Hello
I role-play for over 15 years but what i discovered at the Forge few days ago it is a revolution. More on that later.
So i bought Trollbabe and want to play it with my friends. Some questions (i am absolute newbe to that kind of stuff):

Let say that the stakes is the life of a young troll: Gorgh. He came from his family group forest dwellings and killed 3 adult men taking their heads with him. He did it to: revange and to prove to his people that they can fight with humans and start active opposition against them. War between two races started long ago, with highs and lows but during last 2-3 years humans devastated trolls by organising well planed attacks and killing few family groups from Gorghs tribe. He is young and full of passion with high leadership skills, but tribes elders do not want to fight, they think it would be better to move deeper to the forest.
Harald Red Eye is the Chieftain of nearby human town. He developed plan and strategy to kill trolls. Everything was going well upto last few days when 3 of his men were killed by troll (band of trolls he is sure). People are scared. His rep. is in danger. Fortunately one of the trolls was injured during one of the fights and now Harald with few warriors are running to kill them. There is Djurful also, an outlow who wants to go back to society. He spoted trolls blood and is tracking him in hope to kill him or help Harald in doing so.
Consequences:
Gorgh deatth or glory, possibly higher position in the tribe (he loves a trollgirl who is doughter of one of elders so he thinks it all helps, too)
Harald: glory and position versus weakening or even loosing position (there is an opposition inside will they help Gorgh, rather not in this situation)
Djurful: obvious.

Trollbabe approaches.

It is only an example i have much more ideas but i want to know do i go in good direction (do i understand the idea)
So, is it personal level adventure? What i miss?
How to start and then proceed with the game? First should be 1st scene with trollbabe meeting (Gorgh, Harald, Djurful, sombody else) let say she meets Djurful and he asks for help, she agrees and... what next ? How the scenes should appear and which scenes. Who would say what is next. Me as a GM ? Do GM as in traditional rpg sets all things to the point when Trollbabe would do something directioning the issue? Motivation and behavior of NPCes i prepare before or should i let myself improvise?

Confllicts. What they should be like. I read here that thay should be meaningfull and connected with issue. So when trollbabe asks for info there is no conflict but decission about do npc would tell or not ? How to build conflicts. As i see it, conflicts are tools for improvisation: let say trollbabe wants to track Gorgh and anounces conflict using magic to get info where he is. If she wins she knows. (maybe not conflict at all just let her know) or she may want to magically spot where are those trolls who she thinks attacked people: does she track Gorgh or some other Trolls not prepared before ??

I wait for Your answers.

And i have to say it. Narrativism and Rons article about it, is long waited revolution.
What are other good narrativistic systems? I know about Primetime Adventures and Sorcerer, what are others.

Thanks for Your answers and sorry for English, it is not my native :)

and one more question.

How to deal with giving info to PC? If PC say a social conflict with Harald to take all info about situation and win , should i tell him the story ?

Hi, and welcome to the Forge! 

Let say that the stakes is the life of a young troll: Gorgh. He came from his family group forest dwellings and killed 3 adult men taking their heads with him. He did it to: revange and to prove to his people that they can fight with humans and start active opposition against them. War between two races started long ago, with highs and lows but during last 2-3 years humans devastated trolls by organising well planed attacks and killing few family groups from Gorghs tribe. He is young and full of passion with high leadership skills, but tribes elders do not want to fight, they think it would be better to move deeper to the forest.

Harald Red Eye is the Chieftain of nearby human town. He developed plan and strategy to kill trolls. Everything was going well upto last few days when 3 of his men were killed by troll (band of trolls he is sure). People are scared. His rep. is in danger. Fortunately one of the trolls was injured during one of the fights and now Harald with few warriors are running to kill them. There is Djurful also, an outlow who wants to go back to society. He spoted trolls blood and is tracking him in hope to kill him or help Harald in doing so

So, is it personal level adventure? What i miss?

Confllicts. What they should be like. I read here that thay should be meaningfull and connected with issue. So when trollbabe asks for info there is no conflict but decission about do npc would tell or not ? How to build conflicts. As i see it, conflicts are tools for improvisation

How to deal with giving info to PC? If PC say a social conflict with Harald to take all info about situation and win , should i tell him the story ?

