Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force

Ebok,

I really appreciate the lengthy examples and breakdowns - the way you parse AW events and rolls is very interesting to see. I think it about in a similar way, mostly, but in some places we differ. It's a fascinating read, in any case!

I also hadn't realized that, under your suggested "seize" move, you could choose an option twice. That makes the 7-9 result a bit softer. I don't know if I like that or not, but it's interesting! (If you're serious about it, you should specify it in the rule's final writeup, by the way; it's not an obvious feature to a first-time reader.)

By the way, one other thing I really like about your suggested "seize" move is that it should work pretty smoothly as an unopposed roll between two PCs, as well (for people who prefer to roll that way) - it gives a clear "miss" clause that works in PvP, as well. Nice!

However, getting back to this discussion, I feel like you didn't address my question at all. My question is basically quite simple:

Can you give me an example of a hard move you might make and where you might make it, and how it would differ under these two mindsets or approaches?

I don't need a lengthy example or explanations - just a simple one will do.

Take any example you like, whether it's our poor running PC hoping not to get shot, the truck drivers hoping not to go over the edge, or some other situation. (To separate out the gun/fighting issue, we could change the threat of the pursuer with the assault rifle to the psychic maelstrom pursuing him and trying to make its way into his brain, for instance. Then there's less overlap with the outcomes of the 'seize' move and the harm mechanics.)

I don't see any hard moves being made (aside from the 1ed miss example) in your post, so it doesn't help me in terms of illustration.

It occurs to me that it's entirely possible I don't understand the distinction because the way you're suggesting is the way I play already.

What does this different mindset allow you to do (or not do), which you wouldn't or couldn't before? What does that look at the table (an example)?

Can you show me an example of a move you feel like you can make now, that you wouldn't have made under the old rules/understanding?

Actually I'm going to back up and ask you a question. Some of the things you've mentioned seemed strange to me, so I want to get to the bottom of it.

Here are four moves, tell me which ones you'd call hard and which ones you'd call soft:
Your truck is plowing FAST down the mountain...
• Suddenly the ground's just gone and you and truck run right off the side of the road, what do you do?
• Suddenly you see the road end, there's not nearly time to break or room serve, what do you do?
• You round the next corner, and the entire road is blocked by two really big trucks with big guns. What do you do?
• You round the next corner, and bullets shatter your windshield, blowing the top off your passengers head and grazing you for 1-harm. What do you do?


Which of these might you consider after someone misses a roll leading into this?
Are any of them too hard?

Ok, good question.

The boundary between "hard" and "soft" is ultimately a blurry one, not a hard line. However, the basic metric I use is (and I believe this is in line with how Vincent describes it in the text): are the consequences of the move still up for grabs, or have they happened (and are therefore irrevocable)?

Many of your examples are right on the edge, so they're interesting to discuss.

1. It depends quite a lot on the fictional circumstances. If it seems like it's a done deal that the truck is going to crash (and possibly kill the people in it), it's a very hard move. If it seems believable that there are still options to consider and decisions to make, or the consequences can be mitigated (e.g. the fall is short; a PC has the ability to prevent it somehow), then it's more of a soft move.

2. This one is really borderline. Again, how certain are we of the consequences? If I say, "I try to do this [rather daring thing which could help me get out of this]", is your response "Nope, too late!", or "Sure, roll for it!" That's where it would fall as a hard move or a soft move.

More importantly, has the danger been telegraphed beforehand? Is this coming out of nowhere, or is this reasonable to expect, based on what's been happening so far?

3. This is definitely a "soft" move. The ball is totally in the PC's court, even though they might be outgunned or outmatched.

4. I'd say that if the passenger is a relatively unimportant NPC, it's a soft move. If the passenger is a PC or someone really important, then it's more of a hard move. (Again, this is blurry territory.)

The "grazing you for 1-harm" is definitely a hard move, unless it was very deliberately set up beforehand. If it's just coming out of nowhere, it's a hard move. If I established that it was a danger, and the player deliberately chose a course of action which exposed them to it, then it's not - it's acting on a "golden opportunity".

I suppose that this is one of the points that it all turns on:

Did the player already have a chance to respond to this danger, or make a decision to face or avoid it? If they did, it's kosher - it's a "golden opportunity". If they did not, then it's not - it's a "hard move".

But, like I said, your examples are all very, very close to the line! Ultimately, there's a bit of dial there based on how the culture of play at your table has developed - I can see those falling very clearly on one side or another of that line *for a particular group*, based on how they've been playing up until now.

In return, I'll ask this:

Which ones of those are moves that you 1) felt you couldn't make before, but 2) now feel you have the permission to, because of what Vincent said?

I have a further question on how this interacts with our larger discussion, but I'll wait for you to respond to this first, in case you had a further point to make. :)

I'm probably not answering your questions yet, but I'm not ready to go there. Here's a block of text, read it, think it over, look back over your past questions and decide: are they still valid? If so ask them again. If you've more pressing questions, ask those instead. Why did I go here? Because I had an inkling that we have fundamentally different approaches to what it means when we say, make a hard move.

After reading your reply, this is definitely one of the places we differ in a major way.
Now I understand why you're confused and asking me really odd questions.

More importantly, has the danger been telegraphed beforehand?

The only thing established was what I told you. They’re going really fast down a mountain and something happened to provoke a "harder" move.

Did the player already have a chance to respond to this danger, or make a decision to face or avoid it? If they did, it's kosher - it's a "golden opportunity". If they did not, then it's not - it's a "hard move".

