Fight and Let It Ride

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I couldn’t find my exact question using search. My question is related to the interaction of LIR and Fight (or the other Rim systems). Specifically, once you use a given maneuver (and therefore attempt its T/I) in Fight, are you barred from using it again, all else being equal? I can see that injuries, new engagements, even new positionings, could be considered new circumstances for LIR purposes, but if those all remain constant, would I have to switch up my scripting if I’ve already used a given move?

Related to that, if the above is true, could I declare a new Intent for the same move, and avoid LIR? For instance, with Strike, could I specify that I’m trying to hit my enemy’s head and thereby differentiate the Intent of this Strike from any previous? Can you even add Intents to the Fight moves? I’ve always assumed they were prepacked bundles of T/I for use in the subsystem.

Thanks for any feedback.

There is no LiR in Fight, R&C, or DoW.

If it helps, think of it like this: LiR doesn’t last a single second in the chaos of combat.

That makes sense, and that’s how we’ve been playing it, but I couldn’t remember if it was stated in the rules and was going down an analysis rabbit hole.

The interaction between fight, DoW and RnC with LiR is just as stated above. I am compelled to believe that this is because in any of these situations the argument can be made each turn that there has been a meaningful change to the situation meriting another roll. I have seen this apply to bloody versus as well since you can opt to continue fighting.

LiR is a rule that is there to keep the gm honest and prevent the lovely, well I am going to keep rolling dice till I get my way. It is initially very restrictive feeling but it is in there to keep the story flowing. I have even adopted it into my DnD games and it has worked wonders there.

What worries me is I could see certain players seizing upon the rationales for why it’s not used in Fight, DoW, RnC, and trying to apply those same rationales to every test they fail. You could argue that when trying to blend into a crowded street with Inconspicuous, the constituents of that crowd are in constant flux, and therefore at the moment of each test the circumstances have changed. However, as GM, I think you would tell them that unlike in Fight, your test doesn’t represent a singular moment in the fiction where you’re trying to hide, but you’re current overall effectiveness at hiding under these general circumstances. What I feel like I’m picking up on is that the core testing system of T/I in the Hub and Spokes is somehow fundamentally different from the Rim subsystems. Is it that one represents a conflict resolution system, while the other is a task resolution system? I’m not even sure I know what that means, and the game has been working fine, there just seems to be a tension in the rules that I was feeling.

Does it help to think of those systems as more like mini-games with their own rules?

Otherwise, playing with rules-analysts/lawyers as you describe, any GM would be in trouble.

Generally speaking LiR applies to the outcome of the conflict. After a Duel of Wits, you can’t just get into another one with the same setup.

Also, I’m pretty sure there’s a bit at the start of at least one of these chapters that addresses LiR.

Actually, thinking of a single Fight, DoW, or RnC conflict as the resolution of single T/I completely resolves my question. I’ll have to check those chapters when I get home. Thanks all.

There. I fully support this. I can’t believe I didn’t think of it that way.

Yes, I agree. It’s a very involved task, but you could easily see these as one single task apiece.

DoW, in fact, has an explicit intent, or rather two that might reach a compromise, and an explicit task: DoW!

Fight and RaC don’t have explicit intents, but you can always go to Genghis Khan/Conan: to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women. Or, more prosaically, to inflict harm and avoid being harmed in some proportion.

I once tried some hacked-up variant of RaC to make a stealth/sneaking subsystem. It worked poorly and the notes are long buried (the inherent asymmetry was a huge problem that I didn’t solve), but the idea is the same.

It’s also there to prevent the “Ok, so I failed, I’ll try again despite the damage” that is so common in “traditional” RPG’s.

Combat is the exception to that, as well.