Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force

Yes, in some sense it is atom-splitting. I think the intent behind the changes in AW2 are to highlight the idea that violence has dire and often unintended consequences, whether the ultimate aim to which that violence is being applied is successful or not. For some of us, we've always more or less played it that way anyway and the changes in AW2 are more window-dressing than anything else. Because you're right - there is no definition (or intimation, or suggestion, or even so much as a "hint") in the AW2 rules as to what being "in battle" actually means. Viewed from that perspective alone, the change is a bad one because it doesn't leave new MCs much to go on.

"Someone wants something and they have to fight a determined foe for it."

"Someone wants something and they have to battle a determined foe for it." Yup. Seize is how this is done.

The key for me is that AW2 suggests that battles are not explicitly iterative.
iterative example:
# A fights B => A wins and B loses.

Instead it's more chaotic and asynchronous.
example:
# A starts to fights B, causing C D E to happen.
# AB rolls, and that resolves, but C, D, and E continue snowballing regardless.

CDE in this case could be long term narrative implications or immediate moves like inflicting harm, announcing badness, taking something away, forcing people apart.

There's another aspect of this style that has immediate benefits.

Here is an example of play I've seen during an AW1 session.
The Sitch
We have 3 PC's wading in to fight a gang's stronghold, they want to conquer the location.

The Detail
The exact positioning of the enemies don't matter much. Since the one roll determines the fictional state of affairs, win or lose, the implications of the NPC's position are flavor to barf forth from, but not essentially deterministic. We could zoom in an do this in incremental steps, but for the most part, you don't need to.

The Moves
We could conceivably treat this as PC1 rolls to aid PC2's seize by force and they both go in, while PC3 reads a sitch outside to watch to what's going on. PC2 rolls, the player exchanges harm with the gang, and on a hit, takes definite hold of the location. That implies that the surviving gang members are the ones forced outside / to retreat / or are present within but don't control the place. Now we show PC3 something for being out there, tell PC1+PC2 what the gang is doing, and let them all decide what to do next.
• If PC1 Missed the aid, badness (hard move).
• If PC2 missed the seize, they failed to get the place and badness (hard move).
• If PC3 misses the lookout, we surprise them with something (hard move).

Iterative. It works, you can even stagger the rolls somewhat to interrupt the "turns" but it's not necessary to achieve the same result.

Here's an example of play I could see happening in AW2.
The Sitch
We have 3 PC's wading in to fight a gang's stronghold, they want to conquer the location.

The Detail
AW2 needs more information here, we need to tell the players what they see, hear, smell. You could do this before, but now you have to; because we're going to complicate the scenario, and the more hints we give them, the move we can choose to pull from during the move. We need to tell them the main force is in the middle, with smaller patrols around the outside, but there's a big empty garage, and high ruined towers in the area. We probably should not jump right into taking the whole location, there should be questions like, how do you get in and all the rest; but to retain symmetry with the first example, we will do exactly that.

The Moves:
PC1 and PC2 declare how they're going to take the place by force, and PC3 says how he'll support from the rear. They are only really rolling against the main force, so that's all I'm counting here. It's going to be loud, so I keep that in mind. PC1 rolls the aid another and PC2 rolls assault a secure position. PC3 is standing overwatch for his allies. Regardless of the rolls, we know a few things are likely to happen:
– The sound will draw in enemies from abroad. At first a few scouts, then if things drag on, more aggressive enemy vehicles.
– Some of the families living in the area might run, join in, or cause other descriptive noise in the scene.
– There are gunners in the tower, (maybe they were laying down at first) and they'll start shooting too.
– There might be notable individuals in the enemy gang, who make seperate "non-standardized" actions when the fighting starts.

We determine the results of the roll for PC1 and PC2, and all that entails. Now we tell everyone that the towers start raining lead down on PC1 and PC2. They would immediately suffer harm. However PC3 is standing overwatch, and on a 10+ instead he kills the gunners as they stand to fire; but On a 7-9, he only deals harm to them (as their own small gang) and the warning means PC1 and PC2 can try to act under fire to get out of harm's way; but on a miss, only the warning happens. This is important, because the implications are that without someone standing overwatch, there needs to be no warning.