See, No. This is not what I mean by a hard move at all. This is definitely at the root of our failure to communicate. This distinction you’re putting here is what I call, legal move vs illegal move. Not soft vs hard. Let’s go into detail.

My take on the four are:
1. Bad MC.
You don't surprise a character with death or the destruction of all their things. I consider this type of threat action a no no, in any situation. You do not introduce the edge of the road, at the same time you throw the character off of it. They need to be involved in that conversation, even if it's "I buckle my seat belt".

2. Very Hard move.
They've just been told they've lost their truck. That's "take something away" in a very irrevocable way. It's very hard because they might also die, and they might lose a lot more too. Depends on the stakes, But no matter what, pain is coming and loss is here.  The only reason I think this move is okay, is that by driving stupid fast down a mountain, you already know you're putting your truck as risk, thus establishing some expectation of it crashing. This is a known stake / risk.

3. Hard move
Solid hard move. Put someone in a spot. They're about to get lit up. The road that way is barred.  They're on a mountain going fast, and now they've got baddies filling their vision. This is a great way to respond to them missing a move, or leaving themselves exposed, or for having pissed off that warlord a day or so ago. Whatever they were going fast to avoid / to get to, just got fucked up.

4. Extremely hard move, borderline unfair.
You do not deal harm to a player without establishing it first. Breaking a windshield's pretty low on the totem pole, killing an NPC is definitely something that's fair game at all times. But, hitting the truck with enough harm to do all that, especially it you're dealing harm to the character? That needs to be something they saw coming or knew was a risk. If they knew that was there and rounded the corner anyway, sure, harm established and dealt as a hard move. But I still wouldn't do it like this.

---------------

So In light of this information. I don't make what you call "hard moves" at all. Even on a miss. I make moves that follow the principals given to me, targeting the stakes defined by the fiction, and make "a move" that makes the story progress by irrevocably changing the scene.

I think of hard like: how hard is it to for the PC to swallow what just happened, but NOT how hard is it to believe that just happened.
If you feel cheated, then I’ve done something wrong as your MC.

Something that is bringing violence to bear, is always a hard move. A hard move, is any move that is driven by aggression, violence, etc. If the player was doing that, would they roll for hard for it? If so, we'd collectively call this a hard move. In my games, you don't want to be the guy getting shot at, that normally means this new things is going to dominate your life if not take it or cost you something you worked for. Threatening to shoot your friend isn't a hard move, but holding a gun to his head while saying that is.

A soft move is like, the warlord collector is there buying the tank you just pulled the jingle together to get, what do you do? Cause, that sucks, and its irrevocable (he's there now), but maybe you can still deal. If that's the guy you were going to kill with the tank? Well, maybe this is getting closer to a hard move. But it'd definitely be a hard move if you walked into the store, arms full of jingle, and ten guys surrounding the warlord draw guns on you while you soak in the scene.

-------------------

So before we both get into anything else. I want to make sure you're clear where I stand on this. I never introduce danger via harm. I never introduce threats via the destruction of the PCs things. I introduce the threat if these dangers, and then they act on that impulse, and the player gets to say / see / do something as it is happening. I've never had the need to be harder then this; even in very high action, dangerous adrenaline filled scenes. My players would probably have killed me if I had been, there are plenty of other ways to make a story _move_.

I make Moves when it’s my turn to speak, so the world keeps moving. When a player misses, I tend to make a direct move against their things, their groups, or their person. I break them apart and put them at risk, showcase throwing something world changing at them. I never totally blind side them, no matter how bad the stakes were when they missed that roll.

Ebok,

Fascinating! It is clear, now, that you and I have different interpretations of the term "hard move", which is really good to know for the sake of this discussion. I agree with you that this is most likely why this discussion has been challenging for us.

In general, however, the way you describe playing sounds exactly like the way I would play, as well. I agree with your examples, and your thinking behind them.

One thing I don't totally understand is this:

I don't make what you call "hard moves" at all. Even on a miss. I make moves that follow the principals given to me, targeting the stakes defined by the fiction, and make "a move" that makes the story progress by irrevocably changing the scene.

[...]

When a player misses, I tend to make a direct move against their things, their groups, or their person. I break them apart and put them at risk, showcase throwing something world changing at them. I never totally blind side them, no matter how bad the stakes were when they missed that roll.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't 'hard moves' at all", when the rest of the quote above sounds very much like my definition of a hard move:

"Targeting the stakes defined by the fiction [...] I make a direct move against their things, their groups, or their person [...] by irrevocably changing the scene."

That's a great phrasing of it, by the way. Covers a lot of territory!

So, on this point, I'm less sure what you mean. Are all your moves of the "here's a threat, now what do you do?" variety? If so, when does something irrevocable happen? When would you destroy a truck, or inflict harm on a character?

Also, how do you feel about Vincent's examples in the text? If I'm understanding correctly, from your description here, they would be unacceptable at your table. For instance, take the miss on p. 129 (2nd Ed), where a grenade goes off in the PC's home.

I'm going to jump in with my answer on this one - when I talk about making a "hard move," I am generally speaking about a situation where I narrate both the circumstance and the consequences at the same time. The "harder" the move, the more serious and irrevocable those consequences are.

