[Trollbabe] Trollbaby!

[Moreno R.]

Hi Ron!

No, no direct questions at this time. The only one was about my analysis of that situation and the "no" in conflict, and you already answered that. I am posting these later snippets from the game as a sort of "researcher's diary", and to see if there is interest and/or questions.

This evening Diamante was in game again (her player has begun the Easter Holidays) and having re-read these notes recently, I took notice again of how quickly she has mastered the game.  This was evident in this session because there were a lot of bad rolls (at one time all three trollbabes were incapacitated at once), this helped separate them and see what happened when Diamante played alone.

Some notes:

1) She has gone a long way from the first times when she always went "action-to-action" in every conflict and rolled all the dice without narrating what happened. Now, even if sometimes she still roll a die after another in the excitation of the moment, usually she has no problem in narrating her failed rolls. She doesn't do self-humiliating narration and she doesn't abuse the system to avoid the consequences of failures. Her narrations are still very simple, but she has no problem narrating "herself" wounded by weapons or beasts. Example: in this adventures, she had captured in a net a kind of savage man-beast, and she did try to get information from him with magic. She failed two times and got wounded, and she narrated how she got too close to the net and got scratched in the arm by the man-beast nails.

2) She has a clear idea about her character. Even if she liked to use the arrow at the beginning, now she see Diamante as using magic first and more often, so she changed her number, lowering it (with no prompting by anyone, her mother even advised her to not do it to avoid lessening two score to improve one).

3) I got the impression that she would like to try having adventures (or at least scenes) by herself, without her mother's trollbabe around (that at times is a little overprotective). Example: in the same conflict I used as an example before, Diamante did lose even her third roll against the man-beast, and she got incapacitated. I reminded her the rules, just to be sure she understood that my narration was only provisional, and I narrated that the prisoner did break the net, stun her with a strong blow in the head, and kidnap her, taking her unconscious to the lair of his tribe (where other kidnapped NPCs were already detained)
Instead of being scared she got very excited and accepted the narration. Her mother tried to stop the kidnapping, but she became incapacitated, too, after rolling three bad rolls, and I got the impression that her daughter was happy to not being "saved" again by her mother (even if usually in these adventures it's the other way around, Diamante is much more lucky than Geli with dice...)

It was at that scene that even the third trollbabe got incapacitated (trying to follow the kidnapper). By the time the two grown-up trollbabes were able to cure themselves, Diamante had already tamed the beasts, saved all the other prisoners, and returned to their camp...

4) The character perspective: when I fist described the three trollbabes in the first scene, in a field full of snow, and I asked them what they were doing, Diamante's answer was "I am playing with the snow".

5) About this being the longest-running trollbabe campaign ever...  It's a combination of problems that Trollvbabe solves nicely. (A) one GM (me) that refuse to run anything that require more preparation than DitV or Trollbabe, (B) one player with absolute no job security that change jobs, timetables and general situation literally from a week to another, so she often has to drop out a session at the last minute or she arrive very late, and (C) another player that is suffering from a long, long railroaded "save the world" campaign (with another GM in another group) that she can't stand anymore. And (D) Allow Diamante to play.
So, Trollbabe is a game that solves these problems:  (A) very low prep, (2) there is no problem if a player is late or has to miss a session, or if we can't play for a few weeks, there is no over-arching "story" or strict continuity, no situation where you "need to have all the players", (3) the scale (more about this later) and (4) it's simple to learn and remember and reward fantasy instead of number-crunching

About the effect of the scale, that player explained to me this evening why she don't want to increase the scale (that is still at 3 after more than 20 adventures): she is suffering under that railroaded (D&D3) campaign with the other group, a very, very long (at lest four years of play at this time) "save the world" saga, with hundreds of characters, where everything is already decided by the GM (to the point that she was not able to make her character die the times when she really was fed up with this). The last session for example she said was a single long battle between two armies of 100.000 warriors on each side, and them in the middle, following orders and being saved by some PNG every time they failed.

So, scale in Trollbabe is a security measure, too: she said "until it stays at three, I am assured that I will not have to play a game where there is a world, nation or even big city at stake!" (she says that Trollbabe is the best rpg ever, too, probably because she like to play trollbabes-like characters even before learning that the game existed...)

