It seems to me that many AW hacks strip out the Go Aggro move completely and streamline the Seize by Force move,…

It seems to me that many AW hacks strip out the Go Aggro move completely and streamline the Seize by Force move,…

It seems to me that many AW hacks strip out the Go Aggro move completely and streamline the Seize by Force move, turning it into a general combat move.  In my research to learn more about the difference between GA and SBF, I discovered a thread in which John Harper claimed that, in his game, SBF was almost never used.  His players would always use Go Aggro in combat.  I’m wondering how this looks in play.  I  just cant picture using GA as a combat move as written.

42 thoughts on “It seems to me that many AW hacks strip out the Go Aggro move completely and streamline the Seize by Force move,…”

  2. My opinion, which may or may not be worthwhile, is that SBF tends to lead to faster conflict resolution. In other words, SBF usually leads to one roll combat resolution. Go Aggro on the other hand seems to be better suited if your goal is to drag combat out a bit more (to, say, 2-3 rolls). I agree that it’s pretty vague, that’s just my experience with the two rolls. I also think the circumstances play into this a lot; for instance if the players are under attack it tends to make more sense to use SBF, but if the players are attacking someone and it’s not obviously a two-way battle right off (like one player decides to hell with diplomacy I’m punching the hardholder of this town with no warning) then GA, again, makes more sense to me. Of course there’s tons of exceptions and arguments back and forth about all of this, these are just my experiences.

  3. Tommy Poole-Frank I don’t think so… SBF is a… not a good decision unless you go out tanking with 2-3 Armor or your opponent is practically helpless. You trade blow by blow so you are hurt but the enemy is hurt too. And one life of an NPC… it’s not always worth a couple of your Harm especially if that NPC had friends that likeds him and didn’t like you…

  4. Mr. Wolfoyote  I don’t think I perfectly described what I was trying to get at necessarily. To put it more simply, SBF is quick, decisive, and direct. GA is more subtle and drawn out. Again, this is in my experience. So yeah, SBF is a lot more dangerous ’cause you are trading blows no matter what but it also tends to finish fights, whereas GA is just as likely to escalate combat as it is to de-escalate it even with a success, but it’s much safer.

  5. Tommy Poole-Frank Can’t help but agree now. If we try to put it in simpler way… GA is for tension like in the movies with hostage situation while SBF is almost a berserk charge or close and violent combat without restraint and kung-fu stunts(you know, with banging heads on glass, using furniture as a weapon… that kinda of stuff).

  6. I’ve always kind of felt that GA is a threatening kind of move, or the move you make when your opponent doesn’t know you’re about to turn violent. SBF is the move you make when your opponent is actively resisting or fighting back.

    In terms of hacks, I usually see the moves renamed in some capacity but SBF still looks consistently like a combat move.

  10. You threaten one-sided violence; they don’t threaten it back. On a 7-9, they react by backing off, barricading themselves, etc. They don’t inflict violence on you, unlike a 7-9 (or 10+) on SBF. Right?

  11. Even a 10+ on SBF and you are still trading blows (i.e. they are inflicting violence back on you).

    David Benson , I can see how you’re getting there with Seduce/Manipulate, but it’s fundamentally going to change things to do it that way vs GA. With S/M you’re going to have to promise the other side something. So if you use violence as your leverage, you might have to promise not to do violence to them to get them to do what you want, or even something else. Of course if you roll a 10+ you could promise not to harm them and then break that promise, but on a 7-9 you’d need to give concrete assurance (such as laying your weapons down). That’s going to play out totally different than Going Aggro to get what you want. On paper GA seems unnecessary when you have S/M and SBF, but in practice each move drastically changes the nature of how the scene you’re in is going to play out compared to the others.

  13. If you hold a hammer over my head and scream “Type in the password or I’ll cave your fuckin’ skull in!” then are you going aggro or manipulating with violence as the leverage?

    GA is threatening violence, which is one-sided and will happen if I don’t do what you want. It is not the same as persuading with violence because GA is a more complex and nuanced move. Manipulating with violence is a bluff because if the target defies you then you don’t commit the violence, and a hard move ensues.

