View Single Post
Old 11-26-2016, 10:05 AM
Kalir's Avatar
Kalir Kalir is offline
I have a Plan
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 6,918

Something I learned in the session I ran before last, and that is a very important lesson for any GM running this, particularly if they have any powergamers in their group: it is always better for the PCs if they lose a conflict as opposed to badly winning it.

This mostly applies to Team Conflicts, where the Concession rules make this much more feasible. I'm running an FTL-themed game, and the party was tasked with trying to disable a Lanius ship attacking the colony they were currently stationed on. Because GAMERS NEVER SAY DIE, they were hellbent on winning the combat at all costs, and racked up a stupid amount of Strikes in pursuit of this goal. As a result, while they won and saved the colony, all of them got a ton of Conditions, their ship was seriously damaged, and the Lanius ship escaped (denying them their auxiliary goal of capturing one alive). They basically spent the entire next session convalescing and getting lauded as heroes by the colony.

However, if they'd lost the conflict but left some strikes on the opponent (they decided Strikes landed on the opponent were useless FOR SOME REASON) then the Lanius might've done some serious damage to the colony, but when they boarded the colony to start salvaging scrap, the party could then engage them in hand-to-hand combat, or even ambush one and capture it.

This isn't me trying to justify a railroad plot here, mind you. As the mechanics go, you will be less screwed up if you lose a fight than if you win it by the skin of your teeth. Yes, sometimes the stakes won't really allow you to lose a fight, but you can lose a fight and run away to live another day, and be considerably better off than if you win the fight at the cost of everything you have, and spend the next while rolling everything at -1 AND disadvantage.

But hey, I learned this lesson the hard way so you don't have to.
Reply With Quote