[Sorcerer] a test: 3 guys, a gun and a window.

[Moreno R.]

Hi everybody!  I was asking Ron questions about Sorcerer, but the questions and the answers got bigger and bigger, so it's better to use the forum...

This post is a quote and paste of the relevant sections of different private messages:

Me: 
Hi Ron!  3 quick Sorcerer questions.
Yesterday I did a sort of demonstration of the use of dice in sorcerer by hangout (to see how it worked by hangout, too), and as always the things that seems so clear reading the rules create doubts in practice...

I had a NPC trying to shoot a unarmed PC that was trying to hit him with a punch. The PC won, 5 victories (I was demonstrating the "only 1 die defense"...), the NPC had only 4 stamina, so I described him falling backwards on the floor and stunned for a short while (1 action). The PC said that he was taking the gun from the NPC hands.

So...

1) I was right in saying that he could get the gun from the hand of the NPC  without rolling, because the NPC had lost an action, or I should have made him roll anyway, even against a lowered roll from the NPC?

2) Because he did get the gun without rolling, has he lost the 5 dice bonus for the following action? I said no, he still had it (it the action warranted it), because you said "the next ROLL" in your video, with no mention of rounds of time passing or other actions in the middle.

3) During the same fight another PC jumped out of the (closed) window. I made him roll against 3 dice to see if he got damage from the breaking glass. Thinking about it, I suspect I made an error there: should I have him roll against the NPC stat, seeing that he was jumping to avoid being shot (even if the gun was pointing to PC 1 at the moment)?

RON

1) I was right in saying that he could get the gun from the hand of the NPC  without rolling, because the NPC had lost an action, or I should have made him roll anyway, even against a lowered roll from the NPC (4 stamina - 5 dice = the NPC rolls 1 die and the PC gets 2 bonus die)

Arguably he could have rolled against one die, gained a die to compensate (the "roll vs. 0 dice" rule), and also enjoyed the 5-dice bonus in doing so. That is the flawless application of the rules and would solve all your problems.

2) Because he did get the gun without rolling, had he lost the 5 dice bonus for the following action? I said no, he still had it (it the action warranted it), because you said "the next ROLL" in your video, with no mention of rounds of time passing or other actions in the middle.

Given that you chose to have that action be dice-less, then your logic regarding the bonus is sound, although the entire sequence is tainted by the intrusion of your opinion into the rules.

I hope you can see why the rule of "always roll when there's a conflict" is a good one. It keeps GM choice out of things. All of the other rules (like the one about roll-overs) are written assuming that this core rule is being upheld.

3) During the same fight another PC jumped out of the (closed) window. I made him roll against 3 dice to see if he got damage from the breaking glass. Thinking about it, I suspect I made an error there: should I have him roll against the NPC stat, seeing that he was jumping to avoid being shot (even if the gun was pointing to PC 1 at the moment)?

Your post-action thoughts are correct.To be absolutely clear, he rolls against the NPC, and even if he failed, the shot would not hurt him if it was not directed toward him. That result is actually quite entertaining - "Oh God, he has the drop on me, oh wait, he's shooting at that other guy."

I suspect that some pre-roll language was not precise, though. If the player had said, "I'm jumping to escape," then the rules would be applied differently, also depending on whether the NPC cared about it or not. If the NPC did not care, then your call for it to be a roll against a few dice would correct.

As for the damage, I think that your application is good (if the player is rolling against "a few dice"), because success implies not only getting through the window, but getting through it safely.

Me
OK, I will have to write on a post-it on the screen "always roll in conflict!"...

I am correct in assuming that if the damage was more than double the stamina, at that time you stop rolling because the conflict is over (or you start to roll against another opponents, if there is one), or if the PC insist into killing the NPC hitting again and again when the NPC is at more than double stamina damage and helpless should I make him roll again?