I never thought about this feature of the game before: not only you use scale to say to the GM "now I want to raise the stakes", but you can use it even to say to him "DON'T raise the stakes, I like playing at this level, thank you" :-)

[Moreno R.]

Hi Ron! I have new pictures, and new questions!

First, the pictures.  These are the other THREE trollbabes that play (with different regularity) with me:

I already talked about the first two, the ones that started at the beginning:

GELI (played by Angela)


And ZAQHI, played by Silvia:


And the third one? Well, remember when I talked about a friend of Diamante's player that wanted to try? Well, she did... and she liked it very much, so she will join the group every chance she will get this summer!

The trollbabe is ELEN, played by Melissa:

The number is 6, the impressions are Hand-held weapons, Human magic, and Perky.
Ellen has the (apparent) age of 15-16 years old, but the player has only 9 years.

Now is the time of the questions, but I will post them in my next message

[Moreno R.]

Here are the questions (I posted them in this different message so if you prefer to have them in another thread you can simply move this post without having to edit anything)

The situation: after playing a lot of adventures at a low scale, recently i was able to get the trollbabes angry enough at a city to go to to scale 4. And I am starting to see situations, at higher scales, where the rules of the games are starting to be difficult to apply.

For example, the relationship rules:
1) One trollbabe took a village as a relationship. The issue didn't come up in play until now, but I am assuming from a new reading of page 58 that a trollbabe CAN have allied relationships that don't travel with her. The book says "When your trollbabe start an adventure with relationships from previous adventures, then these characters physically arrive at that location with her" I presume that with "start with relationship" you mean "chosen by the player between all her relationships to be in the adventure with her", not "every relationship on her character sheet", right? (in the other case, she would have to drop the village from the relationships, or find a way to move it with her)

2) if this is the case, the Trollbabe can return to the village and use again that relationship for rerolls, even if she did not start the adventure in it?

3) The trollbabe get rerolls if she is INTO the village... but what if she is away but she take with her something that represent the relationship (as a document that give her the sovereignty over the village, for example) and use that? 

4) Similar to the previus question, let's say that the trollbabe is king. inside of her reign, she can use the reign for re-rolls (assuming it's a relationship) even without having to raise the entire kingdom.s army, against a scale 1 opponent? ("i am your king!" seems just the right thing to say in a social conflict...). And what if the relationship "die" in that conflict? Irt's enough that she is king no more, without having more dreadful things happen to the kingdom, or the kingdom has to be destroyed as an entity? (split in a dozen of city-statesd for example)

5) Reading again that page made me doubt about an assumption I always made in my sessions: I assumed that enemy relationship can show up in every situation, when needed, even if they were not shown to be in the same place as the trollbabe in the previous scene. But reading again that page made me doubt about that. It says that they don't need to be in the same "scene", but it doesn't say "adventure", and the other phrase at the beginning say that ALL the relationship to be used arrive in the same location with her. Does this means that the player should state that the enemy is in that location at the beginning to be able to use him for rerolls?

6) Until now I never had this problem, but I am assuming that even in trollbabe there is a sort of "to do it, do it" rule, with relationships: you take a npc as a relationship, but you have to say what you do to make that happen (it it's not automatic as "I defeated him, now he is my sworn enemy"). It is so? Because...

7)... I am thinking about a trollbabe having a fight with a single thug in an alley... and then taking the entire country as a relationship.  I could negate that (and probably I would0 seeing that a country is obviously named) but a some point I probably will want them taking countries as relationships, and I am womdering if what avoid the scenario I just described is only my refusal, or if it is against the rules, too.

[Ron Edwards]

And I am starting to see situations, at higher scales, where the rules of the games are starting to be difficult to apply.

No you're not. This is Moreno talking himself into crazy circles again.