What are other good narrativistic systems? I know about Primetime Adventures and Sorcerer, what are others.

Thanks for Your answers and sorry for English, it is not my native :)

Hello,

James is right about everything!

I have one strong point to make, however.

How to deal with giving info to PC? If PC say a social conflict with Harald to take all info about situation and win , should i tell him the story ?

Thank You for Your answers.

What about scene building. I have to admit that it is a little tricky to me. Usually PC says that "he" goes to the town or something like that. In narrative play as i undesrstand it, scenes are rather created so GM would not describe journey to town but rather set the scene of meaning somewhere in the road or in the city, saying for example, the towns pub, evening etc. or ... How technically play goes from scene to scene, how it looks at the table ??

According to other systems. Sorry for double posting (it is hard morning here). The idea of narrativism is so refreshing and greate that i just want to dive in. Trollbabe saying about system, it is great. Conflict (not task) resolution is a greate idea i was looking for years, i know that it is just technique but still it is greate tool, and fortune in the middle, o my God, thats greate. I prefer rules very light systems oriented for story but still letting colorfull play (as trollbabe) i think about experimenting with giving Author stance or generally GM stuff to players. Sorcerer as i see it would be nice example of game with stron personal issue (but there is task resolution there as i see it from start pack which i downloaded ;) ).
I wanted to start cyberpunk campaign, and was looking for system (as i always thought that system does matter) and found the Forge and Theory and narrativism and Trollbabe. And now all have changed. I have to admitt that me and our group do not play often because of... the Theory changed everything.

One more question about trollbabe, lets say that trollbabe would help troll and Harald would want to kill her. There is fight conflict, best of 5, greate rumble. Trollbabe loses without rerolls and player have to describe it. She off course would live, maybe in very bad situation but she cannot start fight with them (she lost) so can she attack them with magic ?? if she loses again without rerolls, i think that can be a little problem. Or i just announce that norsemen grab her a take to their camp/towm ?? I am a little worry about situations like this. 

Hello,

The Apprentice pack for Sorcerer is outdated. As it says on the site, do not use those rules for Sorcerer or for thinking you know how to play Sorcerer. I'm saying this in order to state, very clearly, that Sorcerer uses conflict resolution. That PDF is only on the site for historical purposes.

But let's talk about Trollbabe. Here's how scene framing will usually look at the table.

Player: "I want to talk to Helga at the market!"
GM: "Your character is at the market," (describes the situation a little), "and Helga is there. She's buying fish."

In this case, the player has specified both the place and the person that will be in the scene with the trollbabe. If the GM is interested in letting the player desires drive things, then he should not put the trollbabe in the market without Helga present, nor should he put the trollbabe with Helga somewhere else, like off in the forest.

However, in all cases, remember that the GM has the final authority about starting and finishing scenes. So that means he can change what the player suggests, or say, "Sure, but first, let's have a scene in the forest with Nils," or say, "No, you're still in the tavern," or whatever. That power is important, but it is also worth remembering that at least some of the time, the GM behaves as in the above paragraph and does his best to accomodate the player's suggestion. That way the final authority, when it is used, is very significant.

Some other examples for contrast

Player: "I want a scene at the market!"
GM: "Your character is at the market," (describes the situation a little), "and all kinds of people are there, like Helga and Nils, but not Bruno."

In this case, the GM has agreed with the player's suggestion, but has also thought a little bit about who else would be in that spot and who would not. Perhaps at this time, after the scene has started, either the GM or the player decides a conflict with Helga (or anyone else) would be good.

Note: the GM has final authority over how scenes begin and end, but once a scene has started, any person who calls for a conflict cannot be stopped or interrupted or overruled. If anyone says "I want a conflict" or describes actions which are conflict-heavy, then the conflict is in the game and it must be decided by dice.

Player: "I want a scene with Helga!"
GM: (decides where this might be) (names the place) "You're with Helga at the market ..."