About the one fleeing from the fight, let's see if I understood correctly what you said:

1)  IF the NPC doesn't care about the guy fleeing, he succeed automatically but I can make him roll to see if the broken glass wounded him (he flee anyway even with a failed roll, but he get slashed by the glass)

2) IF the NPC doesn't want the guy fleeing, the roll is against the NPC. If the NPC has already acted in the round, he can "defend" against this by rolling again (can he shoot again and wound the PG in this "defense"? Or the active action is only from the PC, so that at most if the PC fail he is stopped by the sight of the gun pointed to him, with the NPC saying "nice try, assh**e", and a rollover bonus to the NPC roll to shoot him in the next round?)
IF the NPC still has not acted, he can decide to "move the gun" to stop the fleeing PC (rolling all the dice for defense) or to continue to aim to the first PC defending only with a single die.

[Ron Edwards]

I am correct in assuming that if the damage was more than double the stamina, at that time you stop rolling because the conflict is over (or you start to roll against another opponents, if there is one), or if the PC insist into killing the NPC hitting again and again when the NPC is at more than double stamina damage and helpless should I make him roll again?

OK, you have this all wrong and you are hurting my head. This isn't Dogs in the Vineyard or Trollbabe. There isn't a "now the conflict is over" rule.

Do it the Sorcerer way. Everyone announces what they are going to do. If anyone is constrained, for instance being momentarily struck very hard, then apply the constraints exactly as written.

This matters because the condition of "double stamina" as you describe it is temporary. All the GM (in this case, because it's an NPC) does is announce what the NPC wants to do. He can't? Fine, he doesn't. OK, next time, the temporary penalties are gone.

If the PC wants to strike while the other is helpless, use the single-die rule I described above.

Note that it is impossible to "hit again and again" on a single instant of helplessness as you describe. If the PC hits during that moment and inflicts even more penalties, that's fine - yes, the PC is beating the NPC to death. That is, after all, the way people kill one another. Even when shooting guns usually, if we're not talking about AK-47 fire or something like that - "one in the chest, one in the head," right?

You never say, "The conflict is over." You know the conflict is over because at that moment there are no announced actions which fulfill the conditions of conflict.

Moreno ... just apply the damn rules. Quit talking about "conflicts" in this episodic, special-rules sense.

About the one fleeing from the fight, let's see if I understood correctly what you said:

1)  IF the NPC doesn't care about the guy fleeing, he succeed automatically but I can make him roll to see if the broken glass wounded him (he flee anyway even with a failed roll, but he get slashed by the glass)

You are missing a step. The NPC doesn't care, so there is no conflict, and jumping out the window is apparently within the PC's capabilities via Cover. (Yes, Cover. Do you think you can simply jump out of a window? Do you think we are talking about a God damn Hollywood movie?)

The step you are missing is that the window is attacking the character. It is, effectively, a foe which must be dealt with in an oppositional (single-roll) manner. Failing the roll doesn't stop the PC from getting through the window. His roll is nothing but a defensive roll against the damage.

That's what's being resolved. It has nothing to do with the NPC at all.

2) IF the NPC doesn't want the guy fleeing, the roll is against the NPC. If the NPC has already acted in the round, he can "defend" against this by rolling again (can he shoot again and wound the PG in this "defense"? Or the active action is only from the PC, so that at most if the PC fail he is stopped by the sight of the gun pointed to him, with the NPC saying "nice try, assh**e", and a rollover bonus to the NPC roll to shoot him in the next round?)

This is a mere oppositional roll and has nothing to do with "defense." The NPC rolls oppositionally, as the second part of the above text states. You are, however, thinking about this too much in terms of "roll first, describe later." You need to know before the roll exactly what both characters are doing. You should never make up a narration like you describe here from nothing after the result. If, on the other hand, the GM had said, "He's intimidating you into freezing," then it would be OK - but in this case, remember that the player still has the option of disobeying and jumping through anyway, with a penalty to his roll based on the degree of NPC victories.

And because I'm a bastard, I would still have the window attack the guy on the way out.

