Conflict Types

Does the GM pick a (potentially different) conflict type for both the group and the adversaries? For instance, in the barrow wight example on page 149, “the barrow wight’s description lists kill, flee and drive off, but not capture,” and so the GM rolls Nature instead. Is it necessary to roll nature or could the barrow wight want to kill the foolish adventurers instead (and so use the disposition and weapons listed under Kill)?

I feel like there is something about this in the rules, but I can’t seem to find it.

Check the “Asymmetric Conflict Goals” on page 149.

I think there were older threads about this too.

Stay cool :cool:

Rad. Sounds like choosing two different conflict types is acceptable, at least in the case where the Might of the group and foe are incompatible for what the foe wants to do. Thanks for the reference.

It has less to do with the conflict type and more to do with the possible outcomes. The type of conflict (skills used or applicable nature descriptors in the case of most monsters) is the same. The possible compromises and outcomes are based on the single type of conflict chosen. However, try as he might a single Kobold just can’t kill a Human Warrior, even if it’s a kill conflict, so the GM will have to get creative if the Kobold somehow wins, probably driving the warrior off and injuring him instead of killing him. You could say the same about a Human Warrior against a Dragon, but since the GM’s choice is based on the player’s description it’s very unlikely that a Kill conflict would ever selected as the appropriate conflict between a Human Warrior and a Dragon.

So, even if my players are Fleeing a red dragon that really just wants to Kill and eat them, the dragon uses its Flee disposition and weapons? That seems a little strange to me. (I understand that, if my players lose the conflict, the are captured by the dragon [and then likely will be eaten].)

I suppose that monster dispositions and weapons are simply designed with PLAYER intent in mind and not MONSTER intent. Is that about right?

I would be interested in the fine distinctions of asymmetric conflicts when it’s not forced by differences in Might.

Taking Gnolls, they have Flee with 11 Disposition, and Capture at 5. If the players wish to Flee, and a Gnoll wishes to Capture, what weapons & dispositions are used by each?

Yes. Only player intent matters.

Good-o. Thanks.

The procedure is:
Players describe how they respond to a threat
GM chooses an appropriate conflict type based on their description/intent
Resolve that conflict type

It doesn’t matter what the monsters “want”, at least not until they win the conflict, then it matters a lot. “Asymmetric Conflict Goals” would perhaps be better represented as “Asymmetric Conflict Outcomes”. Or not, I’m often wrong about these things :slight_smile:

I am also running into problems with the ambiguity here. (EDIT: Thor answers all of these issues to my satisfaction here. )

Normally I’d just put my GM hat on and make a ruling, but in this case a lot rides on it. My players have been foolishly taking on higher-might creatures, and choosing kill conflicts (which default to Drive-Off due to asymmetry). Does this still open them to Death as an outcome of losing those conflicts?

For example: Players vs. Ogre (might 5) - The players describe wanting to kill the ogre. I tell them they can only drive it off, on a good day. They say fine. They proceed to lose the conflict with a minor compromise. The ogre’s goal was to eat them. Are they all eaten? Mostly eaten (maybe 1/3 of them escape with Afraid and Injured)?

What if they chose to flee instead? The Ogre still wants to eat them. Is that off the table because they didn’t choose a Kill conflict?

What if they chose Drive Off instead of foolishly choosing the impossible kill? Could they only be driven off then?

This is pretty important stuff, considering I’ve already killed players (EDIT: Err… player characters…) with it. I’d like some better guidelines to assuage my conscience.

The result of the conflict is an appropriate result for that specific conflict. If it was flee or drive off they are probably captured. Then the Ogre says “I’m gonna eat you”. What do you do? You just keep putting them in newer and more dire situations. Unless, of course, they are already sick and injured. Then death is always on the menu.