[Stranger Things] Lock, Stock, and Smoking Dragonhide

[Darren Hill]

Some general questions:

1.  Say my character, Taken the Mage (2) hires a NPC ("Master Shadow"), forming a relationship, and that NPCs task is to go steal a Frumbalizer from Jargo the Red.  (when I say hire, I mean I dominate their mind and make them do my will - a (Demon) Magic conflict to make them follow my orders)

Do I roll my shadow to see if he can steal the item? Or does the GM (with player input) simply decide without rolling to see if the NPC succeeds.  Is this complicated if Jargo is another Stranger(character)?

This topic was discussed recently, here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16155.0
In short, if you want an NPC you have a relationship to do something, you can say he does it. If the GM thinks this requires a conflict, you'll resolve it using your Stranger's scores.

Regarding the freeform idea: ST and trollbabe do have a strong storytelling element, but the dice rolls and numbers are there for a reason. The way narration is distributed between GM and player (success and failure) is I think very interesting.
It was mentioned up in the first post that there weren't too many reroll uses - so either the players in this game were failing and happy to accept those failures, or succeeding on first roll. Both of those elements might easily contribute to the image you have of the game - but the tension can really ramp up when players get drawn into conflicts that they really want to win, and are either unlucky or their number is low. That can produce the battered and bloody heroes you spoke of above.

[jetboy]

I guess i have played only totally out there, or completely rule based, so this game - which is very much in the middle confuses my limited scope.   it comes down to the fact that I have never played troll-blade, so i dont have the basic concept.  i want to say first off that all of my compaints are not actually compaints-   Our session was actually amazingly well formulated and everyone had a grea time (incuding me!).  if it wasn't a play test I wouldn't say a thing.  its really just because i want to make trouble and try to define and expand the game that i bother posting.

I thank you for the link explaining and discussing more in dept the NPC relationship issue - of course we only had a one-off, so were not able to explore the relationships to any depth - which I have come to realize are a key element to the game.  I am sorry that I did not read more carefully previously posted material before posting my own questions. 


I now understand better:

1.  relationships with items
2.  relationships with NPCs

I am still not satisfied with realative power levels, which no one has commented on from my initial post.  you are saying its perfectly fine for my emaciated mage to punch a dragon in the nose, and if I roll a 1, knock it out???

[rafial]

I am still not satisfied with realative power levels, which no one has commented on from my initial post.  you are saying its perfectly fine for my emaciated mage to punch a dragon in the nose, and if I roll a 1, knock it out???

Who is to say the mage threw a punch?  The way the system works, you work backwards from success or failed intent to the events that actually brought it about.  "I punch the dragon in the nose, knocking him out" is typically not a very good intent.  Better might be "I prevent the dragon from eating the helpless villagers".  If you roll a 1, then the GM is going to describe how that intent is fulfilled.  Perhaps in trying to gobble up your mage, who is desperately trying to get out of the way, the dragon knocks itself silly on some obstacle.  Perhaps your mage simply stands his ground, and the dragon is so impressed with his bravery in the face of certain doom, that he backs off.  Perhaps you mage actually notices a missing scale on the dragons neck and drives his dagger home.  The GM will pick some alternative that both satisifies what the dice say about intention achieved or not achieved, and also preserves the idea and image that you and other people at the table have concerning your character.  And you (or anybody else) are free to chime in with suggestions about what you think might have happened.  The rules just give the GM "final approval" over a success narration, they don't mean that everybody else at the table has to shut up.

So if the GM starts to say "The scrawny mage picks up the 150' dragon by the tail and starts to whirl him around..." and that totally offends your sense of the world that you and your fellow players have been building up, speak up.  Say "I don't like that, and here's why".  If another player starts to narrate something in one of their failure narrations that you think totally goes against the vibe of the imagined world, say so.  If you are playing with people who are there to participate in the experience, you and your fellow players will quickly work out what should and should not be happening with your characters and in your world.  If you are playing with jerks, they'll ruin the mood no matter what system you use.

On the other hand, maybe there is some other group out there that likes little mages suddenly freaking out and felling dragons with one blow of their scrawny fist in a big wuxia wire fight.  Trollbabe and Stranger Things has no comment on the rightness or wrongness of that.  Every playgroup must police the vibe of the setting for themselves.

[John Harper]

Thanks for responding, Jetboy. I appreciate all feedback about the game. Hope you don't feel like we're ganging up on you.

About "power levels." No, it is certainly NOT alright for your emaciated mage to punch a dragon in the nose and knock it out. I would never allow that in a ST game of mine. Here's the secret: the GM has final say about what gets narrated after a successful roll. I don't think any GM would dare to narrate that the scrawny little mage punches the dragon once, and it falls over dead. Everyone would think that was stupid. Also, during free-and-clear, when the set-up for the roll is negotiated, I don't think you, as a player would say "I'm punching it in the nose with my scrawny arm!"