IF the NPC still has not acted, he can decide to "move the gun" to stop the fleeing PC (rolling all the dice for defense) or to continue to aim to the first PC defending only with a single die.

No, a thousand times no. No character may have two actions "on hold" and then decide which right at the moment of his turn. You need to stop talking about this roll as if it's a "defense." It's an oppositional roll to the character's attempt to flee. If it occurs before the NPC has moved, and if the NPC's prior action was not "stop this guy from getting out," then the NPC has only two options: carry out the original stated action, whatever it was, or abort to defend against something attacking him - or simply aborting, period. In this case, the fleeing guy was simply too fast for the NPC, that's what getting the high value means.

You make all of this way too hard for yourself.

Best, Ron

[Moreno R.]

At this time I think I got it, but I thought that even before, so it's better to check again....

First, the part that made me go "uh?" reading it, about cover, stamina and the window. To keep the example simple, let's say that there is a fight and our guy want to flee from the room through the window, and nobody cares about him leaving. All that stand between him and safety is the evil window. He want to flee unharmed, the window "want" (in game terms) to hurt him with the broken shards. Their "intentions" are opposite, so it's a simple oppositional roll.

What I would have done, reading the rules, is making him roll Stamina, and I would have rolled 3 dice for the window. He win = he flee unharmed. I win = he gets wounded by the glass (checking the number of victories in the roll to see how much). This even if the guy has no applicable cover descriptor (they are on the the ground floor, the "drop" outside the window is 3 feet). IF the guy has an applicable cover descriptor, I would have had him roll cover first, and let him use the (possible) victories as bonus dice on the stamina roll.

When you say that you would have him roll ONLY if he has a relevant cover descriptor, it's a simple matter of a different GM's call about the difficulty of the action, or there is some errors in the way I described above?

Second question: thinking about that situation, I thought about another possible way to handle the issue, IF the guy has an applicable cover descriptor: make him roll cover, and if he win the roll he run away unharmed, but if he lose the roll, the stamina roll is against the window's victories in the previous roll.
What is the right use of the rules between these two ways? Or they are both legit, but it's the GM's call?

Third: I always used "3 dice" for the window in this example because I think I remember a Forge thread time ago where you said that you don't bother anymore with the table on page 100, but you use almost always 3 dice instead. I liked it because I really DON'T like the table on page 100 (the idea of basing the choice of the number of opposing dice on the character's scores reminds me of old bad times...). But looking for that thread to check for sure, I was not able to find it. You really do this or I dreamed the whole thing?

OK, end of the questions, now let's see if I have finally understood how to play that example...

----------------------------------
1) First case: exactly how it happened with our real rolls when we played the situation:

In the room there are 3 people: "NPC, PC1, PC2", played by "GM, Player1, Player2".  Let's do this step by step.

First phase: declarations of actions
GM: "NPC has a gun in his hand, he want you to stop right there"
Player 2: "I stop"
Player 1 "I want to hit him with a punch"
GM "in this case, I change my declaration, when he sees you running to him with your fist raised he shoot you"
Player 2: "In this case I change my declaration too: PC2 escape through the window while NPC is busy with PC1"

At this time everybody stand with these declarations and we go to the dice. To simplify the example, the window is open, all PC2 has to do is to jump outside.

They roll, and the order is PC1, NPC, PC2.

The GM has the option to abort the action of NPC and roll again (stamina or cover) to defend, but he doesn't take it. He roll a single die instead. And the roll goes badly for him, Player 1 win with 5 victories. So NPC fall backward, stunned by the blow on his face, and lose his action.

