I've tried to search for previous thread on the topic, but didn't find any. If there is one, sorry, just point me to it.

So, my beloved skinner upgraded her Manipulation (naturally) and she's got Hot+3 (naturally) and she just loves to manipulate and seduce people around her (naturally).

She is stacking allies like crazy cat-woman collects her pussies. (Naturally - her statistical chances of rolling 12+ are over 25%) That involves random NPCs as well as important/influential NPCs.

Now... this HAS to be wrong. Allies do not seem to be something one should be able to get by easily. The fact that Battlebabe does have "take an ally" - meaning ONE ally - as a whole one advancement option shows the relative intended scarcity of allies. And yet, my skinner's got... I don't even know :D ...about five? Just because she didn't even bother to take some she could and as a metagame decission passed on an opportunity to take about two other very powerful/influential NPCs as allies for game logic/drama purposes.


Now... I do not really need help managing this, I'm pretty fine juggling her allies around as needed and if it went off hand I can just agree with the player on how to handle it. But I have to wonder, just out of curiosity... this had to came up before, right? I mean - 25% chances to ally somebody - with some randomness on dice, for some players it will mean about 1/3 rolls or even more (at least for some period of time) ending with turning NPC into an ally. Some of these can be very powerful (warlords, gang leaders, hardholders...) - were there any in-system solutions / limitations found or suggested? (from AW logic alone or as house rules). Or is this how things are supposed to work (in that case - what about that battlebabe advancement)? Or is this because our game is now over 20 sessions long and it goes on with pretty much the same set of characters which started it (and AW was not built for such long-lasting campaigns with the same characters)?

Seize by Force is when both sides are able to hurt each other and are willing to get hurt in return for accomplishing their goals. The 2e rule for SbF basically makes this "You can get what you want, but it'll hurt."

However, most characters aren't going to want to do this. Ideally you want to be in a position where you can hurt your enemy without them hurting you - most likely you'll then be Going Aggro or Suckering Someone. In that case you'll often need to do something else to get into that position first. But maybe if you don't have time, have a better Hard then the stats that you might need to use to make the move(s) that will get you into that position, or you're just badass enough to say it "Fuck it", you'll Seize by Force and deal with the consequences.

Also keep in mind that taking Harm is a consequence, and the Harm roll can be called for even if you take 0 Harm. A small gang with shotguns would deal 4 Harm (minus whatever armor you have) unless you're someone like the Gunlugger or Faceless. And with the fortification, the fact that you held it doesn't mean everything's over - now you're in the position the people who ran the oil refinery in Mad Max 2 were in where a dangerous enemy put them under siege. How long can you keep them at bay, and will it be worth whatever they do to you or the place in the processes?

I'm currently reading through the second edition of Apocalypse World and I was very surprised by the changes made to Seize by force.

In the current edition, even if you miss, you still have one hold and with that you can take the option to take undeniable control of something. This makes me worried for two reasons.

First, taking control of something is typically the main intent of Seize by Force, so actually with this move you are guaranteed to reach your intent whenever you physically fight for something. This essentially defies the purpose of rolling dice and make things predictable.

Second, since harm in AW is quite predictable, Seize by Force seems to rob physical conflict of any drama. If I want to keep Demmer's gang out of our holding, I can simply name this as my intent and seeing that my armour allows me to withstand damage of their shotguns, I can essentially skip the fight, because I know that I will keep the holding secure and my roll will at most change the harm taken by one.

Am I wrong? Does it play out better in practice? At this point, I'm inclined to houserule this move so that we either:
- remove this one hold from a failed roll of Seize by force;
- not allow you to spend that hold to take control of the object;
- or upgrade one of the options from reducing harm by one to actually denying any harm at all.


Would things break? Do I miss something subtle? Could you explain the rationale behind the change to me?

Hey there !
I'm a little late, but just so you know, I've made a french translation of your playbook.
Not sure yet how and when I will share it with the french community, but I provided the link to this thread to give you credit for your work.