You miss my point, how does the text on page 149 come about if it isn’t ever named as a Kill Conflict? That doesn’t mean that the PCs can kill the dragon, just that the Conflict is run as a Kill conflict but if the PCs win they only succeed in getting away. EDIT: But the PCs are officially eligible for Death, even if not Injured prior to starting the conflict, if they lose the conflict or even win with 1/2 or less Disposition remaining.
So you’re thinking that the players can, through their violent actions and statements of intent, initiate a Kill Conflict that they can’t win, their best hope to just “not lose”? I suppose that makes sense.
Yes, that is my suggestion.
Next thing to a question, really, as the Levels of Correctitude of this remain unverified. 
I’d say just like the players can’t initiate a conflict that a monster doesn’t have a specific disposition for if it comes in from a twist then players can’t initiate an invalid conflict, like trying to kill the dragon. And since the GM is arbiter of what conflict it will be based on the players’ description, I don’t think it would ever really be a problem.
Trivia; The only monster in the book with Drive Off but not Kill is Ooze. The only one with neither is Kobold. The rest all have Kill listed while some are missing Drive Off, the later including Red Dragon (which you also need to boost to Might 4 just to be able to accomplish a Drive Off, incidentally).
If the PCs try to Drive Off a Twist that only lists Kill? Or attempt to Drive Off a Black Dragon, for example, while un-enhanced (Might 3)? Seems very likely that the best ‘natural’ fit for the actions described to the legal Twist conflicts will be something that the PCs cannot legally accomplish. I’m suggesting that the rules expect the GM to start the PCs on that fool’s errand, beginning a conflict whose named goal can never be awarded to them (but can be to the monster).
And since the GM is arbiter of what conflict it will be based on the players’ description, I don’t think it would ever really be a problem.
I do not understand this. What won’t be a problem? Why?
You cannot change conflicts in the middle. Once you’re committed, you’re committed. Your only other option is surrender (see Surrender on page 75).
“Thus adventurers may only flee from an attacking dragon–since they cannot kill, drive off or capture it.” –Asymmetric Conflict Goals, page 149.
If your players lack the Might for a particular type of conflict, they cannot engage in it. If they attempt something the rules say they can’t, tell them. “It’s too much for you.” You’ll note that the only monster in the book that doesn’t list a Flee conflict is the Lizard Man, who is Might 3…the same as adventurers.
If your players have the Might to engage a monster, but face some other restriction–it can only be killed by fire or a magic weapon or silver–that’s a different story. They can defeat it, they just can’t kill it. A spell might allow the players to enter a Kill conflict with a troll, but unless they set fire to it afterward, it will be back the next night. If they defeat a werewolf in a Kill conflict but don’t have silver weapons (or magic weapons or something), they drive it off when they win. Better find a way to kill it before it returns.
How does a dragon kill adventurers, given that no Kill conflict is possible? Pursue conflict, I would assume. Once they are captured, eating them is not a conflict ('though not eating might be the goal of a convince conflict 
).
I think the confusion comes from there being an “Asymmetric Conflict Goals” entry in the first place. “Asymmetric” suggests that the two sides have different goals in some meaningful way. If the PCs and the dragon are in a Flee conflict, then that’s not asymmetrical (mechanically). They’re both trying to win the chase. “Asymmetry” says to me, “Dragon is trying to kill, but PCs are trying to flee.”
Luke’s kobold encounter was offered as an example. There, the PCs entered a Kill Conflict with the kobolds. The kobolds won, but still couldn’t kill the PCs, because of their low Order of Might. That’s different, of course, because kobolds aren’t PCs, but the wording is very misleading.
This is one of the more sticky problems that I’ve never been able to wrap my head around. I think the idea is that you are captured by the dragon, and are probably injured in the process (?). Now you have to deal with a dragon that is trying to eat you, if you do nothing, he eats you, but you can try something else to escape. You probably should be allowed to try to run away again, since the circumstances haven’t changed enough (thought technically there’s no specific Let it Ride rule in TB) but you could try convincing the dragon not to eat you if you do a favor for it or something. However, since you are now injured failing here could mean death. Basically, never just kill adventurers unless they have a chance to do something heroic as they die, or unless they have put themselves into a climactic battle to the death of their own choose. To kill them off in other circumstances is just bad storytelling that makes everyone at the table unhappy. This is my current best interpretation of the rules and intent of the game, I’m still not 100% sure about it though.
