Thank you for your answer.

But given this, what is the difference between a player, let's say a Keep Liege, who has checked "you have the right to impose law...", and has the choice to fight/complain/accept when this right is not respected, and a Keep Liege who simply thinks that his status allows him to impose law and fight/complain/accept when it is not respected ?

Thank you for your answer.

They're in a rough spot because they have to decide where to draw the line on what's acceptable and what isn't....

My problem is that if you give them the exact sin list, they actually don't have to draw the line anymore, it is already drawn for them.

Hi,

I'm wondering something about the sins in DITV : there is an exact list of eight sins in the Creating Towns chapter, which are the doors to demonic attacks.
Do the Dogs know about this exact list, of have they to figure out by themselves ?

The main difference with Visions of Death is that nobody knows when the gang leader will die during the battle, which will be played as normal. You can add that Weird stat is rarely high for PCs going into battle, that this move is way more limited than the versatility of Indomitable. And in term of fiction, having a NPC leader die during battle and having a NPC leader being killed by a PC leader is very different.

You can also compare with the Oh Yeah ! move of the faceless, which on a 10+, same situation, will only allow the player to reach the NPC (and smash what is between them), leaving what happens next to open fiction.

With Indomitable 10+, the PC can almost always choose to start the battle by killing who he wants and survive. And even if the gang leader comes with a hostage or some similar levarage, I don't really see how that prevents the player to kill him. At most it will probably only force the player to keep a hold to protect the hostage or to also disable the hostage keeper...

Breaking the opposing gangs might not lead to boring fiction though.

Of course. But having the hardholder know that he can easily break any opposing gang seems leading to boring fiction.

I really understand your difficulties there because I had a lot of similar cases during my games, where multiple moves could be applied and I didn't know which one to choose.

One thing I thought when I read the rules was : almost every action can be resolved by an "act under fire" :
Combat ? "Act under fire, and the fire is you get shot".
Social interaction ? "Act under fire, and the fire is you flound and lose credibility".
Weirdy things ? "Act under fire, and the fire is you get burned by the maelstrom".
Conclusion, you should keep this one when :
- There is really no other move for the player action ;
- The fire is what makes this act special. What I mean is that you can't combat people without them fighting back, so the fire of being fought back when you attack someone is not a legit one for act under fire. In return, you can reload your gun, hidden behind a rusty car, when no people is shooting at you -  but because people is shooting at you, act under fire becomes the move.

In your case, it clearly seems to me that your Battlebabe is seizing an exit by force. If she had said that she mostly focuses on dodging the machete bastard, keeping cool on tracking his angry hits and fleeing at the instant she see's an opening, then act under fire would be good (the act is running out, and the fire is someone want to chop her on her way).

But hey, she said "In run the fucker through my sword" ? It sounds really hard doesn't it ? So she's seizing the exit by force and will probably get a scratch while doing this.

Which is most interesting to you?

-Vincent

That's a good question.
a. Seize by force is interesting, as the PC will be able to make a show of power to inflict massive damage and take less, and I'm a fan of the PC, and I'm looking into crosshairs to my NPCs.
b. Act under fire is interesting, as the PC will be able to demonstrate his capacity to handle such a difficult situation as these, and I'm a fan of the PC.
c. Trade harm fo harm is not immediatly interesting, but it is interesting as it may come like a time-ticking with the message "if you simply stay there and shoot you will be exchanging harm until death, so make a real move if you want to take advantage of this situation", and I have to make the PC life interesting.

But the most interesting ? Hard to tell.

Hi,

For a fight with zombies, I think you need some custom moves.
Some ideas :

"When you open violence at zombies coming at you, roll+(combat stat). On a success or partial success, you inflict your weapon damage (see damage on a Gang -adjust gang size to the zombie horde size- to know the consequences). On 10+, both, on 7-9 choose 1 :
- You inflict terrible damage.
- You block the horde advance."

"When the zombie horde reaches you, roll+(combat stat). On a success, both, on a 7-9 choose 1 :
- You are not harmed.
- You make your way out."

That's only ideas and probably need more work... Maybe it's possible to merge the two moves into one, but I made two different moves to represent the fact that when the hordes has reached you, the problem has switched from "killing them" to "staying alive".

Thank you all for your answers. They are helping a lot.

2) Oh, no - you only make MC moves A) when they look to you to see what happens and B) when they miss a roll, right? So, if they're all making moves, you'd just respond if they fail, and as the fiction dictates, but don't worry about enforcing an arbitrary move-turn order.

But the thing is, everytime a PC make a roll, they look at the MC to know what happens, that's how the game works...

3) What are they seizing? If they are seizing something, sure, you use the move there.

If I ask them, they answer something like "i'm seizing the life of the raiders" or "i'm seizing the moment" (example written in rulebook !)... the kind of magic answer which always works, but seems a little too easy.