Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: jimmeu on September 09, 2012, 01:17:22 PM
-
Hi everybody,
I'm accustoming to the game moves before MCing my first session and I have great problems to tell which move must be used in which situation.
It started with a question much discussed here : I put my gun under another one's head and tell her to do something if she doesn't want to be killed, is the move Go Aggro or Manipulate ? The answer I found everywhere was : it depends if when the victim will spit at my face, will I shoot her or not.
And since then I've been like : what the fuck ?
First, in a game in which some moves cover a very large pan of situations (act under fire !), how can 2 situations that are 95% similar ask for a different move because of such a detail that even the victim doesn't know ?
Secondly, things are not always that simple. For instance, if I don't really know if I will shoot at her, depending of her reaction, what move do I use ?
Thirdly, the Manipulate move is way more powerful than the Go Aggro one : on a manipulate 10+ you win everything, the victim gives you what you want but you are not forced to keep your promise so you can still hurt her later if you want, on a aggro 10+ the victim chooses so you're not sure you will get a result. On a manipulate 7-9, you just have to put your gun down and disharm it, and you will get your result, on a aggro 7-9 the victim will take the first chance to take the hell out. And a miss on manipulate is the only way for the victim to give a big "fuck you" but she's totally able to give it on a aggro 10+. So what, it is more powerful to bluff than to really threat somebody's life ? And the victim's behaviour changes significantly when you are bluffing ? It seems very illogical to me. And I don't like what seems illogical, because it makes my world less real.
Finally, how can Razorblade, a 2 meters tall 250 pounds of muscle gunlugger armed to the upper teeth (cool+2, hard+3, hot-2), be so shitty when manipulating people using threat as a leverage if he's not really going to hit them ? How can they know ? How can Venus the 100 pounds ultra sexy skinner armed with a little knife be more efficient at this ?
So, what do you thing about all this ?
Sorry if my english is not perfect.
-
If you're bluffing, then you're manipulating them using the fear of being shot as leverage. But if they don't do what you want, they're not shot.
If you Go Aggro, on a 10+ they can either do what you want or take damage. You don't have a choice about that. So, if you don't know if you want to hurt them, you better not be going Aggro.
Let's see if there's a power problem. Three-ball has Keeler's sister around the throat and is threatening to kill her. Keeler grabs his pistol and points it in Three-ball's face. "Let her go or die. Your choice."
Manipulate. Keeler rolls 7-9. Three-ball says "you shoot me and she dies too. Tell you what, hand over your gun and I'll let her go (concrete assurance)."
The promise isn't up to Keeler. It's up to Three-ball what will convince him.
You think there won't be a price you pay for handing over that weapon? It's the MC's job to make that choice consequential.
And Razorblade is a bad liar. If I know he's not going to hit me, I don't give a fuck. But that Venus chick, she's bad news. I don't know what she's gonna do. She's totally wack. Scares the shit out of me.
So, looks like Razorblade is fucked unless he's willing to start shooting people, cuz Venus has his number if it's all jibber jabber. Sucks to be a gunlugger. Maybe he should start making with the violence...oh. He doesn't want to actually hurt me. Hmmm. Too bad his best move is hurting people.
-
I'll add my 50cents: simply put, YES, manipulating is more powerful then going aggro - because it is so. Because it's versatile, because I don't need an actual gun, and so on. Yet it's sometimes much more dangerous, as without having something to back up my plans, I'm hanging in the wind.
I think this difference in power is linked both to the world of AW, and to the stats allowances.
See, I think it's very important thing to understand - that moves are linked to the stats in playbooks, as well as to setting, - and very much so.
Under Fire is a very powerful move, catch-all, if you want. Having high +cool is very nice. And it is hard to get. There's only one or two books which start with high cool - battlebabe, and quarantine. most of the others have to up it long and painful way. On the other hand +hard is pretty easy to come by in the playbooks. But it's a lot more limited. It's obvious and one-way - remember that basically author shows us that solving things with violence eventually is rewarded with same violence killin' you. Because this is the way of society - easy enough to get a gun and grow hard balls, much more difficult to have a decent brain.
And +hot is in fact not only a "face" stat, it's very much in the brain as well. con man beats stupid legbreaker most of the time. still, when he blows it, he is a toast.
So, to say it short, in the post-apocalyptic society manipulating is hard to master, but it pays very much so, - because it's a social play. And society is good.
Playing with a gun is much easier - that is why it's hard to use in social situations when killing the other side is not an option.
Important thing is, however, that this rule is not always works when we swap settings. There're ones where there're much less fighters, but much more charmers, and having +hot(equivalent) at high levels is easy. In this case basic move should change accordingly
-
This thing? Where you put a handgun in someone's face and tell her to give you the fucking car keys or you're going to blow her brains out, but secretly you're bluffing? It's bullshit.
