Seizing A Life By Force

I don't think it lames the game to not always make a hard move.

Killing an NPC when they get shot is not a hard move, though -- it's closer to a principle.

Edit: Ignore me.

Quote from: octoscott on September 19, 2010, 04:55:55 AM

Quote from: skinnyghost on September 17, 2010, 03:16:47 PM

Let's say I have a shotgun.  Let's say some random NPC doesn't.  He has no armor, either.  I chase him into a shed, wanting to take him hostage.  Guns are out, there've been some shots fired, we're definitely out of Go Aggro territory and into Seize by Force territory.

Say I want to Seize this sucker.  I don't want to kill him, though.  What's the deal?  I mean, there's no "deal little harm" option.  I can take the "Take definite hold" option and the "Frighten or Dismay or Whatever" option but he's still taken 3 harm, BLAM!, and is pretty much toast.

How, in the midst of a battle, can I get my hands on this slippery little jerk?

Great discussion and I love how may different views there are of this. Must be a lot of subtly different MC styles out there.

Apocalypse world lets you do just about anything you'd conceivably do in this situation "Make apocalypse world seem real"

1) Threaten him... come with me quietly or I'll blow your head off! Could be going aggro, you have a moment alone in the shed as opposed to out in open battle, or could be manipulating with the leverage being violence (in which case you don't have to pull the trigger) Just here the victim has the choice in the matter.
2) Literally go up and grab him violently. I think this is Seizing by Force with your hands. You hit and take the definite hold option with additional harm if you want to rough him up some, he may hit you back but you've already got him unarmed as you said so worst thing he's going to lay a hand on you. Victim has no choice in this one, you're taking him.
3) Beat the crap out of him and take what's left. This would be again Seizing by force (or going aggro if the MC rules he's not defending himself) and just injure him to the point of non-resistance. Could do this with your hands or gun stock, but I'd allow a non-immediately-lethal shotgun injury, say to the hand or foot or whatever (Anyone see the first few minutes of robocop?) But if you blow that roll you're probably gonna kill him. (MC Move : Trade harm)
4) Hell, no move necessary here. You have a shotgun, guy's in a shed with no armor and no weapon to speak of... fuck him he's grabbed and at your mercy, who's this NPC to me? Crosshairs baby.
5) Something else: Yeah there's a ton of good ways to resolve the situation, none of them are wrong I think, just what fits the flavor of your game and the situation. Just tell the MC what you DO and she'll figure out what that means mechanically, yes?

6) Threaten him non-lethally: Just aim the shotgun at his knees and tell him to come peacefully, or you'll drag him back. If he sucks it up (refuses or resists) you blow his kneecaps out.

7) Put the gun away and sieze by force: Just because you seize by force doesn't mean you have to deal harm. Roll to grab him. He's probably going to punch you in the face when you're coming, so be prepared to pick "You suffer little harm", and make sure you take "You  take definitive hold of it" so he doesn't wring free in 10 minutes.

8) Holler for your Brainer That'll calm the dude right down.

-JC

Quote from: octoscott on September 19, 2010, 04:55:55 AM

Quote from: skinnyghost on September 17, 2010, 03:16:47 PM

Let's say I have a shotgun.  Let's say some random NPC doesn't.  He has no armor, either.  I chase him into a shed, wanting to take him hostage.  Guns are out, there've been some shots fired, we're definitely out of Go Aggro territory and into Seize by Force territory.

Say I want to Seize this sucker.  I don't want to kill him, though.  What's the deal?  I mean, there's no "deal little harm" option.  I can take the "Take definite hold" option and the "Frighten or Dismay or Whatever" option but he's still taken 3 harm, BLAM!, and is pretty much toast.

How, in the midst of a battle, can I get my hands on this slippery little jerk?

Great discussion and I love how may different views there are of this. Must be a lot of subtly different MC styles out there.

