Attack option seems too strong in conflicts

[Istaran]

@Etsu_Riot

You are still learning the game. You should have played the first campaign with pre-generated characters. (Their are amazing, anyway.)

No. Playing pregens is something I’m just not willing to do in any edition of any roleplaying game, nor would I require it of others. (I would -allow- it, but that’s a different story.)

@Etsu_Riot

You can be killed without compromise, with little compromise and with a compromise if your enemy wants to kill you. You don’t die with a mayor comprimise.

Is that “enemy” as in anyone you happen to be fighting, or as in someone on your char sheet in that role? In either case, I chose not to make it lethal this time.

@Etsu_Riot

In fact, quite the opposite. In my opinion, you should forget the math and just play the game to see how it goes. (Forget the numbers. Thing in fictional terms.)

The numbers shape the fiction (and vice versa!). Plus me and about half my players are highly analytical by nature and will naturally try to understand the numbers. We want to understand what the incentives are, so we know what the character is trying to achieve when they chose Manuever or Defend, and whether those goals can realistically be achieved by those means.

@Etsu_Riot

As Deliverator said, you can’t have seven mouse in your patrol. Five is the limit. (I prefer less than five. Maybe four or three.) Split your group in two, if you can.

There were only three mice in the conflict anways. And I’m looking at 2 teams of 3, with possibly a dedicated Helper as how to handle conflicts where the whole group does participate.
For the most part I haven’t found there to be any trouble running with 7 players except for the understandable spreading thin of spotlight time. (And even still, everyone was really engaged and had a great time, so mission accomplished.) I found the party to be less thorough about always arranging Helping dice than I anticipated: I expected I’d need to add about 2 to the obstacles to keep the challenge up to compensate (i.e. have them take on larger scale challenges because they can throw on more helping dice) but I have found that I can do that for dramatic, obviously important tasks (where the description makes it obvious they want everyone’s help), while leaving many tasks at average 3 (and they only get 1-2 helping dice because it doesn’t seem important/hard enough for everyone to pile on).
Over time they may get more consistant about piling on the help, but in that case I can just steer them toward more ob 4-6 problems.

Anyways, thanks for all of your help. I realize I am a bit stubborn about certain things: I’m not booting players (and can’t run more sessions), I’m not running pregens, etc. But you’ve definitely helped me gain a bit of perspective.

[stormsweeper (Anthony)]

@Istaran

Anyways, thanks for all of your help. I realize I am a bit stubborn about certain things: I’m not booting players (and can’t run more sessions), I’m not running pregens, etc. But you’ve definitely helped me gain a bit of perspective.

I think what you’re seeing here is that you have changed the inputs, and now are having different outputs than what is intended by the design of the game. I’m not here to tell you you’re having the wrong kind of fun with th game, just that your experiences will likely be different than others here.

The A/A/A argument you’re making is not new (it’s akin to the Point/Point/Point argument from Burning Wheel since 2005). But the various other factors we bring up are part of why it’s not the dominant strategy. I (and most of the other posters in this thread) have played and run many, many, many games of both, and I assure you there is a definite point in the other manuevers. It’s not that we don’t understand the point you’re trying to make, it’s that we disagree based on our experiences.

Again, play on as you will.