Milking Conflict for Checks

[CarpeGuitarrem]

@Countercheck

We had two good ranged attackers (one of whom was also a good maneuverer) and two good defenders (one of whom was also a good maneuverer). So we still had a fair bit of leeway to switch things up.

I think you’re right, jovialbard, that feinting often is a good GM tactic to drive fights to a conclusion. Interesting. The downside, unfortunately, is that this makes Attack even more dominant in the player’s arsenal than it is already. GM scripted Feint in the third exchange, but it was against our… attack, I think. And so we blew him away.

Of course, that also has the side effect of edging them away from Attacks…interesting. So it’s a pacing mechanism as well.

[Countercheck]

Sorry, who is edging away from attacks? The GM?

[Storapan]

There’s this interesting balance in TB between gaming the system (which is intended) and narrative play (which seems to be desired). Still trying to wrap my head around it.

The one thing I’d be inclined to do as a GM in this situation is hint at the players that a drawn-out conflict will lead to a certain type of undesirable compromise. The first thing that springs to mind is a Twist that introduces some far worse monsters - fights are noisy and if the players don’t aim to finish them quickly they are sure to attract something. If the players are skilled they might avoid a compromise altogether, which is fair, but if you follow a statement like this with very Feint-heavy scripting you are then basically either forcing them to go on the Attack (and finish the fight) or getting their dispo down so they have to compromise, which means you can then introduce a more challenging monster.

[Totally_Guy]

I wonder why we didn’t see this in Mouse Guard. Aside from taking out helpers it’s not so different.

[Praion]

It’s the help thing. In MG you rarely conflict against 2-3 dice opponents.

[Hirram]

I wonder if this an artifact of playing against large groups of weak monsters, then–something we’re unlikely to see in play against a single larger monster.

[Fuseboy]

Oh absolutely it is. (Or really, any time you have a conflict against something with very few dice.)

[Dwight]

@Praion

It’s the help thing. In MG you rarely conflict against 2-3 dice opponents.

Plus no real benefit (AKA incentive) to dragging out the Conflict. At least not once every PC has their skill check and even then that doesn’t feel [to me] like much incentive because Tests aren’t a limited resource in the way they are in TB.

[jovialbard]

It definitely seems broken if you can get a check in one action and then spend it on the next action to gain a test for a helping skill that isn’t even one of the two main skills for the conflict. If that’s something that’s actually legal (which I’m still not sure), then that could get to be a real problem for game balance pretty quick. That’s the main reason I see the need for GMs to press for a quick resolution of combat, even more so than just stockpiling checks.

[Ludanto]

@jovialbard

It definitely seems broken if you can get a check in one action and then spend it on the next action to gain a test for a helping skill that isn’t even one of the two main skills for the conflict. If that’s something that’s actually legal (which I’m still not sure), then that could get to be a real problem for game balance pretty quick. That’s the main reason I see the need for GMs to press for a quick resolution of combat, even more so than just stockpiling checks.

I’m pretty sure you can only help with the same skill in Conflicts, barring special exceptions like Wizard’s Aegis.

[jovialbard]

@Ludanto

I’m pretty sure you can only help with the same skill in Conflicts, barring special exceptions like Wizard’s Aegis.

Oh, oops, guess I failed my scholar test.