Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: skinnyghost on September 17, 2010, 03:16:47 PM
-
Let's say I have a shotgun. Let's say some random NPC doesn't. He has no armor, either. I chase him into a shed, wanting to take him hostage. Guns are out, there've been some shots fired, we're definitely out of Go Aggro territory and into Seize by Force territory.
Say I want to Seize this sucker. I don't want to kill him, though. What's the deal? I mean, there's no "deal little harm" option. I can take the "Take definite hold" option and the "Frighten or Dismay or Whatever" option but he's still taken 3 harm, BLAM!, and is pretty much toast.
How, in the midst of a battle, can I get my hands on this slippery little jerk?
-
Since he doesn't have a gun, I'd say it'd be more Go Aggro in that situation.
"Come with me or you die!"
He can always choose to die.
-
That's the question. You CAN Go Aggro; I'd allow it. In movies or books, there'd be a chase to the shed and then a beat where the dude figures out hes trapped and has no gun and there's a dude with a shotgun between him and the door.
Now it's up to the NPC. Is he really gonna try to fight his way out, unarmed, against a dude with a shotgun?
No? Is he just thinking about it? Then yeah. How is the PC trying to take him hostage? Probably by talking to him or threatening him with the shotgun to stand down and give up. Go Aggro.
But let's say that he's gonna fight, unarmed, against a dude with a shotgun. Then yeah, we're Seizing him By Force, as a hostage. How are you doing it?
"Well, I don't want to kill him. If he tries to get around me, I'm gonna butt him with my shotgun, right in the head." Roll+Hard and he gets only 1 harm by default, 2 with terrible.
Or "Hell, if this dude tries to get around me, I'm gonna get blastastic on him. Hostages work better if they're already bleeding!". Roll+hard and the dude gets blasted.
There's always option away from the mechanics, in the fiction, that influence the mechanics. Don't want to shoot him? Then you're not Seizing with the shotgun.
It's all Up To The Fiction.
-
Okay, so say he's got a gun. Does that change things? Or a crowbar? Or five chainsaws strapped to his arms?
Also, I don't want to give him a choice - hence my seizure.
-
I suppose what I'm really asking is - If I want to take control of a person and it's in the midst of some already-violent-shit, there's no mechanical way to Seize them without also exploding them with harm, right?
-
Okay, so say he's got a gun. Does that change things? Or a crowbar? Or five chainsaws strapped to his arms?
Also, I don't want to give him a choice - hence my seizure.
But, he always has a choice right?
If he has a weapon, it just means he can fight back. Then, you're Seizing by Force.
If you don't intend to do him harm (even if he doesn't come), you're better off not Going Aggro or Seizing...
You're better off Manipulating him. But, then you need leverage right? What do you have on this guy to make him do what you want?
-
I suppose what I'm really asking is - If I want to take control of a person and it's in the midst of some already-violent-shit, there's no mechanical way to Seize them without also exploding them with harm, right?
Not unless you Go Aggro or don't use a shotgun (as Chris suggested).
-
Okay, so say he's got a gun. Does that change things? Or a crowbar? Or five chainsaws strapped to his arms?
Also, I don't want to give him a choice - hence my seizure.
Then it's probably Seize by Force. To me, Seize by Force v. Go Aggro is also about what the NPC is doing. If there's a beat and it makes sense to have the PC intimidate them, then it's Go Aggro, weapon or no. If the NPC isn't hesitating, just wants to fight, then it's Seize By Force, weapon or no. I just see the dude pausing there if he's got no weapon. But the weapon is besides the point.
So the problem is "I want to take a hostage by force without killing them", Right?
You're in the same situation in real life. You wandered into a Die Hard movie. Whatever. How would you do that?
-
You can't Go Aggro in that situation.
"Going aggro means using violence or the threat of violence to control somebody else’s behavior, without (or before) fighting."
Emphasis mine.
-
Okay, so say he's got a gun. Does that change things? Or a crowbar? Or five chainsaws strapped to his arms?
Also, I don't want to give him a choice - hence my seizure.
You're in the same situation in real life. You wandered into a Die Hard movie. Whatever. How would you do that?
I suppose I'd try to disarm him (Seizing his weapon by force) but in doing so, I'd end up killing him.
Splat! Dead NPC again. Hmmm...
-
I suppose I'd try to disarm him (Seizing his weapon by force) but in doing so, I'd end up killing him.
Splat! Dead NPC again. Hmmm...
You're not using the shotgun to disarm him are you? If so, probably. If you're just trying to snatch it from him, you could use fists. It wouldn't kill him and you have it. You could do the same with him (wrestling him to the ground).
But, pointing a gun at someone and telling them to come with you, you'll likely need to use that gun.
-
You're not using the shotgun to disarm him are you? If so, probably. If you're just trying to snatch it from him, you could use fists. It wouldn't kill him and you have it. You could do the same with him (wrestling him to the ground).
