Another Go Aggro / Manipulate debate

Or to flip it, the kind of person that gets as far as having their gun pressed in someone's face but then gets cold feet and can't follow through is probably not the sort of person who has +3 hard.

What I'm saying is that if you aren't willing to shoot someone in the face, you don't put your gun in their face with your finger on the trigger. By putting your gun in their face you've demonstrated your fundamental willingness to kill them. If they force your hand, you pull the trigger, and if you didn't want to do that, you shouldn't have put your gun in their face.

I'm saying that deciding to put your gun in someone's face and telling them to do it or else, that is the point of no return. If you don't intend to shoot them, don't do that. No take backs. It's gone too far for you to be all "oh no I didn't mean it I was just kidding I didn't intend to kill them just to make them think I would." That's bullshit.

I'm saying that not bluffing is what it means to roll your hard.

-Vincent

Gotcha.

But, can I say, that I feel like this goes completely against what's already been told about some of these moves. Like, I'm usually pretty good at explaining the moves to new people, and helping people decide which move applies where, but I can't for the life of me figure out how this pegs in to the rest of it.

It makes sense, yes. I 100% understand what you're saying. I just don't see where the moves support it. I can't see why it's bullshit to decide to pull your gun away at the last moment.

I'm not arguing with you or calling you wrong, I'm just explaining my confusion, because I love hearing little bits of enlightenment like this, and it's just not grokking with me.

It makes sense, yes. I 100% understand what you're saying. I just don't see where the moves support it. I can't see why it's bullshit to decide to pull your gun away at the last moment.

Simply put, if you haven't *ALREADY* decided to pull the trigger when you put the gun to someone's head if they don't comply, you're not going aggro; that's why it's "bullshit" to then pull the gun away if they don't comply... you're trying to have your cake (high Hard) and eat it too (avoid the consequences of using a high Hard).  Using Hard means you're willing and able to kill; you're using violence to get what you want.

If you're only using the threat of violence, you're manipulating: Do what I want or I (might) kill you; that defaults to using Hot and allows you to bluff or have a "take back" as it were.

If you're only using the threat of violence, you're manipulating: Do what I want or I (might) kill you; that defaults to using Hot and allows you to bluff or have a "take back" as it were.

I just want to point out that you're very specifically not ready to shoot them. If they force your hand on a Go Aggro they take harm, cuz you're ready, willing and able to shoot them. If they call your bluff, in my view, you better be ready to take harm yourself. Because, you may not be ready to shoot them, but you can be pretty damn sure on a miss that they're going to be ready, willing and able to shoot you.

Yes.

When you're genuinely threatening them with violence, the range of possible outcomes is entirely different from when you aren't. You have to choose whether your threat is genuine before you roll the dice.

-Vincent

Simply put, if you haven't *ALREADY* decided to pull the trigger when you put the gun to someone's head if they don't comply, you're not going aggro

Yes. This is the summary I will use to help my players remember. It requires a different sort of thinking from how actions work in other RPGs. This is not an Intimidate roll followed by a free hit if they fail a saving throw. This is you deciding beforehand, "I will attempt to injure this person if they don't do what I want." The word "threat" is not inaccurate, but it's a little confusing and misdirecting, given how the move functions. Go Aggro isn't so much the threat of violence as the promise of violence.

The way I think abut this is that the characters aren't unemotional, unfeeling mechanical robots. When two different character raise a gun to another's head and makes a threat, those are not physically identical, indistinguishable situations.

Are you actually, fully committed to shooting this guy in the face? If yes and you have hard+2 your eyes are full of cold grim purpose. Everyone has seen you in battle, they've seen how you calmly dispatch your enemies in the heat of battle. They know that look, it's the last look some of your enemies ever saw.

If you're not ready to kill this guy, you're just not in that mood. You're physically more relaxed, your eyes are softer and your gaze isn't quite as fixed. You're trying to put on your grimace of determination, but really it looks more like your smile when you show your favourite guns to some of the hardhold's kids. You like to make out how big and tough you are, but everyone knows there's a human being somewhere inside that body armour.

So people aren't made of stone. You can read a person's commitment and mood from their stance, look, tone of voice and a thousand tell tale signs.

So no, making a threat and making a promise are not the same thing. They're really not the same physical act because there's more to it than raising an arm and speaking some words.

Another way of looking at it is not in terms of a promise, or a threat, but an action that you are going to take unless somebody does something about it.

