Is act under fire, defy danger, and all if its incarnations a crutch? On one hand, it’s super handy to have a default move. On the other hand, every time I’ve just said yes instead, and pushed the fiction toward a different move, I feel like things developed in a more satisfying way.
Is act under fire, defy danger, and all if its incarnations a crutch?
Is act under fire, defy danger, and all if its incarnations a crutch?
Sub
I try not to think of these moves as resolving a task, but resolving how complicated the results are. Said another way, the roll tells the GM how hard to react, it doesn’t tell the player that they succeeded or failed.
Let me ask the question a different way. Why does this move appear in every incarnation of the game? Is it because every game is about taking chances? Or, is it because it’s an easy way to disclaim decision making?
I’m with ^^. “Miss” doesn’t mean “failed”.
Jim Morris because sometimes you want chance to decide how bad it gets?
World of Dungeons is based entirely on JUST this move and is actually a good game.
I would add that Act Under Fire and Defy Danger have a pretty major and important difference.
Defy Danger lets you roll whichever Stat is most applicable, hopefully showcasing your character doing something cool, and it replicates a generic attribute test in D&D.
Act Under Fire is only rolled with Cool. It is more specific, because when you assign stats as a player, you are actively saying “my character is good at getting things done in a bad situation” if you assign a positive modifier to cool. It’s as important a statement as declaring that a character with high Hard is good at violence.
I mostly wanted to leave that here. I’d also say that the presence of a very active danger is super important. If you just say yes, then the danger probably wasn’t that pressing to begin with.
It’s the foundation. All the other player moves are just special, specific cases of act under fire.
That doesn’t mean you have to keep it, of course, but that is why it generally is ported to new hacks.
As written, when the bullets fly, you need to keep cool. As played, however, when any risky action is taken and does not trigger a more specific move, you roll the dice. This is the crutch.
Jim Morris not when the bullets fly. When you ACT while the bullets fly.
The distinction I’m trying to call out here is that the bullets are a metaphor at every table where I’ve played for general risk.
Jim Morris I would argue that it’s when there is clear, immediate risk, not just any potential risk. When bullets are flying, when rocks are falling, when what you are doing has obvious repurcussion, failure or success, then you roll the dice. Everything has risk. If the fire is “if you fail…” Then I don’t think the move is really triggered. There needs to be actual fire, not potential fire.
I would agree. Is that how you find it’s played?
Might be a bad habit from a long tradition of games where you tend roll anytime there is the slightest uncertainty, as opposed to PbtA where you roll when a move is triggered
I agree that it is easy to trigger these types of moves too often, I have done it myself.
Maybe there is a better way for the move text to emphasize urgency?
It’s a stress release valve for when the thematic design of the moves might not be a 100%.
In AW the TechSavvy guy might be trying to repair a car. if there is no pressure then he just fixes the car, but if there is like bandits under the area and he’s trying to get teh car running before they arrive then its a act under fire. Makes sense and its tied to a stat about keeping calm and collected.
IMO where it goes off the rails is when DW did defy danger and it could be any stat. I know they did this because it mimics dnd and how skill checks work, but it can lead to some murky situations.
I’m playing the sprawl right now and I try very much not to activate “act under pressure” unless its clear whats pressuring. unfortunately Sprawl does not have a stealth move otherwise, so I do need to resort to it when those scenarios come up. (which is often).
I had a Tech messing around with bio weaponry in the lab and that’s what her playbook is about so i stayed away from “act under pressure”. There were some really kool experiments and it allowed the fiction to move along to where the game had more to say.
Maybe it’s because of my brain, but act under fire and similar things make intuitive sense to me as something you have to contend with. I have ADD, and when I’m called upon to concentrate or act under pressure or with a short time limit, I can get easily flustered and my mind filled with all kinds of worries about it not working out. I am far more likely to fuck things up when it’s a contest or it’s on the line whether I’d succeed or not, under pressure and time limits. I can see the errors start cropping up.
That feels like such a “thing” to me that it makes sense to me as something active you’re reacting to and contending with, and thus, it feels like a move to me.
I haven’t seen it used as a catch-all dump-roll though.
One of the things I really appreciate about Sagas, is their variation, “Tempt Fate”. The trigger clearly spells out that its meant for when you act counter to your expected social norms. I hear echoes of this in Aaron’s tech who messes around with bio-weaponry.
