I am a little confused on one little thing with the conflict system in MG. Lets say there are 3 characters involved. 1 Character is the antagonist the other 2 are the player characters, protagonists.
Antagonist holds secrets but as also messed crap up with the players, who hate him dearly. However, His intent is to fight to escape.
Protagonists, The patrol leader’s intent is looking to have the enemy captured as his partner intent is to kill the jerk for all the harm he has done.
Now this is just an example, not the situation I am looking to resolve. But basically you have 3 different intents, 3 different disposition rolls. When is the conflict resolved ? How do the GM and Players compromise… how do you direct your actions or does it effect everyone ?
Ah, I have read it. I understand the rules part of it. I mean, The fact you cannot double attack, as an example must help using teamwork instead… but I am most concerned about is the intent. if 2 players are able to down the big baddy, who wins their intent/goal in the conflict ? Kill or capture… i guess is where I am getting to. Perhaps I am looking at it as a black and white situation, and the compromise would be something the two would have to work out. But lets say… The bad guy knows something that the 1 mouse doesn’t want the other others to know… wishing to silence him before he spills the beans.
i can suggest a few things. I’m planning a three team conflict for an upcoming session. I’ll pass on some of the things I’m considering.
Can two of the teams find agreement before the disposition is rolled? Are they aware of each other’s intents? (in the case of the patrolmate vs Ptl Leader, maybe they both agree they must fight, but the player of the mate wants the goal to be killing: so, perhaps they make up one team, but the Ptl Leader is unaware that his mate will go for the kill.)
When considering the Disposition during the combat, as soon as one team reaches zero, they are out of the conflict and must hope for a compromise to work in their favor. The other teams continue fighting until another team reaches zero. Later, when discussing the compromise, what team hit zero first? (in the case of your example patrol, if the opponent hits zero first, will the Ptl Leader then defend the enemy against the mate killing him/her? or will one of the two surrender to the other?) Who made the action that pushed a team to zero? What was their intent in that action?
If you do have a three party conflict, only one will ultimately win the whole conflict. The other two will necessarily lose. The goal of any team will not occur during the actions, so a surprise like two teams that seem to be partners could diverge in the midst of a conflict. They can choose to whom they direct their actions.
Yeah! I was totally on the same page with your idea. Resume fighting until only 1 has remaining disposition. Seeing how they would get in each others way to fulfill there goals. Thanks a bunch for you idea. I think that is the best route to go to avoid any uncertainties if they come up.