Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Munin

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 27
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« on: May 01, 2017, 09:11:52 PM »
I mean, I guess you could seize the gun by force, but if I were MCing that situation, I'd say you exchanged harm (i.e. stabbed/cut each other) and now you have the gun, but you've not yet used it. Want to use it now? Great, that sounds like snowballing into single combat to me.

And that's something that's worth pointing out: Under AW1, any time you were engaged in mutual violence, you were rolling to seize. But AW2 has a whole different move for "I just wanna fuck those guys up," and what's interesting about that is that its miss clause is pretty much exactly a flipped move.

Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« on: April 30, 2017, 05:39:14 PM »
^^^ This.

Apocalypse World / Re: Roll+Hx to help me with the Help/Interfere move
« on: April 29, 2017, 06:16:56 AM »
Paul, my example answers your second question directly - the MC is making his or her moves right then and there in the middle of all the rolls. Those moves can absolutely affect the outcomes of the subsequent rolls. In that example, I kept the effects mechanical to avoid hijacking the PC-on-PC narrative that the players were developing.

Because actions have consequences, all of the rolls are consequential. If the players hit or miss, things are going to change.

In terms of deciding whether to roll for moves to help or interfere before or after the roll they're intending to modify, it doesn't much matter to me. We do it both ways (often in the same session) and it seems to work fine. Like if someone ends up with a 6, they might say something like, "Anybody gonna help me? Anyone?" Or if something important is going on, players may be falling all over themselves to offer their help before the "important" roll is ever made. It just depends on the narrative tempo of the game at that point.

Further, I find that when the MC says, "Hang on; before you roll, is anyone going to help/interfere?" it builds dramatic tension, in essence by signaling that what's about to happen has heavy consequences. Alternately, I find having players solicit help after they've blown a roll builds development between two characters. Both goals are awesome in my book, so it's six of one, a half-dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned.

Finally, remember that Hx is a stat, and as such you can highlight it. I find that it is often comedy gold to do so.

Apocalypse World / Re: Roll+Hx to help me with the Help/Interfere move
« on: April 28, 2017, 07:17:50 PM »
Like everything else, most of this will depend on the fictional situation. Because of that, I will usually ask the players to explain just how it is they are helping or interfering. In some cases it's obvious - in your case of two PCs simultaneously trying to read each other, it's generally pretty clear that we're talking about peoples' poker faces and convincing lies and deft evasiveness. There are exceptions, and these are where I'll want the PC to step in and explain their actions, as that will inform the consequences of success or failure, either of the interference or of the reading itself. But asking someone to say how they're helping or interfering is totally fair game, and if they can't tell you, don't have them make the roll - to do it, you have to do it.

FWIW, flipping someone's move is a pretty natural consequence of a badly-miffed roll to aid or interfere. So if you're trying to help and fail, your "help" comes out as interference and the target takes -1 or -2 forward instead. Similarly, if you're trying to interfere and fail, you inadvertently create an opening or give something away and the target takes +1 or +2 forward against you on their roll.

Example: Deke (the Battlebabe) and Major (the Hardholder) are undergoing tense negotiations about the parameters of the bounty hunt that Major wants Deke to undertake. Both suspect that the other is holding something back, and both want to read the other. But these two characters know each other, they have a long history of not quite seeing eye-to-eye. Both players decide to interfere with the other, and thus both roll+Hx. Deke is Hx+2 to Major, and Major (who holds things closer to the vest) is Hx+1 on Deke's sheet. Major gets an 8, Deke misses with a 5. So Major is taking +1forward from his partial, and the MC says that Deke's miss will be represented by her having a shitty poker face - he flips her move and gives Major a further +1forward.

Alternately, the MC could have decided that Deke's failure meant that she was interfering with herself, i.e. that she was overthinking the conversation, reading too much into what Major was saying, getting analysis-paralysis, and that she would be taking -1 or -2forward on the next roll. This too would be a flipped move, and I think either way is fine. Much will depend on if it is understood that Deke is also about to make another roll.