Apocalypse world lets you do just about anything you'd conceivably do in this situation "Make apocalypse world seem real"

1) Threaten him... come with me quietly or I'll blow your head off! Could be going aggro, you have a moment alone in the shed as opposed to out in open battle, or could be manipulating with the leverage being violence (in which case you don't have to pull the trigger) Just here the victim has the choice in the matter.
2) Literally go up and grab him violently. I think this is Seizing by Force with your hands. You hit and take the definite hold option with additional harm if you want to rough him up some, he may hit you back but you've already got him unarmed as you said so worst thing he's going to lay a hand on you. Victim has no choice in this one, you're taking him.
3) Beat the crap out of him and take what's left. This would be again Seizing by force (or going aggro if the MC rules he's not defending himself) and just injure him to the point of non-resistance. Could do this with your hands or gun stock, but I'd allow a non-immediately-lethal shotgun injury, say to the hand or foot or whatever (Anyone see the first few minutes of robocop?) But if you blow that roll you're probably gonna kill him. (MC Move : Trade harm)
4) Hell, no move necessary here. You have a shotgun, guy's in a shed with no armor and no weapon to speak of... fuck him he's grabbed and at your mercy, who's this NPC to me? Crosshairs baby.
5) Something else: Yeah there's a ton of good ways to resolve the situation, none of them are wrong I think, just what fits the flavor of your game and the situation. Just tell the MC what you DO and she'll figure out what that means mechanically, yes?

6) Threaten him non-lethally: Just aim the shotgun at his knees and tell him to come peacefully, or you'll drag him back. If he sucks it up (refuses or resists) you blow his kneecaps out.

7) Put the gun away and sieze by force: Just because you seize by force doesn't mean you have to deal harm. Roll to grab him. He's probably going to punch you in the face when you're coming, so be prepared to pick "You suffer little harm", and make sure you take "You  take definitive hold of it" so he doesn't wring free in 10 minutes.

Ooops, my 7) is octoscott's 2). Sorry, should have read more carefully.

Also, I'm not so sure about 4). Remember, "If you do it, do it". Of course, if the guy gets up and leaves peacefully with you as soon as he sees you, and you don't actually go aggro, there's no need to roll.

8) Holler for your Brainer That'll calm the dude right down.

I think this is pretty much the best option for any problem, ever.

I also propose a variant version of number 6: Threaten him non-lethally: Point the shotgun at him, yell a lot, look really pissed, make him really believe you'll blow the fucker's face off if he doesn't come with you.  He doesn't have to know he's much more important to you alive.  You're not going aggro; you're manipulating.

Quote from: Jim Crocker on September 21, 2010, 12:58:57 AM

8) Holler for your Brainer That'll calm the dude right down.

I think this is pretty much the best option for any problem, ever.

I also propose a variant version of number 6: Threaten him non-lethally: Point the shotgun at him, yell a lot, look really pissed, make him really believe you'll blow the fucker's face off if he doesn't come with you.  He doesn't have to know he's much more important to you alive.  You're not going aggro; you're manipulating.

Right - it's been stated (either in the rules or on the boards here somewhere) that Going Aggro without actually intending on carrying through is faking it and, thus, manipulating.  The stick, in that instance, is that you're threatening to go through with it.  I guess when they ask for concrete assurances, you could put the gun away. 

What, no? If you're threatening to shoot him, but actually don't intend to do it no matter what, concrete assurance would be something to show that hell yes, you're so seriously gonna shoot him. Fire a warning shot above his head (hard with a shotgun maybe?) or do that silly "remove the safety" thing they do in movies to show that they're serious.

OR are we talking about the situation that yes, you are actually going to shoot him, you wouldn't mind that, but you're giving him one chance and promising him that you won't shoot if he comes peacefully? In that case, putting away the gun is assurance. But that's another situation; one in which you're open to killing him, and he knows that, and he doesn't believe you when you say he won't be harmed if he comes with you.

