Another Go Aggro vs. Seize by Force question

Okay, the issue I've still got with the game is that sometimes I can't discern when to Go Aggro versus when to Seize. Like, okay, you Seize by Force when it's a fight, right? Guns out on both sides? But aren't there some exceptions to that?

- I run past all the explosions and gunfire to slide under your legs and chop you in the back with a machete. Act Under Fire first, but then what - is that a Seize, or Go Aggro? As in, what if you manipulate circumstances in order to set it up that they can't really defend themselves well? You're such a badass that they have no opportunity of defending against your crazy leg-sliding-machete-attack?

- We're full on fighting, but what I want to do - and let's say there's a countdown clock and everything going - is convince their gang leader to back the fuck off and end the fight. He's gunning at me, but I want to threaten him with violence: "You're outnumbered! Chill the fuck out or we'll shoot you dead!" Is that Seizing by Force (say, their submission?) or Going Aggro? Does being in a fight demand only Seizing, or can you throw in an Aggro if the situation calls for it? And if so, how can you tell which is which, like in the above scenario?

Going aggro is for when you care what your enemy does, and seizing by force is for when you care what your enemy has.

If it's not clear which, then either will work, right? It's the MC's call, but I recommend that you make your call by something like "Keeler, that might be going aggro and it might be seizing by force. Look at the moves' outcomes - which are you going for?"

Doing something under fire so that you can go aggro instead of seizing by force is a good, legit tactic.

You can absolutely go aggro during battle, of course you can. Page 212 says it explicitly.

If I were the MC, and knowing nothing else, my calls would be (1) act under fire then go aggro; (2) go aggro.

Going aggro is for when you care what your enemy does, and seizing by force is for when you care what your enemy has.

Hey, perfect, that explains it completely and thoroughly. The problem I've had with those two moves since the playtest document, there it goes! Awesome, thanks.

Great! Wish I'd thought of it before today so that I could've included it in the book.

There's another, outcome-oriented way to look at it: does a Successful* attempt to do what the PC is doing entail their getting shot at?

If you Seize by Force, you automatically take harm.  So if what you're trying to do is to stop the shooting, then you'd have to be going aggro, right?  Similarly, Seize by Force always harms the opposition.  If what you're doing is *not* shooting, offering to let them all live, you're going aggro. 

Sometimes I have trouble when a PC just wants to punch someone in the face, or just shoot them or stab them in the face.

I'm not sure what to do when the motivations are really simple.  As in, "I want that bastard NPC to die/fall down hard/bleed."

I think that's pretty much Going Aggro where the NPC giving you what you want is getting shot or stabbed. That's how I've done it.

Judd, my interpretation in that case, when what you want them to do (die/bleed) is the same as what you want from them (life/pain), is like so:

If they're not immediately ready to fight back, if there's any way you can catch them off guard, then it's going aggro. It's harder to hurt them in this case, since on a 7-9 they can probably dodge out of the way. Or maybe they suck it up and spit a tooth at you, MC's call. This move is good for "I pop out of cover and ..." kind of moves.

If they're all just you try and throw a punch at me, fucker, then it's seizing by force. You're like, "that's it, I raise my fists and charge at him." It's easier to do harm for certain, but even if it's just a fist fight, more likely that you'll get hurt yourself.

It's a good opportunity to reinforce the "damnit, describe shit for me" thing, where if they want it to be going aggro, they need to dish out the fiction so you all can go, yeah, that's totally what it is.

'm not sure what to do when the motivations are really simple.  As in, "I want that bastard NPC to die/fall down hard/bleed."

Is this a good time for an intermittent reward?  "OK, her head caves in like an over-ripe blor-fruit.  She's dead."  Of course, she might have had friends who require some going aggro or seizing by force.

Like Matt said, if they fight back, it's seize by force.  If they don't fight back but try to save themselves, it's going aggro, with suck it up and give in collapsing into one outcome, harm.  If they can't do anything to save themselves, then the PC inflicts harm without needing to roll.  That happened in our game last night: a PC wanted to shotgun blast an NPC who was completely distracted, so she did.  Boom, dead NPC. 

In strict rules terms, what's happening there is that the player is giving you a golden opportunity to inflict harm as established, and you're taking it.

In strict rules terms, what's happening there is that the player is giving you a golden opportunity to inflict harm as established, and you're taking it.

Wait, what? I make moves on NPC's as well?

That blows my mind!

Well, if we're looking at NPCs through cross-hairs, then I guess that's the golden opportunity to do so.