Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: Ebok on March 23, 2017, 12:27:26 AM
-
So Paul T. You wanted this:
Seize something by Force
When you seize something by force from another Player character, you both roll +Hard.
Exchange harm and:
On a 10+ choose 3.
On a 7-9 choose 2.
On a miss choose 1.
When you seize something by force from a NPC, roll+hard.
Exchange Harm and:
On a 10+ choose 3.
On a 7-9 the MC chooses 1 for the NPCs, and then you choose 2.
On a miss the MC chooses 2 or 3 for the NPCs, and then you choose 1.
When choices directly counter each other, they are canceled out. If Bob seizes the gun by force, but Tom also seizes the gun by force, and both definite and undeniable control of it. This is exactly the same as 2e Apocalypse World for PvP. The hak is the second part.
Reasons
• The lack of a miss condition as set by 2e remains in place
• AW2 Seize by force is Contested, so NPCs contesting it and getting hold is a more natural state.
• The MC chooses the hold for the NPCs, just as an opposed player would choose his own hold.
• The AW1 miss condition has been effectively elevated in AW2 such that: During battle the MC may always make a move as hard or direct as she likes.
What this means
The Dogsiders Gang run a warehouse full of drugs on the edge of town. Billy the badass decides to go and put a stop to them, seizing the warehouse, and deciding what to do with it afterwards. The Dogsiders are a small gang 2-harm 1-armor. Billy is a violent fucker with 4-harm and 2-armor. Billy goes a knocking:
By default Billy will deal 2-harm to the Dogsiders, and takes 1-harm. Now He rolls seize by force:
On a 10+ He gets to choose all three options uncontested. Whatever he picks he gets. If he wants to suffer less, he takes 0. If he wants the warehouse, its his. If he wants to frighten them off, they're gone for now and freaked out in general. If he wants to hurt them more, then he's got a higher body count.
On a 7-9, We treat this as an opposed roll where the Dogsiders "miss". They choose 1 option they focus their attention on. If its surviving, they suffer less harm. If it's keeping the warehouse, then seize definite hold. etc. After they declare what they do, Billy now get's to choose two. He can choose from 3 of them uncontested, or he can spend one of his choices to contest the hold of the NPCs. (effectively canceling that option for both of them). So if both seize the warehouse, the MC will describe how both have taken positions inside, or how neither have control over it any longer and push there.
On a Miss, We treat this as an opposed roll "as if the Dogsiders hit a 7-9" or if they're really badass and it makes sense fictionally, "as if they hit a 10+". This provides the "reverse the move" rules for those of us that need a pushing miss condition. They go first so the Player is aware of the harm and the stakes and can make his choices intelligently.
This has the same effect as "choose one and prepare for the worst" except:
• It doesn't break Vincent's rule that only basic moves have open ended miss conditions
• It remains faithful to how the move already works in PvP
• It doesn't force an MC to maybe make a different hard move, since hard moves in AW2 don't exist, and they should make a move after this anyway (probably a dangerous one because they're in Battle).
• If the MC chooses 2, the player can counter it with 1, or choose another at the risk of 2 used against them. They get the advantage over AW1 in that they know what the harm is before they choose, which I believe is a more fair and equitable option.
• It allows the MC to make a situation worse even if the player hits, so long as that worse doesn't negate the options. And the NPC's getting an option might actually provide a great deal more context for what that worse could look like.
• This is a more nuanced move, harder to predict exactly how it will come out. And the possibility of things not going perfectly on the 7-9 emphasize the importance of having a high Hard. (something that is less important in Aw2)
-
Ah, now I see what you were getting at!
Making the Seize... move function against NPCs in the same way that the PvP version works is an interesting idea.
I will think on it!
I'm not sure I'm sold on the necessity of some of your criteria, or AW 2E not having hard moves (is that true?), but those are details.
One concern with this move:
How does the MC choose those options?
For example, if the MC is choosing them somewhat "in-character", it could mean that NPCs really really determined to hold something can only have it taken away from them on a 10+.
This allows, in other words, an MC to deny a player's success on a 7-9 (cancelling out their choice to "take definite hold"), which worries me a little.
For instance, in the example we had in the other thread, Gremlin trying to break through a blockade, she couldn't do it until she rolled a 10+. I'm not sure that sits well with me.
Interesting, in any case!
What do others think?
-
Also:
Can you give of an example of how you feel "Choose 1, and be prepared for the worst" might not work well in play? What would it look like, in practice?
-
Apocalypse World doesn't have hard MC moves, so you'll never find the rules for them in the text.
It's true that the move doesn't work the way it used to. It puts the worst potential consequences of a miss off into the snowball, instead of cutting them straight in via "be prepared for the worst." There have always been a number of moves that work this way, and now seizing by force has joined them.
The reason for the change is that the move has a new role to fill, a new place at the head of the new battle moves. The snowball has also changed.
Ebok, "moves snowball" has always included the possibility of disruptive, frustrating, arguably unfair moves on a hit. That's not a change from 1st Ed.
AW doesn't actually have hard moves. We've attributed this label from the miss condition "The MC can make a move as hard or direct as she likes". Thus Hard moves, happen on a miss. As you can always make those "moves" as the fiction and rules allow, it is no longer necessary to make them universally on a miss, instead we should let the fiction determine what moves are made.
Our attachment to failure on a miss (not necessarily a hard move) is what this hack is addressing, and making missing bad for everyone equally doesn't apply as written in the AW2 version of the battle moves. We've both agreed that contested PvP rolls work better, and I will get around to giving you an example of that. I'm interested in the idea of NPCs getting "hold" in that contest as well.
Seize by force isn't "take definite hold of it on a hit, and choose some other" the player might be seizing by force as a show of force, and their priority might be to suffer less or inflict more, not take definite hold. Your concern that a player's 7-9 roll might feel like they missed is just a perspective change.
It's no longer binary. You didnt, definitely take hold or definitely not take hold anymore. There is a third value, neither of you have definite hold. In our example, the gang and Gremlin both choosing take definite hold means that maybe Grmelin is through, mostly, but she's not "past" them yet. The 4-wheelers are on her right now, and the fire from the camp is still aggressively blasting her.
Alernatively, we could use that contested option to set the action. Instead of, "Okay Gremlin, now you're through but" we can zoom in. "Gremlin, you smash into the first turret and smash it into pieces, but a group of 4-wheelers come out from around an rock outcrop and start laying heavy fire into you. You were forced to turn towards cover, but that has you driving right through the length of the camp. They're all scrambling to get out of your way and some are firing pop shots on you. The 4-wheelers are coming up right behind as well but you can see another couple routes past them. What do you do?
Dont skip the action to "You are definitely through" instead "you're not definitely through, but you're definitely in the thick of it now", and go from there. To provide the 3rd option, Gremlin doesnt seize through, and the gang does seize the defense of the blockade, this this case maybe we say Gremlin hits the blockage, and is pushed back and we start the action with her heading back the way she came purhaps being chased by 4wheelers.
In Sum:
Seize Definite Hold: The Player has what they picked right now, we describe them getting it and go from there.
Contested Hold: Both parties have part of what they picked right now, we describe them in the middle of fighting over it, with the condition and possession of the thing as stakes.
Failed to Seize definite Hold: The Enemies have definite hold over the something, and we describe the player failing to get it and go from there.
-
I do understand the potential for the enemy to contest (perhaps repeatedly) the only option you want, and thusly making 7-9 not feel like a hit. However, Seize by force is Do Battle, not just seize by force. It is about exchanging harm, morale, and fighting over something all at once.
If it was merely taking something by force, it should be written more like Act Under Fire, 10+ you have it free and clear, 7-9, you have it but it cost you something, miss, well shit.
In the case of Gremlin's attack. If her priorty was getting through and not doing harm. Seems to me like smashing through would be Act Under Fire anyway. Since she is rolling Seize by Force, that means her priority is not just getting through under fire, but also running some fuckers over with her massive truck. So if she only gets part of what she wants (running them over) and not getting through, that's a fine result for a 7-9
-
I hear you, Ebok.
However, my fear with this is that it reduces combat, once again, to a hit points game. Remember that the 7-9 is the most common outcome, and low Hard characters will rarely roll a 10+. This means that if you and I are fighting over something we both want, the winner will be decided not so much by the rolls but by who gets killed or decides to quit first. A definite "seizing" of the object becomes much, much less likely, and, indeed, could rarely happen in such situations. (At the opposite end of the spectrum, the current 2nd Ed Seize move makes it pretty much guaranteed for a character who is determined to do so.)
I'm also hoping you'll tell me what you imagine the "failure condition" for "choose 1 and prepare for the worst" looks like in play.
-
I agree with Ebok in that this makes SBF look a lot more like acting under fire. Having the outcome be contestable on a 7-9 is functionally identical to a "worse outcome" on a 7-9. I've always interpreted a worse outcome to mean that you get some of what you want, but not all of what you want.
If you hit a 7-9 on SBF under the system described in this thread, you might still be able to inflict terrible harm and suffer little harm. In the context of engaging in battle, that's still a success. That's like saying, "OK, sure, let them keep control of their blockade - but I'm gonna make these fuckers pay for barring my way."
-
Paul T... AW combat is always an HP game until you make it human. That is, until you have one of the badguys step out after the battle starts and show that's he's got your favorite person tied up with a gun to their head.
The above statement is actually a good launching point to answer you other question. Why did I turn away from the "choose 1 but be prepared for the worse." Firstly there is the same old aw1 bumpiness where PvP is concerned and the MC doesnt want to make a move in the middle of two players contesting the roll because it might distract from the action. But for the other reason: Let's set a scene.
Joe has established his harm against the gang. He and his guys will suffer 2-harm, but deal 4-harm to the other side.
He makes his seize by force roll for the purpose of killing them, and seizing the survivors as hostages.
Always: He deals 4-harm and shatters the opposing gang.
10+ He get's his hostages, they're all afraid for their lives, and he and his gang suffers 1-harm instead.
7-9, He get's his hostages, and they're all afraid for their lives.
Miss, He get's his hostages.
prepare for the worst. Okay, I could turn this back on him and deal 1-more harm, the gang suffers less harm, and his boys are the ones that are shaken. So the result of this is Joe &co. taking lots of harm and them getting pushed back with their hostages. Or I could have the boss of the other side, scared out of his wits, pull out Joe's daughter from the bullet riddled crates, maybe in a suicide vest and say, "STOP STOP STOP SHOOTING! I'm leaving! Let me go and your daughter doesn't get blown to bits!" (sure this might not work out for this guy, but hey, we put Joe on the spot, threatening to take away something he cares about.)
However. Because the player see's prepare for the worst, and then associates the result with a bad thing happening. He will come to assume this bad thing will not happen if he hit the roll. But wait... why's that? There is no fictional reason why the boss doesn't do this following the hit either. Sure the Joe on a 10+ killed or captured just about everyone, but a freaked the fuck out boss survivor with his daughter could still stand up and do this thing.
Or hell, it would also be fine if Joe didn't know his daughter was there, that he finds her bleeding out on the floor beside the corpses of her captors (say we established her presence there with another player). Now he is faced with the threat of His girl dying (possibly from his own bullets). Probably a far more intense result. But, what's the point of saying be prepared for the worst, if it is fictionally appropriate for the worst to have happen anyway?
What if him hitting with a 10+ is why the gang took enough damage to hit the girl too? What if it was the hit that caused this to happen? Should it not happen because we're allowing the roll to dictate that nothing bad happens next?
No. The fiction tell us what's at stake, the roll tells us where the player is in control. The only thing that "prepare for the worst" miss condition does for us as MC's is that we can turn the move back on the player. And the point of that is to complicate the victory that seize by force represents. The reason I abandoned the choose one and prepare, is that I prefer Lumpley's changes here, especially after spending so much time lately running different senarios.
Also Ive always been unhappy that seize by force 7-9 hit was basically an absolute win period. The hack above plays well with the AW2 changes, shares the same (simple) behavior as PvP, and makes hitting a 10+ super rewarding against NPCS, rather just slightly better. It's very clean and does everything I want it to do.
-
I'm still trying to figure out my feelings about the overall design, but I just wanted to point out this little detail:
On a 7-9 the MC chooses 1 for the NPCs, and then you choose 2.
On a miss the MC chooses 2 or 3 for the NPCs, and then you choose 1.
Having the MC pick first is definitely the right way to do it. This keeps the ultimate choice in the players' hands. Like, I roll 7-9, you pick "the gang gets +1 harm," and now I've got the choice whether to mitigate the damage or make it an all-out bloodbath on both sides instead.
Quick question, also: how do you interpret the MC choosing "impress, dismay, or frighten your enemy" for the NPCs?
-
I see where you're coming from now.
If you buy into the premise that there are "no hard moves" anymore, or your idea that hard moves can be made without warning in battle, that position makes sense. I haven't read the 2nd Ed, so I don't know how it's presented there, but to me it makes fairly little sense. The distinction between "hard" and "soft" moves (even though it IS a blurry line) has a been a tremendously useful one to me and to everyone I've played PbtA games with, indeed to the point where it's one of the basic things which makes the game work. We consider it a Principle of play, in other words.
It's not *just* about the hardness of the move, either. That's a useful guideline and principle, particularly for people new to the game. (Presumably a super-genius MC can handle a game just fine without it, but that says more about their skills than the strength of the design.)
The other aspect is the flow of the conversation of play. Basic Moves, in AW, very clearly tell you who talks next, and what to expect. Doing away with that sounds like a difficult proposition, to me. Again, it's a really useful aspect of PbtA play.
I'm also not sure why the same logic wouldn't apply to ALL Basic Moves. Should we remove their "expect the worst" clauses as well, then? If not, why not?
I also disagree with your assertion that "AW combat is always an HP game". In our games, we regularly have situations where seizing definite hold is tremendously important and immediately impactful. For instance, a character is trying to press the "launch" button on the buried ICBM nukes we unearthed, and you're trying to get to the console before he does. Or someone is trying to jump off the barge into the water, escaping from their imprisonment. Or, more simply, I'm trying to take away your gun before you shoot someone.
Those are not always "seize by force" situations, but they often can be - as in Vincent's example of Gremlin trying to break through the blockade.
In all those cases, it seems to me that one character taking "definite hold" is a highly important resolution. With the original rules, on a hit, that happens, and on a miss, it's up to the MC - but it most likely will not. With your suggested move here - for all its strengths otherwise, which I recognize - my fear is that such a situation can ONLY be resolved on a 10+, since, otherwise, both parties are likely to simply choose to contest that hold (even on a miss). That's what I mean by "HP game" - the dice almost never tell us, in this case, whether so-and-so managed to get to the console.
That remains an issue with opposed rolls, but somehow I'm much more satisfied with the "HP game" coming into play with two PCs attacking each other, since it's a dramatic situation which will lead to one side stepping down or killing the other - all interesting outcomes.
I agree, however, that hard moves (or any moves!) on a miss is a terrible fit for opposed rolls.
Let me know if I'm making any sense to you. Thanks for the fascinating discussion, in any case!
-
I disagree with the assertion that "there are no hard moves in AW2." The text in the MC chapter about moves, set-up, and golden opportunities is almost completely unchanged from AW1 to AW2. Here is the important bit:
However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.
When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate. When you’ve been setting something up and it comes together without interference, that counts as an opportunity on a plate too.
Even moves that have defined miss conditions aren't exempt from this. For instance, let's say Cypher the Brainer casually brushes his violation glove across the back of Joe's Girl's hand and attempts to pull in-brain puppet strings. He misses the roll with a 5. The move has a miss-clause - Cypher inflicts 1-harm (ap) on Joe's Girl. But I think it's also totally in-bounds for the MC to say, "Joe's Girl recoils from you as if struck. Suddenly bleeding from the tear-ducts in both eyes, she screams, 'Gah!!! I won't do it!!! Get out of my head!!!' Everybody in the room turns their attention to the two of you, including Joe. What do you do?" This is me putting Cypher in a spot. Given that Joe is presumably a humorless, violent asshole, it's a pretty dangerous spot. The move is both hard and fictionally appropriate.
That's why I tend to be in the "pick 1 and prepare for the worst" camp - because I'm probably going to fuck with you on a miss anyway. At least this way everyone involved knows it's coming. ;)
I like this hack, though. It's definitely interesting, and I like the way it makes SBF feel more like AUF (which is probably my favorite of the basic moves just for its sheer flexibility).
-
Munin: Lumpley has already said definitively that there have never been officially defined "hard moves".
I disagree with the assertion that "there are no hard moves in AW2."
Don't get sidetracked by the words "hard move", I'm simply disavowing the term, not the narrative equilivent. I need to do so, because I associate it with a miss inherently now, for years I have not made a "hard" move unless they missed, which in retrospect was idiotic. My statements above DO NOT suggest that an MC shouldn't make a move, nor that that move shouldn't be hard / aggressive / and irrevocable, simply that the fiction should dictate if we make that action, not the text of the move.
( ...I deleted some unimportant rambling here... )
This is the important bit:
... when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate ...
Your in-brain puppet strings example is a perfect example. I fully agree with the move you suggested after this examples miss. We are definitely provided a golden opportunity when a player deals harm to someone they didn't intend to hurt. However, note: This move does not have the text be prepared for the worst, and does not need it for us to see the opportunity there and use it.
The text be prepared for the worst on some of the moves are saying, that regardless of the fiction, when you miss a roll on those moves, something bad will happen. This isn't needed on seize by force, because they're already suffering harm (an opportunity), dealing harm (an opportunity), we've plenty of hold adding to the stakes (potential opportunity) and a followup harm move (more potential opportunity). This action has immediate fictional consequences and motivations all of which provide more opportunities to make a move against them. If you make it meaner because they miss to reinforce that? All the better! Using the hack above you should still do this, even with the miss condition as listed.
The only thing putting be prepared for the worst on a miss for seize by force does is: declare that something bad must always happen on a miss, and implies that something bad should not happen on a hit. This doesn't add any value to us or the story. Your quote already covers part of how the principals demand we act. The move not restating this doesn't make those principals any less prevalent.
Paul T: Someone trying to seize a button by force is a bad use case for seize by force. In the past it might have been an okay choice, but in AW2 is most certainly is not. The clearest example is this: If a move is a good descriptor, it should work in PvP too. In PvP they can prevent the other form pushing the button so long as they're alive. God damn. Look at that, with hold on a miss its always contested period, meaning this is simply a test of HP. This is evidence that we shouldn't rely on this move to solve the problem, not evidence that AW1's move was better (they do things differently now). Consider the case where an enemy wants to push two buttons, and the player wants to push two others, perhaps in this senario: they are fighting to seize all of the controls by force. Seize by force might work here, because if neither of them get the thing, that's actually a partial success!
...seizing definite hold is tremendously important and immediately impactful.
Sure it is! And in those cases, you might need to hit a 10+ to fend off an enemy who is just as dedicated to getting the thing. Especially since they're suffering more damage to do so! AW combat does revolve around Armor and Harm, they're basically defined by it. But you don't just have to bash someone in a battle, you've got a whole slew of battle moves now, and whole bunch of fictional pressures you can use too.
Seize by force is engaging with your enemies to achieve not one but all of the stated objectives. It is useful for describing battle, not tug of war or a race. People punching each other and wrestling over a button using seize by force should be an HP based thing. If they wanted to skip knocking the other person out or killing them, they should go for the button instead and Act under Fire. This is doubly true because in the case of the button it is not about total seizing control (you really don't need that...), its about just getting enough time to smack it once.
If you have poeple racing to get to the button, and smacking and punching each other along the way... I would suggest the following:
Although a Simple Act under fire could work vs NPCs, you can even decide that they trade harm as established while doing so. But if you want something more clear, write it up:
Violently race to claim a prize
When you violently race to claim the prize, exchange harm and roll+Hard.
On a 10+ you get there first, choose one.
On a 7-9, you get there first, but they choose one.
On a miss, you don't get there first and they choose one.
Against a player, both of you exchange harm and roll+Hard.
On a hit, you get there, and who ever rolls highest get's there first.
If you beat your opponent by 3 or more, choose one.
If you both miss, be prepared for the worst.
EDIT OOPS!
choices: • suffer less harm, • inflict more harm
-
Ebok,
We might have to agree to disagree in this case. I don't agree with anything you're writing in that last post, so we must be working from totally different assumptions. For instance, if using "seize by force" isn't appropriate for two characters fighting over a thing they both want... I'm not sure what I'd use it for, at all.
Munin's quote from the text explains the idea of "hard moves" (even if it doesn't explicit call them out this way) very well. I don't really see an alternate interpretation of that text.
I'm also reading the "in-brain puppet strings" example differently. All the MC is doing there is describing the results of the PC's action - the move itself includes all those details (it's "1-harm ap loud", where "loud" is explicitly about the victim making some noise!); the MC here is simply describing what that looks like in the fiction. You could argue that "they all look at you" is an MC move (and I would agree, it's "put someone in a spot"), but it could just as easily have been omitted, if, say, another character was ready to take action.
So, I don't know! Not seeing it. I don't particularly see what your custom move would add to the game, or why it's necessary (or what we're "choosing" from).