Now for the read a person roll itself. Major is Sharp+1 and is taking +2forward, and easily nets a 10. Deke rolls (she's also Sharp+1, but has no modifiers) and with a 4 misses this one as well. Not Deke's day. In the ensuing conversation, Major gets to ask three questions that Deke's player has to answer honestly. And if this snowballs into another move(say into a manipulate roll), Major will take +1forward against Deke if he acts on this information. Deke gets to ask 1 question (which Major's player has to answer honestly) which may also give her +1forward, but now she must prepare for the worst. Given that Deke's roll was a miss, the MC is typically encouraged to make a move here to reflect the situation. Since at this point it's just a conversation between the two, my gut instinct as MC is to keep the consequences tightly tied to the interaction - it is clear that Deke has a pretty poor read on Major, and maybe that makes her rethink her entire understanding of him as a person; I'm going to take away her stuff and drop her Hx with Major by two points (so now she erases the current value and writes Hx -1 next to his name).

Thus, all of the misses have consequences that fit the fiction. The MC interjected his own moves into the mix, but they were direct and largely mechanical in nature because this was about the PCs interacting with each other rather than the environment; heavy narration wasn't warranted, and indeed might have been a distraction from the players mutual spotlight.

Does this make sense?

Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« on: April 26, 2017, 11:24:16 PM »
Oh, that's easy - inflict harm as established. It's not that I wouldn't have made it, it's just the circumstances I'd have made it were different. Because AW1's Peripheral Battle Moves included a harm-per-tick mechanism, I was much more careful about setting up the fictional position before inflicting harm, because the harm was already built into the mechanics. Now I'm much more aggressive about doling out that harm because that mechanism no longer exists.

We actually just had a pitched battle in the most recent session of our game. Major Tom (The Show) was barred entry to a settlement because he has a contagion. As a result, he decided to whip up the other contagious folks and poor rabble into a mob, that then made an attack on the gates of the settlement. Fifi (The Gunlugger) counted among her friends in this settlement the head of the local constabulary, and she came to the settlement's aid in fighting off the rabble. I bring this up because it saw examples of two things discussed in this thread.

First, it included a harm move following a seize by force roll that resulted in the Gunlugger being trapped/panicked/KO'd - at one point the Gunlugger was atop one of the gatehouse towers firing her shotgun down at the rabble (who'd tried unsuccessfully to crash a bus through the gates), keeping them from slipping through the small gap now opened by the bus. She hit the roll, blasted a whole bunch of dudes, and scared the crap out of the rabble, but totally flubbed the harm move. In this case, I had one of the attackers atop the bus (a guy she'd just shot) grab hold of her, pulling her off the rampart with him as he fell. So yes, she stopped the rabble from slipping through, but now she was outside the walls, stuck under a dead body of her own making. The rabble turned on her immediately. This was a "trapped" result on a harm roll, but it didn't invalidate her success (at least not in the moment) because she'd kept them from slipping through.

Shortly thereafter, Ace (The Driver) let loose with the MG on his war-buggy at the rabble at the gates (not knowing that Fifi was now among them). When the result of his roll to act under fire was a partial success, I chose a "worse outcome," and immediately applied 2-harm to Fifi. So yes, he shot some of the rabble, further damaging them, but caught Fifi as well in the process. I had no problem inflicting harm on a partial success because Fifi was "in battle." I'm not sure I'd have made this particular move under AW1, especially if I was using the Peripheral Battle Moves and battle-clock.

Finally, Fifi failed another harm move after a single combat roll (because, having extricated herself from the body and having survived Ace's machinegun fire, she was trying to kill as many fuckers as she could), so I KO'd her with a brick upside the head. I had no problem doing this because there was no "success" to negate - she wasn't seizing anything and had already exchanged the harm.

There was a point right after Fifi fell where her player indicated a desire to read a sitch, and I offered that it would be totally cool for her to take some time to get her bearings, but that the rabble would be curb-stomping her while she did it. I felt that in this case the "set-up" for damage to simply be inflicted upon her had already been well established. She wisely chose action over analysis, foregoing suffering further one-sided harm.

Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« on: April 22, 2017, 03:29:16 PM »
I disagree with Ebok slightly, in that I still think SBF is a valid "go-to" option if you want to fight over a thing. I think the difference between AW1 and AW2 in this regard is as follows:

Under AW1, if you tried to grab the briefcase and rolled a miss, you just plain didn't grab it, and bad things probably happened as a result.

Under AW2, if you tried to grab the briefcase and rolled a miss, you can still choose to grab it, but by even choosing to make the SBF move in the first place, you are now "in battle," and bad things were going to happen whether you succeeded or failed.