For instance: "You see a spot in the road up ahead where it's only one lane wide and the shoulder is crumbling. There's no guard-rail and it's a pretty steep fucking drop. You and the Datsun Cannibals' war-buggy won't both make the bend at the same time driving abreast. What do you do?" In AW parlance, I am announcing future badness; I am letting the player know that the situation (which already seems fraught with peril, as it's a car chase of some sort on a twisty mountain road) is about to get even more hairy. I have made my move, but at this point I have not narrated any consequences. In some sense, I am doing my due diligence as an MC to establish what is at stake. Now I hand things over to the player, and it's their turn to speak.

Player: "Fuck it, I can't let these assholes get in front of me or they'll trap us for sure. I mash the accelerator to the floor and try to get past them before we hit the narrow spot." This is the PC indicating that he or she is attempting something dangerous. In my mind, this triggers a move (as the PC is acting under fire at this point), and I'll call for a roll+Cool.

Aside: The player could have said, "Fuck it, I can't let these assholes get in front of me or they'll trap us for sure. I'm going to cut across to the inside, hit the gas, ram them and try to box them out so they go over the edge." This too sounds like a move, but it expressly addresses the two vehicles hitting each other rather than simply maneuvering. And the Datsun Cannibals probably have the same idea, so this sounds like a pretty classic seize by force and I'm gonna call for a roll+Hard.

So let's follow this up. Let's say the player goes with the first choice - he or she rolls+Cool and totally fans the roll to the tune of a 4. That is a miss, which I view as the proverbial golden opportunity to make as hard and direct a move as I like. Now it's my turn to talk again, and I say, "You blast forward with a burst of speed, but so do they. You're definitely in the lead, but as you try to cut back over to the inside, you misjudge the distance; their front bumper catches your rear quarterpanel, causing you to start fishtailing wildly. Just when you think you have it under control, you hit the crumbling shoulder, and over the side you go. The car rolls over and over and over, sky, dirt, sky, dirt. You're belted in, but your shit's flying everywhere. There's broken glass and rocks and you get knocked around like Raggedy Ann." At this point I'll break from the fictional narration for the book-keeping; we'll track harm, make harm move, etc: "Your car takes 5 harm, 4 of which blows through to you. And I'm gonna call it (ap), because it's falling and crushing damage and your biker leathers aren't going to help you here. Make the harm move for me." Let's say that miraculously, the player gets a partial on the harm move, so I decide that they've lost track of something - more on this in a sec.

Now I switch back to narrative mode: "The car finally comes to rest upside down and lodged up against a boulder. You can smell gas. Lots of gas. As you drop out and drag yourself from the wreckage, you look up-slope - your gear and parts of your car are strewn all over the fucking place. And way up by the road, you can see that the Cannibals' war-buggy is parked and the door is hanging open, but you don't see the passengers themselves. What do you do?"

OK, I'm gonna parse this last one, because this is actually me making three separate (but related) moves. First and most importantly, my "hard move" is inflicting harm as established; the player knew that going over the side was a possible consequence, and here it is. This consequence is irrevocable, as there's no "un-crashing" your car. Secondly, by talking about their gear scattered all over the place, I am taking away their stuff - but this not what I would consider a "hard" move; the stuff is still there, and if the player survives the following encounter, it's possible that nothing important was lost. There is risk associated with getting it back, but its loss is not yet irrevocable. And finally, I am once again announcing future badness by describing how the enemies have un-assed their war-buggy and are probably already working their way down the slope (machetes in hand) to make sure the job is finished.

This situation has also snowballed (not least because the PC doesn't know exactly where the bad-guys are, and thus might elect to read a sitch), and the PC is certainly still in danger - getting away or fighting them off will certainly lead to more rolls and more opportunities for mayhem. And having set up the (new) situation, the conversation again shifts back to the player.

Finally, it's not that hard moves don't ask the player, "what do you do?" Rather, it's that they ask at different places in the conversation. It's the difference between "He raises his gun and points it at you. What do you do?" and "He puts a three-round burst into your chest at close range; your body armor stops the worst of it, but it knocks you down and you're sure to have some internal bleeding. What do you do?" In the first case, the PC has the chance to avoid or mitigate the damage. In the second, the damage is already done. But in both cases, conversation switches to the player as it is their turn to talk.

How does that square with your understanding of "hard and direct" moves?

One thing I would like to add to the above - the irrevocability or scale of the consequences I mete out are always as the result of either a) a PC failing a move, or b) my own set-up, or c) both. I'm totally cool with saying "He shoots you, take 2 Harm" without the player having made a roll. But I won't do it out of the blue; in all cases, the situation has escalated to the point where the guy shooting you is a natural consequence of your action (or inaction). This is how I interpret "following the fiction."

To circle back to something that Ebok said earlier in this thread (about getting into the habit of not making "hard" moves unless a PC failed a roll), I think this concept of set-up is doubly important when it comes to interpreting the new battle moves. Vincent seems to be making the assumption that by interfacing with the battle moves, you are "in battle," which comes with its own (unspecified) set of dangers, risks, and consequences. FWIW, the thing that got me into the habit of using this kind of set-up was the old AW1 peripheral battle moves; because the base amount of harm being doled out was regular/fixed (and because the MC never rolls dice), it was the way that the NPCs were able to influence the outcome of the fight, how they were able to change the landscape in which the battle was taking place. Once you've established that an enemy goon is leveling an RPG at the fuel tanks, nobody bats an eye if (subsequent to ignoring this new threat) the fuel tanks blow up. It follows the fiction, it is a natural consequence.

How does that square with your understanding of "hard and direct" moves?

