Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force

In particular, I would love to hear an example from your game(s) of this:

"• There is no need for an explicit miss
Since we can always make the worse possible thing occur, there are less guidelines on when we should. In contrast, if the scene doesn't have an obvious "hard" move to make that makes sense, we are no longer asked to think up one and make it. Thus it's not the miss that matters, but the seize by force. So we no longer watch the dice, instead, leave our full attention on the fiction to decide what comes next."

It's not entirely easy for me to imagine what this looks like in play, since it could be interpreted a number of different ways. Would you consider illustrating with an example?

Which example - for when you make a "hard and direct" move on a hit, or where you don't make one on a miss?

I suppose I am primarily hoping for an illustration of how omitting an explicit MC move on a miss means that it's "not the miss that matters, but the seize by force". An example of how that means we "no longer watch the dice, [but], instead, leave our full attention on the fiction to decide what comes next."

What does it look like when "we watch the dice"? And how does this dynamic change?

I'm curious what it looks like at the table, with real people playing.

By the way:

Was thinking about this alternative move some more, and, the more I do, the more I like it.

One thing I still don't see is how the "vs NPCs" clause is superior to "choose 1, and expect the worst", though.

One way I can see is that the MC can keep you from seizing definite hold. That may be a good feature. "Choosing 1" also sits a little funny if we don't always have an exchange of harm, but not terribly so.

Also, on a 7-9, who decides whether there are MC choices or not?

I'd still love some examples, though! You've played with these a lot, it sounds like. What does it look like at your table?

Ebok,

Are you no longer interested in this conversation? I was really hoping for an illustration, because I'm not following your logic here.

Also, are you playing with these rules? How are they working out for you?

I don't have a current game going on right now. Moved into Manhattan without a lay of the land. This is simply theoretical, and isn't at all necessary. My former group has looked it over and liked it, but that's not equitable actual use in game. I could potentially run it out theoretically, but that's a pretty in depth many-hour long post that I dont have time for right now. This is the same reason I haven't provided any of the examples where the miss: choose one and be prepared for the worst, faltered.

If in the future you're interested in a discussion with examples, you should contribute yourself. I have no idea what it means when you say, you're confused. Because you personally haven't attempted to reiterate a situation where you think it would not work, or otherwise used an example of in-game play to illustrate where you might be going astray. That puts all the burden on me, and thats why you've got three posts back to back, because I'm not overly interested in the book that would result just yet.

Especially since I've been fairly well bulleted up to this point. Both Munin and Dans criticisms of this stylistic choice show that at least they have a good fundamental idea about where I was going with it. If you want to ask a your questions in smaller chunksI'll do what I can to assist.

That's entirely fair, Ebok.

Where you lost me was in your theoretical breakdown of "choose 1, and expect the worst" vs. "choose 1, and the MC chooses 2 or 3". You suggested that the former broke down in some respects, but I don't know what those would be. Omitting the MC move on opposed rolls would solve your first objection, and making appropriately "soft" moves on a miss which doesn't need further action seems quite natural to me as well, so I don't know where it might "go wrong".

But there's no need to continue this conversation if it doesn't interest you - this is just for fun, after all. :) I've enjoyed the various discussions so far, and like your version of the move quite a bit. Thanks!

That was a result of my buy-in to Lumpley's rules (paraphrased): Only basic moves (contextually broad triggers) come with a generic miss statement. And: Battle moves do not need a miss statement, because the fiction determines what comes next, not the roll.

I was aiming to find a middle ground between his rules and my preferences. The side-effect of helping the 7-9 feel more potent was why I went ahead and posted this. Although, one of the earliest version of the beta-AW2 also did something very similar this. Lumpley choose to remove it.

For good reason, I might add. There were some problems with that implementation in play (we did try that out at first) though I cannot recall exactly what they were. I think the issue we had then was the number of steps involved with the rolls, and the number of rolls that seemed to have overlapping responsibilities, and then the whole chaotic-free-for-all thing that also played out very... badly for us.

I didn't want to go that far, but there were parts of that type of play-style that I liked. It had a nostalgic L5R dueling vibe to it as well, which was always fun.

Ebok,

So what does that look like ("Battle moves do not need a miss statement, because the fiction determines what comes next, not the roll")?

