Design goals of the Kill / Drive Off conflict split?

[obligatorysalmon]

@Storapan

Perhaps, but given the style of the rules I’m certain there is a purpose behind splitting Drive Off and Kill, and I’d be very interested in knowing what. If the result of a Drive Off conflict is so fluid that it can include everything from the creatures moving to the next room to them leaving the dungeon, then it would be very dependent on the GM’s interpretation which conflict choice is the better one.

Mechanically, encountering enemies more than once can be beneficial for the PC’s, since conflicts are often great opportunities to earn lots of checks, make a variety of advancement tests without using up the turn count or light, and with drive off, the PC’s aren’t exposed to a great deal of risk most of the time.

That in mind, I think it’s important to look at things contextually in the situation to determine what outcome occurs after the drive off. If it’s a group of three kobolds that the PC’s could keep engaging in low-risk conflicts without expending any resources, then get them out of the way. If it’s a pissed off bugbear or two that the PC’s barely managed to scrape by against, have him waiting in the shadows for another go-round when they least expect it (as a twist, usually, but not necessarily).

[Dwight]

@noclue

Doesn’t this decision rest with the GM?

I was coming back here to post something very much like that.

I was going to go even further. If there are consequences of the Drive Off that are the rough NPC equivalent to a Condition, such as some of them desert (resulting in less Helping dice) or so on, that is very much the wheelhouse of the GM judge and implement. To alter the composition of the environment.

So the verisimilitude dial on Drive Off results is, for better or worse, left by the by the game in the hands of the GM.

[Bret_Gillan]

@Storapan

Perhaps, but given the style of the rules I’m certain there is a purpose behind splitting Drive Off and Kill, and I’d be very interested in knowing what. If the result of a Drive Off conflict is so fluid that it can include everything from the creatures moving to the next room to them leaving the dungeon, then it would be very dependent on the GM’s interpretation which conflict choice is the better one.

In a Kill conflict, if you win the threat from the monsters is at an end. They’re dead. No more!

In a Drive Off conflict, the monsters are still out there. They can prepare, summon reinforcements, set traps, come back later, collapse tunnels, and do all sorts of things to continue to cause problems for the adventurers.

Fighting to the death is, rightfully, an intimidating prospect for a lot of players. So Drive Off is there to allow the adventurers to drive the monsters from the room and take death off the table as a consequence, but that means that the monsters are still a part of the adventure. I would not have the monsters driven out of the dungeon as the result of a Drive Off conflict unless it was somehow fictionally appropriate. If the players lost, would they be driven out of the dungeon and never come back? That’s what Kill conflicts are for.

Also, some adventures may require a Kill conflict to complete. Claiming the bounty on the head of a bandit that’s been plaguing the townspeople for instance.

[Fuseboy]

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately. Basically, I disagree that people mostly run from fights once their friends start falling - that’s a rout. Most of the running happens, IMO, before the fighting starts.

One of my realizations was that actual combat is usually prefaced by quite a bit of posturing, but I think tactical wargames have essentially trained us out of this.

Fully committing to a fair fight is a terrible idea, it’s likely to lead to a slaughter on both sides. When forces of similar size meet, there’s a whole lot of posturing and maneuvering that’s doing things like signalling the intent to commit (“If you attack, you’re going to go home with one leg,”) and follow through (uniformed, disciplined troops appear more likely to follow orders, as one example). Most likely, one side will back down.

Many, many potential fights don’t actually come to blows because the posturing was successful - it’s like bluffing in poker. The loser backs down, “Fine, fuck you, I didn’t want it anyways,” bringing the matter to a close without getting anyone crippled.

I never saw anything like this in a few years of D&D 3/3.5e - it was basically a bunch of combats strung together. Commitment was presumed, because the game was about fighting, not scaring off bears.

So, to my mind, ‘Drive Off’ goals are a fantastic way to bring this back. In a sense, it’s a combat-flavored intimidation. The idea is to signal threat, capability, and follow-through so that the enemy leaves without ever engaging in committed combat. That’s why death is off the line.

(Now, I’m talking about the unstructured, chaotic environment of the amped-up drunks outside a bar, or clans of chimps. Larger-scale military engagements don’t quite have this feel, as commitment is established a higher level, and follow-through is achieved through discipline, regimentation, and punishment.)

[Pyske]

@Fuseboy

So, to my mind, ‘Drive Off’ goals are a fantastic way to bring this back. In a sense, it’s a combat-flavored intimidation. The idea is to signal threat, capability, and follow-through so that the enemy leaves without ever engaging in committed combat. That’s why death is off the line.

How does this line up with the conditions you dish out for compromises? Do you hand out mostly “afraid” or “angry” to the winning side, as opposed to “injured”?

[noclue]

There’s also a wide gap between bloodying each others’ noses and committing to a pitched battle.

[Fuseboy]

Good question, but honestly I can’t remember. I’d be more likely to leave them injured on a major compromise, and angry or afraid on a lesser one, I imagine.

Something from the start of the thread is making me wonder - are the losers of a ‘drive off’ conflict free of conditions?

[Ludanto]

@Fuseboy

Good question, but honestly I can’t remember. I’d be more likely to leave them injured on a major compromise, and angry or afraid on a lesser one, I imagine.

Something from the start of the thread is making me wonder - are the losers of a ‘drive off’ conflict free of conditions?

Yes, the losers of a Drive Off Conflict are free of new conditions. The penalty for losing is being driven off into some other sort of twist.