Munin, Squared. I'm not sure seize by force works here though, as none of the options really apply. And I'm less sure about the whole, you shit gets thrown across the entire ravine as not irrevocable especially since time is not something that have right now. The car is toast for sure, anything breakable is gone, lots of little shit probably wont get found again, and none of it is available right now when they might really need it, and being half dead, hunted, and trapped in a car is probably the more pressing then the guys on the way, that's a forecast for later. If you have to crawl off, that stuff IS gone, probably looted by those fuckers.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't 'hard moves' at all", when the rest of the quote above sounds very much like my definition of a hard move

Paul T, I make lots of irrevocable moves, directly at them or their stuff, but they see it coming before it hits them. You said there are kosher "golden opportunities" to make direct irrevocable moves, and then there are hard moves which just hit them straight out without the opportunity because of a miss. I only do the former, making direct moves when there's an opportunity (a miss is just a remind to look for an unused opportunity), I never create harm as I beat them with it.

Are all your moves of the "here's a threat, now what do you do?" variety?
If so, when does something irrevocable happen? When would you destroy a truck, or inflict harm on a character?

All of my moves first establish the threat, and enable PC action before the threat hits them. Munin's example is a very good showcase of this. I don't introduce a danger by hitting them with it.

I inflict harm in a few ways. Aiming a gun at someone, and asking what do they do. Talk? Bang. Act under fire to get under cover? Hit no harm, partial some harm, miss all the harm. Seize by force? Harm happens as a consequence for the roll. Otherwise they might take harm environmentally, say they leap out a window and miss the ledge, harm. How much? That's probably act under fire so the previous rules apply.

I don't normally have to trouble myself too much with when to do harm, or hurt their shit, the players are very avid participants in trying to do dangerous stuff to avoid other dangerous stuff.  It's normally crystal clear when it happens, and nobody is surprised. That is not to say I dont surprise them, just that there is always a two step process before the marking of harm.

Also, how do you feel about Vincent's examples in the text? If I'm understanding correctly, from your description here, they would be unacceptable at your table. For instance, take the miss on p. 129 (2nd Ed), where a grenade goes off in the PC's home.

I think that's the same example as p 155 (1st Ed). For one, that example would definitely be a non starter at my table, but that's pretty much because everyone around my table hates the idea that they (or anyone else) could somehow survive a grenade going off at their feet. We'd be all like, so, how does it feel like to look down and realize you've got no legs, or maybe other parts? So... considering that an AW grenade is more like a mean firecracker... I'll deviate slightly.

Those three gang members are gang members of a PC. If that PC armed them or had been involved with role-play establishing the fact that they have and like to use grenades, then I'd consider their use fair play. Still, to do it like that? Yeah I think that's pretty dirty. There's just better ways to handle it, hell, even blowing them out of their 4th story window is better. Or letting them see the grenade and maybe decide to just fucking jump. Again, I'm not opposed to showing them what is going to hit them, I'm just opposed to not letting them have some interaction with it. In Munin's example the guy clearly knows it's very likely to fall off the road there. They've still got to deal with it.

I'd probably have the grenade hit the floor, and let the little voice in their head remind them it's definitely cooked. (i.e. getting closer to it is bad for any reason) And ask, so in that quarter to half a second, what are you thinking? And if they don't have an answer, I'll just keep going, it explodes, etc etc. However, I'm also far more likely to showcase them (the gang) grabbing the grenades during the conversation with the the PC gang leader; foreboding to everyone what's coming. And I'm also far more likely to show the grenade ending up on the other side of the room, maybe behind something that'll dull the blow--rolling right to the feet of some other occupant is also game. My players care more about what happens to the NPCs around them then themselves more often then not.

I also want to point out that this example was clearly not updated for 2e. Because on a miss, the player gets to still choose one. And if they choose what should I watch out for, and I say grenades, and then as a hard move hit them with a grenade... that's just being a fucking asshole. Clearly if they can get a read, and they read what I'm about to do, they should get some desperate gambit to leap out of the window to safety, fall behind some big ceramic fridge, whatever. Maybe there's no way to avoid ALL the harm, but some? definitely.

As a followup. Munin, yeah I mentioned that before. Honestly? I never figured out how to use the 1st ed battle moves, they were always too cumbersome or not clear enough to add to the toolbox. We really didn't need them. We also seem to lack any structure for doling out harm with the current battle moves, so I suspect one is forced into spreading "hard" dangers all over the place to keep the world spicy. It's doable, but I don't think it's very well documented in 1st ed and its even worse in 2nd ed edition book.

If you've a good rule of thumb, that's probably helpful advice anyway, for me maybe, or for those reading this later.

As for the road battle where you've got two cars shouldering each other and only enough bridge for one of you... How would you handle the new seize by force, if as their option, they say I seize definite hold over the road? Do they still get knocked off? Isn't this move about who gets the road first, if they seize definite hold, doesn't that assume they got through first? What does it mean to inflict more harm? They're dead if they go over. What does it mean to suffer less, the car hits more gently? If you'd use SeizeByForce, how do you parse those selections, and why choose this move above the others?

I mean, I'd definitely have this be act under fire, even aggressively shouldering the other vehicles, and it would play out exactly as you described. How did they exchange harm anyway? The two equally sized cars bumping each other but needing to stay in control certainly didn't crush the other vehicle, the road did that, falling did that, seems absolutely a cool sitch. If the player hit a 10+ you can bet I'd narrative the other vehicle being knocked off that road. The 7-9 sounds more like a, well neither of you get knocked off, and you're still in the lead but...

Although OVERTAKE ANOTHER VEHICLE looks like it could handle this sitch too (also cool). And we've got car stats to consider now for all cars, not just the driver's.

