13 thoughts on “A reminder for newer players:”

  1. I’ve always found that Seize by Force was more often used via gangs or through those who could act on those scales.

    That probably reflects the kinds of players I have had, but I think it also has something to do with the move—it makes a lot of sense to use a whole gang to grab something you want, especially from a weaker target. There seems to me to be something less personal about Seize by Force , as one of the comments points out it is about if you care about what the enemy has or what they do.

  2. In some sessions of our games there is a lot of Seizing.

    It is great for when a character escalates to the kind of force that is heedless of consequences (harm as established).

    It is great when the option of choice for the subject is removed (compare Go Aggro). When a character seeks to take not be given a thing. This is kinda horrible but it is apocalypse world and there are horrible people around.

    So, SBF is not peripheral in my game. Horrible violence is an option that is right there, staring players in the face.

    For my money it is the use if Go Aggro to straight up murder people (“please die, or take 4-harm…”) that gets confusing!

  3. I agree with John Machin , sbf is the shoot first asked for permission later first. The great thing about it is that it’s not just for seizing items or killing people, it’s also for intangibles. When i played a chopper i failed a pack alpha roll, so my second in command started giving me shit. I siezed control of the gang with my machete right in his face. He might have died but nobody asked any more questions after that (i chose take firm control). This can also work for pride (the attack is humiliating) respect (you prove your a badass) happiness (you kill a loved one) or puppies (you hit him so hard puppies come out…..ok maybe not puppies).

  4. Nathan, i believe the only move that allows to trade harm for harm is sbf. Then again, it’s never hard to find something to sieze if you want to off a guy. Revenge, enjoyment, spare jingle, they all work. I do personally that there is another basic move which can be used to do harm and that’s act under fire. Example:

    MC: it does not appear that Dingo sees you in your hiding spot.

    Player: i act under fire to sneak up behind him and slit his throat. The fire is that he spots me and get’s to react.

  5. Yeah, murdering unarmed / noncombatant NPCs when you’re ready for action isn’t a Move. It is all about the reaction and followup.

    Unless of course there’s a lot of other stuff going on or you’re trying to do it and just keep going because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, in those cases I could actually see Acting Under Fire for just ice them and keep going like it is no big thing.

  6. The MC can make the move to trade harm as established, even when your harm vastly outweighs the NPCs. While this may seem weird if the PC is the more aggressive party, I’ve found it works fine in play.

    Though it is funnier when it is the NPC that is outmatched and overly aggressive and trading harm as established is going to kill them. At that point the PC either decides they’re not willing to actually dish harm back or that, yeah, the guy is going to die because he came at a dude who has a submachine gun while wielding only a butcher’s knife (true story).

  7. Yeah, seizing all those esoteric things is a no go for me. 

    If a player ever told me he was seizing “respect” by force, I’d cease to be a fan of his character. “Rocks fall…”.

  8. I personally disagree Nathan.  I think that players should take any and every opportunity to make non-trivial rolls.  If the PC can obviously kill an innocent bystandard (I don’t mean incapacitated, I mean able body but not ready to fight) have the PC roll.  If they fail, go ahead and let them still kill the pure guy, but you get to make a move.  An evil sometimes unspoken move that the PC will have to worry about and deal with.  Why?  Because it makes the PC’s life interesting.

  10. Totally esoteric things I’m always leery of, but so long as the result can be concretely understood I’m generally OK with it.

    Like seizing control of a group by force, it is really fucking up whoever disagrees with you until you’re put down. Or as said by a famous gun lugger. “You know what the chain of command is? It’s the chain I go get and beat you with ’til ya understand who’s in ruttin’ command here.”

    But as you say, doing that with respect just doesn’t work. That seems like the equivalent of saying you’re opening your brain to listen to all of someone’s secrets. It requires conversation to get at how exactly that fits into what the move is really about.

  11. True Tim.  I don’t think you can just say ‘I’m going to do physical violence and I will gain this,” but seizing by force is a great way of explaining what you are looking to gain from violence.  The respect example might not be true respect, but what the character sees as respect (if their seizing by force then it probably means their looking to be scary enough that people don’t want to disrespect them).  In any case, anytime you seize by force, I think your goal should be understandable and translatable from your actions.

Comments are closed.