1) One trollbabe took a village as a relationship. ... I am assuming from a new reading of page 58 that a trollbabe CAN have allied relationships that don't travel with her. The book says "When your trollbabe start an adventure with relationships from previous adventures, then these characters physically arrive at that location with her" I presume that with "start with relationship" you mean "chosen by the player between all her relationships to be in the adventure with her", not "every relationship on her character sheet", right? '

Yes, I am discussing the relationships the player has chosen to keep. The village does not actually travel with her, but her relationship with it remains and is usable in the current adventure elsewhere. Use whatever fictional justification you want, up to and including the sudden arrival of a band of warriors.

2) if this is the case, the Trollbabe can return to the village and use again that relationship for rerolls, even if she did not start the adventure in it?

Sure, although it strikes me as a particularly tortuous and unnecessary fictional device. Do whatever you want to allow the village intrude, relative to the conflict at hand. Indirect means are fine. As soon as you name the Type of conflict, you'll see that making up useful intermediaries between the trollbabe and the village is easy. For instance, in a Magic conflict, have her send a magical message; no roll is necessary because it's merely invoking a relationship, similar to a snapshot magic re-roll item. Your example of the sovereignty document is excellent.

4) Similar to the previus question, let's say that the trollbabe is king. inside of her reign, she can use the reign for re-rolls (assuming it's a relationship) even without having to raise the entire kingdom.s army, against a scale 1 opponent?

Sure. As I say, this isn't a question, it's a perfectly reasonable use of the rules.

And what if the relationship "die" in that conflict? Irt's enough that she is king no more, without having more dreadful things happen to the kingdom, or the kingdom has to be destroyed as an entity? (split in a dozen of city-statesd for example)

I'd be inclined to see the kingdom itself 'die,' or at least suffer something rather than simply losing her. The whole point of a relationship dying is that that entity pays the price, not the trollbabe. In the interest of fictional plausibility, I'd say it took a little while and the causes might be many, which this conflict merely aggravated, but the trollbabe wouldn't be able to use it again during that process.

5) ... enemy relationship can show up in every situation, when needed, even if they were not shown to be in the same place as the trollbabe in the previous scene. ... It says that they don't need to be in the same "scene", but it doesn't say "adventure", and the other phrase at the beginning say that ALL the relationship to be used arrive in the same location with her. Does this means that the player should state that the enemy is in that location at the beginning to be able to use him for rerolls?

Oh that is so painful to read. Moreno! The enemy is always there!

The only time the enemy might not be there is if the trollbabe never uses that relationship in the adventure, and even then, it's no guarantee that he or she wasn't there.

The only way to get rid of an enemy relationship is to abandon the relationship between adventures or to have the enemy die through the relationship-helping resolution mechanics.

6) ... even in trollbabe there is a sort of "to do it, do it" rule, with relationships: you take a npc as a relationship, but you have to say what you do to make that happen (it it's not automatic as "I defeated him, now he is my sworn enemy"). It is so?

I believe that is a textual rule, which I can't look up at the moment.

7)... I am thinking about a trollbabe having a fight with a single thug in an alley... and then taking the entire country as a relationship.  I could negate that (and probably I would0 seeing that a country is obviously named) but a some point I probably will want them taking countries as relationships, and I am womdering if what avoid the scenario I just described is only my refusal, or if it is against the rules, too.

Since a country is obviously named, that means the GM has constant rules-given authority to veto a proposed relationship. If one of your reasons for doing this is that you do not see a fictional justification for it, then that's fine.

But it is also true that the relationship 'character' has to have been present in a scene featuring a conflict in order to take him, her, or it as a relationship. This is more general and applies even if the entity is not named. In this case, simply being in the city doesn't mean the city is present in a way that treats it as an entity.

Best, Ron

edited to fix display - RE

[Moreno R.]

But it is also true that the relationship 'character' has to have been present in a scene featuring a conflict in order to take him, her, or it as a relationship. This is more general and applies even if the entity is not named. In this case, simply being in the city doesn't mean the city is present in a way that treats it as an entity.

Brilliant! This solve a lot of other questions I was about to ask you!

But, solved the "take a relationship" issues, I have still some doubt about the use of large-scale relationship.

