PDA

View Full Version : Applying Stuntfighting Principles to the Design of Combat Resolution Mechanics



Kalirren
2013-02-08, 12:21 PM
At AnimeConLA this year there was a stuntfighting workshop where a stuntfighting actor from the movie industry talked about several working truths that directors there are aware of.

1) Combat, or a fight, is an adversarial dialogue of power between characters. The stances that characters adopt within a fight are expressive.
2) A fight between characters is effectively a character itself. Like any other character, the fight itself can express a wide range of emotions, has emotional inertia, and can itself be controlled and fought over.
3) What sells a hit is the reaction of the character that was hit, not the preparation of the character who did the hitting.

I've been thinking about these ideas. There were others that I don't remember as well, but I believe these guiding principles can apply equally well to RPGs. Aside from boffer LARPs, all we ever do is use combat in scenes we create. Our greatest goal is to use combat in a way that maximizes its narrative salience, its service to the arc of plot. In this way our goal as RPers and the stuntfighters' goal in film is pretty much identical.

I wanted to mine fellow Playgrounders' brains for our views on how an RPG conflict resolution system might be designed to work under those three premises. I think this is a design avenue that holds promise. What features would it contain, what tradeoffs would it make, in order to enable the full range of moderation decisions (in service of system, of drama, and of simulation) to be made?

Just to start thinking about it, to first approximation, in d20, creatures are walls of HP upon which statuses can be inflicted. Players and GMs declare elaborate sequences of actions to inflict attacks on each other until one side can't issue any more attacks. Then it's over. There's no way of taking what happened to you and playing with it, no way of rolling with a hit and working it to your advantage, or borrowing force to exert force. And this robs combat of a lot of its expressive potential.

I use d20 as an example, but most other examples - WoD, Lot5R, all deal with these ideas equally badly. They simulate a lot, and don't simulate the details that matter. Even the escalation system of Dogs in the Vineyard is really inflexible.

Going off of premise 3, are people aware of any systems where part of declaring your action is declaring your reaction, and your actions are limited by the type of reaction you declare?

NichG
2013-02-08, 05:59 PM
There's a gimmick I use occasionally in homebrew abilities and spells, which is that the receiver of the attack is given a choice.

For example:
- Either take the action the user has commanded you to do, or take X amount of damage (generally comparable to other abilities of that level that just do damage, maybe +25% at most)

- You may either accept this attack fully, in which case there is no to-hit roll but the attack does half damage, or you may attempt to resist as normal.

Those may be a bit more cerebral that what is desired here though. I guess the salient examples of things where the reaction sells the hit in D&D are monster abilities. Puddings that divide in response to slashing attacks. Damage fields that harm those who use barehanded attacks or close-range attacks. Etc. But I guess thats not quite what is meant by the reaction selling the hit.

A very simple thing that could be done is to make a system where the solid hits are rarer. In D&D the analogy would be things that happen on a crit, if crits were a bit more common. Lets say for sake that we have a D&D-like system where the crit range for most characters was fixed to around 16-20, plus or minus 2. And everyone, without having to invest in it, has abilities that happen when they crit that create short-term but very debilitating statuses.

Examples: 'For one round after you finish an attack sequence in which you crit, the enemy's AC is reduced by 10'; 'For one round after you finish an attack sequence in which you crit, the enemy takes double damage'; 'For one round after you finish an attack sequence in which you crit, the enemy takes a -5 penalty to hit'.

Now combine this with getting rid of AoOs and stuff that penalizes fluid mobility in a fight, and you have moments where the enemy melee might take a few steps back to recover and avoid a full-on barrage, because they're in a moment of weakness. It gives the fight a bit more ebb and flow since there will be times when each side has a situation they absolutely must respond to or risk losing the fight as a whole. An easy way to build this in would be that successive crits increase the crit range against that enemy by +1 for as long as the enemy is crit by that person at least once a round, so an enemy who just stands there and takes it is going to be open to a lot more injury than one who dances back every so often and tries to break the chain.

Kalirren
2013-02-08, 09:59 PM
I like the gimmick you mentioned. I think letting PCs choose their responses to an action they suffer starts to address the problem, and gives an opportunity for expression. This is especially true when everyone in the group is looking at each other with that "do you have another one in you, or are we getting our sorry hides out of here already?" sentiment.

