How do you keep the Mix It Up move from turning into D&D combat rounds? I’m concerned that players will approach potentially violent situations like they would in D&D or Shadowrun and just “I shoot one of the guards” instead of describing a complete sequence and objective.
How does Mix It Up work with harm and armor on NPCs? If the guards have harm and armor how do they achieve their objective if they can’t deal enough harm? Seems weird to take out a medium sized gang of guards in body armor using a single switchblade but the move seems to do that?
If their objective was incapacitating the security team how do they achieve their objective when the guards have 2 slots left on their harm clock?
Notably, Mix It Up doesn’t allow the player to choose “Inflict harm” as one of its outcomes. This caused some weird speedbumps in our game, because we weren’t sure how to handle straight-up firefights.
My workaround was always asking “no, really, what do you want to accomplish; hurting this target is a means to an end, so what’s the end?” Then, after rolls, I’d make a call on whether harm should be inflicted to anybody involved, and then just dish it out.
As with any move, to do it, you have to do it. So if a player has a good in-fiction reason to be able to defeat an armoured gang with just a switchblade (maybe the player is a killer cyborg of some kind?), then they can declare “defeat the gang” as their intent and roll Mix It Up. If they are a hacker, or even one of the more deadly classes armed with minimal gear, you are completely within your power to say “no, you can’t do that, the move doesn’t trigger,” and get them to refine their goals a bit. Orrr you can allow the move to trigger and for them to win, but then use your MC move to inflict harm as established. “So, yeah, the dust clears and the gang members are all beaten up or running off, but you take 2 harm from each of them… you Acquiring Agricultural Property yet?”
📌
“When you use violence against an armed force to seize control of an objective, …” In this contect, “I shoot one of the guards” doesn’t hit the trigger, since you’re not seizing control of an objective. So you shoot the guard, they probably take some harm, the GM makes a move (probably involving guards shooting back), and you continue the conversation.
But I agree that your other points have some merit, in particular how you can seize control of an objective without having the means to fight the enemy properly. Interested in answers in this direction.
Yeah, I’ve got that concern, too.
The best solution I can think of is to ditch Mix it Up and replace it with Seize by Force from Apocalypse World (but with plus Meat). Then make all combatants use the Apocalypse World wound system for NPCs: 1 is injured and could die, 2 is probably gonna die without medical help, 3 is fatal wound, 4 is instant death, 5+ is gruesome (iirc).
Less good options:
1. Even a switchblade can achieve any objective on a 7+
Problem: All weapons do the same damage, all enemies can take the same harm, and enemy armor is irrelevant. So all those rules are irrelevant.
2. Players can only state an objective that’s realistic in the fiction.
Problem: The fiction can clearly see armor, so sure, you know a switchblade can’t take out the combat-armored guard. But “some enemies can take more harm than others” is not visible in fiction, so we have to jettison that rule. We have to go back to Apocalypse World harm for NPCs rules.
3. If you’re trying to kill someone, that’s not Mix It Up. Mix it Up is only when you use violence against an armed force to seize control of an objective. If you’re just trying to kill each other, exchange harm until one side changes their objective or dies.
Problem: This is my second favorite option, because it sort of pushes the PCs away from using Mix it Up as a Shadowrun “I attack the security goon” move. Problem is the same as #1 in a way, because players will just shift to using Mix it Up with objectives like “capture the enemy” or “knock out the enemy” and then execute them later when they’re defenseless (if desired). And even if they don’t execute their foes, it still has the same problem as bad option 1 (PC weapons and NPC armor are meaningless).
Hamish Cameron might shed some light on this.
.
I don’t have too much of a hang up about telling the professional skilled operatives that they can size up their opposition and tell what “scale” they’re at. I’d only consider hiding it to give them a reason to assess which gives the Soldier’s assess bonuses a nice thematic place to shine.
Matt Petruzzelli You do not need to kill everyone to incapacitate a team. That exact situation happens in The Sprawl games I’ve run.