At this time PC2 simply run away, but remembering that "always roll" principle, the GM make player 2 roll against NPC (in this case, NPC has at the moment zero dice to roll, so he rolls 1 die and PC2 get a bonus die on the roll).
If PC2 wins the roll, he flees (and maybe get bonus dice on the following roll, if they are related. For example, a roll to distance the pursuing NPC)
If PC2 lose the roll, he can flee anyway, because NPC can't physically stop him, but he gets a penalty instead of a bonus in a possible related following roll. Or he can decide to stop instead, getting no such penalty.
(if the window had been closed, he would have got to subtracts NPC's victories from the roll against the window: he was so scared from the NPC gun that he didn't protect himself properly. What about the case where he win the roll against NPC, can he gets the victories as bonus dice on the roll against the windows? In this case, as a GM's call, I would think no, but I could be convinced otherwise, depending on the description of his actions...)

After that, PC1 says that he taking NPC's gun, and PC2 says that he is still running. NPC 1 rolls his stamina + 5 victories + 1 bonus die against 1 die and probably gets the gun with a lot of victories, and the situation seems grim for NPC...

-------------------
2nd case: what if NPC had rolled highest?

The same initial situation, the same declarations of actions, but this time the sequence of rolls is: NPC, PC1, PC2

NPC shoot first, PC1 abort his action to defend himself, but he still lose the roll and get hit by the bullet: what now?

PC1 aborted his action, so is PC2's turn. Having him flee away is against the interest of NPC that want to stop him, but NPC has already acted this round and in any case he could not have changed his declaration after the roll in another active action. So what happen?

From the rules and this thread, my take is that PC2 roll his score (stamina, and maybe cover), and NPC rolls his WILL (or, eventually, his cover), not his stamina. If PC2 win, he can flee and he has roll-over victories for his following roll to run away. If NPC wins, instead, PC2 can simply stop right there, or he can decide to run anyway and he flees, but he has got penalties on his following roll to run away.

--------------------------------
3rd case: what if PC1 didn't react?

First phase: declarations of actions
GM: "NPC has a gun in his hand, he want you to stop right there"
Player 1: "I stop"
Player 2: "I jump through window to flee from this mess"

At this time the GM change his declaration saying that he shoot PC2 to stop him. PC1 stands still, so only NPC and PC2 roll.

It's an oppositional roll, or not? When I first wrote this post, I thought that it was not oppositional because there are 2 orthogonal actions to resolve, "PC2 get hit" and "PC2 flee", so i wrote what could happen depending on the rolls. But it quickly became very complicated and I began to doubt that evaluation. After all, if NPC shoots PC2, is precisely to stop him, and the way the dice results work, these two things can happen or not even with an oppositional roll. So I did erase what I initially wrote and I did start again, this time using and oppositional roll.

If GM rolls highest, PC2 get shot. If, after that, PC2 can still act, he can still flee, but he gets the NPC's victories as a penalty on his following roll (so he gets the wound penalty PLUS the NPC victories penalties). Or he can stop and in his following roll he gets "only" the wound penalty.

If Player 2 rolls highest, PC2 jump out of the window before NPC can shoot.

PLEASE, tell me I got it right this time...

[Ron Edwards]

You have stated the preceding material correctly.

When you say that you would have him roll ONLY if he has a relevant cover descriptor, it's a simple matter of a different GM's call about the difficulty of the action, or there is some errors in the way I described above?

It's a simple matter of a different GM's call about the action.

Second question: thinking about that situation, I thought about another possible way to handle the issue, IF the guy has an applicable cover descriptor: make him roll cover, and if he win the roll he run away unharmed, but if he lose the roll, the stamina roll is against the window's victories in the previous roll. What is the right use of the rules between these two ways? Or they are both legit, but it's the GM's call?

Forget all that. This thinking is a vortex in your mind that you should not enter.

Third: I always used "3 dice" for the window in this example because I think I remember a Forge thread time ago where you said that you don't bother anymore with the table on page 100, but you use almost always 3 dice instead. I liked it because I really DON'T like the table on page 100 (the idea of basing the choice of the number of opposing dice on the character's scores reminds me of old bad times...). But looking for that thread to check for sure, I was not able to find it. You really do this or I dreamed the whole thing?

I do this. I'm pretty sure it's discussed in the annotations to the core book, although I don't feel like looking it up right now.

