murderous PvP, but you as the MC have to really make a million judgment calls, case by case by case. Better to think about all the different ways you can handle it than to try to arrive at one unified way you should handle it. There is no such!
Thank you, Vincent.
I understand what you say in the last part of your post and the difficulties to generalize. I just needed that last bit of... let's say "confirmation" to defenetively known how far I can go ^^
-
Oh for god's sake. If this were any other game, wouldn't you just make an on-the-spot ruling?
"Well, okay, so you've spent half a session incapacitating this guy and succeeding, and now you're going to assassinate him? Okay. Nice work. He is dead on the floor."
gunlugger objects
"I guess you can wake up while bleeding out of both sides of your head if you want to, but you're not going to make it to ...a resurrectionist... before you run out of alive. How much of a ruckus do you want to make on your way down?"
-
If this were any other game, wouldn't you just make an on-the-spot ruling?
I'd search the rules for an answer, then - if I found nothing - look for a temporary solution with the players; afther session ending, I'd search the Internet and/or ask to the author.
Edit: With "look for a temporary solution with the players" I meant I'd make up a solution, checking if the players are OK with that; I didn't mean infinite talking. But the part "searching the Internet and/or asking to the author" is the important one and is why I'm here.
-
It really is personal call: Of the MC, but really of the group at the table.
That said, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of "It's your character, but you don't get a say in what happens to them." It's one of the reasons I like this game: that in essence you always have a say in what happens. But I do agree that the consequences of moves have to matter.
I'm going to blather here for a bit, to clarify thoughts.
The framing of this is interesting: the original setup describe Rouge making a series of moves (and succeeding) against Fifi, but doesn't say anything about Fifi making moves in response. In a way, I see this as a tacit agreement same way that if the MC's indirect moves go unstopped then they just come to fruition: if another PC is trying to kill you and you do nothing to stop them, well, you're dead. your choice.
But if Fifi is making moves trying to get out of this situation, then the only way to get to this position is for a lot of Fifi's moves to have been failures. And here the MC has chosen to make this situation possible: in essence, failures must have been interpreted as "You become more vulnerable to Rouge." In theory, the MC can interpret that failure to do something else, to inject more craziness to the situation from outside, but I can see that Fifi failing shouldn't lead to Rouge failing directly, but is it kosher to introduce situations that not only fuck with Fifi, but indirectly make Rouge's life more difficult? or is that not being a fan of Rouge?
Moves are one-sided, but it would have to take a serious run of good luck for one PC and ill luck of another PC to get to a position where one is completely at the mercy of another. And still, I would argue that this is a move: This is still going aggro. As I interpret Going aggro, this is just an injection point for the games colour. You go to bury your knife in to another guys eye: you can still fuck it up. Someone comes upon you, something unexpected happens, there is no such thing as a situation that is completely under control and a miss is not the same as failure. scaling the damage appropriately, yes, but it's still a move.
-
I dunno man, how is it "going aggro" if there is no alternative to taking the hit? If the things the move says can happen after you do the move don't make sense, the move doesn't make sense.
-
Moves are one-sided, but it would have to take a serious run of good luck for one PC and ill luck of another PC to get to a position where one is completely at the mercy of another. And still, I would argue that this is a move: This is still going aggro. As I interpret Going aggro, this is just an injection point for the games colour. You go to bury your knife in to another guys eye: you can still fuck it up. Someone comes upon you, something unexpected happens, there is no such thing as a situation that is completely under control and a miss is not the same as failure. scaling the damage appropriately, yes, but it's still a move.
Shreyas is right. This maybe is a move, but it's not going aggro! It's probably not anything in the book. Maybe, as some have said, it's an MC move - inflict harm as established.
If you desire a player move, with a miss chance, sure! Here's one:
"When you attack someone unsuspecting and defenseless, roll+hard. On a 10+, inflict the full extent of your harm on them +1, and if you could conceivably ignore or circumvent their armor, do so. On a 7-9, inflict your full harm, but choose one:
- It takes longer than you expected.
- You flinch or hesitate and deal 1 less harm.
- You leave a big mess and lots of evidence.
On a miss, choose one:
- You can't bring yourself to kill them like this, for one reason or another
- The MC makes a move as usual. Maybe they look dead now but aren't, sure, but it could be whatever.
"
But I'd not call it going aggro.
(This move may not work for everyone's needs! Of course. You could change the 10+ result to "You kill them dead", for sure, or else whatever works for your particular game and group. Or "For NPCs, you kill them dead. For PCs, they mark their harm clock to 11 and anything they do but bleed out and die is acting under fire." is fine, too. Whichever!)
-
Hrm, you're right, the both of yus. I was thinking of what happens on a full hit, or on a miss, but not the partial hit. The list of reactions on the partial hit for Going aggro presupposes the target can make a decision to do something, rather than being utterly and completely helpless. The closest would be "give them something you think they want" but that still means some thought or consideration.
Antisinecurist, I don't like the first miss option on that move. one, it tells a character what they are thinking. two, in my opinion it works almost directly against the rest of the colour of AW: it suggests a basic idea of humanity and honour that isn't part of the setting as a whole. To be reluctant to kill in Apocalypse world is a thing that you can do, but it's not part of the mechanically enforced and encouraged colour. Plus, attacking someone unsuspecting and defenseless is already covered by going aggro: Attacking someone who cannot conceivably react is the real situation here.
But, custom move, whatever floats the boat of people using it.
I guess I am back to "this presents the MC with a golden opportunity" and it really is his call one way or another: either the PC is dead, or he's not. Just depends on what being a fan of the PC's means in this circumstance. And if it'll save strife at that point, making it a custom move might make sense, but I'd only bother with that if it's necessary for the players to feel ok with what goes down.