So as the MC under AW2, I might look at a player's miss (with them choosing to take definite hold of the briefcase) and say, "Great! Bullets fly and you dash forward, killing the guy who was holding the case. You bend down and grab it, you absolutely have hold of it. But now you realize that bullets are still flying and you're standing in the open like a dope. What do you do?"

This is functionally identical to the MC putting someone in a spot, but here's the catch: in AW1, this was typically the result of a miss. In AW2, it is automatic and comes as a result of invoking SBF in the first place. So sure, you may be able to get what you want on a miss, but in doing so you are putting yourself in a spot whether you succeed or fail.

See the difference?

I also think the MC needs to me a little more judicious about what "take definite hold of it" really means. It's not a case of "I kill all these dudes and grab the case and get away clean." The sense I get is that the AW2 "battle" situation means that the things the PCs might want to seize hold of are more granular in nature. In the above example, that means getting your hand on the case - that's it. You're not out of the fight, and may in fact be in a worse tactical position now than you were before - regardless of success or failure.

Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« on: April 21, 2017, 08:38:07 PM »
If you never used the AW1 battle moves, the "difference" in AW2 is probably academic. If you did use them (which we did, frequently), it will "feel" different. Let me give you an example:

AW1: You're in a pitched fight, and the battle is in full-swing (after 9:00 on the battle clock). You've gotten to a particular position and the MC has narrated that the opposition knows where you are. There's a guy with an assault rifle laying down covering fire on your position. On the next clock tick, you take 3-harm (before you do anything else) because that's what the mechanics demand. Once the ramifications of that damage are out of the way, you are free to do whatever it is you want to do - if you're willing to stand up in a hail of bullets and seize by force, go for it. You'll expose yourself to more harm, but maybe it's worth it to accomplish your objectives.

AW2: You're in a pitched fight, and the battle is in full swing. You've gotten to a particular position and the MC has narrated that the opposition knows where you are. There's a guy with an assault rifle laying down covering fire on your position. Further, the MC makes it clear that standing up right now entails getting shot, regardless of what else you do. Maybe you say, "Fuck it, I need to kill these assholes," and move to seize by force. But before you can even make that roll, the MC says "Cool, but first take 3-harm and make the harm move for me." You have taken that harm because that's what the fiction demands. Once the ramifications of that damage are out of the way, you're free to roll+Hard, because you're attempting to seize your opponent's position (which is itself going to entail taking more harm).

The difference is subtle, but in AW1, you know going in that you're going to take damage every tick. The MC can narrate how or why, but the damage mechanic is, well, mechanical. In AW2, you only know that battle is dangerous, and that you will be exposed to harm from a variety of sources. The MC can and should narrate how and why, and let those descriptions "snowball" into trouble for the PCs. When the MC says, "Sure, you can stand up into a hail of bullets and try to gun these dudes down, but they're going to get in some shots on you before you can even bring your weapon to bear," what he or she is really doing is presenting an opportunity, very much with a cost. Taking damage is a precondition to the PC making his or her move because it is fictionally appropriate.

This is a different thing than simply relying on the "trading harm as established" clause of SBF, and reflects the fact that "in battle" is a dangerous place.

Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« on: April 20, 2017, 08:13:50 PM »
I think Ebok's point is that under AW1, the Peripheral Battle Moves had a mechanism whereby everyone suffered regular harm on each tick of the countdown clock (1-harm per tick until 9:00, 3-harm per tick after 9:00). This harm was in addition to any harm suffered as a result of any particular move (e.g. seize by force, which necessitates a trade of harm in and of itself). It represented the danger of being in a free-fire zone, with bullets whizzing around and possibly unseen assailants engaging you. Many of the peripheral moves were structured around mitigating or avoiding this regular harm.

But in AW2, this regular "harm per tick" mechanism is gone. But Vincent has made it pretty clear that the new battle moves are organized in such a way that they represent being in battle, with all of the attendant dangers thereof. His comments about pushing consequences off "into the snowball" seem to indicate that it is the fictional situation itself (rather than any prescriptive, clock-based rule mechanic) that provide the danger.

Hence, when Ebok says he'd likely respond even to a HIT by having some NPCs pop up and "dump lead into them and forcing them off-course / pinning them down / separating them from the others / putting them under fire," he is saying that AW2 encourages you to use the fiction to do the things that the mechanics did in AW1.

Ebok, do I have that correct?