Robert Bohl, I want to speak to your examples, because I think you’re hitting directly on the thing that’s bugging me. Concentrating under pressure, with time limits or other worries, makes perfect sense. It’s a story we could tell. I wonder, however, is it the story we want to tell? It is really that ubiquitous that it needs appear in virtually every iteration of the game? If I opened “Threat Level Midnight”, a hypothetical PbtA game, based on bomb-disarming thrillers like 24 or Blown Away, I would totally expect to see a move called “Act Under Pressure”.
Or, is it like Aaron pointed out a stress release valve for the design? If so, it is necessary for us to get our arms around situations that leak from the seams of our otherwise elegant abstraction? Or, might it not be best to just view this as a Golden Opportunity and make an MC move? In recent experiments, I’ve had pretty good results playing it this way. I just say yes, or complicate matters as expected, and push the fiction toward to next interesting choice for the players.
I’m fine with either answer, btw. It’s just been bugging me.
I’d say it’s maybe not a great move for every single game, but it probably has a place in many action-driven ones.
I think you want a catch-all, or catch-many at least. Players always go off road, and no rule set can be so thorough and exact that it covers everything in all instances. Better safe than squandering time and momentum
Isn’t that what custom moves are for?
Agreed Robert Bohl. I would like to see action-driven games, where this kind of move has a clear place to live, get more specific in their triggers. “When you’re in over your head…” or “When there’s no time to lose…” make it a lot less likely play will devolve into skill checks.
You know it, Greg Barnsdale. My contention, I guess if there is one, is why not let those things slide into play not covered by moves. To be more specific, as the MC, treat “off-roading” as “when the players look to you to see what happens.”
See, I don’t think the trigger needs to be that specific, though. Certainly naming the move and setting the trigger right for that particular game is important, but then again, that’s what it sounds like your clauses do.
In Demihumans, it’s persevere under duress, which works not because the flowery language is right for the game, because “fire” is anachronistic, because there are lots of duress beyond violence (and the threat of it), like biting your tongue when a human crèche-captain won’t give your friend’s baby back until she learns Common.
Jim Morris like just get things happening instead of asking the dice and gm do they happen? Yeah, that’s probably better, then home in on the hook
Robert Bohl I’m not trying to disagree for the sake of it or be a cynic, but it’s tough to get that combo, specific and general, worded just right. It’s been done, and it can always be done better, but it’s tough. Specific is better, but you gotta have a fall back I’m thinking
The problem i see with this move is it can lead to sloppy GM play where GMs start operating outside of what the system intends. Because the choices on a 7-9 are GM generated, I think a lot less attention is paid to the fictional trigger of the move. Leading to the GM inserting themselves into the Player’s narrative, perhaps when they shouldn’t of.
I was thinking it over, and maybe I have a useful diconomy.
Where as with other more specific moves the GM doesn’t immediately know what the consequences are before the roll. If someone sets up discern reality you don’t immediately know what you”re going to do if a 6 comes up, but the fictional trigger is there so you proceed.
With moves like Defy danger or act under fire. I think its important to know for both the player and the GM what’s going to happen on a 6. The danger/obstacle should be clearly present. So then the roll is about mitigating that danger, from there the move feels much less wonky.
The other reason this move is necessary is because it allows you to make soft moves into hard moves. You threaten escalation/snowballing and see if they can adapt. I would say it also helps the fiction move forward and explain how things get all awry.
If there was a game where you didn’t want the players to have as much of a foot on the brake (fictionally speaking) then perhaps it doesn’t belong in that game.
Once you have presented the danger, as the MC, and the player responds with a mitigating action, doesn’t it feel wrong to roll the dice?
Example:
Player 1: I’ve got to reach that orbital platform and take out those bombers before they destroy the supply depot. Ensign, plot an intercept course. Full speed ahead!
MC: The ensign immediately sends you into a dive toward the platform. Oh shit! There’s a ton a debris incoming, left over from destroyed cruisers and a rather large chunk of jagged hull about to rake across your bow. What do you do?