It seems to me that it would come down to harm dealt (and/or a missed harm move); in the case of a PC who is on par with their opposition or superior to them, I can't really see how the action goes down.

I'm missing the "aha!" moment you apparently had with this formulation of the rules, and I wish I could understand it.

Under such an approach, would you agree that any PC with reasonable weapons and armor (unless already heavily wounded or misses a harm move roll) can just expect to win any fight they get involved in?

If so, does that make the decision to make the harm move particularly key?

All of the battle moves in 4e share this same behavior, so it seemed at first to me that all of those moves were fairly useless, being as they weren't dangerous to preform by themselves. That seemed like it's a misunderstanding on my part, and it was. Lumpley and others pointed out that the roll's hit or miss doesn't conclusively determine anything other then what it says it does. It doesnt behave like this: "you win" "you lose" "you got somewhere in the middle". What it does is say, is that currently there is a dangerous stage of fiction in play, and the player is trying to act on that fiction by imposing their (the player's) will on it. 

Here is a twisty logic that if you get cool, if not, don't think to hard on it:

If the fiction is dangerous, it's up to the MC to describe how it's dangerous. The armor and harm of the opposing sides are just one simplification of this, but these do not describe the stakes, or infer to us specifically: What happens next. Instead, what happens is decided by the fiction, disclaimed decision making to the npcs and the particular stakes in play. If two groups are driving trucks down the side of a mountain and shooting at each other, their battle move to exchange harm doesn't remove the problem that neither of them can possibly stop gently. It doesn't tell you specifically who or what else might be in the way. The fiction does.

Even if a player wins the roll and we decide his choices means that his character shoots the other driver in the head, sending his truck a tumbling and its passengers to certain death... You still have the hard move, and the ground is rushing up at you fast too, then you see the edge... and it doesn't look like the rock keeps on going. What do you do? That's a pretty hard and direct move, which a failure to could result in death. The fiction, and the MCs moves are going to happen whenever there is an opportunity for it, that might be on a miss (and probably will be) but it might happen at any time.

My personal lesson was that I was only making fun, hard and direct moves when my players fucked up. Rather then all the time, giving a strange behavior to my game where a player could expect a battle to go more or less in their favor so long as they didnt roll a miss. It was odd to me, because I was told repeatedly that the same players preferred to miss sometimes, because that when battle got "fun".

A MC should always make a hard roll in battle against a PC, as hard and direct as she likes. Why? Because being in most battles with bullets flying everywhere and shit going sideways should probably normally be a golden opportunity. Battles are vicious things, and the harm when it it exchanged in full can easily and quickly decimate both sides, so its important to make that a tense exchange. Even if you've got a character that isn't really afraid of getting killed himself (although the reversal added to this move at least makes it slightly more unpredictable numerically).

I also dislike that picking a +1 armor, or +1 harm move is approx equal to picking +3 hard vs +0 hard. Anything that makes a 10+ better then a 7-9+ is good in my book.

tdrl:

What my take away from lumpley's participation in the other post was this: Seize by force isnt suppose to describe the results of an entire battle anymore (not always anyway), and they're suppose to be more like incremental victories allowing bad shit happen both before this particular roll and after it (thus permitting more opportunities for different battles moves being merited).

Simply put: because missing doesnt always mean there is an opportunity to make a hard move, and hitting doesnt always means they're not going to be hit with a hard move. So removing the text telling us to make move on a miss, doesnt effect the game at all.

Ebok,

That's a good explanation, thanks. And (as I think you know), I'm very much on the same page as you when it comes to the relationship of harm, armor, hard, and the battle move outcomes.

However, I'm not sure how far to take this concept. For example, then, why do we need the concept of "hard moves" and "expect the worst on a miss" at all?

If you're teaching someone to MC AW, how do you explain to them when to make hard(er) moves?

The guidelines in the book (about making a hard move when presented an opportunity fictionally or on a miss) are really useful.

My worry is that this even further makes the roll itself somewhat pointless. It determines who takes how much harm in the exchange... but the decision to have other (worse) things happen is now entirely in the MC's hands?

That's why I was really hoping for an example. I know it's a bother to type up, but even the bit you wrote above about two trucks speeding along a narrow canyon is helpful. Illustrations help communicate far more efficiently than the theory behind the idea, and help us make sure we're understanding each other.