I also like the example of crits used to induce attrition that you posed. It would share a downside with the sort of thing that save or die, save or suck spells do ("Did I have to blow my Will save just then?" = "Did he have to crit me?") But it could do a lot to emphasizes the group dynamic of the players. That's very important too. I hadn't considered the collaborative aspects of combat in this light before, but they're definitely there.

I think what I mean by 'the reaction selling the hit' is demonstrated in the following pair of interchanges.


A punches.
B block hits.
A dodge thwaps.
B parry kicks.
A duck taunts.
B pursue smashes.
A block hits.
B is blown away!

Sure, A won the fight. But how do we know that A won the fight? Nothing is special about the phrase "block hits". B did it to A, and A just dodged it.

To see what really makes this work, consider the following edit:


A punches.
B block hits.
A dodge thwaps.
B parry kicks.
A duck taunts.
B pursue smashes.
A handstand spits.
B is blown away!

The 'handstand spit' is a stupid and ludicrous action. But whatever it is, it sure worked well, because B sure went flying now, didn't he?

Point is, B getting blown away is what sells the effectiveness of A's move in both the above interchanges.

Taking an example you raise,



Brianna slashes. The goo divides!


So when monsters have these abilities that raise the stakes in response to a PC's attack, that showcases the strength of the monster. That's good. Can we use the same technique to showcase the strength of the PCs?



Brianna slashes. The goo divides!
Brianna is outnumbered and goes on a RAMPAGE!


I think we can. I can certainly see that as one effective way of drawing the line between PCs and mooks, or PCs and the monsters they fight. Mooks just hit. Monsters just hit really hard, or they hit many times. They have one trick. But PCs do more than hit - their abilities take advantage of the way their foes are fighting, and let them control the fight itself. That's what makes them PCs, and what makes them deserve to win. (And if their abilities are ill-suited, or the player can't pull out the gumption to use one of their character's strengths, then it should be pretty hard for them to win.)

Doorhandle
2013-02-09, 05:26 AM
Interesting concepts to be sure, but how the hell are you going to implement it? And how will it be different to the normal system? Any ideas?

edit: Asking the players how their character reacts to taking damage would be a start, but that's more of a dungeon-master thing than a rules thing.

edit2: Also, be aware that systems that let you choose how you react will slow combat a bit, because both sides have to roll/take actions/whatever.

Jay R
2013-02-09, 09:50 AM
A movie or stage fight is the opposite of a real fight.

In a real fight, two or more people are competing. Each wants to achieve his goal while preventing the other from achieving his goal. In a staged fight, two or more people are working together to achieve their shared goal of pretending to fight without hurting each other. They both know each move and what the outcome is supposed to be

In a real fight, each person is trying to make a move so quick and precise that a trained warrior three feet away, totally focused on it, cannot tell what happened until it's too late. In a stage fight, each move is so slow and broad that an untrained audience, not really paying attention, can follow the action from the second balcony.

These principles are about developing the story the way the director wants it to go. They do not apply unless the outcome of the fight is already determined, and all we're trying to do is present that outcome in a specific way.


1) Combat, or a fight, is an adversarial dialogue of power between characters. The stances that characters adopt within a fight are expressive.
The first principle states that an actor stands in a heroic way to seem heroic, or a sneaky way to seem sneaky. It's an acting principle.

The closest equivalent in a game fight (and it's not very close) is the fighter in front, the casters in back, and the thief circling around for a flank attack.


2) A fight between characters is effectively a character itself. Like any other character, the fight itself can express a wide range of emotions, has emotional inertia, and can itself be controlled and fought over.
The second principle is about story-telling. On stage, the actors are not trying to decide what will happen. They've already memorized the script. They are trying to tell the story by presenting a series of movements and emotions. It doesn't apply if the decisions the player makes are not about trying to win the fight.

In a D&D fight, the same range of emotions can happen, from shock at the initial ambush, to despair when the NPCs get five hits in a row while we miss, to renewed hope when we learn how to hurt them, to triumph at the end. Bit it's cause by our real emotions and the real flow of the fight, not by our pretended emotions to show an audience.



3) What sells a hit is the reaction of the character that was hit, not the preparation of the character who did the hitting.

This is about the fact that each hit is fake. In a real fight, what sells the hit is the damage done. In an RPG fight, what sells the hit is the number of damage points done. In a stage fight, there's no damage and no hit points. What sells the fake hit as real is the acting of the person hit.

