The sleeping Gunlugger and the shitty knife.

I'll briefly echo Charles and say, yeah, totally the sack is a different situation than the dudes putting him there. That certainly could call for another moves.

The players should be making tons of moves. No like one per scene, like ten per scene.

The players should be making tons of moves. No like one per scene, like ten per scene.

In this I'd object. I've had sessions with as much as ten moves per player. That's with almost no fighting(hard fighting), given, but still. Characters can do many things without making moves at all. And there're times when character can't make a move because it's not their move.
In short, yes, characters CAN make tons of moves. They don't always have to, though, as well as MC don't have to make them roll for everything.

Sure, but Moves Snowball, y'know?

I aim for 2 or 3 advances per player per session.

Sure, but Moves Snowball, y'know?

I aim for 2 or 3 advances per player per session.

Would you recommend that as a target? It certainly sounds like one that gears you up to make it fast-paced...

It's not something I necessarily do directly or consciously, but it's a useful metric to see who's getting spotlight time and who needs some more love.

Some player's will do everything to advance as hard and as fast a possible, other don't really care at all.

Sure, but Moves Snowball, y'know?

I aim for 2 or 3 advances per player per session.

As a player, I consider it a successful session if I advance once, usually aiming for 4-6 XP ticks per session.

That said, I've had great sessions where I only got 1 xp tick, and others where I got 4 advancements. 

I don't think there is a real status quo (in AW the Status is NOT quo) with respect to advancements, however I agree that it can be a good gauge of how much spotlight each player is getting.

2-3 advances per session, meaning like 3-5 sessions to finalize character?(15 advances is max IIRC). And if we want a campaign with the same characters?

2-3 advances per session, meaning like 3-5 sessions to finalize character?(15 advances is max IIRC). And if we want a campaign with the same characters?

Changing playbooks, new custom improvement options introduced by the MC, retiring and getting a new character... lots of things draw it out... heck, we've had players even ask people to highlight "unused" stats to slow things down at times.

And just because the character is "finalized" don't mean there isn't a whole heapin' helpin' of trouble still out there to be dealt with!

Actual play example: October, the Skinner in my "Red Skies" campaign, has already hit "ungiven future" options by the middle of session three, just because his Hot was highlighted the previous two sessions... and, Betty, the Gunlugger, who is hiding herself and trying to stay out of violent situations, well, she's had a whopping *two* advances in that time, because she had Hard highlighted...  it can so depend on what's going on.

How long are you looking for a "campaign" to be?  I've run two to "significant" conclusions, one went six sessions and the other went thirteen, and both were extremely satisfying to play.

That said, I think this has really drifted off topic... *LAUGH*

Don't forget about reading a situation. Can Fifi read the situation even though she's unconscious? Maybe! Sometimes I can, when I'm sleeping in real life, can't you?

Also, the chart in the harm chapter that lists falling damage and getting hit by a truck clearly allows you to establish 6-harm for a knife in the eye, if you want to.

Hell, the existence of s-harm and psi-harm clearly allow you to invent knife-in-the-eye-harm and say that it's instantly fatal, if you decide that's the best thing to do.

The game's rules can deal with murderous PvP, but you as the MC have to really make a million judgment calls, case by case by case. Better to think about all the different ways you can handle it than to try to arrive at one unified way you should handle it. There is no such!

Thank you, Vincent.

I understand what you say in the last part of your post and the difficulties to generalize. I just needed that last bit of... let's say "confirmation" to defenetively known how far I can go ^^

Oh for god's sake. If this were any other game, wouldn't you just make an on-the-spot ruling?

"Well, okay, so you've spent half a session incapacitating this guy and succeeding, and now you're going to assassinate him? Okay. Nice work. He is dead on the floor."

gunlugger objects

"I guess you can wake up while bleeding out of both sides of your head if you want to, but you're not going to make it to ...a resurrectionist... before you run out of alive. How much of a ruckus do you want to make on your way down?"

If this were any other game, wouldn't you just make an on-the-spot ruling?

I'd search the rules for an answer, then - if I found nothing - look for a temporary solution with the players; afther session ending, I'd search the Internet and/or ask to the author.

Edit: With "look for a temporary solution with the players" I meant I'd make up a solution, checking if the players are OK with that; I didn't mean infinite talking. But the part "searching the Internet and/or asking to the author" is the important one and is why I'm here.

It really is personal call:  Of the MC, but really of the group at the table.

