Seizing A Life By Force

Interesting that there's no way to pull your punches.

Ehh. that's also up to the fiction. If we were in play, and you were going aggro and he sucked it up and you said, "well, shit. I shoot him in the leg", then he's still got three harm, but he's not dead right now, but will die soon, if he doesn't get aid. If you say "I put in his face and pull the trigger", then he's not doing so hot.

There's a lot of leeway in the NPC harm rules and what each harm means.

Right, maybe, but I think that you have to, you know, play by the rules, too.

Don't Golden Rule the game to death.

Right, maybe, but I think that you have to, you know, play by the rules, too.

Don't Golden Rule the game to death.

No, I mean by the rules. Here's the rule:

3-harm: give it 50-50 it’s immediately fatal. Otherwise, terrible
wounds, shock, death soon.

Lotta leeway there, dramatically. This dude could go into shock and last six hours. Or this dude's head explodes right there.

3-harm: give it 50-50 it’s immediately fatal. Otherwise, terrible  wounds, shock, death soon.

Lotta leeway there, dramatically. This dude could go into shock and last six hours. Or this dude's head explodes right there.
[/quote]

Right, for sure, and that follows the idea of player-MC discussion (ala highlighting moves - "i'd really appreciate it if this dude wouldn't up and burst, ok?") set down earlier.

Interesting that there's no way to pull your punches.

No, there's no pulling your punches with a shotgun, but why not just throw that sucker away and incapacitate the dude with a grappling hold? That's 0-harm.

Right, for sure, and that follows the idea of player-MC discussion (ala highlighting moves - "i'd really appreciate it if this dude wouldn't up and burst, ok?") set down earlier.

It's up to the specific fiction at the table and the MC's principles. If I say, "Alright, I shoot him in the leg." Obviously, I'm not intending to kill the guy.

Then, it's up to the MC to make the call. It could kill him, it could just maim him. It just depends on the circumstances. It's a messy weapon, so maybe shooting him in the leg doesn't really yield the results you want. Maybe he dies. Maybe he lives but he's missing a leg and bleeding out. I mean, it all just depends on the situation.

Edit: Oops. Misinterpreted your post.

Right, for sure, and that follows the idea of player-MC discussion (ala highlighting moves - "i'd really appreciate it if this dude wouldn't up and burst, ok?") set down earlier.

Definitely. I don't think the game gains anything by saying "I wanna take him hostage. I shoot him in the leg". "Well, fuck you. Billy, you hit an artery and this dude bleeds out in seconds."

Adam, if you want TO USE THE GRAPPLING RULES, you can just seize his body by force, using your hands, for no harm, or hit him in the face with the butt of your shotgun for 1-harm, then get him in a headlock with the shotgun's stock and immobilize him. And you seize by force as normal.

Nobody wants to use the grappling rules, Johnstone.  Not ever.

This thought experiment came about as a result of last night's schoolyard scuffle wherein I briefly thought of saying anything but "yes" to "so you just want to kill him, then?"

The answer is: go aggro.

If you're trying to kill someone to get what they have or to keep what you have, seize by force.

If you're trying to use violence to control someone, go aggro.

The answer is: go aggro.

If you're trying to kill someone to get what they have or to keep what you have, seize by force.

If you're trying to use violence to control someone, go aggro.

Thanks Vx!

Pretty much agree with what Johnstone said,  you're simply seizing by force using your hands/body as your weapon.

10+ Take definite hold of it, and dismay or frighten the guy into submission. Inflict great harm if you also want to smack him with the butt or your gun or whatever, or take little harm if he's armed.
7-9 Well you might have definite hold of the guy but he's not dismayed or frightened and can continue to try and fight you (MC: Well you've got the guy around the chest but he's fighting and screaming and he's going to smack you in the face (for 1 harm) until you let him go. Might have to hurt the guy to shut him up or act under fire to get a definite grip.)
Miss: tough luck, he squirms out of your grasp and the MC can make a move as usual

As you wanted, guy doesn't have a choice.. he's getting grabbed.
In any case he's fighting back and will hit with whatever his weapon may be.

This whole thread blows my fucking MIND.

If you don't want to kill someone, um, try NOT shooting them with your SHOTGUN!

It seems pretty simple to me.

Also, I think the rules are pretty clear that if you aren't willing to actually shoot the dude, you're not really going aggro; you're manipulating.

Seems funny that the move "Seize by force" can be considered the WRONG move for when you are literally seizing by force.  What could be more appropriate?

You aren't literally seizing by force unless you pull the trigger.

Putting a gun in somebody's face and yelling at them to drop it and get on their belly isn't seizing by force, it's using the threat of force to control someone, which is going aggro.

As far as I can tell, the real question in this thread is "can you go aggro on someone in the middle of a fight?" and the answer is "yes."