The Forge Archives

Hello,

With all the Trollbabe playing going on I reread the game last night.  I'm still trying to figure out how to convince my group to give this a try but sadly, I think the women in the group are put off by the "Troll" part and the men in the group are put of by the "Babe" part.  Oh well.

I still have some rules questions though.

On Goals:

The text's comments of Stakes and Consequences needing to be concrete and not abstract seem to apply also to stated Goals for a conflict.  This is backed up when you mention that "To magically charm him" is not a goal.  Am I correct in this thinking?

I'm specifically thinking of a situation that happens A LOT in my games.  A character comes to a new area and the player immediately announces that they are going to the tavern/local lord/crime boss whatever and start doing this or that and when I ask why they tell me, "I'm trying in indear myself to him/them."  I never really know what to do here except to roll Diplomacy or some such and make a note that the the player has/hasn't won favor with the NPC/group in question.

The comments on Stakes and the implications on Goals made me realize what the problem is.  The player isn't telling me WHY they are indearing themselves to whomever.  But if I ask why, the response is inevitabley, "Because it might be useful later."  You see, the player doesn't know either.  It's just a pre-emptive step to "setting up" something latter down the road.

Now this situation seems PERFECT for using the relationship rules.  It seems that what the player wants to do in Trollbabe terms is add Tavern Patrons or whatever to his relationships for use in a reroll latter.  BUT the player can't add them as a relationship until that group has been involved in a roll which requires a concrete Goal.  It's a catch-22.  Can't set a goal until I know what I'm working with, can't know what I'm working with until I set a goal.

Am I off base?  Is, "Winning Favor with an <Entity>?" a Goal?  Or am I right in assessing that it seems too much like, "Magically Charm Him?"  If I'm right, how do you recommend handling the above situations.  

On Pace:

First of all, if you ever decide to do a rewrite, I would like to recommend that you put the Pace rules AFTER the discussion of how a Series is resolved.  As it stands the text defines what a Series is only once before this section and the character creation information is in between.  By the time I get to the Pace rules I've forgotten what a Series is.

Anyway, I THINK I understand how Pace works but I wanted to run through an example to make sure.  Please correct me if this is wrong.

To work off the above example, my Trollbabe, let's call her Shalla, is "Trying to win favor with a group of Tavern Patrons..." assuming I'm right about the concreteness of goals I'll add, "...to vote for a certain candiate in a local election."  Just for fun I'm going to set the Pace at: Action-By-Action.  Acording to the text I must succeed at Three Whole Series to achieve my goal and that I'm allowed to switch Action Types between Series.

So here we go:

Okay, I state that Shalla is going to start by buying everyone in the house a drink thus making this a Social roll.  I roll and fail.  I'm now discommoded.  So, I say, "It turns out that alcohol is really fround upon here and is infact illegal, so when Shalla walks up the bar and orders, 'a round of ale for the house,' the bartender gives her this really shocked and icy stare."

At this point I have a choice.  I can either check something off to reroll which would still be a Social roll no matter what I check off OR I could declare this Series a failure and start a new Series with a different action type.

Okay, so let's say I want to drop the series and start over with a Magic roll, so I say that Shalla tries to throw a little "forget" spell on the bartender to cover her faux pas.  (Side Question: Does this violate the rules about no snap-shot magic?  I.E. This would be OKAY for the reroll on the first Social roll but not okay for starting a new Magic Series?).  For sake of argument let's say that is is okay for me to do this.  So, I roll Magic and breath a sigh a relief because I've succeeded.

HOWEVER, this does NOT mean I've acomplished my Goal because I've declared an Action-By-Action Pace, correct?  I still have to succeed at two more Series, right?

So the GM narrates, that the bartender for a moment, looks at Shalla quizically and states that a round of their finest well water is coming up.  I then state that Shalla is going to tell a rousing tale and I'm back to doing Social roll but I fail again.  Now I'm still discommoded from the first failure, even though I've had a success inbetween, right?  So, this means I'm now injured.  So I say, "It seems that my little rousing tale was a little TOO rousing and a bar brawl break out.  In the chaos Shalla is injured."

