Page 17, column 2, paragraph 2, of the text says:

The player may check off another item and
get a second re-roll. If it succeeds, the trollbabe
succeeds, although her injury remains (it
becomes “felt" later; see below). If this second
re-roll fails, however, the trollbabe not only
thoroughly loses the conflict at hand, she is
flat-out incapacitated: knocked senseless, hurt
too badly to move, or anything similar. Again,
the player describes the details.

I think the misprint is in the chart. As I understand it, the rolls happen linearly. After the first roll fails, you say how the trollbabe is discommoded *before* you make your first reroll. After the first reroll fails, you say how she's injured *before* the second reroll. After the second reroll fails, you say how completely the trollbabe is doomed *before* making the third reroll. When the third reroll succeeds, you don't revise your previous statement incapacitation. You add something new that helps pull the trollbabe's bacon out of the fire. But if you fail that third reroll, the GM gets to have his way with her.

Nice Catch.

I've always played strictly according to the chart, so I would of course lean toward the text being the misprint. Guess we need Ron to weigh in on this one.

Darren's right: the chart is correct and the text on p. 17 is wrong. The final sentence should read, "In this case, the GM describes the details, unless the player decides to go for a third and final re-roll."

Which would also remove the "However" beginning the next paragraph.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Darren's right: the chart is correct and the text on p. 17 is wrong. The final sentence should read, "In this case, the GM describes the details, unless the player decides to go for a third and final re-roll."

Which would also remove the "However" beginning the next paragraph.

Best,
Ron