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.

As a Keeper I am wary as it could be used to prevent a crime at the start of the mission, thus massively short circuiting your session.

I can't really see what you mean here. Yes, it allows the hunters to jump back in time to earlier in the monster's career, but you will still need to do everything to investigate and defeat it.

In fact, I quite like the idea of doing all the investigation in the "present" and then jumping back in time to solve the problem before it happens (and thus save more people!)