In my interpretation, shooting in the air is part of the manipulation, just like offering future payment would be (or flirting would be for seduction).  It's when "If you do X for me, I will/won't do Y." is stated, implicltly or explicitly.  The 7-9 concrete assurance would be putting my gun away in a show of faith that I won't kill you, or offering up some collateral in a show of faith that I will pay you. 

I'm fuzzy on what the show of faith would be for seduction.  Going to second base?

A friend of mine ran a game where one of the PCs tried to frighten someone into silence by feigning a threat of violence by knife. His assurance was cutting himself, grinning madly.

I don't know, it's tricky. What was his promise? Not to hurt her? Did he promise to hurt her if she blew her cover? No, he didn't actually want to do that.

umm

Joe and Arvid, in my opinion, both of you seem a little confused on how Seduction and Manipulation work in the game.
Both of them are trying to get someone to do something you want via some kind of leverage.  It's seduction when the leverage is sex.
The leverage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the promise.

So you threaten a dude with a knife, or offer the dude sex, in order to get him to, I dunno, try to get him to back you with his gang when you try to take over the holding.  As it says in the book, on a hit, they ask you for a promise.  The thing they want in return doesn't necessarily (and probably usually shouldn't, in my opinion) have anything to do with the leverage.  So this dude, he says, if I help you take over the holding, I want all of your next crop of deathweed.

The (probably implied) offer of sex, if you're seducing, or the threatening with the knife... that was just the shit you used to get him to listen to you in the first place.

That's how I see seduction and manipulation, anyway.  I may very well be totally wrong.

It doesn't make any sense to me that the leverage in the manipulation/seduction is disconnected from the promise/assurance of the outcome.  It turns a quid pro quo situation into a quid that sets the stage for some other thing promised/assured thing for quo that just muddies the fiction.  That would be like going aggro on someone by holding a knife at their throat and screaming that you're going to kill them, then when they choose to suck it up, go over to their house and burn it down.

PC: "You gotta let us go, Ship.  If they keep us here, they're going to torture us.  they're going to cut and cut until one of us can't hold it any more, and then someone will spill that it was your brother who showed us where the loot was stashed.  Let us slip out that door there and you're brother will be safe."

Ship: "Fine.  But I'm coming with you."

PC: "...wouldn't have it any other way."

leverage and promise, different things.  Make sense?

AW, p. 198:

"The promise the NPC asks for should directly address the leverage the player's character is using."

Seems pretty clear to me.

*grin* hah, ooops.  I guess that makes a lot of sense most of the time.  There are going to be some times I'm going to want to make it a little more complicated.

So, the example I gave above.  Pared down, The leverage is: If you let us go, your brother will be safe.
Promise:  Go and take me with you as well.  Would this be a form of fuckery then?  give them what they want, but with complications?  Is this offering them a worse outcome, so maybe a 7-9 rather than for a 10+?

Anyway.

AW, p. 198:

"The promise the NPC asks for should directly address the leverage the player's character is using."

Seems pretty clear to me.

Apparently I was wrong, but I'm going on record as saying "I don't think I like this.  It seems boring."

I mean, really...
"Do this for me or I'll cut you!"  "Please don't cut me!"  "Okay."  Yawn.

"Heeey, check out my boobs; don't you want to do this for me?"  "If you have sex with me."  "Okay."  Again, yawn.

The first one basically identical to going aggro except that you're bluffing.  The second one is just... blah, to me.  Especially if I'm seducing someone just because I want to have sex with them.  Then it's even worse.  "You should have sex with me, cuz I'm hot!"  "Yeah, you are!  Promise to have sex with me!"  "Ummm, yeah, that's what I just said."

If the promise requested is directly related to the leverage, I dunno, it seems like it's only interesting when the leverage is unusual or interesting.  Like, if you've got hostages, or secret bombs. or blackmail info or whatnot, then I'm all over it...

I dunno, I'm probably just looking at it the wrong way. That seems to happen to me a lot with this game.