The application in a game is for the DM not to say, "You hit him, and he takes six points of damage", but "Ooh! A heavy hit to the side of the head. He falls back, reeling, and you see blood starting to drip from under his helmet."

This is no different from when an actor reads a letter on stage. What makes the letter (that we don't read) seem tragic is the tears or moans of the actor.

These are acting principles, not fighting principles.

NichG
2013-02-09, 10:42 AM
These principles are about developing the story the way the director wants it to go. They do not apply unless the outcome of the fight is already determined, and all we're trying to do is present that outcome in a specific way.


I do think there's still a point here, which has to do with the game feel. The outcome may not be predetermined here, but in terms of story telling and actually running the thing, a given fight, encounter, etc is there to 'do something' for the story, but more importantly its there to 'do something' for the DM when it comes to crafting player experiences. This is as simple as something like 'I want the players to perceive that these guys are mooks' versus 'I want the players to perceive that this guy is a serious threat', but can also get to desired emotional impact, theme, etc (this should feel like a horror scene, while that one should feel like an action scene, ...).

So I think there's still some content to these principles that can be used towards that end. Basically, as guidelines for what is going to matter to the players-as-audience (while not saying anything in particular about the players-as-authors aspect)



The first principle states that an actor stands in a heroic way to seem heroic, or a sneaky way to seem sneaky. It's an acting principle.

The closest equivalent in a game fight (and it's not very close) is the fighter in front, the casters in back, and the thief circling around for a flank attack.


We can extend from this though. In the original E6 writeup, there was this idea about a 'death flag'. Basically, PCs couldn't die unless they 'raised the death flag', which would immediately get them a couple action points (after which lowering the death flag cost a few action points). This is in some sense a stance that communicates - its something that says to the DM and to the other players 'the outcome of this matters to me', whereas you have the opposite end of the spectrum where there's a 17th level wizard PC fighting some guy and not bothering with his buffs or high level spells because he's just playing around, or a friendly bar brawl, or whatever.

You could expand on this by having the character's 'stance' exist in the form of some particular thing wagered on the outcome of the fight in a semi-OOC fashion. A good example of this from a campaign I was in was a mechanic to emulate shonen anime tropes - you could declare a duel with an enemy, and if they accepted then it became a one-on-one fight between you and that enemy. Nothing forced others to stay out of the fight, but everyone present who could intervene but didn't got an XP buff at the end of the session (and the combatants did as well); if on the other hand someone broke the duel, that XP was lost. Its a stance that communicates 'something', though I think there's room to get even more focussed here.



The second principle is about story-telling. On stage, the actors are not trying to decide what will happen. They've already memorized the script. They are trying to tell the story by presenting a series of movements and emotions. It doesn't apply if the decisions the player makes are not about trying to win the fight.

In a D&D fight, the same range of emotions can happen, from shock at the initial ambush, to despair when the NPCs get five hits in a row while we miss, to renewed hope when we learn how to hurt them, to triumph at the end. Bit it's cause by our real emotions and the real flow of the fight, not by our pretended emotions to show an audience.


I think the second point can be taken to be saying something about surrounding the fight with unifying elements. In something like Spirit of the Century this would be environmental aspects, but in something like D&D this might be the burning building with weakening supports that the fight takes place in. Big attacks weaken the supports faster than focussed attacks - so the 'fight itself' can be fought over by individuals choosing actions to engage in the environment. The problem is that in most cases its too easily a lose-lose scenario or win-win scenario to engage with the environment. In the burning building case, neither side is served by a collapse.

But if we're introducing new mechanics and designs, I'd say you can just make certain environmental status conditions that can be applied and removed in various ways, which either have a strong differential benefit based on core differences between the PCs and the enemies (e.g. enemies tend to have Darkvision more than PCs, so something that gives penalties to everyone with Darkvision can be a net gain for the PCs) but even better would be to have abilities that basically spring off of an environmental condition to do something proactively. For instance, imagine ToB-style maneuvers but you get more of them readied and they have certain pre-reqs to come into play. Sneak attack is kind of like this (in the sense that if you filled a room with fog, the rogues all become more dangerous).

(About the third point)


This is about the fact that each hit is fake. In a real fight, what sells the hit is the damage done. In an RPG fight, what sells the hit is the number of damage points done. In a stage fight, there's no damage and no hit points. What sells the fake hit as real is the acting of the person hit.

