Regrouping Go Aggro/Manipulate around Coercion/Convincing

[Daniel Wood]

I definitely do want violence to feel like it matters in this game, that there are consequences to it. Much of that comes from the fiction, given that it's a modern day setting. (Where will we hide the body? What will we tell the cops?) Some of that comes from the peripheral mechanics. (Other angels and demons in the neighborhood can hear it whenever you injure anybody or break anything.)

Yeah, that sounds like something to incorporate into your Principles or MC moves, rather than the basic moves.

I do want it to be reflected in the moves, too, but I want to make sure I'm not just taking stuff from Apocalypse World whole cloth if it overcomplicates things, and I'm concerned Go Aggro as written (and its inflexibility on whether you're ready to commit violence) may work better for the post-apocalypse than modern-day social interaction.

I agree, I think Go Aggro in its primary application is very specific to how violence (and violent coercion) works in Apocalypse World, and I'm not surprised that lots of hacks don't use it. That said, all those games that I am familiar with also significantly (or radically) rework Seize by Force, because the AW-version of Seize by Force by itself doesn't necessarily do the best job of modelling a lot of violent situations. (Or, as in Monsterhearts, they just don't feature violence as centrally, or worry about modelling it as comprehensively.)

Go Aggro is a really useful catch-all for, as Johnstone mentioned, situations where someone is trying to hurt someone or get something through directly-violent means, and the target of the violence both a) cannot fight back and b) is not completely vulnerable, either. If they can fight back, Seize by Force is fine -- if they're completely vulnerable, you don't need to roll, the violence succeeds. But there are a whole lot of situations in which both a) and b) are true, and where you want an unpredictable or risky outcome, and that's a major (if still secondary) role of Go Aggro.

So if you want to jettison Go Aggro then you will also probably need to either add a move to replace it or somehow modify Seize by Force to cover a wider variety of situations.

[Johnstone]

So I actually disagree that you would need to substantially change the other violence move if you left one of them out. You can use either move as your sole violence move with not a whole lot of modification and while violence will feel quite different, it won't "break the game" or anything (well, depending on the setting/genre, of course).

Go Aggro and Seize by Force are just two different perspectives on violence. I think Vincent said he wrote Go Aggro first and added Seize by Force to fill a gap that was left over? (could be wrong--but I seem to remember Go Aggro being the first significant rules example he brought up in podcast interviews when discussing AW). There's all the stuff that's been mentioned already, but there's also a difference between the two moves in when you roll the dice, by which I mean what point in the narrative of violence you roll dice to see what happens (sorta like that IIEE stuff).

With Go Aggro, you roll the dice as soon as you commit to violent action, ie when you demonstrate that you are willing to use force. This could be when you pull the trigger, or it could be when you stick the gun in someone's face and make demands. While it puts the choice over onto the other person, if you use just this move on it's own, it rewards taking the initiative, because you get to dish out your harm before your opponent can react.

With Seize by Force, you roll dice after mutual use of force has been established in the fiction. It means there is no mechanical weight to the threat you make when you put a gun in somebody's face and demand the microfilm. He can do whatever he wants until you pull the trigger and even then there's room for him to decide if he's fighting back or not, and only then do you roll dice. There's more risk to initiating violent action with just Seize by Force, but on the other hand, if your opponent is not in a position to fight back immediately, it makes violence more deadly.

Let's imagine two other situations, coercive violence and attempted murder:

1.
On patrol, Wilkinson takes a hit to the leg and goes down, out in the open. He can't move so he's a sitting duck. Parker rushes out to grab him and carry him back to the squad, so I decide to lay down some suppressive fire so the enemy stays under cover instead of picking off Wilkinson and Parker both.

If we use Go Aggro for this I roll when I declare my suppressive fire action. If I roll a hit, the enemy can either stay behind cover or they can suffer harm. Basically, in order to get a shot off at Wilkinson and Parker (or me), they will have to take my harm first. They can go back to shooting after, when my turn to say stuff is done, but Parker will have gotten Wilkinson back by then. Maybe our attempts to take cover from their return fire will be us acting under fire. But notice that they have an "out," because I am trying to influence their behaviour: They can just do what I want (stay behind cover and not shoot) and they suffer no harm. This move has a forgiving nature and tries to accommodate those who want to avoid bloodshed.

If we use Seize by Force, I don't roll until the enemy decides how they react, because they have the opportunity of shooting back written right into the move. The move also encourages them to fight back, because otherwise I don't need to choose to suffer little harm (because I'm not suffering any harm at all) so I'm free to inflict terrible harm and scare the bejesus out of them both. Or seize their position and drive them back, even. So there is no "out" with this move: the best tactic here is actually to fight back and refuse to be coerced.