“The three armed guys you’ve been tailing walk up to a motel door. Looks like they’re about to kick it in. What do you do?”
“We rush in to take them out before they go in.”
“Great, roll to Mix it Up”
Clatter, 7-9…
Then we spread harm around. Most the dudes are likely still alive, maybe even uninjured, but are on the ground with a PCs holding guns to their heads. That one guy is bleeding out.
It works out fine.
Jesse Burneko so does it matter if the goons can take 2 harm or 4? If they’re wearing combat armor or tee shirts? If the PCs have silenced assault rifles or switchblades? If these don’t really matter, why include them in the rules? That’s our confusion, I guess.
Jon Lemich Two reasons.
1) It informs narratively what kind of conditions the NPCs are in after a fight.
2) That stuff all matters when the PCs get hit with stuff.
It’s very asymetrical. I only worry about the minutia of harm and armor when PCs take hits.
After a mix it up, that stuff just tells me whether any NPCs are dead, or missing limbs or just stunned or whatever based on PC gear.
Like after a Mix-It-Up if an NPC takes harm, I ask, “What did you use?” “My mono filament whip.” “Oh fuck, yeah, so he’s kneeling on the ground trying to stop the gushing blood out of his missing hand and begging for mercy.”
Oh, also, there’s plenty of times individual NPCs get hit with weapons that AREN’T mix it up situations. Then I deal with harm and armor individually there too.
I don’t have much to add beyond what Adam, Jakob and Jesse have said.
The way Jesse describes is the way I run it and it’s a judgement call based on the fiction (especially armaments and playbook) as to whether mix it up is triggered in any given situation.
My intention is that the characters are professionals who sometimes use force to accomplish things, but that using force is dangerous. They should have an objective beyond “commit violence”; that would be a different kind of game. If an objective isn’t clear from a character’s action, ask. If there’s no goal, maybe you’re just trading harm. Or rather, the PC is dishing out harm and the MC is making hard moves. I see that kind of play very rarely, TBH.
New Move: Violence Without Purpose aka Senseless Violence. 🙂
I clarified to my players (still haven’t started yet) that we’re going to use Exchange Harm any time their goal is to exchange harm e.g. kill, disable, injure their enemy. And then their weapon’s Harm and opposition’s armor and toughness determine what happens to people when they Exchange Harm and how bad their foes are hurt when they Mix it Up.
From a rules-writing perspective, I’m curious why the second half needed clarification. Are the “NPCs and Harm” rules on pp.178-179 not clear enough?
The “NPCs and Harm” rules are not clear enough and there is a lot you’re implying about “Mix it Up” that’s not in the book. If I’m wrong and there’s a clear page reference for this stuff, let me know…
I’ll start with something that IS clear: It’s quite clear that you can’t use a Holdout pistol to “use violence against an armed force to seize control of an objective” at Extreme range. That’s how weapon tags and fictional positioning work. Fiction first. The weapon cannot be used to “use violence” against an “armed force” at extreme range. Period.
But it’s not clear that you can’t use a Holdout pistol to “use violence against an armed force to seize control of an objective” when that objective is a datachip guarded by a small gang of corporate soldiers with 2-armor.
(Plus, as a Small Gang, they take 1 less harm anyway, so even if they were decked out in tee shirts and bermuda shorts, a Holdout would be mechanically useless, if we were just exchanging harm.)
And it’s even less clear that you can’t use a Holdout pistol to “use violence against an armed force to seize control of an objective” against an elite foe that is only taken out with 4-harm (say they have 0-armor for the sake of the example).
(In this case, it’s because while range and armor are at least visible to the player, how much harm an NPC can take is not visible to the player).
Further, it’s not clear to me that these fictional tags really DO restrict what a PC can do.
Mightn’t you “use violence against an armed force to seize control of an objective” by shooting the armored corporate soldiers where the armor doesn’t cover? Mightn’t they dive for cover when bullets started flying, letting you slip in and grab the chip?
And if you might, why do you bother getting an Automatic Shotgun when a Holdout can do the same thing?