The application in a game is for the DM not to say, "You hit him, and he takes six points of damage", but "Ooh! A heavy hit to the side of the head. He falls back, reeling, and you see blood starting to drip from under his helmet."


I would say in D&D what sells the hit is whether or not it is transformative to the scenario. Some actions involve victory-by-attrition, and other actions involve victory-by-upset. This is the difference between, e.g., an attack that does 10% of your HP in damage per round and an attack that takes away your movement. Essentially this principle would say its not damage that sells the hit, but the fact that characters will reconsider their combat choices after experiencing or witnessing the damage.

The first time you're playing a melee character and you get hit by a full attack from a dragon is an experience like this. There's a shocked moment of 'how much did it do?' followed by a realization that you can't just run up and full attack dragons and win. Its a moment that forces you to change your tactics, and so it feels important in a way that the slow attrition by other things might not (but because of the nature of learning, this moment occurs but once or twice in the career of a gamer). The same is true about the first great-axe crit you experience, or the first time you get grappled by something three size categories bigger than you.

But high damage like that isn't necessarily desirable as the way a hit can be sold (more to the point, we have a lot more design space to explore than just big damage). This is why I think that something with a constant, predictable, and consistent output can't really sell hits after the first. Basically, once you learn 'oh, its death to stand next to this thing' then from then on you're going to know that, and there won't be any real shock or surprise. On the other hand, if you have something moderately rare (happens one in four rounds, say) that forces a re-evaluation of tactics, then even if you know that its possible that it could happen it still means you need to recompute your plans when it eventually does happen. Thats kind of what I was getting at with the crit-based effects.

Slipperychicken
2013-02-09, 01:03 PM
+1 to hit if you give a good description of your attack and maneuver.

-1 to hit for "I swing him again with my [weapon]. Power attack for 4"

+1 to AC against an attack for describing a reaction.

-1 to AC for "This guys a pushover. I've still got 112 HP left."

Oracle_Hunter
2013-02-09, 01:59 PM
I wanted to mine fellow Playgrounders' brains for our views on how an RPG conflict resolution system might be designed to work under those three premises. I think this is a design avenue that holds promise. What features would it contain, what tradeoffs would it make, in order to enable the full range of moderation decisions (in service of system, of drama, and of simulation) to be made?
The main issue with this approach is that RPGs, unlike movies, are not a visual medium.
There is not a lot of "flavor" for the Players or the DM to gain from describing intricate fight choreography because the words simply do not carry the same visceral punch as seeing the same action with your eyes.

As a result, most "stunt fighting" systems tend to be fairly basic since it can get boring listening to two people trying to put the same sort of feel into a combat sequence with words that John Woo does with pictures. As an experiment, pick your favorite action movie combat sequence and try describing it to someone who has never seen the movie. Then ask whether that seemed exciting or not. Chances are, they'd say "no."
In short, I don't think building a system around "stunt fighting" will be a worthwhile direction to go. There are many systems which include a "stunt" mechanic but they rarely bother with the aesthetic principles that you seem interested in focusing on -- largely for the reasons I've mentioned above.

tensai_oni
2013-02-09, 02:09 PM
People, people. Why do you discuss hypothetical systems or houserules when a system that already works with these principles exists?



1) Combat, or a fight, is an adversarial dialogue of power between characters. The stances that characters adopt within a fight are expressive.
2) A fight between characters is effectively a character itself. Like any other character, the fight itself can express a wide range of emotions, has emotional inertia, and can itself be controlled and fought over.
3) What sells a hit is the reaction of the character that was hit, not the preparation of the character who did the hitting.


You just described Fate, or to be more specific - Spirit of the Century, with its focus on utilizing, abusing and creating new Aspects on the fly, as well as dealing with consequences of attacks more descriptive than just "X damage". And I'm sure it's not the only system out there that's like this. Legend of the Wulin is supposed to operate on cinematic principles and expressive confrontations as well, but I'm not familiar with it.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-02-10, 01:59 PM
You just described Fate, or to be more specific - Spirit of the Century, with its focus on utilizing, abusing and creating new Aspects on the fly, as well as dealing with consequences of attacks more descriptive than just "X damage". And I'm sure it's not the only system out there that's like this. Legend of the Wulin is supposed to operate on cinematic principles and expressive confrontations as well, but I'm not familiar with it.

I hadn't seen this post previously, but I was just about to post the exact same thing. FATE (especially the new FATE Core that was just very successfully Kickstarted) can be used to do this extremely well.