    Let’s look at it as GA: You’re holding a hammer over my head and you intend to cave my skull in. You roll a 7-9 and now I can:

    -get the hell out of your way (dive out of my chair and to the ground, you’re still standing above me)

    -barricade myself securely in (dive under the table and pulling the chair behind me to protect me from your hammer)

    -give you something I think you want/cave and do what you want (I type in the password) … also one of the choices on a 10+

    -back off calmly, hands where you can see them (I hold my hands over the keyboard and say “I’ll type in the password just please put the hammer down”)

    -tell you what you want to hear (I say “the password is ia ia cthulhu ftaghn, all one word”)

    -force your hand and suck it up (I say “fuck you” and you hit me in the head with the hammer without resistance) … also one of the choices on a 10+

    Now let’s look at why manipulate with violence is a bluff because of the outcome. If I’m an NPC and you roll 7-9 then I ask for assurance before giving you what you want (the equivalent of backing off calmly from above)

    You roll a 10+ and I just do it. In terms of outcome, the NPC believes you will inflict violence and types in the password.

    On a miss, you don’t get what you want, you don’t inflict violence, and depending on the MC move you might be fucked out of never getting the password. Committing violence after that is a new move.

    If I’m a PC it’s a different ball game because as a player I know you’re bluffing, but on a 7-9 result you’re probably giving me the incentive of free XP to do what you want. On a 10+ you’re also giving me the risk of acting under fire which means that if you don’t intend to inflict violence upon me then the fire is my character asking myself “is he bluffing?”

    Either way, this course of action against a PC could easily turn into a moves snowball. 

  14. Oh yeah, hadn’t even considered that rolling 7-9 on manipulate means you can’t even inflict violence, which just adds to the idea that it’s a bluff. On a 10+, you can change your mind and choose to inflict violence.

    Keep in mind, if you want to do harm to somebody and they don’t resist there is no roll. You simply deal harm. GA and SBF are there to determine the threat of harm or the exchange of harm.

  15. That was very informative, Patrick Henry Downs! Thank you. I’m still a bit confused by John Harper’s assertion that he only really uses GO and Act Under Fire to narrate combat. How would he do that?

  16. David Benson yeah totally. I mean, it’s all pretty vague, but if someone decides to Go Aggro on someone else and, say, punch them in the face, I’d record that as harm and then resolve the rest of the roll’s effects. This is actually another difference between between GA and S/M to me. For example:

    You’re interrogating Blocker, a thug from a rival holding. He is so far refusing to give up information through roleplayed persuasion so it’s time to make a move.

    Go Aggro:

    “I break some of his fingers to get him to talk.”

    On a 10+: On a 10+ Blocker either gives in, or you seriously mess him up and injure him without any chance of him getting to you back.

    On a 7-9: Blocker could give the info up, or could take a few other options such as “Barricading himself in” which in this case would probably mean claming up and being unresponsive to the violence being inflicted upon him.

    In both of these cases, there’s a good chance you’re going to do harm to Blocker, and without him being able to do harm back. He also doesn’t get a lot of options for how to resist unless you roll a 7-9.

    Seduce/Manipulate:

    “I tell him I’m going to break some of his fingers if he doesn’t talk.”

    10+: The most likely scenario for a 10+ would be that Blocker says if you promise not to hurt him he’ll tell you what you want or something similar.

    7-9: Blocker says he’ll give you the info you want but you need to show him you’re not going to hurt him. This could be in the form of him saying he won’t talk to you and will only talk to some other character (that he might be more likely to overpower, for instance).

    One other thing that I hope this illustrates is that a 10+ on either roll is more similar, whereas rolling a 7-9 totally changes the way it plays out. The same could be said of Read a Sitch vs Open Your Brain, a great result is going to come out fairly the same in a lot of cases (if you’re using the rolls to try and accomplish the same stuff), but a 7-9 or a failure is going to play out very differently.

  17. David Benson Without being able to listen in to one of his sessions, I would simply guess that he announces future badness and takes away their stuff and inflicts harm alot on missed rolls.

  18. Sorry I wrote that last comment in a bit of a rush, but Patrick Henry Downs gets to the meat of it. My point with that whole example was really supposed to be that with GA there’s lots of options for giving the other guy some harm, and with S/M not so much.

  19. On the John Harper​ issue: I’m guessing his game is about sneak and stealth: trying tot hit someone without being seen is acting under fire, go aggro would then be your all-out attack. I’m curious on how he would inflict harm on players though… Via an MC move? That wouldn’t give much options for the player though

  20. Even though I think we’ve already wrapped this up somewhat, I was listening to a podcast that had Vincent on and he said something that made the difference between GA, SBF, and S/M even clearer than before.

    SBF isn’t a threat of violence, it is violence. You will do harm and be harmed in return.

