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

I'm surprised not to see some clarity on this point. The 2nd Edition doesn't make this clear, one way or another?

By Vincent's earlier replies on this topic, I would gather that the MC does NOT make a move (other than what she might normally do in that situation). However, as some people have pointed out, that's remarkably "soft" on the players, especially anyone with decent armor.

If, on the other hand, you do play an MC move (as in the 1st edition examples of "seize by force"), then what is gained by choosing 1 from the list? Does it add meaningful to play?

Thanks!

Yeah. It allows them some control over the failure, which can mean EVERYTHING to the direction of the scene.

Ye olde, I slash my way through to save the NPC! Seize the NPC by force (from the gang). Miss, well shit. Pick one. It didn't hurt as bad as it could've, you took more of them down with you then you expected, and last but not least: all hell did cut loose, but I got to the NPC, the gang either doesn't have her anymore--they have me, or conversely shit went bad and we're both facing something Hard coming our way, but I'm in control of the NPC instead.

That sounds a lot like a 7-9 on other moves!

Maybe, until the full Hard move kicks you in the face. I might reverse the move and give the NPCs any option that doesn't counter the single pick they chose. Alternatively, there's a big difference between 7-9 you take some hard, and miss, you maybe get to do part of it but btw GRENADE!

Paul, you still can make the suffer harm move if they suffer 0-harm, or even less. And even if they roll a miss on suffer harm, the MC can nevertheless choose a 7-9 result. I don't think you can just ignore harm with impunity.

That's a good point.

Are you saying that you don't make a hard move on a miss, then?

And would you not have the PC make the harm move on a 7-9?

I'm just getting up to speed on 2ed, but it doesn't look like you make a typical hard move on a Miss. The move says on a Miss, the player takes one forward, and

"All the moves list what should happen on a hit, 7–9 or 10+, so follow them.
Many of them list what happens on a miss, so follow those too (Page 11)."

On a 7-9, I would be less likely to make them roll the Harm Move if they suffered 0-harm. On a Miss, I would think the Harm Move was called for. Also, if the Harm Move misses, I'd be likely to choose a 7-9 option regardless if they rolled 6- on the SBF.

Thanks, James.

Interesting, but still a bit confusing.

Will you come and clarify once you're "up to speed"?

I remember noticing how the tactical and support moves, along with Seize By Force, didn't have a "prepare for the worst" clause or state if anything else happened on a 6 or less other then only getting 1 choice. So I checked the forums and found this from Vincent:

http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=7552.msg34019#msg34019

Paul: Only the basic moves leave misses unspecified. This was true in the 1st Ed and remains true in the 2nd. "The MC makes a hard move on a miss" only applies to the basic moves, and always has.

New to the basic moves in 2nd Edition: when you read a person or read a situation, you still get to ask 1 question on a miss, before I make my hard move. This is because I always played it this way anyway.

In the battle moves, yes, when you're defending something you hold, on a miss you can choose to hold it decisively. When you lay down fire, on a miss you can choose to pin Dremmer in his shed. Yes, this is better for you than "on a miss, choose 0," and if keeping Dremmer in his shed was the entirety of your objective, then yeah, you've done it even on a miss. I think you've understood correctly how it's supposed to play out.

The general pattern is: moves that are more dramatic on a hit, more heroic, are more risky. There are several moves that are freebies, including laying down fire (but not the seize & hold moves, because of the exchange of harm, just as you've realized). This is because laying down fire puts you as a player into a supporting position, not a heroic one, and I want to reward that, not punish it, even on a miss.

Oh and Hobbesque, no, the battle moves won't advance.

-Vincent

So the MC doesn't make a move on a miss with those moves. As for the example by Serenity...well, the Gunlugger is supposed to be frighteningly powerful in fights. But if the gang wants to retaliate then using more dangerous weapons would make sense. Common weapons are shotguns and rifles which do 3-Harm, and grenades which do 4-Harm in an area. And the occasional enemy with some of the bigger guns or just AP ammo could provide a challenge.

You're quite correct (and that was me Vincent was responding to).

However, the quote is a year old, when the rules were still in flux. I'm curious if this change has carried through to 2nd Edition. From responses so far, it seems like people are playing it in different ways. What does the book say about this? Anybody?

Second, I was curious about the effects on play. On paper, it sounds a bit... undramatic. I'd imagine a Gunlugger with good armour can roll Seize by Force with basically no fear, unless they're seriously outclassed. I'd love to hear (or continue hearing) how this is panning out in people's games.

It's a strong contrast to the original intention of the move (and, in particular, earlier examples of misses on the move from Vincent, both in print and online).

You're quite correct (and that was me Vincent was responding to).

However, the quote is a year old, when the rules were still in flux. I'm curious if this change has carried through to 2nd Edition. From responses so far, it seems like people are playing it in different ways. What does the book say about this? Anybody?

The book doesn't have a section like that, but does specify what happens on failures...which does not include a 'prepare for the worst' on Seize By Force and other Battle Moves. That absence is pretty telling from a pure RAW perspective, though adding them back in seems an eminently reasonable way to handle things if that seems too easy.

