Ties in Losing Conflicts

The rule is both sides get their Goal if they reach Disposition 0 at same time (e.g., we kill each other with our Attack vs Attack).

What if their goals are direct contradictions that can’t be reconciled, such as in a Chase where one side’s goal is “Capture that rogue.” and the other side’s goal is “Escape pursuit.”?

In the one “test situation” it came up in, I did imagine this as “fleeing party pursued into dead end and can’t get away but pursuing party blocked from reaching them immediately/does not yet have them at mercy/in power” (e.g., in a tunnel one can’t fit into, up a tree) etc. Which is sort of the heavily compromised version of the goals.

Would that be the object every time? In this situation, in the final round it was Disposition 1 and Disposition 1 and one side rolled 1 success and the other 3 successes on running/out-running etc.


Hi Rob,
Welcome to the boards.

I like your outcome. You’ve escaped, but you can’t get away; you’ve caught them, but you can’t get at them.

I’m sure there are lots of options. Anyone else?

There is always the locked themselves safely in a building… the other group knows right where they are and can’t get to them.

Or the opposite compromise: group A got away, but group B knows exactly where they are. I’d discuss it with the group, since each side owes a major compromise now…

Or, Most of you got away, but not all…

Or… Nifty thought… both interrupted by a TWIST! Like a sudden change of weather, or a predator attack… the kind of thing that makes the fact that both lost irrelevant, as group A is caught, but blots when the badge goes after group B…

We kill each other only if our goals are each “kill the other”.

I assume that in this case, when we tie at 0, neither of us has to major compromise in order to reach the goal since we’ll be dead anyway rendering all compromises irrelevant.

In other “both reach 0” situations, are the major compromise rules in effect? I assume yes, say we are in a fight with one side “Goal: Drive off attacker.” and one side “Goal: Subdue and capture this mouse.”

Both reach 0, both could see “injured” condition applied and outcome scripted as one side wounded and falling back the other wounded and subdued, thoug of course cooler narrative compromises would be “okay you subdue me but I put up such a good fight I win your respect, effectively driving you off, and now we’re classic buds-after-the-bar-fight”.


The rule is you owe compromises based upon your own disposition at the time theirs hits 0; if you’re under 25% left, you owe a major compromise…

This is absolutely not the case. You can arrive at some very cool compromises in your last moments!

Had two double-zero conflicts playing today.

Conflict one, Saxon and Kenzie vs the Snake…
S&K intent: drive off the snake
Snake Intent: Drive off the mice away from the nest

given that it ran one round, it was pretty brutal… Kenzie injured, both sides at bay, snake gives up the wagon.

Mission two, they came back to kill the snake, with two teams… Snake intent, kill mice, if possible, else drive them off.

Team A ending dispo 4/6, Team B and snake -1 each… Snake kills one mouse of A, but gives up injury on the rest, while Team A (this was mutual attacks) kills snake. Compromise from the snake was not finding the nest. So… Team A knows not about why the snake held her ground… nor do they care. Snake dead, off they go.