For example, using FATE Core: attacking an opponent and failing miserably grants them a boost (a bonus: a one-use Aspect, in effect). Attacking and matching them gives you a boost. Attacking and succeeding deals damage. Attacking and succeeding incredibly deals damage and can grant you a boost. You can also take actions that serve to create longer-duration aspects or grant boosts. So, an example in play:

Indiana Jones attacks the latest in a serious of increasingly Germanic villains in his quest for the religious relic du jour. They get into a fistfight on the roof of an old church.

Indy rolls first, and matches his opponent's defense (no damage, but he gets a boost): he lashes out with a powerful right hook, but his opponent skillfully dodges. However, the villain's foot slips on a loose shingle, and he staggers to recover his footing (Indy tags the villain with "Off Balance," which he can invoke once for free).

The villain picks up the shingle and hurls it at Indy. He isn't trying to do damage: his goal is to create an aspect he can use against Indy. He succeeds in the roll, creating a one-time boost for himself: Indy is tagged with "Rattled Skull" as the shingle strikes him across the face, momentarily dazing him.

Indy strikes out again, using the villain's Off Balance as a bonus to his attack. The villain counters by using his boost of Rattled Skull to equal Indy's bonus, and Indy rolls terribly, missing by a huge margin. The villain gains a boost, and so we flavor it as such: Indy draws a knife from his belt and lunges forward, but the old beams supporting the roof aren't prepared for that sort of punishment, and they give way beneath him. The roof caves in, and Indy is left clinging to the rafters, vulnerable until he recovers himself.

And so on, trading aspects back and forth. It works very well.

Kalirren
2013-02-10, 02:27 PM
^^

Thank you! These responses are exactly what I was looking for! Sometimes all you need is prior art.

NichG
2013-02-10, 07:53 PM
I will grant that I have very little experience in playing FATE and Spirit of the Century in particular (only played one session of it...) but the main problem I had with those systems is that its easy enough to obtain relevant aspects in a fight so that things that change what aspects are in play have very little actual impact.

After all, you could tag your aspect, the environment's aspect, or the enemy's aspect when trying to attack an enemy. So that's usually going to be about 12 options to pick from. And regardless of what the aspect you tag actually is, the result is mechanically the same +2. So, e.g., doing a maneuver to tag the scene with a useful aspect is a reasonable thing for one person to do at one point in the fight, once it's been done then the fight feels like an attrition battle once again. To put it another way, I think FATE has the 'fight over the battle itself' thing down in principle at least, but its not selling the blows to me.

Kalirren
2013-02-10, 08:30 PM
I will grant that I have very little experience in playing FATE and Spirit of the Century in particular (only played one session of it...) but the main problem I had with those systems is that its easy enough to obtain relevant aspects in a fight so that things that change what aspects are in play have very little actual impact.

After all, you could tag your aspect, the environment's aspect, or the enemy's aspect when trying to attack an enemy. So that's usually going to be about 12 options to pick from. And regardless of what the aspect you tag actually is, the result is mechanically the same +2. So, e.g., doing a maneuver to tag the scene with a useful aspect is a reasonable thing for one person to do at one point in the fight, once it's been done then the fight feels like an attrition battle once again. To put it another way, I think FATE has the 'fight over the battle itself' thing down in principle at least, but its not selling the blows to me.

Hmm...I think I understand what you mean. I confess, the first time I read SotC rules it was a while ago and the copy I had was very poorly bound so I ended up just skimming it. I completely missed the on-the-fly Aspect changing. I know what SotC is built on d20, which is why I was so surprised when I heard about this.

If responding to your opponent's actions works just like another +2, then it's just a character-driven circumstance bonus. I can see how it would work in fluff, and for drama it might be enough, especially with experienced players. But the system-gamist in me says that that isn't the same thing as actually changing the potential action space, which is what I'm really after.

I'll see if I can get my grubby little hands on a copy of Legend of the Wulin. Maybe there are more novel ideas there.