Oh goody, more questions ...

1) First case: exactly how it happened with our real rolls when we played the situation:

In the room there are 3 people: "NPC, PC1, PC2", played by "GM, Player1, Player2".  Let's do this step by step.

First phase: declarations of actions
GM: "NPC has a gun in his hand, he want you to stop right there"
Player 2: "I stop"
Player 1 "I want to hit him with a punch"
GM "in this case, I change my declaration, when he sees you running to him with your fist raised he shoot you"
Player 2: "In this case I change my declaration too: PC2 escape through the window while NPC is busy with PC1"

At this time everybody stand with these declarations and we go to the dice. To simplify the example, the window is open, all PC2 has to do is to jump outside.

They roll, and the order is PC1, NPC, PC2.

The GM has the option to abort the action of NPC and roll again (stamina or cover) to defend, but he doesn't take it. He roll a single die instead. And the roll goes badly for him, Player 1 win with 5 victories. So NPC fall backward, stunned by the blow on his face, and lose his action.

At this time PC2 simply run away, but remembering that "always roll" principle, the GM make player 2 roll against NPC (in this case, NPC has at the moment zero dice to roll, so he rolls 1 die and PC2 get a bonus die on the roll).

All of the above seems fine.

If PC2 wins the roll, he flees (and maybe get bonus dice on the following roll, if they are related. For example, a roll to distance the pursuing NPC)
If PC2 lose the roll, he can flee anyway, because NPC can't physically stop him, but he gets a penalty instead of a bonus in a possible related following roll. Or he can decide to stop instead, getting no such penalty.

All correct, except that your phrasing about "can't physically stop him" is not the logic - the logic is that the NPC's action is an order, and it is within the rules to disobey a successful order if you are willing to accept the resulting penalty.

(if the window had been closed, he would have got to subtracts NPC's victories from the roll against the window: he was so scared from the NPC gun that he didn't protect himself properly. What about the case where he win the roll against NPC, can he gets the victories as bonus dice on the roll against the windows? In this case, as a GM's call, I would think no, but I could be convinced otherwise, depending on the description of his actions...)

I am tired of talking about the stupid window. In fact, if you want, let's call the window "furniture" and having jumping through it be nothing but Color regarding the escape. I have a pet peeve about Hollywood glass and so preferred to think of it as an active combatant, but you use the window as a portal into your vortex, so forget it. Crash and shatter! Nothing but Color.

After that, PC1 says that he taking NPC's gun, and PC2 says that he is still running. NPC 1 rolls his stamina + 5 victories + 1 bonus die against 1 die and probably gets the gun with a lot of victories, and the situation seems grim for NPC...

After what? The way it was played, or the "if" version? It's like talking to Jesse years ago, he buried himself in layers of ifs.

I assume you mean the way it was played, with PC2 winning the roll and escaping. In that case, "after that," PC2 is out of the situation entirely - the roll was successful, don't pretend it wasn't. Also, you mean PC1, not NPC1, right?

So ... yes, most likely, the situation is now just PC1 with the gun and NPC unarmed. However, you still ask, "What do you do," all over again, and please keep in mind that NPC's temporary penalties are now gone. You only take 1 permanent penalty from a punch, so NPC now only has one penalty. Maybe not so bad for him after all.

2nd case: what if NPC had rolled highest?

The same initial situation, the same declarations of actions, but this time the sequence of rolls is: NPC, PC1, PC2

NPC shoot first, PC1 abort his action to defend himself, but he still lose the roll and get hit by the bullet: what now?

PC1 aborted his action, so is PC2's turn. Having him flee away is against the interest of NPC that want to stop him, but NPC has already acted this round and in any case he could not have changed his declaration after the roll in another active action. So what happen?

PC2 gets away. His action is unopposed. And the window is merely Color, so fuck the window, it shatters in a grand Hollywood spray of sugar fake-glass, along the way.