In this case, as you can see, the GM has accepted the suggestion for a scene, but has to create the place and time because the player doesn't state them. What the GM should not do (unless he has a reason, like a conflict he's about to announce), is to say "You're at the market, looking for Helga, but she's not there."

Does that help? All of my examples assume that the GM accepts the player's suggestion, which in practice is usually the way things are done. But the GM should also keep in mind, and be ready to use, his unique authority for scenes finishing and ending. This is important because there is one rule, in combat, which allows the player to take over that authority briefly.

I'll answer your next question in the next post.

Best, Ron

Ron wrote:
James is right about everything!

Sorcerer as i see it would be nice example of game with stron personal issue (but there is task resolution there as i see it from start pack which i downloaded ;) )

Hello,

I love example-problems.

One more question about trollbabe, lets say that trollbabe would help troll and Harald would want to kill her. There is fight conflict, best of 5, greate rumble. Trollbabe loses without rerolls and player have to describe it. She off course would live, maybe in very bad situation but she cannot start fight with them (she lost) so can she attack them with magic ?? if she loses again without rerolls, i think that can be a little problem. Or i just announce that norsemen grab her a take to their camp/towm ??

It's all my fault.  I killed those poor people!  [Weeps.]  But seriously: yes, I should have said, players in Trollbabe explicitly declare goals at the start of the conflict.  (In Trollbabe, "Stakes" is a technical term that applies to what is "at stake" during the adventure as a whole.)

Yes that helps, thanks a lot.

So let me introduce myself: I am Maciej Teleglow, 32 years old, live in Europe, Poland, Gdansk: one of the biggest Polish cities, but much less then Chicago, it is a port. I finnished university: hostory exactly. I am interesed in many things: sf-fantasy, antrophology, sports, games. I role-play for 17 years now with breaks. The biggest problem in our rpg here was WOD. We knew at that time that we want something more from rpg and that all those numbers heavy systems are not exactly what we need and WOD has changed things but for us, it was unplayable. As i see it now i wanted to play narrative but i didn't realise it and did not know how and what to change to achieve what i want (plus work, wife other daily problems and time things). We have plaied some narrative scenarios, very light rules but i have realised that something is going bad: railroading by GM. But one or two tries were not that bad. As for our gamistic needs we started to play boardgames. But, we all wanted to role-play but not knowing what to change. As i said i wanted to run cyberpunk game (narrativism in cyberpunk) but i could not find system i wanted. I think i would have finished with Tri Stat Ex Machina but exactly at that moment i spoted review of PMA. It was something but i wasn't prepared. Then i found the Forge and Theory and all that things. It is exactly what i was missing.
I have to admitt that narrativism is what i have always wanted to play but after reading Your thoughts about Dead of Night i realised that there is strong simulationist in me either. Once i made scenario in which players where Neandertal people (do not know in English hope it is undarstandable) for example. But i do not need to simulate physics but rather feel of things, climate if You know what i mean and emotions in the particular situation. So narrativism is what i need and start tomorrow with Trollbabe i hope and simulationism of my special kind would wait for finding good system for what i need (Dead of night seems good). All in all GNS theory is revolution for me. Now i start new rpg :)

Thanks.

Trollbabe scene building: so as i see it, players give their ideas to GM and he may go for it but from the other hand he can and should build his own scenes, too.
I would check it in practice, a little scared.

And personally Trollbabe has the best mechanics i know to this moment and believe me, i have a lot of systems on the shelf. 

Hi Maciej,

It's great to have you here! I'm glad my ideas and games are matching what you want.

I have been near Gdansk, but have never visited. I've spent some time in Rügen (in Germany) and Berlin, and I've read a lot about the history of Gdansk/Danzig.

Here's an important concept that only becomes clearer in my longer essays. I'll quote from a recent post in which I explained it to someone else:

Imagine a little platform made of green-painted wood, standing a few inches high off the ground on its little legs. That's Exploration, the necessary imaginative communication for role-playing to occur at all. Perhaps it's a very pretty shade of green or particularly well-crafted in terms of pegs and glue. Doesn't matter. It's not the Creative Agenda.