2.
But what if I see you and I shoot you to death and that's it? If we use Go Aggro I roll as soon as I say I shoot you to death. On a strong hit, you can either be shot to death or suffer harm based on my gun. Being "shot to death" could literally be that or it might just be suffering harm based on my gun. On a weak hit, you might be able to escape, though (you have an "out" on a 7-9, but not on a 10+). This is good for games that have a lot of bullets hitting walls and people almost getting shot in the face before they duck back under cover and run away. This might make a 7-9 feel like a miss, although I'd argue that making your enemy run away instead of shoot you is probably a good thing.

If we use Seize by Force I don't roll until we know what you are doing. So, as above, it's probably a better idea for you to shoot back, and then we resolve me shooting you to death and you shooting me to death, all in one roll. If you try to run away, then I get to hurt you even more effectively.

***

Does all that make sense? We've mostly been discussing the intents and the fictional stuff that leads to a player rolling either of these moves (or manipulate), so I figured it's probably a good idea to discuss the effect the actual move architecture has on the fiction. You can see why Dungeon World uses a modified Seize by Force for melee fighting and a modified Go Aggro for ranged weapon attacks, for instance.

[Daniel Wood]

I think that analysis makes sense except that it's a bit weird to talk about what the NPC 'chooses to do' based on a mechanical incentive -- because that's not really how the game/fiction/moves work. The NPCs (and PCs) choose to do whatever they do based on the fiction, and that in turn decides what move (if any) is taking place. It doesn't make sense for a PC to say 'I am seizing by force!' and then the MC to be like 'okay, well then they better fight back' -- if they weren't fighting back, then there would be no seizing by force in the first place.

Unless the suggestion is there's some kind of like meta-fictional decision-making where the MC is like 'well clearly most of the NPCs who are still alive have figured out they should fight back because otherwise they're dead already' and so Seize By Force suggests that people in the world operate a certain way. But to my mind you have to go with how people react in the fiction first, and that will determine what move is going on. Like for the cover fire example, it's not about which move the player decides to use, it's about what they actually describe themselves doing, and how the MC decides the NPCs react. Possibly this is what Johnstone is already saying, and I am talking to myself, but the phrasing seemed strange.

[Johnstone]

Like for the cover fire example, it's not about which move the player decides to use, it's about what they actually describe themselves doing, and how the MC decides the NPCs react. Possibly this is what Johnstone is already saying, and I am talking to myself, but the phrasing seemed strange.

No, I'm saying these are how the game will play out based on the game designer's choice to use only one move for violence. No part of my examples above include the player choosing one move over the other, they are examples of players choosing different games.

(Edit: Hm. On re-reading I guess that's not clear in my last post. But the point was to see the different perspectives offered by the mechanics and possible outcomes as a basis for hacking, as opposed to the fictional trigger for the move.)

Although on that note, I see the moves as describing what kind of world the characters inhabit, and I don't see an awareness of that as outside a character's POV, or meta-gaming at all. Rules can be based on the type of story they are designed to be emulating, or based on the life experiences of the game designer (ie "realism"), but if they don't reflect the lives of the characters in the game, that's kind of weird. Which isn't to say they know the ins and outs of the mechanics, but they should be aware of the outcomes generally produced by the mechanics, because that's the fiction they inhabit. Unless the character's perspective of the fiction is sadly at odds with the author's perspective (which is also a legitimate stance to take, of course).

I mean, yeah, you should be going to a move based on actions in the fiction, but even so, it may not always be clear what certain actions are supposed to be. You may be intending to Go Aggro and you might describe your actions in line with what you think triggers that move, and your MC might think another move is more appropriate. Like a lot of the moves in Monsterhearts require the MC to ask, like "so it sounds like you're shutting someone down here, yeah?" And you might say "oh, no no, I wanted to lash out physically, that's why I grabbed her arm." Or something. Anyway, I think I'm off on a tangent now.

[JasonT]

These examples are interesting because they're leading me to wonder whether I'd be better off with a modified version of Go Aggro than a modified version of Seize By Force (the latter of which being what most of the hacks mentioned above use).

What bugs me about using Go Aggro as written is the fact that you can use it before the shooting starts. I don't picture this setting as a lawless wasteland where your instincts take over if the enemy you threaten makes the wrong move. In this setting, when you threaten somebody, you should get to decide afterward – or perhaps better yet, realize afterward – that you're not actually willing to follow through with violence. This is why I'd rather have intimidation mechanics grouped under the Manipulation move, as some other hacks have done.