So, NOW, I decide that Shalla has got to try to bring some order to this mess so she dives in to try to bring the mob under controll starting her fourth series of the conflict with a Fighting Roll.  The roll is a success and the GM, "Narrates after cracking a few heads together Shalla manages to untangle the unrully patrons"  BUT this is only the second successful Series so the outcome of the conflict is STILL not decided so the GM adds, "but the local constabulary has shown up in response to the ruckus and demands to know who's responsible."

Shalla, in her last effort to try and win these people over tries to shoulder the blame instigating her fifth and final Series which is a Social roll.  Social rolls have been cruel to her all night but low and behold it's a SUCCESS!  So the local constabulary drags Shalla off to jail but she shouts over her shoulder, "Remember to VOTE FOR MAYOR TRALLDOR, because he takes care of you!" and the patrons trundle off to the polls.

So, do I have that right?  Is that how Action-By-Action works?  If that's the case then I might suggest a slight re-wording of the Series text.  Failure/Success of the Series does not necessarily indicate Failure/Success of the Goal right away if the Pace is correct.

Fhew, this is getting longer than I thought.  Okay, my last question has to do with Relationships.  So, Relationship NPCs are controlled by the Player.  Great I got that.  And the rules are pretty clear about how to use NPCs in a conflict.  But I'm curious about what happens when the player wants to use an NPC to resolve a conflict in totality without the Trollbabe becoming directly involved at all.

Example: Shalla is insulted by a local bandit king and the two agree to dual at dawn.  I decide that Shalla's lover, Daren, doesn't want to see Shalla get hurt so he sneaks off in the middle of the night while Shalla is sleeping to kill the bandit king himself.

What happens?  Does the GM just decide?  I could see this being an extention of Shalla fighting the duel and so it's a Fighting roll.  But um, how does Shalla get injured if she's sleeping peacefully in her tent?

Example: Shalla finds out that in three days there's going to be an assassination attempt on the duke of neighboring land.  However, for whatever reason Shalla decides that she can't go herself so she sends her trusted companion Ingrid with a note.  Does the companion make it in time?

Again, what do I roll?  How do the effects impact Shalla?  Indeed even if Shalla was going herself what do I roll?  A race against time doesn't seem to be covered by Social, Fighting OR Magic unless Shalla was usiing some magical means for transport.

Hmmmm:  Just had a thought are the two examples above uses of the um, "first strike" Relationship use?  It seems a little Odd, since the re-rolls would span scenes.  And in some cases it would seem odd to allow rerolls at all.

I think that covers my questions.

Jesse

Oops.  Forgot one question.

On The Scale of The Stakes:

Is the Scale of the Stakes, set for the group as whole or on a Trollbabe by Trollbabe basis?  If it's set for the group as a whole how do you settle disputes if one player wants to "raise the stakes", so to speak, and another player does not?  If it's set on a Trolbabe by Trollbabe basis then how do you recommend handling two or more Trollbabes who are in the same location (and thus propably sharing adventure elements) but operating at different Stake Scales?

Jesse

Hi there,

You've got the basic framework down, but some of your phrasing is off, and that leads to further complications, which then throw off your overall understanding.

ONE
Let' s go back to Shalla's first failed roll. You have a choice, as you say - "stay with" this roll and try to re-roll it, or move onto a new roll (the second try out of a potential five). The problem with your phrasing is that you seem to think moving on to the new roll necessarily means switching Action Types. You don't have to do so, and in practice, most people don't.

All right, now we move on ... but bear in mind that, unlike the way you put it, this is not in any way "starting over." You have potentially five rolls here - as soon as you accumulate either three successes or three failures, the goal is successful or failed. Ain't no starting over. You do understand that, I see, by your question whether you still have "two to go," which is correct.

You're right about the discommoding carrying through from Series to Series in a higher-Pace conflict, meaning the this failure hops straight to Injury. However, another detail crops up ... since it was a Social roll, it's OK to restrict the injury to a Social context. It'll affect all subsequent rolls, sure, but you don't have to gimmick up some kind of physical injury if it makes no sense or seems like an annoying stretch.

You're correct about the second successful roll as merely being #2 of the necessary three.

The GM adding the constabulary is not allowed. No messing-about with the context of the conflict is permitted until it's done, unless a player decides to bring in a relationship or a sudden ally for re-roll purposes.

I also think your hypothetical GM is not quite right in having her dragged off by the constables, not only because they shouldn't be there, but because that in and of itself seems like a new conflict to me.

