Thanks for the questions! I'll try to address them as best I can :)
How are finding the harm rules work? I'm very interested in whether the various injuries types are compelling enough.
So far the injuries have been a great boon for myself as a GM to raise the stakes. I had a character who took a pretty big fall, and ended up with a mangled arm and bleeding wound in his helmet. From that point on, he was forced to Face Adversity for a couple of pivotal actions; Once using Physique to overcome the pain of his twisted arm to climb a ladder (partial success; ended up tearing more muscles and doing further damage. Hope he has enough Favor to request a surgeon). The other using Mettle, to take a shot with his pistol despite the blood that was leaking from his forehead into his eye. In this way, the injuries play like the Fate System's 'Tags'; something to compel at just the right (i.e.: most disastrous) moment.
Personally, I really enjoyed it. "Seeing" the state of the players after a particularly action-packed session felt nice. Heck, more than one player took pride in their scars and bruises, and it added a lot of flavor when interacting with NPCs.
Also, how does enemy armor or shields play out, or other force disparities? As written, I don't see anything that would account for that. I seem to be just as likely to "take out" a heavily armored foe with a stick as I am to take out a nekked dude with a las cannon.
In theory, yes. This is my "16 hp dragon"; there's a very nice article about how in Dungeon World, the dragon only has 16 hp; in theory it could get one-shot by a level 1 character with a lucky hit. BUT what's important is not its stats, but the puzzle and danger and unapproachable aura it has. Just because they can mechanically, doesn't mean they should be able to narratively. In the same way in Uncharted Worlds, armor on enemies is a purely narrative convention. It's there to add color, and/or to add an extra component to the "puzzle" of overcoming the current situation. If a player would go after a Titan Suit -wearing space marine with a stick, he wouldn't roll anything; there's no way he's going to succeed. What does he think he is, an Ewok? In more questionable situations (conventional weapons vs heavy armor, or enemies with superior cover, etc), my question would be "how are you overcoming their armor?" or "they're really well entrenched behind cover, how are you going to get a good shot at them?".
As for the nekkid dude v. las cannon... well, I probably wouldn't even ask for a roll either. Dude be dead, yo.
Another observation/question: both of your basic moves for violence work like this...
Roll +stat. On 10+ succeed but pick 1; 7-9 succeed if you let the GM pick 2.
- There are a number of surviving enemies
- The attack causes unwanted collateral damage
- Your side suffers harm during the attack
- Your side ends up in a dangerous/costly position
Overall I really like this, but I'm concerned that there's never any "clean" success. Say it's just me and another guy in a gun fight on the ship. I can never just take him out, right? On a 10+, I have to pick something. So I either pick "there are a number of surviving enemies" (meaning he's still up and--I assume--fighting) or one of the other options that escalates the situation. I roll 10+ again, same situation. Etc., etc. The fight can't end unless I accept some cost or escalation.
How does that work in play? Is that what you want?
That is indeed part of the design. The thing is, the violence moves are very "big picture", compared to more traditional combat rolls. They represent a phase or possibly the entirety of an
exchange of violence. A single roll of "Open Fire" could translate into multiple exchanges of small arms fire while dodging and moving from cover to cover. I encourage my players to play out/describe the results of the roll as a series of action sequences without further rolling; we know the results, now we want to see how we're going to get there. It allows for some fun action without worrying about rolls or outcomes (since we know how it's going to end), and we collectively try to steer the unfolding events towards that conclusion. Don't know if you saw that Elevator Scene from Captain America 2: Winter Soldier previews in theaters? I see that as a single "Launch Assault" roll, telling us that he's going to succeed, but will take some damage. Then the whole sequence plays out, he gets bashed a couple of times, but ultimately he gets to be a badass.
I definitely didn't want "clean" fights. A gun fight between two people ending in one dead and the other completely unscathed and with no consequences doesn't move a story forward. "Your side ends up in a dangerous/costly position" could happen a LOT later, when your opponent's family/clan/Faction/lawyers show up to dismantle you. Or heck, maybe you'll just get arrested by local authorities. Or maybe one of your NPC crew members greatly disaproves of your use of deadly force.
As for "surviving enemies", that one is a bit two-edged. It's probably the cleanest, if you think about it. Surviving doesn't necessarily mean able-bodied or actively violent. When summarizing, you omitted the most important part of the violence Moves: "Describe your goals and tactics". You can't succeed if you don't state what you want to accomplish. Now, obviously if you just want the guy dead, then taking "he survives" kinda goes against your stated goal. But, again, these moves are representative of an extended encounter; surviving enemies could be fleeing or withdrawing, or they could be surrendering, or injured, or incapacitated. But they're still alive, and now you have to deal with that situation.
Ultimately, if the fight is one-sided/simple enough that you can take out the enemy without cost or consequence, then it's probably not an Open Fire or Launch Assault; it would be a simple Face Adversity.
Hope that answers your questions! If you have any more, shoot them my way; I try to check these forums at least once a week (busy busy!). I appreciate the interest! :D