We now announce badness in the form of the scouts (probably of negligible contribution) heading back into the camp. Maybe the PCs kill them but realize that more are on the way. However, maybe the PCs didn't successfully force their way into their enemy’s position, so instead I use the opportunity to put the PCs in a spot. Perhaps with those same scouts getting a better position and dropping cover fire for the larger group.

We also complicate the scene, with all the noncombatants doing whatever it is in their nature to do. Maybe some of them die, get hit, or force the PCs to shoot them. Whatever. It matters because there could be NPCs here that the players might be attached to, and maybe some individuals in the gang know this too. We might even tell PC3 standing overwatch that he see's the dust from a bunch of fast moving vehicles (or hears them on the radio) heading this way.

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

Take away
In AW1 multiple player combats were often unnecessary, sometimes clunky, and boiled down to a lot of seize by forces / aid another. It was normal to stack the gangs and the gun-lugger and do combat from large scope. It was also normal to treat a large sized gang as just one large sized gang; rather then breaking that down into 1 small gang sniping from the towers, 1 medium gang in the middle of the camp, and 1 small gang manning war-vehicles.

You can inflict harm without telling players it's coming in a battle. I would inflict less harm (harm-1) or glancing harm (1-harm) often depending on how they choose to act and where. You should do this, because many moves in AW2 are explicitly allowing fellow players to avoid that harm. Keep an Eye Out, Lay Down Fire and Stand Overwatch are both very clear examples of this. Merely the existence of these moves provides an expectation that they are necessary / useful.

As does the clarifications on the variations for seize by force. These variations are important, because they provide a limitation in scope that might not have been present in AW1. If you look at my first example, they seized the location from the enemy. In the second AW2 example, the best they could do is seize access to their enemy. This clearly has implications on what it means to "seize definite hold" of something. If you seize in smaller pieces, then the "victory" of getting it on a miss too doesn't mean as much. Access could be an opportunity, rather then a holdable thing.

If you scale the fight down to a few guys and one player. Seize by force could be used like PC vs size-0 gang or it could be PC vs 1 vs 1 vs 1, with the others piling on the harm or the complications to the scene. If it's just 1 PC and 1 NPC and nothing else around is moving, the PC will probably (and reasonably) always succeed in taking what they want, they are the PC after all. If you don't like that, then stop creating such simple stakes for your scenes.

Edit
As someone who didn't use the Advanced Battles moves in AW1, the best part of AW2 is for me the expectation of team-play.

Additionally as this thread has progressed, so has my comfort in the new style. I previously said I would not deliver harm without alerting the players to it beforehand, I think that's an AW1 habit that I will forsake in AW2 where appropriate. I might go into the other Seize by Force post and update my reflections on lumpley's example driver vs gang, I think I would come to a very different set of possible outcomes now. I still prefer the seize by force hack that started this thread, for the same reasons, but feel I could run a game of aw2 raw without any hacks and still have it flow nicely.

Finally: I agree with you Paul T. There are many situations that have all the narrative trappings of battle without anyone inflicting harm. Honestly, I believe the point is that -all- situations should behave in this manner for AW2. Rather then changing into "battle mode" we should always pushing asynchronous narrative snowballs, and during battle, we should feel free to shoot up the PCs and their stuff with the established "bullets and explosions" that fill that scene.

And if we don't use "seize by force" for two opposing characters or forces fighting over a desired objective... then what is the move *for*?

To be fair, both sides do not have to be fighting over the objective. Only the player has to be fighting for it, the other side may just be focused on killing them.

Here's the rule of thumb I've generally come to terms with:
The two opposing forces are [verb]ing each other because of a desired objective

Pick your verb, if the verb can be replaced with battle without a context change, then it's battle. If we're even considering the move, then we know that this is some type of fight. But the type of fight matters, and I think is pretty clear.

