Sorry to resurrect this but,...

I'm thinking about starting a Trollbabe campaign in early November and I thought that I had seen a post where Ron had agreed that it was kosher to narrate the Baron dieing in this situation. Am I misremembering? If not, can someone point me to Ron's post?

Thank you,

Bill

Split from Trollbabe role and goal interpretation.

Bill, take a swift kick for posting to an old thread in full knowledge that you were doing it. Gah! I have to deal with Sim discussions in the GNS forum and split threads? If so, then you must suffer. I suffer, everyone suffers.

I shall go and see if there is something or other about a baron and Trollbabe. Using the Search function.

Best,
Ron

Ow. Never ask your wife to give you a swift kick without specifying where.

I did try searching, but I was only able to find the thread you link to in your above post and the thread that that thread linked to. I might very well be misremembering whether or not you ever weighed in on the subject.

Hello,

I've found what I can of this discussion, and here's what I say.

1. In any Conflict, trollbabe Goals must be articulated. Note that these are in-character (not like Dumb Luck in Elfs).

2. The GM has no Goal. However, NPCs have intentions, which usually should be apparent from their words and actions. (Additional hidden intentions are OK too, but there should certainly be apparent ones anyway.)

3. Narration of outcomes is always constrained by two things:

a) Success or failure at the Goal. This is fixed by the roll(s).

b) Degree of harm to the trollbabe and any of her Relationships that were called in.

Now for my point: people are forever mixing up (a) and (b). If you know what they are and keep them separate, then there is never a problem.

Let's keep it simple and stick with a single-trollbabe example for now. She's in a Fight conflict, but her Goal is to "capture the Baron." Let's say the player fails the roll, but narrates along the way that she kills the Baron.

This is okay. This is perfectly fine. This is no big deal and does not represent any kind of "dodging the system" in any way. Just because gamer-think perceives that killing the Baron must or should be harder than capturing him, and just because GMs get all attached to NPCs' fates, doesn't mean the Trollbabe rules care.

Why is it fine, and how do the Trollbabe rules (properly used) keep this from ever being dysfunctional?

1. The narration as a possibility should be no surprise to anyone. All outcomes should be obvious after the Fair & Clear stage is over. Going into a conflict with the above parameters, we all should know that the Baron could die. Even if no one says it first.

2. Narration is a matter of propositions and feedback in Trollbabe, just as it is in the vast majority of role-playing (just unacknowledged as such). All "narrator" means is "person where the buck stops." If someone has a big problem with the baron dying, then it's not guaranteed that the narrator will honor that problem and let him live - but it certainly obviates the vast majority of circumstances.

3. What if the Baron's death resolves the Stakes issue for that scenario? Sure. That's what happens. That doesn't mean that the trollbabe's adventure is over or that you have to stop playing, or anything like that. Finish out her fate in the adventure - it's just that now, the GM has scribbled "Consequences = [whatever]" in his or her notes, and also, the trollbabe can leave the adventure if she wants. Essentially, all it means is that the adventure can be over now, not that it must be over now.

That all leads me to a larger point. People ought to consider utterly losing the following assumptions from playing Trollbabe.

1. "A scenario is to be of a predictable length, either of session-length or number of sessions."

2. "The scenario will climax with the confrontation of the trollbabe with the villain who has made the Stakes a problem, in the interest of promoting the happiest and best Consequences."

3. "The trollbabe's player must learn what the Stakes are and be invested in resolving them."

Now - let's posit a Trollbabe scenario in which she encounters a family out in the boonies, and there's a two-headed bear who eats their sheep. The trollbabe says, "Hm," goes out and kills the bear with a single roll, then comes back and has dinner with the family. Perhaps she decides to take the restless daughter with her as a Relationship, say a Sidekick. In the morning she goes her way.

Is that a bad Trollbabe scenario? No, it's wonderful. No problem - if you can see the Stakes and Consequences, that's no big deal. But the point is to realize that you do not have to. All that matters, ever, is that the trollbabe does a thing, at least one thing.

Best,
Ron

Thanks Ron!

I'm a little surprised about #3 on the list of assumptions as I definitely had made that assumption. (I even wondered whether it was a good idea to inform the players at the beginning of an adventure what the Stakes are)

Hiya,

I really should recommend that Stakes are merely a GM's tool. It's not that they're some terrible secret from the players, but rather that knowing them is not necessary for the players, and quite likely obstructive to the real point of play. The players should choose their own Stakes, emotionally speaking, simply by reacting to what's going on via the lens of the character.

The point of play is not to resolve the Stakes - rather, resolution of the Stakes is merely the inevitable outcome of the trollbabe's presence. The point of play is for the trollbabe to exert her considerable personal force upon the situation. That's all. Having Stakes and Consequences is only there to help the GM to set up an interesting situation, and to ensure that the trollbabe's presence is consequential.

Best,
Ron

Hi,

I've always seen the Stakes as being the "kicker" for the NPCs, the conflict that has them all going, regardless of what the Trollbabes are doing. The Stakes could be, "Does the kingdom get overrun by undead?" and the Trollbabe could play a major role, all while trying to save a single kitten...

Consider all the fallout that usually happens in a Guy Ritchie movie, especially considering what the protagonists are after compared to everyone else. This kind of stuff happens, and the Stakes aren't necessarily the players' concern at all, just a driver for the GM to push the NPCs strong.

Chris

Hiya,

Chris (Bankuei) is right.

Trollbabe relies on Situation-based Premise. The Stakes are the Situation; verbalizing the Consequences reminds the GM not to forget them.

However, the theme produced is not about the Stakes, but about the trollbabe.

Best,
Ron