What I really do like about Go Aggro as described in Johnstone's examples, however, is that it involves actually opening fire, but is still described as a means to an end. Choosing to "suck it up" can even be a tactical decision from NPCs who want to fire back and do you harm. That actually feels more flexible than Seize by Force, but I wonder whether hacks have avoided adapting Go Aggro for that because the move can be so confusing. Maybe if you were using something like Go Aggro as your only combat move, you'd just need to make it more explicit in the wording of the move that you CAN still deal damage on a 7-9 if your opponent decides to suck it up in exchange for the option to shoot back. Looked at that way – assuming I get the move now – every time you use the move is an implied invitation to your enemy to surrender and end the fight, but still leaves open the opportunity to exchange fire until someone actually gets disabled. That may be a little higher-risk than how this move is normally used, though...

[Johnstone]

So I did some playtesting for World of Algol last night, specifically to test out violence moves, as that is my most important current dilemma (now you know why I have so much to say on this topic!).

I started off using the less-complicated violence move (which is more like Seize by Force):

When you make an attack, declare your intentions and roll+mighty. On a hit, your enemy must choose to allow your maneuver, give in to your demands, or suffer harm as determined by your weapon. Additionally, on a 10+, choose 2. On a 7-9, choose 1:
 * You force your enemy to move.
 * You inflict +1 harm.
 * You suffer -1 harm.
 * You take definite hold of something.

We started off with a fight in a bar. The PC was a Bravo, laden down with mighty weapons. The first round of the fight he attacked the gang leader with his magic sword while two minions with mundane swords tried to hack him up. He threatened the leader with 4-harm but his maneuver was to break the guy's cybernetic arm, so I took that option. The two swordsmen couldn't get through his armour, because he chose to suffer -1 harm.

The guy in the corner with the laserpistol was trying to blast him, so he charged and took a laser blast he didn't even notice. But he skewered the gunman and threw him at the other swordsmen. Then he charged them, killed one and knocked the sword out of the other's hand. He had to make the harm move here, and his accumulated wounds meant that he stumbled and dropped his sword.

He managed to make his recover move and triumphed in the end. He used his stun whip to knock them unconscious and I was a bit uncertain as to whether they should be able to attack him back, seeing as the stun whip has a longer reach (which is definitely something for me to think about). Overall, it was pretty brutal

Then a fat merchant came out and said he passed the test. The merchant wanted a might warrior to retrieve some magical purple rocks from a wizard who had stolen them. So the Bravo, after healing up, went off to the wizard's tower and we switched to the more complicated violence move (which is a bit more like Go Aggro):

When you make an attack, declare your intentions and roll+mighty. On a hit, your enemy must choose 1:
 * Allow your maneuver.
 * Back off or flee (if an escape route is available).
 * Suffer harm, as determined by your weapon.
 * Take cover and stay there (if cover is available).
Additionally, on a 10+, you may choose 1:
 * You cut off any chance of escape.
 * You force your enemy to move.
 * You inflict +1 harm.
On a 7-9, unless you have some superior advantage in terms of position, surprise, or weaponry, if you inflict harm the GM may choose 1:
 * You make yourself vulnerable to counterattack.
 * You need to move to a new position.
 * You strain or overextend yourself, your gear, or your other resources.
 * Your attack causes collateral damage.

So the Bravo got ambushed outside the tower. A sniper with a lasergun tried to pick him off, so he pulled out his needlegun rifle, took what little cover was available, and fired back. With his 10+, he forced his opponent to move, so the sniper bugged off the hilltop right quick -- needleguns do little damage but are designed to deliver poison.

At that moment five riders on bird-steeds carrying lances came over the opposite ridge and charged the Bravo. He pulled out his disruptor ray and when the riders were close enough and blasted them. Unfortunately (because of a miss), the magical forces emanating from the wizard's tower turned the disruptor blast into a psychic storm that engulfed everybody. The Bravo fell unconscious.

He awoke with his hands bound inside the wizard's tower, all his gear on a table a ways away. When the wizard tried to use a spell on him, he charged past the wizard and through the riders standing around, snapped his bonds and took up his magic sword. One of the guards leaped onto his back while the others drew their short swords. The Bravo threw the guard off and fled through a doorway, into a store room. His attempt to block the door with a barrel went awry when one of the guards slashed his chest and he fell beneath a barrel. He managed to recover immediately (10+ on his recover roll) and flailing wildly, he pushed past the guards and out of the store room. In the main room, the Bravo grabbed the wizard and used him as a hostage. When the guards dropped their swords, the Bravo threw the wizard aside and charged them and chopped some of them up, but the rest tried to wrestle his sword away from him. He dropped his sword and ran to his gear, picked up his stun whip and went to town. The wizard fled and the Bravo mercilessly dispatched the unconscious riders.

