In PbtA hacks in general, do you think there is a place for a specific move or mechanic that deals with conflicts where you’re attacking someone who is actively opposing you, but not willing or able to use violence back? And I’m not talking about attacking someone unsuspecting or helpless. In those situations you would just deal damage or achieve what you’re trying to do without rolling.
A good example of this kind of situation is when you are using ranged weapons against enemies who can’t fight you back. Maybe they are charging at you with melee weapons or running away, but they’re actively avoiding your attacks and trying to achieve something. Dungeon World’s volley would fit here, but it’s specifically for ranged combat.
Your opponent could also be up close trying to capture you unharmed with a net, or maybe you’re invulnerable to their attacks so they are trying to take down your defenses in some way other than just attacking.
This could be baked into whatever conflict move a game has, so instead of just trading harm, the enemy achieves a goal or puts the player in a bad spot. Maybe by giving the player some extra options to choose from and if they don’t pick those options, the enemy will get what they’re trying to achieve.
Hack and Slash from DW just states that the attack an enemy makes in return on a 7-9 can be dealing damage (+ tags), but it can also be something else entirely like “jamming a poisoned needle into your veins”.
Do you have other good examples of moves from different games that considers this?
How would you resolve these kinds of asymmetric conflicts?
Don’t you think Going aggro handle this situation ?
Antoine Pempie Ugh. Yes. Definitely. -.-
And Act Under Fire, if you don’t clearly have the initiative.
Yeah, either Harm As Established if it’s a definite hit, or Act Under Fire if there’s a possibility of defense or miss.
For PbtA hacks in general, well, there are some things. So in Monsterhearts for example, the move for attacking is Lash Out, which would even trigger, when you start hitting inanimate things.
Legacy offers “Others will come after you” or “The situation is destablised, chaos will ensue.” as alternatives to taking damage on Fiercly Assault.
For my Star Trek hack, I used: “When you assault someone who is unaware of your presence or intention…” Which explicitely triggers, when you attack someone who doesn’t expect it. Among the non-retributive options for 7-9 are: “They raise an alarm” and “You kill them”. Masks’ “Overwhelm a Vulnerable Foe” works similarly.
Like I said, definite hits are pretty straight forward. I like skipping rolls and letting my players just act whenever I can.
In retrospect, my net example could be a typical act under fire. But think about a situation where you’re on a rooftop with a rifle and your enemy is running from cover to cover to get to your ally wielding a flamethrower.
Surprise! Apocalypse World should be able to handle this well. I guess you could ‘go aggro’ on them. I’m not entirely sure since it focuses on making threats and (maybe) starting fights rather than actually being in an ongoing firefight, but yeah. Then we have ‘lay down fire’ and whatever other battle moves apply.
But most other games seem to drop ‘go aggro’ and ‘seize by force’ and go for a straight ‘attack someone’ move where trading harm is often baked in. In those cases it doesn’t feel right to make the player roll the equivalent of act under fire just because the enemy is not shooting back. Maybe the rifleman had +2 shoot-at-people and -1 cool.
Or do you disagree Aaron Griffin , Toby Sennett ?
I should list an example myself.
Urban Shadow’s ‘Unleash’ lets the player choose between suffering harm and being put in a bad spot on a 7-9.
Is there a good reason, for the Urban Shadows Unleash example, that the MC couldn’t just say that contextually only being put in a bad spot is available?
Dave Sealy Ah, sorry. I brought it up as an example of moves that have not suffering harm baked in. But now I am curious if the rulebook mentions the MC denying players the suffer harm option if it makes sense.
Tor Droplets I think that’s Act Under Fire still
The fighting move from A Storm Eternal is an interesting one:
“Resort to the Sword
When you resort to the sword to enforce your will, roll your Prowess (or War, if you lead others to do the same). On 10+, spend 3 on the following. On 7–9, spend 2. On a miss, spend 1. If your opponent is a fellow player’s character, they roll too and spend accordingly. If an NPC, the GM spends in secret based on the skill of the NPC (1–4, generally). Spend blind, without knowing how your opponent is spending theirs. • For each 1 you spend to strike hard, inflict +1 Harm. • For each 1 you spend to defend yourself, suffer -1 Harm. • For each 1 you spend to come out on top, you better your chance to win. Both of you reveal how you’ve spent. Exchange harm simultaneously, and then whoever spent more to come out on top has the other at their mercy. If this is a tie, both get 3 more to spend, blind as always, and so on until someone wins or someone is killed.”