If you put a handgun in someone's face and tell them to do something or else, you're giving them the choice. Do it, or else.
Live with it.
"How come my hard+3 shitkicking motherfucker is bad at bluffing?" No. Your hard+3 shitkicking motherfucker isn't bluffing at all. If she were bluffing, she wouldn't be hard+3.
-Vincent
-
I tell you one thing. If you're really not prepared to shoot them, you best not roll a miss ;)
-
What Vx said. Also, more particularly, is what you're doing and how you're doing it. Are you being all hot, holding your gun like a gangsta, and sayin' "look buddy, either you're gettin' outta my way or you're getting shot," or are you being all hard with your 9mm pressed up against that asshole Vonk's face, trigger halfway squeezed in, damn near shouting, "you get the fuck outta my way right now," like the hardest gun lugger since Doberman? Or, with stat sub, maybe you're all cool with your gun casually pointed at some douche bag's femoral under the table, sayin' all casual like, "you're gonna leave this table alive or in a body bag, your choice, and you make it now." It's all in how you Do It ;)
And yeah, your hard +3 hot-1 machine? He can't use a fake threat of violence cause he doesn't sell it unless he means it, and he just hain't hot enough to fake it. Where the Skinner says, "I'mma cut you if you don't walk away," hand toying with a scalpel, the gunlugger says, "yeah... You're, uh, gonna go. Oh yeah! Or... Or I'm gonna shoot ya. Grrr." 'Cause that's just how hot he is.
-
Thank you all for your answers, I have now a better understanding of this moves. I'm still a little surprised that bluffing with the threat of violence and really giving the threat of violence, two very similar actions, are covered by two different moves. But what really disappoint me is the mistake/correction example p.194 : i'm not that sure that calling names, shoving and screaming is that a hot attitude, and i'm not that sure that i won't be easily afraid about a giant unhot muscle killing machine screaming at me even without bringing a weapon.
-
I'm still a little surprised that bluffing with the threat of violence and really giving the threat of violence, two very similar actions, are covered by two different moves.
In Apocalypse World, they are not very similar actions. They are very different actions. This says something about the world, which is worth considering.
-
They are still very similar actions in the point of view of the target. If not, the bluff would simply not work, actually a perfect bluff must look exactly the same as a real threat, so the target thinks this is not a bluff... So I hardly see how can somebody who is very bad at threatening can be very good at bluffing a threat. Moreover, this intent speculation (as seen in the mistake example p.194) contradicts the "to do it, do it" rule, becoming "to do it, do it and explain your intent".
-
So, no big deal. Your proposed custom move is super easy to explain and implement - "when you go aggro, if your victim chooses to force your hand, you decide then whether to pull the trigger." It's not what I chose for the game but it won't cause any problems. Use it! The game explicitly lets you make that call.
-Vincent
-
They are still very similar actions in the point of view of the target. If not, the bluff would simply not work, actually a perfect bluff must look exactly the same as a real threat, so the target thinks this is not a bluff... So I hardly see how can somebody who is very bad at threatening can be very good at bluffing a threat. Moreover, this intent speculation (as seen in the mistake example p.194) contradicts the "to do it, do it" rule, becoming "to do it, do it and explain your intent".
Why should I care about the point of view of the target? They didn't make the move.
I do care about the intent of the actor and my mind reading skills are poor. The game has all sorts of intent determining built in, in the form of the MC's provocative questions. "Keeler, are you pulling the trigger if he forces your hand?" is a perfectly fine AW question.
-
The MC's provocative questions mecanism is something I have difficulties accustoming with, but you are totally true !
Vincent, surely I can use a custom move (thinking also about a custom character move for gunlugger or other violent ones, something like formidable looking : if you manipulate using threat of violence, roll +hard instead of +hot), but at the beginning at least I prefer to use only the game rules, but before that I prefer to fully understand the choices you did, that's why I'm asking all these questions.
-
Great! I'm always happy to tell why I've chosen something.
The answer is, in the basic moves, hard is for acts of actual physical violence. If you aren't willing to actually commit an act of actual, physical violence, you don't roll hard.
-Vincent
-
This thing? Where you put a handgun in someone's face and tell her to give you the fucking car keys or you're going to blow her brains out, but secretly you're bluffing? It's bullshit.
If you put a handgun in someone's face and tell them to do something or else, you're giving them the choice. Do it, or else.
Live with it.
"How come my hard+3 shitkicking motherfucker is bad at bluffing?" No. Your hard+3 shitkicking motherfucker isn't bluffing at all. If she were bluffing, she wouldn't be hard+3.
-Vincent
Can you elaborate on this some more, Vincent? I don't think I quite understand what you're trying to say here. Specifically, I don't get how it's not bluffing if you're not really going to pull the trigger, and what impact having hard+3 has on it all. It was my understanding that simply saying: "I'm not really going to fire, no," was how the move worked.