I think what it boils down to is the question: "As the MC, when is it OK to simply inflict harm on a PC who is engaged in battle?" AW1 and AW2 present different structures to answer this.

Also, this is quite a bit of what people are talking about when they say that "the rules will fight you if you try to force things." You might have an encounter already planned for the aforementioned storm drain, but what do you do if the players don't ask "what's my best way in?" at all? Maybe they ask some other question. And sure, you could give them the information anyway and try to nudge them into the storm drain - but they'll feel smarter and more in control of the story if instead they ask "which enemy is most vulnerable to me?" (I don't know if MotW has this, but it's an option in AW) and try to have the most charismatic and persuasive PC seduce the night watchman instead.

Because you can't know what's going through the players' heads, PbtA games give you mechanics to drive the story based on what the players show an interest in (as reflected through their moves, questions, etc) rather than what the GM thinks might be cool. The GM still populates the world with believable monsters and NPCs, but the players have much more control over how they engage with the fiction in a PbtA game than they might in a more traditional RPG. If you've run a lot of very "sandboxy" games/settings in the past, this may not feel like as much of a change. But if you've never played a game that gives the players as much low-level agency over the direction of the story, it's a huge shift.

And this is what people mean when they say, "play to find out" - I have no idea how the players are going to try to get into the bad-guys' compound. I may not even have given much (or any) prior thought to how it's laid out or what it contains. I will simply respond to their questions by presenting them with fun details, interesting opportunities, and harrowing risks. Whichever way they choose to go, sweet. I'll roll with it and we'll figure out what happens as we go.

If a hunter hits on investigate and supplies the right fictional explanation, I'm obliged to give them an answer, even if I didn't consider that the vampire left some bloody rags at the scene of its last attack.
This is super-important, and something that is easy to miss. As the Keeper, your job is not to consider the scene of the investigation before the PCs get there and predetermine the available clues; rather, your job is to honestly respond to the questions that their successes allow them to ask. So if the PC asks, "What sort of monster is it?", your job is to come up with some kind of "evidence" that reveals this information. You might have originally envisioned an attack that left no witnesses, but if the players ask something that only a witness would likely have known, congratulations, you've just invented a witness! Now tell the players who they are, how they saw what they saw, and how it is that the monster left them still alive:

"While you're investigating the murder scene, a neighbor gets stopped by the uniformed officers out front. At first you write him off as a rubber-necker trying to get a look at the carnage, but he keeps asking if 'the pretty lady in 3B' is OK. At first he doesn't want to answer any questions about who he is or what his connection to the victim is, but when you ask for his ID, you realize that he lives across the street and that his balcony overlooks hers. After you threaten to haul him off to jail for voyeurism, he agrees to cooperate. But whatever he saw has him pretty shaken up. His story is a little disjointed, but he eventually reveals that..."

It's the same with read a bad situation - you come up with the answers to their questions in the moment, adding to the fictional landscape as necessary to answer their questions and propel the story. Once you get the hang of it, this is an incredibly useful and powerful GMing tool because it lets you alter the direction of the story based on what the players are doing (as opposed to plotting/planning everything out beforehand). So if they ask, "what's my best way in?", invent a way in. If you already did a little prep and you have something in mind, great. But if not, make something up right now. "Well, there's an old storm-drain that runs under the property. Gods only know what's down there or where it comes out, but that certainly would get you inside the perimeter." This is you presenting an opportunity, with or without a cost, which is one of your basic Keeper moves.

Does this make sense?

Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« on: April 19, 2017, 01:59:13 PM »
Heh, right after someone fails a move is probably the best time to turn to one of the other players, particularly if your dramatic pacing is such that switching scenes is appropriate. Leave that player on a cliff-hanger, let them stew in their own juices wondering just what sort of fuckery they're about to receive.

I think you and I interpret the terms "turns" a little differently, but it sounds like in practice we're doing pretty much exactly the same thing.

Watch the Roll20 series with Adam Koebel (co-author of Dungeon World) and his group playing 2nd Edition Apocalypse World. I can't seem to find the direct link to the first session (originally intended as a one-shot), but here's where they pick up and start the actual campaign:

Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« on: April 18, 2017, 09:23:31 PM »
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.

Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« on: April 18, 2017, 02:26:01 PM »
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.  ;)

Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« on: April 17, 2017, 09:29:56 PM »
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.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 27