But, pointing a gun at someone and telling them to come with you, you'll likely need to use that gun.
Mhmm, I think that in actual play this kind of thing would be way less confused. I'm not trying to be obtuse, just sort of arguing for the rules. I think that if it really happened, Go Aggro might be acceptible.
The rules, however, say that if you Seize, they take harm. NPCs are very fragile.
Maybe what I'm actually saying is that Go Aggro should apply even during a fight. *shrug*
-
Mhmm, I think that in actual play this kind of thing would be way less confused. I'm not trying to be obtuse, just sort of arguing for the rules. I think that if it really happened, Go Aggro might be acceptible.
The rules, however, say that if you Seize, they take harm. NPCs are very fragile.
Maybe what I'm actually saying is that Go Aggro should apply even during a fight. *shrug*
Like Chris said, if the NPC is fighting you, you're in a fight. Seize. If he's just hesitating, standing there trying to figure out how to get the fuck out of the shed, he's not. Go Aggro.
Let's say we're in a big battle, and one of the guys in an enemy gang runs out of ammo. He stands there for a second and tries pulling the trigger a few times. Click. Click. Click. He's out of ammo. You smile, aim your shotgun, and say, "Now. Put the gun down and come with me." So, we might be in the midst of this big battle, but in that situation, right there, you're going aggro.
-
Maybe what I'm actually saying is that Go Aggro should apply even during a fight. *shrug*
Yeah it depends on how it plays out in game. In a movie, we're fighting, we're fighting, I get knocked off the roof. I run into the shed. You come in after me. I'm trapped in there, at the back wall, like "shit". I turn to you. We're not fighting. That's not what's going on. Now we have a moment. Go Aggro? Or do I bull rush you?
In play, it's one of those beats where, since AW doesn't have initiative, it's really up to where the flow is. Maybe the MC makes a move here. Maybe you do. All Up To Play.
-
Interesting that there's no way to pull your punches.
-
Interesting that there's no way to pull your punches.
Ehh. that's also up to the fiction. If we were in play, and you were going aggro and he sucked it up and you said, "well, shit. I shoot him in the leg", then he's still got three harm, but he's not dead right now, but will die soon, if he doesn't get aid. If you say "I put in his face and pull the trigger", then he's not doing so hot.
There's a lot of leeway in the NPC harm rules and what each harm means.
-
Right, maybe, but I think that you have to, you know, play by the rules, too.
Don't Golden Rule the game to death.
-
Right, maybe, but I think that you have to, you know, play by the rules, too.
Don't Golden Rule the game to death.
No, I mean by the rules. Here's the rule:
3-harm: give it 50-50 it’s immediately fatal. Otherwise, terrible
wounds, shock, death soon.
Lotta leeway there, dramatically. This dude could go into shock and last six hours. Or this dude's head explodes right there.
-
3-harm: give it 50-50 it’s immediately fatal. Otherwise, terrible wounds, shock, death soon.
Lotta leeway there, dramatically. This dude could go into shock and last six hours. Or this dude's head explodes right there.
[/quote]
Right, for sure, and that follows the idea of player-MC discussion (ala highlighting moves - "i'd really appreciate it if this dude wouldn't up and burst, ok?") set down earlier.
-
Interesting that there's no way to pull your punches.
No, there's no pulling your punches with a shotgun, but why not just throw that sucker away and incapacitate the dude with a grappling hold? That's 0-harm.
-
Right, for sure, and that follows the idea of player-MC discussion (ala highlighting moves - "i'd really appreciate it if this dude wouldn't up and burst, ok?") set down earlier.
It's up to the specific fiction at the table and the MC's principles. If I say, "Alright, I shoot him in the leg." Obviously, I'm not intending to kill the guy.
Then, it's up to the MC to make the call. It could kill him, it could just maim him. It just depends on the circumstances. It's a messy weapon, so maybe shooting him in the leg doesn't really yield the results you want. Maybe he dies. Maybe he lives but he's missing a leg and bleeding out. I mean, it all just depends on the situation.
Edit: Oops. Misinterpreted your post.
-
Right, for sure, and that follows the idea of player-MC discussion (ala highlighting moves - "i'd really appreciate it if this dude wouldn't up and burst, ok?") set down earlier.
Definitely. I don't think the game gains anything by saying "I wanna take him hostage. I shoot him in the leg". "Well, fuck you. Billy, you hit an artery and this dude bleeds out in seconds."
-
Adam, if you want TO USE THE GRAPPLING RULES, you can just seize his body by force, using your hands, for no harm, or hit him in the face with the butt of your shotgun for 1-harm, then get him in a headlock with the shotgun's stock and immobilize him. And you seize by force as normal.
-
Nobody wants to use the grappling rules, Johnstone. Not ever.
This thought experiment came about as a result of last night's schoolyard scuffle wherein I briefly thought of saying anything but "yes" to "so you just want to kill him, then?"