TWO and THREE
Yes, both of the next examples represent the "first strike" application of the relationship mechanic. That's given. Just to be complete, that means that the relationship will not be available for re-rolls again for the entire session or without special attention.

So the lover has gone off to kill the bandit guy. If I'm reading you correctly, you're concerned about the consequences to Shalla if we extend the Series down the chart. Why would she be injured, for example? Well golly, she's unguarded in her tent, isn't she? Doesn't sound hard to me to narrate - hell, I could even leave it unknown who did it!

A conflict always[/] places the trollbabe at risk.

I hope that helps with that example, and let's move on to the Ingrid one.

This one absolutely illustrates your uneasiness with the goal/task distinction. There is no such thing as a "race against time" in a story. The conflict is a social one - does or does not Shalla manage to communicate the crucial information to the duke? It's her against those who are trying to deceive him. Bear in mind that by calling this conflict, arguably, the player or GM is guaranteeing the duke's death by assassination if she fails the roll. I cannot see any other way to interpret this action, and even if she uses magic means to deliver the message, it'd be a Magic + Social, not Magic alone.

AND ...
I thought the text was pretty clear about the Scale/Stakes issue. Scale applies as a blanket across all the player-characters at all times. There is only ever one Scale in play at any given session. If one player (out of however many) wants to raise the Scale between sessions, they're raised, for everyone. So everyone starts at the personal Scale, then when it goes up to the small-group Scale, it goes up for everyone. There is no veto possible and there is no going backwards/downwards again. This is a deliberate design feature, and part of the Social Contract of playing Trollbabe is recognizing this rule - it is impossible to have a "disagreement" about it, because one player's desire to raise the Scale is always sufficient. Disputes about that are literally against the rules.

Best,
Ron

I'm going to be the GM in our upcoming Trollbabe run, so let me practice by answering some of these from my understanding of the rules, and hopefully Ron or somebody else can correct any egregious mistakes that I make:

Quote from: jburneko
Now I'm still discommoded from the first failure, even though I've had a success inbetween, right?  So, this means I'm now injured.

Your action by action summary was pretty good, but I don't believe this is correct.  An uninjured Trollbabe can only become injured by continuing a series past the first roll.  If you are doing action by action pace, and fail the first series on the first roll, then succeed the second on the first roll, and fail the third on the first roll, you are only discommoded, and only in the context of the current state of the action.

Where this changes is if you become injured early in the series.  Then a failed roll in a later series in the same scene is going to result in another inury, regardless of the outcome of the series, because of the way the chart works.  Once you are injured, you are on the fast track to incapacitation if the dice work against you.  Until then, you can always choose to walk away from a failed roll.

Quote
Failure/Success of the Series does not necessarily indicate Failure/Success of the Goal right away if the Pace is correct.

Correct.  It should however represent a step in the direction of your overall goal, or a setback.  I think your example shows this very nicely.  I especially like the touch that even though the Trollbabe is being hustled off to the pokey, her actual outcome for the scene is a success.   As the GM in the situation, I'd probably rule that the Trollbabe is questioned and released, unless the player specifically asked for the scene to go otherwise.

Quote
Example: Shalla is insulted by a local bandit king and the two agree to duel at dawn.  I decide that Shalla's lover, Daren, doesn't want to see Shalla get hurt so he sneaks off in the middle of the night while Shalla is sleeping to kill the bandit king himself.

What happens?  Does the GM just decide?  I could see this being an extention of Shalla fighting the duel and so it's a Fighting roll.  But um, how does Shalla get injured if she's sleeping peacefully in her tent?

This is totally covered by "going first" as you noted later.  And the rules state that if a roll is failed with the Relation "going first", the Trollbabe is *not* injured, unless the series is continued by the Trollbabe herself entering the scene.  And in that case, she starts at the top of the chart anyway, but she is now in the scene.

In this case, if you fail the first roll, you might state that Shalla wakes up and discovers her lover is missing, and shows up just in time to witness the bandit king about to kill him, thus bringing her into the scene.

What is not clear to me is if it is possible for a Relation that has "gone first" to continue a series without bringing the Trollbabe into the scene.  I think it may be that when you do something like this, you have to accept the outcome of the first roll unless you directly involve the Trollbabe.