I'd still love to see an example of how "choose 1 and prepare for the worst" could go wrong. (Because I suspect you're on to something, and I want to know what it is you're thinking or seeing!)
-
It's fighting over a thing they both want to have definite control over. Not having the opportunity to tap a button. If you want definite control over the gun, there are three states: I have it. Neither of us have it. He has it. This is the requirement for the seizing something by force in my proposed hack.
If you are trying to prevent someone from getting past you (to hit a button), the states could be: I stopped them completely, They're on top of me and we're both closer to the button, they got past me and hit the button. Flip that for your example if you REALLY wanted to use it. 10+ I hit the button. 7-9, We're fighting and I'm very close to the button, miss: I'm no where near the button.
The equilivent states for the other versions of seize by force are the same.
To defend something by force, the states might be: I defended them completely, I defended them mostly, I failed to defend them.
The reason I haven't given you that example yet, is I was hoping by showing you something that achieves that AND more.
I wouldnt have to. I'll do it tomorrow maybe.
The reasons it under performs are subtle, but I'll attempt to be concise about it.
-
I'm not a fan, for what it's worth. PCs and NPCs have different kinds of agency in AW, and this move blurs that line too much for me. Sure, in a very particular case, I might interpret a miss on a move and 'turn the move back' in the hands of an NPC -- but as a general rule, I am not interested in having to make mechanical choices on behalf of my NPCs in this way.
Similarly, I am absolutely not interested in my NPCs being able to block access to a thing the PC is choosing to seize by force, and the fact that the PC can now do that on a miss is not enough of a problem to make me want to overturn that basic impulse. The PC's actions and the PC's choices drive the game, and I don't really see many advantages here, that make up for having that stop being true, even in a very specific circumstance like this. And once you remove the 'take definite hold' choice from the NPC's list, all you're left with is harm. Harm works so differently for PCs and NPCs that, again, trying to create some sort of symmetry in their choices regarding it seems like a mistake.
-
Fairenough!
-
I'm still trying to figure out my feelings about the overall design, but I just wanted to point out this little detail:
On a 7-9 the MC chooses 1 for the NPCs, and then you choose 2.
On a miss the MC chooses 2 or 3 for the NPCs, and then you choose 1.
Having the MC pick first is definitely the right way to do it. This keeps the ultimate choice in the players' hands. Like, I roll 7-9, you pick "the gang gets +1 harm," and now I've got the choice whether to mitigate the damage or make it an all-out bloodbath on both sides instead.
Quick question, also: how do you interpret the MC choosing "impress, dismay, or frighten your enemy" for the NPCs?
Sorry I missed your response in the middle of the walls of text.
The answer? Very carefully. Normally I choose this option when I'm affecting the Player's allies, or the bystanders. And it's normally baked into the fictional response. For example: The player is routing the other gang, but they've got some hold on the 7-9, they choose to fright/dismay the player and his boys. I then tell the player that they start firing into the crowd, killing and wounding the bystanders in the area. Or maybe they throw molatovs to start catching the city on fire.
Basically, I only rarely, and with a players consent, choose to impress dismay or frighten a player. By consent, I don't mean I ask them for permission. I mean I pick the result and see if they push back or run with it. Sometimes I ask them a loaded question, like what did they do to impress dismay or frighten you? Sometimes I suggest something cinematically to see if that inspires them to pick up on it. Maybe the guy the player just shot, even though he is dying, he holds his head up and is proud. Whereas most are screaming and weeping and dying like cowards under normal situations. So the player might be impressed with the people.
Alternatively, I might suggest that the gang behaves /honorably/ in their defeat, maybe shielding some bystanders, keeping their word, or something else that reduces the hostility the player might feel for that faction.
It very much depends on the fiction.
-
I would do the same. It's mostly for NPCs, or applied carefully and selectively, with player buy-in, to the PC. A good overview!
It's actually one of my concerns with "choose 3 against the player", particularly if the PC chooses one as well - you'll often be stuck with choosing that option even when it might not be relevant or applicable.
-
To be honest Paul, I was only going to have the choose 2 option there. The reason there is an OR there, is for that very reason. If picking 3 on a miss seems like to much, or is troublesome with the narrative, pick 2. If there is a great opportunity there, you can pick 3. I was thinking back to one of your suggestions in the other thread, where the player chooses 1 and the other 3 go against him. I didn't like that because it removed all agency from the other side of the conflict, and I've always found choosing 3 was too harsh when reversing a move. But since the play can counter one, or pick one himself, I figured, well there could be a case for it! Probably not every time, but maybe sometimes.
-
Paul, it should be pointed out that the damage from the miss condition of in-brain puppet strings does not have the loud tag. Does that change your opinion at all?
Ebok, I think the "hard move" issue is one of semantics. I think we all get the idea that the MC can make as hard and direct a move as he or she likes at any time, but it is codified into the advice given to the MC that he or she should view a player miss as an opportunity. In other words: that's not the only time can happen, but it's a good time for it to happen.
As a side note, I have no problem impressing, dismaying, frightening, panicking, confusing, or stunning a PC, but what I will not do is remove the player's agency when doing it. I view it as exactly the same as the "stick" condition of a successful PvP manipulate under AW1: You can still do whatever it was that you were planning to do, but understand that now you're doing it under fire. "Stunned" in AW2 works this way too. And it can have other consequences even if you manage to overcome it - the last time I remember doing this was against a Chopper who had face-palmed with an 11 on a harm move. I ruled him as momentarily panicked; if he followed that cue (break and run, duck for cover, cower behind others, whatever) the there'd be no roll necessary. But if he wanted to get his shit together and press on through the bile rising in his rapidly constricting throat, he'd need to roll+Cool. Wanting to live up to his hard-ass reputation, he did so and managed a success, soldiering through it and ultimately winning the fight. But here's the important part - he had a moment of hesitation, showed a split-second of fear, and everyone in his gang saw it.
-
Munin: That's a solid approach. I'll probably also do that in the future.
Daniel: I see where you're coming from, but I also disagree. :)
As a fan of the characters, I'm not going always choose seize definite control for the NPCs. The focus is not on picking the mechanic that best fits the NPC maths, it functions in the same way that hitting 7-9 for Act Under Fire has you picking a part of the fiction to bite or degrade the players 10+ expectations. It's a complication, and because it happens before the player chooses (just like they can change their mind for a 7-9 act under fire) they can use their choice to remove the NPC's selection.
If being able to "hold" seize by force is really that much of a problem, you could also let the player choose that option twice, the first time countering it, the second time selecting it, at the cost of choosing two others. Thus perhaps alleviating some of the concerns mentioned here.
For me an important bit was always that I didn't like the 7-9 result of seize by force anyway. It felt too much like a complete an absolute win. You rarely need to choose more then two options in a seize by force roll. So the differences between a 10+ are not great. The more consequence between 7-9 and 10+ has a lot of impact on how useful Hard is as a stat.
-
That's a really good way to look at it, Munin. And you're right about the in-puppet strings - I was thinking of direct brain whisper projection, and it made sense, in my mind, to generalize to harm caused by brainer powers in general. :) I suppose there's a subtle distinction at play, where describing the results of a mechanical action on the fiction is being contrasted to bringing in an entirely different, or new action. In this particular example, I feel that the MC is "making a move" on the part of the victim, most definitely. However, it's a pretty soft move - not the kind of action I would expect on a typical miss ("hard and irrevocable"), since it leaves the initiative in the hands of the player. An interesting example to consider, in any case.
Ebok, I like that interpretation of it, as well. It's an interesting question, too, whether the MC should choose according to what the NPC prioritizes or according to what they think is dramatically most interesting. Choosing "twice" is not a bad idea, as well. A potential downside is that it could make the outcomes look similar (see below)...
I agree with you about the outcomes on a "seize" roll being fairly similar, although that's never really been an issue for me in play - the mess of combat and the harm dealt just meant that things are never quite perfect. That's, perhaps, why I'm worried about the 2nd Ed version of the move - now even the miss option starts to feel, in my situation, like the 7-9 or 10+ - given mismatched harm/armor numbers, those three outcomes might be almost identical. Sometimes, the only difference between the strongest hit and the most terrible miss is going to be two segments filled on your harm clock. That sounds a bit disappointing to me.
If we're choosing an option (to "take definite hold") several times, as you suggest, that could be even worse. If I rolled better than you, I can always choose to win the thing, in other words - and then the other outcomes might not even come into play. A lot of conflicts could come down to a direct exchange of harm in that case (for example, you miss, so you choose to take definite hold, but I roll a 7-9, so I choose to take definite hold twice). I'm not sure; just wondering out loud here.
I like how your version of the move makes the three tiers much more meaningfully distinct.
There might also be some fun options to play around how the options are chosen - perhaps, if you miss the roll, you must pick first, for instance, or rolling certain outcomes enables you to block an option for the other party.
-
Paul, I was only considering allowing the Player to override the NPC, not other players. The only roll that could even occur in is the 7-9 roll vs NPCs. It would basically be the same as on a 7-9, choose 1, or the MC chooses 1 and you choose 2. The player chooses which. Granted, I personally don't believe giving the NPCs hold is problematic. Doing takes a binary result for each choice and provides a third messy state between.
...
I suppose in my games I also do a lot more with the choices then one needs to. If you choose suffer less harm, in the cinematic that follows that action takes a lot of precedence in describing where a PC might go, descriptions of the cover, and it might also extend that aware to his gang. This adds a abstraction of personality to the result, rather then just -1 harm. When I make my move following this, I take that cover into consideration.
Likewise, an enemy inflicting more harm and the player suffering less, has the player using cover and the enemies preforming tactics that counter that. If the player isn't suffering less, then it's the enemies assault that's tearing into your less defensively positioned gang. Or if neither choose these, then both sides are (on an individual level) relatively even in terms of their performance. All of this info acts as fodder for knowing where they aren't in control and where they are.
That's useful for me when a barf forth apocalyptica.
-
Vincent did that nicely, too, in his example in the other thread. I like that!
I think *most* people won't do it when playing the game, but I'd find it a very welcome addition, and it would build nicely into the following action, as well.
-
So this is how it stands as of now.
Seize By Force
For PCs: To seize something by force, you both roll+hard.
Exchange Harm as established and:
On a 10+ choose 3.
On a 7-9 choose 2.
On a miss choose 1.
For NPCs: To seize something by force, roll+hard.
Exchange Harm as established and:
On a 10+ choose 3.
On a 7-9 choose 1 or the MC chooses 1 for the NPCs and you choose 2.
On a miss the MC chooses 2 or 3 for the NPCs and you choose 1.
• You inflict terrible harm (+1harm).
• You suffer little harm (-1harm).
• You take definite and undeniable control of it.
• You impress, dismay, or frighten your enemy.
-
That's a very clear restatement.
I'm afraid I still don't understand the objection to "choose 1, but expect the worst". Did you ever come up with an example of how that might be unsatisfying or disruptive in play? Where does it fall flat?
-
Ebok's main complaint against that interpretation was that it was a little less clear for PvP, as it implied that the MC would be inserting complicating narrative into the middle of two PCs' actions. I don't think that's a big issue, but I believe that was his concern.
-
Indeed. Is that the only objection, Ebok?
It seems simple enough to ignore it in PvP, especially since you already do so for the "interfere" move (as I believe you said in the other thread).
Incidentally, has there ever been a concise/complete ruling as to when and how to engage with the interfere move (particularly in opposed rolls)? I've never seen a coherent take on it, really.
-
Paul T, if you check out the start of our 12page Seize by Force thread, you'll see that I've been playing with the choose 1 and expect the worst for my last couple of games. I have many examples there, and it clearly worked. However, over the course of that I bought into some of the 2e design, and realize that the previous pattern was playing into some of my bad habits.
1.) Munin is right. PvP + unexperienced MC might do strange and hacky feeling things here.
I know I did when I first started and we had misses in PvP. Sure we can just ignore the clause when its a problem.
2.) But wait, we can ignore it too if there doesn't happen to be a good hard move to make against NPCs, or maybe we just want it to end there. Such as if the enemy is dead either way, and there's nothing else around, or if another player was following up with something battle ending anyway.
3.) We should make hard and direct moves when the character provides us with a golden opportunity, whether that's following a hit or miss. Most misses are golden opportunities anyway, even without the clause.
That's why I tend to be in the "pick 1 and prepare for the worst" camp - because I'm probably going to fuck with you on a miss anyway. At least this way everyone involved knows it's coming. ;)
My bad habit was this: I got into the pattern where I exclusively made hard moves only on a miss. Then my players saw the clause on a miss, and we all thought, okay, the MC doesn't make a move on a hit. So we had many battles that were "brushed over" on a very high level, because a 7+ means they won, and a miss means they lost. That was our AW1 pattern (right or wrong we started it because of the moves)
Adding the choose 1 on a miss when I started Aw2 actually worked out fine. I still made a hard move on a miss, but they still got at least something out of it. Many of the battle moves dont actually talk about the Player risking harm either, giving us the impression that they only took harm on the seize by force. That was not a good pattern, we solved it by scrapping all of them entirely. Turns out, if I had just realized I could be hard when I should be hard fictionally, we never would have had these issues.
I was talking about this with one of my players after the other discussion. He told he that he honestly had more fun when he missed, because everything got exciting. The hard moves putting characters in peril made things more fun. Huh. Maybe reserving that for misses (especially in a group that might rarely miss) is a bad idea.
conclusion: If 1, 2, and 3 are true, then be prepared for the worst is basically just flavor text reminding us to spice it up by prompting our players into looking to us for a move.
4.) My group didn't notice or care about hitting a 10+ on seize by force. It was a gimme move. We always wanted 7-9 to feel more half and half, rather than auto success. It was an issue from the very first time we played and continued without a good answer through my last game. This hack provides this.
a.) Opposed rolls work with this move already.
b.) It doesn't give anyone the impression the battle will not turn deadly on a 7+
c.) It provides some descriptive agency to a 7-9 option, in a familiar act under fire pattern
d.) It boosts the importance of a higher Hard when seizing by force for 2e.
e.) It falls in line with the same pattern as the other battles moves for 2e.
f.) It contains a miss criteria that is the only thing we lost out on by removing "be prepared for the worst".
Overall, that's why I like it. Could it be better? Absolutely, we should have different battle moves and a different armor / harm setup entirely that could set up more nuanced fights, but for a high level move, seize by force has always been pretty effective in my fiction.
-
Very interesting, thanks, Ebok!
I'm having a little bit of trouble grasping exactly what the problem was, because I can't really imagine that being an issue in games we played, but I can try to imagine harder, perhaps.
Any chance I could talk you into giving me an example of a situation where a) the rules don't tell you to make a hard move, and how it is better if you do (a contrast between the "old way" you used to play and the "new way"), and b) someone rolls a miss on a Seize by Force and you think the game is better off when you don't make a move? I was really hoping for an actual example from your games, because talking about it in the abstract, it's really easy to misunderstand each other.
(Also: I'm not talking about opposed rolls; those are clearly better off without MC moves. This is really about PC vs NPC here.)
I agree with your assessment of the benefits of your new move, by the way. It's a bit messy, which I don't love, but it does have some significant benefits, as you point out. I like, for instance, the stronger distinction between a 7-9 and a 10+.
-
In particular, I would love to hear an example from your game(s) of this:
"• There is no need for an explicit miss
Since we can always make the worse possible thing occur, there are less guidelines on when we should. In contrast, if the scene doesn't have an obvious "hard" move to make that makes sense, we are no longer asked to think up one and make it. Thus it's not the miss that matters, but the seize by force. So we no longer watch the dice, instead, leave our full attention on the fiction to decide what comes next."
It's not entirely easy for me to imagine what this looks like in play, since it could be interpreted a number of different ways. Would you consider illustrating with an example?
-
Which example - for when you make a "hard and direct" move on a hit, or where you don't make one on a miss?
-
I suppose I am primarily hoping for an illustration of how omitting an explicit MC move on a miss means that it's "not the miss that matters, but the seize by force". An example of how that means we "no longer watch the dice, [but], instead, leave our full attention on the fiction to decide what comes next."
What does it look like when "we watch the dice"? And how does this dynamic change?
I'm curious what it looks like at the table, with real people playing.
-
By the way:
Was thinking about this alternative move some more, and, the more I do, the more I like it.
One thing I still don't see is how the "vs NPCs" clause is superior to "choose 1, and expect the worst", though.
One way I can see is that the MC can keep you from seizing definite hold. That may be a good feature. "Choosing 1" also sits a little funny if we don't always have an exchange of harm, but not terribly so.
Also, on a 7-9, who decides whether there are MC choices or not?
I'd still love some examples, though! You've played with these a lot, it sounds like. What does it look like at your table?
-
Ebok,
Are you no longer interested in this conversation? I was really hoping for an illustration, because I'm not following your logic here.
Also, are you playing with these rules? How are they working out for you?
-
I don't have a current game going on right now. Moved into Manhattan without a lay of the land. This is simply theoretical, and isn't at all necessary. My former group has looked it over and liked it, but that's not equitable actual use in game. I could potentially run it out theoretically, but that's a pretty in depth many-hour long post that I dont have time for right now. This is the same reason I haven't provided any of the examples where the miss: choose one and be prepared for the worst, faltered.
If in the future you're interested in a discussion with examples, you should contribute yourself. I have no idea what it means when you say, you're confused. Because you personally haven't attempted to reiterate a situation where you think it would not work, or otherwise used an example of in-game play to illustrate where you might be going astray. That puts all the burden on me, and thats why you've got three posts back to back, because I'm not overly interested in the book that would result just yet.
Especially since I've been fairly well bulleted up to this point. Both Munin and Dans criticisms of this stylistic choice show that at least they have a good fundamental idea about where I was going with it. If you want to ask a your questions in smaller chunksI'll do what I can to assist.
-
That's entirely fair, Ebok.
Where you lost me was in your theoretical breakdown of "choose 1, and expect the worst" vs. "choose 1, and the MC chooses 2 or 3". You suggested that the former broke down in some respects, but I don't know what those would be. Omitting the MC move on opposed rolls would solve your first objection, and making appropriately "soft" moves on a miss which doesn't need further action seems quite natural to me as well, so I don't know where it might "go wrong".
But there's no need to continue this conversation if it doesn't interest you - this is just for fun, after all. :) I've enjoyed the various discussions so far, and like your version of the move quite a bit. Thanks!
-
That was a result of my buy-in to Lumpley's rules (paraphrased): Only basic moves (contextually broad triggers) come with a generic miss statement. And: Battle moves do not need a miss statement, because the fiction determines what comes next, not the roll.
I was aiming to find a middle ground between his rules and my preferences. The side-effect of helping the 7-9 feel more potent was why I went ahead and posted this. Although, one of the earliest version of the beta-AW2 also did something very similar this. Lumpley choose to remove it.
For good reason, I might add. There were some problems with that implementation in play (we did try that out at first) though I cannot recall exactly what they were. I think the issue we had then was the number of steps involved with the rolls, and the number of rolls that seemed to have overlapping responsibilities, and then the whole chaotic-free-for-all thing that also played out very... badly for us.
I didn't want to go that far, but there were parts of that type of play-style that I liked. It had a nostalgic L5R dueling vibe to it as well, which was always fun.
-
Ebok,
So what does that look like ("Battle moves do not need a miss statement, because the fiction determines what comes next, not the roll")?
It seems to me that it would come down to harm dealt (and/or a missed harm move); in the case of a PC who is on par with their opposition or superior to them, I can't really see how the action goes down.
I'm missing the "aha!" moment you apparently had with this formulation of the rules, and I wish I could understand it.
Under such an approach, would you agree that any PC with reasonable weapons and armor (unless already heavily wounded or misses a harm move roll) can just expect to win any fight they get involved in?
If so, does that make the decision to make the harm move particularly key?
-
All of the battle moves in 4e share this same behavior, so it seemed at first to me that all of those moves were fairly useless, being as they weren't dangerous to preform by themselves. That seemed like it's a misunderstanding on my part, and it was. Lumpley and others pointed out that the roll's hit or miss doesn't conclusively determine anything other then what it says it does. It doesnt behave like this: "you win" "you lose" "you got somewhere in the middle". What it does is say, is that currently there is a dangerous stage of fiction in play, and the player is trying to act on that fiction by imposing their (the player's) will on it.
Here is a twisty logic that if you get cool, if not, don't think to hard on it:
If the fiction is dangerous, it's up to the MC to describe how it's dangerous. The armor and harm of the opposing sides are just one simplification of this, but these do not describe the stakes, or infer to us specifically: What happens next. Instead, what happens is decided by the fiction, disclaimed decision making to the npcs and the particular stakes in play. If two groups are driving trucks down the side of a mountain and shooting at each other, their battle move to exchange harm doesn't remove the problem that neither of them can possibly stop gently. It doesn't tell you specifically who or what else might be in the way. The fiction does.
Even if a player wins the roll and we decide his choices means that his character shoots the other driver in the head, sending his truck a tumbling and its passengers to certain death... You still have the hard move, and the ground is rushing up at you fast too, then you see the edge... and it doesn't look like the rock keeps on going. What do you do? That's a pretty hard and direct move, which a failure to could result in death. The fiction, and the MCs moves are going to happen whenever there is an opportunity for it, that might be on a miss (and probably will be) but it might happen at any time.
