seizing by force and range issues, making your point by killing.

Last game, John's hardholder Uncle has had enough of his rioting savage gang and wants to shotgun them into submission. I call it seizing control by force.

The thing is, he has a shotgun, and they're mostly armed with machetes and knives.

I'm wondering if it's reasonable to say that they do 0-harm since they're effectively out of range.

We were both thinking it was a little weird afterward that he was covered in wounds (going up against a medium gang) when the fiction had him initially up on the hood of the ambulance yelling. The result made it feel a bit more like that one TV game where you say, "okay, you won, let's figure out how you won."

Oh, the other thing related to that would be going aggro by killing someone. Like, I want all these assholes to know I mean business, and I'm doing it by killing this particular asshole. Like, "I'll keep killing you fuckers until you do what I say."  How have people handled that in game? It's another way we might have handled what he was doing.

If it were me that situation would have been going aggro instead of seize by force. He's trying to get them to do what he wants (listen to him) and shooting hasn't started yet, so going aggro.

I also talked to John a bit last night about it and it sounded like just a matter of the fiction flowing around the roll. Like after the roll being like, "Okay, so Jackabacka and Rufe are staring at you all white-eyed and you don't even see Kray come up around the side. He grabs your leg and starts stabbing the fuck out of you and you drop to the hood splattering blood all over the windshield. You don't even look and just swing the shotgun around and pull the trigger and there's this wet sound and you hear the hyenas shouting. They stand, like, staring at you for a second and then one of them comes over and helps you down off the hood," and I was like would that have worked for him and he said yeah. Like maybe it was a matter of flowing smoothly from roll to results or something.

Going aggro would probably have worked better than seizing by force, yes: if they're out of range, they aren't effectively fighting back, right? And on a 7-9, you can have them back down but not really submit.

Personally, I'd be thinking about a string of moves, starting with reading a situation or a person (you can read a gang like a person, I bet).

But 0-harm is reasonable, sure, when it comes to that.

Oh, the other thing related to that would be going aggro by killing someone. Like, I want all these assholes to know I mean business, and I'm doing it by killing this particular asshole. Like, "I'll keep killing you fuckers until you do what I say."  How have people handled that in game? It's another way we might have handled what he was doing.

Like, pack alpha on a 7-9?

Going aggro would probably have worked better than seizing by force, yes: if they're out of range, they aren't effectively fighting back, right? And on a 7-9, you can have them back down but not really submit.

I'm picturing, in hindsight, that it would have worked better. "I shoot them, which means I'm going aggro on everyone who lives."

Weird that i'm typing this while listening to Vx and Clyde. It makes me expect that Vincent is right there waiting for me to type this so he can respond.