[Trollbabe] Fighting without hurting?

[Mauro]

This is a doubt coming from Gente che Gioca, where Moreno said that "it's not mandatory, in a Fight, hurting or killing someone"; this somewhat startled me, because I remembered clearly where the rules says that in a Fight "the trollbabe must try to subdue, incapacitate, or out-and-out kill someone. The most positive versions might be to escape or to rescue someone, but even then it has to be accomplished by doing harm to the threatening individuals".
In addition, Moreno said that in reply to a doubt of mine: why is "I look for enemies" a Fight, given that if I win they're not there (so I can't even try to harm them); and, if I lose, they attack me (so I just found about their presence and couldn't harm them before)?
Why this topic? Mainly, beside my interest in Ron's clarifications about the example in the rules, I'd like to read some actual play about this, to see how different people managed such situation where the enemy maybe wasn't even there.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mauro,

We've talked a little bit about this over email, but the way you're asking it here seems a little simpler to me.

Moreno said you don't have to "hurt or kill." You are pointing to rules that say you must "incapacitate, subdue, or kill." Could it be that we are not even looking at a problem? Perhaps he is merely referring to the possibility of incapacitating and subduing, and you are making this into a much more complicated problem than it has to be.

I also think you are misunderstanding the conflict that arises from saying "I look for enemies." First, let's clarify that nothing in Trollbabe can be permitted to be this vague. Using the fair and clear phase, we should all understand *how* your character is looking for enemies, which will also tell us what sort of enemies we are talking about. In other words, there's more to work with than merely the vague and abstract "enemies" statement.

Second, now let's think in terms of success and failure, which also requires a certain amount of attention to the re-rolls. I have to stress: Trollbabe does NOT include classic perception rolls. This really isn't about whether she *spots* enemies, but what happens in the conflict as someone defines it. If someone says "Conflict! Fighting!", then it's a fight. That means the enemies are there. That's fixed and fact, it has nothing to do with succeeding or failing in the roll.

If this is hard to grasp, then you are still struggling with the assumptions of other role-playing games. Trollbabe has NO perception rolls. It has conflict rolls. When someone says the word "Conflict," and if it's defined as a Fight, then there will be a fight.

Please note as well the diagrams which carefully spell out that a conflict must occur INSIDE a scene, in the context of characters doing things and moving around. Those diagrams are there for a reason and if I've learned anything from all these Trollbabe threads, it is that the Italian community is not really paying attention to them.

So: when the trollbabe says, "I look for enemies," and we get a better idea of what she is really doing and what the circumstances are, then there is the option to proclaim "Conflict" and whatever sort of conflict the speaker wants based on what's going on and as elaborated in fair and clear. If someone does this, and if all the circumstances result in Fighting, then good enough: the trollbabe is in a fight with the enemies, and we haven't even rolled a single die yet, so success vs. failure is not the relevant determinant of whether the enemies are there or not.

Best, Ron

[Mauro]

Moreno said you don't have to "hurt or kill." You are pointing to rules that say you must "incapacitate, subdue, or kill." Could it be that we are not even looking at a problem? Perhaps he is merely referring to the possibility of incapacitating and subduing, and you are making this into a much more complicated problem than it has to be

I translate here the whole relevant part; I should have done it before: "Actually, anyway, in a Fight it's not mandatory to hurt or kill someone. If for example your goal is to save a NPC, make it in a Fight means just you do it by force. Then if anyone is wound or not is decided by who narrates. Maybe you didn't even hit someone".
He made, as examples, the one in the rules about the "trollbabe who reach the beach by swimming in the sea during a storm: it's a Fight. Did the sea get hurt?"; and, the one I made you about shaking off a pursuer: "Conflict for shaking off someone. I win, I just say the pursuer lose her lead, they don't find her. They never even met each other".
Maybe I'm wrong (in which case he'll correct me, I pointed this topic in the original one), but it seems to me he didn't mean subduing; this is quite clear, to me, in the shaking off enemies. He then suggested me to ask you, so here I'm.

If someone says "Conflict! Fighting!", then it's a fight. That means the enemies are there. That's fixed and fact, it has nothing to do with succeeding or failing in the roll [...] Trollbabe has NO perception rolls. It has conflict rolls. When someone says the word "Conflict," and if it's defined as a Fight, then there will be a fight

I've clear this and when you said that if someone declares a Fight then the enemies are there is really clear; but, then this confuses me (from the rules):

Goal: To make sure bandits aren't sneaking up (Fighting)
Success = nothing is (i.e., there are no bandits)
Failure = whoever's there has attacked

It's a typo? Am I misunderstanding something?

[Ron Edwards]

Now I see that the confusion is very deep. I will not be able to answer briefly.

I will continue this discussion later when I have the time.

Best, Ron