death as compromise

I’m a bit shocked that winning a conflict with a compromise in a group results in one player “taking it for the team” and everyone else being injured and tired while winning a conflict with a major compromise results in no one’s death but everyone taking penalties. Am I reading this incorrectly? How is the DEATH of (just) one player preferable to everyone taking recoverable penalties?

You get more from a major compromise than you do a compromise concession.

So only earning a compromise costs a life.

Eeking out a major compromise saves everyone’s life.

I remember poring over this as well; I think the text isn’t super-clear clear on which side is taking these casualties - the winners or the losers?

I came to the conclusion that these losses are only on the losing side. So if the winners win a fight to the death, but the losers eke out a minor compromise, one loser is killed.

If the losers achieve a major compromise, then none of the losers are killed, they are all left for dead.


As in all alive but with serious complications?

The details are on the bottom left of 131 - assumed dead, all conditions checked and with one knocked off Circles and Resources.

All for one, one for all.

Thanks everyone! Fuseboy, that was indeed the crux of my confusion.

Last night I ran Saxon, Kenzie, and Lieam against the milk snake just to put it through its paces. It ended on a “win” by both sides with major compromises for both losers.

What we worked out was that Kenzie and Lieam were not so badly hurt, but Saxon was left for dead by the two of them. Not within the rules precisely but we thought it was just cool. Meanwhile, though the snake was dead, they missed the nest completely, so many more snakes will have a shot at growing up and getting revenge. (As much as snakes ever get revenge.)

While the compromise rules are perfectly clear, I think this is one area where you can pretty safely go with table consensus, as opposed to bending a rule like the one that says if two teams on one opponent do the same interaction-style (versus, independent) activity, only one gets to roll while the other helps. Everyone knows the outcome of tweaking a compromise, whereas you are really breaking something important if you mess with the latter rule.

tquid: Hmmm… I don’t think both sides can both win and face major compromises. One of the following happens: both sides win if both teams’ dispositions are reduced to 0 in the same action, or one side wins and is faced with a major compromise (say, in a 1 to 0 disposition result). I’m pretty sure you can’t both win and have two sides faced with a major compromise. One team wins and must meet a major compromise of the losing team or both sides win and there is no compromise (because they both win).

Both to 0 is both lose. A good bit of negotiation ensues.
If both insist, it can be both achieved full intent (if they are not mutually exclusive), or, if mutually exclusive, then neither achieved full intent, but both achieve as much of their intent as can be reasonably applied.

For example, if both sides intent was to injure the other side, everyone is injured.
Counter example:
A: Kill all the mice
B: Kill none of the mice
Result: probably kill some of the mice, or none are killed, but all are trapped, or no mice are killed, but all mice are injured…

1-0 is a major compromise by the side with 1, and a loss by the side with 0. It’s not a tie.

Gonna disagree with you on this one, Aramis. From p. 115:

If both sides are reduced to zero disposition in the same action, the conflict is a tie. Both sides accomplish their goals. This is a very dangerous outcome!

The example text goes on to say that if both Lieam and the snake went to 0 in the same action they could both die. So if both “accomplish their goals,” it makes sense to me to say they are both winners, and thus also both subject to compromise.

Does that change how you think about it?

Losing is your opponent getting full intent.

In the case where they two are not mutually possible negotiation ensues.

They aren’t subject to a compromise, though, at least as I read in the rules (and the example proves this). They both succeed and, in the case of Lieam and the snake, both succeed in their intents – they’re both dead.

That said, I think the player could ask for a defeat and force a compromise, no? (Sorry, not sure of the phrasing.)

The interesting thing would be a river vs trying to cross. What happens if the river and mouse are both reduced to 0 disposition? They both win but… is that possible? River’s intent is to wash the mouse away and the mouse’s is to cross. So I guess the mouse crosses but after having been washed downstream.

Hmmm… I may houserule it so that, if a tie occurs, the last team to have reduced the other side’s disposition comes out the winner, major compromise. (Unless the situation is such that it’s reasonable for both teams to simultaneously win.)

Rafe: your “Tiebreaker” doesn’t happen, in that the last drop is the one that takes both to 0…

And if you’re talkig the previous one, that makes momentum too important.

I don’t think you can fail a disposition, even using a trait; that’s only task rolls…

Luke, can you clarify this?

Let’s say both sides started with disposition 8.

And both sides ended with disposition 0 at the very first action (ie, both attacked, both hit with 8 successes exactly).

From what I understand, both sides “win”, but both of those “wins” have major compromises. It would be like a double knock-out, and both sides limp out of the fight.

On page 115:

Tying a Conflict
If both sides are reduced to zero disposition in the same action, the conflict is a tie. Both sides accomplish their goals. This is a very dangerous outcome!

I’m trying for more explicit language… is it:

  1. “If both sides are reduced to zero disposition in the same action, the conflict is a tie. Both sides accomplish their goals. No compromises on either side.”


  1. “If both sides are reduced to zero disposition in the same action, the conflict is a tie. Both sides accomplish their goals. Compromises may apply for either side.”

It’s more like either both get their intent or neither gets their intent, or both get half their intent. Depends on the mutual exclusivity of the intents.
(A) If both can happen, no compromises needed, then that’s exactly what can happen.
(B) If both are mutually exclusive, neither gets it.
© if there is a grey area in between, negotiate it out.

Ex 1: “I kill you” for both sides… two dead sides Case A
Ex 2: “I get away with the MacGuffin” for both. Neither gets it nor can either get it this session… Case B.
Ex 3: “I get away with the MacGuffin unharmed” vs “I Kill you so I can take the MacGuffin at my leisure.” Case C… the first party gets away, but is injured.
Ex 4: “I capture you” vs “I get the MacGuffin” Case 1. Party the second has the MacGuffin, but is caught.
Ex 5: “I kill them to prevent their escape” vs “Escape the tunnels and get away”. Case C.

That’s the answer I was looking for, Aramis.

One correction:

In this case, I think you mean “Case A” – both goals can happen.