Let's say that I use my sovereignty (relationship scale 7 with the entire country) in a individual conflict. (scale 1 opponent). No matter about what and how, the important thing is that is one of these cases where the results can't hurt the country in any way whatsoever (I can imagine conflicts with a single opponent where the country could be at risk, but this is not one of these). And after the end of the conflict, the relationship is hurt or dead...

1) If the nations is hurt, can it means that (for example) the single soldier who helped the trollbabe died, or that the nation should REALLY be hurt? (from the other answer I suppose it's this second case, but I am asking to be sure)

2) Worst case, the nation "died".
And the player has no idea how to narrate that. She ask me, and I can't come up with something plausible, too.

From the rules and your answers, the thing to do at this point is "kill" the nation in a unrelated manner (probably between adventures). But this make the "dying" of the relationship independent from the trollbabe's actions. In the fiction It would seem a unrelated casualty

So, at this time, should I...
A) Try to make the "death" of the nation in some manner the trollbabe fault (even simply by being "elsewhere", in that adventure, during an attack or a disaster) to link in some manner the result to the conflict, or...
B) DON'T do that, because it would be against the GM's "make the trollbabes look heroic" agenda?

----------------
Other questions, not relationships-related.

In the last adventure, Geli attacked a hundred soldiers (knights, squires and foot soldiers) with the goal "I want to kill every single one of them". I asked again, saying "after you kill a lot of them, the others will flee from you in every direction". But she was adamant "every single one". So I thought a little about it. In that case, it was possible: they were in a space enclosed by (easily scalable) rock walls and she had the help of two flying monsters (her.. "pets") that could pick up and eat every one who tried to flee. So I narrated that she hunted every one of them, even the ones who were trying to hid somewhere to try to save themselves.

But this episode (as you probably guessed) made me doubt about the way to answer similar cases.

Thinking about it, "kill every single one of them" is a valid goal? What I mean is that the opponent in that conflict is the (scale 4) army, so she can "kill" the army. That could mean in some cases to kill every one of them, but in other cases having very few survivors fleeing would still satisfy the "kill the army" goal. And "kill every single one of them" is instead a single individual conflict against every single one of them, one after another. It's a valid interpretation?
Just to be clear, I don't want to negate Geli her savage bloodbaths, I have no problem with her killing everyone and I never had in any adventure until now. But I can imagine situations where this could be hurtful to the credibility of the situation (if she goes up again in scale, how can I narrate her killing 500 men fleeing in different direction in the middle of a city, mingling with the habitants?)

A similar question: the trollbabe at higher scales could attack by sword an entire army and win. But to be able to even roll for it, she has to come up with a credible way of doing that in the "free and clear" phase, or I have to accept even a "I run against them and begin to hack with the sword" declaration and it's my job to explain how the hell she can win a fight like that? In this second case, can I be very liberal with my description (making her cast mass-death spells, or multiplying herself with another spell to become an army herself, or narrating the help of the population or from some unexpected allies), or these things are "unlocked" only by her choosing these rerolls, and I should stay within the limit of what she said in the free and clear phase?.

(I must add that Geli's player was never a problem about these things, and I don't remember her ever declaring not credible goals - probably the one time she went closest to that was the scene I narrated above - but I am wondering about the game;s rules if that should happen)

edited to fix display - RE

[Ron Edwards]

Kill the nation because of the conflict. If you can't figure out how to make this happen, then you're simply not thinking much, or inventing unnecessary barriers.

You have all the power in the world as the GM. You can invent a series of coincidences ('for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost'), you can use the logic you mentioned about how the trollbabe was absent during a crucial moment elsewhere (and you can do this without making her look foolish, I don't know where you got that idea), and you are not constrained in either space or time for the effect to occur.

Remember that by bringing this particular relationship into this particular conflict, the player is literally asking and inviting for this exact thing to occur. So plausibility and fairness are not issues at all.

Thinking about it, "kill every single one of them" is a valid goal? What I mean is that the opponent in that conflict is the (scale 4) army, so she can "kill" the army. That could mean in some cases to kill every one of them, but in other cases having very few survivors fleeing would still satisfy the "kill the army" goal. And "kill every single one of them" is instead a single individual conflict against every single one of them, one after another. It's a valid interpretation?