NichG
2013-02-11, 01:17 AM
Well +2 is a much bigger bonus in that game. In d20 terms it'd be closer to a +10. But it doesn't really change the action space (and more importantly to me, it doesn't matter what the Aspect actually is - "The room is on fire!" and "One shot, one kill" and the enemy's "Allergic to silver" all basically do the same thing if you can justify tagging them)

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-02-11, 02:44 AM
Well +2 is a much bigger bonus in that game. In d20 terms it'd be closer to a +10. But it doesn't really change the action space (and more importantly to me, it doesn't matter what the Aspect actually is - "The room is on fire!" and "One shot, one kill" and the enemy's "Allergic to silver" all basically do the same thing if you can justify tagging them)

Well, yes. Because the game is inherently more rules-light than something like D&D, so there are fewer mechanical subsystems to tie effects into.

FATE, like most rules-light games, relies on having a good GM to work with the system. That way you get ancillary effects for good and bad situations above and beyond the standard +2. There are a number of ways to handle it, but I feel the comments earlier on this thread (that FATE doesn't handle this well because everything comes down to a bonus) aren't really applicable to a system that is meant as a rules-light storytelling aid rather than as a mechanically crunchy game.

tensai_oni
2013-02-11, 03:33 AM
The difference between Aspects that were already there and those you dynamically create is that tagging the former costs a Fate point, but tagging the latter is free. So on-the-fly Aspect creation is important.

And of course you can tag any Aspect and get the same bonus. The fun in the system is rationalizing why tagging the Aspect is appropriate for the situation, and then having your character act according to that. This not only fosters creativity, it results in interesting and entertaining actions.

Kadzar
2013-02-11, 01:11 PM
I know what SotC is built on d20, which is why I was so surprised when I heard about this. I just feel the need to correct this; FATE is actually based off of FUDGE. There are no d20s used in the game whatsoever.

tensai_oni
2013-02-12, 04:49 AM
Argh, how did I miss that?

Indeed, FATE/SotC has nothing to do with DnD's mechanics, and doesn't even use d20s for its rolls. Also as it was stated before, that +2 modifier? It means A LOT. Tagging/invoking aspects also lets you reroll, which can really save your skin.
Also, you can tag or invoke more than one aspect for a single roll - and their effects stack. Describing such an action, that somehow is powered (as an example) by your character being in love with someone, the room being on fire, and their opponent having a tendency towards long-winded speeches, requires quite the writing chops. But the result is bound to be very cinematic and, because of the stacking, effective.

Regarding action economy:
Indeed you can do only one thing in a round, but aspects created in maneuvers are suggested to have extra effects other than just being taggable for free once. Some suggestions are written in the SRD, but there's obviously more than that, and it's all up to the game master to decide.

Regarding character reactions to being hit:
Two words: spins and consequences. Both being SotC/Fate terms, the latter a result of being attacked really hard, the former defending so well against the attack that you can actually turn it into your favor. Do note, not all attacks are physical - an academic discussion or a talk of persuasion is conflict too, and resolved in the same way as physical combat by SotC rules.

The SRD is available online and for free, I suggest reading it if you have time.

Mewtarthio
2013-02-13, 01:15 PM
Also note that FATE does have the whole "selling the hit" concept with its consequences system. You can use your stress track to "no sell" a few hits, but the stress track in FATE Core is pretty small (the one in SotC is longer; if you use SotC, you should probably houserule it to a more reasonable size). Attacks that break through your stress track inflict consequences, which are lasting negative effects. So, you don't end up with a "Alice slashes Bob for 3 damage" situation when Alice lands a three-shift hit. Instead, either Bob has the stress to block the attack ("Alice slashes at Bob! Bob swats her attack aside!"), or Bob has to take a consequence ("Alice slashes Bob, leaving a Deep Cut across his arm!").

Incidentally, I've heard some people have had success dropping the stress track entirely and giving out more consequence slots to compensate, making it so every hit, no matter how small, leaves a visible mark.

This system also gives players the opportunity to choose how long they stay in the fight (you can always opt to simply lose the fight instead of taking consequences, and you can concede at any time). It's similar to the "death flag" concept: If Alice is just after Bob's wallet, Bob's player could simply forfeit after taking that hit above, letting Alice take the wallet and escape in exchange for not getting hurt any more. If Alice is trying to kill Bob, Bob's player will probably take the consequences and might concede the fight if things are going poorly, convincing the GM to spare Bob's life and give Alice a lesser (but still meaningful) victory. If Alice is trying to kill Bob so she can take the Astral Key from his body and free the Locusts of Abaddon from their prison to torment the earth once more, then Bob's player can opt to fight to the bitter end, taking every consequence possible in hopes of softening Alice up enough for his friends to stop her in the next scene.