-
What I'm saying is that if you aren't willing to shoot someone in the face, you don't put your gun in their face with your finger on the trigger. By putting your gun in their face you've demonstrated your fundamental willingness to kill them. If they force your hand, you pull the trigger, and if you didn't want to do that, you shouldn't have put your gun in their face.
I'm saying that deciding to put your gun in someone's face and telling them to do it or else, that is the point of no return. If you don't intend to shoot them, don't do that. No take backs. It's gone too far for you to be all "oh no I didn't mean it I was just kidding I didn't intend to kill them just to make them think I would." That's bullshit.
I'm saying that not bluffing is what it means to roll your hard.
-Vincent
-
Or to flip it, the kind of person that gets as far as having their gun pressed in someone's face but then gets cold feet and can't follow through is probably not the sort of person who has +3 hard.
-
What I'm saying is that if you aren't willing to shoot someone in the face, you don't put your gun in their face with your finger on the trigger. By putting your gun in their face you've demonstrated your fundamental willingness to kill them. If they force your hand, you pull the trigger, and if you didn't want to do that, you shouldn't have put your gun in their face.
I'm saying that deciding to put your gun in someone's face and telling them to do it or else, that is the point of no return. If you don't intend to shoot them, don't do that. No take backs. It's gone too far for you to be all "oh no I didn't mean it I was just kidding I didn't intend to kill them just to make them think I would." That's bullshit.
I'm saying that not bluffing is what it means to roll your hard.
-Vincent
Gotcha.
But, can I say, that I feel like this goes completely against what's already been told about some of these moves. Like, I'm usually pretty good at explaining the moves to new people, and helping people decide which move applies where, but I can't for the life of me figure out how this pegs in to the rest of it.
It makes sense, yes. I 100% understand what you're saying. I just don't see where the moves support it. I can't see why it's bullshit to decide to pull your gun away at the last moment.
I'm not arguing with you or calling you wrong, I'm just explaining my confusion, because I love hearing little bits of enlightenment like this, and it's just not grokking with me.
-
It makes sense, yes. I 100% understand what you're saying. I just don't see where the moves support it. I can't see why it's bullshit to decide to pull your gun away at the last moment.
Simply put, if you haven't *ALREADY* decided to pull the trigger when you put the gun to someone's head if they don't comply, you're not going aggro; that's why it's "bullshit" to then pull the gun away if they don't comply... you're trying to have your cake (high Hard) and eat it too (avoid the consequences of using a high Hard). Using Hard means you're willing and able to kill; you're using violence to get what you want.
If you're only using the threat of violence, you're manipulating: Do what I want or I (might) kill you; that defaults to using Hot and allows you to bluff or have a "take back" as it were.
-
If you're only using the threat of violence, you're manipulating: Do what I want or I (might) kill you; that defaults to using Hot and allows you to bluff or have a "take back" as it were.
I just want to point out that you're very specifically not ready to shoot them. If they force your hand on a Go Aggro they take harm, cuz you're ready, willing and able to shoot them. If they call your bluff, in my view, you better be ready to take harm yourself. Because, you may not be ready to shoot them, but you can be pretty damn sure on a miss that they're going to be ready, willing and able to shoot you.
-
Yes.
When you're genuinely threatening them with violence, the range of possible outcomes is entirely different from when you aren't. You have to choose whether your threat is genuine before you roll the dice.
-Vincent
-
Simply put, if you haven't *ALREADY* decided to pull the trigger when you put the gun to someone's head if they don't comply, you're not going aggro
Yes. This is the summary I will use to help my players remember. It requires a different sort of thinking from how actions work in other RPGs. This is not an Intimidate roll followed by a free hit if they fail a saving throw. This is you deciding beforehand, "I will attempt to injure this person if they don't do what I want." The word "threat" is not inaccurate, but it's a little confusing and misdirecting, given how the move functions. Go Aggro isn't so much the threat of violence as the promise of violence.
-
The way I think abut this is that the characters aren't unemotional, unfeeling mechanical robots. When two different character raise a gun to another's head and makes a threat, those are not physically identical, indistinguishable situations.
Are you actually, fully committed to shooting this guy in the face? If yes and you have hard+2 your eyes are full of cold grim purpose. Everyone has seen you in battle, they've seen how you calmly dispatch your enemies in the heat of battle. They know that look, it's the last look some of your enemies ever saw.
If you're not ready to kill this guy, you're just not in that mood. You're physically more relaxed, your eyes are softer and your gaze isn't quite as fixed. You're trying to put on your grimace of determination, but really it looks more like your smile when you show your favourite guns to some of the hardhold's kids. You like to make out how big and tough you are, but everyone knows there's a human being somewhere inside that body armour.