My personal lesson was that I was only making fun, hard and direct moves when my players fucked up. Rather then all the time, giving a strange behavior to my game where a player could expect a battle to go more or less in their favor so long as they didnt roll a miss. It was odd to me, because I was told repeatedly that the same players preferred to miss sometimes, because that when battle got "fun".
A MC should always make a hard roll in battle against a PC, as hard and direct as she likes. Why? Because being in most battles with bullets flying everywhere and shit going sideways should probably normally be a golden opportunity. Battles are vicious things, and the harm when it it exchanged in full can easily and quickly decimate both sides, so its important to make that a tense exchange. Even if you've got a character that isn't really afraid of getting killed himself (although the reversal added to this move at least makes it slightly more unpredictable numerically).
I also dislike that picking a +1 armor, or +1 harm move is approx equal to picking +3 hard vs +0 hard. Anything that makes a 10+ better then a 7-9+ is good in my book.
tdrl:
What my take away from lumpley's participation in the other post was this: Seize by force isnt suppose to describe the results of an entire battle anymore (not always anyway), and they're suppose to be more like incremental victories allowing bad shit happen both before this particular roll and after it (thus permitting more opportunities for different battles moves being merited).
-
Simply put: because missing doesnt always mean there is an opportunity to make a hard move, and hitting doesnt always means they're not going to be hit with a hard move. So removing the text telling us to make move on a miss, doesnt effect the game at all.
-
Ebok,
That's a good explanation, thanks. And (as I think you know), I'm very much on the same page as you when it comes to the relationship of harm, armor, hard, and the battle move outcomes.
However, I'm not sure how far to take this concept. For example, then, why do we need the concept of "hard moves" and "expect the worst on a miss" at all?
If you're teaching someone to MC AW, how do you explain to them when to make hard(er) moves?
The guidelines in the book (about making a hard move when presented an opportunity fictionally or on a miss) are really useful.
My worry is that this even further makes the roll itself somewhat pointless. It determines who takes how much harm in the exchange... but the decision to have other (worse) things happen is now entirely in the MC's hands?
That's why I was really hoping for an example. I know it's a bother to type up, but even the bit you wrote above about two trucks speeding along a narrow canyon is helpful. Illustrations help communicate far more efficiently than the theory behind the idea, and help us make sure we're understanding each other.
Here's an example we can try to work with:
I'm armed with a knife, and I'm trying to make my way into a building. The doorway is right there, but there is a guard in the way, armed with a machete. He's ready for me.
However, there is also another guy pursuing me, and he's armed with an assault rifle. He's just about to come around the corner...
I say I'm charging the guard with the machete and trying to kill him or knock him down, hopefully fast enough to get into the door before my other assailant appears and opens fire.
This is a fairly clear "seize by force", I'd say. Let's say that we agree, in addition, that the threat of the pursuer isn't *immediate* (so we don't, for instance, choose to include the threat of the assault rifle in 'harm as established' for the 'seize' roll in the first place), but, if the PC doesn't make it past the guard, he could come under fire.
How might we handle things differently based on a 1ed vs. a 2ed view of "hard moves", and how does each approach help the MC make those decisions?
In 1ed, I wouldn't expect the PC to get shot in the back except on a miss (or if he chose not to "take definite hold", thereby handing the MC an opportunity on a silver platter). In some interpretations, I can imagine making an "act under fire" roll, as well, before or after the "seize", with the PC getting shot on a miss (or maybe also on a 7-9, as a "hard bargain", for instance).
How would we handle this, instead, using this idea that "hard moves can just happen in battle"? How do you, the MC, decide whether that second guy shoots the PC or not?
-
Also:
I'm a bit confused by your example of a "hard move" being the threat of running off the road... that seems like a textbook "soft move" to me. So, maybe we aren't even talking about the same kind of thing here!
My idea of a "hard move" is (in the context of this discussion) one where the consequences of the action are irrevocable. (In other words, you probably don't say "what do you do?" after it, unless it's to ask about something else - the next step in the action.)
Perhaps another way of phrasing this is: when do you feel comfortable just saying that the truck goes over the edge?
(Ultimately, I really like this line of thought, but I'm entirely unsure as to how to apply it in practice.)
-
However, I'm not sure how far to take this concept. For example, then, why do we need the concept of "hard moves" and "expect the worst on a miss" at all?
You don't and as Lumpley has said, there have never been "hard" moves in AW1 or AW2, that was something the community devised on our own. It's just flavor to spice up the moves, and provide a sort of balance to the action. I think we can both agree when the player or the MC looks at a miss and sees that line of text, they're going to know it's time for some bad shit to take place. That suggestion is prompting the opportunity for the MC to make a move.
I think what 2e was suggesting is... in battle, that bad shit is all around and already taking place, thus many golden opportunities for brutal surprises (hint: use them). This is the only way I can look at it, since many of these battle moves in the new print don't seem to have risk/repercussions built in.
edit ==> All moves should be irrevocable in their own scope. You never want this to happen: the player makes a move, fails, and you do something -- and now the player just tries again the same way hoping for a better roll. Your move should irrevocably change the situation. If you announce badness, ignoring that means badness happens, and either way, badness comes. If a PC leaves something behind in an Act Under Fire roll, he shouldn't be able to just say, tomorrow I walk back and pick it up and walk away. Whatever forced him to roll, and the repercussions of that roll, should be in play and be irrevocable. Tomorrow he might go looking for it, but that's also an opportunity to barf forth more apocalyptic.
If you're teaching someone to MC AW, how do you explain to them when to make hard(er) moves?
When the fiction demands it / when there is a great opportunity for it, including the times when a player misses a roll. Even in battle, a player's miss denotes that they are only able to exert influence on a limited thing, which means everything else they failed to do AND everything they didn't address is somewhere they're not in control. Take a look back at Munin's moves quote, it still applies with or without the flavor text.
How might we handle things differently based on a 1ed vs. a 2ed view of "hard moves", and how does each approach help the MC make those decisions? ... How would we handle this, instead, using this idea that "hard moves can just happen in battle"? How do you, the MC, decide whether that second guy shoots the PC or not?
Let's break down your scene:
NPCs Motivations (questions to ask/answer yourself about them)
Pursuer:
• Does he know who the PC is/ identified them? Let's say yes.
• Is he aligned with the guard at the door / same faction? Let's say yes.
• Is he ready to fire the second he see's anyone? strangers? Or just the PC? Just the PC
• Is he willing to accept surrender? Let's go with NOPE! + Rage
• Are any other guards / threats in the immediate vicinity? Yep
• Has he already raised the alarm? Yup
Guard:
• Does he know the PC? Nope
• Does he think he can take the PC? Uncertain
• Is he willing to die for whatever he's doing? Nope
• Is he willing to kill for whatever he's doing? Yup
• Does he even know how to fight? He thinks so...
One we have the answers to these questions, I think the NPC's set up is pretty clear. The guard chasing the PC is going to gun him down, the guard at the door is far more likely to run the fuck away then die here, but it going to at least try.
So what is at stake with the roll?
• Unless the PC chooses deal more harm, the guards armor means he wont be critically injured / dead.
• Unless the PC seizes the door by force, he'll have a second guard throwing bullets at him right now.
• Every point of harm the PC suffers, he'll have to live with. This scene doesn't seem "close to over" so that's an important calculation.
• If the PC chooses to intimidate the guard, the guard will not be willing to join any gang / action against the PC right now, and of course, his fear might spread to other new recruits that... could consider... trying less hard to be up close and personal.
Alright. So now we've got the stakes! (This isn't something I ever work out ahead of time, I pretty much already know the stakes of a given roll / figure them out as everyone's talking.)
But we're not exactly done yet. What we should also consider is this, as they do not depend on the PC's roll:
• Do the PC know what's behind that door / being guarded?
• Does that door represent an escape, or a temporary reprieve / prison?
• Are there people with guns that also want to shoot the PC on the other side of this door?
• If the PC doesn't get in, are there any other things around to try to use for cover?
• What's behind the PC? Like if he decided to go the opposite way?
As the PC is deciding what to do next, if they read a sitch you might share some of that information with them. If they dont, you should share all the immediately observable information. The build doesn't have windows. Six meters down the road is a dumpster that's thick enough to count, Ten meters further is another street, more hiding places, and more guards.
-----Info dump finished-------
Now to answer your question. We've already decided that we're going to use seize by force to solve this. There is no really big difference between this move in 1st ed and 2ed other then that the PC can always achieve a single objective, rather then total defeat. I'm going to use my version of seize by force for this first.
Hit Player gets to choose 3. He basically beats the shit out of the guard, isn't hurt very much, and gets through the door. Best possible outcome. If there are people inside that building with guns, this outcome still fucking sucks. If there's no way out, it still might spell the end since he just imprisoned himself ... with whatever's in here. Since he could open the door, so can another guy, so it's not exactly secure.
Partial [Mine] Player gets a choice. He picks 1 or He picks 2 and the NPC picks 1. This could be tricky depending on what else is happening, but I'd consider picking intimidation and suffer less, let the guard pick 1, and aim to tackle the real threat before I get boxed in. BUT you've already said that he wants in this door.
So we know the PC chooses: • Seize definite hold. He really doesn't wanna get lit up by the other guy.
So the question becomes, does he choose to give the guard something else to scare him, kill him, or take less for it?
Quick run down:
Player says that's good enough. I pick just one. We say: The guard at the door joins up with the other guy yelling he's in here! And He's immediately trying to open the door. I hope our PC thought this through, since that door'll be open the second he stops holding it shut. Probably before he could even throw something heavy in front of it. And there's a big gun on the way too. Oh right, and now we tell him what's inside-- sort of, if it's also aiming a gun at him or might. (otherwise I'd let still shit stay still until the PC says he looks)
Player decides he wants to pick 2. We know his first choice was to seize definite hold and get inside. So the Guard tells him. I SUFFER LESS HARM, because he really doesn't want to die, we describe his actions being rabbity and half-hearted. That simplifies matters. Now the player picks:
• You suffer more, cause fuck you. (back to the above example, but the player knows more about the guard, and the guard knows more about the character)
• I suffer less, (but the guard still joins up with the other guy)
• I impress you, (so the guard flee's after getting whooped)
Momentarily, for purposes of example. Let's say the guard was different and the stakes were different. The guard knows if he lets anyone in, he's dead anyway. So the player first picked I TAKE DEFINITE HOLD. The guard picks I KEEP DEFINITE HOLD (canceling each other out). So the player decides no you don't!, I TAKE DEFINITE HOLD AGAIN and gets inside anyway (back to pick 1). Or fuck this guy DEAL MORE HARM and kills the bastard and then does for the door, but maybe he's also under fire*.
* I'd probably only deal harm on for this cool rolls on a miss, and on the partial have instead the player leaving something important (but probably not essential) outside next to first guy's corpse.
Either way, we have a lot of description that's been provided by the picking of these options. Even when the player just picked the same thing again, we got to see a struggle take place. The reason I wasn't worried about the move saying: pick one or pick two and... at first, was because the player had still had another choice left, and a countered move being reselected sounded fine by me. Same thing in the end.
Partial [AW1] He gets in and shoots the guard in the face.
Partial [AW2] He gets in and shoots the guard in the face.
(or the other options like suffer less, but the guard doesn't get any stake in the result, so it's basically decided without them.)
Miss [Mine] He only gets to pick 1, but first the guard gets to pick 2.
This is the traditional case where we turn the move back on the player. The guard says I KEEP DEFINITE HOLD of the door and INTIMIDATE the shit out of the player in their violent tussle. The player now picks... he can push back into the guard and contest the door, but he wont get in before the gunfire and he'll be doing that under fire of the intimidation too. The player can kill the guard, but he's still shaken and exposed when the machine gun rounds the bend. The player can suffer less and race for the dumpster... (this is abiding by the intimidation so no other penalty) Or he can intimate the guard right back, leaving both of them lizard braining the next actions (though I'd probably consider the guard going inside and slamming the door in this case).
Either way, the guy with the machine gun rounds the corner now and starts trying to execute the player? With the guard still outside though? Maybe that provides the PC a second to try to dash. Without? PC is still dashing but the violence meter is higher.
Example: PC races for the dumpster under gunfire from both of them / one of them (depending). 10+ barely safe, but still in the shit. 7-9, PC suffers harm (probably at -1) and makes it around the bend. Miss: PC suffers harm (full) and doesn't get there because ...
Or PC claims the door under fire of being shaken, and then under fire from the gunfire, probably leaving something behind and getting shot in the process. I've never actually had a character acting under fire, under fire of something else before. I might consider that just a -2 interfere to his roll to keep it simple, or just ask the player which they prefer... dunno! Never considered it before.
Anyway, that's just one option. The guard could choose many things.
Miss [AW1] The player fails utterly. Maybe we turn the move back on them and then have the other guard round the bend. Maybe the player is forced backwards and ends up between both of them. Maybe the player gets disarmed, maybe other guards come from around the corner way down the road, leaving the PC surrounded. Who knows, but the PC's world is fucked right now.
Miss [AW2] The player gets to pick 1. He says, I GET INSIDE. The guard is immediately grabbing and trying to tug the door open yelling to the purser that's he in here. Maybe we have other enemies swarming the outside, while the PC holds the door closed and tries to see where the hell he is. Either way, this still sucks, and he's got the results of a harm roll from the seize with the guard to contend with too.
Miss[AW2-choose one and prepare] The player gets to pick one. He says, I GET INSIDE. But we can turn the move back on him leaving him in much worse shape then he was and maybe shaken too, and then there's the harm roll. But if we do that or not, it's still pretty much exactly the same as AW2 results. Both provoke the MC into making the situation more dire.
-
I'm a bit confused by your example of a "hard move" being the threat of running off the road... that seems like a textbook "soft move" to me. So, maybe we aren't even talking about the same kind of thing here!
My idea of a "hard move" is (in the context of this discussion) one where the consequences of the action are irrevocable. (In other words, you probably don't say "what do you do?" after it, unless it's to ask about something else - the next step in the action.)
Perhaps another way of phrasing this is: when do you feel comfortable just saying that the truck goes over the edge?
I didn't say the truck isn't going over the edge in my example, in fact I'd probably make it very clear to the players that it is in fact, going right over the edge. HOWEVER I'm perfectly happy with allowing the character's to time to go... maybe I want to jump off the truck wth my shit! (acting under fire could spell, well fuck! Or I lost my shit too! Or DAMN THAT WAS CLOSE HAHA) Because the Truck clearly doesn't have time to stop, so losing the truck is irrevocable.
But maybe they think of something I hadn't, and that could save it too. I'm game for that!
-
Ebok,
I really appreciate the lengthy examples and breakdowns - the way you parse AW events and rolls is very interesting to see. I think it about in a similar way, mostly, but in some places we differ. It's a fascinating read, in any case!
I also hadn't realized that, under your suggested "seize" move, you could choose an option twice. That makes the 7-9 result a bit softer. I don't know if I like that or not, but it's interesting! (If you're serious about it, you should specify it in the rule's final writeup, by the way; it's not an obvious feature to a first-time reader.)
By the way, one other thing I really like about your suggested "seize" move is that it should work pretty smoothly as an unopposed roll between two PCs, as well (for people who prefer to roll that way) - it gives a clear "miss" clause that works in PvP, as well. Nice!
However, getting back to this discussion, I feel like you didn't address my question at all. My question is basically quite simple:
Can you give me an example of a hard move you might make and where you might make it, and how it would differ under these two mindsets or approaches?
I don't need a lengthy example or explanations - just a simple one will do.
Take any example you like, whether it's our poor running PC hoping not to get shot, the truck drivers hoping not to go over the edge, or some other situation. (To separate out the gun/fighting issue, we could change the threat of the pursuer with the assault rifle to the psychic maelstrom pursuing him and trying to make its way into his brain, for instance. Then there's less overlap with the outcomes of the 'seize' move and the harm mechanics.)
I don't see any hard moves being made (aside from the 1ed miss example) in your post, so it doesn't help me in terms of illustration.
It occurs to me that it's entirely possible I don't understand the distinction because the way you're suggesting is the way I play already.
What does this different mindset allow you to do (or not do), which you wouldn't or couldn't before? What does that look at the table (an example)?
Can you show me an example of a move you feel like you can make now, that you wouldn't have made under the old rules/understanding?
-
Actually I'm going to back up and ask you a question. Some of the things you've mentioned seemed strange to me, so I want to get to the bottom of it.
Here are four moves, tell me which ones you'd call hard and which ones you'd call soft:
Your truck is plowing FAST down the mountain...
• Suddenly the ground's just gone and you and truck run right off the side of the road, what do you do?
• Suddenly you see the road end, there's not nearly time to break or room serve, what do you do?
• You round the next corner, and the entire road is blocked by two really big trucks with big guns. What do you do?
• You round the next corner, and bullets shatter your windshield, blowing the top off your passengers head and grazing you for 1-harm. What do you do?
Which of these might you consider after someone misses a roll leading into this?
Are any of them too hard?
-
Ok, good question.
The boundary between "hard" and "soft" is ultimately a blurry one, not a hard line. However, the basic metric I use is (and I believe this is in line with how Vincent describes it in the text): are the consequences of the move still up for grabs, or have they happened (and are therefore irrevocable)?
Many of your examples are right on the edge, so they're interesting to discuss.
1. It depends quite a lot on the fictional circumstances. If it seems like it's a done deal that the truck is going to crash (and possibly kill the people in it), it's a very hard move. If it seems believable that there are still options to consider and decisions to make, or the consequences can be mitigated (e.g. the fall is short; a PC has the ability to prevent it somehow), then it's more of a soft move.
2. This one is really borderline. Again, how certain are we of the consequences? If I say, "I try to do this [rather daring thing which could help me get out of this]", is your response "Nope, too late!", or "Sure, roll for it!" That's where it would fall as a hard move or a soft move.
More importantly, has the danger been telegraphed beforehand? Is this coming out of nowhere, or is this reasonable to expect, based on what's been happening so far?
3. This is definitely a "soft" move. The ball is totally in the PC's court, even though they might be outgunned or outmatched.
4. I'd say that if the passenger is a relatively unimportant NPC, it's a soft move. If the passenger is a PC or someone really important, then it's more of a hard move. (Again, this is blurry territory.)
The "grazing you for 1-harm" is definitely a hard move, unless it was very deliberately set up beforehand. If it's just coming out of nowhere, it's a hard move. If I established that it was a danger, and the player deliberately chose a course of action which exposed them to it, then it's not - it's acting on a "golden opportunity".
I suppose that this is one of the points that it all turns on:
Did the player already have a chance to respond to this danger, or make a decision to face or avoid it? If they did, it's kosher - it's a "golden opportunity". If they did not, then it's not - it's a "hard move".
But, like I said, your examples are all very, very close to the line! Ultimately, there's a bit of dial there based on how the culture of play at your table has developed - I can see those falling very clearly on one side or another of that line *for a particular group*, based on how they've been playing up until now.
In return, I'll ask this:
Which ones of those are moves that you 1) felt you couldn't make before, but 2) now feel you have the permission to, because of what Vincent said?
I have a further question on how this interacts with our larger discussion, but I'll wait for you to respond to this first, in case you had a further point to make. :)
-
I'm probably not answering your questions yet, but I'm not ready to go there. Here's a block of text, read it, think it over, look back over your past questions and decide: are they still valid? If so ask them again. If you've more pressing questions, ask those instead. Why did I go here? Because I had an inkling that we have fundamentally different approaches to what it means when we say, make a hard move.
After reading your reply, this is definitely one of the places we differ in a major way.
Now I understand why you're confused and asking me really odd questions.
More importantly, has the danger been telegraphed beforehand?
The only thing established was what I told you. They’re going really fast down a mountain and something happened to provoke a "harder" move.
Did the player already have a chance to respond to this danger, or make a decision to face or avoid it? If they did, it's kosher - it's a "golden opportunity". If they did not, then it's not - it's a "hard move".
See, No. This is not what I mean by a hard move at all. This is definitely at the root of our failure to communicate. This distinction you’re putting here is what I call, legal move vs illegal move. Not soft vs hard. Let’s go into detail.
My take on the four are:
1. Bad MC.
You don't surprise a character with death or the destruction of all their things. I consider this type of threat action a no no, in any situation. You do not introduce the edge of the road, at the same time you throw the character off of it. They need to be involved in that conversation, even if it's "I buckle my seat belt".
2. Very Hard move.
They've just been told they've lost their truck. That's "take something away" in a very irrevocable way. It's very hard because they might also die, and they might lose a lot more too. Depends on the stakes, But no matter what, pain is coming and loss is here. The only reason I think this move is okay, is that by driving stupid fast down a mountain, you already know you're putting your truck as risk, thus establishing some expectation of it crashing. This is a known stake / risk.
3. Hard move
Solid hard move. Put someone in a spot. They're about to get lit up. The road that way is barred. They're on a mountain going fast, and now they've got baddies filling their vision. This is a great way to respond to them missing a move, or leaving themselves exposed, or for having pissed off that warlord a day or so ago. Whatever they were going fast to avoid / to get to, just got fucked up.