Silly outcomes only make their way into the game if everyone playing allows them to. If a set-up during free and clear sounds silly to you, say so! If an element of narration by the GM sounds impossible, say something.

Finally, yes you most certainly can call for a conflict of Blood against the dragon, roll a 1 and succeed at your goal. However, goals and narration possibilities are negotiated during free and clear. As GM, I would never agree to the goal of "defeat the dragon" with a single blow from a scrawny mage. How about, "distract the dragon so I can lead it out of the neighborhood." Fine. Or, "piss the dragon off so it starts wrecking everything in sight." Perfect. Since the GM narrates successes, he is fully within his rights in the game to say "I won't narrate that" when it comes to a goal that seems impossible.

Let's say, though, that your mage has a dragon-slaying knife. Maybe he got it in an earlier scene. Or you just made it up now... whatever. Things are different. Now, you want to take your 1 in 10 shot at "defeat the dragon" with a miraculous stab at just the right moment as the creature's massive jaws snap just inches from your face? Hell yeah. Go for it.

Does that answer your question?

(edit: cross-posted with Rafial -- behold the eerie similarities!)

[jetboy]

yes, in fact you do answer my question!  actually you answer 2 questions. 

1st question is the power the GM has over the game play in determining realistic goals for the character- something i think should be more explicitly described in the playbook. 

the 2nd question stems from a problem I had in that my character had obtained by the end, a alchemical whip specifically designed to kill vampires - and the comment was made, that with my blood score(1 for those late to the thread), that the whip was basically useless to me!  I thought that  no matter how sucky I was, the whip should give me an advantage in fighting vampires.. and I did not see where the game mechanics allowed for this.  (not we had forgotten item relationships ) but I see where, while normally I might be not be able to destroy a vampire at all, the whip would allow me have the chance to do so. 

again, an example like this in the playbook would help people with feeble brains such as myself! *grin*

[Darren Hill]

There's two things about power levels that haven't been discussed yet:
To add to John and Rafial's points: when you do a conflict, there's a particular procedure to follow. Before you roll any dice there's something called the Fair and Clear stage - this is where the GM and player declare their actions, and the GM reveals any information the player needs to know if he narrates. It's at this stage that any unkillability of creatures should be revealed.
The player would say, "I'm going to punch out the dragon."
GM: "Um, no. The dragon is pretty tough, you'll need to come up with some more compelling narration than that to deal with it."
or GM: "As it happens, this dragon is beyond your skills to defeat. So your goal should be something like 'rescue the damsel', or 'keep it busy while its prey escapes,' or 'during your fight, get it to smash open the Unbreakable Vault,' or whatever."

In Trollbabe (and I expect the final printing of ST to follow suit), it is also possible - under certain circumstances - to suffer penalties (never more than -2) to your rolls. So that Blood score of 1-8 becomes 1-6. Things can get pretty tricky then!

Finally, whether a Stranger can hurt/kill a foe doesn't have to be entirely GM fiat. Trollbabe and Stranger Things have something called Scale. This is the scope of power a Stranger's powers have. At the start of a campaign, Scale is "Single Person". By the end of a campaign, it can be "Entire City" (which in ST is the same as "entire world".
I'm not sure this next paragraph is entirely legit, but I like it. :)
A GM could easily say that a Dragon is at the scale of "District", which could have the effect that a Stranger can not directly defeat it until the campaign has reached District-level scale. Conflicts involving the dragon would then be limited to things like, "save the damsel from the dragon," with everyone knowing at the outset that the dragon will not be seriously hurt by the conflict. But once the campaign is at District-level, then defeating that dragon becomes possible during a simple conflict.

[Bankuei]

Hi,

The most important thing that lies at the center of this discussion is that the resolution mechanics for ST do not emulate or dictate any sort of "physics", all that lies in the hands of the group.  The dice help dictate which way the "tables turn" in a cinematic sense- the group then justifies how that is plausible.

For instance, if our friend Azzizya, the meaty number 8 Hellboy type, fails at a Blood roll in a fight, does that mean he throws a wussy punch?  No!  Plausibly, maybe he's fighting a fast guy who ducks while he knocks a hole in the wall, maybe he's fighting a wizard who throws up an illusion or a magical forcefield, or maybe he's fighting a dragon or something tough enough to take the punchs and laugh at him.

Thing is- when you fail, you narrate how that happens in a way that is plausible to you, and the group says, "Yeah! Cool!" or "Dude!  We're playing this game, not Rifts!" or whatever works.  On the flip side, when you succeed, obviously as a GM, I've got to plausibly narrate the goal and the action you've been aiming at.  So, in the end, the dice say whether you made it or not, but not how it exactly goes down.