Second, I was curious about the effects on play. On paper, it sounds a bit... undramatic. I'd imagine a Gunlugger with good armour can roll Seize by Force with basically no fear, unless they're seriously outclassed. I'd love to hear (or continue hearing) how this is panning out in people's games.

I dunno, even on successes I've found that you need significantly more than Armor 2 to be truly safe. AP ammo, gangs, and custom moves for particularly dangerous NPCs can make it more dangerous, too.

Besides, the Gunlugger is supposed to be the baddest ass, having them be almost unassailable when armored and ready for battle (which is when Seize By Force is used) is appropriate. They can still be murdered in their bed, ambushed, or otherwise get seriously messed up when not expecting a fight or not getting a straight one.

It's a strong contrast to the original intention of the move (and, in particular, earlier examples of misses on the move from Vincent, both in print and online).

Yeah, but a lot of things have indeed changed that much (the Ice Cold Battlebabe move, for example).

Will you come and clarify once you're "up to speed"?

So, an example is in order. I just steal one from the book and mess with it:

Marie the brainer is stranded in the rag-waste and gets set upon by one of
its not-quite-human habitants. She has no choice but to fight her way free.
She misses the roll with a 4. She still gets to choose 1, and chooses to win
free and get away.

In the exchange of harm, she inflicts 3-harm for her scalpel (3-harm intimate
hi-tech) minus 1 for her assailant’s hide armor, for a total of 2-harm. She
suffers 2-harm for her assailant’s crude cutting blade (2-harm hand messy)
minus 2 because she’s wearing that armor she got off that dead guy in the
jeep, for a total of 0-harm."

Now, if she had rolled  a 7, I would say something like "You cut him and flee. As you go past, he swings wildly with that serrated sawblade he's holding. You feel its rusted teeth through the dead guy's jacket. You'd probably be dead without it." And that would be that. But, she rolled a miss, so I make her roll the Harm Move. Is it really too soft on the player with armor? It depends on her Harm roll, but there's a good chance things just got complicated.

Hey, good catch team. I missed that completely. Seize by Force is NOT one of the basic moves in 2e, and there is no stipulation for a GM to make a move on a miss, as there definitely is on the basic moves. Huh.

Now, if she had rolled  a 7, I would say something like "You cut him and flee. As you go past, he swings wildly with that serrated sawblade he's holding. You feel its rusted teeth through the dead guy's jacket. You'd probably be dead without it." And that would be that. But, she rolled a miss, so I make her roll the Harm Move. Is it really too soft on the player with armor? It depends on her Harm roll, but there's a good chance things just got complicated.

You're generous. I'd have no qualms about making them roll the harm move, even on a 10+.  Depending on fictional circumstances, of course.

ps that's not a criticism in any way

You're generous. I'd have no qualms about making them roll the harm move, even on a 10+.  Depending on fictional circumstances, of course.

ps that's not a criticism in any way

I get it. I don't have qualms, per se. I share Paul's desire for a miss on SBF to look different from a Hit, even if the PC has massive armor. I would be tempted to just make a hard move like some have suggested, but I'd rather GMs just do what the book says if possible. Honestly, I might just end up recommending that. I mean, I've drunk the Vincent Baker cool aide, but I don't always agree with his design choices. But, one way to differentiate the two in RAW is through the harm move, I think.

That harm move is no where near hard enough, and you're suggesting something that isn't mentioned anywhere in the book. Harm rolls do not talk about the fact they only happen on a miss. This example is a monkey patch because this piece of information was left out.

With the health system the way it is, that example basically saying any player character that is willing to suffer some harm and survive, can always "get away", period, and probably take people down with them. At any point where fighting occurs, any PC (no matter how wimpy) would essentially be unable to fail in achieving any one objective. The only difference between choose one and choose three is how badly it hurt, and that's by a factor of one. Which is far more dependent on what you're/they're doing harm with then the roll. That's not a real argument for any type of narrative event. More directly opposing your example... the fact that the harm move is a ROLL is basically providing them an additional saving throw against a hard they've already invoked.

You want to storm that castle? Okay you win, how much did it hurt, lets roll to find out.

EDIT

I suppose it's worth noting here that I actually prefer the choose one option on a miss, just not in lue of the miss. Before if something went wrong during a seize by force, really the MC had absolute freedom to act. They could trap them, break them apart, do whatever, even if it was the one thing the characters were devoted to preventing. To me, it seems fair that a player can announce what they care about most. Choose one, cause the other three are going to hurt, makes them need to make a call. In the violence, did I care about hurting them more then protecting myself? More then the strategic object? In that light, the MC can see how the player wants to react to the failure around them, which one did they focus on, and all the rest are now vulnerabilities / weaknesses to be exploited for the hard move.

I have enjoyed seeing this in action and I find taking this to the next extreme, (no real miss at all) does the potential a lot of injustice. We are all looking for Other things to go wrong, other ways to make the choice to fight and fail meaningful, and that's a shame because it was already meaningful before the version change.