In a game last night the fighter spotted five goblins in the woods and announced he was going to charge at them. It was daytime and I had decided the goblins would rather watch and plot and attack at night, so the goblins turned and fled, but the fighter said he’d chase them down and kill them.
I ran it as a pursue conflict and the fighter won, but his own disposition was reduced to 1, so he owed a major compromise. I said the goblins fled up a gully into a cave and he cornered them there, but that there was a shaman in the cave they fled to who joined their ranks. The fighter said he’d kill them all, so I ran a kill conflict and the fighter was quickly and predictably killed.
Now I’m thinking back on it and wondering if the result of the pursue conflict should have been cornering the goblins or if it should have been killing them. Should I have run it as an asymmetrical conflict? Maybe the fighter should have been running them down and killing them, with the compromise being that he’s exhausted and the last one escapes or something.
What do you think? Would you have done it the same way?
I actually think the compromise was to soft unless the Shaman was a major powerhouse. Shaman + the Fighter gets caught in a net trap or something like that.
I don’t think the fighter’s player was too surprised. I think he’s a bit frustrated with the system. Earlier he was irritated that his character (Carolina from the pre-made characters, but with the name and gender changed) was a proficient hunter but couldn’t find shelter in the wild or light fires (she doesn’t have the survivalist skill).
Praion, he won the pursuit conflict but owed a major compromise. Since he won, I don’t think I could have him captured in a trap! The shaman was Might 3, so it was a pretty big shift against him, although five goblins in a cave could likely have seen him off anyway.
The only thing I might object to here is that he actually beat the goblins in Pursue conflict; I can see him having to fight the Shaman, but all the goblins too? It sort of feels like he’s already handled them… perhaps they could’ve hidden away during the fight with the Shaman (big brother steps in)? Not sure though… he did run after them, so I guess his goal was to catch them.
I learned the hard way that having multiple conflicts against the same opponents immediately following each other can be very frustrating and possibly a bit boring. I would have let him kill the goblins but make the major compromise is that he’s injured and maybe ambushed by the shaman in the gully. This feels like a new circumstance rather than just drawing out his original intention into two conflicts.
so he’s being passive-aggressive and trying to get his character killed and you’re worrying about your choices?
Earlier he was irritated that his character (Carolina from the pre-made characters, but with the name and gender changed) was a proficient hunter but couldn’t find shelter in the wild or light fires (she doesn’t have the survivalist skill).
you don’t need the survivalist skill to light fires or find shelter, you just have to be willing to risk your nature or take the GM’s twist/condition. “You find an awesome cave, warm and dry, but all the time spent searching has left you hungry and thirsty. You’ve got food and water in your pack, right?” Seems like his hunter is surviving fine to me.
Praion, he won the pursuit conflict but owed a major compromise. Since he won, I don’t think I could have him captured in a trap!
What did the fighter suggest for a compromise? It’s a negotiation, after all.
Jovialbard, that’s sort of where my thinking was after the session. I was torn on it, though, because it seems like death should be on the line in a kill conflict and allowing him to kill with only escape on the line feels wrong.
Noclue, good points. In fact, he wouldn’t even need to risk his Nature to light fires or find shelter because there’s another character in the party with Survivalist. He just thought he should be able to do those things. TB is quite gamist and I find it throws people off.
You ran the situation perfectly. Using a major compromise to trigger a follow-up conflict is exactly how the system is intended to be used.
The player was suiciding that character. Doesn’t sound like he wants to play TB anymore. That sucks. It sounds like he was being a bit of a jerk there. Maybe you can talk him out of his tree and try again?