Player 1: Ensign, reduce speed to one-quarter and fire retro-thrusters! I hope there’s something left to defend by the time we get into the action…
OK. This is where I see moves like Act Under Fire, or Defy Danger often triggered. It’s tempting to say, roll+COOL. As written? You bet. But see, I don’t think it’s necessary. The player has already stated their appetite for risk and lowered the stakes. Why not, just say yes and move on? Are we wondering if the command crew are competent enough to pull off the maneuver? If not, why not just respond like this:
MC: Nods. The ensign’s hands frantically enter in course and speed changes, and the collision alarm subsides. As the orbital platform comes into view, you can see swarms of light bomber craft ripping apart supply depots with explosive ordnance. The attack is well under way. What do you do?
Now, on the other hand. If you rewind this scenario and the player responds like this:
Player 1: Dammit! Hold course, ensign – don’t you dare touch that panel. All decks, brace for impact!
Calling for a roll here feels more appropriate, sure. But once again, unnecessary. The player has still specified their risk tolerance. Why not just roll with it, like this:
MC: Oh my. We get a wide shot of the ship smashing into this chunk of debris. Cut to internal decks. Ratings cling to rails, others pitch over catwalks (obligatory Wilhelm scream), bulkheads crack, steam shoots out from pipes, etc. Back to the external shot. (music swells) The prow of the ship cuts right through the debris. We hear bulkheads groan and scrape. Damage reports stream into your console as the orbital platform comes into view. The bombers are just peeling away from formation to begin their run on those supply depots. What do you do you?
There’s clearly been some cost paid, in damage to the ship and perhaps casualties among the crew, but they arrive in time to save the supply depots. What’s the exact damage? We don’t need to know. It’s grist for the hard move mill, surely to be tapped in the coming battle. Like this:
Player 1: Ensign, bring us in between the platform and those bombers. Gun crews, I want all batteries to commence salvo fire. Target a defensive perimeter around those supply depots. That ought to give those bomb-jockeys something to think about.
MC: Sounds like seize by force to me. Roll+HARD!
Player 1: 7+1 is an 8. I suffer little harm and take definite hold of it. I don’t want even one of those bastard getting through!
MC: Good call. After the first squadron gets obliterated trying to make their attack run, the rest enter a holding pattern. Meanwhile damage control still hasn’t sealed up those holes punched in your hull by the debris. A couple of the bombers run screen for a single boarding skiff. We get a wide shot of the skiff disappearing into the perforated hull and then cut to the bridge where a the XO is pressing a headset to one ear. Say again Delta-Two-Niner! After a pause, he turns and reports wide-eyed, Captain! Crew has enemy contact and is taking fire from small arms. We are being boarded. What do you do?
Player 2: I’ve got this. Security team, rally to forward armory. I will assume command of our forces there. Prepare to repel boarders!”
Maybe it’s just a play style thing. I’ve noticed no one bats an eye when you make a hard move in response to misses on other moves. However, getting nailed from Act Under Fire can feel like just getting caught up and crushed by mechanics.
It might be a playstyle thing. I don’t know if I’ve ever had players willing to describe how they suffer to succeed without being force to by the dice.
If I was going to write a custom move for the playstyle you just described it might look something like this…
Navigate Danger
When a danger lays between you and a time sensitive objective, decide whether or not you wish to push through.
-0- If you push through the danger, describe the damage you take in the process. The MC will take 1 hold to use as a hard move in the future.
-0- If you avoid the danger despite the time crunch, the MC will describe the cost.
You could stop the move there if you like, or add in defy danger at the back end.
-0- If you’re unwilling to compromise roll 2d6+COOL
10+ you do it
7-9: You hesitate, the MC will give you a tricky choice
6-: prepare for the worse.
I would be interested in how it works without the die roll though. The play you describe is illuminating.
It’s all about the raft of moves giving the players mechanical certainty. If they see a move, called “Defy Danger”, that sets an expectation that their stats should provide buffer from danger. I’ve even had players check me when I deal out damage on a hard move. If you’ve ever heard, “Don’t I get to defy danger?” you know what I mean.
If instead, you respond to choices where Defy Danger might normally trigger, with tell them the consequences and ask, then it’s more likely to produce the description of suffering to succeed. You’ve told them what it’s going to take, right? All they have to do, is do it.