Well, interesting.

I think we're all on the same page as far as "making hard moves", because I'm nodding along with what you're both writing. However, here is the point where I remain confused:

Everything you have both described sounds, to me, like textbook 1ed AW play. That's pretty much exactly how I handle it, too.

So what is the new or different paradigm? What's the "new way"?

I still think we need an example of a) something that you do in play, b) and how you wouldn't have been able to do it under 1ed?

(As an aside, the grenade example brings some confusion I have about the new "read a sitch" move. It *would* feel pretty weird to reveal a danger and bring it to bear all at once. How do you handle that? Any clever ways of doing it?)

I still think we need an example of a) something that you do in play, b) and how you wouldn't have been able to do it under 1ed?

I have not officially played 2e since the release, only the beta's leading up to it.
I definitely have not played since hammering these last two megathreads out.

I have no learned guidance on that part. I'll think about potential examples, but I don't have one yet.

So what is the new or different paradigm? What's the "new way"?

There are not really any changes in how moves are made between 1st and 2nd edition. There have been changes to battle, maybe Munin has tips. Lumpley has already said that it's still perfectly valid to hit the player really fucking hard whenever they roll a miss, not just when the move tells us to make it on a miss. There never was a definitive hard move defined in the text, as moves should be irrevocable or otherwise they're not really a move, they're just passing descriptions. I learned that I should be making harder moves outside of Players missing, which means it's very possible that I've been trying to make my game more deadly because I was playing the game with the rules set to gentle.

I can imagine how truly vicious this game could get if I take most 'opportunities for something to go wrong', and make that something go wrong. The player might need less deadly harm, more armor, whatever, because they're probably going to need it. They're probably not going to like me very much though, so I'll need to devise better / a new set of rules-of-thumb as to when to be how mean.

(As an aside, the grenade example brings some confusion I have about the new "read a sitch" move. It *would* feel pretty weird to reveal a danger and bring it to bear all at once. How do you handle that? Any clever ways of doing it?)

For the Read a Sitch, telling them the best way out is jumping out the forth story window and trying to grab on to the laundry lines / the opposite building / land on something that's pretty out there / say climb down... are all valid best escape answers for that read a sitch. Them seeing the grenade after that type of answer means, I'm done thinking about doing that, I'm doing that with +1 forward. I don't know if that's too leading or not. I'd probably try to think of something less obvious and actually better for them. In my example they didn't pick this so... On to that.

What I would do given a sitch where I know I'm throwing a grenade at them, and they just asked me what they should be on the look out for is: I'd probably have the first grenade hit the floor, and tell the player they literally froze in panic, felt their brain just grind to a halt––and a second later, one of the guys outside says, "That one was a dud, give me another". And then I tell the player, "you have to watch out for grenades. What do you do?" Me elevating the bad-guys from cutting down the door to deal with the player, to them aiming to turn the entire abode and the Player into blasted pieces is a pretty good escalation. I think the player will feel the rush now. They don't know any of the other answers they didn't ask during that read, and that's where they're vulnerable, so that's where I push:

They don't know the best way out. They don't know where their enemies are. They don't know all this shit. So as I've already goaded them into picking a drastic escape action RIGHT NOW (and that action might not have been the best way forward), I can easily grab any one of the read a sitch questions they didn't pick and snowball that hardness at them during my next turn to speak. Moves don't have to happen instantly, there can be lightening before the thunder.

example
They say fuckit and scramble out the window as the second grenade falls, and start climbing down the building right before !!BLAST!!, their room is decimated. (I just irrevocably took away their stuff, literally detonated explosives where they keep all their things.) The noise mades some people look up... and one of those guys was with this gang. He can see the Player hanging there on the wall for dear life, so he shouts where the player is, and then starts shooting at them while they're clinging to the side. The bricks next to the players face explode. Well shit. ( note I just put them in a spot. What was a potentially safe escape, just irrevocable became not safe at all. ) The player is going to get shot probably, but maybe they let go instead, or fall, or they try to jump off and grab something else, or they try climbing back into the room. Whatever they do it's probably Under Fire, and here act under fire has great connotations with a myriad of possibilities where none of us know what's going to happen next, making the entire thing exciting.

PS. Note that I actually telegraphed the first hard move (the grenade) before delivering it. Then I followed with yet another hard move that keeps the pacing action-packed / frantic. This is typical Hollywood action movie shit, but it makes sense with the fiction. However they only missed the move once, why did I make two moves against them? Because the my principals demanded I keep it interesting, and the fiction is the master of what comes next.

Ebok: In my example, scattering the PC's gear is a softer version of taking away their stuff because they have an opportunity (with a cost) to get some of it back before the Datsun Cannibals make it onto the scene of the crash. And if they fight the Cannibals off, it's a matter of lost time rather than lost stuff. It's not a cream-puff move to be sure, but it's not irrevocable.

For instance, the player might say, "My magnum was in the glove box. Is it still there? Can I arm myself?"

To whit I might reply, "The latch to the glove box got sprung in the crash. But you see some of the other crap that was also in the glove box a little ways up the hill. You could maybe get to it before the Cannibals show up if you move now. But you still have no idea how far down they are. But if you want to arm yourself, you can pick up a big fucking rock right now." This is me explicitly giving an opportunity with a cost. If the player wants to go for it, I'm probably going to call for a roll+Cool. And this is also a good place to read a sitch, because what is my enemy's true position (where are the Cannibals now?), what should I be on the lookout for (where the hell is my gun?), and what's my best way out (how can I beat feet away from here before the bad guys arrive?) are all pretty good things to know right now, and being able to take +1 forward is probably worth the risk.

