In the AW core bok on p.168 it says

18 thoughts on “In the AW core bok on p.168 it says”

1. My interpretation is that seize by force is a fight, going agro is a threat(a real threat, not the bluff of violence)

2. If Hison is standing on top of Keeler’s car, I’m guessing she wants to get her damn car back. Go Aggro is the move when you’re using the threat of violence to change someone’s behavior. Seize by Force is for when you are fighting.

3. So the seize by force move can be thought of as “…on a hit, INFLICT DAMAGE IF INTENDED, and either way choose options. On a 10+…”

4. That’s my damn car and I’m going to seize it by force because he should step the hell off right now if he knows what’s good for him!!! Maybe I’ll seize his skull by force. That would also work.

   Ahem. Keeler is my character. She is not to be fucked with. It says so on my character sheet :)

5. I see Seize By Force as the war move. You intend to inflict harm, and you want a piece of territory (even if only for a moment). In this case, the territory was the car (I think). And Keeler doesn’t care about Hison’s reaction, but she wants the car. She could Go Aggro if she cares one bit about how Hison will react, but she doesn’t. She wants the car.

6. Yeah, that about sums it up.

7. If the PC’s enemy is prepared and able to fight back – as Hison is – then it’s seizing by force.

   Going aggro is generally better for the PC, because when they seize by force, their enemy gets to inflict harm, but when they go aggro, there’s nothing their enemy can do about it. Thus, it’s important that when their enemy is in a position to fight back, it’s seizing by force, and the player doesn’t have any choice about which move to roll.

   If the player really wants to go aggro instead, they’ll have to figure out a way to get the drop on their enemy before they attack.

8. AW pg 197

   “Seizing by force is very strictly only for fights, times when characters move with violence directly against people able to defend themselves.”

   The move is not “on a hit , inflict damage if intended”. The move will do damage. If the player does not intend to hurt someone, they shouldn’t be narrating this move. 

9. Oh, and I’ve gone back and forth with SBF, and came up with this rubric as an MC: if I think a violent situation should be resolved with a single roll, go SBF. But if it’s nuanced, or complicated, or has so many actors that one roll doesn’t do it, I fall back to Go Aggro, Do Something Under Fire, or trade Harm for Harm.

10. I translated it into german for some RPG-Newbies (will publish document once completed). Translated back it reads:

    “Fight

    If you want to attack someone, on a 7+, do harm.

    If you do so to seize or keep something, on a 10+, choose 3, on a 7+, choose 2″

    Did I get it right?

11. Meguey Baker Your character?  Did not know that!  I’ll just remind my lil’ Brainer to leave Keeler the bleep alone now… 🙂

12. The trigger for Seize by Force should be something closer to, well, when you want to take something by force,  Zsolt Sz .

13. Let’s say PC One goes up to PC Two and threatens PC Two with decapitation with their really big sword, with intention to follow through, if PC Two doesn’t apologize for screwing around in PC One’s brain.  PC Two has scalpels within reach, but not out.

    It seems PC Two can fight back, if they want.  Is the proper MC action here to ask PC Two what they’re going to do if PC One takes a swing at them, get away or fight back?  If it’s get away, is it now a Go Aggro? 

14. In that scenario, it sounds like PC One has the drop on PC Two; PC One has their sword out and ready, while PC Two doesn’t have any weapons ready. I think that would trigger Go Aggro.

15. Zsolt Sz

    Wenn du jemand etwas mit Gewalt entreißt

16. Telling the moves apart seems hard on other places as well. The book indicates that you can go aggro on someone without actually using force (but be prepared to), or you can manipulate someone with the threat of force as leverage. 🙂 I translated it as “you act agressive – if it escalates, you inflict damage” vs. “you express a verbal or implicit threat”

17. Damn that´s hard. PC A opens fire on PC B. The MC can either let B act under fire, allow him to try to hide (aggro), or plain shoot back (seize by force). If B announces that he wants to run, his success is determined by either his acting under fire, or by As going aggro.

18. If B knows they are coming they have a choice.

    Maybe try to get away in time and act under fire or hunker down to fight back.

    If they don’t know A is coming it’s Go Aggro.

    You might want to check the AW second edition documents as they are much cleaner in that sense.

Comments are closed.