[Trollbabe] Action-type question

[dyjoots]

In the text of Trollbabe, there are examples of a Trollbabe trying to spot or escape an ambush, used as an example of who the player can call for a conflict that creates situations in the game.  Basically, an conflict that involves stealth.  The issue I had was that none of the examples explain what Action-type this is.  After some discussion, a couple of options came up:

1) The purpose of the ambush should determine the action type to avoid it.  For example, if the ambush is a plan to surprise attack the Trollbabe, then the Trollbabe can use Fighting to avoid it.

2) "Fighting" actions include any physical actions, including sneaking around.


Are either of these correct?  If not, what is?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Ron's out, so I think I'll try to answer this one. I've not graduated from Trollbabe, though, so this isn't reliable.

The action type depends concretely on what the Trollbabe is doing, not what the opposition is doing. This is why you can answer armed men with any of the three types - the difference is between approaches, not challenges. Considering this basic premise, I'd say stealth is a part of fighting. Although the game doesn't straight out say it, my impression is that the three conflict types are mainly significant for character-profiling reasons. The distinction between physical prowess and stealth is again gamer-think, so I don't think Ron worried about that when designing the game. Physical prowess is physical prowess, and fighting is the stat used to represent that.

[dyjoots]

Ron's out, so I think I'll try to answer this one. I've not graduated from Trollbabe, though, so this isn't reliable.

The action type depends concretely on what the Trollbabe is doing, not what the opposition is doing. This is why you can answer armed men with any of the three types - the difference is between approaches, not challenges. Considering this basic premise, I'd say stealth is a part of fighting. Although the game doesn't straight out say it, my impression is that the three conflict types are mainly significant for character-profiling reasons. The distinction between physical prowess and stealth is again gamer-think, so I don't think Ron worried about that when designing the game. Physical prowess is physical prowess, and fighting is the stat used to represent that.

Sounds good to me.  I had considered using it that way, and I intend to, because it makes the most sense in the context of the game.  I don't know that the difference between stealth and physical prowess is "gamer think," but I do agree that it may not be an important difference in the context of Trollbabe's conflict resolution.  The reason the question popped up was because the link between the example of dealing with an ambush and the entry for what Fighting actions resolved didn't connect in my mind at first.

[Ron Edwards]

The rules ought to help with this one. They say, the person who calls for the Conflict also specifies the Action Type. For a situation like this one, in which the player is essentially framing a whole new conflict out of whole cloth, Eero's right in that the relevant justification is merely a description of what the trollbabe is doing, and it carries the helpful implication for the GM, in this case, of what to do if the roll fails - i.e., how to threaten the trollbabe.

Best,
Ron

[John Harper]

I've always handled it by interpreting the three action types pretty literally. If it's not Fighting, Magic, or Social, you don't ever roll a conflict for it. The player says, "I sneak into the cave." Okay, done. Or they say, "I try to sneak into the cave, but the troll sentry spots me! I clobber him! Fighting conflict!" That's the kind of player Trollbabe fosters.

I generally try to give the Trollbabes hell, but take it very easy on the players. This means I never ask them for "ability checks" to do things. They say they sneak, they sneak. They say they climb, they climb. No hassles. When the Trollbabe really wants something and there's an NPC around (or suddenly invented) that wants something to the contrary, then you have conflict -- which generally becomes a fight, a spell, or a conversation.

[Ron Edwards]

Excellent point, John. I'll only modify it slightly by pointing out my long-standing distinction between "characters" and "furniture," which goes waaay back ...

Further on Stances
Possible explanation of GNS
[Sorcerer] Thinking about initiative
Stance theory: the hegemony of one character
First question - resolution without people
People and furniture in DitV

There was a great discussion about it across various blogs too, but I have a hard time searching blogs.

Best,
Ron