Another pestering question for all…
Players have all this great gear they get to select that does its various amounts of harm. I only see “mix it up” as a way for them to trigger this wonderful harm. But it also states “violence against an armed force to seize control of a mission objective.” How much narrative control does the player have here? For example, “i approach the guards and pull out my monofilamint whip, and attempt to decapitate them both / pull out my SMG and head shot both of them / whatever” then rolls 7+ the guards are neutralized?
I have no problem with the player success but I could see the players maximizing this and just casually walking through the mission. I have never done combat in the Sprawl yet so this may be a non-issue.
Again trying to anticipate problems for my game on Saturday.
First. There has to be something you want to seize control of… the computer terminal, a briefcase, the executives daughter etc. something pertinent to the mission.
Second. Usually when you do violence your inflicting Harm, but not always. Ask your player to describe how they ‘intend’ to do violence to seize control.
If it’s whips and guns all the way and they succeed inflict the Harm of one or more of them depending on their description and what you think they have time to pull off. They might get a whip off but not the gun shot or maybe they go full Neo and clear the crowd.
Either way, after the dice fall you narrate the outcome of their ‘intention’. +10 they do it, within reason and established narrative, 7-9 they do it but have to make a choice or suffer a cost or set back. 6- you have full control, make a move that you think will add to the narrative and the tension. Doesn’t necessarily mean they fail either. They could kill the guards, save the daughter and then have to face a robotank, or get shot through the heart with a high powered sniper rifle. You decided on 6-
Also Harm inflicted is defined by their weapons and any special Moves they have that modify Harm done.
David is right on. The key is that on a 10+ they get what they want and on a 7-9 they have to make choices about what they really want. Do they want to suffer harm in order to get what they want? Do they want to deal with the consequences of the attention they attract?
So on a 7-9, the player gets to complicate the story and on a 6- the MC gets to complicate the story. As David says, that doesn’t necessarily mean failure, it means complication. I often give the player what they thought they wanted but out a negative twist on it. A 6- should make the story more interesting, not put a stop to it.
Ok so a player could “mix it up” with a weapon, attempting to “seize control” of the situation by being the person who wins the fight, if they rolled anything 7+ they would do the weapons harm, and explain narratively how that combat happened. I think I am getting it. 🙂
They explain it if they get 10+, within narrative reason, they explain it if they get 7-9 and you add a cost or hard choice, 6- you explain it completely.
It’s a conversation though. I’m explaining in generalities. Riff off your players and have fun. It’s not like other RPGs where there are set rules interactions.
I’m a bit confused as to how a weapons harm factors into this. If a player rolls a 10+ but has a low harm weapon and lots of enemies how would that resolved?
This is why mix it up talks about objectives. A hit doesn’t mean you’ve killed everyone or inflicted the most harm, it means that you have achieved your objective. Most battles are actually won psychologically, so winning might mean that you have driven off the opposition, that you have them at gun-point and cowed, that you knocked them all out, or even that you killed them all with a toothpick and extreme badassery. It will depend on the fictional circumstances established for the characters and the scene.