2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)

I have a question for anyone who has now had a chance to play both 1st and 2nd Edition AW.

A notable difference - at least to me - is the change in the "miss" clause for some important moves, like Seize by Force. In the 1st edition, it was a basic move, so a miss could be any kind of MC move, including sometimes very punishing ones. The 2nd edition miss clause is an exchange of harm, and, often, something that looks like "success" for the character (e.g. choosing to "take definite hold of it"). Given many PCs who have big guns and lots of armor, an exchange of harm can range from an inconvenience to something safely ignored to a full destruction of the enemy.

How has this affected your play? What are interesting "side effects" on your group, or how the game develops? Has it led to different player behaviour? Different MC behaviour? More assertive low-Hard characters? Anything else?

Feel free to discuss other moves, as well - Seize by Force is just, perhaps, the most obvious example of such a change.

Oh. lol. I just have the miss be a miss either way. It just lets them get 1 hold of say out of it while I turn their world upside down.

Is that how it's supposed to work in 2nd edition, or just the way you handle it at your table?

For example, would it be legit for you to negate the exchange of harm, and have something else happen?

I havent seen an example of how this could work unless this was true. If you say you take something by force, and you're always going to take it, it's just a matter of how much harm it costs... then meh. BORING. Boooo. Autosuccess. imho no style. Doing dangerous things come at a risk of it actually going wrong, not just the harm cost that you take regardless. If there was no risk why roll? (taking harm is not a risk. It's a cost)

Until I see a really compelling example of the opposite, something that drastically changes how I've used this move for years... This is how it goes at my table. I also suspect, this is how it goes period.

I tend to look at it the same way, Ebok. But that seems to be how the new moves are written! Hence, my curiosity about how people are playing these.

I agree. I'm very curious how others are reading this.

We play it RAW, and I think it works nicely. The soft characters are not as afraid of violence, and the hard (and well armed and armored) more often fearlessly wade into battle.
IME it just changes the view on violence a bit: violence is now an easier solution to many problems, which has not made things boring, just created its own set of problems and consequences.
Also, I've noticed, that smart npc's are less eager to go full out, so Go Aggro (and Read a Sitch and Act under Fire) are rolled a little more often.

Honestly, I don't think it's come up in regards to the Battle Moves. I don't think any of my players have ever failed one (Hard scores for the PCs range from the Battlebabe with a +1 to the Maestro'D and Faceless, each with +3...and the only one that's changed after the first two sessions was the Maestro'D going from +2 to +3). So...not something that's come up.Which means I'm not 100% sure how I'd handle it.

I do think that special playbook moves (like 'Everybody eats, even that guy') shouldn't have additional consequences of failure added on. Most of those work well as is.

But, shouldn't the concept of failure still be there?  Do you still make a hard move as well?

It seems like if you have a big gun and armor/impossible reflexes, then it doesn't matter what you roll with the dice.  You either get a resounding success, a large success or a success.  It's the 6- triggering a hard move that adds an element of danger to fights for very competent combat characters.

The PCs were already much tougher than the NPCs, keeping some level of challenge is a good thing, imo.

Like I said, it hasn't come up. My PCs have yet to fail at a Battle Move. *shrug*

Which has worked out okay, really. Even successful battle moves are not exactly cost free.

Alright, it hasn't happened for you, yet.  But, even with a +3 hard, there's an 8 percent chance of a 6-.  For those with a +1, that jumps up to almost 28% chance of a 6-.  We aren't talking about something that isn't supposed to be part of the game.  Heck, the entire engine is built around 10+, 7-9, 6-.

A possible scenario.  Keeler the Gunlugger is given the job of driving the Hombres Gang away from the only well in 50 miles.  (Keeler has 0 advancements, he's a new character.  But,  she has picked NTBFW, Insano like Drano, Bloodcrazed and has a MG and heavy (2) armor.  She doesn't just look tough, she is tough).  Keeler has already killed the leader of the Hombres and several of his bodyguards, but not before they got a call out for the rest of the gang to come back and kill this crazy woman.

