148. Seize by Force: Variations

To assault a secure position, roll to seize by force, but instead of choosing to take definite control of it, you can choose to force your way into your enemy’s position.

To keep hold of something you have, roll to seize by force, but instead of choosing to take definite control, you can choose to keep definite control of it.

To fight your way free, roll to seize by force, but instead of choosing to take definite control, you can choose to win free and get away.

To defend someone else from attack, roll to seize by force, but instead of choosing to take definite control, you can choose to protect them from harm.

In the first edition of Apocalypse World, the Bakers give this point of clarification: “Read ‘seize something’ broadly — a character can seize the upper hand, seize momentum, or even seize the moment — but ‘by force’ is strict” (195). In the second edition, they have restructured the presentation of the move for clarity. Personally, I miss the sentence I quoted, but I understand why that gave up the broad reading of “seize something” for these variants of the move. This new presentation does nothing to impair the way I read the move while at the same time makes the move more understandable to those who prefer their moves more literal.

These four variants are probably the most reliably common ways that seize by force is used beyond literally seizing a thing. Offering the variants as variants is in some ways an invitation for players to create their own custom move in the form of a variant of seize by force, a baby step for players who are uncomfortable creating a whole new move but who can alter another move.

Even a casual read of the variants reveals that the only things that shift with each variant is what you mean by “seize” and what you mean by “take definite and undeniable control.” The thing that you are seizing in each case is the character’s goal, what they want to accomplish through their use of force. In fact, the move could be called “accomplish a thing by force” and the result option could be “definitely and undeniably accomplish the thing.” But that would be shitty writing, and the Bakers don’t go in for shitty writing.

The example is straightforward:

Marie the brainer is stranded in the rag-waste and gets set upon by one of its not-quite-human habitants. She has no choice but to fight her way free. She misses the roll with a 4. She still gets to choose 1, and chooses to win free and get away.

In the exchange of harm, she inflicts 3-harm for her scalpel (3-harm intimate hi-tech) minus 1 for her assailant’s hide armor, for a total of 2-harm. She suffers 2-harm for her assailant’s crude cutting blade (2-harm hand messy) minus 0 because she’s wearing no armor, for a total of 2-harm.

“You cut into him and flee,” I say. “You’re bleeding, but you get away. You can hear him gasping somewhere behind you, but you don’t know whether he’s chasing you or letting you go.”

Here we see that even on a miss, you can accomplish your goal, Marie winning free and getting away. Again, I have to admire the skill of the MC as they sew ambiguity into the fiction. Marie escapes, but she doesn’t know if she is being chased or not. If so, might the creature appear again? If the creature is letting her go, is there some reason for that? This construction leaves a lot of room for narrative tension now and creative decisions later.

Seize by force has specific rules for a miss, namely, “choose 1.” Compare that with the rules for a miss with reading a stich and reading a person: “On a miss, ask 1 anyway, but be prepared for the worst.” The directions for seize by force could easily have been written, “On a miss, choose 1 anyway, but be prepared for the worst,” but they weren’t. The only logical conclusion is that the MC does not have the invitation to make as hard a move as they’d like in the case of the miss. This example most certainly suggests that the MC doesn’t make a hard move in addition to Marie getting away. Huh. I didn’t realize that until just now.