I wanted to try some more ranged combat, so I had the sniper and the wizard ambush the Bravo in town. He saw the sniper poking his laser rifle from around the corner of a shack, with the wizard exhorting him in a rage. The Bravo threw his spear and the sniper dropped his gun and fled (again). The wizard began to cast a spell, but since the Bravo was mounted on one of the bird-steeds, he ran him down and trampled him. then he made a deal with him that he would take him to a healer if he would reveal what the purple rocks do. The Bravo didn't like the answer and began to think twice about returning them to the fat merchant.

****

There was more repeat rolling of the attack move in the second fight, but ironically it felt like there was more tactical positioning in that fight and less repetition. The first fight felt like the two sides meet and exchange blows and the player rolls. There was a bit of an "attrition" feeling to it, and since in one fight the Bravo had armour and in the other he didn't, the player really noticed how effective it was (I use harm similar to AW, I don't use HP and rolled damage like DW does). After a few times using the simple move, the player said he could sort of see how a certain situation was going to go before even rolling -- the complicated move had more back-and-forth.

In the second fight, there was more instances of enemies fleeing or backing off and letting the Bravo maneuver his way around the battle. There was more back-and-forth, too. The wizard cast a magic missile at the Bravo, he went into danger and rolled a 7-9, so I said he could reach the wizard if he was affected by the spell, or he could dodge away in the opposite direction. He dodged into the storeroom. After taking a wound in the storeroom, he charged out of the room, past the riders trying to get into the room. He rolled good, so the riders backed away from his wildly-swinging sword blade and he got out of the storeroom. Then the Bravo charged the wizard and tried to grab him, and rolled 10+. I looked at taking 3-harm from his magic sword and decided the wizard would flee down the stairs behind him instead. The player chose to cut off his escape route, and so I decided he managed to grab the wizard.

I had already used a move similar to this complicated one the last time we playtested World of Algol and in that game there was a lot of just choosing the same options every time an attack was made. This time, not so much. In any case, it wasn't conclusive exactly, but still good data for how a single PC uses both of these moves.

[JasonT]

Thanks for sharing how those moves worked out. Really interesting to see some details that differ from what I've seen elsewhere.

[JasonT]

I'm wondering if there's a way to mix Go Aggro and Seize by Force into something relatively simple and versatile. Like:

When you attack someone capable of fighting back, roll+hard. On a 10+, choose 3. On a 7-9, choose 2.

• Deal harm. (But they can make a move in response.)
• If you deal harm, increase harm by 1.
• If they attack in response, reduce harm by 1.
• Gain some advantage or deal some disadvantage to them (e.g., maneuver them someplace dangerous, hobble them, disarm them, make an impression on them, etc.).
• Give them the option to take no effects from this move if they take cover or otherwise forgo making a move of their own in response.

(Edited to fix an issue I found in this.)

[Johnstone]

I feel like it's a bit too fiddly, and there's some false choice in there. To me, it looks like my simple violence move except the initial choice offered to the enemy (allow your maneuver, submit to your demands, or suffer harm) has been put into the choices, which means that just allowing your enemy a way out weakens your leverage for coercing them to actually take that way out. And then +1 harm can't be chosen unless deal harm is chosen, but the choices are presented as if they have no prerequisites (also, Daniel will criticize you for this if I don't). It feels less user-friendly to me, but then again I'm not one of your players, so...

I do like the phrasing of giving yourself an advantage in terms of positioning or disadvantaging your opponent in some way. I would probably make them different options, actually (so I can put him into a headlock AND drag him through the poison ivy).

Also, an aside: So like I know you state it clearly in the OP, and I saw you x-posting this on Story Games and all that, but it was only literally just now that I saw the thread you necro'd on rpg.net and realized... this is an In Nomine hack... and not a Nobilis hack. Hilarious!

[JasonT]

Also, an aside: So like I know you state it clearly in the OP, and I saw you x-posting this on Story Games and all that, but it was only literally just now that I saw the thread you necro'd on rpg.net and realized... this is an In Nomine hack... and not a Nobilis hack. Hilarious!

Isn't somebody working on a Nobilis hack already? Then again, you can't put anything past a dude who cross-posts a question to three totally different websites, nercros a thread on one of them, and posts in the totally wrong forum on another one. (I just remembered I said I'd move this discussion to the hacks forum, too, so I think I'll do that now.)

Response to your post in summary: Yeah, you identified some problems, but at least one part identified as a weakness was meant to be a strength, given demands of the setting. I do need to rework it, though.

[Johnstone]

Isn't somebody working on a Nobilis hack already?

I'm sure I've seen something. If I had to bet money off the top of my head, I'd go with Jonathan Walton maybe? Anyway...



Lettuce go to uthah thread!