If the PCs consistently play hard ball and then still inflict violence on compliant people is it fair to say they’ve developed a reputation for not leaving people alive and say that people aware of that reputation don’t respond to their threats anymore? This game doesn’t seem to have an equivalent of “Roll with something less,” or -x forward.
If the PCs consistently play hard ball and then still inflict violence on compliant people is it fair to say they’ve…
If the PCs consistently play hard ball and then still inflict violence on compliant people is it fair to say they’ve…
Hit the Street has a -1 ongoing until you make thing right option for the 7-9 result doesn’t it?
It seems entirely reasonable that something similar would happen in this case, though I’d find a way to show the barrel of this first if possible
Yeah, don’t mechanize this. Send corporate death squads after them.
Send a team of chromed out killers their way as all of the dead folk’s loved ones combined their death benefits and insurance payouts to but some Revenge and Justice.
Start a clock: People know you’re crew is full of shit
That’s the way I was leaning. Start revenge threat clocks.
I’m a little late to the party, but definitely clocks are the way to go. I’d have one general one for bad reputation leading to npcs refusing to talk / flat out running away / using bodyguards against them / ratting them out to the corps.
I guess the thing your PCs want the NPC to do is “Do what I want, then get shot anyway” which I suppose is allowed — in which case a 10+ means they do just that, and on a 7-9 you can make Threats and advance clocks as per the move text.
It’s kind of like the Go Aggro problem from Apocalypse World 1E, right? “I go aggro on him, what I want him to do is get shot in the head or I’m gonna shoot him in the head.” Maybe you need to add Sucker Someone as a custom move.
Thanks for your feedback
Nikolaj Munk
I feel like Fast Talk already fills the niche of what a “Sucker Someone” move would do.
And honestly I would make any players who are fake threatening someone, with the intent of killing them anyway, roll Fast Talk anyway.
Omari Brooks I thought of doing that too but I decided I don’t want to blur those moves so much. The way I see it is the move happens and they get the consequences. If they hit they get the info and person expects to not be hurt or killed. Done. Move resolved.
If they do go ahead with their threat anyway then bang they’ve inflicted harm as appropriate. Then I respond with one of my moves as appropriate to the fiction (like starting a clock or showing them the barrel of their victim’s friends’ guns).
Matt Petruzzelli
I’m always fishing for intent when I GM games (in any system) because I have run into issues where I misinterpreted what the player was actually trying to do or willing to accept.
So for instances where I don’t know if the player is actually trying to splatter NPC brains across the wall for non-compliance, I let them clarify if they actually intend to escalate things (and suffer the consequences for doing so).
Omari Brooks I do basically the same—and you’re right, it’s probably a Fast Talk! Unless the PC genuinely intends to not hurt the person they’re hardballing and then happens to change their mind afterwards, they can’t Play Hardball.
Omari Brooks Yes! Making “reputation for being stone faced killers with no mercy” into a Threat is the best way to go!