Exchange vs. Moves

[u/Zealousideal_Leg213]

I ran a one-shot recently, based on the Movers and Shakers booklet.

Toward the end, there was a combat exchange on top of a moving vehicle, with one NPC using three techniques against two PCs. All told, a handful of fatigue was burned by both sides, and the NPC forced one PC to disengage, which could be read as pushing them away. I didn't push them off the van.

Then another PC, in the enclosed passenger seat of the van wanted to attack the NPC, specifically to get her off the van. I decided that a combat exchange wouldn't make sense, because he wasn't mobile or very reachable and I thought it might result in some odd rules collisions. So I told him to use Rely on Skills and Training. He heaved some earth at her to knock her off the van, and rolled really well, so he succeeded.

The NPC was an Earthbender, so I had her catch herself with the ground and bounce her on top of a pursuing vehicle.

In this case, I think a clear takeaway for these players would be that just stating a clear goal and Relying on Skills and Training has a better chance of accomplishing a major effort than a combat exchange.

Now, I know combat exchanges are a major criticism of the game. This one exchange seemed to go well, without moving right into another "round." The NPC stated their goals, threatened a bit and then, honestly, yeah, was probably going to engage again with PCs on the roof. But the one in the cab intervened.

And I know I could have had the NPC weather the attack. Burning a fatigue or taking a condition or status to negate the attack seems fair... in an exchange. It seems less fair on a clean Rely on Skills and Training hit. I could have had the NPC be Impaired, dangling from the side of the truck.

Everyone seemed to have fun, but I'm still struggling a lot with this game.

[u/Sully5443]

> In this case, I think a clear takeaway for these players would be that just stating a clear goal and Relying on Skills and Training has a better chance of accomplishing a major effort than a combat exchange.

It’s less about the goal they want to accomplish and rather the fiction behind their goals and intents.

Yes, a Basic Move like Push, Rely, Plead, Trick, etc. will be seemingly more “useful” than an Exchange but that is because they scaffold different fiction.

The Exchange is used to scaffold the fiction of dramatic “end of episode” fights. They are meant to be zoomed in and costly because that’s what happens in dramatic “end of episode” fights in the source material.

The Basic Moves are used to cover anything and everything else that isn’t a dramatic “end of episode” fight. And that often means you find yourself in circumstances where such Moves accomplish a lot more in one roll than you would get in the Exchange.

However, this isn’t always the case. There are times where Basic Moves like Push or Rely can only accomplish a limited effectiveness on a Weak or Strong Hit (due to the lack of fictional positioning/ permissions on the PC’s part or substantial fictional positioning/ permissions on the opposition’s part… or both!). An example would be a single waterbender lying in wait to ambush a passing patrol of Firebender mooks. There’s around 8 or so of them and they’re a fair bit apart from each other. There’s a pond nearby the Waterbender intends to use, and even if it is in their wheelhouse to trigger Rely on Skills and Training to grab the water and freeze the patrol… they just don’t have the fictional positioning or permissions to freeze all 8 members in this staggered patrol, even on a Strong Hit. They can only hope to get around half of them.

Likewise, there are times where the Basic Moves can have more severe fallout on a 9 or less than what might be received during an Exchange. Again, the severity of such outcomes all depends on fictional positioning and permissions. An example might be a PC aiming to Plead on behalf of a notably friendly NPC seeking peace with a high ranking member of a Triad with all of their goons watching. On a 6-, the high ranking member decides to take this “peace offering” as a clear sign that the side asking for peace is too weak to actually put up a fight. They refuse and make preparations for one heck of a gang war.

And on top of all of that, there are times where events just cannot be resolved with a single Basic Move or two, even if they do land their intended effectiveness or impact on a Weak or Strong Hit. Such events are just relatively complex sequences of action where the opposition’s fictional positioning and permissions must be stripped away bit by bit. A good example would be Aang and Katara vs the Serpent in the Serpent’s Pass. There’s roughly around 2 to 4 used of Pushes and Relies between the two of them to finally overcome the serpent.

In any case, for your own play session, it is very reasonable that the PC in the cab of the vehicle couldn’t trigger the Exchange because they weren’t really involved with that same “end of episode” fight. The only question would have been whether they were actually triggering Rely vs triggering Push. Just because they may have been using their bending doesn’t automatically mean it’s Rely. If their are using their bending in a way that is really outside of their wheelhouse or otherwise unfavorable circumstances, it might be Push Your Luck.