As an aside, this situation also presents a great opportunity for the new subterfuge moves. The player could use the fact that they are bleeding and wounded to leave an obvious blood-trail away from the crash site in order to lure the Cannibals into an ambush (i.e. bait a trap).

But let's take a step back in time: Ebok asked the question about what a seize by force roll might look like, so let's look at that. In this case, the PC is using violence (albeit vehicular) to achieve their aims. I'm envisioning this as ramming and/or trying to crush the other side's car against the rocky wall on the inside lane of the road, a whole lotta bumping and grinding - I'm envisioning a mountain road where one side (down) is a drop-off and the other side (up) is basically sheer rock and/or boulders. So we trade harm as established - the PC's car is built for speed, so maybe it's Massive 1. The Datsun Cannibals' war-buggy is a little bigger or heavier (it's covered in steel plates and spikes, so it's Massive 2. Since this is jockeying for position, we'll call it a glancing hit, which tells us that what we're talking about is actually v-harm (this represents not actual damage to the vehicle itself, but rather how your course is forced to change).

V-harm is established as the attacking (PC's) car's Massive (1) minus the defending car's Massive or Handling (defender's choice, but in this case Massive 2 is better), meaning the established Harm is 1 - 2 = 0 v-harm;

Right, so the player rolls+Hard. Here are their choices:

1) take definite hold of it: in a sense this is winning your way through and being in undeniable possession of the lead position on the single lane. Note that possession of the lane doesn't automatically mean that the loser goes over the edge - it could represent them being forced to brake sharply at the last moment and give ground. Remember, the player is trying to get ahead of the Cannibals to keep from being cut off and trapped.

2) suffer little harm: Since the base v-harm is already 0-harm, I'd say that if the player chooses this option, they don't have to make the v-harm move at all. Considering that one of the possible results of v-harm is "you crash," this is pretty attractive.

3) inflict terrible harm: This bumps up the v-harm suffered to 1, meaning that when the player makes the "when you suffer v-harm..." roll for the Cannibals, they're rolling +1 and are therefore more likely to give ground, suffer damage, or crash.

4) impress, dismay, or frighten your enemy: Provided both parties survive this exchange, perhaps the Datsun Cannibals aren't as crazy as everyone says - rather than actively attacking the PC, maybe they drop back and simply elect to follow at a distance. If the PC leaves their territory, they're content to let him or her go.

By way of immediate consequences, here's what's at stake in the v-harm department (from AW2, p. 215):
When you suffer v-harm, roll+v-harm suffered. On a 10+, you lose control, and your attacker chooses 1:
• You crash.
• You spin out.
• Choose 2 from the 7–9 list below.
On a 7–9, you’re forced to swerve. Your attacker chooses 1:
• You give ground.
• You’re driven off course, or forced onto a new course.
• Your car takes 1-harm ap, right in the transmission.
On a miss, you swerve but recover without disadvantage.

So this is a situation where the player could succeed (10+ on their roll to seize by force) but still crash. Maybe this isn't going over the edge on the outside, maybe it's just hitting a big boulder or rock on the inside. It's also entirely possible that in all of the bumping and rubbing and jockeying for position that both vehicles go over the edge. Or one goes over the edge and the other crashes. Either way, by electing to seize by force the player has accepted the likely possibility of dire consequences even if they get what it was they were after.

One further aside here: if the player chose to take definite hold of it in order to get into the lead position and managed a 7-9 on the v-harm move, I wouldn't have them give ground as that would in effect be negating their success. Being forced onto a new course also isn't really appropriate here, but suffering 1-harm ap sure is.

Now let's look at the differences in how we might interpret a player miss as a function of edition. In AW1, the player selects none of these options, and has given the MC a golden opportunity. It would be super easy to simply treat this the same as the previous example (where the PC chose to act under fire) and inflict harm as established (i.e. you go over the edge). Another natural thing to do here is to flip the player's move, meaning that the MC picks some options for the NPCs (maybe they take control of the lead and inflict extra v-harm, meaning the PC is in a worse position and is more likely to lose control of their vehicle and crash anyway).

In AW2 using the house-rule of "pick 1 but prepare for the worst," the aggressive move the MC makes is going to depend on what the situation looks like following the player's choice (and the outcome of the resulting v-harm moves). If the player chose to take definite hold of it and stayed on the road, I might inflict harm as established on their vehicle (maybe the equivalent of a glancing hit against a building, 2-harm, to represent the car grinding against the rocky up-slope), or more likely I'll put them in a spot - one of the Cannibals has leapt from his vehicle to the PC's and is trying to get inside. The PC is undeniably in the lead, but now he or she has a different (and potentially bigger) problem.

In AW2-as-written the player picks 1, but invoking a battle move means you are now "in battle." Now it's no longer just a chase, it is a fight and fight-stuff is happening. In this case, I'd definitely go with a Cannibal leaping from their war-buggy to the PC's car as my next narrative move. So yeah, sure, you're in the lead and they can't bottle you up at the narrow spot in the road, but now you have a screaming, machete-wielding madman clinging to the roof of your car.

What do you do?