In the case of our playtest, I let the dragon go down because it made for an easy and clean wrap up to a one-shot.  I don't know if any of you guys will get the time to get together again and make another run at it, so I figured, "Why not?  Cool stuff should happen now!". =)

Chris

[Alan]

Hey John,

In Trollbabe, the rules specifical state that PCs are considered hyper-competent in fighting, magic, and social skills.  When no conflict is declared, the PC succeeds with style. 

Will this concept be ported to ST?

Anyway, my take is that the Number just reflects where the player would like to see adversity.  It has no relation to the Stranger's "in-game" competence.  A Stranger with Blood roll of 1-8, with a Blood descriptor of Lucky Bumbler will have a whole different presentation from a Stranger with the same number but a descriptor of Whirling Blade Master.

[John Harper]

Alan,

Yes, that's addressed in the rules. There's a section in there now that talks about how your character's abilities are not determined by your scores or conflict rolls.

Here's a bit of text talking about narration of failures:

When a conflict arises, we cast a die to determine the fate of the Stranger, using the method outlined above. It is important to remember that the casting of the die (and its result) does not represent the capabilities or actions of the Stranger. The die roll merely tells us whether or not the Stranger manages to achieve his goal or not. It is the narration surrounding the die roll (both before and after) that establishes the details of what happened—why the Stranger succeeded or failed. The player of the Stranger will shape the nature of these narrations, so that she can present the character in any light she likes—a skilled and resolute hero, an uncertain and fumbling novice, or anything in-between.

For example, Vozhu Lor's number is 5. His player, Tony, imagines Vozhu Lor as a master duelist and pistolier. He enters into a conflict of Blood, with the goal of "Make my way into the inner sanctum of the Red Wizard." Tony rolls a die and gets a 7—a failure. Fate has not smiled on him tonight. This failure, however, can be described in any number of ways. All we know for sure is that Vozu Lor has not made his way into the inner sanctum.

Tony chooses to describe his defeat as a series of moments from the pitched battle between Vozhu Lor and the black-clad swordsmen guarding the Wizard's keep. Vozhu cuts, parries, leaps, flips, and shoots, laying a score of enemy out in a bloody trail behind him. But the further he goes, the more frenzied grow the defenders, as do their number. They finally overwhelm Vozhu Lor in a sea of blades and burning eyes, leaving him no choice but to leap from the wall of the keep into the rushing waters of a canal below.

As you can see, even if Fate does not look kindly upon your Stranger, they may still act the part of the hero. A failed roll does not necessarily mean a failure of talent in your character. Likewise, a successful roll can represent a stroke of luck or coincedence rather than heroic ability, if you like.

There's also a sidebar on that same page (p. 25 in the playtest PDF) titled "Can I Do That?" that directly addresses the power-level issues Jetboy is talking about.

[Sydney Freedberg]

As long as comparing Stranger Things to Trollbabe is on topic: How does the change in the nature of the protagonists make the two different? I recall that Ron Edwards has emphasized that the core of the original game is "wandering woman of power," with the "between two peoples" aspect being secondary, whereas Stranger Things emphasizes in-between-ness. Also, it seems that Trollbabe strongly specifies the type of character to play but leaves the setting pretty wide open, whereas Stranger Things has a more specified setting and less specified characters.

[John Harper]

You're right on target, Sydney. Stranger Things deals mainly with the themes of bigotry and ignorance, with the Strangers caught between two cultures that mistrust and fear each other because of their differences. The City setting is a big component of the game, since it acts as the pressure-cooker for the demons and humans. They are all packed into the City and can't simply leave each other alone. They are forced to face their ignorance and hatred, and either give in to it or rise above. The Strangers are a powerful force that can tip the balance.

Like Trollbabe, there are other stories to tell, too. Human vs human conflict, demon vs demon, weird monsters threatening the City, Stranger/human or Stranger/demon love stories, etc.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Now, the question that may be hard to answer at this early stage: Given these differences in how character, situation, and setting are set up, are you or your playtesters seeing any emergent effects -- systematic differences in Actual Play, especially ones that surprise you? I wouldn't have expected Trollbabe to produce a story with Guy Ritchie vibe, for example.

[John Harper]

It really is too early to tell. I can say that I intend for ST play to be different from TB play, and so far it has been. One thing I've noticed in the playtests (and this might be a coincidence) is that players are embedding their Strangers more deeply into the setting than I thought they would. Instead of the rootless wanderers I have been imagining, they're making Strangers that are tied to the community. Wilhelm made a character that was a hugely popular socialite, for example. I'm not sure why this is, or whether it's something I want to address in the text. I think Strangers should definitely not have "jobs" per se, but other than that, players can do what they want.

Maybe something about the dense urban setting (as opposed to the wide, windswept Trollbabe world) makes players think of more intimate communities and connections. Or not. With only four playtests, it's probably too early to tell.