I couldn’t find an appropriate thread to answer this question, but if there is already one please send me there.
Scenario: I am GMing House of Three Squires. After a cave in at the well, the party is split, two in the cold room, two in the water. The players that fell in the water are now in the dark, and wet, as is their gear. They swim through the underwater tunnel to area 18; however, they are in complete darkness. They decide to try to light a torch.
Is this possible? Or should I say, ‘sorry, your supplies are soaked. No dice.’ (I thought about this as a twist from failing the Dungeoneering test to swim the tunnel. However, I opted instead for the recommended conditions. I also noted that if they try to move to the next area in the dark, it is certain death from falling into the crevasse.
If lighting a torch is possible, does it require a test? Should this be a survivalist test? If so, it is another turn, right? One turn to swim the tunnel, another turn to light the torch. One of my players, out of desperation, convinced me that it should not be a test to light a torch because they already have one. However, I wavered because it is dark, they are wet, the torch is wet, etc.
In the end, I let them light the torch. They then looked for something to help them cross the crevasse, but failed the Scavenger test. As a twist I had a kobold patrol get the jump on them. A Drive Off conflict ensued, the players lost, and were captured.
Which brings me to another question, and I know I read some about this in another thread, but I am still not clear on it. The character’s actions called for a Drive Off conflict. That was very clear. However, they lost, taking only 1 of 4 points of Disposition from the kobolds. Minor compromise. Since they lost the kobolds were not driven off, so I declared the players were captured. Is that okay? I know that monsters/enemies are not supposed to have intents, so I am not quite clear on what they can do if the players lose a conflict. As a compromise, I allowed the player’s new friend, a kobold charmed by Thread of Friendship, to also be taken as a prisoner, rather than killed by his fellow kobolds. My reasoning was that he could come in handy to the players for an escape. I couldn’t really think of any other minor compromises. One of my players said, “Maybe they will be more wary of us now” which I thought was great, but giving Afraid to the kobolds seemed a bit much. In retrospect, maybe it would have been the right thing to do.
A wet torch is definitely a test to light. Lighting a torch is only free if you’re dry, have a tinder box, and are free from dangers or distractions.
I don’t know about certain death from the crevasse and the darkness. You can still do most things in the dark, just not very well.
This has been gone over a bunch, and I’m easily confused, but I don’t think kobolds can capture you as a result of a Conflict itself. Drive Off or some other sort of Twist is the best they can do. I could be wrong on this, but that’s my understanding from the examples.
I think I got it now. it’s a Drive Off conflict, so that is what the kobolds can do. Yeah, sounds like the players should be driven to the spider, since they can’t very well go back into the water. I guess I should probably retcon that one. Thanks for the advice.
I hate to un-un-confuse people on what can happen in a conflict, but maybe it will save you from a retcon: on Suggested Conflict Compromises, p. 75, it says that if the GM wins “You are driven off or captured”. So your choice seems to be legal.
Sounds like your judgement calls were generally good to me, 'though I might give them a Survivalist test next time for lighting the wet torch (+1D from the tinderbox).
In an attempt to un-un-un-confuse people (which I think goes back to “confuse”), those suggested options are apparently just suggestions. Order of Might still applies. Luke cites an example from his play where Might 2 cultists in a Kill conflict won the fight handily, but couldn’t kill the PCs, even though they normally would, because the PCs happened to be Might 4.
I am very confused too actually. After rereading the rules, the kobolds would only have a Might 2 with swarming. Under the Order of Might heading on page 74, you can capture creatures with a Might equal or lesser to yours. That would imply that they could not capture adventurers who have a Might 3. However, the kobolds can enter a Drive Off conflict, since according to the same section a creature may engage in a DO conflict with opponents up to 2 orders higher. Then, in the suggested compromises if GM wins section, it offers capture as a compromise. So, I guess instead of being Driven Off, you gain the slight advantage of being captured???
Essentially the kobolds don’t drive off or capture or convince or kill, that’s what PCs do. I like to think of it this way: If you fail the conflict you get a twist or conditions same as a test, only since a conflict is more intense the twist or conditions tend to be more extreme. Basically the choice the players make in describing how they engage in the conflict and the final decision that the GM makes as to what the conflict is do not determine what the outcomes will be for the monsters. It’s nice if the theme is maintained, but in the end it’s ultimately just another twist for failure. However, as a GM you should try to be cognizant of Order of Might restrictions when you apply a twist, otherwise it’s not really fair to the PCs who can’t capture an ogre (under normal circumstances) now is it? For that reason, no the twist should not include a description of the PCs being tied up and gagged, but there are plenty of other relevant twists you can probably come up with instead.
I think the point is that those are suggestions. You don’t have to use those, and likewise, they don’t always apply. Yes, being captured is a perfectly legitimate thing to have happen to you if you lose a Drive Off Conflict IF your enemy has the same Might or better than you. Otehrwise, like with the kobolds, it’s not. At least, that seems to be the conventional wisdom at this point.