*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 20, 2019, 12:36:58 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 158 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: [Trollbabe] Conflicts and Pace  (Read 2451 times)
Paganini
Member

Posts: 1049


WWW
« on: June 15, 2004, 09:02:56 PM »

One of the things that I've never understood about Trollbabe caught my attention again tonight. I'm getting ready to run it again (a vampire game, this time, in fact). The question is this:

The statement of Goals happens before the declaration of Pace. This suggests that the achieval of the Goal rides on whether or not the character wins the required number of series (i.e., one series for Entire, two series for Exchange, three series for Blow).

But the rules *also* say that failing the first roll in a series stymies the character's goal in some way, and other places seem to suggest that each series represents some kind of specific activity in the game.

So, I'm wondering about that. Does each series in the conflict represent some kind of sub-goal, or is it just abstract, or are we just supposed to decide for our selves?
Logged

rafial
Member

Posts: 594


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2004, 11:59:19 PM »

Quote from: Paganini

The statement of Goals happens before the declaration of Pace. This suggests that the achieval of the Goal rides on whether or not the character wins the required number of series (i.e., one series for Entire, two series for Exchange, three series for Blow).


This is quite true.

Quote

But the rules *also* say that failing the first roll in a series stymies the character's goal in some way, and other places seem to suggest that each series represents some kind of specific activity in the game.


I think this is meant to inform the narration.  Pace permits interesting conflicts to be drawn out, and the win or loss if each individual series suggests the ebb and flow of the conflict.  "Win" -> our heroine opens with a bold series of attacks driving the enemy back, "Lose" -> oh no, she's tripped on a rock, the villian spies an opening, whatever shall she do? "Win" -> wait, the glint of sun off her sword blinds him as he thrusts ... etc.

So in an extended conflict, the narration cannot absolutely resolve a conflict one way or another until the requisite number of series are won, but each individual series sets the "tone of the moment" either progress toward the goal, or setbacks.
Logged
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2004, 06:31:33 AM »

Rafial's right. The actual conflict is not resolved until the requisite number of rolls (one out of one, two out of three, or three out of five) have been fully resolved.

Best,
Ron
Logged
Paganini
Member

Posts: 1049


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2004, 10:39:27 AM »

Actually Ron, thinking about it some more, my actual question isn't what I thought it was... it has more to do with IEEE. During a multi-series conflict, when do you state what each roll represents, and who does the stating?

I need an example... um... say Tha is casting a spell to put a village to sleep. She calls for a conflict, sets the pace at Exchange by Exchange. The GM is fine with that, so Tha has to win 2 series to succeed, with a maxium of 5 series rolled before an outcome is decided.

If Tha wins two series, the GM narrates the village going to sleep. If Tha loses two series, Tha narrates the failure.

So far so good, this is all basic from the rules. But there are a lot of rolls taking place in this framework of conflict. For each series, do you wait until after the series is resolved (and consequently know the trollbabe's current injury status) before deciding what that specific series represents in the context of the overall multi-series conflict?

I suppose you could treat each series like a mini-conflict in the overall conflict, with the player pre-stating a sub-goal, and the loser narrating the consequences. On the other hand, if you wait until after each series before narrating (as Rafial seems to indicate) who decides what it represented?

(Sorry to write all this out like that... I know you already know how it works. I'm just trying to get things clear in my own mind, as well as inform thread ovservers.)
Logged

Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2004, 11:20:03 AM »

Hiya,

Quote
suppose you could treat each series like a mini-conflict in the overall conflict, with the player pre-stating a sub-goal, and the loser narrating the consequences. On the other hand, if you wait until after each series before narrating (as Rafial seems to indicate) who decides what it represented?


Either way. Functionally, it's the same. If you want to go with your first option, which I often tend to do in play, then make sure the "little" goal doesn't override the overall conflict in scope or details.

Best,
Ron
Logged
Paganini
Member

Posts: 1049


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2004, 11:35:43 AM »

Cool. Thanks Ron, Rafial.
Logged

Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!