It totally lets you model opposing someone non-violently to win, assuming you are willing to take harm.
Also, it’s worth noting that if, in the fiction, someone is opposing a harm causing move but isn’t trying to harm you then their harm as established is zero.
Damn it, Aaron Griffin. Introducing a flame thrower in an argument about how the player is not acting under fire was not a smart move on my part.
The good thing about ‘act under fire’ is that it is a catchall. I would not dispute it, but I would prefer it if the combat move could do it and that’s probably different from game to game.
Tor Droplets Do you have an example of a PbtA with a combat move that doesn’t handle the situation?
Edit: arguably the sniper example is a seize by force, or assault a secure position (depending on exact fiction and intent) and the exchange of harm is handled by treating harm as established as zero on the part of the enemy.
First of all, I’m not saying there is a loophole in pbta combat. All games handle this, but maybe differently. I’m curious about how the different games do it and what impact it has on play.
I would say that if you had to use act under fire or keep your cool to shoot at someone from a secure position, it is an example of a combat move not “handling” a situation. Not necessarily a bad thing though.
Sure, but it seems like all the games I can think of could handle the situation with a combat move – whether it’s a catch all combat thing like Unleash, or a more granular set of choices (go aggro, seize by force, assault a position). That said, I can see a certain kind of game where a specific move for this kind of situation would be appropriate, particularly one that dealt with attacking non-combatants who nevertheless were trying to avoid attacks (although that seems pretty grim thematically – maybe a game where you are a slasher killer, or the alien from Alien?).
Anyway, that’s all I can clarify for now.
According to page 197 of AW 1st ed, Acting With Violence, if the opponent can’t fight back it’s not seizing by force. So it has to be Go Agro. This is fine, just be aware that it’s the NPC that chooses the actual outcome.
Funnily enough if you roll 7-9 your friend is safe, but if you get a 10+ they can still go for your friend, but have to take the hit. So the result you really want is 7-9.
Tor Droplets if you’re sniping from a distance, the fire you’re acting under is your own stress and ability to keep a steady hand.
I don’t agree at all with act under fire. First of all, you are rolling with Cool when acting under fire. How your character being able to stay calm would help him ?
It is not going straight to dealing damage as established if the opponent can defend itself.
” If the character has the drop on her enemy, or if the enemy won’t fight back, or if the character is making a show of force but isn’t disposed to really fight, it’s going aggro.”
p. 193 1st ed
Antoine Pempie staying calm is literally the most important part of long distance shooting
Aaron Griffin I see your point with the sniper. But :
“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.
” same page p.193 (1st ed)
Does fighting back necessarily mean trying to cause harm then? I can conceive of ways that someone might “fight back” (in a colloquial sense) against a sniper, without actually trying to harm them.
As I read Tor’s example, the sniping isn’t necessarily “one sided” as the enemy is aware of the sniper and actively trying to avoid drawing fire by using cover.
Woo, long day.
Actually Tor Droplets, I think you already hit my thoughts.
“Urban Shadow’s ‘Unleash’ lets the player choose between suffering harm and being put in a bad spot on a 7-9.”
That’s a good compromise for when you’re not just dealing harm as established, or Going Aggro or whatever. It’s Act Under Fire, and the fire is something bad, not always just harm. Could be to you, could be to something related to your goals.
Maybe you give away your hidden position, use up too much ammo, miss a secondary threat to an ally or yourself. However, that’s all handled with basic moves. What you really want to think about is how vital such a particular custom move will be for the themes and activities of your hack. What value does it add? What behaviours does it encourage?
Dealing damage from a sniper against someone without a gun is easy. The way you do it is you roll your regular attack and, on a 7-9 when you take the option take harm, you deal harm as established which is to say, none.
Characters using a net gun or poisons are a little more tricky. NPC’s make a soft move (pull out a net gun) then make a hard move later on (capture/separate etc). If it’s a PC using the gun it can get a little more tricky depending on the system.
Worlds in Peril, it’s a takedown.
Sprawl, Mix it up, you achieve your objective (or not).
Urban Shadows, unleash an attack (take away their freedom).
AW 1st ed Seize by force and inflict no harm (or a little if it has spikes and shit).
Monsterhearts, inflict a condition like poisoned or tied up.
etc….