In working through a number of examples of the various SBF use cases (AW1's "golden opportunity," a modified AW2 with "pick 1 but prepare for the worst," AW2 as written with "snowball into battle," etc), I think most of it comes down to degrees of interpretation. Following the fiction is probably going to lead you to a similar place in all cases, and I suspect the only difference is going to be in the details. The fact that my preferred gut instinct of "pick 1 but prepare for the worst" got me to exactly the same place as AW2 means it probably doesn't matter much which version you use. My only complaint against AW2 as written is that it is in no way clear exactly what being "in battle" means, nor is there much advice given to the MC on how to handle a battle.

But that'll be the topic of my next post.  ;)

Munin,

I'm looking forward to your next post! Your application of "seize by force" to a fierce car chase is pretty interesting, and does seem to work out pretty well.

Again, however, we get the issue of a harm roll potentially scuttling a player success. I'm not sure how much of a feature or a bug that is, but, for my tastes, at least a more clear sense of when to make a harm roll would be nice (in my experience, no one makes it every time it should be made, but, rather, does so selectively, as the text suggests).

Your example of "choose 1 and prepare the worst" vs. "choose 1" is interesting, because you made a move in both cases, and chose the same move.

To me, the important factors in how to play out a move and its consequences are:

* Whose turn is it to talk?

AW's basic moves (and seize by force, in 1ed) explicitly hand the "turn" to the MC on a miss.

The 2nd ed SBF formulation makes this completely unclear. (Again, I could see that as a bug or a feature, but, in general, I think a game like AW needs more clarity, not less.)

* Is it an opportunity to make a hard/irrevocable move?

In other words, are the consequences/effects of the fictional action still up in the air, or are they a settled matter?

In a kind of "standard" street interpretation of AW's rules, missing a move with the "expect the worst" clause is a clear opportunity for that. (Vincent's posts in the other thread suggest that he plays it more loosely, but I don't really see the need for that, when the MC already decides how hard a move to make anyway.)

I think that if I were playing your same example here, I would play up one or both of these (whereas in your example, the MC seems to have handled both issues in the same way - in which case I'm not sure what the point of the rules change is).

For instance:

"Choose 1":

First, we narrate the outcome of the move: "You get ahead of the other vehicle, forcing them behind you (and let's apply harm and other book-keeping)."

Now: Is another player sitting on their hands, waiting to make a move? If so, I ask them what they do. If not, I make a move of my own:

"They're yelling and screaming with rage; the road has narrowed and they're realizing they can't cut you off anymore. One of the more wild-looking ones - he's surely high on some crazy narcotics - jumps forward and slams onto the back of your vehicle. He's hanging on for dear life - you could probably shake him if you're willing to swerve from your course a bit. What do you do?"

"Choose 1, expect the worst":

First, we narrate the outcome of the move, as before: "You get ahead of the other vehicle, forcing them behind you (and let's apply harm and other book-keeping)."

However, now the ball is explicitly in my court - I'm not passing the turn to another player. I make a move, and I make it hard, or at least harder:

"They're yelling and screaming with rage; the road has narrowed and they can see they can't cut you off anymore. One of the more wild-looking ones - he's surely high on some crazy narcotics - jumps forward and slams onto the back of your vehicle. You can see him land in the side mirror: he's got this rusty grappling hook and he's just smashed it into the trunk of your vehicle. A long chain leads to a spool on the pursuing vehicle - you're not gonna shake them easily now; you might be able to throw the goon, but that thing looks like it is wedged in deep. What do you do?"

[If there's another player, I might ask them NOW what they want to do.]


I'm still a little concerned that, under the 2nd Ed rules, the PC *always* gets ahead of the pursuing vehicle here, unless they're badly hurt or outgunned.
 That seems to push the game into a "cinematic" mode of play by default, whereas my games have always been more "down to earth" and less "Mad Max".  It also means that harm/hit points are the determining factor in the outcome of battles like these - they will end when the PC goes down, or the player decides survival is more important than winning this particular moment. I can see the argument that this is ultimately a matter of taste, but it seems to me - not having played with these rules, mind you - that this forces your hand in this respect a fair bit. If you *like* the more "down to earth" style,
 it seems the game's going to fight you a bit more now. Under the old formulation, you could play it either way more easily.

Under the new rules, I can see how the more "successful" outcomes from battle moves might lengthen action sequences and create more cinematic battle scenes. Perhaps that's what Vincent wants to encourage here. Would you agree with that, or not? I'm just speculating, after all.

On the topic of the harm move, we pretty much make it all the time. Even if you suffer 0-harm after armor, you make the move. About the only time we don't is if the base harm was already 0 when your armor was factored in and you further chose to suffer little harm - in this case it's that you're such a bad-ass you come out of the dust-up without so much as a scratch. Otherwise, it's pretty much automatic, and I frequently use it to drive the narrative (with the you lose track of something and you miss noticing something important options coming up pretty frequently).

One thing I've mentioned before is worth reiterating, however, and that's that I try very hard to avoid having the result of a harm move completely negate a player's success. It might mitigate it or make it more costly, but I try to avoid invalidating a player's choices. So in the "road rage" example above, consider the following situation: the player misses the SBF roll, but (under AW2 as written) still chooses to take definite hold of it, ensuring that they made it to the narrows ahead of the Datsun Cannibals. No matter what the outcome of the resulting v-harm move is, they're still in front at the narrows - the Cannibals' war-buggy can't block them. The PC may have spun out (in which case maybe the PC is now contemplating fleeing backwards at high speeds until the space to pull off a bootleg-reverse presents itself) or even crashed (which may have brought them to a dead stop), but they are past the narrows.

