Hot Hot PC on PC Action!

So, recently in one of my games several of the PC's have decided to throw caution to the wind and have begun outright attacking each other when they feel threatened. I, as any good MC should, can't help but feel a bit of glee as these trad gamers break out of their shells and experiment a little.

But that isn't why I'm posting. My question is this. If PC #1 attacks PC#2 on normal terrain without any special circumstance. Is PC #1 Going Aggro (or seizing by force is the other is aware and armed against the attack) and PC #2 interfering? Or is PC #2 Acting Under Fire and PC #1 interfering? Or if they've both agreed to attack one another am I simple exchanging harm for harm as one of my moves?

In the book it gives an example a pc pulling a gun on another pc and the pc being attacked acts under fire to avoid while the attacker interferes. But I wonder if this is the only way it should be done or not.

In the book it gives an example a pc pulling a gun on another pc and the pc being attacked acts under fire to avoid while the attacker interferes. But I wonder if this is the only way it should be done or not.

I don't think there's any single way to resolve this question, I think you always have to make some MC decisions based on the current fiction and what the players say they are doing.

Examples:

1)

Player 1: "I'm drawing my gun..."

Player 2: "And *I* am getting the fuck out of here!"

MC: "Player 1, you doing anything to stop that?"

Player 1: "Shit yeah, I'm unloading on her!"

That would be Player 2 acting under fire to get out of there and Player 1 interfering with their shooting.


2)

Player 1: "I'm pulling my gun and blasting her, 'Die bitch!"

MC: "Player 2, you doing anything to stop that?"

Player 2: "Yeah, I'm bobbing and weaving and diving for cover!"

That would be Player 1 going aggro and Player 2 interfering with their evasions.


3)

Player 1: "I'm shooting from my hip, blasting her before she can react!"

Player 2: "I said I was under coming here suspicious of your motives and my Read a Sitch proved me right, I'm ducking!"

That would be Player 1 acting under fire to get the shot off, maybe even with AP, and Player 2 interfering with, perhaps, a +1 from a read a sitch.  If Player 2 hadn't read the sitch, they might not even get a chance to interfere here!


4)

Player 1: "Fuck it, I'm shooting her."

Player 2: "And I'm shooting back!"

MC: Trade harm for harm! (OUCH!)


5)

Player 1: "Fuck it, I'm shooting her, you're going to die crying like the coward bitch you are!"

Player 2: "And I'm taking you down with me, baby!  BLAM!  BLAM!"

I'd say this is Player 1 seizing by force, trying to seize the other player's reputation perhaps, with Player 2 fighting back directly as interfering.


Does that help?

I'll see if I can think up any stranger combinations...

(See you Sunday!)

It definately helps! My biggest mistake in the session (which of course I see now in retrospect and not at the table) was not asking the victim of the attack what their response would be until I had already decided what move was in play. I will definitely be more scrutinizing in the future and take all the examples here into consideration.

As always Chroma, you are my everything. :P

What's the difference between the last 2 examples?

What's the difference between the last 2 examples?

In the first one, the two PCs are just shooting at each other, there's nothing more to it.

In the second, there's the implication (which a question or two from the MC could certainly clear up) that Player 1 is shooting with the intent to shame or socially damage Player 2's character in addition to killing them.

That's why it's always so important to really understand and pay attention to the concept of "to do it, do it"... sometimes it's obvious, but sometimes there's nuance... which can really change which moves are coming into play.