Not a Battle
The two opposing forces are sparring each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are racing each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are wrestling each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are cheating each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are tormenting each other because of a desired objective.

Battle
The two opposing forces are murdering each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are waring each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are killing each other because of a desired objective.
The two opposing forces are brutalizing each other because of a desired objective.

One one hand you have situations where hurting the other people might not be a priority, and on the other, you're most certainly trying to inflict pain and death to claim the thing. Hard is about the intent to hurt, not a catch all for a show of strength. It might be Cool to wrestle the gun out of their hands, but it's always hard to stab them four times in the gut with a 6in knife to make sure they drop it.

Not Yet a Battle
One side has started murdering the other because of a desired objective.

This is the go aggro territory.

In my mind the clue lies in both the underlying stat and the immediate consequence: "Hard" and "Harm." If you are prepared and willing to inflict actual, honest-to-gods physical harm on someone to get what you want, you are seizing by force.

So yes, wrestling a pistol away from Pimpleface before he kills Moxie is probably acting under fire, especially if you're trying not to hurt him.

Punching Pimpleface to get the gun away from him before he kills Moxie, however, will inflict harm on him, and is thus seizing by force - but remember that 1-harm (an "unarmed attack") is still pretty nasty on NPCs; it's not that you popped poor Pimpleface just once and he dropped the gun, it's that you had to beat him literally half to death to get him to let go of it. And since the exchange of harm is mutual, he shot you in the process. This has other fictional ramifications, for sure.

And of course shooting Pimpleface in his pimply face to keep him from killing Moxie is absolutely seizing by force.

Two ways to say the same thing.

And of course shooting Pimpleface in his pimply face to keep him from killing Moxie is absolutely seizing by force.

Unless he wasn't watching you. At which point it's probably sucker someone, or maybe go aggro.
If he was and we really want to be specific, it would be the the seize by force variation: defend someone else from attack.

Exactly.

I've been thinking about this a bunch since our earlier conversations.

I think that the main issue I keep coming up against is that making a fight between two combatants always play in the PC's favour does not - in my view - allow me to "make apocalypse world feel real".

This hack by Ebok does that a lot better, I think, although I'd ultimately love to see something a little more elegant.

AW battles have been always been the weakest part as far as AW's system goes. They force everything into very simplified terms where a hit means the player gets what they want and a miss means that they don't. For many challenges this works remarkably well, however this perspective threatens to skews the scene especially in battle. Multiplayer AW fights were a mess, and it has been mentioned by many of my players that they felt like they either didn't need anyone's help, or the flip-side, that their help didn't feel like it made a difference.

This is because AW had a binary 1-sided approach to combat. It would be like in D&D where you had to face challenges you could win, one right after the other in single file. The others are standing behind you, and will swap if you get tired maybe, but you don't get shit coming in from all sides. AW fighting worked best by taking 1 player with Seize, 1 to aid them, and whack the npcs as en entire gang in one go. I had even been advised when I first started that I should not zoom down into the individual level, giving multiple NPCs different actions at the same time, because aw didn't work that way.

Now it does. This change in removing that bad shit is happening from a miss, means that bad shit is happening period. What does the player do about it? In binary situations it does mean that the player is probably got this. However zoom in a bit, and have that gang make seperate actions across the field, suffering harm as individual's or units. Now even if the PC gets the thing they were after, they're still not away. Even if they follow by definitely seizing the escape, they only escaped the group they were rolling against. The fiction tells us whether or not they escaped them all. 

AW has more of a battle map thing going on with multiple events in contest at any one time. A PC can only pick one to handle at once, so it provides an opportunity to both say. Hey you've got three small gangs shooting at your face from three different places, two of them could each cut off one of your exits and the third's protecting the thing you want. What do you do? In this case, getting the thing you want is hardly the threat or the objective. Sure you could get it, but can you get it with enough "HP" left to get out?

No character on a D&D battle map thinks about any random fight, "well this is where I die". The narrative suggests they can probably win. They are the Heroes after all. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this similar feeling in AW, but Ive got a game starting up right now and I'll let you know how it goes!