It’s really not. The answer is the same as it was in this thread.
The players tried to kill the kobolds and the kobolds could not kill the PCs. Asymmetric.
Don’t sell yourself short. You understand it perfectly.
I disagree, I don’t think it implies that at all. “Dragon attacking” is not a conflict, it’s a description of what is happening to the adventurers. “A dragon flies overhead and descends with teeth and claws bared, what do you do?” The conflict hasn’t happened yet, but the dragon is definitely attacking. If they say they hold their ground you tell them “Seeing the bulk of the dragon descending on you, you realize that your feeble weapons have no hope of piercing it’s thick scales.” If they insist, then feel free to kill them. If they decide to flee, then that is the point where the conflict starts, and it’s a flee conflict.
I think Thor hit most of these points, I just wanted to clarify how you were reading that passage to make sure that the points being made make sense.
True, but that never applies the other way around, because PCs can’t be in Conflicts that they can’t… be in. As such, the example in the text with the dragon is misleading and confusing, because the Might 3 PCs can’t actually be in an asymmetric Conflict with a Might 6 dragon.
The question was really one of which abilities/skills were used, and if the PCs we eligible of Death straight off as consequence of failure.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Here’s what the text says: “A dragon (Might 6) can kill adventurers, but the adventurers (Might 3) cannot kill it. In cases like these, the targeted party can only accomplish what is reasonable according to their relative might. Thus adventurers may only flee from an attacking dragon–since they cannot kill, drive off or capture it.”
In other words, while the dragon may have the Might to kill adventurers, the adventurers can only engage it in a flee conflict. The dragon doesn’t get to choose they type of conflict.
If conflicts were symmetric, that would mean that the outcome is always dictated by the players: if they run, the GM captures. If they drive off, the GM flees or drives them off in turn. etc. etc. But that’s not the case.
If the PCs run, the GM could capture. But he could also trap them some place. Or drive them into some other force. Or injure them. Or, if they’re already injured, kill them.
Ah. Asymmetric Conflict Goals. I get it.
I still think the example was tricky, though. It seems that paragraph isn’t really about what players can or can’t do to a dragon (that’s an Order of Might issue), but about what a dragon can do to the PCs if it wins any Conflict. It probably could have benefited from what you said here. “If the PCs run, the GM could capture. But he could also trap them some place. Or drive them into some other force. Or injure them. Or, if they’re already injured, kill them.”
EDIT: Sorry. Not trying to be critical. Just exploring why I misunderstood to be sure that I understand.
But that is true normally if the PCs flee, isn’t it?
At this point my understanding is the that when the PCs are the lower Might that the Conflicts cannot have asymmetry, because the PCs/players are forbidden from initiating a conflict of those types.
EDIT: Which is why I found the example used in that section confusing given that from the title + first sentence it seemed to be about asymmetric goals that could happen.
As Ludanto said it’s about the Goals of the conflict not the Might. It’s asymmetrical because the players don’t determine an outcome on a failure, the GM does. Just because they picked flee as the conflict doesn’t mean that the result of the failure has to be that they are capture. If their enemy had no interest in capturing them, maybe it just drove them off, or maybe there is another twist the GM has in mind, or maybe the GM would prefer to have the PCs get away but with conditions. That sort of thing.
Then what is the point of this first sentence in the section???
“If your order of might is different than your opponent’s, this may cause asymmetry in your conflict goals.”
Just because they picked flee as the conflict doesn’t mean that the result of the failure has to be that they are capture. If their enemy had no interest in capturing them, maybe it just drove them off, or maybe there is another twist the GM has in mind, or maybe the GM would prefer to have the PCs get away but with conditions. That sort of thing.
But that is always true.
page 72,
GM WinsIf the GM wins, consult the table below for suggestions. Enterprising GMs should feel free to add to this list. The results are by no means exhaustive.
Another way to say it: The Order of Might limits how the PCs can start a Conflict, and limits the way NPCs can finish a Conflict.
EDIT: To elaborate, when the PCs enter a Conflict, they can approach it any way they like, limited only by common sense and Order of Might. When the NPCs win a Conflict, they can do as they will with you, limited only by common sense and the Order of Might.
(PCs pretty much choose their desired result up front. The NPCs get to choose their result at the end.)