And a lot depends on the outcome of the Datsun Cannibals' v-harm move as well (perhaps the only move in the game where the player is rolling on behalf of the opposition). If the PC chose to absolutely get to the narrows first and the player gets to choose you get forced off course for the opponents? Yeah, sure, you might spin out in the process, but as a fan of the PC I'm probably going to send the war-buggy hurtling over the edge too.

But this is a case where even sending the PC's car over the edge is probably fair game. After all, it's a lot of bumping and grinding, after which you're in front - but you lose control and drop over the edge. This is functionally identical to the first case (where the player chose to act under fire to try to race ahead of the Cannibals), only with two "failed" rolls (SBF and v-harm) instead of one. So yeah, sending you ass-over-teakettle down the mountain seems reasonable, all things considered.

In terms of what move I chose as MC for the latter two cases (alternate "pick 1 and prepare for the worst," or AW2 as written), that's what I mean when I say I doubt it makes much difference in play. I could absolutely have just chosen to inflict harm on the PC's car as it gets wedged between the war-buggy and the rocks before shouldering by as my "hard move," and even mentioned that as an option. But in this case, I felt that putting the PC in a spot was more thematically interesting. And in the case of AW2 as written, the idea that this has turned from a chase into a fight means an unwanted passenger is a great way to ratchet up the dramatic tension.

In your example (an unwanted passenger versus and unwanted passenger setting a grapnel), I think it's just a question of degrees. Both are putting someone in a spot, but one also has overtones of capturing someone

Finally, I'm confused by your comments about "handing narration to the MC on a miss." Narration gets handed to the MC as soon as the outcome of the player's move is clear, whether it's a hit or a miss. It's the MC's job to incorporate the player's move into the fiction, to dictate how their actions are successful, to say what happens to the NPCs, and to make the next move. Then back to the player as they answer the inevitable, "what do you do?" Back and forth. You can (and absolutely should) work together with the player to put the finishing touches on the narration (MC: "Oh, you inflict terrible harm, huh? Tell me what that looks like!"), but ultimately it's up to you as the MC to make the world feel real, and often times that means translating the raw dice rolls into words and mental pictures.

Finally, I'm confused by your comments about "handing narration to the MC on a miss." Narration gets handed to the MC as soon as the outcome of the player's move is clear, whether it's a hit or a miss. It's the MC's job to incorporate the player's move into the fiction, to dictate how their actions are successful, to say what happens to the NPCs, and to make the next move. Then back to the player as they answer the inevitable, "what do you do?" Back and forth. You can (and absolutely should) work together with the player to put the finishing touches on the narration (MC: "Oh, you inflict terrible harm, huh? Tell me what that looks like!"), but ultimately it's up to you as the MC to make the world feel real, and often times that means translating the raw dice rolls into words and mental pictures.

Interesting! I guess I don't play it that way. I agree with what you wrote there, but I don't think "Narration gets handed to the MC" is the same thing as "it's the MC's turn to make a move". My process of playing the game goes something like this:

In normal, free play, we go back and forth. In those instances where it's clearly the MC's "turn", she makes a move.

However, I don't count answering questions, asking questions, and so forth, as "turns" in this context. Let's say that a player says, "Ok, I'm gonna grab something and smash it over his head.... actually, hang on! Are there any bottles on the table? Could I grab one of those?" As MC, I'm going to answer them, but I don't consider that to be "my turn".

I wouldn't ever respond to that by *capturing someone*, for example - that wouldn't feel right. Instead, we'd just chat for a second about what they might be able to get their hands on, and then the player would go ahead with their move (maybe 'go aggro', in this case). I'm just answering questions and providing details, not "making a move". It's still the player's "turn"; we're just chatting about the details of what they're doing.

When a move is rolled, we might also hash out some of the details - what does it look like when you 'seize the device by force'? There might be some back and forth here, but, again, I don't consider that to be 'my turn', either. I might ask, "So, you're inflicting terrible harm. What does that look like? Are you raging with anger, or just coolly eviscerating this guy?" Or maybe, "So, do you think the body flips over the side of the boat as you finish your strike?" I would never say, "...oh, and he sets off a bomb, as well" while we're hashing out what the move's outcomes look like at the table. That's not giving the rules their due ("Always say... what the rules demand").

Now, once we're done with that, it *might* be my turn, or it might not. If it's just me and the player, then, yeah, it might just go back and forth. But not always - as in the example on page 130 (2nd Ed), sometimes the initiative or momentum might flip around ("A subtle thing just happened..." writes Vincent). Note how Vincent does that in his example - it's technically "his turn", perhaps, in the sense that the player has just said something, but the player is ready to act, the NPCs seem to be off-guard, and so Vincent just listens to the player, instead. We've just resolved a move, and the player takes another "turn". We take turns, but it's "not like taking turns, you know?"

Particularly, if there are other PCs in the scenes, it's probably going to feel right for it to be "their turn". We just resolved some action concerning so-and-so, and Bob hasn't chimed in for a while... let's hear what he has to say.

Basically, we resolve the move, and we're back to "free play". That could be an MC move, sure (and that bomb might become a danger after all), but maybe Kelly, who's playing the Brainer, is just dying to say what her character does just now, and we all look at her, instead. It's open conversation.

This is quite different, in my mind, from what happens on an open-ended miss - everyone looks to me, because otherwise the game can't continue. "Well... what happens?"

No way am I going to cut the scene, or say, "Ok, let's wrap up the session here", or ask Kelly what her Brainer does just now... everyone's waiting for me to make a move.