Here's an example we can try to work with:

I'm armed with a knife, and I'm trying to make my way into a building. The doorway is right there, but there is a guard in the way, armed with a machete. He's ready for me.

However, there is also another guy pursuing me, and he's armed with an assault rifle. He's just about to come around the corner...

I say I'm charging the guard with the machete and trying to kill him or knock him down, hopefully fast enough to get into the door before my other assailant appears and opens fire.

This is a fairly clear "seize by force", I'd say. Let's say that we agree, in addition, that the threat of the pursuer isn't *immediate* (so we don't, for instance, choose to include the threat of the assault rifle in 'harm as established' for the 'seize' roll in the first place), but, if the PC doesn't make it past the guard, he could come under fire.

How might we handle things differently based on a 1ed vs. a 2ed view of "hard moves", and how does each approach help the MC make those decisions?

In 1ed, I wouldn't expect the PC to get shot in the back except on a miss (or if he chose not to "take definite hold", thereby handing the MC an opportunity on a silver platter). In some interpretations, I can imagine making an "act under fire" roll, as well, before or after the "seize", with the PC getting shot on a miss (or maybe also on a 7-9, as a "hard bargain", for instance).


How would we handle this, instead, using this idea that "hard moves can just happen in battle"? How do you, the MC, decide whether that second guy shoots the PC or not?

Also:

I'm a bit confused by your example of a "hard move" being the threat of running off the road... that seems like a textbook "soft move" to me. So, maybe we aren't even talking about the same kind of thing here!

My idea of a "hard move" is (in the context of this discussion) one where the consequences of the action are irrevocable. (In other words, you probably don't say "what do you do?" after it, unless it's to ask about something else - the next step in the action.)

Perhaps another way of phrasing this is: when do you feel comfortable just saying that the truck goes over the edge?

(Ultimately, I really like this line of thought, but I'm entirely unsure as to how to apply it in practice.)

However, I'm not sure how far to take this concept. For example, then, why do we need the concept of "hard moves" and "expect the worst on a miss" at all?

You don't and as Lumpley has said, there have never been "hard" moves in AW1 or AW2, that was something the community devised on our own. It's just flavor to spice up the moves, and provide a sort of balance to the action. I think we can both agree when the player or the MC looks at a miss and sees that line of text, they're going to know it's time for some bad shit to take place. That suggestion is prompting the opportunity for the MC to make a move.

I think what 2e was suggesting is... in battle, that bad shit is all around and already taking place, thus many golden opportunities for brutal surprises (hint: use them). This is the only way I can look at it, since many of these battle moves in the new print don't seem to have risk/repercussions built in.

edit ==> All moves should be irrevocable in their own scope. You never want this to happen: the player makes a move, fails, and you do something -- and now the player just tries again the same way hoping for a better roll. Your move should irrevocably change the situation.  If you announce badness, ignoring that means badness happens, and either way, badness comes. If a PC leaves something behind in an Act Under Fire roll, he shouldn't be able to just say, tomorrow I walk back and pick it up and walk away. Whatever forced him to roll, and the repercussions of that roll, should be in play and be irrevocable. Tomorrow he might go looking for it, but that's also an opportunity to barf forth more apocalyptic.

If you're teaching someone to MC AW, how do you explain to them when to make hard(er) moves?

When the fiction demands it / when there is a great opportunity for it, including the times when a player misses a roll. Even in battle, a player's miss denotes that they are only able to exert influence on a limited thing, which means everything else they failed to do AND everything they didn't address is somewhere they're not in control. Take a look back at Munin's moves quote, it still applies with or without the flavor text.

How might we handle things differently based on a 1ed vs. a 2ed view of "hard moves", and how does each approach help the MC make those decisions? ... How would we handle this, instead, using this idea that "hard moves can just happen in battle"? How do you, the MC, decide whether that second guy shoots the PC or not?