-
The answer is: go aggro.
If you're trying to kill someone to get what they have or to keep what you have, seize by force.
If you're trying to use violence to control someone, go aggro.
-
The answer is: go aggro.
If you're trying to kill someone to get what they have or to keep what you have, seize by force.
If you're trying to use violence to control someone, go aggro.
Thanks Vx!
-
Pretty much agree with what Johnstone said, you're simply seizing by force using your hands/body as your weapon.
10+ Take definite hold of it, and dismay or frighten the guy into submission. Inflict great harm if you also want to smack him with the butt or your gun or whatever, or take little harm if he's armed.
7-9 Well you might have definite hold of the guy but he's not dismayed or frightened and can continue to try and fight you (MC: Well you've got the guy around the chest but he's fighting and screaming and he's going to smack you in the face (for 1 harm) until you let him go. Might have to hurt the guy to shut him up or act under fire to get a definite grip.)
Miss: tough luck, he squirms out of your grasp and the MC can make a move as usual
As you wanted, guy doesn't have a choice.. he's getting grabbed.
In any case he's fighting back and will hit with whatever his weapon may be.
-
This whole thread blows my fucking MIND.
If you don't want to kill someone, um, try NOT shooting them with your SHOTGUN!
It seems pretty simple to me.
Also, I think the rules are pretty clear that if you aren't willing to actually shoot the dude, you're not really going aggro; you're manipulating.
-
Seems funny that the move "Seize by force" can be considered the WRONG move for when you are literally seizing by force. What could be more appropriate?
-
You aren't literally seizing by force unless you pull the trigger.
Putting a gun in somebody's face and yelling at them to drop it and get on their belly isn't seizing by force, it's using the threat of force to control someone, which is going aggro.
As far as I can tell, the real question in this thread is "can you go aggro on someone in the middle of a fight?" and the answer is "yes."
-
Vincent, can't you attempt to seize by force using your fists?
I mean, I figured going aggro in the middle of a fight was an option, if it seems like it works, but... it seems like there are other options here, too. I mean, pointing a shotgun at someone and going aggro with it is still a bad idea if you don't want to kill them because they can always choose to "suck it up."
-
Yes, you can seize by force using your fists! Of course you can.
-
Or the butt of your shotgun. Finding a weapon that does s-harm is a really good solution.
-
Definitely. I don't think the game gains anything by saying "I wanna take him hostage. I shoot him in the leg". "Well, fuck you. Billy, you hit an artery and this dude bleeds out in seconds."
Except maybe the idea that if you shoot someone they might die.
And if you hit them with a 0 harm weapon they might suck it up and then do something unkind back.
Cause taking hostages is cool and all, but sometimes you have to make a choice between doing something that might kill someone you don't want to kill and something that might get you killed by them after you punch Mammoth in the face.
I mean, this is obviously not right for all games. But I've got a group that is always trying to get out of making hard choices with "I don't actually want to kill him when I shoot him at point blank range with a 5 harm shotgun, I just want to graze him a little." And when I let them do it, it lames the game.
So when we play, I have a rule "If you're doing big harm, I'm going to kill bitches. If you aren't, you might get what you want -- or they might decide to do big harm to you while you're waiting."
-
If I remember correctly, though, in skinnyghost's example, the dude in the shed was fighting back. Both characters were in the doorway, and the NPC came at him with a knife or something. So even though he has a shotgun, he can't Go Aggro with it, unless he gets some range on the guy. Yes?
-
Yes. You can't go aggro on a person who is already fighting effectively with you. You need to somehow get that moment on them, where you can put your shotgun in their face without pulling the trigger. It might mean getting range, it might mean disarming them, it might mean sucking up a knife to the gut.
-
Except maybe the idea that if you shoot someone they might die.
Sure. Make your character's lives interesting. Come down on either side of the harm levels to make sure that happens.
But I've got a group that is always trying to get out of making hard choices with "I don't actually want to kill him when I shoot him at point blank range with a 5 harm shotgun, I just want to graze him a little." And when I let them do it, it lames the game.
I don't think it lames the game to not always make a hard move. See where they're going with this. The dude is bleeding out; you can always kill him. It's harder to bring him back.
The decisions that come with a dying NPC are more interesting than "Yeah, you wanted him alive, but he's dead. What are you doing now?"
"Well, that was all I had planned. I guess I go home."
So when we play, I have a rule "If you're doing big harm, I'm going to kill bitches."
Sure. But it's not keeping AW real. If I shoot a guy in the foot with a shotgun and he just instantly dies, I'm calling bullshit. If a dude missing his whole lower arm has the temerity to bleed all over my team's Humvee for an hour in real life, then this dude with a missing foot better not bleed out instantly or the rest of this game is gonna be about me going to hell to slap the shit out of him. If you wanna make me act under fire because shit's gone nuts and I might not be able to just hit his foot, that's fine. But instagibbing NPCs is not interesting or real.