From the rules and this thread, my take is that PC2 roll his score (stamina, and maybe cover), and NPC rolls his WILL (or, eventually, his cover), not his stamina. If PC2 win, he can flee and he has roll-over victories for his following roll to run away. If NPC wins, instead, PC2 can simply stop right there, or he can decide to run anyway and he flees, but he has got penalties on his following roll to run away.

No. NPC is not involved. It is still the round in which he took action. He is not "free"!! The only thing going for him is that if someone were attacking him at the moment, he would have all his dice available for defense. He does not get to take a full and complete second action.

3rd case: what if PC1 didn't react?

First phase: declarations of actions
GM: "NPC has a gun in his hand, he want you to stop right there"
Player 1: "I stop"
Player 2: "I jump through window to flee from this mess"

At this time the GM change his declaration saying that he shoot PC2 to stop him. PC1 stands still, so only NPC and PC2 roll.

It's an oppositional roll, or not? When I first wrote this post, I thought that it was not oppositional because there are 2 orthogonal actions to resolve, "PC2 get hit" and "PC2 flee", so i wrote what could happen depending on the rolls. But it quickly became very complicated and I began to doubt that evaluation. After all, if NPC shoots PC2, is precisely to stop him, and the way the dice results work, these two things can happen or not even with an oppositional roll. So I did erase what I initially wrote and I did start again, this time using and oppositional roll.

You were almost correct originally. It's potentially orthogonal. And you are very wrong about the whole "shoot to stop" problem. Success does not  automatically stop him. NPC is merely hoping to do as much damage as possible which will force PC1 to be unable to act.

So, they both roll. If player 2 rolls highest, then yes, as you say, out the window he goes, and NPC can either take the shot (which will be automatically unsuccessful as there is no target), or abort the action, making an irritated face.

If  the GM rolls highest, then player 2 must choose to abort (and not escape, but with a better chance of not getting shot), or to defend with one die. You can work out what happens depending on whether the one-die defense works, and how well. It all boils down to working through the mechanics then asking again, what do you do?, with whatever constraints have entered play due to those mechanics.

Best, Ron

[Moreno R.]

I think I ALMOST get it now... there are just a couple of points I am not sure I understand...

1) In the first example (the one that followed what really happened during the hangout test)  PC1 rolls highest, hit NPC, NPC lose his action for the round and go down. PC2 flee jumping the window, but you say he still have to roll against NPC (that should roll 0 dice at the moment, so he roll 1 and PC2 has a bonus die) because he is disobeying NPC's order of standing still (he can flee anyway even if he lose, but with a penalty on his next roll)

In the second example, with NPC acting first and shooting PC1, it seems to me that PC2 is in the same exact situation (maybe even worse, I can think that I could add NPC's victories to his roll to command PC2: after all shooting someone did prove that he was serious about the threat...) but when I write that PC2 still has to roll, you reply:

PC2 gets away. His action is unopposed.

What is the difference between these two cases? Why in the first case, with NPC stunned on the ground, the action is opposed, and in the second case, with NPC standing up with a smoking gun in his hand, is unopposed?

2) Reading again these post, I think that the point that caused me more confusion is "what can you accomplish with a roll?". When I played that conflict thinking "orthogonal conflict resolution", I went into "Primetime Adventures Mode" and started to narrate the success of the winners (winning stakes, in practice), with the only caveat of the possibility of disobeying orders even after losing the roll.
Most of your answers did debunk that idea: shooting someone to "stop him fleeing" doesn't stop him, if you don't do enough damage,

And you are very wrong about the whole "shoot to stop" problem. Success does not  automatically stop him. NPC is merely hoping to do as much damage as possible which will force PC1 to be unable to act.

But then, when I am beginning to think that I finally solved that problem, there is the second example where...

PC2 gets away. His action is unopposed

In that example, NPC is standing up with a gun in his hand. I can see him running to the window to shoot the running PC2 in the back as his next declaration of intent. When you say that "PC2 gets away" you are talking only about him jumping the window, and in the next round NPC can try to shoot him, or seeing that his action was unopposed he really "did get away", period?