Now imagine a secondary wooden structure built on top of it, reaching a whole foot off the ground at its tip. That's your game in action. Whatever shared goal or priority puts it there, or (in the analogy) whatever shape or material it is, that's your Creative Agenda. It's what you and the group do with the platform.

A Simulationist CA happens to be made of wood and happens to be painted green. That's why people are always mistaking Exploration for Simulationism, when it's not. It's still a secondary structure on top of the platform. It also so happens that Gamist and Narrativist CAs are always brutally, recognizably distinct from the platform that supports them - made of plastic or aluminum, and always painted a different color or not painted at all. That's why people are always forgetting that no matter what, those agendas need the platform too.

Andreas, I'm going through this kindergarten imagery because, in your post, I see a lot of rhapsodizing about "wonder moments" and all that. I anticipate that you are going to claim that's some kind of Simulationist presence in your group. Well, if you think that's Simulationist, lose that mistaken idea right now. That's foundational Exploration, the platform. Maybe your group's CA on top of it is "the same stuff," and hence Simulationist, and maybe it's not. We have to look at it to see.

That's the point from 2001, the essay "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory."

Now it's 2006 and I have the Big Model. CA exists as the goal or priority that ties together the features of the Big Model, during play. So the question about your game is (a) whether you guys had any goal or priority tying the Model of your play-experience together, and if so, (b) what was it? And no, you can't point at the platform. We're talking about the thing you all built on top of the platform, what you do with it.

MacTele, there are some good games which might work science-fiction stories.  Primetime Adventures, for example, could do a science-fiction TV show.  People have played Sorcerer, where the "demons" are types of technology.  One game you might want to try is Shock: Social Science-Fiction, which is about how technology and social problems interact.

Trollbabe scene building: so as i see it, players give their ideas to GM and he may go for it but from the other hand he can and should build his own scenes, too.
I would check it in practice, a little scared.

Hey Ron,

Those three failed rolls you describe, would you say "the action takes me away from the troll," "now I'm further than ever away from the troll," and "I end up on the other side of the river" all meet the definition of discommoded?

Paul

Hi Paul,

No, they only meet the requirements for "failed the roll and not re-rolling."

The discommoding can be seen to a small, sufficient extent in two of my example narrations:

- first roll's failure: being forced to duck (a reaction, replacing the intended action)

- third roll's failure: getting dunked in the river and thrashing about in it

My description for the second failed roll's narration is not discommoded enough. To satisfy that requirement, I might describe any number of things along with what I stated ... perhaps she stumbles on the slippery river-bank upon hurling the sword and loses her balance momentarily, or perhaps Harald clawed at her face while she was taking his sword and she had to shut her eyes. Or anything like that.

Best, Ron

I wanted to wait but i have to write few words.
Ron, Your metaphore is very good and very usufull, i would use it in conversations with my friends. So the first platform is, let say, a medium of rpg, or something what has to be created during the process. Creative Agenda is something build over it, on the basement. In Trollbabe and all narrativism CA is to tell the story,meaningfull one, collectivly by using issue and theme  - in Trollbabe, the stakes and consequences. In Dead of Night or all simulationists play the CA is to simulate something, which You called the Dream (or maybe to produce the dream colectivly) and i can add that the goal (an CA) can be to live something, i do not know how to say it in English but i mean when we sim in rpg a football match it would be to sim it and to feel what players or maybe coaches (depends who PCes are) feel, think, do and decide during the match. So Dead of Night is not about creating a horror stories issues and themes but to live the life of prey or predator, to be in their positions and see through their eyes in the situation. I am sure that sim play maybe mutch different then that, but thats what i can take for me from it. Dead of Night as i understand You can be very good in producing Alien/Aliens session (which i have always dream of) as movies number 1 and 2 were: just horror or thriller one. PCes are rescue team going to space station which stoped to respond, the rest is rather obvious, the goal is to produce thrill and scare in PCes as they would play. 
So over the same platform two different buildings: narrativ (Trollbabe) and sim (Dead of Night). Do I understand You correct ?
As You can see i do not need system to produce sim of physics or sim of detailed realistic action, so i think numbers heavy systems are not for me, they just steal my time and try to concentrate me on not important things.  From the other side i need systems which would help me in realisation of my goal - CA. I love vivid and rich Exploration but this is not the system which produces it, but group (setting - color helps) and it can be done at same level in Trollbabe and Dead of Night because CA is build on it not the other side.
Wait for Your precious answers.