Let's break down your scene:
NPCs Motivations (questions to ask/answer yourself about them)
Pursuer:
• Does he know who the PC is/ identified them? Let's say yes.
• Is he aligned with the guard at the door / same faction? Let's say yes.
• Is he ready to fire the second he see's anyone? strangers? Or just the PC? Just the PC
• Is he willing to accept surrender? Let's go with NOPE! + Rage
• Are any other guards / threats in the immediate vicinity? Yep
• Has he already raised the alarm? Yup

Guard:
• Does he know the PC? Nope
• Does he think he can take the PC? Uncertain
• Is he willing to die for whatever he's doing? Nope
• Is he willing to kill for whatever he's doing? Yup
• Does he even know how to fight? He thinks so...

One we have the answers to these questions, I think the NPC's set up is pretty clear. The guard chasing the PC is going to gun him down, the guard at the door is far more likely to run the fuck away then die here, but it going to at least try.

So what is at stake with the roll?
• Unless the PC chooses deal more harm, the guards armor means he wont be critically injured / dead.
• Unless the PC seizes the door by force, he'll have a second guard throwing bullets at him right now.
• Every point of harm the PC suffers, he'll have to live with. This scene doesn't seem "close to over" so that's an important calculation.
• If the PC chooses to intimidate the guard, the guard will not be willing to join any gang / action against the PC right now, and of course, his fear might spread to other new recruits that... could consider... trying less hard to be up close and personal.

Alright. So now we've got the stakes! (This isn't something I ever work out ahead of time, I pretty much already know the stakes of a given roll / figure them out as everyone's talking.)

But we're not exactly done yet. What we should also consider is this, as they do not depend on the PC's roll:
• Do the PC know what's behind that door / being guarded?
• Does that door represent an escape, or a temporary reprieve / prison?
• Are there people with guns that also want to shoot the PC on the other side of this door?
• If the PC doesn't get in, are there any other things around to try to use for cover?
• What's behind the PC? Like if he decided to go the opposite way?

As the PC is deciding what to do next, if they read a sitch you might share some of that information with them. If they dont, you should share all the immediately observable information. The build doesn't have windows. Six meters down the road is a dumpster that's thick enough to count, Ten meters further is another street, more hiding places, and more guards.

-----Info dump finished-------

Now to answer your question. We've already decided that we're going to use seize by force to solve this. There is no really big difference between this move in 1st ed and 2ed other then that the PC can always achieve a single objective, rather then total defeat. I'm going to use my version of seize by force for this first.

Hit Player gets to choose 3. He basically beats the shit out of the guard, isn't hurt very much, and gets through the door. Best possible outcome. If there are people inside that building with guns, this outcome still fucking sucks. If there's no way out, it still might spell the end since he just imprisoned himself ... with whatever's in here. Since he could open the door, so can another guy, so it's not exactly secure.

Partial [Mine] Player gets a choice. He picks 1 or He picks 2 and the NPC picks 1. This could be tricky depending on what else is happening, but I'd consider picking intimidation and suffer less, let the guard pick 1, and aim to tackle the real threat before I get boxed in. BUT you've already said that he wants in this door.

So we know the PC chooses: • Seize definite hold. He really doesn't wanna get lit up by the other guy.
So the question becomes, does he choose to give the guard something else to scare him, kill him, or take less for it?

Quick run down:

Player says that's good enough. I pick just one. We say: The guard at the door joins up with the other guy yelling he's in here! And He's immediately trying to open the door. I hope our PC thought this through, since that door'll be open the second he stops holding it shut. Probably before he could even throw something heavy in front of it. And there's a big gun on the way too. Oh right, and now we tell him what's inside-- sort of, if it's also aiming a gun at him or might. (otherwise I'd let still shit stay still until the PC says he looks)

Player decides he wants to pick 2. We know his first choice was to seize definite hold and get inside. So the Guard tells him. I SUFFER LESS HARM, because he really doesn't want to die, we describe his actions being rabbity and half-hearted. That simplifies matters. Now the player picks:
• You suffer more, cause fuck you. (back to the above example, but the player knows more about the guard, and the guard knows more about the character)
• I suffer less, (but the guard still joins up with the other guy)
• I impress you, (so the guard flee's after getting whooped)

Momentarily, for purposes of example. Let's say the guard was different and the stakes were different. The guard knows if he lets anyone in, he's dead anyway. So the player first picked I TAKE DEFINITE HOLD. The guard picks I KEEP DEFINITE HOLD (canceling each other out). So the player decides no you don't!, I TAKE DEFINITE HOLD AGAIN and gets inside anyway (back to pick 1). Or fuck this guy DEAL MORE HARM and kills the bastard and then does for the door, but maybe he's also under fire*.

