Expanded Conflict
I have a player who wants a little bit more in depth combat, but I don’t want to end up doing task resolution with a bunch of Face Adversity rolls per shot. So here’s my idea, based on Trollbabe:
For a conflict, you roll Open Fire/Launch Assault as normal. On failure, you suffer a consequence as normal, but on success the enemy (individual or group) suffers a consequence in the same manner. With each set of rolls, the level of consequences (likely harm) increases one step. Until one side gives up (in which they get to narrate what happens) or is taken out.
It’s not much different than normal, just sort of a defined way to escalate the consequences as the conflict goes on.
That seems cool. Nice way to prolong the fight without adding too many mechanics. Of course, there’s the agreement that “kill them all” won’t be chosen as a goal of the combat, but as long as the players are on board that shouldn’t be a problem at all.
Is it that the player wants more dice rolls? My understanding of how Open Fire/Launch Assault works is once the result is know there is a back and forth narrative of the result. It is like how a combat with dice rolls each round would work just the end result already being known. Is that how your currently doing it or are you saying ok you succeed, the enemies are defeated. What do you do?
Not more dice rolls, but a more ebb-and-flow type combat
Yeah. That can be tough. Let us know how it works for you next time.
I hear what you’re saying on ebb and flow. With my group, we’ve been taking some liberties with the combat system (rules are means to an end to enable a fun story and session, right?) but on the whole it’s felt about right. We’ve toughened up the minions a bit so one roll doesn’t tend to solve everything, but softened consequences a bit such that unless Bracing for Impact rolls go horribly wrong, or the PCs make bad decisions, things end up going their way.