25 tough bikers roll up to the well (small gang, 2-harm, 2-armor, because they recently found a cache of kevlar body armor).  Keeler is just finishing patching up a cut on her arm and doesn't hear the gang until they are almost on her.  The gang sees its dead leader and open fire at the same time as Keeler unslings her still-warm MG and strafes the area.  Keeler rolls Seize By Force, because she wants to maintain control of the well and the Hombres are only getting paid if they hold onto that water.  Keeler rolls snake eyes and even with her +3 Hard, still just gets a 5.  Bad luck for Keeler.  Or is it?

Keeler doesn't want to lose this well.  This is her first job and reputation matters.  She chooses to maintain definite hold of the well.  Keeler does 4 harm to the bikers minus 2 because they are exceptionally armored.  They do 2 harm to her, but she also has 2 armor.  Keeler's roll of a 5 ends with many injuries, some serious and a couple of fatalities for the Hombres.  They have no leader, so they break and try to get out of there as quickly as possible.  Possibly to plot revenge, but if this is how well they managed on Keeler's unlikely roll of a 6-, things aren't looking good for them.  Keeler takes 0 harm and has to roll the harm move.  Granted, this can still go poorly for Keeler, but it's relatively unlikely.  (When she gets her first advancement, she can take the juggernaut move to mitigate this).   

On a roll of 6-, Keeler wins.  She kills some, hurts more, drives off the gang.  She's likely unhurt.  Shouldn't the failure on the SBF mean more than this, even for a tank-like Gunlugger?

I personally treat it the same way I treat a miss on read a sitch: ask (pick) one anyway, but be prepared for the worst. So yeah, you've definitely taken possession of the well, but I'm gonna still make a hard move against you. In this case maybe, sure, Keeler has driven off the Hombres; but in the process she has had to run so much ammunition through her MG in short order that she's basically melted the barrel to slag. This is me, taking away her stuff.

My justification for this understanding comes from the first description of the basic moves on p. 11, which says: "The basic moves, though, just tell the players to 'be prepared for the worst.' That’s when it’s your turn." This implies to me that the hard move is absolutely still an option here, as SBF (as part of "Do Battle") is one of the basic moves. The section on the MC moves also says pretty explicitly that "When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate," which is your cue to make as hard and direct a move as you like. I think the only move that explicitly goes against this interpretation is the Skinner's artful and gracious.

Otherwise, a miss is more or less open season, in my understanding of the rules, explicit mention or no.

Alright, it hasn't happened for you, yet.  But, even with a +3 hard, there's an 8 percent chance of a 6-.  For those with a +1, that jumps up to almost 28% chance of a 6-.  We aren't talking about something that isn't supposed to be part of the game.  Heck, the entire engine is built around 10+, 7-9, 6-.

Sure, though with help from allies and strategic use of Read a Sitch (both used extensively in my game) those percentages go way down. But my point wasn't that it wasn't an issue to be considered, it was that I had no idea what I'd do if it happened and could thus be of little help, despite being interested in the discussion.

That's really all I was saying.

Munin, I will be doing things pretty much as you have laid out.  I 'd rather the spiffy new 2nd edition had clearly said that SBF 6- could still include a hard move.  Other moves do express that a hard move should be expected on a 6-, so ambiguity or purposely missing text opens the door for disagreement on how SBF is meant to work.  Probably not a big problem, but you never know how people will react when things happen to their character and they think the rules say otherwise.

On an unrelated note, I wish the playbooks contained a line in the box for the advanced moves saying when they become available.  New players always try to select one of the advanced moves, because there's nothing saying otherwise, and it seems like such an easy problem to prevent.

DeadmanwalkingXI, I apologize if I came across poorly.  I agree with your point about players being able to reduce the odds even further of getting a 6-.  In my mind, this only emphasizes the idea that a 6- should remain a potentially bad thing.  Not always bad.  Not a way to punish the character or player.  But, when it happens, it's my chance to figure out a way to make the character's life interesting.  I guess we'll all have a better idea as we get a chance to see the moves in action.

DeadmanwalkingXI, I apologize if I came across poorly.

No worries, it's cool. I was just clarifying my own point.