4. Extremely hard move, borderline unfair.
You do not deal harm to a player without establishing it first. Breaking a windshield's pretty low on the totem pole, killing an NPC is definitely something that's fair game at all times. But, hitting the truck with enough harm to do all that, especially it you're dealing harm to the character? That needs to be something they saw coming or knew was a risk. If they knew that was there and rounded the corner anyway, sure, harm established and dealt as a hard move. But I still wouldn't do it like this.
---------------
So In light of this information. I don't make what you call "hard moves" at all. Even on a miss. I make moves that follow the principals given to me, targeting the stakes defined by the fiction, and make "a move" that makes the story progress by irrevocably changing the scene.
I think of hard like: how hard is it to for the PC to swallow what just happened, but NOT how hard is it to believe that just happened.
If you feel cheated, then I’ve done something wrong as your MC.
Something that is bringing violence to bear, is always a hard move. A hard move, is any move that is driven by aggression, violence, etc. If the player was doing that, would they roll for hard for it? If so, we'd collectively call this a hard move. In my games, you don't want to be the guy getting shot at, that normally means this new things is going to dominate your life if not take it or cost you something you worked for. Threatening to shoot your friend isn't a hard move, but holding a gun to his head while saying that is.
A soft move is like, the warlord collector is there buying the tank you just pulled the jingle together to get, what do you do? Cause, that sucks, and its irrevocable (he's there now), but maybe you can still deal. If that's the guy you were going to kill with the tank? Well, maybe this is getting closer to a hard move. But it'd definitely be a hard move if you walked into the store, arms full of jingle, and ten guys surrounding the warlord draw guns on you while you soak in the scene.
-------------------
So before we both get into anything else. I want to make sure you're clear where I stand on this. I never introduce danger via harm. I never introduce threats via the destruction of the PCs things. I introduce the threat if these dangers, and then they act on that impulse, and the player gets to say / see / do something as it is happening. I've never had the need to be harder then this; even in very high action, dangerous adrenaline filled scenes. My players would probably have killed me if I had been, there are plenty of other ways to make a story _move_.
I make Moves when it’s my turn to speak, so the world keeps moving. When a player misses, I tend to make a direct move against their things, their groups, or their person. I break them apart and put them at risk, showcase throwing something world changing at them. I never totally blind side them, no matter how bad the stakes were when they missed that roll.
-
Ebok,
Fascinating! It is clear, now, that you and I have different interpretations of the term "hard move", which is really good to know for the sake of this discussion. I agree with you that this is most likely why this discussion has been challenging for us.
In general, however, the way you describe playing sounds exactly like the way I would play, as well. I agree with your examples, and your thinking behind them.
One thing I don't totally understand is this:
I don't make what you call "hard moves" at all. Even on a miss. I make moves that follow the principals given to me, targeting the stakes defined by the fiction, and make "a move" that makes the story progress by irrevocably changing the scene.
[...]
When a player misses, I tend to make a direct move against their things, their groups, or their person. I break them apart and put them at risk, showcase throwing something world changing at them. I never totally blind side them, no matter how bad the stakes were when they missed that roll.
I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't 'hard moves' at all", when the rest of the quote above sounds very much like my definition of a hard move:
"Targeting the stakes defined by the fiction [...] I make a direct move against their things, their groups, or their person [...] by irrevocably changing the scene."
That's a great phrasing of it, by the way. Covers a lot of territory!
So, on this point, I'm less sure what you mean. Are all your moves of the "here's a threat, now what do you do?" variety? If so, when does something irrevocable happen? When would you destroy a truck, or inflict harm on a character?
Also, how do you feel about Vincent's examples in the text? If I'm understanding correctly, from your description here, they would be unacceptable at your table. For instance, take the miss on p. 129 (2nd Ed), where a grenade goes off in the PC's home.
-
I'm going to jump in with my answer on this one - when I talk about making a "hard move," I am generally speaking about a situation where I narrate both the circumstance and the consequences at the same time. The "harder" the move, the more serious and irrevocable those consequences are.
For instance: "You see a spot in the road up ahead where it's only one lane wide and the shoulder is crumbling. There's no guard-rail and it's a pretty steep fucking drop. You and the Datsun Cannibals' war-buggy won't both make the bend at the same time driving abreast. What do you do?" In AW parlance, I am announcing future badness; I am letting the player know that the situation (which already seems fraught with peril, as it's a car chase of some sort on a twisty mountain road) is about to get even more hairy. I have made my move, but at this point I have not narrated any consequences. In some sense, I am doing my due diligence as an MC to establish what is at stake. Now I hand things over to the player, and it's their turn to speak.
Player: "Fuck it, I can't let these assholes get in front of me or they'll trap us for sure. I mash the accelerator to the floor and try to get past them before we hit the narrow spot." This is the PC indicating that he or she is attempting something dangerous. In my mind, this triggers a move (as the PC is acting under fire at this point), and I'll call for a roll+Cool.
Aside: The player could have said, "Fuck it, I can't let these assholes get in front of me or they'll trap us for sure. I'm going to cut across to the inside, hit the gas, ram them and try to box them out so they go over the edge." This too sounds like a move, but it expressly addresses the two vehicles hitting each other rather than simply maneuvering. And the Datsun Cannibals probably have the same idea, so this sounds like a pretty classic seize by force and I'm gonna call for a roll+Hard.
So let's follow this up. Let's say the player goes with the first choice - he or she rolls+Cool and totally fans the roll to the tune of a 4. That is a miss, which I view as the proverbial golden opportunity to make as hard and direct a move as I like. Now it's my turn to talk again, and I say, "You blast forward with a burst of speed, but so do they. You're definitely in the lead, but as you try to cut back over to the inside, you misjudge the distance; their front bumper catches your rear quarterpanel, causing you to start fishtailing wildly. Just when you think you have it under control, you hit the crumbling shoulder, and over the side you go. The car rolls over and over and over, sky, dirt, sky, dirt. You're belted in, but your shit's flying everywhere. There's broken glass and rocks and you get knocked around like Raggedy Ann." At this point I'll break from the fictional narration for the book-keeping; we'll track harm, make harm move, etc: "Your car takes 5 harm, 4 of which blows through to you. And I'm gonna call it (ap), because it's falling and crushing damage and your biker leathers aren't going to help you here. Make the harm move for me." Let's say that miraculously, the player gets a partial on the harm move, so I decide that they've lost track of something - more on this in a sec.
Now I switch back to narrative mode: "The car finally comes to rest upside down and lodged up against a boulder. You can smell gas. Lots of gas. As you drop out and drag yourself from the wreckage, you look up-slope - your gear and parts of your car are strewn all over the fucking place. And way up by the road, you can see that the Cannibals' war-buggy is parked and the door is hanging open, but you don't see the passengers themselves. What do you do?"
OK, I'm gonna parse this last one, because this is actually me making three separate (but related) moves. First and most importantly, my "hard move" is inflicting harm as established; the player knew that going over the side was a possible consequence, and here it is. This consequence is irrevocable, as there's no "un-crashing" your car. Secondly, by talking about their gear scattered all over the place, I am taking away their stuff - but this not what I would consider a "hard" move; the stuff is still there, and if the player survives the following encounter, it's possible that nothing important was lost. There is risk associated with getting it back, but its loss is not yet irrevocable. And finally, I am once again announcing future badness by describing how the enemies have un-assed their war-buggy and are probably already working their way down the slope (machetes in hand) to make sure the job is finished.
This situation has also snowballed (not least because the PC doesn't know exactly where the bad-guys are, and thus might elect to read a sitch), and the PC is certainly still in danger - getting away or fighting them off will certainly lead to more rolls and more opportunities for mayhem. And having set up the (new) situation, the conversation again shifts back to the player.
Finally, it's not that hard moves don't ask the player, "what do you do?" Rather, it's that they ask at different places in the conversation. It's the difference between "He raises his gun and points it at you. What do you do?" and "He puts a three-round burst into your chest at close range; your body armor stops the worst of it, but it knocks you down and you're sure to have some internal bleeding. What do you do?" In the first case, the PC has the chance to avoid or mitigate the damage. In the second, the damage is already done. But in both cases, conversation switches to the player as it is their turn to talk.
How does that square with your understanding of "hard and direct" moves?
-
One thing I would like to add to the above - the irrevocability or scale of the consequences I mete out are always as the result of either a) a PC failing a move, or b) my own set-up, or c) both. I'm totally cool with saying "He shoots you, take 2 Harm" without the player having made a roll. But I won't do it out of the blue; in all cases, the situation has escalated to the point where the guy shooting you is a natural consequence of your action (or inaction). This is how I interpret "following the fiction."
To circle back to something that Ebok said earlier in this thread (about getting into the habit of not making "hard" moves unless a PC failed a roll), I think this concept of set-up is doubly important when it comes to interpreting the new battle moves. Vincent seems to be making the assumption that by interfacing with the battle moves, you are "in battle," which comes with its own (unspecified) set of dangers, risks, and consequences. FWIW, the thing that got me into the habit of using this kind of set-up was the old AW1 peripheral battle moves; because the base amount of harm being doled out was regular/fixed (and because the MC never rolls dice), it was the way that the NPCs were able to influence the outcome of the fight, how they were able to change the landscape in which the battle was taking place. Once you've established that an enemy goon is leveling an RPG at the fuel tanks, nobody bats an eye if (subsequent to ignoring this new threat) the fuel tanks blow up. It follows the fiction, it is a natural consequence.
-
How does that square with your understanding of "hard and direct" moves?
Munin, Squared. I'm not sure seize by force works here though, as none of the options really apply. And I'm less sure about the whole, you shit gets thrown across the entire ravine as not irrevocable especially since time is not something that have right now. The car is toast for sure, anything breakable is gone, lots of little shit probably wont get found again, and none of it is available right now when they might really need it, and being half dead, hunted, and trapped in a car is probably the more pressing then the guys on the way, that's a forecast for later. If you have to crawl off, that stuff IS gone, probably looted by those fuckers.
I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't 'hard moves' at all", when the rest of the quote above sounds very much like my definition of a hard move
Paul T, I make lots of irrevocable moves, directly at them or their stuff, but they see it coming before it hits them. You said there are kosher "golden opportunities" to make direct irrevocable moves, and then there are hard moves which just hit them straight out without the opportunity because of a miss. I only do the former, making direct moves when there's an opportunity (a miss is just a remind to look for an unused opportunity), I never create harm as I beat them with it.
Are all your moves of the "here's a threat, now what do you do?" variety?
If so, when does something irrevocable happen? When would you destroy a truck, or inflict harm on a character?
All of my moves first establish the threat, and enable PC action before the threat hits them. Munin's example is a very good showcase of this. I don't introduce a danger by hitting them with it.
I inflict harm in a few ways. Aiming a gun at someone, and asking what do they do. Talk? Bang. Act under fire to get under cover? Hit no harm, partial some harm, miss all the harm. Seize by force? Harm happens as a consequence for the roll. Otherwise they might take harm environmentally, say they leap out a window and miss the ledge, harm. How much? That's probably act under fire so the previous rules apply.
I don't normally have to trouble myself too much with when to do harm, or hurt their shit, the players are very avid participants in trying to do dangerous stuff to avoid other dangerous stuff. It's normally crystal clear when it happens, and nobody is surprised. That is not to say I dont surprise them, just that there is always a two step process before the marking of harm.
Also, how do you feel about Vincent's examples in the text? If I'm understanding correctly, from your description here, they would be unacceptable at your table. For instance, take the miss on p. 129 (2nd Ed), where a grenade goes off in the PC's home.
I think that's the same example as p 155 (1st Ed). For one, that example would definitely be a non starter at my table, but that's pretty much because everyone around my table hates the idea that they (or anyone else) could somehow survive a grenade going off at their feet. We'd be all like, so, how does it feel like to look down and realize you've got no legs, or maybe other parts? So... considering that an AW grenade is more like a mean firecracker... I'll deviate slightly.
Those three gang members are gang members of a PC. If that PC armed them or had been involved with role-play establishing the fact that they have and like to use grenades, then I'd consider their use fair play. Still, to do it like that? Yeah I think that's pretty dirty. There's just better ways to handle it, hell, even blowing them out of their 4th story window is better. Or letting them see the grenade and maybe decide to just fucking jump. Again, I'm not opposed to showing them what is going to hit them, I'm just opposed to not letting them have some interaction with it. In Munin's example the guy clearly knows it's very likely to fall off the road there. They've still got to deal with it.
I'd probably have the grenade hit the floor, and let the little voice in their head remind them it's definitely cooked. (i.e. getting closer to it is bad for any reason) And ask, so in that quarter to half a second, what are you thinking? And if they don't have an answer, I'll just keep going, it explodes, etc etc. However, I'm also far more likely to showcase them (the gang) grabbing the grenades during the conversation with the the PC gang leader; foreboding to everyone what's coming. And I'm also far more likely to show the grenade ending up on the other side of the room, maybe behind something that'll dull the blow--rolling right to the feet of some other occupant is also game. My players care more about what happens to the NPCs around them then themselves more often then not.
I also want to point out that this example was clearly not updated for 2e. Because on a miss, the player gets to still choose one. And if they choose what should I watch out for, and I say grenades, and then as a hard move hit them with a grenade... that's just being a fucking asshole. Clearly if they can get a read, and they read what I'm about to do, they should get some desperate gambit to leap out of the window to safety, fall behind some big ceramic fridge, whatever. Maybe there's no way to avoid ALL the harm, but some? definitely.
-
As a followup. Munin, yeah I mentioned that before. Honestly? I never figured out how to use the 1st ed battle moves, they were always too cumbersome or not clear enough to add to the toolbox. We really didn't need them. We also seem to lack any structure for doling out harm with the current battle moves, so I suspect one is forced into spreading "hard" dangers all over the place to keep the world spicy. It's doable, but I don't think it's very well documented in 1st ed and its even worse in 2nd ed edition book.
If you've a good rule of thumb, that's probably helpful advice anyway, for me maybe, or for those reading this later.
As for the road battle where you've got two cars shouldering each other and only enough bridge for one of you... How would you handle the new seize by force, if as their option, they say I seize definite hold over the road? Do they still get knocked off? Isn't this move about who gets the road first, if they seize definite hold, doesn't that assume they got through first? What does it mean to inflict more harm? They're dead if they go over. What does it mean to suffer less, the car hits more gently? If you'd use SeizeByForce, how do you parse those selections, and why choose this move above the others?
I mean, I'd definitely have this be act under fire, even aggressively shouldering the other vehicles, and it would play out exactly as you described. How did they exchange harm anyway? The two equally sized cars bumping each other but needing to stay in control certainly didn't crush the other vehicle, the road did that, falling did that, seems absolutely a cool sitch. If the player hit a 10+ you can bet I'd narrative the other vehicle being knocked off that road. The 7-9 sounds more like a, well neither of you get knocked off, and you're still in the lead but...
Although OVERTAKE ANOTHER VEHICLE looks like it could handle this sitch too (also cool). And we've got car stats to consider now for all cars, not just the driver's.
-
Well, interesting.
I think we're all on the same page as far as "making hard moves", because I'm nodding along with what you're both writing. However, here is the point where I remain confused:
Everything you have both described sounds, to me, like textbook 1ed AW play. That's pretty much exactly how I handle it, too.
So what is the new or different paradigm? What's the "new way"?
I still think we need an example of a) something that you do in play, b) and how you wouldn't have been able to do it under 1ed?
(As an aside, the grenade example brings some confusion I have about the new "read a sitch" move. It *would* feel pretty weird to reveal a danger and bring it to bear all at once. How do you handle that? Any clever ways of doing it?)
-
I still think we need an example of a) something that you do in play, b) and how you wouldn't have been able to do it under 1ed?
I have not officially played 2e since the release, only the beta's leading up to it.
I definitely have not played since hammering these last two megathreads out.
I have no learned guidance on that part. I'll think about potential examples, but I don't have one yet.
So what is the new or different paradigm? What's the "new way"?
There are not really any changes in how moves are made between 1st and 2nd edition. There have been changes to battle, maybe Munin has tips. Lumpley has already said that it's still perfectly valid to hit the player really fucking hard whenever they roll a miss, not just when the move tells us to make it on a miss. There never was a definitive hard move defined in the text, as moves should be irrevocable or otherwise they're not really a move, they're just passing descriptions. I learned that I should be making harder moves outside of Players missing, which means it's very possible that I've been trying to make my game more deadly because I was playing the game with the rules set to gentle.
I can imagine how truly vicious this game could get if I take most 'opportunities for something to go wrong', and make that something go wrong. The player might need less deadly harm, more armor, whatever, because they're probably going to need it. They're probably not going to like me very much though, so I'll need to devise better / a new set of rules-of-thumb as to when to be how mean.
(As an aside, the grenade example brings some confusion I have about the new "read a sitch" move. It *would* feel pretty weird to reveal a danger and bring it to bear all at once. How do you handle that? Any clever ways of doing it?)
For the Read a Sitch, telling them the best way out is jumping out the forth story window and trying to grab on to the laundry lines / the opposite building / land on something that's pretty out there / say climb down... are all valid best escape answers for that read a sitch. Them seeing the grenade after that type of answer means, I'm done thinking about doing that, I'm doing that with +1 forward. I don't know if that's too leading or not. I'd probably try to think of something less obvious and actually better for them. In my example they didn't pick this so... On to that.
What I would do given a sitch where I know I'm throwing a grenade at them, and they just asked me what they should be on the look out for is: I'd probably have the first grenade hit the floor, and tell the player they literally froze in panic, felt their brain just grind to a halt––and a second later, one of the guys outside says, "That one was a dud, give me another". And then I tell the player, "you have to watch out for grenades. What do you do?" Me elevating the bad-guys from cutting down the door to deal with the player, to them aiming to turn the entire abode and the Player into blasted pieces is a pretty good escalation. I think the player will feel the rush now. They don't know any of the other answers they didn't ask during that read, and that's where they're vulnerable, so that's where I push:
They don't know the best way out. They don't know where their enemies are. They don't know all this shit. So as I've already goaded them into picking a drastic escape action RIGHT NOW (and that action might not have been the best way forward), I can easily grab any one of the read a sitch questions they didn't pick and snowball that hardness at them during my next turn to speak. Moves don't have to happen instantly, there can be lightening before the thunder.
example
They say fuckit and scramble out the window as the second grenade falls, and start climbing down the building right before !!BLAST!!, their room is decimated. (I just irrevocably took away their stuff, literally detonated explosives where they keep all their things.) The noise mades some people look up... and one of those guys was with this gang. He can see the Player hanging there on the wall for dear life, so he shouts where the player is, and then starts shooting at them while they're clinging to the side. The bricks next to the players face explode. Well shit. ( note I just put them in a spot. What was a potentially safe escape, just irrevocable became not safe at all. ) The player is going to get shot probably, but maybe they let go instead, or fall, or they try to jump off and grab something else, or they try climbing back into the room. Whatever they do it's probably Under Fire, and here act under fire has great connotations with a myriad of possibilities where none of us know what's going to happen next, making the entire thing exciting.
PS. Note that I actually telegraphed the first hard move (the grenade) before delivering it. Then I followed with yet another hard move that keeps the pacing action-packed / frantic. This is typical Hollywood action movie shit, but it makes sense with the fiction. However they only missed the move once, why did I make two moves against them? Because the my principals demanded I keep it interesting, and the fiction is the master of what comes next.
-
Ebok: In my example, scattering the PC's gear is a softer version of taking away their stuff because they have an opportunity (with a cost) to get some of it back before the Datsun Cannibals make it onto the scene of the crash. And if they fight the Cannibals off, it's a matter of lost time rather than lost stuff. It's not a cream-puff move to be sure, but it's not irrevocable.
For instance, the player might say, "My magnum was in the glove box. Is it still there? Can I arm myself?"
To whit I might reply, "The latch to the glove box got sprung in the crash. But you see some of the other crap that was also in the glove box a little ways up the hill. You could maybe get to it before the Cannibals show up if you move now. But you still have no idea how far down they are. But if you want to arm yourself, you can pick up a big fucking rock right now." This is me explicitly giving an opportunity with a cost. If the player wants to go for it, I'm probably going to call for a roll+Cool. And this is also a good place to read a sitch, because what is my enemy's true position (where are the Cannibals now?), what should I be on the lookout for (where the hell is my gun?), and what's my best way out (how can I beat feet away from here before the bad guys arrive?) are all pretty good things to know right now, and being able to take +1 forward is probably worth the risk.
As an aside, this situation also presents a great opportunity for the new subterfuge moves. The player could use the fact that they are bleeding and wounded to leave an obvious blood-trail away from the crash site in order to lure the Cannibals into an ambush (i.e. bait a trap).
But let's take a step back in time: Ebok asked the question about what a seize by force roll might look like, so let's look at that. In this case, the PC is using violence (albeit vehicular) to achieve their aims. I'm envisioning this as ramming and/or trying to crush the other side's car against the rocky wall on the inside lane of the road, a whole lotta bumping and grinding - I'm envisioning a mountain road where one side (down) is a drop-off and the other side (up) is basically sheer rock and/or boulders. So we trade harm as established - the PC's car is built for speed, so maybe it's Massive 1. The Datsun Cannibals' war-buggy is a little bigger or heavier (it's covered in steel plates and spikes, so it's Massive 2. Since this is jockeying for position, we'll call it a glancing hit, which tells us that what we're talking about is actually v-harm (this represents not actual damage to the vehicle itself, but rather how your course is forced to change).
