Sieze by force, again

Ok, so I understand that sieze by force is not supposed to be the catch-all combat move, despite what the book says, (Siezing their meat, p 157) but rather a move to sieze and/or hold an object or a position. Right?

So, a character that just had had enough of Toyota and his crossbike cronies and decides to wipe them out does not necessarily go in with Sieze by force, but a combination of Sieze by force, Acting under fire and Go aggro and just dealing harm according to fiction. Right?

The problem being that to inflict terrible harm or dismay, impress and frighten, you need to sieze by force, which makes it the most sensible move for that character, regardless. Right?

Tell me if I'm right so far.


So, maybe the move should read like this:

Sieze by force
When you try to seize something by force, or to secure your hold on something, roll+hard. On a hit, your opposition yields it to you, or they persist. If they persist, the MC chooses 2 on a 7-9 and 3 on a 10+.
• you advance / they are pushed back
• they suffer terrible harm
• they inflict little harm
• they are impressed, dismayed or frightened

It is more like going aggro in that you state "I want this", and your opposition has to choice of letting you have it or make sacrifices to hold it. (Suffer terrible harm, for instance)

If you want to shoot someone, you say "I shoot him." and the MC decides what move it is. It may very well be seize by force. If they have no way to resist, the MC may just make a harm move. If it's an NPC and they're in the crosshairs, it may not be a move at all. They may just be dead.

If you want to shoot someone, you say "I shoot him." and the MC decides what move it is. It may very well be seize by force. If they have no way to resist, the MC may just make a harm move. If it's an NPC and they're in the crosshairs, it may not be a move at all. They may just be dead.

Yes, I understand that. Alright, let me rephrase:

Isn't it a little weird that sieze by force is the only move that can inflict extra harm or terror upon your opponent?

That means, siezing one of the motorcycles (if you can't sieze lives with the move, that is) of Toyotas gang is a more efficient way of killing them off than just, you know, shooting them for Acting under fire or Deal harm as established.

It would make more sense if the move said "This is what people have to sacrifice to deny you", like Go aggro.

I can see the Gunlugger move in on the bike, bullets flying, and Toyota and his gang are the ones forced to a choice:
- Fall back and let the gunlugger have it,
- Take heavy losses (suffer terrible harm)
- Stay in cover (inflict little harm)
- Stay but seriously question their choice (impress, dismay, frighten).
That makes more sense to me.

What are your thoughts on how this would affect the game? Hell, maybe it's even been playtested, what do I know?

(I changed the original post to clarify)

Arvid, that character can seize by force to fuck up Toyota's gang, sure. Or use a combo of moves, or go to the optional battle moves, or as MC you can use the custom move you've written. All fine.

"Fuck this. I'm going to break Toyota's gang. I go in guns blazing" is a way to say "I seize Toyota's gang by force."

Arvid, that character can seize by force to fuck up Toyota's gang, sure. Or use a combo of moves, or go to the optional battle moves, or as MC you can use the custom move you've written. All fine.

"Fuck this. I'm going to break Toyota's gang. I go in guns blazing" is a way to say "I seize Toyota's gang by force."

Okay! So it's totally legit to sieze someones or some peoples lives with Sieze by force?  I've must've misunderstood.

Of course it is.

It's also totally legit to secure your own hold on your own life, if that's what's going on.

The prob is when people think that by declaring "I seize his life by force" they're setting fucking stakes. If you're clear that this isn't a fucking stakes-setting game, and that there are, what, 6 ways to kill someone, or 8, or however many, and that you don't roll to seize by force when what's really going on is that you're going aggro, or providing covering fire, or offering the MC a golden opportunity, then you're fine.

When what you want to do is impress, frighten, or dismay your enemy, of COURSE you go in guns blazing.

Arvid, It really helped me when I started playing (MCing) to always reference the fiction first, choosing the move that seems appropriate, rather than trying to fit the fiction to a move you want to do.

'what do you do?' is a very important question, it highlights the game's dependence on the players telling the story first. The moves will follow from this. There are infinate examples of 'best fit (or not) moves to any given fictional situation, and as Vx says, they are all fine.

To do it, do it. Moves snowball from the fiction, not the other way around.

Alright, awesome!

I edited my post a smitch. I'm sure we're still good!

I'm glad to see it clarified that you can just straight-up seize a person or gang by force, which is how we've been doing it in the campaigns I've been playing in.

Incidentally, dare I ask what it means to pick the "take definite hold" option when straight-up seizing a person or gang? I'm going to guess in practice it's a little more like Arvid's idea of advancing/pushing them back, and that it might give you a situation where you can deny them escape, or deny them the ability to attack another target, or deny them the ability to fight back against the seizing PC (like allowing the PC to go aggro next move), or whatever.

It might mean any of those, but the most important thing is: if it's not clear what it means, don't choose it.

It might mean any of those, but the most important thing is: if it's not clear what it means, don't choose it.

Very true; I generally don't (which makes for relatively easy decisions as to what options to pick). I did just expand Daryl the Muscle's seize by force, though, so I'm likely to end up getting the option for free at some point.

This seems to be the violence -> Move breakdown I've seen happen:

1) Are they fighting back?  - Seize by Force
2) Do you have the drop on them?
   a) Do you want them to do something (or not do something) OR you'll fuck them up?  Going Aggro
   b) Do you want them to just die? MC decides: Going Aggro if it's a pain, straight Harm if they're giving it to you.
   c) Do you got the drop on them, but it's a hassle for other reasons?  Act Under Fire

There's also weird cases sometimes where people might have guns on each other and the MC just says, "Trade Harm for Harm!" and ouchies all around.

The big advantage to NOT doing Seize by Force is that you're probably not risking getting Harmed in return.  Since most NPCs are pretty fucked up by 2 Harm and dead by 3, you can put them down easily.

For PCs, even if 2 Harm doesn't seriously fuck them up, it puts them in a place where the MC can start asking for Acting Under Fire for anything:

"I'm going to shoot him!"
"Act Under Fire to get your gun out the holster."
"What?"
"Hey, sucking chest wound and your fingers are going all numb.  Or you can lay down under cover and just focus on breathing.  That seems really good right now."

Chris

Chris, your flowchart mostly agrees with my experiences as well, but I was a little confused about what you meant by this.

   c) Do you got the drop on them, but it's a hassle for other reasons?  Act Under Fire

Could you give an example of such a situation?

Could you give an example of such a situation?

I want to shoot him with my sniper rifle and not give away my position...

I think that would be a good example.