Why is go aggro a basic move?

What would happen if aggro wasn't in the game? How would the game work with just sieze and manipulate?

Why is go aggro an integral part of the game?

What's the difference between going aggro with a gun on a person you would rather not kill, and a person you don't care for at all?


(You don't have to sell the move to me, I think it's genius. But I do want to explore this a little)

Because of the ways that violence works.

It's rarely about the violence itself. Violence is always, always a means. It's not always rational or whatever, but violence always has a motive.

Go aggro is for when you care about what they do; whereas, seize is for when you care what they have. Violence is already on the table.

Well, it means that if they call your bluff you're gonna have to decided how much you don't want them dead.

You also get situations where hot characters are more intimidating than hard characters, and that on a hit of any kind you get what you want without them being able to 'suck it up'. I don't really care for seize as a basic move, but that's already a beaten horse.

Because of the ways that violence works.

It's rarely about the violence itself. Violence is always, always a means. It's not always rational or whatever, but violence always has a motive.

Go aggro is for when you care about what they do; whereas, seize is for when you care what they have. Violence is already on the table.

Well, it means that if they call your bluff you're gonna have to decided how much you don't want them dead.

You also get situations where hot characters are more intimidating than hard characters, and that on a hit of any kind you get what you want without them being able to 'suck it up'. I don't really care for seize as a basic move, but that's already a beaten horse.

Yes, they can't do stuff for you if they're dead...

Wait, about bluffing: We have always played it so, if they force your hand, you have no choice: You have to pull the trigger/lever/whatever. Going aggro is putting yourself and someone else in an irreversible do or die situation...

You can get 'do overs' or not pull the trigger.

Go look at the write up in the rule book, where Vincent explains Go Aggro.

You can get 'do overs' or not pull the trigger.

Go look at the write up in the rule book, where Vincent explains Go Aggro.

Not sure what you mean here. The book explicitly says bluffing counts as manipulation.

Edit: Also "At this point, the player can't decide not to inflict harm, it's gone too far for that." So no "do overs" or deciding not to pull the trigger.

Yeah, I went and reread it.

It's a different example that talks about do-overs.

If you roll it, and they suck it up, they take the harm. No take backs.

To actually address the original topic-
I've noticed in many games that intimidation is a terrible tactic. You announce your presence and intention of aggression to your target. Maybe you are still so overpowering that they choose to cave, but often choosing to intimidate makes you less intimidating, because you've given up the initiative. This move makes intimidation a much stronger option because if they choose not to cave, you still get off the first shot.
So one difference might be that instead of going aggro, you would manipulate with the threat of violence as leverage. When it didn't work, you'd be more likely to lose the fight because the other side would act first. Whereas with going aggro, the side that goes aggro is more likely to win if a fight results.

I made a flowchart for violence in AW.

https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1ETp72rzwzNhfGEb-yKj2buZlrZ3zfQqUnHStoNCDRBQ/edit

^^^
Gives a good description of Seize by force and Going aggro.