[Rules] Acting Under Fire vs. Moves

How does act under fire work in relation to other moves in PC vs. PC interaction?

For example, if PC A goes aggro on PC B, say by pointing a shotgun at PC B, and telling him to do something, and PC B "sucks it up" can they act under fire to dodge into cover from the shotgun? Or, does the go aggro roll have to resolve before PC B can act?

Another example, if PC A is a hardholder and rolls for leadership. It's a hard hit and they use their gang to make a hard advance vs. PC B. Does PC B get to react at all? Say, by acting under fire to get the fuck out of dodge or taking cover or whatever? Or, does the hard advance have to resolve first?

Or, say PC A is a hocus using frenzy (argh, brain fart, thanks Chris!) to speak to a mob, I get a hard hit and spend a hold to "bring people forward and deliver them". One of those people is PC B. Can PC B try to run by acting under fire?

In sum, can act under fire interrupt other moves' resolution?

In sum, can act under fire interrupt other moves' resolution?

God, no.

But in the case of a Go Aggro or other basic move, they've got their options and those option include stuff that would fall under "Act Under Fire" like barricading, etc. Diving into cover is an option for the move, both in "Get the hell out of your way" and "barricading".

Before the Go Aggro roll, they'd get an interference roll.

For some of those though, the larger scale moves, I'd use a move (put them in a spot) to give the other PC a chance to operate their mojo. The hocus (using frenzy, come on, Mike! :) ) sends his peeps, and the other PC is in a spot:

LoJack, you wake up and this fucking mob has your hut surrounded, etc, ect. What do you do?

Can, yes, of course. Always can, no. Moves don't stack or nest the way they do in Magic: the Gathering, for instance; they don't have strict order-of-resolution rules. Instead they cascade, interrupting and overlapping one another under the MC's case-by-case judgment.

For your examples, the way I'm imagining them, if I'm the MC:

1. Nope! There's a PC that's gotten shot. If she's going to do anything other than lie there, she's probably also going to be acting under fire.

2. PC B absolutely gets to react. "Okay! They're making a hard advance on your position, coming in under intense fire. What do you do?" Some reactions will call for a roll to act under fire first; others won't.

3. Same thing. PC B can read the situation, act under fire, go aggro on the mob, whatever she wants to do.

An important difference between example 1 and the others is that in example 1, player B had a choice, and chose the bullet. Player B doesn't now get another choice before the bullet hits. In examples 2 and 3, Player A makes a choice that affects PC B, so naturally player B gets to respond to it. The moment of decision is a hot potato! Keep it passing.

edit: with Chris!

Right on. Thanks for the responses.

This post partially stemmed from this post, where John talks about using act under fire and go aggro for most violent situations instead of seize by force. Just wondering how act under fire would work in relation to moves like this.

I've been meaning to talk about that post. While I don't agree with John that it's a peripheral move, I think the MC should treat it as such.

As Mike knows, my group uses the hell out of Seize and it SHOULD be a Seize most of the time.

As a MC, I've learned to let them do that to each other, but I never put the PCs in a spot where Seizing is a move that makes sense with NPCs. I don't force them into a situation where my setup move has that much of a drop on them.

After watching a lot of television with AW moves in mind, Seize by Force situations DON'T happen in better fiction. Go Aggros, Manipulations, Acting Under Fire and it's consequences, all of these end up telling better, more dramatic stories than a Michael Bay Seize by Force.

In the past, I've hit the PCs with random violence, but I've learned that the threat of potential violence and consequences make for a better game and more interesting situations.

But more on topic, Act Under Fire is the most basic move. A lot of the others are just more complicated versions. In other words, you're acting under fire and the fire is BessAnn's sultry looks or you're acting under fire and the fire is LoJack all up in your face with a bigass gun! But these are Manipulate and Go Aggro, of course.

So there's no real need to offer the other PC a chance to react because their reaction is built into the move.

That said, since the moves are scalable (in that you can Go Aggro on Barry with a gun or you can Go Aggro on a town with your gang), sometimes the PC would have a chance to react, if it makes sense.

Right on. Thanks for the responses.

This post partially stemmed from this post, where John talks about using act under fire and go aggro for most violent situations instead of seize by force. Just wondering how act under fire would work in relation to moves like this.

Looking over it, it's really simple. Your first example is a move ON a PC. The rest are moves to control NPCs. That's the line.