Couldn’t you “use violence against an armed force to seize control of an objective” to shoot an elite cybersoldier’s leg, forcing her to stumble and fall while you grab the datachip and run away, regardless of how much Harm is needed to taker her out?
And if you could, I imagine “Harm and NPCs” is largely irrelevant to Mix it Up, except for the fact that the cybersoldier is able to give chase now. What if the PC stated that they wanted to kill the elite cybersoldier and take the datachip? Can they still achieve that with a Holdout and Mix it Up? I assume not. But that’s information hidden from the player. “Sorry, that won’t work because she isn’t taken out until she takes 4-harm. Rephrase your objective please.”
How about, “MCs: If your players don’t have the firepower to achieve their objective, within reason, given what weapons and armor and harm clocks are in play don’t use Mix it Up. Use Play Hardball and let them suffer the consequences if they don’t get a ten, or use Act Under Pressure and give them a worse outcome unless they land a ten.”?
I wanted to close by saying this isn’t a “takedown” or even a complaint. I just want the game to be clearer. I’m super excited about running The Sprawl, and I think I can make it work just fine. I also think it’s not clear, and it really helps that I’ve played and run several PbtA games before and read a few posts on here to help me figure it out. Not everyone will have that.
I don’t see why you can’t put the opposition’s harm clock on the table right next to your legwork, action, and corporate clocks so the players are aware of what’s going on. If you’re watching a movie and an elite cybered up assassin comes on the scene where the crew’s Hunter is shaking down some punk gang members for information the audience knows that even though the Hunter just stomped those 4 gang members pretty easily he’s going to have trouble against that assassin. In that regard I have no problem treating the players like the audience of the movie. Like I said before, I expect the characters to be able to size up their opposition.
I guess I’ll need to play a bit and get the feel for how Mix It Up plays out.
>>>>
There are 5 security guards in the room. 3 are at the desk and 2 are positioned near columns that are clearly just there to provide cover against intruders. They’re unaware of your presence for the moment. [Places harm clock for the gang on the table]
Version 1)
“I shoot the guy on the left in the head”
“That’s all? OK your bullet splatters the column with gray matter.” [just inflict harm as appropriate] “The other four guards take cover behind the servers and the columns and you hear them talking into comms moments before the building lockdown goes into effect. Naturally they return fire.”
“Oh umm shit. I take cover outside the door. I want to shoot the other guards so I can get control of the server room so the hacker can get to work. That’s mix it up right?”
“Roll +cool to act under pressure first because the security is well trained and coordinating their fire to cover the door and you need to time it just right to survive sticking your head around the corner long enough since you gave up your advantage. Then roll Mix It Up after finding out how well peeking around the corner worked out.”
Version 2)
“I burst into the room and shoot the 2 guards by the columns, then level my guns at the guys behind the security desk to make it clear that they’re next if they so much as twitch wrong.”
OK roll +meat to Mix It Up. (Although I could see Play Hard Ball as the appropriate move too here)
Jon Lemich You pretty clearly articulate why you could use a holdout pistol in those situations. [Achieving the objective] and [injure all the opposition with your weapon] are two separate and independent propositions.
I’ll think about these comments some more.
(And no worries. I’m down for criticism. I ask the question not because I think you’re wrong but because I want to work out how I can write it more clearly next time.)
Its PbtA, so follow your agenda and principles: fiction first!
This may be of some assistance;
latorra.org – A 16 HP Dragon | LaTorra.org/
A PC charging a group of armed guards with only a holdout pistol is going to need to Act Under Pressure to get past their salvo of shots first. And if it’s a medium sized gang I’d give them +2 to any harm they cause. Also once in range the PC will suffer a -2 harm mod on any harm they do to the group. Even if the pc gets a hit on the Mix It Up, if the group isn’t taken to 00.00 any victory is very short lived. They’ll regroup and they don’t only have guns, they’ve got flashbangs and micro-drones and AR scramblers; more Acting Under Pressure to escape that nonsense before you can counterattack and try to reclaim the objective.
Following