So people aren't made of stone. You can read a person's commitment and mood from their stance, look, tone of voice and a thousand tell tale signs.
So no, making a threat and making a promise are not the same thing. They're really not the same physical act because there's more to it than raising an arm and speaking some words.
-
Another way of looking at it is not in terms of a promise, or a threat, but an action that you are going to take unless somebody does something about it.
You aren't promising to shoot this girl, or threatening to beat down that guy: you are going to do it. You are going to do it right up until the point where they react, or don't react, as the move dictates. That's why they can do all those other things on 7-9: because they are reacting to the fact that you are about to shoot them, far more than the fact that you want something from them. The impending violence is the overwhelming fact: and it is already the case when the move is triggered -- the violence comes first, before the move. You are not thinking about maybe hitting them with this baseball bat, or trying to use the baseball bat as social leverage -- you are already swinging it, right at their dumbfuck, tired-of-this-bullshit head.
This is also why the move is so useful in lots of other violent situations that don't really involve any sort of obvious do-this-or-I-shoot manipulation.
-
That's how I think about it too. It's not "do X or I shoot you!" It's "I'm shooting you because you aren't doing X." Then, if they decide to start doing X, well you stop with the shooting.
-
That's how I think about it too. It's not "do X or I shoot you!" It's "I'm shooting you because you aren't doing X." Then, if they decide to start doing X, well you stop with the shooting.
Happened as a perfect example in my game today.
An NPC heavy drew a gun on the Hocus and the Chopper said, "I blow her arm off with my Magnum"... hits a 10+ and the heavy decided to back down and keep her arm.
-
Right on!
-Vincent
-
The way I think abut this is that the characters aren't unemotional, unfeeling mechanical robots. When two different character raise a gun to another's head and makes a threat, those are not physically identical, indistinguishable situations.
Are you actually, fully committed to shooting this guy in the face? If yes and you have hard+2 your eyes are full of cold grim purpose. Everyone has seen you in battle, they've seen how you calmly dispatch your enemies in the heat of battle. They know that look, it's the last look some of your enemies ever saw.
If you're not ready to kill this guy, you're just not in that mood. You're physically more relaxed, your eyes are softer and your gaze isn't quite as fixed. You're trying to put on your grimace of determination, but really it looks more like your smile when you show your favourite guns to some of the hardhold's kids. You like to make out how big and tough you are, but everyone knows there's a human being somewhere inside that body armour.
So people aren't made of stone. You can read a person's commitment and mood from their stance, look, tone of voice and a thousand tell tale signs.
So no, making a threat and making a promise are not the same thing. They're really not the same physical act because there's more to it than raising an arm and speaking some words.
THIS. I totally imagine manipulating with the threat of violence and going aggro as two very different kind of moves, with a different PC attitude or speech.
Also, in abstract many distinctions sound a little fuzzy, but my advice is to play a few sessions and then generally it becomes way clearer when you do each.
I see it as a particular setting data incorporated in the rules. When you´re threatening people without restraining yourself, a gun on their face, etc., there might come a point when they deny and you simply shoot.
Maybe you´re simply toying with the gun in your hands while you speak to him, so the situation is more about scaring him about the "possibility" of pulling the trigger. And then it´s definitely hot, not hard.
Also, I think the lack of balance between basic moves is great: between manipulate and go aggro, between go aggro and seize by force, etc. They make the choices about how to face opposition more meaningful (violence or diplomacy?).
-
I just want to chip in a situation where go aggro made sense that isn't "I put my gun in your face and tell you to do x". My gunlugger Doberman was outside the pallisade training this kid Bullet how to shoot with a rifle (she was about eight years old so we figured it was time) when we were surprised by this gang of crazy mask-wearing cannibals stalking the forest edge. They took down Playboy, a guy nearby watching his sheep, and it was obvious they would be all over the two of us in a minute. Doberman draws his magnum and starts shooting into their gang, it's a bit too far to hit anything reliable with that kind of weapon. I roll for go aggro, and what I want them to do is not come closer. I roll a 10+ and they choose to suck it up, meaning they break into a charge out of the woods and Doberman picks two of them off before turning around and rolling for Fuck this shit.
The roll here was done when I had already said "I start shooting" and the point of it was to determine the outcome of that shooting. Because of what I asked of them, most of the 7-9 options wouldn't make much sense since barricading in and backing off calmly was pretty much what I wanted. Giving me something I wanted might have worked – I don't know what it would have been, but our MC is good at coming up with that kind of things. Also note that it was hardly a question of whether they would suck it up or back off, since my harm as established wasn't very much to a bloodthirsty band of lunatics – I didn't have the fire rate or effective range to take out more than one or two of them before they'd be all over me.