Quote
Example: Shalla finds out that in three days there's going to be an assassination attempt on the duke of neighboring land.  However, for whatever reason Shalla decides that she can't go herself so she sends her trusted companion Ingrid with a note.  Does the companion make it in time?

Again, what do I roll?  How do the effects impact Shalla?  Indeed even if Shalla was going herself what do I roll?  A race against time doesn't seem to be covered by Social, Fighting OR Magic unless Shalla was usiing some magical means for transport.

This is an excellent question, and I'd love to hear Ron's take on it.  One thought I have is that as an overall goal, "do you make it in time" is a bit abstract.  As the GM, I'd probably look at the map (if there is one), see if it seems reasonable that the traveller could make it in time by their current mode of travel (i.e. foot, horse boat).  If they can, well then of course they make it, unless I or the player decides that they should have some specific obstacle  to overcome, i.e. a rockslide blocks the trail, a fierce storm breaks out, or enemies get wind of the mission and send pursuit.  Then you can play out scenes with more focused goals determining if the pursuit is overcome.

I'd like to hear Ron's take on the idea of extended scenes where a Relation stands in for the Trollbabe.  There is an interesting example of this in the indie-gaming Trollbabe logs, but while it worked well in that context, I rather wonder if this doesn't take away from the focus on the Trollbabes themselves.  In the above example of sending a follower to deliver a message, I think it is pretty much up to the GM to decide if the message arrives, based on what she/he thinks is the most interesting outcome.

Whoops, Rafial's right about the discommoding not carrying over from roll to roll within a conflict. Only injury does that.

Best,
Ron

Oh, that changes some of the way I had run things.

I had interpreted the 'discommode' level as the 'first level of injury'.

Having 'discommode' drop off during multi-roll pace is better. Now you can take a series of first roll discomodes, taking the fail result for the individual exchanges, without sending yourself along the track to hurtsville.My interpretation did.

Hello Again,

Thanks to you both, that cleared A LOT of things up for me.

I do have one more question.

How does one "die" from a Social Conflict?  I get social injury: Embarasment, loss of status, losing someone's trust, etc, etc.

However, the rules for relationship related death say this, "when a trollbabe is incapacitated, and if any relationships were involved in the Series as re-rolls-and if those people were physically present or otherwise directly involved--then they die."

Perhaps, I'm being a bit TOO litteral but other than the stipulation of the person needing to be physically present there is not stipulation on what kind of "threat" they are exposed to.

Example: Shalla is trying to convince the local lord that he must evacuate his township to avoid an approaching threat.  First roll fails, the lord simply believes that Shalla is overestimating the threat.  Shalla's player wants to use her relationship with Ingrid for a re-roll.  Earlier in the session Ingrid witnessed whatever the threat was so to earn the re-roll in this conflict Shalla's player has Ingrid step forward and back up Shalla's assertion by telling her a story about what she saw.  The roll fails again.

So, now Shalla needs to be injured in some way.  So, the lord snaps something about 'Not speaking unless spoken too,' shoots a nasty glance at Shalla and mutters something about not being able to control her servants.

For a third an final reroll let's say Shalla uses something like Object on Person, and shows the lord some piece of evidence that the threat is real.  Again the roll fails.

Hmmmm....  The only way I seem to be able to "incapacitate" a player socially is to have the character physically removed from the situation by force.  The only thing I can think of this that the lord call for guards, and have Shalla thrown in a cell for her "insolence."  Too many years of having players bully me in social scenes by refusing to give up on endless sequences of failed Intimdate/Bluff/Diplomacy rolls, I guess.

In any event, I'm not sure how Ingrid would "die" in this scene or even if the threat of death even applies since I may be missing the obvious condition that death must even be a threat.  It's just Trollbabe is so explicit about everything else.

Jesse

Hi Jesse,

I guess my call is this. If a player decides to go for the second re-roll, and if he or she calls in (or has already called in) a relationship for re-roll purposes in this Series, then it means - ipso facto - "Death for my relationship-NPC has just entered the picture."

So that means its potential needs to be above-board before the roll. It's not a matter of seeing the die hit the table, then going, "Oh no, how can I narrate this." It's a matter of understanding the ramp-up of the conflict such that the NPC's life is now threatened.