    S/M can rely on a threat of violence, but the odds of that S/M roll translating directly into violence actually being done is fairly small. If you you use violence as your leverage than you create a negotiation around the threat of violence, but again, if harm comes it’ll probably be a separate roll.

    GA is interesting because it’s a threat of violence, but the primary way harm is going to get done is if the person affected by the move chooses to take harm (rather than giving you what you want).

    So to recap:

    SBF is drawing a gun and firing and getting shot at back.

    S/M is pulling a gun out and saying “I could just shoot you” and getting into a negotiation about that.

    GA is pulling a gun out and putting it in someone’s face and letting them decide whether they give in or get shot.

  21. Page 193 of AW explains all of this.

    “Going aggro means using violence or the threat of violence…” (emphasis mine). It’s not just putting a gun in someone’s face. It also includes shooting them.

    Look at the second to last para:

    “When somebody tries to kill somebody without their fighting back, going aggro is the move. It’s like the player said ‘I’m going aggro’ — by shooting from way over here with a scoped rifle, by looping piano wire around his throat from behind, by whatever one-sided murderous act — ‘and what I want him to do is fall down bleeding and die.’ If he forces her hand, he forces her hand. If he caves and does what she wants, he takes harm just the same.”

    So, very often in every AW game I’ve been in, a PC will say, “I want to maneuver to a position to shoot that guy in the back.”

    Maneuver into position = act under fire.

    Shoot that guy in the back = go aggro.

    What happens when that guy gets shot = inflict harm as established.

  22. Also, you can’t choose an item from the 7-9 list for go aggro unless you can actually do that thing.

    You can’t choose to “barricade yourself securely in” by, like, going to a happy place in your mind. Or by hiding under a desk. Neither of those are barricading yourself securely in. If you can’t do it, you can’t pick it. This is true of all list items in AW. They don’t give you magical powers of positioning.

    The guy chained to the chair getting his fingers broken is plain fucked.

  23. Thanks, John Harper, that certainly helps.  But I’m wondering why you would even roll in a situation where, say, the guy is tied up or you’re shooting someone in the back who doesn’t know you’re there.  Why not just apply harm if the 7-9 results are not necessarily applicable?  To just see if you miss?

  24. For the guy who’s tied up, you roll to go aggro because he still has things he can choose. “Tell you what you want to hear,” for one. And also because you want something from him other than for him to die.

    For a murder (or well-positioned violence), we roll because the game is telling us that this kind of situation can go wrong. That’s why there’s a move for go aggro, instead of just leaving one-sided violence to “inflict harm”.

    But let’s imagine the guy tied to the chair. I start breaking fingers, get a 7-9, and he tells me what he thinks I want to hear. “Okay, okay please stop! The keys are in the locker over there.”

    “Thanks,” I say. Then I take out my pistol and shoot him dead.

    For that second bit, it’s probably  just inflict harm. There’s nothing more I want to hear, he has no way out, and I just shoot until he dies.

    But if there are other people in the room, who maybe aren’t down for murder, then it’s probably still go aggro (they may interfere). Or if the guy in the chair is some kind of incredible badass, who, even chained up, cannot be easily executed. If I have to go aggro to finish him off, then we’d still roll it. If not, then not.

  26. Also super important to this conversation is what happens on a 6-.

    A 6- doesn’t just mean “you miss”.

    I go aggro on him (and roll a 5). I empty my pistol into him and he goes over backwards in the chair. Blood everywhere.

    The MC makes her move (put someone in a spot is good).

    I go to leave. He coughs and moans and I hear the chains shift and the wood pieces of the chair clatter around. I turn back and he’s getting to his feet, bleeding all over, wrapping the chain around his fist, dragging part of the chair behind him.

    Sure, he’s technically dead (an NPC, plenty of ‘inflict harm as established’ to kill him) but not yet! Now what?

  28. Yeah, maybe. Maybe not.

    Depends on what I do and what moves trigger. There’s no “you have to” involved. Maybe I punk-out and just leave him to bleed to death in the shack. Maybe he crawls outside and shouts at me as I leave, so everyone knows I didn’t finish it. Maybe my rival steps up and does what I couldn’t.

    There’s a million ways for it to go.

    (Sorry that’s so nit-picky… I’m sure you didn’t quite mean ‘you have to roll SBF’, but in these kind of discussions I like to be super explicit.)

  29. John Harper  In my example I was not tied to the chair. In my mind, “barricading yourself securely” underneath a desk with a chair as a makeshift shield against somebody with a hammer is a perfectly acceptable outcome.

