In the book it gives an example a pc pulling a gun on another pc and the pc being attacked acts under fire to avoid while the attacker interferes. But I wonder if this is the only way it should be done or not.

I don't think there's any single way to resolve this question, I think you always have to make some MC decisions based on the current fiction and what the players say they are doing.

Examples:

1)

Player 1: "I'm drawing my gun..."

Player 2: "And *I* am getting the fuck out of here!"

MC: "Player 1, you doing anything to stop that?"

Player 1: "Shit yeah, I'm unloading on her!"

That would be Player 2 acting under fire to get out of there and Player 1 interfering with their shooting.


2)

Player 1: "I'm pulling my gun and blasting her, 'Die bitch!"

MC: "Player 2, you doing anything to stop that?"

Player 2: "Yeah, I'm bobbing and weaving and diving for cover!"

That would be Player 1 going aggro and Player 2 interfering with their evasions.


3)

Player 1: "I'm shooting from my hip, blasting her before she can react!"

Player 2: "I said I was under coming here suspicious of your motives and my Read a Sitch proved me right, I'm ducking!"

That would be Player 1 acting under fire to get the shot off, maybe even with AP, and Player 2 interfering with, perhaps, a +1 from a read a sitch.  If Player 2 hadn't read the sitch, they might not even get a chance to interfere here!


4)

Player 1: "Fuck it, I'm shooting her."

Player 2: "And I'm shooting back!"

MC: Trade harm for harm! (OUCH!)


5)

Player 1: "Fuck it, I'm shooting her, you're going to die crying like the coward bitch you are!"

Player 2: "And I'm taking you down with me, baby!  BLAM!  BLAM!"

I'd say this is Player 1 seizing by force, trying to seize the other player's reputation perhaps, with Player 2 fighting back directly as interfering.


Does that help?

I'll see if I can think up any stranger combinations...

(See you Sunday!)

Honestly, since "The Faith" is make-believe (based somewhat on reality), the only way to find the truth of the matter is to actually play it out...  a Dog needs to decide this.

...and I think it could make an AWESOME town!

Really a "when a player announces an action, which of these moves do I call it?" question, about the various modes of force/coercion (Go Aggro, Seize By Force, Seduce/Manipulate).

While there is some debate about some minor points, the needlessly complex AW diagram may help you in flowchart form!

I am fine with this and am allowing new fronts to appear that exist solely within the Hardholder's hold.

"Home front" doesn't mean "all the stuff at 'home'"... it means "threats without a fundamental scarcity/dark future"...  so you should feel free to have threats within and outside!

The holding could be brimming with threats...  the the Fear of the citizens (Brutes: Family),  the Hardholder's gang's Ambition (Brutes: Hunting Pack) clashing with the NPC "doctor"'s Ambition (Grotesque: Pain Addict), so say nothing of people always slaking their Thirst at the local watering hole (Landscape: Maze)... and the woman who supplies the booze and drugs (Warlord: Collector)... and each of these can tie into a Front with Threats that are external as well...

To say nothing of all the various Afflictions that can be used in a holding!

Thanks for writing and posting that Drew!

Was a helluva session... I'm honestly surprised all the active PCs survived!  The transformations of some of the characters have been amazing.

Wonder what that light at the end of the tunnel is...

Thanks for all the great game play to the rest of the players as well.

Love and kisses, your MC!

Question 2: For operator's gigs, some of the gigs seem kind of ambiguous to me. For example what would Enforcement and Campanionship include? I see enforcement like racketeering and companionship as being a mooch off of someone with barter to spare and wants someone pretty to hang off their arm. But do you see these as having more applications? I'd like to spice them up a little in my games if possible.

Generally, I see gigs as doing something for/with someone else, or between other parties; they're jobs that, usually, someone is paying you to do.

So, "enforcement" could be going around to various satellite communities and making sure they're paying their tribute to the local warlord, or acting as an inquisitor for a cult leader ensuring the "purity" of their followers, or being the eyes-and-ears off a gang leader making sure the rest of the gang are "following the rules"... heck, the Operator and their crew might be local "law enforcement"...

And companionship could be the literate Operation reading Golden Age stories to the scary, blind Hardholder once a week, or acting as a nursing crew for a local healer, or riding along with the caravans making sure the drovers don't get to squirrelly out in the wastelands... and, certainly, it can be "arm candy" as well... an Operator with a crew of "lookers" whose presence livens up any gathering.

Lots of possibilities!

Hope you enjoyed reading this, because we enjoyed the hell out of playing it!

INDEED!

Thanks for writing that Dave and thanks for posting it Hankle!

Gotta say, it's always great to "play to find out"... we were jokingly calling this installment "Friends and Lovers" through most of the first part of the session as it was almost all takey and relationship stuff... and then, those relationships caused all hell to break loose!  So unexpected, surprising and cool!

Thanks for all being such entertaining and creative players!

So, how do you guys play it?  "Trade harm for harm" is just like two "Inflict harm" moves, that happen to apply to people on opposite sides of the fight?  Is there any reason that the harm exchanged should be of the same amount?

That's a, perfectly reasonable, but wrong reading of "Trade harm for harm", it's not a numerically equal thing, but an equal "action" thing:

PC1: "I'm slashing you with my knife... 2-harm"

PC2: "And I lets loose with my shotgun at you point blank... 3-harm"

It's dealing your harm (as established) as they deal their harm (as established); like just getting into a fist fight with someone, without any seizing or threats in play.  It's just "plain" fighting someone with them fighting back.

What does "as established" mean, where it's listed in the MC moves?

That just means the end value of harm inflicted after starting harm value of weapon/attack has modified by any armour, moves, and/or gang size in play.  Think of it as "actual/final harm value inflicted".

Does that make it clearer?