She's scale 4, and so is the army, right? In that case, she can kill the army. If the player says this generally, then it's up to the GM to interpret that, using any of the ideas you mentioned. But if the player says 'every last one,' and the scale is not a constraint, then that's the goal. What in the world is difficult about that?

You seem overly concerned about plausibility, because that issue does not apply here. Plausibility is at its heart a matter of the second speaker staying consistent with the needs and expectations of the first speaker. If the first speaker has literally handed you exactly what they want, then saying it is not a problem. As with the kingdom's death, use your mind, use your imagination, use the scope of time and space at your disposal, and quit inventing gamer hobgoblins who are objecting behind your back.

She wants to kill them all, she has the scale to do it, and they're fleeing through the city to mingle with the populace? Fine. 'It took her three days, but she killed them all.' That's how you'd do it in a good novel and that's how you do it here.

Best, Ron
edited to fix display - RE

[Moreno R.]

Hi!

School's closed for the season, so Diamante's player can play regularly again. And she confirmed what I thought: that she wanted to play alone, without having the other trollbabes bsbysit her.

During the last sessions Geli and Zaqhi had a falling out: they were trying to save a column of human refugees from a troll raid, and Geli negotiated an agreement with the trolls: she would not interfere with their invasion of the lowlands if they would leave these specific refugee alone. When Zaqhi did learn about this, she did leave, to try to stop the trolls. This was the end of the last session. Now, this week, Zaqhi's player wanted an adventure in a city in the lowlands (right on the troll's way) and Geli on a mountain pass to get the refugee on another country.  So I asked Diamante's player where she wanted to play, and the answer was "none of the above", she wanted to play an adventure by herself.

She did choose a mountain where in a previous session Zaqhi had a fight with a necromancer, killing him (Diamante was not present at that session). Thinking about it, I recall that after killing the necromancer Zaqhi left right away, so the tunnels inside the mountains should have been still full of undeads...

So I described to her the entrance to the tunnels, an armored skeleton that greeted her, and invited her to enter.  Inside the skeleton empty eye sockets are alight with a green cold light, and he can see in total darkness, while Diamante has a torch.  They go down, down on a seeming endless row of stairs, until they go inside a big room, with skeletons in armor all around. Diamante's player is visibly worried, and more so when I describe her hearing the sound of big, heavy steel doors closing in the distance, above her. 

The king of the skeletons greet her, and invite her to sit near his throne. The other players suggest to her that it's very strange that these undeads don't stop anybody from entering. So she ask the king about it.

And the king answers, with a cavernous voice "it's no problem, child. Anybody can enter. The important thing, is allowing nobody to leave..." And he look directly in Diamante's eyes, and laugh.

At that point, scared, Diamante did call for a magic conflict and teleported herself directly into Zaqhi's adventure...  :-)

And that was the end of her first solo adventure. Less than thirty minutes. I probably should have toned down the scary part, the details about the green cold light and the sound of heavy metal doors... but it was so nice, having a player get really scared when the GM narrate scary things! These are the things that make a GM really happy... and what child don't enjoy a scary story?

Diamante's player wanted to clarify the matter, though: afraid? Her? No, she wasn't afraid. At all. She is afraid of nothing! It's simply that she don't like skeletons, that's all...  :-)

[Christoph]

I've been enjoying reading those reports, Moreno. Regarding Diamante's short adventure, it could always be a hook to a new adventure with all the Trollbabes coming in, giving Diamante's player the sensation that she found out the next big thing, which could be quite engrossing for her.

[Moreno R.]

Hi Christoph!

In the following session all three the trollbabes were reunited and when it was time to choose the location of the next adventure, one of them suggested going there to see what the dead necromancer's undeads were doing. But Diamante's player was firmly against it: "I don't like skeletons!"  :-)

In general I am trying to keep the world consistent and reactive to the trollbabe's actions (for example, Geli is a wanted fugitive in the north-western part of the continent, and this color the people's reaction there. And they killed a sorcerer that was keeping the troll at bay, so there is a troll invasion at this moment, etc.), but it's not something they took a lot of interest into. They still prefer to wander around lazily.