As for a fight between two combatants. That sounds more like Single Combat then seize by force.

Ah! So we're back to our point of disagreement, which is really interesting. The short version is that I think you must play AW in a very different way than I do. Everything you're saying about "2E", as far as I can tell, is how we played 1E, so that explains why we're miscommunicating on this issue a lot. I don't think AW battles are "the weakest part" - I think, quite to the contrary, that the way the moves and the conversation shake out creates some really dynamic and fun interactions in a "battle"-type situation. (Unless you mean the optional Battle Moves from 1ed, of course - I never used those, so I can't speak to them.)

Your comment on Single Combat is pretty interesting, too. My preference is to always use Seize by Force - if there's nothing to "seize", then just don't choose that option. That makes it very nicely flexible.

However! That's when things get interesting, because the Single Combat move is designed so as to avoid the problems of the Seize by Force - for instance, the miss result is definitely a miss, and balances well for PC vs NPC as well as PC vs PC (assuming you can choose an option more than once, anyway, since it's possible to get three choices on a 10+ vs. a miss in an opposed roll).

I suppose the ideal - for me - would be to rewrite the Seize by Force move to work just as easily as Single Combat. I like the implication of the original rules in AW, where violence is always a way to *get something*, never a goal of its own. That seems to have been lost in the 2nd Ed.

Lots to ponder, in any case.

Sometimes the goal of violence is "to kill that fucking guy!" I never really liked the idea that the thing you could be seizing was "someone's life." The new single combat move simplifies that whole thing tremendously. If you're fighting to fight, then it's single combat. If you're trying to do something else, then you might just be seizing by force. There's room for both, and I don't really see a need to roll them into a single move.

I agree with you on "seizing someone's life" (always felt awkward to me).

However, I don't see how Seize by Force doesn't handle that: you just choose to inflict terrible harm as your priority, and that's all there is to it.

With the Single Combat move, there's this odd thing where you'll get more hurt than in Seize by Force, which is... a bit weird. If I'm trying to kill you, I'll deal 2-harm (let's say), but on a miss, with your single choice, you can bring that down to 1-harm. However, with the new Seize by Force, I can choose one (+1harm) while you choose none, so I can deal 3-harm on a miss.

I think it's a bit odd that if we decide there's nothing else at stake, I'm likely to hurt you far less. (While the harm I suffer is the same in both cases.)

Seize by Force -> I suffer your harm and deal 3-harm to you.
Single Combat -> I suffer your harm and deal 1-harm to you.

It's not a huge deal, but it's an odd detail.

Ebok's hack (in this thread) would handle one-on-one combat pretty well, I think, with similar results to the Single Combat move (which we could then remove).

Hmmm. One could also go the other way when looking at Single Combat vs Seize by force. Just tossing thoughts.

HackOne:
Remove the inflict more harm options from seize. On a hit they seize absolute control of the thing, 10+ they can choose to impress or suffer less. 9+ neither. 6- miss.

HackTwo:
Remove the inflict more harm options from seize.  On a hit they seize absolute control of the thing. 10+ both suffer less and impress. miss or 7-9 they choose one, suffer harm or impress.

HackThree:
Remove the inflict more harm options from seize.  On a hit they seize absolute control of the thing. 10+ they take +1 forward. Regardless of any roll they choose one: impress (aggression) or suffer less harm (defensive).

HackFour:
Replace inflict more with take +1 forward.

Those aren't bad ideas.

However, if we're going to hack away, there's no need. :)

Whether by coincidence or not, your hack of Seize by Force (ref. p. 2 of this thread) balances with Single Combat perfectly!

It was on purpose. I was just playing with other ideas.

This whole conversation inspired me to write out a few different formulations of the move. I may type them up at some point.

For instance, I like the idea of giving both parties various choices to make, and one of them is to "exchange harm".

This way, you could occasionally have a relatively bloodless or one-sided battle, but it would require both parties to be committed to that. Most fights would end with both parties hurt, however.