Yes. You can't go aggro on a person who is already fighting effectively with you. You need to somehow get that moment on them, where you can put your shotgun in their face without pulling the trigger. It might mean getting range, it might mean disarming them, it might mean sucking up a knife to the gut.
Yeah, it's that beat in the movies where the dudes pause for a second instead of instantly going for murder. Not just "He's attacking you. What do you do?". The example was two guys. Where's the simpleminded posturing? :)
-
If you wanna make me act under fire because shit's gone nuts and I might not be able to just hit his foot, that's fine. But instagibbing NPCs is not interesting or real.
Yeah, true enough, but I still say that the best answer to "How do I avoid killing dudes when I shoot them with my shotgun?" is "Don't shoot dude you don't want to kill with your shotgun."
-
Let's say I have a shotgun. Let's say some random NPC doesn't. He has no armor, either. I chase him into a shed, wanting to take him hostage. Guns are out, there've been some shots fired, we're definitely out of Go Aggro territory and into Seize by Force territory.
Say I want to Seize this sucker. I don't want to kill him, though. What's the deal? I mean, there's no "deal little harm" option. I can take the "Take definite hold" option and the "Frighten or Dismay or Whatever" option but he's still taken 3 harm, BLAM!, and is pretty much toast.
How, in the midst of a battle, can I get my hands on this slippery little jerk?
Great discussion and I love how may different views there are of this. Must be a lot of subtly different MC styles out there.
Apocalypse world lets you do just about anything you'd conceivably do in this situation "Make apocalypse world seem real"
1) Threaten him... come with me quietly or I'll blow your head off! Could be going aggro, you have a moment alone in the shed as opposed to out in open battle, or could be manipulating with the leverage being violence (in which case you don't have to pull the trigger) Just here the victim has the choice in the matter.
2) Literally go up and grab him violently. I think this is Seizing by Force with your hands. You hit and take the definite hold option with additional harm if you want to rough him up some, he may hit you back but you've already got him unarmed as you said so worst thing he's going to lay a hand on you. Victim has no choice in this one, you're taking him.
3) Beat the crap out of him and take what's left. This would be again Seizing by force (or going aggro if the MC rules he's not defending himself) and just injure him to the point of non-resistance. Could do this with your hands or gun stock, but I'd allow a non-immediately-lethal shotgun injury, say to the hand or foot or whatever (Anyone see the first few minutes of robocop?) But if you blow that roll you're probably gonna kill him. (MC Move : Trade harm)
4) Hell, no move necessary here. You have a shotgun, guy's in a shed with no armor and no weapon to speak of... fuck him he's grabbed and at your mercy, who's this NPC to me? Crosshairs baby.
5) Something else: Yeah there's a ton of good ways to resolve the situation, none of them are wrong I think, just what fits the flavor of your game and the situation. Just tell the MC what you DO and she'll figure out what that means mechanically, yes?
-
Sure. Make your character's lives interesting. Come down on either side of the harm levels to make sure that happens.
Yes, exactly. And sometimes that does mean killing the dude who got shotgunned, and sometimes it doesn't.
My issue is with the simple intent of an action overwhelming the complexity of an action. That is to say, when you shoot someone there is so much shit that can go wrong in a tense moment that just because a character intends to shoot someone in the toe and not kill them gives no guarantee that is actually what's going to happen. Sometimes you go to shoot someone in the toe and shoot them in the pelvis, sometimes bullets bounce, sometimes people get shot in the toe and die anyway. (Though as you point out this is rarely "insta kill" and more "dying in shock over the next hour" type death.)
I'm in no way saying "kill the dude every time!" What I am saying is "just because a PC says "I don't want to kill him when I shoot him with a shotgun at point blank range" doesn't mean I'm going to respect the "I don't want" part more than the "with a shotgun at point blank range" part.
-
Damn, why didn't I think of this before? New move:
Surgical Precision: When you seize by force or go aggro with a weapon and roll a 10+, you may choose how much harm your enemy takes, up to the maximum allowed by your weapon.
-
Surgical Precision: When you seize by force or go aggro with a weapon and roll a 10+, you may choose how much harm your enemy takes, up to the maximum allowed by your weapon.
Awesome idea! But this isn't a basic move, is it? Do you think it goes in a playbook, or what?
-
I could see Surgical Precision as a Battlebabe move. Which would make them even more ninja than they already are.
-
Let's say I have a shotgun. Let's say some random NPC doesn't. He has no armor, either. I chase him into a shed, wanting to take him hostage. Guns are out, there've been some shots fired, we're definitely out of Go Aggro territory and into Seize by Force territory.
Say I want to Seize this sucker. I don't want to kill him, though. What's the deal? I mean, there's no "deal little harm" option. I can take the "Take definite hold" option and the "Frighten or Dismay or Whatever" option but he's still taken 3 harm, BLAM!, and is pretty much toast.