V-harm is established as the attacking (PC's) car's Massive (1) minus the defending car's Massive or Handling (defender's choice, but in this case Massive 2 is better), meaning the established Harm is 1 - 2 = 0 v-harm;
Right, so the player rolls+Hard. Here are their choices:
1) take definite hold of it: in a sense this is winning your way through and being in undeniable possession of the lead position on the single lane. Note that possession of the lane doesn't automatically mean that the loser goes over the edge - it could represent them being forced to brake sharply at the last moment and give ground. Remember, the player is trying to get ahead of the Cannibals to keep from being cut off and trapped.
2) suffer little harm: Since the base v-harm is already 0-harm, I'd say that if the player chooses this option, they don't have to make the v-harm move at all. Considering that one of the possible results of v-harm is "you crash," this is pretty attractive.
3) inflict terrible harm: This bumps up the v-harm suffered to 1, meaning that when the player makes the "when you suffer v-harm..." roll for the Cannibals, they're rolling +1 and are therefore more likely to give ground, suffer damage, or crash.
4) impress, dismay, or frighten your enemy: Provided both parties survive this exchange, perhaps the Datsun Cannibals aren't as crazy as everyone says - rather than actively attacking the PC, maybe they drop back and simply elect to follow at a distance. If the PC leaves their territory, they're content to let him or her go.
By way of immediate consequences, here's what's at stake in the v-harm department (from AW2, p. 215):
When you suffer v-harm, roll+v-harm suffered. On a 10+, you lose control, and your attacker chooses 1:
• You crash.
• You spin out.
• Choose 2 from the 7–9 list below.
On a 7–9, you’re forced to swerve. Your attacker chooses 1:
• You give ground.
• You’re driven off course, or forced onto a new course.
• Your car takes 1-harm ap, right in the transmission.
On a miss, you swerve but recover without disadvantage.
So this is a situation where the player could succeed (10+ on their roll to seize by force) but still crash. Maybe this isn't going over the edge on the outside, maybe it's just hitting a big boulder or rock on the inside. It's also entirely possible that in all of the bumping and rubbing and jockeying for position that both vehicles go over the edge. Or one goes over the edge and the other crashes. Either way, by electing to seize by force the player has accepted the likely possibility of dire consequences even if they get what it was they were after.
One further aside here: if the player chose to take definite hold of it in order to get into the lead position and managed a 7-9 on the v-harm move, I wouldn't have them give ground as that would in effect be negating their success. Being forced onto a new course also isn't really appropriate here, but suffering 1-harm ap sure is.
Now let's look at the differences in how we might interpret a player miss as a function of edition. In AW1, the player selects none of these options, and has given the MC a golden opportunity. It would be super easy to simply treat this the same as the previous example (where the PC chose to act under fire) and inflict harm as established (i.e. you go over the edge). Another natural thing to do here is to flip the player's move, meaning that the MC picks some options for the NPCs (maybe they take control of the lead and inflict extra v-harm, meaning the PC is in a worse position and is more likely to lose control of their vehicle and crash anyway).
In AW2 using the house-rule of "pick 1 but prepare for the worst," the aggressive move the MC makes is going to depend on what the situation looks like following the player's choice (and the outcome of the resulting v-harm moves). If the player chose to take definite hold of it and stayed on the road, I might inflict harm as established on their vehicle (maybe the equivalent of a glancing hit against a building, 2-harm, to represent the car grinding against the rocky up-slope), or more likely I'll put them in a spot - one of the Cannibals has leapt from his vehicle to the PC's and is trying to get inside. The PC is undeniably in the lead, but now he or she has a different (and potentially bigger) problem.
In AW2-as-written the player picks 1, but invoking a battle move means you are now "in battle." Now it's no longer just a chase, it is a fight and fight-stuff is happening. In this case, I'd definitely go with a Cannibal leaping from their war-buggy to the PC's car as my next narrative move. So yeah, sure, you're in the lead and they can't bottle you up at the narrow spot in the road, but now you have a screaming, machete-wielding madman clinging to the roof of your car.
What do you do?
In working through a number of examples of the various SBF use cases (AW1's "golden opportunity," a modified AW2 with "pick 1 but prepare for the worst," AW2 as written with "snowball into battle," etc), I think most of it comes down to degrees of interpretation. Following the fiction is probably going to lead you to a similar place in all cases, and I suspect the only difference is going to be in the details. The fact that my preferred gut instinct of "pick 1 but prepare for the worst" got me to exactly the same place as AW2 means it probably doesn't matter much which version you use. My only complaint against AW2 as written is that it is in no way clear exactly what being "in battle" means, nor is there much advice given to the MC on how to handle a battle.
But that'll be the topic of my next post. ;)
-
Munin,
I'm looking forward to your next post! Your application of "seize by force" to a fierce car chase is pretty interesting, and does seem to work out pretty well.
Again, however, we get the issue of a harm roll potentially scuttling a player success. I'm not sure how much of a feature or a bug that is, but, for my tastes, at least a more clear sense of when to make a harm roll would be nice (in my experience, no one makes it every time it should be made, but, rather, does so selectively, as the text suggests).
Your example of "choose 1 and prepare the worst" vs. "choose 1" is interesting, because you made a move in both cases, and chose the same move.
To me, the important factors in how to play out a move and its consequences are:
* Whose turn is it to talk?
AW's basic moves (and seize by force, in 1ed) explicitly hand the "turn" to the MC on a miss.
The 2nd ed SBF formulation makes this completely unclear. (Again, I could see that as a bug or a feature, but, in general, I think a game like AW needs more clarity, not less.)
* Is it an opportunity to make a hard/irrevocable move?
In other words, are the consequences/effects of the fictional action still up in the air, or are they a settled matter?
In a kind of "standard" street interpretation of AW's rules, missing a move with the "expect the worst" clause is a clear opportunity for that. (Vincent's posts in the other thread suggest that he plays it more loosely, but I don't really see the need for that, when the MC already decides how hard a move to make anyway.)
I think that if I were playing your same example here, I would play up one or both of these (whereas in your example, the MC seems to have handled both issues in the same way - in which case I'm not sure what the point of the rules change is).
For instance:
"Choose 1":
First, we narrate the outcome of the move: "You get ahead of the other vehicle, forcing them behind you (and let's apply harm and other book-keeping)."
Now: Is another player sitting on their hands, waiting to make a move? If so, I ask them what they do. If not, I make a move of my own:
"They're yelling and screaming with rage; the road has narrowed and they're realizing they can't cut you off anymore. One of the more wild-looking ones - he's surely high on some crazy narcotics - jumps forward and slams onto the back of your vehicle. He's hanging on for dear life - you could probably shake him if you're willing to swerve from your course a bit. What do you do?"
"Choose 1, expect the worst":
First, we narrate the outcome of the move, as before: "You get ahead of the other vehicle, forcing them behind you (and let's apply harm and other book-keeping)."
However, now the ball is explicitly in my court - I'm not passing the turn to another player. I make a move, and I make it hard, or at least harder:
"They're yelling and screaming with rage; the road has narrowed and they can see they can't cut you off anymore. One of the more wild-looking ones - he's surely high on some crazy narcotics - jumps forward and slams onto the back of your vehicle. You can see him land in the side mirror: he's got this rusty grappling hook and he's just smashed it into the trunk of your vehicle. A long chain leads to a spool on the pursuing vehicle - you're not gonna shake them easily now; you might be able to throw the goon, but that thing looks like it is wedged in deep. What do you do?"
[If there's another player, I might ask them NOW what they want to do.]
I'm still a little concerned that, under the 2nd Ed rules, the PC *always* gets ahead of the pursuing vehicle here, unless they're badly hurt or outgunned.
That seems to push the game into a "cinematic" mode of play by default, whereas my games have always been more "down to earth" and less "Mad Max". It also means that harm/hit points are the determining factor in the outcome of battles like these - they will end when the PC goes down, or the player decides survival is more important than winning this particular moment. I can see the argument that this is ultimately a matter of taste, but it seems to me - not having played with these rules, mind you - that this forces your hand in this respect a fair bit. If you *like* the more "down to earth" style,
it seems the game's going to fight you a bit more now. Under the old formulation, you could play it either way more easily.
Under the new rules, I can see how the more "successful" outcomes from battle moves might lengthen action sequences and create more cinematic battle scenes. Perhaps that's what Vincent wants to encourage here. Would you agree with that, or not? I'm just speculating, after all.
-
On the topic of the harm move, we pretty much make it all the time. Even if you suffer 0-harm after armor, you make the move. About the only time we don't is if the base harm was already 0 when your armor was factored in and you further chose to suffer little harm - in this case it's that you're such a bad-ass you come out of the dust-up without so much as a scratch. Otherwise, it's pretty much automatic, and I frequently use it to drive the narrative (with the you lose track of something and you miss noticing something important options coming up pretty frequently).
One thing I've mentioned before is worth reiterating, however, and that's that I try very hard to avoid having the result of a harm move completely negate a player's success. It might mitigate it or make it more costly, but I try to avoid invalidating a player's choices. So in the "road rage" example above, consider the following situation: the player misses the SBF roll, but (under AW2 as written) still chooses to take definite hold of it, ensuring that they made it to the narrows ahead of the Datsun Cannibals. No matter what the outcome of the resulting v-harm move is, they're still in front at the narrows - the Cannibals' war-buggy can't block them. The PC may have spun out (in which case maybe the PC is now contemplating fleeing backwards at high speeds until the space to pull off a bootleg-reverse presents itself) or even crashed (which may have brought them to a dead stop), but they are past the narrows.
And a lot depends on the outcome of the Datsun Cannibals' v-harm move as well (perhaps the only move in the game where the player is rolling on behalf of the opposition). If the PC chose to absolutely get to the narrows first and the player gets to choose you get forced off course for the opponents? Yeah, sure, you might spin out in the process, but as a fan of the PC I'm probably going to send the war-buggy hurtling over the edge too.
But this is a case where even sending the PC's car over the edge is probably fair game. After all, it's a lot of bumping and grinding, after which you're in front - but you lose control and drop over the edge. This is functionally identical to the first case (where the player chose to act under fire to try to race ahead of the Cannibals), only with two "failed" rolls (SBF and v-harm) instead of one. So yeah, sending you ass-over-teakettle down the mountain seems reasonable, all things considered.
In terms of what move I chose as MC for the latter two cases (alternate "pick 1 and prepare for the worst," or AW2 as written), that's what I mean when I say I doubt it makes much difference in play. I could absolutely have just chosen to inflict harm on the PC's car as it gets wedged between the war-buggy and the rocks before shouldering by as my "hard move," and even mentioned that as an option. But in this case, I felt that putting the PC in a spot was more thematically interesting. And in the case of AW2 as written, the idea that this has turned from a chase into a fight means an unwanted passenger is a great way to ratchet up the dramatic tension.
In your example (an unwanted passenger versus and unwanted passenger setting a grapnel), I think it's just a question of degrees. Both are putting someone in a spot, but one also has overtones of capturing someone
Finally, I'm confused by your comments about "handing narration to the MC on a miss." Narration gets handed to the MC as soon as the outcome of the player's move is clear, whether it's a hit or a miss. It's the MC's job to incorporate the player's move into the fiction, to dictate how their actions are successful, to say what happens to the NPCs, and to make the next move. Then back to the player as they answer the inevitable, "what do you do?" Back and forth. You can (and absolutely should) work together with the player to put the finishing touches on the narration (MC: "Oh, you inflict terrible harm, huh? Tell me what that looks like!"), but ultimately it's up to you as the MC to make the world feel real, and often times that means translating the raw dice rolls into words and mental pictures.
-
Finally, I'm confused by your comments about "handing narration to the MC on a miss." Narration gets handed to the MC as soon as the outcome of the player's move is clear, whether it's a hit or a miss. It's the MC's job to incorporate the player's move into the fiction, to dictate how their actions are successful, to say what happens to the NPCs, and to make the next move. Then back to the player as they answer the inevitable, "what do you do?" Back and forth. You can (and absolutely should) work together with the player to put the finishing touches on the narration (MC: "Oh, you inflict terrible harm, huh? Tell me what that looks like!"), but ultimately it's up to you as the MC to make the world feel real, and often times that means translating the raw dice rolls into words and mental pictures.
Interesting! I guess I don't play it that way. I agree with what you wrote there, but I don't think "Narration gets handed to the MC" is the same thing as "it's the MC's turn to make a move". My process of playing the game goes something like this:
In normal, free play, we go back and forth. In those instances where it's clearly the MC's "turn", she makes a move.
However, I don't count answering questions, asking questions, and so forth, as "turns" in this context. Let's say that a player says, "Ok, I'm gonna grab something and smash it over his head.... actually, hang on! Are there any bottles on the table? Could I grab one of those?" As MC, I'm going to answer them, but I don't consider that to be "my turn".
I wouldn't ever respond to that by *capturing someone*, for example - that wouldn't feel right. Instead, we'd just chat for a second about what they might be able to get their hands on, and then the player would go ahead with their move (maybe 'go aggro', in this case). I'm just answering questions and providing details, not "making a move". It's still the player's "turn"; we're just chatting about the details of what they're doing.
When a move is rolled, we might also hash out some of the details - what does it look like when you 'seize the device by force'? There might be some back and forth here, but, again, I don't consider that to be 'my turn', either. I might ask, "So, you're inflicting terrible harm. What does that look like? Are you raging with anger, or just coolly eviscerating this guy?" Or maybe, "So, do you think the body flips over the side of the boat as you finish your strike?" I would never say, "...oh, and he sets off a bomb, as well" while we're hashing out what the move's outcomes look like at the table. That's not giving the rules their due ("Always say... what the rules demand").
Now, once we're done with that, it *might* be my turn, or it might not. If it's just me and the player, then, yeah, it might just go back and forth. But not always - as in the example on page 130 (2nd Ed), sometimes the initiative or momentum might flip around ("A subtle thing just happened..." writes Vincent). Note how Vincent does that in his example - it's technically "his turn", perhaps, in the sense that the player has just said something, but the player is ready to act, the NPCs seem to be off-guard, and so Vincent just listens to the player, instead. We've just resolved a move, and the player takes another "turn". We take turns, but it's "not like taking turns, you know?"
Particularly, if there are other PCs in the scenes, it's probably going to feel right for it to be "their turn". We just resolved some action concerning so-and-so, and Bob hasn't chimed in for a while... let's hear what he has to say.
Basically, we resolve the move, and we're back to "free play". That could be an MC move, sure (and that bomb might become a danger after all), but maybe Kelly, who's playing the Brainer, is just dying to say what her character does just now, and we all look at her, instead. It's open conversation.
This is quite different, in my mind, from what happens on an open-ended miss - everyone looks to me, because otherwise the game can't continue. "Well... what happens?"
No way am I going to cut the scene, or say, "Ok, let's wrap up the session here", or ask Kelly what her Brainer does just now... everyone's waiting for me to make a move.
-
Heh, right after someone fails a move is probably the best time to turn to one of the other players, particularly if your dramatic pacing is such that switching scenes is appropriate. Leave that player on a cliff-hanger, let them stew in their own juices wondering just what sort of fuckery they're about to receive.
I think you and I interpret the terms "turns" a little differently, but it sounds like in practice we're doing pretty much exactly the same thing.
-
Oh, man. As I was writing, I was thinking, "Ok, now someone is going to nit-pick my example, and say that sometimes they cut away after a missed roll..." I guess I should have listened to that little voice! :P
That's entirely beside the point, though, right? The point is that we're all expecting a move in return, as you write yourself. Cutting away is a fun technique, but we all know we're coming back and the MC move is coming.
Perhaps a clearer restatement:
1. "Roll to seize by force!" "I choose to 'take definite hold'." [calculate some numbers] "Ok, so the guy is dead and I'm standing over his body, with the device in my hands, yeah?" "Yeah, cool!" "Well, that's it for the session, guys!" "Bye!"
That makes sense.
2. "Roll to seize by force!" "Oh, darn, a miss!" "..." "Well, that's it for the session, guys!" "Bye!"
This does not.
It's a different flow on conversation. One is a closed statement, the other is an open-ended question, and creates a very clear expectation that the MC will be making a move.
I agree that you and I - and, I think, Ebok - are all playing basically the same way, or close enough that I can't see a meaningful difference from an internet conversation.
So, what's the "new way"? What's the new paradigm, the lightbulb moment?
Ebok, where did this change for you, and open up a new way of playing?
(I'd also love to hear both of your thoughts on the cinematic vs. grounded ways of playing, and whether they relate to the changes to the Battle Moves.)
-
Your two examples, #1 and #2 aren't equal.
Here's the breakdown you described:
1. [The Roll] [The Choices] [The Harm] [PC and MC work out what happens][Describe Pause in Action] [Call an End]
2. [The Roll] [The Choices] [The Harm] [Call an End]
The reason number2 feels like a bad place to stop, is that we've not finished the steps. If the scene describes that player getting his ass beat down and tied up by the Gangsters [PC and MC work out what happens]; and then we see the Player getting dragged off scene [Describe Pause in Action], that would make this a perfect place to call an end of the session. We don't have to ask the player, "so what do you do?". We can let them dwell on it.
If in the first example, the guy hit's with his seize by force, but the other side is NOT defeated, stopping there without saying what's happening is just as problematic. If we take only the same steps you describe in 2 and rewrite 1 using them, this is what we get:
1. "Roll to seize by force!" "I choose to 'take definite hold'." [calculate some numbers] "Well, that's it for the session, guys!" "Bye!"
Are they hurt enough to quit? Are they still fighting? Are they all dead? Are they scattered? What's happening? What about other moving parts? What's the condition of the thing we were fighting over? Am I safe now? How did the numbers resolve in the fiction? Is anything resolved yet? ....etc....
In your first example telling the player they won, and are standing victorious,
Is functionally equilivent to telling the player they lost, and the NPCs are standing victorious.
That said I don't think this is an important point at all. No one is going willfully cut and end a session mid-beat unless they half to. People want a place to "pause", and in my experience tend to want this on some sort of resolution. That's a stylistic choice that has no bearing on mechanics however. In both cases, the players expect the MC to help resolve the results of the players roll. Whether that be a success, or a failure. However, after that resolution, it might be a perfect place to stop--no matter which way the cookie crumbled.
--------------------
There is no lightbulb here.
Munin, Paul T and myself, all three of us basically were on the same page for much of the other harm thread. It's not surprising that we have similar view points on this. I have previously abandoned the other battle moves played Aw1 battle moves in the beta-AW2 games just fine. Munin still likes the make a hard move only a miss clause.
Battle Moves have undergone a pretty substantive change from AW1 to AW2 though. These changes are reflected in many of the new moves, so I thought it was worth the effort to conform first and adapt after. I have not played a game with the battle moves in AW2 and have never built up a strong narrative grasp on how to use the advanced battle moves in AW1 either. So you will not get a nice pretty example out of me there. Munin might provide though.
My Thoughts
How is AW1 battle different from AW2.
• AW1 had a battle clock that ticked constantly through the battle, those ticks inflicted harm.
This can be boiled down to making hard moves on everyone present based on their degree of exposure.
• AW2 has battle moves whose miss statements are roughly similar to their hit statements.
The biggest difference is the Player becomes limited in their scope.
We no longer have Clocks in AW2, but that's okay, they were guides anyway. They were suppose to help up maintain a narrative tempo, to start off slowly with anxiety, foreboding, and minor scuffles and evolve in heavy, action-packed climaxes. I never used clocks, except to record events after they transpired as thought experiments. The narrative flow was more intuitive for me anyway, I didn't need that kind of prep.
What does this suggest?
We are now suppose to handle battles in a more narrative manner. Instead of you fight this guy, roll seize by force, resolve either way, the end. We're being encouraged to think more epically when we're describing large battles, especially if they have multiple moving parts.
As a battle gets started, there are still narrative "ticks", though they can come faster or slower depending how how the PCs act and what the rolls allow them to achieve.
Consider this pretty commonplace breakdown:
– The Introduction. barf forth + announce badness
– First Contact. barf forth + move against them
– Dangerous Second Contact. barf forth + seperate them / raise the stakes + move against them
– The Big Fish. barf forth + announce badness
– The Climax! barf forth + move against them with everything
– The Drawdown / Resolution. play to find out
What I imagine is that instead of marking a segment on a clock, we make moves hard/soft/descriptive against everyone present in the battle on these narrative/fictional "ticks". As a fight evolves we build the scene by throwing small dangers at anyone present and make them harder against those that are most exposed.
All complications give a battle life, make things dangerous, and spur the Players into action. As this battle progresses, these ticks become substantively harder, more dangerous, and faster paced. These ticks must occur whether a player HITS or MISSES their actions, because everyone in a battle is exposed to danger (and we should make the world feel real by showcasing that). Aw2 relies on us doing this, because many battle moves have /no draw backs/ at all, even on a miss. This seems evidence to me that we should be making these incremental moves, threatening harm on anyone not keeping their head down, describing things getting blown up to announce the badness of certain guns, or certain terrains, etc.
