It’s clear from the rules that two teams can be on the same “side” – but the compromise rules on pp. 115-116 are written assuming a single winner and loser. The question was over what happens if one team on a side loses and the other wins.
It sounds to me like the new GM extrapolated fairly well. i.e. He basically treated one team losing as requiring a more major compromise from the winning team.
It would be highly dependent in the goals involved, but I think it would be resolved independently for each team. Say two mice teams versus one enemy with all teams trying to kill. The loosing team on the mouse side would get killed, with a compromise based on how low the enemy disposition is at that point. The winning mouse team would not be killed at all, but suffer compromise based in how much disposition they had left at the point the enemy hit zero. In a chase the loosing mice team is caught / looses track of the enemy, while the winning team escapes / catches up to the enemy. In war the loosing mouse team is routed while the winning team completes the siege.
Independent teams usually should yield totally independent results, not a merged one. In my view anyway. I look forward to clarification.
Losing team suffers a standard loss according to the winner’s state when the losing team was knocked out.
So if the Snake starts at 6 vs Team Dro 4 and Team Thor 4, and Team Dro is reduced to 0 dispo when the Snake has 3, but Team Thor goes on to win with 3 dispo (because Thor doesn’t fail rolls). Thor beats the snake but owes a minor compromise. The snake beats Dro, but owes Dro a compromise.
But each team only has one goal, right? So the snake has a goal, and each team has a goal. If it’s “Kill these mice,” then we could resolve that separately against each team – but if it’s “Protect my nest,” then we can’t resolve its win and its loss separately.
Also, it seems like there should be some clarification if Team Dro and Team Thor have the same or overlapping goals.
I think some extended examples would probably help here, though I think in most cases the group can extrapolate fine.
Team Dro and Team Thor should not have the same goal. Some overlap is inevitable, however, since they’re working against the same enemy.
I disagree about the inability to compromise separately for each team. Perhaps its not expressed adequately in the rules, but compromises are very flexible and fluid. There are very, very rare occasions when an imaginative player cannot devise some concession from his opponent.
But the snake didn’t win, it lost, so you don’t have to resolve anything separately. The snake beating Dro isn’t the snake ‘winning’ against Dro, it’s more about Dro ‘losing’ and earning a compromise.
Yah, that was my game. The Mice were up against the raven in “Deliver the Mail”. Hit the thread linked in the OP for more details, but it went as described.
The raven’s goal was, “grab the mailbag and fly away”
Both mice teams’ goal was “keep the mailbag and drive the raven off”
Mouse team A went out first, so given the goals involved, I couldn’t see any other logical result than to continue the fight, and work it all out when it was over. In the next round, Team B knocked the raven out.
So, if the raven’s goal applied to both teams, I couldn’t immediately resolve it against Team A when Team B was still fighting for the same thing.
Anyway, I couldn’t find clear guidance in the book (if it was there I missed it). Is it not allowed for two teams on the same side to have the same goal? I can see how it can muck things up (since it had an effect in my game), but I think it’s reasonable for two teams in this situation to state the same goal (I can hear the pushback from the players, “Why not? We all want to keep the bag and make the bird go away.”) I realize that the players’ goal is simply the flipside of the raven’s, but if the players realized that (if the raven fails, they get what they want) what lower level goal could they have set for themselves? Retaining or escaping with the bag is what was at stake, why fight for anything less?
I know I probably did it wrong, but it all worked out. How do I handle this next time?
The players are wasting a good opportunity by having both teams use the same goal. They could get two results, instead they’re taking one.
Anyway, Techno, the Snake does win against Dro’s team. The Snake gets what it wants, Dro does not. Dro gets a minor concession instead.
Thor gets what he wants. The snake does not get that against him. Instead, it gets a concession.
Stinger,
Mouse Team A is knocked out of play, the raven grabs the mail bag and flies away from them. Suddenly, they’re separated from the other group, alone and lost. “Guys? Guys? Hey, where did everyone go? They were just here… Did anyone see a raven?”
So, basically, two teams on the same side should not have the same goals, yes? I have to admit I’m finding it a little difficult to get my head around this, since in such a straightforward conflict it seems reasonable to allow both sides the same goal. I mean, if it were a single team of three mice, well there it is. But simply because the mice are split into two teams because there are four of them and the rules say it’s better to split into two teams, they suddenly need to have different goals? They could go for two results, but they may only want one (for whatever reason). Sorry, not trying to be difficult, just trying to get this straight. But if differentiating goals is the way to go, well, then that’s it.
Stinger,
Mouse Team A is knocked out of play, the raven grabs the mail bag and flies away from them. Suddenly, they’re separated from the other group, alone and lost. “Guys? Guys? Hey, where did everyone go? They were just here… Did anyone see a raven?”
-L
With separate goals, I see that that’s fine. But both teams were closely engaged with the raven, and neither team wanted the raven to get away with the bag, so if I had it fly off with the bag after Team A went down, I could hear 'em screaming “Hey! we ain’t done yet! We’re trying to get the bag back too!” Switch to a chase conflict? Seems like the fight isn’t finished yet.
Anyway, thanks for the help! I want to be able to get it right when we actually start our campaign.
No, I didn’t say that. I said that Mouse Team A is left behind. Mouse Team B keeps fighting as per normal. Mouse Team A’s loss has allowed you to introduce a twist into the game that is the result of their goal and the raven’s goal meeting head on.
Ah, I see. So the raven’s flying away, but the conflict is still on, yeah? So now Team B is taking actions to retrieve the bag but only now the raven is in the air and flying away with the bag - but the mice still have a chance to get it (because the conflict is still going). I think I get it. Thanks!
What I meant was that the snake winning against Dro doesn’t mean that the snake gets it’s goal (or maybe, means that it only gets its goal as it relates to Dro), since it still has to deal with Thor (and all his successes). It protects it’s nest from Dro but not Thor.
In these situations with more than two teams, should you wait until the end of the conflict to do compromises?
Yeah, Raven doesn’t necessarily have to be flying. The fight could have just taken an unexpected turn. Ever played paintball in the woods? Sometimes you’re in the heat of the action one minute and the next minute you’re all alone…
OK, but, just so I’m clear, the fight that started when Teams A & B and the Raven all rolled for Disposition is still on, but now Team A is out of it, and it’s up to Team B to finish the job (or choke), yes?
Depends on your style. We note the relative scores, and then resolve it at the end, normally, tho’ every so often, someone wanted resolved then, like when saxon was owed a moderate compromise by the fox who wanted to eat him, we resolved it right away with him injured and ko’d (but not otherwise tagged), and the fight raged on thereafter.
Rules say resolve later, but AP says, do whichever fits the intents better; if you can resolve it free of violations of the unresolved intents, do so right off and save the recording hassle.
Got it. In this light, I think my handling of the situation in my game was correct. I shouldn’t have added the two teams’ Dispos together to resolve the whole thing, but holding off on figuring it all out until the fight was over was the right call.