More in general: actions of this kind (running away, hiding) that are clearly opposed (even if maybe not in every roll) with no "timed ending" (the opponent can continue to follow, or can continue to search) are considered "successful" after winning the roll (or if they happened in a round where there was no specific opposition and no roll), or they only give an advantage in the fiction or in following rolls, but they don't resolve the action definitively?

[Ron Edwards]

1) In the first example (the one that followed what really happened during the hangout test)  PC1 rolls highest, hit NPC, NPC lose his action for the round and go down. PC2 flee jumping the window, but you say he still have to roll against NPC (that should roll 0 dice at the moment, so he roll 1 and PC2 has a bonus die) because he is disobeying NPC's order of standing still (he can flee anyway even if he lose, but with a penalty on his next roll)

That's not how I understood it. I may be mixed up among all your ifs, and I can't face digging through all those paragraphs.

So never mind whatever is above, I'm dealing with what you wrote right here. In this case, PC2 has no roll to worry about at all. Why should he?

I think that clears up your question. However ...

But then, when I am beginning to think that I finally solved that problem, there is the second example where...

PC2 gets away. His action is unopposed

In that example, NPC is standing up with a gun in his hand. I can see him running to the window to shoot the running PC2 in the back as his next declaration of intent. When you say that "PC2 gets away" you are talking only about him jumping the window, and in the next round NPC can try to shoot him, or seeing that his action was unopposed he really "did get away", period?

It depends greatly on the situation. What kind of window and physical landscape are we talking about? Is it a flat gray plain with nowhere to go but straight away, visible until you pass beyond the range of human vision? Is it a fire escape? Is it a maze of alleys and dumpsters?

Overall, the answer is simple. You are talking about the next round of action. What are the fictional circumstances? If they are such that the (or "a") conflict is still possible, and if one of the characters is inclined to do something about that, then roll.

I don't want to get into any talk of "positioning" as people have inflated the term. I'm talking about playing in a sensible SIS which no one without a bug up his ass has any problem with. If getting through this particular window reasonably got the character away from the guy with the gun, then it did; if on the other hand, the guy's possession of a distance weapon still makes "a conflict between us" reasonable, then yes, he can keep the conflict going by shooting. Whichever works.

It really is nothing more than what I've been saying all along. What do you do? Does that qualify for a roll? If so, then roll. I don't see why you're forcing me to imagine a whole game/scene being played when the answer is always the same.

More in general: actions of this kind (running away, hiding) that are clearly opposed (even if maybe not in every roll) with no "timed ending" (the opponent can continue to follow, or can continue to search) are considered "successful" after winning the roll (or if they happened in a round where there was no specific opposition and no roll), or they only give an advantage in the fiction or in following rolls, but they don't resolve the action definitively?

See, this "in general" is so frustrating. It's not the right concept at all. Despite the fact that I know you will write this in permanent ink on your wall and put a gold frame around it with "Ron says," and despite the fact that I am telling you not to do that with very little faith that you'll listen, here goes. I like rolling dice to matter. Therefore as a GM I gravitate toward rolls achieving their stated aim – "to get away," for instance. Or if someone is hiding, then one roll will do the job no matter how much time the hunter stomps around. The roll is considered to be about the entire search, it's not an "an action takes six seconds" rule. My default is to use what Luke later called Let It Ride, meaning, if you win, then you win, the opposition can't wait six seconds and roll again.

But that's not the example you've provided! You have introduced the point that the whole physical circumstance, in your mind as GM, does not allow that to be the case! When that happens, then you continue. You've already decided that "does that qualify for a roll" is in play – so my answer above doesn't apply.

Best, Ron
edited to fix quote format - RE

[Moreno R.]

Thanks! Now it's clear! 

(For now. But I am sure that after the next session I will have material for a lot more questions...)