Because we're already going to make a move, whether or not they missed, the miss itself becomes interesting. It isn't necessary to drive the action, because missing means they are suffering the harm and they are not in complete control. They've got the results of the harm move to contend with, and they're probably exposed to danger still, meaning this next tick is going to be noticeably more dangerous (harder). This means, we are in effect already being prompted to make a hard move against them, they're exposed, they're in the shit, and they didn't achieve what they could have. Maybe we use that miss to go full throttle with something we've been waving around, or maybe we use it to strategically complicate their lives. Which ever.
The key here is that if they didn't miss that roll, the battle still goes on. It gets more hairy, it gets more complicated, and there are bullets flying everywhere. If a character chooses to do nothing but stand in the middle of the battle and watch, we shoudl make a really hard move against them. If a character has been sniping people for the last 5 minutes, maybe its time to have some of the bad-guys that got a bead on him to be catching up behind. Hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
This is a just thought experiment.
------
This Thread was a result of me realizing that the math with the new seize by force with a "ticking" or "fictional exposure" battle style to handle hardness of moves, had some problems. Namely, I've been profoundly bothered by the fact it is mathematically stupid to buy hard instead of +1 harm / armor moves. There is fundamentally too little difference between the results of 10+ and a 7-9+ and even a 6- for seize by force, and I was unhappy with the lack of interaction the move has with the npc's skill / motivations / stakes. It's just some raw numbers.
I didn't like that. I wanted the fiction to be more actively engaged within the roll, I wanted NPCs goals to be visible in the results, I wanted to have a clear cause for reversing the move, and I heighten the differences between a 10+/7-9/miss. I wanted to fake the PvP style, in a more act under fire style. Most importantly, I wanted match the style other battle moves are written in. I don't want to have to hack them all because they were designed with a different tempo then I'm used to.
-
Personally, to handle AW2 battles, I suspect I'm going to be far more willing to break the gang size / equipment down based on what's "in-play" right now in the scene, (smaller scopes) rather then perhaps scaling up to encompass the numbers of the entire battleground all at once.
So if a player is involved in a battle against a gang of 40 and a bunch of marauders. Rather then calculate the 40+ vs ??? in a flat open zone.. I zoom in, and describe the alleyway the Player is moving through, the 10-12 guys on the other end, maybe how they're shooting at another line of people, and know that there's the 1-2 harrier's sniping from rooftops / high-windows the PC might notice, or might not. I'm going to have them act against the player if he gives himself away, hit or miss. The player then makes their move against these guys, while another player might be faced with something else. Breaking up the numbers means the Gunluggers have a major advantage, so that probably gets countered by the fact that the enemies treat the Gunlugger as a much scarier / higher priority and thus more concentrated death focuses on him (so long as he's actually being exposed to violence).
The roaming dozen militarized dune-buggies is a seperate entity, they're not going to be defeated by the player rolling really high against the first dozen. When those fuckers come into play, it'll be on their own terms with their own numbers. Sure they might be on the same side, and partaking in the same battle, but I'd probably not count them together since we're trying to make these battle moves more complicated / involved / & chainable.
----
In AW1, given the same circumstance, I probably would be looking at the battle from a much larger scope, more of a war scene then a bunch of smaller fights leading towards a narrative. But we still could do that if we wanted. The biggest point to make is the scene above. When you've got not-obvious guys in the windows, and obvious guys on the ground. In AW1 if they attacked and HIT against the guys on the ground, maybe even killing them, I would not follow that with the guys above dump lead into them and forcing them off-course / pinning them down / separating them from the others / putting them under fire. In AW2, I probably will do just that.
-
Hmmm. I feel like you've totally missed or ignored the point of my example: that the rules establish an expectation for the MC to speak, and to make a move. I know you agree with this, because that's how it happens in all your examples.
The reason we can get away with skipping the narration in the first case is because the move is sometimes sufficiently defined that the outcome is *obvious*. For instance, if I'm a Gunlugger with a huge gun, 2-armor, and no harm on my clock, and I'm facing a guy with knife, we all know that "choose 1" is sufficient to resolve this conflict. He's dead; I got the thing I was trying to seize. Additional narration might be fun for us, but it's not necessary to resolve the scene.
Here's all I'm asking for - a simple illustration of this below:
When you've got not-obvious guys in the windows, and obvious guys on the ground. In AW1 if they attacked and HIT against the guys on the ground, maybe even killing them, I would not follow that with the guys above dump lead into them and forcing them off-course / pinning them down / separating them from the others / putting them under fire. In AW2, I probably will do just that.
Ok, you're saying you would handle it differently in AW1 vs. AW2. We don't need a length example or lots of detail; I just want to get a sense of where the flow of play is different for you under this new paradigm. Is there a place you would make a move where you wouldn't have before? Or is it a question of making your move "harder" than before?
In short, I don't understand how your understanding of Vincent's new formulation of battle moves is changing the way you MC the game.
I agree with all your notes on your version of the SBF move. I think it accomplishes exactly that! I may try it next time I play.
-
I think Ebok's point is that under AW1, the Peripheral Battle Moves had a mechanism whereby everyone suffered regular harm on each tick of the countdown clock (1-harm per tick until 9:00, 3-harm per tick after 9:00). This harm was in addition to any harm suffered as a result of any particular move (e.g. seize by force, which necessitates a trade of harm in and of itself). It represented the danger of being in a free-fire zone, with bullets whizzing around and possibly unseen assailants engaging you. Many of the peripheral moves were structured around mitigating or avoiding this regular harm.
But in AW2, this regular "harm per tick" mechanism is gone. But Vincent has made it pretty clear that the new battle moves are organized in such a way that they represent being in battle, with all of the attendant dangers thereof. His comments about pushing consequences off "into the snowball" seem to indicate that it is the fictional situation itself (rather than any prescriptive, clock-based rule mechanic) that provide the danger.
Hence, when Ebok says he'd likely respond even to a HIT by having some NPCs pop up and "dump lead into them and forcing them off-course / pinning them down / separating them from the others / putting them under fire," he is saying that AW2 encourages you to use the fiction to do the things that the mechanics did in AW1.
Ebok, do I have that correct?
I think what it boils down to is the question: "As the MC, when is it OK to simply inflict harm on a PC who is engaged in battle?" AW1 and AW2 present different structures to answer this.
-
Munin, that's exactly right.
Paul T, I didn't miss that point at all. That's why I reversed it, if the NPC does plenty enough damage to kill the PC, the PC's dead and you can decide to stop there without any other words... if you're so inclined (though it's a missed opportunity either way). For me, the point was that a battle should now always be sufficiently complicated that a successful move still requires MC involvement to integrate those results.
You've been repeatedly asking for differences between how I'd roll AW1 vs AW2, this is one of them.
When I'll run this, battles will now (as a standard) have multiple moving parts.
Perhaps it would help you if I said, I make "moves" after PC's hit too. Not Moves like how to fuck with them (well sometimes), but the opposite, moves that directly benefit them. They shoot that guy, and I'll tell the player how his gang reacts in trepidation. Or the player hits a 10+ act under fire, and I'll give a cinematic description about how awesome the player was right then. These's aren't AW moves persay, but they're really the same thing in reverse. I always do this, Period, and always have. Leaving that step off feels criminal to me.
You questions:
Ok, you're saying you would handle it differently in AW1 vs. AW2. We don't need a length example or lots of detail; I just want to get a sense of where the flow of play is different for you under this new paradigm. Is there a place you would make a move where you wouldn't have before? Or is it a question of making your move "harder" than before?
My thought process is descrbed in Battle Moves, My Thoughts, and What does this suggest? of the post four above this. An example of where I would have made a move when I wouldn't in AW1 is the entire post three above this.
Here's all I'm asking for - a simple illustration of this ....
The post three above this one was the simple description of just that. Was something unclear?
-
Oh! In 1E, being in battle meant taking harm at each tick? I've never used the 1E battle moves, so I missed that entirely. How interesting! (I'd always interpreted the text as meaning that this was the danger being threatened - in other words, it was more of a direction NOT to apply full damage before 9:00, not a direction to inflict harm on each tick. Fascinating!)
So, Munin nailed it:
I think what it boils down to is the question: "As the MC, when is it OK to simply inflict harm on a PC who is engaged in battle?"
That's exactly my question.
Are you (both?) saying that, under this new view of the game, you just inflict harm on the PCs willy-nilly in battle? Or something else?
-
Definitely not willy nilly. In AW2 we design a battle like a narrative, telling the story of that fight, zoomed in enough that there are multiple NPC actions / motivations taking place simultaneously. So just because the PC gets the upper hand in one action, it doesn't mean they're safe from one of the other elements making a move against them. It might help to look at it like there are multiple, simultaneous snowballs. A PC acting on one, might mean ignoring the other, but both of these should play out.
Lets go back to the example of the guy being chased by a dude with an assault rifle. We know what the pursuit is doing, PC hunting. We know what the player is doing, facing off against that guard. We as MCs should also be thinking about how the rest of the camp is responding to the sounds of gunfire, the alarm. We should be asking ourselves are there any heavy vehicles or other artillery that might be brought to bear? Are there valuables / prisoners here that the guards might flock towards to reinforce? Are there other people that will take advantage of the chaos, how? What's inside this building, something dangerous? something valuable? something protected? What does that mean to the NPCs if the player gets inside, what will they do?
So even if the player achieves his objective, the rest of the camp is still in motion, and that motion might be immediately dangerous to the PC. Say we know that within that building, there are two more guards that would be heading down to reinforce that door upon hearing the gunfire. So soon as the PC gets inside and slams the door shut, they pull up their guns and start shooting at him. Even if he just hit a 10+ to get in, we are responding with a pretty hard move.
It's perfectly fine to threaten two hard moves against a PC from different sources, and make the PC choose which one they'll suck up, or which one they'll avoid. Or if they'll abandon something else all together to try to avoid both. Create Danger. My AW2 take away was that I should be aware that the Battle itself will be making hard moves of relative strength at EVERY opportunity that it has. The fiction determines what this looks like and the players actions / exposure determine its severity.
-
I cant believe I'm going do this... Let's use a D&D battle example!
You have a dungeon right? Long tunnels, old doors, monster infested. In short a very dangerous place. (similar to an AW2 battle). As the DM we know that the big room they're fighting in has three exits, the way they came in, a pit trap in the corner, and a big iron door. We describe the immediate threat of the monsters, and maybe immediately forebode that something really big and dangerous starts trying to break down the door, and we mention that all the monsters are avoiding one of the corners.
The character charges in and starts cutting up the monsters. There are a variety of things that could happen here, but the point is, no matter what happens with the bad-guy he is currently fighting, something huge is going to break down that door and charge the closest person. Maybe the player moves towards the trap thinking the monsters might back off. Maybe he stays and fights the monster despite the banging, maybe he turns and runs for the exit. The danger the PC is going to face isn't random, it's decide by the PC when he picks what he wants to do.
Hit example PC chooses to stay and fight the monster. He manages to cut it down just as the door busts open. The Minotaur charges the player and swats him across the room [hard move]. He did manage to kill the monster, so that's one threat less now. Maybe he didn't suffer as much damage fighting that monster, which is great since he needs all the health he can get now. Maybe he butchered the monster, and at the sight of him some of the other smaller ones flee the battle.
Miss example PC chooses to stay and fight the monster. He tries to cut the monster down and ends up getting his ass kicked and pushed back towards that corner [hard move]. Maybe he got disarmed. Maybe he manages to kill the monster anyway, but he's more hurt and weaponless now when the Minotaur swats him across the room [hard move]. Maybe the swat throws him within inches of the trap, and we somewhat warn the player by having the smaller monsters look leery of charging, but the Minotaur doesn't care and keeps on coming.
-----------
I know this is a weird example to use. I wanted to simplify the moving parts. The Minotaur represents a looming threat on a battle field, the monsters represent an immediate threat. The terrain represents where-ever people are fighting. Often times I think we'll be able to make the terrain a very active player in a AW Battle (ruins, rubble, hazards, heights, concealed things, explosives altering landscape, etc). The player is probably also more aware of a larger area then just "this room", and they can hear things happening further away, over the radio, other sounds of warzones, whatever.
Does this make anything I've said easier to think through?
------------
Why is this better then AW1?
The first improvement I see is multiplayer. Many times in my AW1 games, battles were very much driven by single players, often entire wars would be fought with only 1 PC combatant. That's fine, it worked, whatever. However there wasn't much need or room for cooperative fighting. Sure it happened, but it was far less commonplace then any other game I've played.
Let's take the Alleyway example. We have one PC heading down an alleyway to attack a dozen guards. The dozen guards are shooting at something on the main street and haven't started gunning the PC down. We also know that there are snipers in the buildings, that will most definitely turn their guns on the PC once he starts hitting the positions flank.
• PC might read a sitch, but even then might not notice the snipers.
• PC might miss reading a sitch, eating a bunch of lead instead of getting the jump on the gunners.
• PC might charge the gunners, and scatter them, but will come under fire of the snipers.
• PC might charge the guards and miss, taking the worst of both the guards and the snipers crossfire.
Now, what if we had another character there too? Even if they weren't all that hard, what if they decide to guard the PC as he charges into the mess. Soon as those snipers come up and shoot at him from behind, this PC might be able to Spend his hold to deal damage to them first, canceling the threat. Maybe he has multiple hold and drops both the snipers in the building. Now all of a sudden the battle's snowball looks a lot different.
This style of fiction driven threats provides a very easy way to handle teamwork in battle. Looking at the new battle moves, this feels like it's very much in line with how they read.
-
I agree with your assessment of the new battle moves, and that sounds, indeed, like exactly what Vincent is going for.
However, I'm still confused by the discussion of the "battle". The way you've described the battle is the way I've always done action scenes in AW, so your examples look like AW 1E to me. That may be why this is confusing for me/us - perhaps we play exactly the same way, and I'm looking for a distinction which doesn't exist.
I think that, however, in your hypothetical D&D example, I wouldn't have the minotaur just deal harm without a chance for the PC to react. (I mean, I can *imagine* that feeling right in some scenarios - let's say another PC was helpless at the minotaur's feet, and the first PC decided to ignore that for a moment and fight the other monster... but I'm pretty sure I've never actually seen that in a game.)
My rule for making "hard moves" (like the minotaur doing grievous harm against the PC) follows the AW text - it happens either when handed an opportunity on a golden platter, or after a miss. I can't really see using a "hard move" under other circumstances.
Is that all there is to this? You're thinking of the "2E way", which is exactly the way I play 1E? Or is there more to it?
-
If you never used the AW1 battle moves, the "difference" in AW2 is probably academic. If you did use them (which we did, frequently), it will "feel" different. Let me give you an example:
AW1: You're in a pitched fight, and the battle is in full-swing (after 9:00 on the battle clock). You've gotten to a particular position and the MC has narrated that the opposition knows where you are. There's a guy with an assault rifle laying down covering fire on your position. On the next clock tick, you take 3-harm (before you do anything else) because that's what the mechanics demand. Once the ramifications of that damage are out of the way, you are free to do whatever it is you want to do - if you're willing to stand up in a hail of bullets and seize by force, go for it. You'll expose yourself to more harm, but maybe it's worth it to accomplish your objectives.
AW2: You're in a pitched fight, and the battle is in full swing. You've gotten to a particular position and the MC has narrated that the opposition knows where you are. There's a guy with an assault rifle laying down covering fire on your position. Further, the MC makes it clear that standing up right now entails getting shot, regardless of what else you do. Maybe you say, "Fuck it, I need to kill these assholes," and move to seize by force. But before you can even make that roll, the MC says "Cool, but first take 3-harm and make the harm move for me." You have taken that harm because that's what the fiction demands. Once the ramifications of that damage are out of the way, you're free to roll+Hard, because you're attempting to seize your opponent's position (which is itself going to entail taking more harm).
The difference is subtle, but in AW1, you know going in that you're going to take damage every tick. The MC can narrate how or why, but the damage mechanic is, well, mechanical. In AW2, you only know that battle is dangerous, and that you will be exposed to harm from a variety of sources. The MC can and should narrate how and why, and let those descriptions "snowball" into trouble for the PCs. When the MC says, "Sure, you can stand up into a hail of bullets and try to gun these dudes down, but they're going to get in some shots on you before you can even bring your weapon to bear," what he or she is really doing is presenting an opportunity, very much with a cost. Taking damage is a precondition to the PC making his or her move because it is fictionally appropriate.
This is a different thing than simply relying on the "trading harm as established" clause of SBF, and reflects the fact that "in battle" is a dangerous place.
-
Good example, Munin.
You're absolutely right: we never used the 1E battle moves, so what you're describing as the "2E way" in your example is how we played all along.
Now, as far as the larger discussion is concerned, here is what I am trying (and failing to understand):
When we play AW, we have tense situations and conflicts. We resolve many of these "freeform" (by negotiation of the fiction, and the regular conversation of play as well as MC moves), but some of them call for us to make player-side moves, as well.
In any given conflict or tense situation, there are the things the PCs want. Generally speaking, they can get those things by fictional positioning, by the MC handing it to them on her move, or by rolling well on a move (and picking the appropriate choices).
For instance, if I want to get my hands on a suitcase, I can arrange to distract the people guarding it (establishing that it's unguarded) and then grab it, get it because circumstances played into my hands (e.g. another PC or NPC killed all the guards and left it there), or I can try to get it against opposition. In the latter case, the MC might decide to give it to me (e.g. the NPC trades it for something, perhaps), or I can make a move to get it. If I roll a move, the right outcomes (which usually require a good roll) will give me possession of the suitcase.
However, there are also (usually) bad outcomes in the equation: things the PCs do not want. In my reading of AW (1E, although the text remains in 2E), those bad outcomes take place in the same way: by fictional positioning (the PCs hand it to the MC on a silver platter, in other words), or on a missed roll.
In our examples, those bad outcomes might include taking harm from the enemy, losing the suitcase to an adversary, or losing the clifftop chase and being pushed off the road.
Basically, when a move exists which is fictionally appropriate and allows the players to push towards their desired outcome, in a conflict-laden situation, the dice are going to come out sooner or later. Although the design of moves varies (as do MC moves), usually the PCs can get what they want on a good roll, and the MC has the prerogative to bring a bad outcome to bear on a poor roll.
With the new SBF move, it seems to me that the players have the option to "get what they want" regardless of the roll. This is odd. (This hack mitigates that somewhat by allowing the hold to be contested.)
Under the new rules, when do the "bad outcomes" take place? Under what circumstances do you take harm from the enemy, lose the suitcase to an adversary, or lose the clifftop chase and get pushed off the road?
I can see this:
* The PCs hand the MC a golden opportunity. (Like breaking cover while under suppressive fire.)
* The PCs take harm in the process, and the harm move's results suggest the "bad outcome" is the logical outcome. (Munin has said that he would not choose those options that invalidate the move being made, however, and I agree with that in principle, so maybe this isn't really a valid option.)
Aside from that, it seems to come down to calculus of harm:
* The PC's harm clock fills up and they "die". (The rules don't seem to specify exactly how this works, so they could be interpreted to say that the PC still gets what they want, but I think most groups won't play it that way.)
* The PCs are not willing to face any more harm, so they decide not to make the move in the first place (or decide not to choose those options in favour or reducing harm, instead).
This hack seems to keep those features, except making it more costly for the players. (Since you can still choose 1 on a miss, the difference is just in whether the hold is contested and in how bad the harm is.)
Do you agree with this analysis, or not?
Under what circumstances do you see the undesirable outcomes (whether mechanical, like suffering harm, or fictional, like being forced off the road) taking place? Did I cover them for you, or not?
-
Yup.
I had no intention of "solving" the changes the AW2 Battle's system. Didn't attempt even it.
So if you were looking for that in this Hack, then you're not going to find it.
I see those circumstances taking place after I threaten the PC with them, and the PC fails to avoid it / cannot avoid it (entirely) / will not avoid it. However, Seize by Force is not a Basic move anymore, it's part of being "in battle". If you're not in battle, and what you're doing isn't resembling battle, then you're better off using one of the many other moves to get what you're going for. AW2 Battle has large focus on HP Skill and Damage (in the context of the fiction), which should not be surprising in any RPG game. Yes, there is no default you failed absolutely in seize by force anymore, so you'll have to stop thinking in those terms.
If your going to take a briefcase, it's not probably not seize by force. It might be act under fire. If they're not already shooting at you, then it might be Go Aggro (grabbing it under the threat of force). It might be talking them into giving it to you. All of these basic moves have the same miss condition you're used to.
Seize by force does not. Why? Because if this breaks into full out war over a briefcase, it's not over when you grab it. It's not happening in isolation from the rest of the environment's snowballs. It's opening up a willful exchange of harm between both parties with real repercussions. A snatch and grab is not seize by force. Seize by Force in AW2 has more narrative inertia then the basic moves now, it takes a bit more to get it happening and it rolls that way awhile before you can change it back.
If you used to use seize by force whenever someone wanted a thing, you'll have to get out of that habit. It now means go to war for something. The act of going to war, means that despite them "getting what they want" even on a miss, you're already pitching harder at them and it isn't done yet.
