15 thoughts on “Am I correct in thinking that this game ditched Act Under Fire very much intentionally?”

  1. When we played we needed it. So I made a ruling and inserted it. (One of the PC’s tried to smooth talk his way past his science teacher who threatened him with detention)

    I thought it was an oversight, if it was done intentionally I would like to hear the rationale.

  6. It was definitely a stumbling point when we played, but having thought about it I think that’s just because other PbtA games have trained me/us to expect that kind of move in the rules.

    Once you back away from that expectation and examine what Act Under Fire and its regional equivalents actually do, they’re basically there to answer one of two questions:

    1) Do I manage to avoid this awful drek being slung my way?

    2) Can I accomplish what I’m trying to do despite the situation trying to stop me?

    I think the Masks basic moves, e.g. those that Adam points out, answer both those questions just fine–and in ways that let the player actually move the fiction instead of just survive it, which is pretty great.

  9. I need to try it in play, but my sense as an MC of other *World games is that the intention is, in many situations, you tell the consequences and ask, or you just say yes. If there is not a consequence meaningful enough that it must be imposed, supers can generally backflip off rooftops at no risk at all.

  10. I think act under fire is good game design if you aim for a simple and unified user interface. WoD proves this point, since it works well with only that one move. Secondly it is a catch-all, which is also good, because if you try to codify all possible situations you miss more and more. The finer the net the more holes you have.

    The reason to have other moves is to tell the players, “This is what I want you to say during the game, ” which is also good.

    So the point is, there has to be balance between AuF and other moves. If you dont want people to say what AuF makes them say then take it out.

    In our situation, the kid was not trying to provoke the teacher, he was trying to appeal to reason and create sympathy.

  11. Agreed, I think Act Under Fire is perfectly fine; it covers basically every base, and it’s the archetypal example of how the engine drives the story conversation. I don’t think it’s strictly necessary, at least not in Masks, but I’ve got no problem with it as a move framework.

    Looking at the actual effects of Provoke, I think it’s just poorly named and is meant to be a catch-all persuasion move. The name makes it sound like you have to be belligerent or aggressive, but I think the possible outcomes work just fine for softer approaches.

    You could also use Unleash, treating the teacher as an obstacle to overcome; that move is available to characters with no powers, recall, and smooth talking is totally a type of competence you can exploit with it.

    Actually, I think Unleash is just as wide a net as Act Under Fire, it’s just framed differently. It treats dangers as something to overcome, rather than avoid; that’s what I meant by moving the fiction rather than just surviving it.

  12. My group has been struggling with this same issue.  Specifically if you want to avoid some incoming danger without using your powers. 

    We’ve got a The Delinquent who is primarily a hacker.  No powers related to speed, toughness, prescience.  When the bullets start flying her way and she wants to duck for cover, what is she doing?  Do we test it mechanically, or do we just arbitrarily determine “You’re quick enough!” or “too bad, too slow!” each time?

    She isn’t using her powers, and isn’t directly engaging.  I lean toward “Unleash your Powers” because of the intent – to overcome an obstacle, change environment, but a non-powered action doesn’t explicitly trigger it, and ducking away from danger shouldn’t trigger “directly engage.”

    I actually kind of like the provoke move and phrasing.  I typically think of provoke in a non-confrontational sense – a thing provokes someone to thought or action, draws a reaction out of them, shifts their perspective, rather than in a discordant sense in which the provocation is necessarily aggressive or bellicose.  

    One of the my group mentioned that “provoke” has a negative connotation, and in hindsight i can see that it is often used that way.  It’s a word understood differently by different folks, perhaps its place in modern discourse is in transition, and that ambiguity either makes it a poor choice for the move, or a great one!

  13. For the Deliquent in Danger

    You could just, you know… Defend yourself…

    Alternatively you could Assess the situation and look for cover. 

    Otherwise as a GM

    Make them pay a price for victory.

    Tell them the possible consequences and ask

    For the Deliquent specifically you could Give them a helping hand

  14. Defend doesn’t quite feel right.  Evading danger is different from defending something, And even if it’s not, even if you are “defending yourself” by leaping for cover, you expose yourself to danger or put yourself at risk on a hit…. it really sounds like this move prompts you to stand up to the danger in defense, rather than to evade/avoid it.

    The options are to add to the team pool, take influence over someone you protect, or clear a Condition.  I can only see one of those applying, kinda…

    Assess the Situation could work in some cases, but even then, if you spot cover, what is the value in “taking +1 forward while acting on the answers” if you can just get behind cover?  Maybe it’s a moot point, you don’t need +1 forward if you get what you want, but that seems like a pretty big stretch for many scenarios.

    I’m looking for a Act Under Fire or Defy Danger analog here.  Maybe there is none.  Maybe there shouldn’t be, and i should rethink my approach to finding out what happens in these stories.

    I’m thinking in terms of Basic Moves.  I used The Delinquent as an example, because her specific powers, as she exists in the game i’m running, aren’t specifically useful in the instances i’m thinking off.  In an automated factory, i’d totally encourage her to hack the line and have robotic components swoop in to absorb hits.  But even then, it’s not my place to tell them HOW to get out of harm’s way.  

    Getting out of harm’s way shouldn’t always rely on super powers.  Hell, i can duck and run for cover, and i look horrible in spandex.

  15. Andrew Fish I’m positive I’ve seen the devs state elsewhere that you don’t need to be using a superpower to Unleash–otherwise, skill-focus characters like The Beacon and other non-supers wouldn’t have access to the move. I can’t recall where they said that and consequently wouldn’t know where to start ctrl+f’ing, so here’s the relevant quote from Urban Shadows’ Let It Out, which I’m sure parallels  their intent with Unleash:

    “Mortals might be hesitant to use this move, but the lack of supernatural abilities isn’t an impediment to triggering let it out. Mortals have power supernaturals don’t have: human instinct, adaptability, untapped potential, etc. Find a way to tap into the power within you, no matter how overt or subtle it may be. You might surprise yourself.”

    So aye, even though Batman doesn’t have super-speed, he can still dodge bullets (much of the time), because he’s Batman. Being a super-protagonist just gives you an edge; that’s how comics work, yeah? Whether your delinquent is the sort of super to be able to (try to) dodge bullets is a question you need to ask your table, but I’d lean towards letting them try unless they’re a specifically non-physical kind of character and that adds to their story somehow. Sometimes the move won’t trigger, because they either clearly can or clearly can’t get themselves safe (especially with a hard move in the latter case), but that’s something to be constantly assessing anyway.

    I hadn’t considered the “provoking thought” angle for Provoke. Makes me feel a bit better about the name, though I’m still not entirely sold on it. Food for thought, all the same!

    Tim Franzke Defend seems like a pretty bad choice to model dodging (and so on) in Masks. Unlike in Dungeon World, you explicitly expose yourself to or otherwise escalate the danger with Defend–and none of the knock-on choices let you negate that. I guess if you want every dodged gunshot to smash open a gas main or something (more broadly, if you want the action to constantly escalate itself rather than letting the heroes breath or show off their competence in a fight) it could work, but I’m not entirely convinced.

    As said, I’ve personally come ’round to using Unleash as the Act Under Fire analogue and think it works fine. You just have to rewire some of your PbtA thinking to see it in that light.

    And heck, maybe the next revision will add it in and this will be a moot point. 😛

Comments are closed.