combine that with that Aramis said earlier:
AAA is not optimal strategy unless you have superior dice pools AND don’t mind compromises…
The original poster (and I think a lot of other new MG players) might have mistaken hit points as being directly translated into disposition.
So, here’s the important concept: The winner in the conflict may suffer compromises if his disposition is lower-than-maximum. Let’s say the winner in the conflict started with 12 disposition. If he wins with 12, then he gets his goal, no compromises. If he wins with between 8 and 11, he has to make a minor compromise. If he wins between 4 to 7, he has to make a (medium) compromise. If he wins from 1 to 3, he has to make a major compromise. If he “wins” with a zero (ie, the opponent “wins” also), then there’s a possibility that he doesn’t win at all.
So, if someone is to use ATTACK! all the time, they are really risking losing disposition and possibly ending the conflict prematurely with a compromise that they may not want. (Because the opponent will manage to inflict some “damage” to the disposition).
That compromise is probably what is being overlooked here. It is almost inevitable that the victor will face a compromise.
Let me put a somewhat extreme example: Lieam vs Snake.
GM’s side: Nature 7 Snake, Goal is “Kill my opponent”, Starts with 11 Disposition.
PC’s side: Lieam with Fighter 3 / Nature 4 and Health 5, Goal is “Kill my opponent”, Starts with 7 Disposition.
GM is using the “allegedly optimal” strategy of Attack-is-strong (Rock is strong, very strong)
Lieam is using the “allegedly odd mix”: Attack, Defend, Defend. (with the sword giving a bonus on defend)
Action 1: This is an independent interaction. There’s a chance that the snake will roll 7 successes, but it is very rare. On average, the snake will get 4 successes and bring Lieam down to 3 disposition. Lieam’s attack (Fighter 3 + Determined) will get 2 successes on average, bringing the Snake down to 9 disposition
Action 2: This is a versus interaction. Again the snake will get about 4 successes. But now it has to contend with Lieam’s defense (Nature 4 + Defender + sword). Lieam’s defense may yield 3 successes (more if he uses his fate). Lieam is down to 2 disposition.
Action 3: Same situation as 2, Lieam is down to 1 disposition.
(We’ve covered the topic of “I want to start escaping this conflict” somewhere else in the forums. So I think it is appropriate for the Lieam to narrate himself as trying to get away at this point.)
Repeat the round, same set of actions, except this time, Lieam puts his sword to attack.
Action 1: Attack vs Attack. This is an independent interaction. The snake will likely bring Lieam down to zero disposition; but Lieam can still get his “last hit in”. Lieam uses Fighter 3 + Determined + sword + tap Nature 4. Rolls 9 dice and probably gets 4 successes. Snake is down to 5 Disposition.
Conflict Ends.
Lieam “lost” since he has zero disposition. His goal of “kill the snake” is discarded.
Snake “wins” but only has 5 out of 11 disposition. That calls for a compromise. GM and Lieam negociate and come up with “Lieam manages to escape (since that’s how he narrated his actions) with an Injury, Angry, and Tired”.
Q: From a story standpoint, who won?
A: Well, the snake won because he managed to drive Lieam away … but Lieam did survive.
Q: So why would Lieam not use Attack-is-Strong from the very beginning and cut the conflict down to just two rounds … after all, isn’t it inevitable that Lieam would lose?
A: I have several reasons:
A1: Roleplaying-wise, I’d want to have a good narrative that would lead to the nearly-inevitable compromise at the end of the conflict. Both sides started out bloodthirsty. If all they had were two actions of attacks, the compromise might be bloodier (ie, “Lieam is now left for dead (ie, unconscious with a lot of conditions and penalties on abilities), and the Snake has an Injury (future PCs may encounter an injured snake)”)
A2: The more rounds that it takes in the conflict, the more interesting the session. Admit it, that 4 rounds of desperation is so much more fun than a 2 round (almost 1.5) round knockout.
A3: The more rounds that it takes, the more “luck” can be factored in. And in the case of multiple mice, there would be more “desperate acts” of tapping nature and using fate … and that may be enough for the mice to be on the winning side of the compromise.
A4: The more rounds that it takes, the more opportunities for skill/ability usage (hey, it’s the only form of “player experience”) and opportunities for earning checks.