-
I disagree with Ebok slightly, in that I still think SBF is a valid "go-to" option if you want to fight over a thing. I think the difference between AW1 and AW2 in this regard is as follows:
Under AW1, if you tried to grab the briefcase and rolled a miss, you just plain didn't grab it, and bad things probably happened as a result.
Under AW2, if you tried to grab the briefcase and rolled a miss, you can still choose to grab it, but by even choosing to make the SBF move in the first place, you are now "in battle," and bad things were going to happen whether you succeeded or failed.
So as the MC under AW2, I might look at a player's miss (with them choosing to take definite hold of the briefcase) and say, "Great! Bullets fly and you dash forward, killing the guy who was holding the case. You bend down and grab it, you absolutely have hold of it. But now you realize that bullets are still flying and you're standing in the open like a dope. What do you do?"
This is functionally identical to the MC putting someone in a spot, but here's the catch: in AW1, this was typically the result of a miss. In AW2, it is automatic and comes as a result of invoking SBF in the first place. So sure, you may be able to get what you want on a miss, but in doing so you are putting yourself in a spot whether you succeed or fail.
See the difference?
I also think the MC needs to me a little more judicious about what "take definite hold of it" really means. It's not a case of "I kill all these dudes and grab the case and get away clean." The sense I get is that the AW2 "battle" situation means that the things the PCs might want to seize hold of are more granular in nature. In the above example, that means getting your hand on the case - that's it. You're not out of the fight, and may in fact be in a worse tactical position now than you were before - regardless of success or failure.
-
Ok, pretty interesting. That's a good explanation!
It's awkward to consider, for me, because I think that's the way I play already. All those examples just sound like normal AW play at my table.
(Unless you mean that you *make up* stuff like bullets flying around, even when the fiction wouldn't normally require that - but I'd be very surprised if you did.)
I suppose I find it a little strange to consider a version of AW where failure is never (or rarely) an option. For instance, taking the tense car chase in the canyon, I'd like to occasionally have the PCs, you know, lose the race, or end up behind the other vehicle.
It's true that this can be achieved by using other moves, but I have a fairly "naturalistic" view of AW, and I wouldn't want to be choosing moves based on dramatic interests (for instance, choosing one move over another because it seems interesting to me to have a chance of failure present in the stakes of the scene; I much prefer to let the fiction and the players' choices dictate which moves get called into play).
Unless I'm missing something, when we get into a battle move situation, the unpleasant fictional outcomes at stake in a given scene will only take place if the players choose to have them happen, or if the PCs run down their harm clocks and/or fail harm move rolls and we choose appropriately for them.
-
You're missing something.
-
Ok, cool! What is it?
-
I suppose I find it a little strange to consider a version of AW where failure is never (or rarely) an option. For instance, taking the tense car chase in the canyon, I'd like to occasionally have the PCs, you know, lose the race, or end up behind the other vehicle.
Failing is an always an option. You're still allowed to do everything you could in AW1, including making something horrible happen to them when they miss as they definitely seize their target, such as blowing out a tire, denting something important, sucking up a bunch of rocks into the engine, having the guys behind them take out a gun and blow holes into their car as they force their way through. Just cause they get what they want, does not mean they'll enjoy the position it puts them in. When they choose to seize something by force, damage is a foregone conclusion, not something they get to avoid. This applies to the mechanic harm they suffer, but it also applies to the stakes of the fictional battle. There is no base option to come out unscathed.
btw, Harm can absolutely cost you your option. Munin and I disagree here a bit. I wouldn't counter their choice casually, but the harm move has every right to take whatever they got away from them. If the harm move renders them unconscious, for example, you are certainly not going to give them what they seized, (but they did get it, before said KO) and them seizing something does not provide immunity of the results of the harm roll. The seize by force happens, and the harm is yet another roll with its own seperate consequences.
It's true that this can be achieved by using other moves, but I have a fairly "naturalistic" view of AW, and I wouldn't want to be choosing moves based on dramatic interests (for instance, choosing one move over another because it seems interesting to me to have a chance of failure present in the stakes of the scene; I much prefer to let the fiction and the players' choices dictate which moves get called into play).
Again, you're missing something. I was never suggesting picking a different move because of dramatic interests. I was saying, pick the correct move base on what's actually at stake to begin with. If it's a race, even one where people might be making contact with their cars, act under fire is more appropriate them seize by force. If you're trying to kill each other with your cars, or you guns and your cars at the same time, then act under fire is not the best option. This is very naturalistic to me. If you're going to steal a suitcase, and the only thing at stake is whether you get out with it or not, then seize by force (which is predicated on you going to war over said item) is probably not good option, let alone the most natural.
Going to Battle for something vs Doing something dangerous.
Unless I'm missing something, when we get into a battle move situation, the unpleasant fictional outcomes at stake in a given scene will only take place if the players choose to have them happen, or if the PCs run down their harm clocks and/or fail harm move rolls and we choose appropriately for them.
You could not be more wrong. When going into battle, the the unpleasant fictional outcomes are all but guaranteed. They will only avoid coming into play with concerted effort from multiple characters acting together. (using moves to prevent enemies from acting, removing a threat as it acts, safe guarding an allies dangerous action, etc)
-
Ebok,
I can definitely get on board with a re-imagining of AW combat where dangers are ubiquitous, and making moves is what we do to avoid them. In this paradigm, bad stuff happens, essentially, when *other* moves are failed. Seize by Force, instead, becomes a sort of "automatic success", at the cost of injury, lives lost, and so forth. In other words, when the PCs commit to violence, they are almost sure to get what they want, but they have to weigh the costs.
This could work particularly well with a game where something like my harm hack is in play, or a more battle-heavy, cinematic approach is used, so taking harm really matters. Your hack of the SBF move would also make outcomes a lot more variable in play, which I like. Your more aggressive approach to the harm move can be used to balance this, as well - if getting hurt could knock you out or otherwise cost you your success, again, this become less predictable.
All very interesting to ponder, in any case.
The one thing I'm not really seeing here is what changed for you when Vincent posted in the other thread about making moves in combat/battle. That seemed to make a big difference for you, and I'm not entirely sure I see why. Now that we've been through this whole discussion, might it be easier to illustrate that difference?
I'd love to see an example of an MC move you'd make in battle that you *wouldn't have* made under 1ed AW, and how that ties into all this. Any chance I could talk you into a (quick) example of that?
-
Oh, that's easy - inflict harm as established. It's not that I wouldn't have made it, it's just the circumstances I'd have made it were different. Because AW1's Peripheral Battle Moves included a harm-per-tick mechanism, I was much more careful about setting up the fictional position before inflicting harm, because the harm was already built into the mechanics. Now I'm much more aggressive about doling out that harm because that mechanism no longer exists.
We actually just had a pitched battle in the most recent session of our game. Major Tom (The Show) was barred entry to a settlement because he has a contagion. As a result, he decided to whip up the other contagious folks and poor rabble into a mob, that then made an attack on the gates of the settlement. Fifi (The Gunlugger) counted among her friends in this settlement the head of the local constabulary, and she came to the settlement's aid in fighting off the rabble. I bring this up because it saw examples of two things discussed in this thread.
First, it included a harm move following a seize by force roll that resulted in the Gunlugger being trapped/panicked/KO'd - at one point the Gunlugger was atop one of the gatehouse towers firing her shotgun down at the rabble (who'd tried unsuccessfully to crash a bus through the gates), keeping them from slipping through the small gap now opened by the bus. She hit the roll, blasted a whole bunch of dudes, and scared the crap out of the rabble, but totally flubbed the harm move. In this case, I had one of the attackers atop the bus (a guy she'd just shot) grab hold of her, pulling her off the rampart with him as he fell. So yes, she stopped the rabble from slipping through, but now she was outside the walls, stuck under a dead body of her own making. The rabble turned on her immediately. This was a "trapped" result on a harm roll, but it didn't invalidate her success (at least not in the moment) because she'd kept them from slipping through.
Shortly thereafter, Ace (The Driver) let loose with the MG on his war-buggy at the rabble at the gates (not knowing that Fifi was now among them). When the result of his roll to act under fire was a partial success, I chose a "worse outcome," and immediately applied 2-harm to Fifi. So yes, he shot some of the rabble, further damaging them, but caught Fifi as well in the process. I had no problem inflicting harm on a partial success because Fifi was "in battle." I'm not sure I'd have made this particular move under AW1, especially if I was using the Peripheral Battle Moves and battle-clock.
Finally, Fifi failed another harm move after a single combat roll (because, having extricated herself from the body and having survived Ace's machinegun fire, she was trying to kill as many fuckers as she could), so I KO'd her with a brick upside the head. I had no problem doing this because there was no "success" to negate - she wasn't seizing anything and had already exchanged the harm.
There was a point right after Fifi fell where her player indicated a desire to read a sitch, and I offered that it would be totally cool for her to take some time to get her bearings, but that the rabble would be curb-stomping her while she did it. I felt that in this case the "set-up" for damage to simply be inflicted upon her had already been well established. She wisely chose action over analysis, foregoing suffering further one-sided harm.
-
Great examples, Munin!
My sense is that the harm move and harm exchange is playing a large part in this new style of play - basically, the characters can be really effective, like action heroes, until their clocks start running out or they fail a harm move.
I'm not sure how well this would translate to a more "down to earth" playstyle; I'll have to think on it.
I like your guidelines for applying harm move results freely, but still with an eye on "being a fan of the PCs" by being aware of trying not to negate their successes.
-
Actually, the entire point was that we are more aggressive about giving out harm during battle. Them making a harm move is a result of us delivering that harm.
-
^^^ This.
-
Interesting! That's something to ponder.
Overall, I'd say that, from the examples so far, your "more aggressive" approach sounds like the way I play the game already, so I'm not sure how to bring it to a game I'd play now.
I think that, for such moves not to feel "cheap", we need complex, hectic situations with multiple threats. Those are certainly fun, but the takeaway I'd bring from this would be to *create more such situations in the fiction*.
That's where I see the game becoming much more "action movie" in style. Not necessarily a bad thing, but - for us, at least - it would be a dramatic shift in tone.
(Consider something like my Apocalypse: Emergence - http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=5248.15 (http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=5248.15) - for context.)
My games tend to see a lot of situations like a simple staredown between two men with knives, and a gun on the table between them. In such a situation, I'm not sure how "always choose 1 on a miss" serves us very well.
The typical response which comes to mind might be, "You rolled a miss? Ok, you grab the gun, just as the other guy slams the knife into your arm." Problem is, I can't meaningfully distinguish how that's different from "Choose 1 and expect the worst".
Ebok's hack here handles that kind of thing quite a bit better, I think.
(By the way, this discussion has inspired me to experiment with some other alternatives. I should post one of them sometime; one thing they do well is to really distinguish the three tiers of results, which I took away from our discussions here.)
-
Sounds like we're on the same page.
I've always had trouble conceptualizing seize definite hold a weapon with seize by force. The harm is already established before the roll takes place, meaning both sides are already inflicting harm with their knives. If they take definite hold of the gun and fire it, that's bumping them +1harm too. I tend to think that the take definite hold happens /after/ harm is exchanged anyway. Sure the guns there for what happens /next/, but the violence was already happening.
Now in the case where a PC is facing a NPC over a gun on the table... If they weren't armed, or if the PC was the only one unarmed, I'd say act under fire prior any exchange of harm clearly establishes the fictional harm. If you're going for the gun, then you're not stabbing them in the face. If the other guy intends to stab you in the face, then his attention on the gun is inherently a side-effect of that (even if it's a fictional priority).
In the case where they are both armed, why get a gun? Inflict more harm with the knife and bury it into your opponents head. If you missed, then he got and fired the gun. If not, then he just stabbed you deep. But if you're rolling seize by force, this is a battle, so. In either case, his buddy just walked into the bar and his eyes widen in shock and fury at the scene. Also the bar tender is pulling up a pretty big shotgun, he looks furious what with all the blood staining his shit.
...
The distinction between 2e and choose 1 but expect the worst is NOT within what happens when you miss. But instead, what happens when you hit. As the buddy walking into the bar, or the bar tenders reaction should occur either way in response to the battle. The harm the player suffered here is already determined for the immediate exchange. Even if the player got the gun and shot the dude in the head, and suddenly had enemies popping up in the room blasting rounds at him... well. :) Battle.
You're right about the action movie part. Battle is an action movie.
If you don't think it's actually battle, solve this with you other tools. For example, two guys going for a gun. Act Under Fire, 10+ You get it and hold it at their head, but you see the bar tender's growl. Choose, go aggro over something, shoot them dead, or something else! 7-9, you got the gun, but you flipped the table and struggled over it first, in the fight you'll take a few knife wounds to get it, do you? On a miss, well shit, he's got the gun. Let the fiction snowball.
-
I mean, I guess you could seize the gun by force, but if I were MCing that situation, I'd say you exchanged harm (i.e. stabbed/cut each other) and now you have the gun, but you've not yet used it. Want to use it now? Great, that sounds like snowballing into single combat to me.
And that's something that's worth pointing out: Under AW1, any time you were engaged in mutual violence, you were rolling to seize. But AW2 has a whole different move for "I just wanna fuck those guys up," and what's interesting about that is that its miss clause is pretty much exactly a flipped move.
-
Interesting thoughts! I agree in full, except for the bit I quote below.
I also find it interesting that a miss on a "single combat" roll seems so much more punishing than a miss on a "seize by force". Not sure whether that makes sense in any way, but maybe it does.
This is the part I disagree with, at least as far as my gaming interests are concerned:
The distinction between 2e and choose 1 but expect the worst is NOT within what happens when you miss. But instead, what happens when you hit. As the buddy walking into the bar, or the bar tenders reaction should occur either way in response to the battle. [...] Even if the player got the gun and shot the dude in the head, and suddenly had enemies popping up in the room blasting rounds at him... well. :) Battle.
I don't really see the use of either constraining a useful move to more complex/involved situations, or constraining the fiction so as to create those situations just because the move seemed applicable. Neither of those would jive well with the way I play the game, instead just complicating the process of play unnecessarily.
Because that's basically what you're suggesting, right? "If you rolled 'seize by force', then go ahead and throw in more action until it's a big mess."
That's not a bad thing to do sometimes, but I wouldn't want it to be the default option, or, worse, a required option.
-
I'm just telling you that seize by force isn't a basic move anymore for a reason. It is designed for battles, which have their own set of fictional expectations. If you aren't in a battle, then seize by force is probably not the most appropriate move choice anymore. Maybe that means you need to think about the situations differently then you're in the habit of doing, maybe you don't.
-
That makes sense.
However, in that case, aren't we starting to try to "split the atom"?
After all, there is no strict definition of "battle" we can all agree on.
When you play, do you "shift mindsets", saying, "Ok, now this is a *battle*. I'm going to MC the game differently until it's played out"?
That's an acceptable way to play, but discards some of the organic nature of AW.
The way we play it, though, there are many, many situations which might have some of the chaos of battle (e.g. complex social scenes, action sequences, when disaster strikes, etc) but certainly aren't "battles". Conversely, we'll have situations which include combat and fighting but aren't chaotic in the same way a "battle" would be.
And if we don't use "seize by force" for two opposing characters or forces fighting over a desired objective... then what is the move *for*?
In groups I've played with, the most functional use of SBF I've seen was a pretty strict, "Someone wants something and they have to fight a determined foe for it." Unless they caught them off-guard, unprepared, or unwilling, in which case it was go aggro.
That's a pretty big gap to fill with other moves; particularly when this one works so well.
-
Yes, in some sense it is atom-splitting. I think the intent behind the changes in AW2 are to highlight the idea that violence has dire and often unintended consequences, whether the ultimate aim to which that violence is being applied is successful or not. For some of us, we've always more or less played it that way anyway and the changes in AW2 are more window-dressing than anything else. Because you're right - there is no definition (or intimation, or suggestion, or even so much as a "hint") in the AW2 rules as to what being "in battle" actually means. Viewed from that perspective alone, the change is a bad one because it doesn't leave new MCs much to go on.
-
"Someone wants something and they have to fight a determined foe for it."
"Someone wants something and they have to battle a determined foe for it." Yup. Seize is how this is done.
The key for me is that AW2 suggests that battles are not explicitly iterative.
iterative example:
# A fights B => A wins and B loses.
Instead it's more chaotic and asynchronous.
example:
# A starts to fights B, causing C D E to happen.
# AB rolls, and that resolves, but C, D, and E continue snowballing regardless.
CDE in this case could be long term narrative implications or immediate moves like inflicting harm, announcing badness, taking something away, forcing people apart.
There's another aspect of this style that has immediate benefits.
Here is an example of play I've seen during an AW1 session.
The Sitch
We have 3 PC's wading in to fight a gang's stronghold, they want to conquer the location.
The Detail
The exact positioning of the enemies don't matter much. Since the one roll determines the fictional state of affairs, win or lose, the implications of the NPC's position are flavor to barf forth from, but not essentially deterministic. We could zoom in an do this in incremental steps, but for the most part, you don't need to.
The Moves
We could conceivably treat this as PC1 rolls to aid PC2's seize by force and they both go in, while PC3 reads a sitch outside to watch to what's going on. PC2 rolls, the player exchanges harm with the gang, and on a hit, takes definite hold of the location. That implies that the surviving gang members are the ones forced outside / to retreat / or are present within but don't control the place. Now we show PC3 something for being out there, tell PC1+PC2 what the gang is doing, and let them all decide what to do next.
• If PC1 Missed the aid, badness (hard move).
• If PC2 missed the seize, they failed to get the place and badness (hard move).
• If PC3 misses the lookout, we surprise them with something (hard move).
Iterative. It works, you can even stagger the rolls somewhat to interrupt the "turns" but it's not necessary to achieve the same result.
Here's an example of play I could see happening in AW2.
The Sitch
We have 3 PC's wading in to fight a gang's stronghold, they want to conquer the location.
The Detail
AW2 needs more information here, we need to tell the players what they see, hear, smell. You could do this before, but now you have to; because we're going to complicate the scenario, and the more hints we give them, the move we can choose to pull from during the move. We need to tell them the main force is in the middle, with smaller patrols around the outside, but there's a big empty garage, and high ruined towers in the area. We probably should not jump right into taking the whole location, there should be questions like, how do you get in and all the rest; but to retain symmetry with the first example, we will do exactly that.
The Moves:
PC1 and PC2 declare how they're going to take the place by force, and PC3 says how he'll support from the rear. They are only really rolling against the main force, so that's all I'm counting here. It's going to be loud, so I keep that in mind. PC1 rolls the aid another and PC2 rolls assault a secure position. PC3 is standing overwatch for his allies. Regardless of the rolls, we know a few things are likely to happen:
– The sound will draw in enemies from abroad. At first a few scouts, then if things drag on, more aggressive enemy vehicles.
– Some of the families living in the area might run, join in, or cause other descriptive noise in the scene.
– There are gunners in the tower, (maybe they were laying down at first) and they'll start shooting too.
– There might be notable individuals in the enemy gang, who make seperate "non-standardized" actions when the fighting starts.
We determine the results of the roll for PC1 and PC2, and all that entails. Now we tell everyone that the towers start raining lead down on PC1 and PC2. They would immediately suffer harm. However PC3 is standing overwatch, and on a 10+ instead he kills the gunners as they stand to fire; but On a 7-9, he only deals harm to them (as their own small gang) and the warning means PC1 and PC2 can try to act under fire to get out of harm's way; but on a miss, only the warning happens. This is important, because the implications are that without someone standing overwatch, there needs to be no warning.
We now announce badness in the form of the scouts (probably of negligible contribution) heading back into the camp. Maybe the PCs kill them but realize that more are on the way. However, maybe the PCs didn't successfully force their way into their enemy’s position, so instead I use the opportunity to put the PCs in a spot. Perhaps with those same scouts getting a better position and dropping cover fire for the larger group.
We also complicate the scene, with all the noncombatants doing whatever it is in their nature to do. Maybe some of them die, get hit, or force the PCs to shoot them. Whatever. It matters because there could be NPCs here that the players might be attached to, and maybe some individuals in the gang know this too. We might even tell PC3 standing overwatch that he see's the dust from a bunch of fast moving vehicles (or hears them on the radio) heading this way.
----------------------------
Take away
In AW1 multiple player combats were often unnecessary, sometimes clunky, and boiled down to a lot of seize by forces / aid another. It was normal to stack the gangs and the gun-lugger and do combat from large scope. It was also normal to treat a large sized gang as just one large sized gang; rather then breaking that down into 1 small gang sniping from the towers, 1 medium gang in the middle of the camp, and 1 small gang manning war-vehicles.
You can inflict harm without telling players it's coming in a battle. I would inflict less harm (harm-1) or glancing harm (1-harm) often depending on how they choose to act and where. You should do this, because many moves in AW2 are explicitly allowing fellow players to avoid that harm. Keep an Eye Out, Lay Down Fire and Stand Overwatch are both very clear examples of this. Merely the existence of these moves provides an expectation that they are necessary / useful.
