« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12

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

  • 174 Replies
  • 78145 Views
*

noclue

  • 609
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2017, 03:16:20 PM »
Ebok, it's a fair criticism. One question, are we sure SBF isn't a Basic Move? It's listed in the Basic Move Section and we're told to "consider it as the basic battle move." Maybe it's just a move.
Logged
James R.

    "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
     --HERBERT SPENCER
*

Munin

  • 417
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2017, 06:33:56 PM »
I interpret it as a basic move. Anyone can do it; ergo, basic move.
Logged
*

Paul T.

  • 708
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2017, 06:51:19 PM »
Ebok,

That's exactly my concern. However, I haven't played with the rule, so my concern is hypothetical; this is why I started a thread to see what other people were doing.

You make a strong case (perhaps) for treating it like "Read a Sitch" - in other words, "choose 1, but also be prepared for the worst". That could be a good interpretation of the move. I say "perhaps", because some MC moves could invalidate those choices, or make them irrelevant - for example, "separate them" or something like that. Those would be unusual situations, though, depending on very particular circumstances.

As for Seize By Force being a "basic move", it's quite clearly not. It's a "battle move". In any case, in the 2nd Edition all the moves have a miss clause. The basic moves say "prepare for the worst". The Battle Moves do not; each specifies outcomes.

(I'm also confused by the comment about "Ice Cold"; it hasn't changed meaningfully, as far as I can see. It did in an early draft, but was then changed back for the final version, as far as I can see.)
Logged
*

Paul T.

  • 708
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2017, 06:52:39 PM »
Quote from: Paul T. on February 08, 2017, 06:51:19 PM
Ebok,

That's exactly my concern. However, I haven't played with the rule, so my concern is hypothetical; this is why I started a thread to see what other people were doing.

You make a strong case (perhaps) for treating it like "Read a Sitch" - in other words, "choose 1, but also be prepared for the worst". That could be a good interpretation of the move. I say "perhaps", because some MC moves could invalidate those choices, or make them irrelevant - for example, "separate them" or something like that. Those would be unusual situations, though, depending on very particular circumstances.

As for Seize By Force being a "basic move", it's quite clearly not. It's a "battle move". In any case, in the 2nd Edition all the moves have a miss clause. The basic moves say "prepare for the worst". The Battle Moves do not; each specifies outcomes. Whether it's a "basic move" or not, the miss clause is spelled out, and it doesn't seem to include anything other than the exchange of harm and option choices.

(I'm also confused by the comment about "Ice Cold"; it hasn't changed meaningfully, has it? It did in an early draft, but was then changed back for the final version, as far as I can see.)
Logged
*

Ebok

  • 415
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2017, 12:43:06 AM »
Paul T, I think that the choose one option should be respected by the MC, and they should make sure Not to invalidate whatever option selected. Though to be fair the only two options that COULD be invalidated would be Frighten them or Seize Control. I think the latter can easily be used as an out of the frying pan and into the fire situation that still respects their achievement. The former, well, that is so situational it's hard to say. ( if they suffer less harm and you inflict more hard, they still suffered less then they wouldve otherwise. )

I consider ALL battle moves to be basic moves, and seize by force is the most basic of them. You cannot play without it, so... ergo, basic move. Screw anyone that wants to make my game less interesting. :P
Logged
*

Daniel Wood

  • 532
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2017, 12:48:01 AM »

Edition wars begin.
Logged
*

Paul T.

  • 708
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #36 on: February 14, 2017, 09:03:33 PM »
My goodness!

So, what is our conclusion here?

Is the text not clear on this point? (I only have the 1st Ed.)

Or was that earlier example a direct quote from the text (which strongly suggests that no hard move is made as part of a failed Seize move, as Vincent explained earlier during the design of 2nd Ed.)?

Does no one have enough experience playing with the new version of the move to post some observations?
Logged
*

DeadmanwalkingXI

  • 110
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #37 on: February 14, 2017, 10:13:49 PM »
Quote from: Paul T. on February 14, 2017, 09:03:33 PM
My goodness!