The rules do state that potential conditions of failure sometimes have to be worked out before the rolls. I think it's most clear in the trollbabe/trollbabe conflict rules, but the principle applies across the board (stressing the "sometimes" part).

In the example, h'm, let's start with "incapacitated" for the trollbabe, which depends on the narrator of the moment. You seem pretty dead-set on your "guards drag you off" deal, for some reason. "Hit on the head by a guard behind her" seems OK too. Whatever. The narrator has a lot of leeway here, very much as in Dust Devils (in which taking maximum damage can mean a hangnail or a decapitation).

That settled, we move on the Ingrid nuance - she's dead. Incapacitated trollbabe (in whatever fashion) = dead relationship. Again, don't get all hung up about "It's a Social conflict, so the injury has to be social" [incorrect] "and the NPC's 'death' is a social death, huhhh?" She's ... dead.

So it's easy as pie simply to kill Shalla the standard way - sword or axe or dagger. Does it happen that instant (by an over-enthusiastic guard, or at the lord's angry command)? Does it happen overnight as Shalla sleeps off the bump on her head in the dungeon? Again, up to the narrator of the moment. The third re-roll might even be conducted specifically for the player to win the right to this narration re: the NPC.

Best,
Ron

Okay, so the whole thing is becoming a lot clearer.  I did think of yet another question.

The question relates to the -2 magic modifier for being the wrong type of magic.  This seems unusually harsh.  Not in terms of the size of the penalty but in terms of player announcement.  It seems like the only place in the game (or any of your games, for that matter) where there's a rule a kin to, "You said it out loud and so it's so, can't go back now! Ha Ha Ha!" rule.

In the example of Rhetta using Human Magic to calm the Sea's "emotions."  I don't understand why once the GM says, that nature Troll magic is better Rhetta's player just can't go, "Oh, okay, in that case I use troll magic and attempt to push the waves into submission with my will!" or something.

Jesse

Quote from: Ron Edwards
The third re-roll might even be conducted specifically for the player to win the right to this narration re: the NPC.

Huh, so I just realized the "third re-roll" can never cause the consequences to get any worse for the Trollbabe.  The worst outcome is still "incapacitated, GM describes" unless the player specifically chooses to die.

So this leads to the following thought.  I grant that the top left column on page 31 specifics lays out the the "Trollbabe incapicated -- relationship dies" rule.  But let us pretend for a moment that this explicit statement did not appear.

Going strictly from the reroll chart, and the notion that the relationship ends up one step worse, then one step worse than the third box "incapacitated -- GM describes" is box four "incapacitated -- GM describes or Player describes death".

So from this result you *could* argue that the one step worse for the relationship in this case is still incapacitiation, *unless* the player chooses to seize some narrative control by describing the death of the Relation.

Now I can also see arguments for things as described on page 31, since it provides a reason for players to be cautious about using their relationships for rerolls, by emphasizing that people who hang around with trollbabes have a way of winding up dead...

Rafial's post just made me look something up and now I'm confused again.  It's that phrasing third re-roll, which really means FOURTH die roll of the Series.

So, injury says this: "An injured character ignores the "discommoded" step and proceeds to further injury right away on a failed roll; therefore she is limited to a total of two re-rolls instead of three."

I suddenly realized that I don't think this means what I think it means.

When I first read this:  I thought, okay, so once you're injured any new conflicts that arrise pickup in the sequence where your last one left off.  But that can't be right because that wouldn't account for TWO re-rolls.

Example 1 (What I Thought It Said): Shalla is doing something requiring a roll.  In the previous conflict she was injured.  Thus, if she fails this roll, she goes to Incapacitate and can attempt to re-roll for narration rights.  But that's only ONE re-roll, two die rolls total, in the series and doesn't fit the description.

Example 2 (What I Think It Says Now):  Same thing, Shalla is doing something require a roll and in the previous conflict she was injured.  If the FIRST roll of the series fails, she gets Injured AGAIN and failure of the SECOND roll (first re-roll) results in incapacitation.  She can try a third roll (second re-roll) for narration rights.

But now I'm curious, how can anyone ever be "triply-injured"?

In Conflict 1 I fail my roll twice and I'm Injured.  In Conflict 2 I fail my roll once and I'm doubly injured.  In Conflict 3, if I fail my roll once then I become incapacitated immediately (I could roll one more time for narration rights).  When I recover from being incapacitated am I triply-injured, doubly injured or just injured?

