In preparation for a game of AW (Specifically, Apocalypse West), I watched Adam Koebel’s very timely and welcome Roll20 game. It was awesome and very helpful, but I hit a bit of a snag in my comprehension when he first called for a Go Aggro move. I was a bit confused by the situation and I’m not sure I would have even called for a move at that time. Essentially, an NPC was distracted from a PC that she was threatening, allowing the PC to pull a gun and shoot her. The PC’s express intent was to murder the NPC. Adam called for a Go Aggro in that situation. I’m wondering if it would have been better just to let the PC apply harm to the NPC, since she wasn’t even aware of the attack and Adam seemed to stumble in his narrative a bit trying to describe the outcome of the GA roll. I believe he finally ruled that the bullet grazed her and she was running off to barricade herself in somewhere. I have read detailed descriptions of GA from people like Vincent and John Harper, but the move still eludes my complete comprehension. Thoughts?
In preparation for a game of AW (Specifically, Apocalypse West), I watched Adam Koebel’s very timely and welcome…
In preparation for a game of AW (Specifically, Apocalypse West), I watched Adam Koebel’s very timely and welcome…
Yeah, I could go either way in that. I get why you would call for a Go Aggro roll. It’s just sort of in our head as GMs that you don’t let someone straight up kill someone without a roll.
I do also think, though, that it would be fair for the MC to say “sure, you shoot them.”
I think another possible roll could be “Acting Under Fire.” You might say “okay, she’s distracted for a second, but just a second. You want to shoot her. Can you be both accurate AND fast?” On a full hit, I’d let them be both (accurate and fast- the NPC is cleanly shot dead). On a miss, I might let the player choose: would you rather be accurate or fast? If they pick accurate, they’ll shoot the NPC dead, but the NPC might get to pull off a shot or something first. If they pick fast, they’ll shoot the NPC before they can react, but they won’t shoot them dead. Maybe in the side or in the shoulder.
Just a thought.
Edit: I should add that some people really dislike using Acting Under Fire for rolls like that, seeing it as too generic (as in AUF becomes the roll for anything where there’s no specific move but you want to make the player roll). That doesn’t bother me too much. I kind of like the idea of “it seems like this is a tense or difficult thing you’re doing, so let’s see how it turns out.” I do think you shouldn’t use it for EVERYTHING, but AUF is GREAT for causing problems with partial hits.
That’s very helpful advice, Todd. Thank you.
To me, the character playbook would be a guide. In the situation described, if it was an Operator or an Angel, I’d call for a roll (probably AUF). If that was a Gunlugger PC? NPC is dead. That’s what Gunluggers do and the fiction is wide open for it to happen.
Page 193 of AW explains this in simple language. Pay close attention to the sniper example.
It’s the same as what we did in the Roll20 game. One way violence, not fighting back = go aggro. Easy peasy.
Thanks for the response, John, but can you explain how to narrate a 7-9 if the fiction, as in the Roll20 game, dictates that the shooter “can’t miss”. It didn’t really make sense to me that Adam let the victim run off and barricade herself in a far-away location when the gun was mere inches from her face. The only conclusion that I can draw is that a 7-9 result is a miss and the MC can then dictate the GA result. Is that a reasonable conclusion…or am I way, way overthinking this?
.
Go Aggro is the right move. Before triggering the move you might consider if both success and failure are interesting. If they aren’t, then automatic success. If failure could add to the story, make them roll.
I also thought it was a bit weird for Mercer to run off to some distant place to barricade herself. I’m usually a bit more strict than Adam Koebel and don’t allow choices that aren’t available in the current fiction.
But it wasn’t totally unreasonable, given Gritch’s personality, that he would shoot Mercer (he did hit her), fail to kill her (the 7-9), and then stand there stunned while she ran away.
A 7-9 result is NEVER a miss. It’s is a mixed result. Gritch got a mixed result. He shot her, and she ran off. Just follow the details of the fiction, follow the rules of the move and don’t overthink it.
Don’t try to come up with some over-arching method that has to work identically in every situation. That’s the opposite of what AW is trying to do. Fit the move to the fiction. Use the details of each particular situation to interpret the results (that’s the only possible way for Act Under Fire to work at all, for ex.).
And to disagree with Jim Sensenbrenner, if they want to trigger the effects of Go Aggro, they have to roll it. “Only roll if it adds to the story” is not a technique in Apocalypse World. Review the rules for when and how moves trigger and how players can revise their stated actions.
David Benson if you look at the move you’ll see what happened with the 7-9 result:
GO AGGRO
When you go aggro on someone, roll+hard. On a 10+, they have
to choose: force your hand and suck it up, or cave and do what
you want. On a 7–9, they can instead choose 1:
• get the hell out of your way
• barricade themselves securely in
• give you something they think you want
• back off calmly, hands where you can see
• tell you what you want to know (or what you want to hear)
But I feel like I’m just repeating the text of the game book. Maybe read through it again? There are tons of examples about these very things.
John, your time and willingness to answer my questions is appreciated more than you can know. That’s true for anyone who chips in with their wisdom and time. I appreciate it very much and it has been very helpful. Thank you.
It’s my pleasure. I love AW. I usually feel like I’m repeating the book, but I’m glad it’s helpful anyway. 🙂
To be totally honest, I was feeling totally blindsided by what Andrew did. It was funny and sudden and awesome and I wasn’t exactly sure how to react, except that I knew Mercer would run. I could definitely have described it differently, but its more about me and less about the rules. I think we handled that part right.
Honestly, the go aggro list, in my mind, isn’t perfect. Violence is a little weird in AW and edge cases crop up.
The key to the 7-9 list, to me, is how it limits what the target can do. They can’t just “attack you back” or do whatever they want because you got that partial success. The list limits their options down to a small set (sometimes very small if some of the choices aren’t available).
You’re controlling them with that 7-9 list, in addition to committing the violence (which is handled with the “inflict harm” GM move).
Sure, yeah. Mercer totally took the 2 harm and might die. She just managed to GTFO first, I suppose. Cat under the porch and all that.
To me it just reads like choosing the “Barricade themselves securely in” option, which implies no brains, but they cheese it and basically lose agency from there. If I recall correctly there’s pretty much that exact scenario in the AW core book.
That’s how I saw it, too. It was a good call but a confused attempt to narrate it.
Adam, might you also have just given Mercer the harm and proceeded to Seize by Force if Mercer had survived?
David Benson What I’ve been trying to convey is that pulling out a gun and shooting someone is the very definition of go aggro. If you do that, you’re going aggro, so you roll the move. Same as the sniper attack example in the book. Page 193 makes this very black and white (“When someone tries to kill somebody without their fighting back, going aggro is the move”.)
“Inflict harm as established” is the GM move that happens in concert with rolling the move. Sometimes the harm is established as already happened (so it’s inflicted as part of the action) and sometimes it’s not (so no harm is done on a 7-9, as in the sniper example). It’s more common for no harm to be done on a 7-9 with go aggro, but there are cases where it makes sense to inflict it (like a point-blank shot on a distracted Mercer).
Don’t worry, John. I’m running the game today so it should finally sink in. 😉
I love this threat and especially John Harper
If you haven’t seen Poison’d yet, David Benson , I’d consider checking it out. It’s by Vincent and very, very specifically addresses whether violence against the helpless should just be a matter of player declaration. Admittingly, it’s a different game so themes may not cross over, but I’d wager that this one does (considering how Go Aggro is written)