Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It's very strictly for you to work out with your MC. We can tell you how we've done it in our games, between ourselves and our MCs, but we can't tell you what you and your MC should decide.
When I'm the MC, unless circumstances lead me to decide something different, my answer is: none of the new improvements are marked, and the player can choose ungiven future improvements if she wants to (because her character's already improved 5 times, obviously).
Why wouldn't this just be an act under fire? With the fire being the NPC's gunfire?
Well, it could be -- I don't really have enough information. A key design idea about Apocalypse World is that the moves are heavily dependent on the fictional detail; that makes bare-bones hypotheticals very difficult to answer. In an actual firefight, tables would be falling, people would be running, innocent bystanders would be dying horribly, and you, the PC, would presumably be DOING something, diving for cover or getting around the opponent's cover or digging in and calling for help or some sort of action that I could translate into acting under fire or whatever. If you just said "I stand there, where I am, and continue to fire?" Well, firstly, I'd be way more likely to call that trading harm for harm, as an MC, but if I were to pick a basic move, I'd probably pick seize by force again, and again ask you what you're actually trying to SEIZE. The other thing is, as above, if I was running the beginning of the gunfight you've already chosen something to seize and so you can't just be like "I stand there and shoot." By the time you're "engaged in a firefight" you, mechanically, have probably already identified a goal and taken steps towards it, and the scene can build around that goal.
I hope that's clearer!
Both PCs can roll to seize by force, if both want to. There's only one exchange of harm, but both players' choices apply to it. In that case, if both take definite hold, it's the same as if neither do.Ah, interesting.
For going aggro, the attacker should roll the move and the defender can roll to interfere, yes.Sorry, I forgot about interfering when I posted. We had a Hocus in the group who had Seeing Souls and liked marking experience, so we know all about interfering. ;-)
Acting under fire is a little bit iffier, since it has the potential to nullify the other player's move outright and you shouldn't let it do that. I use it only when the defender gets the initiative (not a technical term) on the attacker. Like, you go aggro on me, I force your hand and suck it up, I take the harm, and then maybe I can act under fire to get into hand range.I guess this is the part where my lack of system mastery shows. In that instance, would act under fire allow you to make the hand range attack, or do you have to follow that roll up with a separate move like seize by force?
Make sense?