That said, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of "It's your character, but you don't get a say in what happens to them."  It's one of the reasons I like this game: that in essence you always have a say in what happens.  But I do agree that the consequences of moves have to matter. 

I'm going to blather here for a bit, to clarify thoughts.

The framing of this is interesting:  the original setup describe Rouge making a series of moves (and succeeding) against Fifi, but doesn't say anything about Fifi making moves in response.  In a way, I see this as a tacit agreement same way that if the MC's indirect moves go unstopped then they just come to fruition:  if another PC is trying to kill you and you do nothing to stop them, well, you're dead.  your choice.

But if Fifi is making moves trying to get out of this situation, then the only way to get to this position is for a lot of Fifi's moves to have been failures.  And here the MC has chosen to make this situation possible:  in essence, failures must have been interpreted as "You become more vulnerable to Rouge."  In theory, the MC can interpret that failure to do something else, to inject more craziness to the situation from outside, but I can see that Fifi failing shouldn't lead to Rouge failing directly, but is it kosher to introduce situations that not only fuck with Fifi, but indirectly make Rouge's life more difficult?  or is that not being a fan of Rouge?

Moves are one-sided, but it would have to take a serious run of good luck for one PC and ill luck of another PC to get to a position where one is completely at the mercy of another.  And still, I would argue that this is a move:  This is still going aggro.  As I interpret Going aggro, this is just an injection point for the games colour.  You go to bury your knife in to another guys eye:  you can still fuck it up.  Someone comes upon you, something unexpected happens, there is no such thing as a situation that is completely under control and a miss is not the same as failure.  scaling the damage appropriately, yes, but it's still a move.

I dunno man, how is it "going aggro" if there is no alternative to taking the hit? If the things the move says can happen after you do the move don't make sense, the move doesn't make sense.

Moves are one-sided, but it would have to take a serious run of good luck for one PC and ill luck of another PC to get to a position where one is completely at the mercy of another.  And still, I would argue that this is a move:  This is still going aggro.  As I interpret Going aggro, this is just an injection point for the games colour.  You go to bury your knife in to another guys eye:  you can still fuck it up.  Someone comes upon you, something unexpected happens, there is no such thing as a situation that is completely under control and a miss is not the same as failure.  scaling the damage appropriately, yes, but it's still a move.

Shreyas is right. This maybe is a move, but it's not going aggro! It's probably not anything in the book. Maybe, as some have said, it's an MC move - inflict harm as established.

If you desire a player move, with a miss chance, sure! Here's one:

"When you attack someone unsuspecting and defenseless, roll+hard. On a 10+, inflict the full extent of your harm on them +1, and if you could conceivably ignore or circumvent their armor, do so. On a 7-9, inflict your full harm, but choose one:
  - It takes longer than you expected.
  - You flinch or hesitate and deal 1 less harm.
  - You leave a big mess and lots of evidence.

On a miss, choose one:
  - You can't bring yourself to kill them like this, for one reason or another
  - The MC makes a move as usual. Maybe they look dead now but aren't, sure, but it could be whatever.
"

But I'd not call it going aggro.
(This move may not work for everyone's needs! Of course. You could change the 10+ result to "You kill them dead", for sure, or else whatever works for your particular game and group. Or "For NPCs, you kill them dead. For PCs, they mark their harm clock to 11 and anything they do but bleed out and die is acting under fire." is fine, too. Whichever!)

Hrm, you're right, the both of yus.  I was thinking of what happens on a full hit, or on a miss, but not the partial hit.  The list of reactions on the partial hit for Going aggro presupposes the target can make a decision to do something, rather than being utterly and completely helpless.  The closest would be "give them something you think they want" but that still means some thought or consideration.

Antisinecurist, I don't like the first miss option on that move.  one, it tells a character what they are thinking.  two, in my opinion it works almost directly against the rest of the colour of AW: it suggests a basic idea of humanity and honour that isn't part of the setting as a whole.  To be reluctant to kill in Apocalypse world is a thing that you can do, but it's not part of the mechanically enforced and encouraged colour.  Plus, attacking someone unsuspecting and defenseless is already covered by going aggro:  Attacking someone who cannot conceivably react is the real situation here.

But, custom move, whatever floats the boat of people using it.

I guess I am back to "this presents the MC with a golden opportunity" and it really is his call one way or another: either the PC is dead, or he's not.  Just depends on what being a fan of the PC's means in this circumstance.  And if it'll save strife at that point, making it a custom move might make sense, but I'd only bother with that if it's necessary for the players to feel ok with what goes down.