I’m confused by conflicts where your goal is to inflict harm (like a punitive raid or guerrilla attack). The rules say to use a drive off conflict, but it seems that if you win without compromise, you don’t actually inflict any harm.
Am I reading this wrong? Does the GM view the ‘drive off’ win through the lens of the intent, and apply conditions and deaths to the losing side?
Otherwise, it seems the best way to inflict harm is to lose a drive off conflict with a major compromise - you’re driven off (but with no conditions), and the bad guys have big conditions.
Actually… ironically that’s exactly what a guerrilla attack is. It’s called hit and run for a reason. You charge in, do some damage, and then intentionally retreat. Funny, I never thought of the analogy before, but it kinda works.
It still does seem a tad unimmersive that the loser of the conflict never gets a condition… Here’s a possible small hack: make the whole encounter slightly harsher. Complete victory means the loser get’s chased off and a condition. If it’s a minor compromise they might get off without condition (as one of the options). This takes it a step closer to a Kill conflict.
Although, “hit and run” could also be considered a different type of conflict than Drive Off or kill. Fight for Attack and Feint, Scout for Defend and Maneuver. If the guerrillas win then their target gets a condition and they get away (with possible compromises, of course). If the defenders win then the guerrillas are either captured or chased off with conditions (again, the defenders may have a possible compromise).