Jesse

I was reading things much the same way as you. Which led to Chris's Yulari having all sorts of trouble with the Hermit, after she got hurt.

For myself, I was starting the Chris's formerly incapacitated Babe back at fully healed (something the Hermit seemed good at). If I was running a game face-to-face I would have the Babe continue on at the normal Injured status (with no double, triple, etc).

I would make the circumstances around being incapacitated complicating enough that being injured isn't the most important thing. Just my preference though.

Edited in: the 2 reroll, 3rd reroll etc is confusing...simply noting Series as Roll 1, Roll 2, Roll 3, Roll 4 would be clearer. With a requirement of checking off a reroll category, or Relationship for rolls 2 and 3. Anyone can particaipate in Roll 1 of Conflict, and Roll 4 is Player choice.

Hi there,

Jesus, what a barrage. All right, I'm taking it totally linear.

1. Jesse, regarding the Modifier for inappropriate Magic type, yes, the player can "take back" the announcement while we're all still in the Fair & Clear stage. The -2 Magic modifier only applies if the player really really wants that kind of Magic and that particular effect. Don't look at me like that. "Of course" they'd change it, fine. The rule is there if they don't.

QuoteIn the example of Rhetta using Human Magic to calm the Sea's "emotions." I don't understand why once the GM says, that nature Troll magic is better Rhetta's player just can't go, "Oh, okay, in that case I use troll magic and attempt to push the waves into submission with my will!" or something.

And the answer thus becomes, Retta's player can say that, if he or she wants to. That's what the Fair & Clear stage is all about.

2. Rafial, you're absolutely right. The third re-roll is not about changing the consequences (success/failure) or necessarily the injury-state of the trollbabe; it's about who gets to narrate her fate relative to the failed goal. And nice try, but if the trollbabe is incapacitated, the relationship-NPC is dead, never mind your "next box" mind-trick there, young Jedi.

3. Jesse, I swear, it's as if you discover whole new cognitive zones in order to become confused ... either that, or you're just the best rules-proofreader in history. Your second reading of the injury rules is the correct one.

QuoteIn Conflict 1 I fail my roll twice and I'm Injured. In Conflict 2 I fail my roll once and I'm doubly injured. In Conflict 3, if I fail my roll once then I become incapacitated immediately (I could roll one more time for narration rights). When I recover from being incapacitated am I triply-injured, doubly injured or just injured?

Just injured. If I'm not mistaken, that ought to fix that particular concern from the git-go. To be absolutely clear, there is no such thing as "doubly injured," in game terms. When that happens, there's no special game effect involved, or any need for a double recovery, or any such thing. It's another wound, in the game-world, but that's all - no rules-effect.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsAnd nice try, but if the trollbabe is incapacitated, the relationship-NPC is dead, never mind your "next box" mind-trick there, young Jedi.

Oh yes.  I totally agree.  That's exactly what is stated in the rules as written.

Quote
To be absolutely clear, there is no such thing as "doubly injured," in game terms.

Mmmm...  Here's the odd thing.  Say you have a series, and you fail the first two rolls, and then accept the result.  You end your series at the bottom of box two, but would begin the next series at the top of box two.  We call this being "injured."

Now you have another series.  You start at the top of box two. You fail the first roll.  You end the series at the bottom of box two, and accept the result.  You will begin your next series at the top of box three.  What is the name of this state?  You are not yet incapacitated.  This is what people are calling "doubly injured".  In fact, this is the term used at the top of page 20 in the rules.

Now, here is where people seem to be getting confused.  If my trollbabe is currently starting any conflict at the top of box three (doubly-injured) and gets a chance to heal, does her starting box move up one box to box two, or is her injury cleared all together, and she moves back to box one?  Similarly, if she in incapacitated and heals, does she begin her next series at the top of box three, or the top of box two?

And as an aside, I totally agree with Bob that the terminology 1st reroll, 2nd reroll etc is confusing.  Things got much clearer for me when I started thinking of things as 1st roll, 2nd roll, 3rd roll, 4th roll.

I like to think that I'm a good proof-reader BECAUSE I create new cognative zones to become confused.

And actually, I'm still confused.  See Rafial's post above.  He states the confusion better than I did.

Jesse