How, in the midst of a battle, can I get my hands on this slippery little jerk?
Great discussion and I love how may different views there are of this. Must be a lot of subtly different MC styles out there.
Apocalypse world lets you do just about anything you'd conceivably do in this situation "Make apocalypse world seem real"
1) Threaten him... come with me quietly or I'll blow your head off! Could be going aggro, you have a moment alone in the shed as opposed to out in open battle, or could be manipulating with the leverage being violence (in which case you don't have to pull the trigger) Just here the victim has the choice in the matter.
2) Literally go up and grab him violently. I think this is Seizing by Force with your hands. You hit and take the definite hold option with additional harm if you want to rough him up some, he may hit you back but you've already got him unarmed as you said so worst thing he's going to lay a hand on you. Victim has no choice in this one, you're taking him.
3) Beat the crap out of him and take what's left. This would be again Seizing by force (or going aggro if the MC rules he's not defending himself) and just injure him to the point of non-resistance. Could do this with your hands or gun stock, but I'd allow a non-immediately-lethal shotgun injury, say to the hand or foot or whatever (Anyone see the first few minutes of robocop?) But if you blow that roll you're probably gonna kill him. (MC Move : Trade harm)
4) Hell, no move necessary here. You have a shotgun, guy's in a shed with no armor and no weapon to speak of... fuck him he's grabbed and at your mercy, who's this NPC to me? Crosshairs baby.
5) Something else: Yeah there's a ton of good ways to resolve the situation, none of them are wrong I think, just what fits the flavor of your game and the situation. Just tell the MC what you DO and she'll figure out what that means mechanically, yes?
6) Threaten him non-lethally: Just aim the shotgun at his knees and tell him to come peacefully, or you'll drag him back. If he sucks it up (refuses or resists) you blow his kneecaps out.
7) Put the gun away and sieze by force: Just because you seize by force doesn't mean you have to deal harm. Roll to grab him. He's probably going to punch you in the face when you're coming, so be prepared to pick "You suffer little harm", and make sure you take "You take definitive hold of it" so he doesn't wring free in 10 minutes.
-
You know how on page 271, John Harper, Ben Wray, and Vincent are all making up new moves for their players to take as advancements? I'd use Surgical Precision that way. If you have a player whose character tends to make very precise assaults on others, even if they're not a Battlebabe or a Gunlugger, let them take Surgical Precision as either an extra move from their playbook, or an extra move from another playbook.
-
I don't think it lames the game to not always make a hard move.
Killing an NPC when they get shot is not a hard move, though -- it's closer to a principle.
-
Edit: Ignore me.
-
Let's say I have a shotgun. Let's say some random NPC doesn't. He has no armor, either. I chase him into a shed, wanting to take him hostage. Guns are out, there've been some shots fired, we're definitely out of Go Aggro territory and into Seize by Force territory.
Say I want to Seize this sucker. I don't want to kill him, though. What's the deal? I mean, there's no "deal little harm" option. I can take the "Take definite hold" option and the "Frighten or Dismay or Whatever" option but he's still taken 3 harm, BLAM!, and is pretty much toast.
How, in the midst of a battle, can I get my hands on this slippery little jerk?
Great discussion and I love how may different views there are of this. Must be a lot of subtly different MC styles out there.
Apocalypse world lets you do just about anything you'd conceivably do in this situation "Make apocalypse world seem real"
1) Threaten him... come with me quietly or I'll blow your head off! Could be going aggro, you have a moment alone in the shed as opposed to out in open battle, or could be manipulating with the leverage being violence (in which case you don't have to pull the trigger) Just here the victim has the choice in the matter.
2) Literally go up and grab him violently. I think this is Seizing by Force with your hands. You hit and take the definite hold option with additional harm if you want to rough him up some, he may hit you back but you've already got him unarmed as you said so worst thing he's going to lay a hand on you. Victim has no choice in this one, you're taking him.
3) Beat the crap out of him and take what's left. This would be again Seizing by force (or going aggro if the MC rules he's not defending himself) and just injure him to the point of non-resistance. Could do this with your hands or gun stock, but I'd allow a non-immediately-lethal shotgun injury, say to the hand or foot or whatever (Anyone see the first few minutes of robocop?) But if you blow that roll you're probably gonna kill him. (MC Move : Trade harm)
4) Hell, no move necessary here. You have a shotgun, guy's in a shed with no armor and no weapon to speak of... fuck him he's grabbed and at your mercy, who's this NPC to me? Crosshairs baby.
5) Something else: Yeah there's a ton of good ways to resolve the situation, none of them are wrong I think, just what fits the flavor of your game and the situation. Just tell the MC what you DO and she'll figure out what that means mechanically, yes?