So, what is our conclusion here?

Is the text not clear on this point? (I only have the 1st Ed.)

The text is very clear that there is no hard move on a miss on battle moves. Or indeed any moves where it isn't specified.

The question is whether that's an intentional choice or what, and whether it makes for a better or worse game that way.
Logged
*

Daniel Wood

  • 532
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2017, 12:57:09 AM »
Quote from: DeadmanwalkingXI on February 14, 2017, 10:13:49 PM
The question is whether that's an intentional choice or what, and whether it makes for a better or worse game that way.

Okay, come on, people. Vincent didn't accidentally move Seize by Force into a different category and then accidentally add explicit text to every move clearly delineating the consequences on a miss. It's a new edition: he changed the rules. If for some reason this is freaking you out, then you can pretend this was actually what he intended all along, and we were all playing it wrong before, and only now has he finally improved the rules text so that we understand what Was Intended All Along.

But yeah. Ebok is not offering a different interpretation, he is describing a hack. It's a hack with a great deal of historical precedent called 'I like this part of the old edition better.'
Logged
*

DeadmanwalkingXI

  • 110
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2017, 12:51:55 PM »
For the record I tend to agree that it's pretty definitively the rules as written, but people have disputed that based on Vincent's words on the subject at an earlier stage, and I was explicitly just noting what the discussion was about rather than trying to continue it.
Logged
*

Munin

  • 417
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2017, 05:52:12 PM »
Quote from: DeadmanwalkingXI on February 14, 2017, 10:13:49 PM
The text is very clear that there is no hard move on a miss on battle moves. Or indeed any moves where it isn't specified.
Actually, the text is pretty clear that there's an opportunity to go "as hard and direct as you like" on any missed move.

"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."

Not "...makes a basic move and the player misses the roll..."  Any move will do.
Logged
*

pastorlindhardt

  • 38
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #41 on: February 17, 2017, 02:28:12 AM »
I disagree, Munin. There are cases where it's clear, that the MC does not get to make a hard move even on a miss, Artful and gracious for example.
In the light of such moves, I think it's clear that the paragraph you are quoting is only applicable to basic moves and others, where the players should expect the worst.
Logged
*

Munin

  • 417
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #42 on: February 17, 2017, 01:07:39 PM »
See, I think that artful and gracious is the exception, as it explicitly tells you that nothing bad happens on a miss. None of the other moves do that.
Logged
*

Ebok

  • 415
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #43 on: February 17, 2017, 11:38:18 PM »
I read it the same way Munin does. In fact I had never even considered that the alternative was worth consideration until this thread, which has provided only one argument: "That's how how we think it was intended by the author". This to me seems like a fundamental problem. If you're going to back up a reason to play with this "hack" to the known system, provide me with reasons where it excels in performance over it's predecessor. Seriously, where are all the in game examples of where this provides a better gaming experience, what opportunities does it provide (that it's predecessor failed to provide) for the narrative or the collaborative gaming group? Is the only argument that VB (maybe) wanted to try it out?
Logged
*

DeadmanwalkingXI

  • 110
Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Reply #44 on: February 17, 2017, 11:58:55 PM »
That's from the section on when to make a move, though. An advice section rather than rules in the absolute strictest sense (not that the distinction is hugely important in AW, but still), and more importantly, is word for word from the 1E book, meaning it could easily have been overlooked. And every single other piece of rules text in the 2E book makes it pretty clear that that's not necessarily correct on anything other than the basic moves.

The combination of it being legacy text and every other bit of text disagreeing with it leads me to think it's not correct at all for 2E.

And, just to present a counterpoint to people who'd never considered others might feel this way, I never read that sentence quite that way and never considered that other people might. So I never considered that anyone looking at the 2E book could conclude that 2E works the same way as 1E in this regard. I obviously knew 1E worked that way, but it struck me as an obvious and fundamental edition change.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
« previous next »