  30. Nothing about that sounds secure to me! But that’s fine. As long as the group agrees that a desk chair is secure, then you can pick that option.

  31. I would challenge you to try and smash my brains in from under my desk while I use my chair to defend myself. I’d feel pretty secure.

    But it sounds like you read that option, “barricade yourself securely in,” as a definite end to the conflict. Am I right?

  32. I would take that challenge. A hammer wielding maniac attacking me while I cower behind an office chair is very far away from my definition of “secure.” 🙂

    And yeah, I read that option as literal. “barricade” and “securely in”, to me, mean that the attacker will have to try to get you another way or another time. The chair / desk situation seems like a slight impediment, nothing like a secure barricade.

    But, like I said, it doesn’t matter what I think of the chair situation. If the group understands that to be a secure barricade, then it is, and you’re good to go. This is the basis of fictional positioning. We don’t have to agree here on the Internet about what counts. Each table has their own criteria.

  33. John, let’s say then that on a 7-9 you allow the victim of the GA to find security, say he locks himself in a bathroom or something.  Do you also allow the player to inflict harm on the target or is the outcome as chosen from the list?

  34. It depends. (the standard AW answer, eh? 🙂

    Did I go aggro by shooting them? Then yeah, they’re probably shot on a 7-9 and now they’re barricaded in.

    Did I go aggro by holding them at gun point and threatening them? Then no, they’re probably not shot.

    But it depends a lot on where we are, where the barricade is, etc. etc. Inflict harm as established, right? That establishment answers the questions.

  35. Just to be extra, nit-picky, clear: The MC isn’t really “allowing” anything here. The fictional details are established so they’re clear to everyone, then harm is inflicted or not as established.

    The player doesn’t need the MC’s permission to do harm. When the situation is established, it’s apparent how harm is inflicted or not.

    When there are gray areas, the MC has her principles and agenda to support her. She looks through crosshairs, is a fan of the characters, etc. and makes her moves accordingly.

  38. “A hammer wielding maniac attacking me while I cower behind an office chair is very far away from my definition of “secure.” :)”

    I guess I’ve never read that as a definitive ending to the conflict. I’ve always imagined “barricade securely in” as a defensive maneuver, which means it could be something as simple as taking cover from a sniper behind a concrete stairwell. The conflict doesn’t necessarily end but it doesn’t necessarily continue either.

    “And yeah, I read that option as literal. “barricade” and “securely in”, to me, mean that the attacker will have to try to get you another way or another time. The chair / desk situation seems like a slight impediment, nothing like a secure barricade.”

    In my example the chair becomes a makeshift weapon and if you want to attack me then I can now defend myself with the chair. I might be stuck under the table in the corner of a room, but if you want to get me then you’re not going to be able to get me with that hammer because I have greater reach with the chair which means, yeah, you’re going to have to come at me with something else. By either seizing the chair, leaving to get another weapon, or pushing your attack against the chair. 

    (Sorry for the delay, I was out grocery shopping.)

  40. I get what you’re saying, Patrick. I just don’t agree.

    That 7-9 choice doesn’t say “employ a makeshift defense.” If that’s what it was supposed to mean, that’s what it would say. I’m treating the precise language of that choice very seriously. You prefer to read it creatively. It’s totally fine either way, as long as everyone in the group is on the same page.

    (I prefer a serious reading of the language, btw, because it feels more honest to me. We have to say, “Nope, no barricades or security here! Too bad you’re not at Cutter’s place with his metal doors and locks and stuff.” Too much creative reading makes the fiction mushy, to me. Anywhere can be secure if we get creative enough. Feels… weak.)

    I don’t have a video of me running AW (not yet, anyway). But there’s a video of me playing in a game with Vincent, if you want to see us using the moves and interpreting the choices. It’s here:

    Part One: https://youtu.be/-NcanVthL8A

    Part Two: https://youtu.be/7aD1fOU2LpM

  41. My group and I have been tinkering with the Star Wars World variation of SBF in an attempt to allow move by move lightsaber battles that don’t leave the PC chopped to bits. (A lightsaber is 3 harm ap).

    One solution I tried was to use Act Under Fire when the player says “I’m engaging him but trying to defend myself until I get an opening.” But I’ve found that this ends up using Act Under Fire for so many various ways to maneuver into attack (eg feinting, misdirecting, tiring out the opponent, etc.) that it gets repetitive. (And also in SWW, most Jedi don’t have a high score in Cool.)

    John Harper, don’t you find that using Act under Fire to maneuver gets old?

Comments are closed.