6) Threaten him non-lethally: Just aim the shotgun at his knees and tell him to come peacefully, or you'll drag him back. If he sucks it up (refuses or resists) you blow his kneecaps out.
7) Put the gun away and sieze by force: Just because you seize by force doesn't mean you have to deal harm. Roll to grab him. He's probably going to punch you in the face when you're coming, so be prepared to pick "You suffer little harm", and make sure you take "You take definitive hold of it" so he doesn't wring free in 10 minutes.
8) Holler for your Brainer That'll calm the dude right down.
-JC
-
Let's say I have a shotgun. Let's say some random NPC doesn't. He has no armor, either. I chase him into a shed, wanting to take him hostage. Guns are out, there've been some shots fired, we're definitely out of Go Aggro territory and into Seize by Force territory.
Say I want to Seize this sucker. I don't want to kill him, though. What's the deal? I mean, there's no "deal little harm" option. I can take the "Take definite hold" option and the "Frighten or Dismay or Whatever" option but he's still taken 3 harm, BLAM!, and is pretty much toast.
How, in the midst of a battle, can I get my hands on this slippery little jerk?
Great discussion and I love how may different views there are of this. Must be a lot of subtly different MC styles out there.
Apocalypse world lets you do just about anything you'd conceivably do in this situation "Make apocalypse world seem real"
1) Threaten him... come with me quietly or I'll blow your head off! Could be going aggro, you have a moment alone in the shed as opposed to out in open battle, or could be manipulating with the leverage being violence (in which case you don't have to pull the trigger) Just here the victim has the choice in the matter.
2) Literally go up and grab him violently. I think this is Seizing by Force with your hands. You hit and take the definite hold option with additional harm if you want to rough him up some, he may hit you back but you've already got him unarmed as you said so worst thing he's going to lay a hand on you. Victim has no choice in this one, you're taking him.
3) Beat the crap out of him and take what's left. This would be again Seizing by force (or going aggro if the MC rules he's not defending himself) and just injure him to the point of non-resistance. Could do this with your hands or gun stock, but I'd allow a non-immediately-lethal shotgun injury, say to the hand or foot or whatever (Anyone see the first few minutes of robocop?) But if you blow that roll you're probably gonna kill him. (MC Move : Trade harm)
4) Hell, no move necessary here. You have a shotgun, guy's in a shed with no armor and no weapon to speak of... fuck him he's grabbed and at your mercy, who's this NPC to me? Crosshairs baby.
5) Something else: Yeah there's a ton of good ways to resolve the situation, none of them are wrong I think, just what fits the flavor of your game and the situation. Just tell the MC what you DO and she'll figure out what that means mechanically, yes?
6) Threaten him non-lethally: Just aim the shotgun at his knees and tell him to come peacefully, or you'll drag him back. If he sucks it up (refuses or resists) you blow his kneecaps out.
7) Put the gun away and sieze by force: Just because you seize by force doesn't mean you have to deal harm. Roll to grab him. He's probably going to punch you in the face when you're coming, so be prepared to pick "You suffer little harm", and make sure you take "You take definitive hold of it" so he doesn't wring free in 10 minutes.
Ooops, my 7) is octoscott's 2). Sorry, should have read more carefully.
Also, I'm not so sure about 4). Remember, "If you do it, do it". Of course, if the guy gets up and leaves peacefully with you as soon as he sees you, and you don't actually go aggro, there's no need to roll.
-
8) Holler for your Brainer That'll calm the dude right down.
I think this is pretty much the best option for any problem, ever.
I also propose a variant version of number 6: Threaten him non-lethally: Point the shotgun at him, yell a lot, look really pissed, make him really believe you'll blow the fucker's face off if he doesn't come with you. He doesn't have to know he's much more important to you alive. You're not going aggro; you're manipulating.
-
8) Holler for your Brainer That'll calm the dude right down.
I think this is pretty much the best option for any problem, ever.
I also propose a variant version of number 6: Threaten him non-lethally: Point the shotgun at him, yell a lot, look really pissed, make him really believe you'll blow the fucker's face off if he doesn't come with you. He doesn't have to know he's much more important to you alive. You're not going aggro; you're manipulating.
Right - it's been stated (either in the rules or on the boards here somewhere) that Going Aggro without actually intending on carrying through is faking it and, thus, manipulating. The stick, in that instance, is that you're threatening to go through with it. I guess when they ask for concrete assurances, you could put the gun away.
-
What, no? If you're threatening to shoot him, but actually don't intend to do it no matter what, concrete assurance would be something to show that hell yes, you're so seriously gonna shoot him. Fire a warning shot above his head (hard with a shotgun maybe?) or do that silly "remove the safety" thing they do in movies to show that they're serious.
OR are we talking about the situation that yes, you are actually going to shoot him, you wouldn't mind that, but you're giving him one chance and promising him that you won't shoot if he comes peacefully? In that case, putting away the gun is assurance. But that's another situation; one in which you're open to killing him, and he knows that, and he doesn't believe you when you say he won't be harmed if he comes with you.