* I'd probably only deal harm on for this cool rolls on a miss, and on the partial have instead the player leaving something important (but probably not essential) outside next to first guy's corpse.

Either way, we have a lot of description that's been provided by the picking of these options. Even when the player just picked the same thing again, we got to see a struggle take place. The reason I wasn't worried about the move saying: pick one or pick two and... at first, was because the player had still had another choice left, and a countered move being reselected sounded fine by me. Same thing in the end.

Partial [AW1] He gets in and shoots the guard in the face.
Partial [AW2] He gets in and shoots the guard in the face.

(or the other options like suffer less, but the guard doesn't get any stake in the result, so it's basically decided without them.)

Miss [Mine] He only gets to pick 1, but first the guard gets to pick 2.

This is the traditional case where we turn the move back on the player. The guard says I KEEP DEFINITE HOLD of the door and INTIMIDATE the shit out of the player in their violent tussle. The player now picks... he can push back into the guard and contest the door, but he wont get in before the gunfire and he'll be doing that under fire of the intimidation too. The player can kill the guard, but he's still shaken and exposed when the machine gun rounds the bend. The player can suffer less and race for the dumpster... (this is abiding by the intimidation so no other penalty) Or he can intimate the guard right back, leaving both of them lizard braining the next actions (though I'd probably consider the guard going inside and slamming the door in this case).

Either way, the guy with the machine gun rounds the corner now and starts trying to execute the player? With the guard still outside though? Maybe that provides the PC a second to try to dash. Without? PC is still dashing but the violence meter is higher.
Example: PC races for the dumpster under gunfire from both of them / one of them (depending). 10+ barely safe, but still in the shit. 7-9, PC suffers harm (probably at -1) and makes it around the bend. Miss: PC suffers harm (full) and doesn't get there because ...

Or PC claims the door under fire of being shaken, and then under fire from the gunfire, probably leaving something behind and getting shot in the process. I've never actually had a character acting under fire, under fire of something else before. I might consider that just a -2 interfere to his roll to keep it simple, or just ask the player which they prefer... dunno! Never considered it before.

Anyway, that's just one option. The guard could choose many things.

Miss [AW1] The player fails utterly. Maybe we turn the move back on them and then have the other guard round the bend. Maybe the player is forced backwards and ends up between both of them. Maybe the player gets disarmed, maybe other guards come from around the corner way down the road, leaving the PC surrounded. Who knows, but the PC's world is fucked right now.

Miss [AW2] The player gets to pick 1. He says, I GET INSIDE. The guard is immediately grabbing and trying to tug the door open yelling to the purser that's he in here. Maybe we have other enemies swarming the outside, while the PC holds the door closed and tries to see where the hell he is. Either way, this still sucks, and he's got the results of a harm roll from the seize with the guard to contend with too.

Miss[AW2-choose one and prepare] The player gets to pick one. He says, I GET INSIDE. But we can turn the move back on him leaving him in much worse shape then he was and maybe shaken too, and then there's the harm roll. But if we do that or not, it's still pretty much exactly the same as AW2 results. Both provoke the MC into making the situation more dire.

I'm a bit confused by your example of a "hard move" being the threat of running off the road... that seems like a textbook "soft move" to me. So, maybe we aren't even talking about the same kind of thing here!

My idea of a "hard move" is (in the context of this discussion) one where the consequences of the action are irrevocable. (In other words, you probably don't say "what do you do?" after it, unless it's to ask about something else - the next step in the action.)

Perhaps another way of phrasing this is: when do you feel comfortable just saying that the truck goes over the edge?

I didn't say the truck isn't going over the edge in my example, in fact I'd probably make it very clear to the players that it is in fact, going right over the edge. HOWEVER I'm perfectly happy with allowing the character's to time to go... maybe I want to jump off the truck wth my shit! (acting under fire could spell, well fuck! Or I lost my shit too! Or DAMN THAT WAS CLOSE HAHA) Because the Truck clearly doesn't have time to stop, so losing the truck is irrevocable.

But maybe they think of something I hadn't, and that could save it too. I'm game for that!