I have a question about Single Combat (SC) vs Chaotic Free For All (CFFA).
Say you have one PC vs a group of people. All of the group are on the same side and are one gang.
Which move should I be using?
Vincent Baker
I have a question about Single Combat (SC) vs Chaotic Free For All (CFFA).
I have a question about Single Combat (SC) vs Chaotic Free For All (CFFA).
My opinion here is that “single combat” means what it means and not some abstracted version of that; if you’re not one guy vs. one guy, you’re in a free-for-all.
Just my 2c: I would always start with the fiction – but mechanically it could be that ‘Seize something by force’ or ‘Defend something you hold’ would be more appropriate.
Errr…here’s the problem. The PC is acting with intent to target a specific person, rather than intending to act against the group as a whole. The MC has then included the rest of the group in the resolution. Hence the confusion.
I guess I always looked at it as single combat could be a single group of people vs whatever. Since there are only two sides of the conflict, single combat made the most sense to me. CFFA, I thought, was for when you had conflicts with more than 2 sides.
Delos Adamski Not that it really makes much of a difference with what got rolled! Only the number of the fallen will really change much…
Right I get that. I think my questions boils down to “If you have more than two people trying to kill each other, does that automatically go to CFFA?”
It’s certainly not a chaotic free for all because the gang will get normal gang advantages against a single character, and a chaotic free for all doesn’t really allow for that. Note that in a chaotic free for all you roll cool, not hard, so it’s not really suitable for a straight up gang vs gang or even character vs gang combat situation.
Assuming the gang member the PC is targeting was in striking distance when hostilities start I would probably treat it as single combat, with normal gang vs single character modifiers. Depending on the fiction, I might allow the character to inflict all the harm on the one character they’re after in the gang, but after the -1 harm for the gang.
If the gang are actively trying to protect the gang member that’s the target, I might ask the PC to roll for Assault a Secure Position, and have to select ‘force your way into your enemy’s position’ first, to earn the chance to single combat the target next move as above.
I think single combat is a bit misnamed because I see no reason why two gangs couldn’t use it when fighting each other.
Sub
Aaaaaand after all that, it was decided that the Faceless One was more or less Sucker Punching the target, so we went to Goin’ Aggro instead. Thanks for the help, everyone.
I’d still like to hear from Vincent Baker on if Single Combat is intended only for 1 on 1 fights or if it can be 1 side vs 1 side fights.
Gangs are designed to work with the moves as weapons, so yes. For gang-vs-gang single combat, for instance, you could imagine the gang bosses doing single combat against each other, using their gangs as their weapons.
However, this would be the right move only if the gangs met on neutral ground to fight fixedly to the death, with absolutely no other objective or acceptable outcome. Some real Gangs of New York action. I’d think that’s pretty rare!
For spontaneous gang fights, not scheduled and ritualistic ones, the other battle moves are better.
A chaotic free-for-all is for, like, roadhouse brawls, where there aren’t any sides, just a bunch of people beating indiscriminately on whoever comes within reach. If the gang’s members wouldn’t attack one another, don’t use the chaotic free-for-all.
Having the lone character go aggro on the gang was a good call.
Cool, thanks Vincent. So now our Faceless has suckered this poor raider and turned her into a pez dispenser and the rest of the gang is going to jump in and attack the faceless. Assuming the faceless takes the gang on, would that be a Single Combat move or should I be looking at Defend something?
Or should I never look at a gang as an entity unto itself and make sure there is always a leader to the gang that is the primary target?
I think defending something will be more fun!
You’ll find rules in the book for gangs without leaders. Mostly they break and run.
Ah ok. In my mind gangs were always loyal to the cause and not an NPC (cause that’s how I am IRL) so yeah I probably had my gangs being too bloodthirsty/loyal/smart, and I should be looking at them as a weapon instead of an intelligent entity. This gave me a much better perspective on how to run gangs and combat as a whole, thanks Vincent and everyone else who put in their two cents.