-
In my interpretation, shooting in the air is part of the manipulation, just like offering future payment would be (or flirting would be for seduction). It's when "If you do X for me, I will/won't do Y." is stated, implicltly or explicitly. The 7-9 concrete assurance would be putting my gun away in a show of faith that I won't kill you, or offering up some collateral in a show of faith that I will pay you.
I'm fuzzy on what the show of faith would be for seduction. Going to second base?
-
A friend of mine ran a game where one of the PCs tried to frighten someone into silence by feigning a threat of violence by knife. His assurance was cutting himself, grinning madly.
I don't know, it's tricky. What was his promise? Not to hurt her? Did he promise to hurt her if she blew her cover? No, he didn't actually want to do that.
umm
-
Joe and Arvid, in my opinion, both of you seem a little confused on how Seduction and Manipulation work in the game.
Both of them are trying to get someone to do something you want via some kind of leverage. It's seduction when the leverage is sex.
The leverage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the promise.
So you threaten a dude with a knife, or offer the dude sex, in order to get him to, I dunno, try to get him to back you with his gang when you try to take over the holding. As it says in the book, on a hit, they ask you for a promise. The thing they want in return doesn't necessarily (and probably usually shouldn't, in my opinion) have anything to do with the leverage. So this dude, he says, if I help you take over the holding, I want all of your next crop of deathweed.
The (probably implied) offer of sex, if you're seducing, or the threatening with the knife... that was just the shit you used to get him to listen to you in the first place.
That's how I see seduction and manipulation, anyway. I may very well be totally wrong.
-
It doesn't make any sense to me that the leverage in the manipulation/seduction is disconnected from the promise/assurance of the outcome. It turns a quid pro quo situation into a quid that sets the stage for some other thing promised/assured thing for quo that just muddies the fiction. That would be like going aggro on someone by holding a knife at their throat and screaming that you're going to kill them, then when they choose to suck it up, go over to their house and burn it down.
-
PC: "You gotta let us go, Ship. If they keep us here, they're going to torture us. they're going to cut and cut until one of us can't hold it any more, and then someone will spill that it was your brother who showed us where the loot was stashed. Let us slip out that door there and you're brother will be safe."
Ship: "Fine. But I'm coming with you."
PC: "...wouldn't have it any other way."
leverage and promise, different things. Make sense?
-
AW, p. 198:
"The promise the NPC asks for should directly address the leverage the player's character is using."
Seems pretty clear to me.
-
*grin* hah, ooops. I guess that makes a lot of sense most of the time. There are going to be some times I'm going to want to make it a little more complicated.
So, the example I gave above. Pared down, The leverage is: If you let us go, your brother will be safe.
Promise: Go and take me with you as well. Would this be a form of fuckery then? give them what they want, but with complications? Is this offering them a worse outcome, so maybe a 7-9 rather than for a 10+?
Anyway.
-
AW, p. 198:
"The promise the NPC asks for should directly address the leverage the player's character is using."
Seems pretty clear to me.
Apparently I was wrong, but I'm going on record as saying "I don't think I like this. It seems boring."
I mean, really...
"Do this for me or I'll cut you!" "Please don't cut me!" "Okay." Yawn.
"Heeey, check out my boobs; don't you want to do this for me?" "If you have sex with me." "Okay." Again, yawn.
The first one basically identical to going aggro except that you're bluffing. The second one is just... blah, to me. Especially if I'm seducing someone just because I want to have sex with them. Then it's even worse. "You should have sex with me, cuz I'm hot!" "Yeah, you are! Promise to have sex with me!" "Ummm, yeah, that's what I just said."
If the promise requested is directly related to the leverage, I dunno, it seems like it's only interesting when the leverage is unusual or interesting. Like, if you've got hostages, or secret bombs. or blackmail info or whatnot, then I'm all over it...
I dunno, I'm probably just looking at it the wrong way. That seems to happen to me a lot with this game.
-
Complicated is fine. Fnord, "directly address" doesn't mean "parrot back."
DON'T MAKE THE PROMISE BORING, MC.
Also, DON'T MAKE THE PROMISE UNSUITABLE, MC.
Right?
-
"Come with me or I will fucking shoot you."
<7 = "Do it, pussy. I dare you." (except that you're bluffing, so you can't.)
7-9 = *shoots someone else, shoots some property, shoots SOMETHING*
10+ = "Okay okay, fuck! Just don't shoot!"
-
Complicated is fine. Fnord, "directly address" doesn't mean "parrot back."
DON'T MAKE THE PROMISE BORING, MC.
Also, DON'T MAKE THE PROMISE UNSUITABLE, MC.
Hmmm, yeah, I get what you're saying Vincent, and that's a pretty great summary. I'm still not sure I totally agree, though. But I actually suspect it's just differences in how I'm reading "directly address" and what you meant by it.