Jim Morris the meat and potatoes of a roleplaying game is about deciding who’s idea of what happens is the one that actually happens. If the MC says “the fire rushes at you, enveloping you” and the player says “I jump in the rain barrel next to me”, you now have two conflicting views of what is happening in the fiction – were they enveloped by fire or are they safe in the rain barrel?
How you decide which one happens is literally the point of having dice in the first place. Otherwise, you’d just be freeform roleplaying. Let’s think of some possible ways to decide which is true:
– everyone at the table points to who’s version they like better. highest vote wins.
– flip a coin
– players compete in a 500m dash
– the Master of Dungeons is always right
– roll some dice
– the player is always right
– pistols at noon
– we discuss and agree like adults
PbtA games tend to take the side of “hey let’s just roll dice to see what happens”.
Jim Morris Also, in your example, the first portion is totally fine in all PbtA games I know of. You have “shown the consequences and asked” or whatever the GM move is in the game you’re looking at.
Player: “I want to do a thing”
GM: “ok but there is some difficulty”
Player: “oh then I choose not to”
This is a normal thing and part of the game already. No one is “acting under fire” here because they’re just staying behind their hard cover, out of the fire.
The second portion is also fully part of normal rules. Once you have provided the consequences and they say “I accept the consequences” then they are looking to you to see what happens. You make a move.
Player: “ok I will do it despite the difficulty”
GM: “the difficulty happens, things got bad”
Player: “egads!”
Jim Morris I think “tell them the consequences and ask” is totally a legit call. When I MC, I tend to navigate play in PBTA games by the fictional triggers of the basic moves. In trad games I tend to call for dice too often, but by sticking to the fictional triggers I’m able to control my dice loving heart. Which is why I would make a move out of “telling the consequences and asking” because that’s how i keep my MC style honest? I also like setting player expectation with moves. Anytime i introduce a new move, I show it in the beginning of the session so they know its on the table. Sometimes the players will catch me drifting the move mid session, and I have to walk it back. Which I’m fine with, if edits are needed they should be done out of session.
If I had a better sense of when to “tell the consequences and ask” I might have a better time with trad games. I have been playing a lot of Godbound recently, where I’m having to do a lot of free form “say yes but..”
Aaron Berger my favorite part about “tell the consequences and ask” is that it actually serves to clear up confusion. Compare:
Player: “Keep going, Ensign!”
MC: “ok, your ship takes X damage”
Player: “WHAT WHY? It was just debris”
vs
Player: “Keep going, Ensign!”
MC: “if you do, your ship is gonna get ripped to shit from the debris”
Player: “ugh, really? I thought it was all small stuff”
MC: “nope, it’s big enough to do harm. You still want to dive?”
Yep. Sometimes, disclaim decision making.
My question to you was, do moves like DD and AuF make it too easy to lean in that direction (crutch…) when, in fact, it would be better to counter with an MC move that speeds us along toward one of the other moves.
Yes moves like DD and AuF do tend to drive play more to the dice than the other more interesting MC moves.
One thing I find, is because I tend to communicate consequences through “in-game” description, sometimes there is confusion. If players are ever surprised, I’ll totally rewind and let them make a different call. It might be lame, but it’s better than the alternative.
In my experience, no. Dice are a gamble, and when players learn this, they will steer their characters away from rolls if they can.
Veteran players of PBTA games know that they can effect the fictional world while narrating away from the basic moves therefore minimizing risk. But for newbies to the PBTA style, they tend to think the dice are the only way to effect the world, so they lean into Defy Danger, both player and GM alike.
So while rules as written maybe Defy Danger doesn’t input more crunchy dice, but I’ve seen a lot of MC use Defy Danger as a ‘crutch’ for decision making and consequences. I would be very interested in a PBTA game without a move like Defy Danger. Though that could just be because I squirm under the pressure to generate interesting 7-9 results.
What I see most often is, once familiar with the game, players lean into all the moves EXCEPT for AuF/DD. While each of them includes potential for the MC to get a hard move on a miss, the 7-9 results much more favorable for the player. A worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice invites the MC (and rightly so) to invent all kinds of badness.
On a quality level, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this analysis. Lot of good points, ye various posters, lot of good points
Agreed! Thank you, everyone for the thoughtful discussion.
Espcially the A. A-Ron cabal 😉