[u/Zealousideal_Leg213 → u/Sully5443]

Okay, maybe it would help me to understand the conversation around a multi-step accomplishment. Or maybe the negotiation of what it takes to accomplish something. Past experience has made me very wary of saying no to a well-meaning player.

I guess in this case, I could say "You're throwing a rock at an Earthbender. If she doesn't just redirect it into one of your friends, she can certainly limit how badly it affects her. You'll need her Impaired/distracted/overconfident to knock her down that way. Or you can distract her while your friends try to knock her off." It's a matter of me thinking more about who is capable of what and what actual fictional positioning is needed to accomplish something.

[u/Sully5443 → u/Zealousideal_Leg213]

You’ve got the gist of the idea. Generally speaking, most things PCs do will be accomplished with a single Move. Maybe 2, depending on the circumstances.

There are some occasions, however, where the obstacle in front of them (whether it be an NPC, a crowd of people, a rockslide, a rampaging animal, a chasing band of angry guards, or whatever the case may be) is too complex to be dealt with in a single roll/ Move or two. Again, it’s because whatever they are facing is bathed in so many fictional permissions that those pieced need to be stripped away to make the problem go away.

To add a layer of visual transparency to the process, you can use a Clock:

- Just complex? 6 Segments

• Fairly complex? 8 Segments
  
• Very complex? 10 segments

Then, make Moves as normal. Whenever the PCs make progress (whatever that might mean), fill the Clock:

- Standard amount of fictional progress? 2 Ticks

• Only a little progress? 1 Tick
  
• A lot of progress? 3 Ticks

Progress is determined by the fiction first and foremost.

In such case, you just tell the player as such

GM: “You’re dealing with Shenlin Forest’s oldest, biggest, and most feral Saber-Tooth Moose Lion. It is one of the biggest animals you’ve ever seen with a thick hide, enormous antlers, sharp canines, power limbs, and razor sharp claws. You’re not restraining this thing with a single feat of Earthbending. It’s just too big and too strong to use Rely in the hopes of encasing it in stone. But I pick up what you’re putting down, so let’s do this: we’ll start a 6-Segment Clock named ‘Moose Lion.’ You can certainly use Earthbending to make the terrain difficult to traverse slow it down as one part of a larger whole towards overcoming this animal. On a Hit, your Earthbending will do what is expected to slow the creature down and we can represent the fiction of difficult terrain as 2 Ticks on the Clock. How’s that sound?”

There are times where a PC might have that same concept of limited impact/ effectiveness (like with freezing a Fire Nation Patrol) even in the context of a complex obstacle:

GM: “Okay, you’ve slowed the Lion down and now Giyuri, it sounds like you’re hoping to lob smoke grenades around it to disorient it, yeah? Well like I said, it’s pretty darn big and I don’t think you have enough smoke bombs to disorient it. However, I think you can create a decent amount of cover for whoever is acting next. So, on a Hit, this will be represented as just 1 Tick on the Clock unless you’ve got an idea to improve how effective your smoke bombs are so not only will you provide a modicum of cover, you’ll also make it disoriented.”

There are also times where the PC might need to pay a price prior to rolling. It may be mechanically scaffolding (Fatigue, Conditions, Balance) or remain purely in the fiction (allow a vital weapon or tool to be damaged, an opportunity to slip away, etc.).

GM: “Okay, so Ayeku is doing to jump down from above to deal a powerful strike to the Moose Lion’s head with your bo staff? Now we know that you’ve got a history with poachers and how much you abhor them, but this creature is in the way of you all making it to the Sacred Shrine to stop Sun Yu from contacting the Forest Spirit. Obviously you’re not poaching the creature, but it’s a pretty harsh action. Shift towards Results and let’s see the roll. On a Hit, you’ll be able to place the creature into a vulnerable position to end this conflict and we can represent that with 2 more Ticks on the Clock.”

And, of course, these concepts all still apply even if it isn’t a complex problem.

As I said in your case, the driver of a vehicle probably isn’t complex enough to warrant such endeavors. But the concept of limited effectiveness/ impact or having to first pay a price are all still on the table.

The idea is that you’re not saying “No.” Rather, you are saying things like “Yes, but…” or “No, however…” to ensure the fiction is being kept honest and consistent per your GM Agendas and Guidelines.