As does the clarifications on the variations for seize by force. These variations are important, because they provide a limitation in scope that might not have been present in AW1. If you look at my first example, they seized the location from the enemy. In the second AW2 example, the best they could do is seize access to their enemy. This clearly has implications on what it means to "seize definite hold" of something. If you seize in smaller pieces, then the "victory" of getting it on a miss too doesn't mean as much. Access could be an opportunity, rather then a holdable thing.
If you scale the fight down to a few guys and one player. Seize by force could be used like PC vs size-0 gang or it could be PC vs 1 vs 1 vs 1, with the others piling on the harm or the complications to the scene. If it's just 1 PC and 1 NPC and nothing else around is moving, the PC will probably (and reasonably) always succeed in taking what they want, they are the PC after all. If you don't like that, then stop creating such simple stakes for your scenes.
Edit
As someone who didn't use the Advanced Battles moves in AW1, the best part of AW2 is for me the expectation of team-play.
Additionally as this thread has progressed, so has my comfort in the new style. I previously said I would not deliver harm without alerting the players to it beforehand, I think that's an AW1 habit that I will forsake in AW2 where appropriate. I might go into the other Seize by Force post and update my reflections on lumpley's example driver vs gang, I think I would come to a very different set of possible outcomes now. I still prefer the seize by force hack that started this thread, for the same reasons, but feel I could run a game of aw2 raw without any hacks and still have it flow nicely.
Finally: I agree with you Paul T. There are many situations that have all the narrative trappings of battle without anyone inflicting harm. Honestly, I believe the point is that -all- situations should behave in this manner for AW2. Rather then changing into "battle mode" we should always pushing asynchronous narrative snowballs, and during battle, we should feel free to shoot up the PCs and their stuff with the established "bullets and explosions" that fill that scene.
-
And if we don't use "seize by force" for two opposing characters or forces fighting over a desired objective... then what is the move *for*?
To be fair, both sides do not have to be fighting over the objective. Only the player has to be fighting for it, the other side may just be focused on killing them.
Here's the rule of thumb I've generally come to terms with:
The two opposing forces are [verb]ing each other because of a desired objective
Pick your verb, if the verb can be replaced with battle without a context change, then it's battle. If we're even considering the move, then we know that this is some type of fight. But the type of fight matters, and I think is pretty clear.
Not a Battle
The two opposing forces are sparring each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are racing each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are wrestling each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are cheating each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are tormenting each other because of a desired objective.
Battle
The two opposing forces are murdering each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are waring each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are killing each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are brutalizing each other because of a desired objective.
One one hand you have situations where hurting the other people might not be a priority, and on the other, you're most certainly trying to inflict pain and death to claim the thing. Hard is about the intent to hurt, not a catch all for a show of strength. It might be Cool to wrestle the gun out of their hands, but it's always hard to stab them four times in the gut with a 6in knife to make sure they drop it.
Not Yet a Battle
One side has started murdering the other because of a desired objective.
This is the go aggro territory.
-
In my mind the clue lies in both the underlying stat and the immediate consequence: "Hard" and "Harm." If you are prepared and willing to inflict actual, honest-to-gods physical harm on someone to get what you want, you are seizing by force.
So yes, wrestling a pistol away from Pimpleface before he kills Moxie is probably acting under fire, especially if you're trying not to hurt him.
Punching Pimpleface to get the gun away from him before he kills Moxie, however, will inflict harm on him, and is thus seizing by force - but remember that 1-harm (an "unarmed attack") is still pretty nasty on NPCs; it's not that you popped poor Pimpleface just once and he dropped the gun, it's that you had to beat him literally half to death to get him to let go of it. And since the exchange of harm is mutual, he shot you in the process. This has other fictional ramifications, for sure.
And of course shooting Pimpleface in his pimply face to keep him from killing Moxie is absolutely seizing by force.
-
Two ways to say the same thing.
And of course shooting Pimpleface in his pimply face to keep him from killing Moxie is absolutely seizing by force.
Unless he wasn't watching you. At which point it's probably sucker someone, or maybe go aggro.
If he was and we really want to be specific, it would be the the seize by force variation: defend someone else from attack.
-
Exactly.
-
I've been thinking about this a bunch since our earlier conversations.
I think that the main issue I keep coming up against is that making a fight between two combatants always play in the PC's favour does not - in my view - allow me to "make apocalypse world feel real".
This hack by Ebok does that a lot better, I think, although I'd ultimately love to see something a little more elegant.
-
AW battles have been always been the weakest part as far as AW's system goes. They force everything into very simplified terms where a hit means the player gets what they want and a miss means that they don't. For many challenges this works remarkably well, however this perspective threatens to skews the scene especially in battle. Multiplayer AW fights were a mess, and it has been mentioned by many of my players that they felt like they either didn't need anyone's help, or the flip-side, that their help didn't feel like it made a difference.
This is because AW had a binary 1-sided approach to combat. It would be like in D&D where you had to face challenges you could win, one right after the other in single file. The others are standing behind you, and will swap if you get tired maybe, but you don't get shit coming in from all sides. AW fighting worked best by taking 1 player with Seize, 1 to aid them, and whack the npcs as en entire gang in one go. I had even been advised when I first started that I should not zoom down into the individual level, giving multiple NPCs different actions at the same time, because aw didn't work that way.
Now it does. This change in removing that bad shit is happening from a miss, means that bad shit is happening period. What does the player do about it? In binary situations it does mean that the player is probably got this. However zoom in a bit, and have that gang make seperate actions across the field, suffering harm as individual's or units. Now even if the PC gets the thing they were after, they're still not away. Even if they follow by definitely seizing the escape, they only escaped the group they were rolling against. The fiction tells us whether or not they escaped them all.
AW has more of a battle map thing going on with multiple events in contest at any one time. A PC can only pick one to handle at once, so it provides an opportunity to both say. Hey you've got three small gangs shooting at your face from three different places, two of them could each cut off one of your exits and the third's protecting the thing you want. What do you do? In this case, getting the thing you want is hardly the threat or the objective. Sure you could get it, but can you get it with enough "HP" left to get out?
No character on a D&D battle map thinks about any random fight, "well this is where I die". The narrative suggests they can probably win. They are the Heroes after all. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this similar feeling in AW, but Ive got a game starting up right now and I'll let you know how it goes!
As for a fight between two combatants. That sounds more like Single Combat then seize by force.
-
Ah! So we're back to our point of disagreement, which is really interesting. The short version is that I think you must play AW in a very different way than I do. Everything you're saying about "2E", as far as I can tell, is how we played 1E, so that explains why we're miscommunicating on this issue a lot. I don't think AW battles are "the weakest part" - I think, quite to the contrary, that the way the moves and the conversation shake out creates some really dynamic and fun interactions in a "battle"-type situation. (Unless you mean the optional Battle Moves from 1ed, of course - I never used those, so I can't speak to them.)
Your comment on Single Combat is pretty interesting, too. My preference is to always use Seize by Force - if there's nothing to "seize", then just don't choose that option. That makes it very nicely flexible.
However! That's when things get interesting, because the Single Combat move is designed so as to avoid the problems of the Seize by Force - for instance, the miss result is definitely a miss, and balances well for PC vs NPC as well as PC vs PC (assuming you can choose an option more than once, anyway, since it's possible to get three choices on a 10+ vs. a miss in an opposed roll).
I suppose the ideal - for me - would be to rewrite the Seize by Force move to work just as easily as Single Combat. I like the implication of the original rules in AW, where violence is always a way to *get something*, never a goal of its own. That seems to have been lost in the 2nd Ed.
Lots to ponder, in any case.
-
Sometimes the goal of violence is "to kill that fucking guy!" I never really liked the idea that the thing you could be seizing was "someone's life." The new single combat move simplifies that whole thing tremendously. If you're fighting to fight, then it's single combat. If you're trying to do something else, then you might just be seizing by force. There's room for both, and I don't really see a need to roll them into a single move.
-
I agree with you on "seizing someone's life" (always felt awkward to me).
However, I don't see how Seize by Force doesn't handle that: you just choose to inflict terrible harm as your priority, and that's all there is to it.
With the Single Combat move, there's this odd thing where you'll get more hurt than in Seize by Force, which is... a bit weird. If I'm trying to kill you, I'll deal 2-harm (let's say), but on a miss, with your single choice, you can bring that down to 1-harm. However, with the new Seize by Force, I can choose one (+1harm) while you choose none, so I can deal 3-harm on a miss.
I think it's a bit odd that if we decide there's nothing else at stake, I'm likely to hurt you far less. (While the harm I suffer is the same in both cases.)
Seize by Force -> I suffer your harm and deal 3-harm to you.
Single Combat -> I suffer your harm and deal 1-harm to you.
It's not a huge deal, but it's an odd detail.
Ebok's hack (in this thread) would handle one-on-one combat pretty well, I think, with similar results to the Single Combat move (which we could then remove).
-
Hmmm. One could also go the other way when looking at Single Combat vs Seize by force. Just tossing thoughts.
HackOne:
Remove the inflict more harm options from seize. On a hit they seize absolute control of the thing, 10+ they can choose to impress or suffer less. 9+ neither. 6- miss.
HackTwo:
Remove the inflict more harm options from seize. On a hit they seize absolute control of the thing. 10+ both suffer less and impress. miss or 7-9 they choose one, suffer harm or impress.
HackThree:
Remove the inflict more harm options from seize. On a hit they seize absolute control of the thing. 10+ they take +1 forward. Regardless of any roll they choose one: impress (aggression) or suffer less harm (defensive).
HackFour:
Replace inflict more with take +1 forward.
-
Those aren't bad ideas.
However, if we're going to hack away, there's no need. :)
Whether by coincidence or not, your hack of Seize by Force (ref. p. 2 of this thread) balances with Single Combat perfectly!
-
It was on purpose. I was just playing with other ideas.
-
This whole conversation inspired me to write out a few different formulations of the move. I may type them up at some point.
For instance, I like the idea of giving both parties various choices to make, and one of them is to "exchange harm".
This way, you could occasionally have a relatively bloodless or one-sided battle, but it would require both parties to be committed to that. Most fights would end with both parties hurt, however.
-
I like exchange of harm being a prerequisite - if it's worth inflicting violence, the expectation of harm should be built in.
I also have no particular problem with "you fight harder for [thing], even if ultimately you don't get it."
We had a combat in a recent one-shot where the PC (a heartless assassin based on the Battlebabe playbook) engaged in a fight with three opponents. Ultimately, the assassin's goal was to abduct the crown prince (a mere suckling babe), but rather than jumping straight into SBF, the fight shook out as a go aggro (the surprise initiation of combat, killing the first guard), two single combats (to kill the other two guards, who - due to their positioning - couldn't attack him simultaneously), and another go aggro (to get the wet-nurse to hand over the kid). In this case, single combat seemed like the appropriate move because the PC knew he needed to deal with the guards. A single "seize" roll might have gotten him the kid, but he'd still be in a fight (and at that point he'd have been applying his harm to the wet-nurse, not the guards - and they'd have been carving him up while he did it, applying more harm whether he missed or hit). Similarly, a single "seize" might have gotten him out the tower-window and to his escape, but he wouldn't have had the kid.
Like I said in one of these threads, I think the granularity of what is being seized is intended to be more specific under AW2. And if there's nothing specific you're trying to seize, then single combat is the fall-back. It seemed to shake out pretty well in play.
-
Hmmm! I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, but let me comment on the first two notes, first:
* I also like the implications of relatively ever-present harm. However, AW, as written, nerfs that big time with the armor rules. In the last couple of AW games I've played, it's a rare fight where a PC actually takes *any* damage at all.
I'd prefer a version where harm is more meaningful and injury is a big deal. In that context, I don't mind a version of the rules where occasionally you can get out of a fight unhurt.
In any case, I think it would be very rare: it would require two people to get into a fight and BOTH be totally unwilling to hurt each other. I'm guessing... that would pretty much never happen.
* I'm not sure what you mean by your second comment! Care to clarify?
As for the main gist of your last reply here, you can still colour me confused.
First of all, the way you're describing is definitely much more satisfying. That's the way I've always played AW, though. (Because it's more satisfying!)
How does this have anything to do with AW1 vs. AW2, though? I mean, seize by force is still a move, and it still does the same thing. What about the 2nd Ed rules would give me to your example there?
In short, I agree entirely with what you're saying, but I have no idea why you would treat it differently in 1st Ed and 2nd Ed. The only different rule you're using in your example is the Single Combat move... but I don't really see how that changes anything here. Is it just the implication of the word "Single" in the title leading you to apply it only two one-on-one fights? Because I would do that with go aggro and seize by force, too, if it felt right. (And if it didn't, that would be any different in 1st Edition for me.)
-
OK, let's break this down:
Here's the above situation - you're fighting with a guy. He's not the only guy you need to fight to get what you want (there are others), but as of this moment, he's the guy between you and the next step towards your ultimate goal. You have decided that dedicated violence is needed to get past him (because he's in no mood to negotiate). What is your next move?
ASIDE: Note I did not say, "What do you do?" I think we all understand the relationship between the fiction and triggers for moves. I am explicitly talking about moves here, this discussion is largely mechanical in nature. END OF ASIDE
Under AW1, there is only one move for mutual violence. You are seizing by force. That's it, it's really your only option. Established harm is traded, and you pick several from 4 choices. But if you look at those 4 choices, one of them - "take definite hold of it" - essentially gets blurred by the fictional situation; there's more than one opponent between you and your ultimate goal, and I think if as MC you say, "No, taking definite hold here will not get you all the way to the MacGuffin," then you have to do either one of two things: either you invalidate one of the four choices (essentially take it off the table ~because fiction~), or you come up with some other fictional snippet (short of your ultimate goal) that can be taken hold of to offer to the player (e.g. "If you 'take definite hold' here, you can put this guy out of the fight for a tick or two whether he's dead or not").
And if you do let the PC make it all the way to the MacGuffin on a single roll, then there is a disconnect between your fictional conflict (there are multiple enemies/steps between you and your ultimate goal) and your mechanics for resolving it (fuck it, one roll takes all!)
Under AW2, you have more options. If the fictional situation is such that you're not really "seizing" anything, then you can just use single combat instead. You don't have to take one of the SBF options off the table or come up with some fictional tidbit to make that option attractive. The move only has two options and both are meaningful. It also has a built-in miss condition that is exactly a flipped move.
Ultimately, this is a stylistic choice. For the most part, I like having all of the move-related choices presented to the player be meaningful. Even in something like read a person where you think you may know the answer to something before you even roll, the move lets you confirm it beyond any doubt. Similarly with read a sitch, every one of the questions should give the player meaningful information. It might not be the information they necessarily expected and it may be an "unwelcome truth," but IMO you should never be "paring down" the options to only what is "appropriate" in your mind. And for what it's worth, I love it when they ask the questions I don't expect.
Finally, no, I didn't choose single combat because he was fighting the guards one at a time; I chose it because he was fighting them with the express goal of killing them. Had both been within arm's reach, I still would have used the same move (though how the harm was exchanged might have looked different).
-
In that case, it sounds like we're agreeing on scope (in this case, it's a call the group makes together, and informs their playstyle throughout the game). (I tend to lean towards "zoomed in" moves, as opposed to abstracting away the whole action, by, say, "seize by force" including stuff that's in the next room which the character can't even see yet. But other groups might like that feature.)
What you're saying, essentially, is that it's nice to have a "violence for the sake of violence" move.
I agree to some extent: I've pondered a version of AW where you have a "just really hurt them" move, with appropriate incentives and costs.
However, I find Seize by Force with an uninteresting "object" pretty good in this regard. (And, in this example, we don't even need that - we already know that the player's goal is to get past the guard, so he's "fighting his way out or through".)
-
Paul T, that actually falls in line with what I disliked about seize by force. Seizing your way through a person, when your harm alone is enough to kill them, isn't seizing anything at all. Therefore you've got a move balanced around the use of 4 options, leaving it even stronger then it's normal "too strong" a move state. It's not as bad if you remove a hold from 7-9 and 10+ all the time though, which we did in a few games.
I would actually change the fiction to support the move, unfortunately. And I would probably arm the guard with something that could contain the PC, or blow a horn that would sound a massive alert. That way, if the PC doesn't seize their way past, that unfortunate "capture" is going to block their path. If the option is there and says you get through, not picking that option means, you DO NOT get through.
However, if the PC is just here to murder everyone, and the guards are just here to end the PC, then Single Combat is a far better option then seize by force at all times. Sure my hacked version stuffs them closer together, but I still wouldn't. They're distinctly not the same.
-
Ebok,
I see where you're coming from.
If I'm reading you correctly, your objection to using "seize by force" in that kind of situation is that it's too effective/powerful, in comparison to Single Combat, right?
Although I don't particularly expect anyone to play the game that way, I find it odd that if you finagle a strategic goal - something you can seize - into a situation, then the outcome of the fight is weighted more heavily in your favour. That's an odd thing to consider, if you're playing and trying to decide which move is a better fit.
In the example situation we were describing, I'd take a position somewhere in-between what you're describing and simply ignoring the "take definite hold" clause altogether.
My own approach would NOT be to invent something additional to make the choice meaningful (like your examples of inventing a horn which can signal an alert), but I WOULD interrogate the fiction to see whether the choice matters, and make those details count. As a simple example, maybe "taking definite hold" means that you're past the (presumably dead) guard and launching yourself with initiative into the next room. (One way to look at this is to say that the MC move I would make next would be to offer the PC an opportunity.) Failing to "take definite hold" would be meaningfully different, in that I would choose a different move - perhaps the guard in the next room has time to barricade the door (or sound the alarm, as you suggest).
I can see some situations where no such options would be fictionally appropriate, however, and in those cases I'd be happy to simply let the PC have a 'free' victory in this sense - it's a testament to their luck and fortunate fictional positioning, and it should be allowed to stand.
It's a pretty subtle nuance in comparison to your approach, I think - just a very slightly different way to handle those outcomes from the MC's side.
Although I generally don't like using abstract "objects" for the "seize by force" move (like "seizing the moment"), in a case like this, I think it could be useful. Taking definite hold of the moment, or of initiative, of the situation, can be a useful guide to the MC in terms of deciding which move to make next and how to generally paint the situation.
That's why I dislike the "choose 1 on a miss" option in the new move: it seems to allow any PC willing to take harm, or heavily armoured, to automatically achieve strategic goals in a fight, without the roll mattering all that much. (Many PC-NPC matchups, and some PC-PC matchups, lead to an established harm of 0 on one side, and enough harm to kill the opponent on the other, which means that other choices are fairly meaningless - I don't need to suffer less harm when I've already got 2-armor, for instance. In the last four fights/battles I saw take place in my AW and Fallen Empires play, there was no harm at stake at all for the PCs, including one PC-on-PC fight.)
I can appreciate the "action movie" interpretation of this; perhaps it drives play more towards other concerns. "Sure, you can kill those guys. But is it worth it?" However, it leaves Apocalypse World feeling much less "real" to me, which makes it a less interesting game.
I still like how your hack, as presented here, balances Seize by Force nicely with Single Combat and potentially resolves that issue (or at least mitigates it).
I'll give some more thought to a different way of parsing Seize by Force vs. Single Combat...
-
Using this hack does mitigate most of the unbalance between them. My concern wasn't specifically that vanilla seize by force was more powerful then SingleCombat, but that it was generally more powerful then it needed or deserved to be all around.
That said. In my game this week, Seize and SingleCombat were both used quite often during a larger battle, along with many of the new battles moves. The threat leveled at the group was simply terrifying, and in that instance at least, getting 1 hold on a miss would have barely been a consolation prize. A player was fighting to defend a trapped NPC and was willing to die for her, heh, he just about did. Even in a starkly losing fight, him being able to use his hold to either protect himself, or her were huge choices, and that's a perfectly fine choice to need to make on a miss.
-
That's very interesting, Ebok.
Can you tell me more about that particular scene/situation?
-
Ebok,
Just posting here for an update. Things have been going well, I take it?
How often do you use the "NPCs choose" option on the move? Do you have any rule of thumb for when to use it and when not to?
How do you decide which options to choose? Is it based on "what the NPC prioritizes", story concerns, or something else?
Cheers!
-
It goes well, sure.
Honestly the hard rolls haven't been a main focus lately, and it's been more hit or miss, so there aren't too many standout partials. So no great examples. The one that have occurred using this hack felt perfectly natural to the scenes. It's just once choice after-all, colored by the fiction. I honestly don't even think about it anymore, it's always been obvious which choice the NPC chooses, even to the players.
If you want to see how it goes, try it yourself.
-
Indeed. I haven't had an opportunity to run AW myself since we started this conversation, but it's been on my mind nevertheless. I was mainly wondering if there was an option in the move that never sees use, and therefore could simply be discarded, simplifying it further.
It also occurs to me that making the move somewhat-similar-but-still-distinct for NPCs and PCs may be slightly misleading. In the same way that Hx and help/hinder, as well as seduce/manipulate and a few others, work differently for PC vs. NPC use, we could probably design an even better version if we weren't trying to make them similar to each other. But that's a whole other topic!
-
This game is so simple compared to most other options out there, that this isn't a "complicated" thing to do. And if it gets in the way, it's really easy to just not do it. You'll know really quick I think.