Oh right, other complication. There was no leader designated. Not explicitly or implicitly emerging.
Some minutes later Player 4 emerged as the leader, which is pretty funny in itself.
So, must each PCs participate in a given Conflict? I know “split the party is bad, avoid this because it’ll end badly” but is it impossible to fork in the face of a threat?
Also, the players still have to describe their actions, right? What if even though they intend to work together they mess that up, in the GM’s opinion?
The Leader is the final decision maker when different courses of action are proposed. If you want to go against the Leader’s decision, it requires a test/conflict, which costs a turn and results in a twist.
We encourage players to be courteous to each other and open to each other’s ideas. The Leader role is not intended to be that of a tyrant. That said, the rules can’t enforce good behavior at the table. You guys are going to have to police it for yourselves.
In the “After you describe your actions…” who is the “you”, whose action descriptions count? Is that the Leader, only? Same for the clarifications. Is the Leader describing and clarifying for all the PCs?
I thought as much. Does that (EDIT: potentially) preclude the PC from participating in the collective Test/Conflict? In the above situation, for example, Player 4 wouldn’t be involved in determining Disposition and such in whatever conflict Players 1-3 are involved with?
P.S. To be fair to those involved; Player 3 (cough), upon seeing which way the wind was blowing when Players 1 & 2 announced, did state to being open to just killing them all and that’d be fine, too (skirting take-backies territory). As someone that might have witnessed this all I found, in the moment, Player 4’s reaction was funny as hell and hold nothing against him. I don’t think there was any particularly bad behavior other than complete dearth of organization.
Wait a minute. A Test/Conflict between whom? Because if you are talking about a Player v Player that is surprising to me since I was talking about all the Players are in agreement of the very different paths the PCs are taking.
I think it’s okay for Player 4 to run and hide before the Kill Conflict starts because of the text on page 67, second paragraph.
And there are logically some Conflicts where not everyone could participate, like Banish/Abjure. If you don’t have Arcanist, Ritualist, Lore Master, or Theologian skills, then you can’t be in the conflict, right? Or maybe I’m wrong and you could do it with Beginner’s Luck…
It hints at it but there are potential other reasons for it, such as only some of the PCs have fallen in the river or the party split prior. So I think it is a reach to see it is solid proof.
And there are logically some Conflicts where not everyone could participate, like Banish/Abjure. If you don’t have Arcanist, Ritualist, Lore Master, or Theologian skills, then you can’t be in the conflict, right? Or maybe I’m wrong and you could do it with Beginner’s Luck…
Beginner’s Luck using Will is valid for all of those (listed in the Skill descriptions).
I expect (but not 100% certain) there is good mechanics reason for players to not want certain PCs involved in those conflicts. The weaker PCs will tend to diffuse the overall strength of the player side, especially if they are devoid in the whole Skill range so aren’t able to kick in Help dice. That is why I can see there being a fundamental issue developing if PCs were bowing out freely with out triggering their own Test/Conflict (and burning an accompanying Turn). Maybe even the Test is to see if they can flee (small F, for time of play reasons) to avoid the main Conflict. They fail and potential Twist, or component of the Twist, is they have to stay in as part of the Conflict?
EDIT: Incidentally that was NOT the motivation for Player 4, as far as I know. PC 4, an Elf, is comparable to the best combat PC(s) and PC 3 is actually the weakest, overall. I sensed it was the player was just trying to find his PC’s mercenary coughthiefcough groove. This was literally the 2nd Turn of play for these PCs, ever.
I would’ve pushed the players to decide a Leader and gone from there, with all players participating. However - the Leader could, and should take into account his party’s beliefs and not force someone to ‘fight’ who might otherwise be non-violent. They would be a part of the conflict, and thus receive hit points, but might be asked to act in accordance with their character, such as the Elf using their Fighter skill to Feint, or Health to Maneuver. Or just skip them entirely in the first round and see what happens.
/Please note, I’m still learning the rules myself, and may not have a total grasp of things.
I guess I’m still not following Dwight. How can you have mutually exclusive conflict goals but have everyone in agreement? If the group is trying to kill all the dogs, how can they also try to capture them? Either you’re doing one or the other.
Depending on the circumstances, a player could choose not to participate in a particular conflict. You could cower in a corner while the rest of the group tries to kill what’s menacing you. But if the other PCs lose the conflict and die, you’ll be left facing whatever it is all on your own.
Keep in mind that even if the group splits up to have individual members do their own thing, each still takes a turn. If, for some reason, your group were able to kill, capture and flee the dogs all at once, it would take them 3 turns. See Don’t Split the Party on page 60.
Players are not PCs. A, B, and C players all agree “A & B PCs are determined to kill the dogs while C PC is of a different mind and runs for the home”. Even the PCs could be of the same view on this but that is getting hypothetical.
Depending on the circumstances, a player could choose not to participate in a particular conflict. You could cower in a corner while the rest of the group tries to kill what’s menacing you. But if the other PCs lose the conflict and die, you’ll be left facing whatever it is all on your own.
What if the PC explicitly beats feet or in the original above example, Player 3 (pre-take-backies, trying to make things easier) is doing something different but it is still a very active thing?
EDIT: Maybe you actually answered this below?
Keep in mind that even if the group splits up to have individual members do their own thing, each still takes a turn. If, for some reason, your group were able to kill, capture and flee the dogs all at once, it would take them 3 turns. See Don’t Split the Party on page 60.
Yes. Had that. Understand it can be, and likely is a bad idea. Welcome to players willing to engage in ‘sub-optimal’ play, at least on the surface because when BIGs are involved who knows, yah know?
P.S. EDIT: Besides, they were just a few crappy little Twist critters. As it is the GM threw up his hands in rules confusion about Conflict type and picked Drive Off, all 4 PCs in it, to have something happen to move the game on in the moment. They were routed, no compromise, with the 2nd action of the Conflict.
It is not. Or if it is, it is perhaps the least fun option. Jared pulled that in our last playtest and it felt like I was playing the longest, most boring Gen Con session of house-ruled AD&D I could ever imagine. My favorite part was his eagerness to stand aside while his teammates were slaughtered—again—and—again—and—again. He thought it was so much fun, he’d fall asleep during the conflict (Jared, not his character). So it was a hoot all around.
Yeah, I can see a PC routinely dodging the draft as being very problematic. Every single starting character having a minimum Fight 2 sort of screams that this is like D&D, where it also sucked when someone decided to play a strict pacifist snowflake PC, be prepared to bash heads or GTFO.
I guess my picture was that there are enough ways to engage in conflict, without actually having to swing a weapon. Even if your PC was in a direct Kill conflict, certainly using Feint and Maneuver would be solid, viable options, or things like Defend. I definitely wouldn’t see the PC just sitting out of the conflict altogether, but RP’ing how their character can be engaged and supportive, without spilling blood.
As a ref I would veto pacifist character straight away.
The game does a great job of starting in media res, and making it clear that the general populace consider you akin to sewer-cleaners. You don’t sign up for that job, nor get accepted by others already in that job, if you refuse to pull your weight from the get-go.