Thanks.
-
The second one is just... blah, to me. Especially if I'm seducing someone just because I want to have sex with them. Then it's even worse. "You should have sex with me, cuz I'm hot!" "Yeah, you are! Promise to have sex with me!" "Ummm, yeah, that's what I just said."
quote]
What's left out here is *why* the PC wants to have sex with the other person. If the reason is interesting, then all the potential outcomes can be interesting. If the reason is not interesting, then you've got to hope for an outcome that'll allow someone else to introduce some interest.
-
Specifically, seduction as the move isn't made to get someone to have sex with you. You could use a negotiate move to get someone to have sex with you... bribe them with food, promises of protection, promises of pleasure. Seduction is when you use the promise of sex to get them to do something else; ie, I'll sleep with you if you protect me, or give me bullets for my gun, or what have you. If both parties want to have sex, and there's no leverage involved, then you don't have to use the move, I think.
-
While it's true that you don't need to use seduction to get someone to have sex with you, it's the best move for making someone want to have sex with you, regardless of what your actual goal is.
-
Indeed, but in order to do that, you have to offer leverage, like food, protection, goods, services, etc. Offering sex on its own probably doesn't count as leverage, because to have leverage, it has to be something they want already.
Actually, I'd say it can't make someone want to have sex with you. It can make them have sex with you, but it can't make them want it, just choose to do it in order to get something they want. Sex obtained by Seduce or Manipulate is always going to be a form of prostitution.
Edit: I think, at least. I don't have access to my book at the moment.
I guess my thought is that it seems that sex will always be leverage, in which case they have to want it (because your character is fucking hot, presumably), or the thing you're using your leverage to get, in which case you have to have something to offer besides sex. You won't run into the "I use sex as leverage to get sex from you".
-
Actually, I'd say it can't make someone want to have sex with you. It can make them have sex with you, but it can't make them want it, just choose to do it in order to get something they want. Sex obtained by Seduce or Manipulate is always going to be a form of prostitution.
I don't think this is inherently true unless you consider a sex-for-sex transaction "prostitution".
Seduce is just a specialized form on Manipulate, right? The leverage is I will have sex with you.
-
I guess my thought is that it seems that sex will always be leverage, in which case they have to want it
Only if you hit. If you miss, you're not all that hot, and ya know, I'm gonna pass on the sex, but thanks for the offer.
-
I guess my thought is that it seems that sex will always be leverage, in which case they have to want it
Only if you hit. If you miss, you're not all that hot, and ya know, I'm gonna pass on the sex, but thanks for the offer.
It can also mean the price is too high. If they didn't want to have sex with you, then you didn't have leverage, and thus couldn't make the Seduce/Manipulate roll. I'm going off the book's statement that "To Seduce or Manipulate, you need to have leverage - sex, or a threat, or a promise, something that the manipulator can really do that the victim really wants or really doesn't want.
I don't think this is inherently true unless you consider a sex-for-sex transaction "prostitution".
What I'm saying is, an encounter where both people want to have sex with each other probably isn't a Seduce or Manipulate roll, it's just an exchange of sex. Presumably, if both parties actually want to do something, then there doesn't have to be a move.
Saying, "If you have sex with me, I'll protect you from Rolfball's goons" is a Manipulate move. Saying, "I'll have sex with you if you fix my car" is a Seduce Move. Saying, "Hey, wanna have sex?" isn't a move if the other person says "Yes please!"
-
Saying, "If you have sex with me, I'll protect you from Rolfball's goons" is a Manipulate move. Saying, "I'll have sex with you if you fix my car" is a Seduce Move. Saying, "Hey, wanna have sex?" isn't a move if the other person says "Yes please!"
What if it's sex on your terms? What if it's sex-right-now or sex-with-me-and-Dremmer?
-
Saying, "If you have sex with me, I'll protect you from Rolfball's goons" is a Manipulate move. Saying, "I'll have sex with you if you fix my car" is a Seduce Move. Saying, "Hey, wanna have sex?" isn't a move if the other person says "Yes please!"
What if it's sex on your terms? What if it's sex-right-now or sex-with-me-and-Dremmer?
Then you have to offer leverage to make them accept your terms, I'd think. Offer to perform a particular sex act, or promise to give particularly good sex (making the sex itself acting under fire?). Fair enough, that's not quite as much an act of prostitution, but there's still an element of negotiation, barter, bargaining. My point was more metaphorical than literal; using Seduce/Manipulate reduces the act of sex to an act of barter, in one way or another.
-
Offer to perform a particular sex act, or promise to give particularly good sex (making the sex itself acting under fire?).
[/quote]
Fucking Under Fire needs to be the name of my XBox band, I think.
This particular parsing made me think of those moves in a whole new light. Cool.
-Jim C.
-
the best move for making someone want to have sex with you
... is show them your violation glove.