Here with another question on how other GM’s handle a situation:
How do you address a player successfully mixing it up against an enemy with armor greater than their weapon damage ie pistol (2harm) vs military armor (3armour)
In this particular situation the objective was “to subdue or best the enemy team”
Hmm… As the goal was to “subdue or best the enemy team”, maybe I’d say the PC is laying down enough fire to force the enemy team to withdraw. Or keep their heads down. It’s not exactly the same thing as “subdue”, but it does take them out of the picture for a bit.
Maybe the character ends up with a gun at the head of the enemy commander and forces them to withdraw?
📌
“Huh, that’s interesting. They’re in this hardass milspec ceramic armor, and all you’ve got is this tiny holdout pistol, and yet you subdue them. What’s the look like, do you think?”
If they cannot provide a consistent description of how they do it, they don’t do ti. A 10+ does not grant you the ability to do something you fictionally can’t.
That being said, instead of taking the 10+ away from the player, try to give them suggestions or turn to the table for ideas.
I agree it is incumbent on the player to come up with the fictional explanation but if they are struggling I don’t have any problem helping them. There’s a bunch of ways this could happen and exploring those is one of my favourite things about PbtA games. So much more interesting than a traditional system.
Someone already said the most obvious one. The PC gunfire suppresses the enemy, they don’t know for sure they won’t get injured and they don’t want to deal with this crap. Another one that springs to mind is shooting holes in something in their environment, so they pull back because there is some slippy fluid under foot now. Maybe they even surrender because the environmental hazard is deadly (flammable or whatever). I prefer retreat in this case though, “beat” doesn’t mean “capture”.
Alpo _ Yeah. If you can’t succeed in that way, the GM shouldn’t let the players roll for that. Of course, a nice plan could work, possibly involving multiple rolls from various team members. P1 could draw enemy fire on him. P2 could make a stealthy run on the back of the Armored Enemy. Meanwhile P3 does a quick search on the Net for a weak point in the rear part, probably near the neck joint.
If they succeed, then they have a distracted enemy, useful info, and a man on the enemy’s back with a weak pistol touching the frail joint: time for the Armored Enemy to surrender!
I think this is where the “one move to resolve the fight” tears up its tires driving over the more traditional damage and armor system. It makes me love the Blades in the Dark system a lot because if the opponents are in heavy armor and all you’ve got is a hold out pistol then clearly your maximum possible result is going to be limited. Blades factors that in.
The best combat objectives are the one that can be accomplished without anybody NEEDING to get injured. If those objectives are too loose or ambiguous, tighten them up so that both the success and failure makes narrative sense.
If the NPCs always have the option to be pushed back/retreat instead of just bleeding out and if the environment always has aspects that can suddenly become a threat or focus for NPCs then direct damage between NPCs and PCs becomes less necessary. In that way fiction is more closely modeled were things don’t have to be 100% realistic and impossibly dramatic moments can still happen.
Man, you all are the best thank you so much