You aren't promising to shoot this girl, or threatening to beat down that guy: you are going to do it. You are going to do it right up until the point where they react, or don't react, as the move dictates. That's why they can do all those other things on 7-9: because they are reacting to the fact that you are about to shoot them, far more than the fact that you want something from them. The impending violence is the overwhelming fact: and it is already the case when the move is triggered -- the violence comes first, before the move. You are not thinking about maybe hitting them with this baseball bat, or trying to use the baseball bat as social leverage -- you are already swinging it, right at their dumbfuck, tired-of-this-bullshit head.

This is also why the move is so useful in lots of other violent situations that don't really involve any sort of obvious do-this-or-I-shoot manipulation.

That's how I think about it too. It's not "do X or I shoot you!" It's "I'm shooting you because you aren't doing X." Then, if they decide to start doing X, well you stop with the shooting.

That's how I think about it too. It's not "do X or I shoot you!" It's "I'm shooting you because you aren't doing X." Then, if they decide to start doing X, well you stop with the shooting.

Happened as a perfect example in my game today.

An NPC heavy drew a gun on the Hocus and the Chopper said, "I blow her arm off with my Magnum"... hits a 10+ and the heavy decided to back down and keep her arm.

Right on!

-Vincent

The way I think abut this is that the characters aren't unemotional, unfeeling mechanical robots. When two different character raise a gun to another's head and makes a threat, those are not physically identical, indistinguishable situations.

Are you actually, fully committed to shooting this guy in the face? If yes and you have hard+2 your eyes are full of cold grim purpose. Everyone has seen you in battle, they've seen how you calmly dispatch your enemies in the heat of battle. They know that look, it's the last look some of your enemies ever saw.

If you're not ready to kill this guy, you're just not in that mood. You're physically more relaxed, your eyes are softer and your gaze isn't quite as fixed. You're trying to put on your grimace of determination, but really it looks more like your smile when you show your favourite guns to some of the hardhold's kids. You like to make out how big and tough you are, but everyone knows there's a human being somewhere inside that body armour.

So people aren't made of stone. You can read a person's commitment and mood from their stance, look, tone of voice and a thousand tell tale signs.

So no, making a threat and making a promise are not the same thing. They're really not the same physical act because there's more to it than raising an arm and speaking some words.

THIS. I totally imagine manipulating with the threat of violence and going aggro as two very different kind of moves, with a different PC attitude or speech.
Also, in abstract many distinctions sound a little fuzzy, but my advice is to play a few sessions and then generally it becomes way clearer when you do each.

I see it as a particular setting data incorporated in the rules. When you´re threatening people without restraining yourself, a gun on their face, etc., there might come a point when they deny and you simply shoot.
Maybe you´re simply toying with the gun in your hands while you speak to him, so the situation is more about scaring him about the "possibility" of pulling the trigger. And then it´s definitely hot, not hard.

Also, I think the lack of balance between basic moves is great: between manipulate and go aggro, between go aggro and seize by force, etc. They make the choices about how to face opposition more meaningful (violence or diplomacy?).

I just want to chip in a situation where go aggro made sense that isn't "I put my gun in your face and tell you to do x". My gunlugger Doberman was outside the pallisade training this kid Bullet how to shoot with a rifle (she was about eight years old so we figured it was time) when we were surprised by this gang of crazy mask-wearing cannibals stalking the forest edge. They took down Playboy, a guy nearby watching his sheep, and it was obvious they would be all over the two of us in a minute. Doberman draws his magnum and starts shooting into their gang, it's a bit too far to hit anything reliable with that kind of weapon. I roll for go aggro, and what I want them to do is not come closer. I roll a 10+ and they choose to suck it up, meaning they break into a charge out of the woods and Doberman picks two of them off before turning around and rolling for Fuck this shit.

The roll here was done when I had already said "I start shooting" and the point of it was to determine the outcome of that shooting. Because of what I asked of them, most of the 7-9 options wouldn't make much sense since barricading in and backing off calmly was pretty much what I wanted. Giving me something I wanted might have worked – I don't know what it would have been, but our MC is good at coming up with that kind of things. Also note that it was hardly a question of whether they would suck it up or back off, since my harm as established wasn't very much to a bloodthirsty band of lunatics – I didn't have the fire rate or effective range to take out more than one or two of them before they'd be all over me.