Diplomacy In Trollbabe

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

Well stated. I think I can speak pretty authoritatively that if a player is indeed very committed to, as you describe,

"roleplaying" to this person meant, "Real-time Actor Stance discourse between GM and Player resolved preferably through Drama, and accepting Fortune only in the case of SERIOUS doubt as to the outcome," to get all technical about it.

... then Trollbabe's not for them. They and I simply disagree on a fundamental level about what role-playing "is."

Best,
Ron

[GreatWolf]

I'm going to go out on a limb here for a moment.  After all, I haven't played Trollbabe, so I can't speak to the specifics of the game.  However, my own game (Legends of Alyria) uses the system to resolve social conflicts in the same way as any other conflict.  Still we have had a number of intense, in-character conflicts gamed out in Actor stance.  Here's how it worked.

First, the conflict warms up.  The players are going at it, acting out their characters, arguing or attempting to persuade or whatever.  At some point, the group can sense that the breaking point of the conflict has been reached.  Someone (maybe the GM, maybe a player, didn't really matter) calls for the roll.  The roll is made.  Both players then wrap up the conflict (or at least the next chunk of it) in accordance with the result of the die roll.

It can work, although the roleplaying is its own reward.  It doesn't modify the dice roll at all.  However, everyone enjoys watching the conflict be played out.

I don't know how the Trollbabe reroll system works.  However, Dying Earth uses its reroll system to guide ongoing conflict, with each reroll being another twist in the conflict.  When all rerolls are exhausted, or one side decides to stop rolling, the conflict is finally resolved.  Something similar could probably be incorporated.

However, this will require compromise from your players.  If they are unwilling to budge on the "roleplaying resolving as Drama first", then Ron is right.  It just won't fly.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

[Bankuei]

Hi Jesse,

You make some very valid points, and I think Ron is also on point that if the player is completely opposed to the concept, then you are pretty much stuck.  But, to give you an extra tool which may or may not be helpful to you, do remember that the point of a roll in Trollbabe is a conflict.  Until two folks have an honest-to-God disagreement, you can say that the rest can be roleplayed.  

In my above example, the guard has orders to not let anyone through, aside from that, pretty much any sort of roleplaying can go.  The Trollbabe can question him for general info, get a date, ask directions, whatever.  Its not until the GM or the player decides there is a conflict(something to be gained/lost) that you pull out the dice.

This isn't a 100% eliminating said concern on part of that player, but it gives a lot more room to make things happen.  Although, this is pretty much the same age old question of how much do you attribute "what happens" to player ability, character ability, and system as the mediator, with the smart/charming character and slow/tactless player or vice versa.

Chris

[rafial]

This isn't a 100% eliminating said concern on part of that player, but it gives a lot more room to make things happen.  Although, this is pretty much the same age old question of how much do you attribute "what happens" to player ability, character ability, and system as the mediator, with the smart/charming character and slow/tactless player or vice versa.

This isn't just restricted to social stuff.   I think about games like Swashbuckler, or Riddle of Steel, which add a player skill element into the blow by blow exchange, versus other games where combatants simply step up and compare die rolls.  Ultimately I think it comes down to what a player is looking for, do they want a chance to flex their own tactical skill or blarney, or are they interested in telling an interesting story about a character who is not them.

I think players who are looking for the first type of play are going to be less satisified with a system that encourages a Narrativist mode of play, and are perhaps looking for something more, perhaps, um Gamist?  Being as their interest seems to lie more in "am I personally up to the challenge" rather than "is my character up to the challenge".

As an aside, my own personal experience is that skilled play in games like Trollbabe definitely requires a bit of the blarney in order to make good effect of the shared narration.  I've seen a few games of Trollbabe and also Dust Devils where a less articulate or less assertive player seemed to be having a hard time of it.  It's just that the blarney is in service of an Author stance, rather than the Actor stance that many of use were brought up to believe was "the only true roleplaying."

What's my point? Oh um, I think it boils down to something like "Ron is absolutely right" :)  Trollbabe might just not be what this player is going to enjoy.

[greyorm]

I think players who are looking for the first type of play are going to be less satisified with a system that encourages a Narrativist mode of play, and are perhaps looking for something more, perhaps, um Gamist?

This type of play has nothing to do with GNS. Orx, a completely Gamist RPG, utilizes the method being discussed, as does Trollbabe, a Narrativist RPG. In fact, I would argue that a good character-Simulationist game would utilize exactly this method, on the grounds that you can't play someone who has greater diplomatic or social skills than yourself.

[rafial]

In fact, I would argue that a good character-Simulationist game would utilize exactly this method, on the grounds that you can't play someone who has greater diplomatic or social skills than yourself.

Why ever not?  This is exactly what mechanism like "social" skills are there to let you do.  I may or may not be personally possessed of the oratory of Cicero, but I can tell the GM what sort of message I want to convey to a crowd, and roll to see if my character, who *is* a gifted orator, gets his or her message across.

My point is that the phenomenon of the character posessing faculties that the player does not is one that can occur in all fields of endeavor, and in fact this is probably routinely the case for physical prowess.  It only gets remarked on when the faculty at hand is social or verbal.

This blind spot is of course perfectly natural, since the activity of persuasive speech as conducted by the character is so similar to the activity of the game player (i.e. sitting about and talking) that it can be easy to conflate the two.  But ultimately, it seems to me that it is in no way "less role playing" to resolve a social confrontation via a die roll than it would be "more role playing" to resolve combat by leaping about with boffers.

That said, players, being individuals, may enjoy using their personal capabilities to overcome various in game challenges, such as slipping into Actor stance to give a persuasive soliloquy, or utilizing a crunchy combat mechanic that rewards tactical skill.  And my (admittedly limited) grasp on GNS theory leads me to believe that the enjoyment of grasping and overcoming challenges as a player, and not as a character, is facet of the Gamist mode of play.

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

just occurred to me that the whole player dictates/GM narrates mechanic is what I'm talking about right here:

http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6507

Chris