Trollbabe is not only very good mechanics is also very vivid setting and very mine setting, too. I do not know how say it in English but my biggest work at University (the one You have to write to get academic title) was about daily life of Islanders in 10th century basing on the sagas. So You may understand now why i love the setting too. And the troll - humans situation is perfect and from my imaginary stuff, too. The Trollbabe as a character, protagonist, is really one of the best ideas i have met (i love idea from My Life with Master very much too, but it is different story, Sorcerer is nice too). So now i have many stakes and consequences some of which are taken directly from sagas: Njalls Saga for example. I always wanted to use the material but i had no good enough tools. Now i have them, thanks a lot.

Hi Maciej,

You are exactly right in all the things you're said.

As you can see, most readers will have a very hard time talking about CA, because whenever they think about what they felt or visualized during play, they are really just talking about the platform. This was the point that I made in my essay "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory" in 2001. I also made the point that hundreds, possibly thousands of systems/procedures are possible, and that no single technique (e.g. what dice are rolled, or who talks when) can be associated 1:1 with a given CA.

Many people continue to struggle with these basic points and sometimes invent things they think I'm saying, which I'm not.

I'm not surprised to learn about your expertise with the Nordic sagas. I have read many of them, especially Njal's Saga, which I've read many times, including aloud. They did have a very big influence on Trollbabe, so I'm glad my game allows the two of us (and others) to share our enjoyment of those great works.

Best, Ron

So we are after first game. First thing i have to admit that we role-played after long break and it was felt very much. I mean exploration platform was not as good as i wanted to. I like to role-play very much "in", when there is an atmosphere and everyone "feels" the "world". But i am sure it would come with time. In the past there were no problems with improvisational descriptions and acting npces, yesterday it wasn't as good as i wanted. The second problem was our old habits. It wasn't easy for players to play with conflict resolution and they wanted to treat their tasks as conflicts. And here comes the questions: when a trollbabe said she wants to cast a spell to sleep few warriors, i asked what is the goal? She answered: to sleep them (but i knew that the goal was to prevent them to attack a viking who was supposed to come, they were waiting in ambush) so i asked again and she said after a conversation that indeed the goal is prevent them from attack. Was it correct from my side? The other problem was that they was not stating goals but rather tried to describe what they do. And then i was saying that it should be the conflict throw. I am sure it is a matter of habits.
The last was they say that adventures were two social oriented and they want to play more action. I realise this, i would have make less talking ones and more fighting, action ones.
We were playing two separate scenarios in the same time (2 trollbabes), and players said they prefer to play together in the future.
Any advices, especially how to level up our exploration skills.
But overall i am rather happy. It was good restart after too long break and i have good material to improve.

The stakes and consequences were:
1. The stakes: marriage of Gunhild and Njolfur (it is directly from Njals Saga). Desc and consequences: during wedding party Njolfur divorced with Gunhild (they both about 50 years old) because of her cynical texts to him and because a young girl was not directly offered to him as a wife. Gunhild had to go out of farm where the party was rolling and she knew she would lost position and money and would have to live with and under the distant relative. From the other side Njolfur had enough of her tongue and their relationship was very bad last time and they had no children. So Njolfur was quite happy (and drunk) when a young, pretty face was offered to him. Trollbabe met Gunhild in very bad shape walking alone from the farm. After all she repaired marriege of Gunhild and Njolfur but i admit it was no action at all.
2. The stakes: relationship between young ones: Hrefna and Scarphedin - it was Romeo and Juliet. Trollbabe comes to farm where few relatives propose her to take part in their revenge on Scarphedin (they do not know their sister loves him). Trollbabe didn't want to but later on Hrefna asked her for help to stop them. Trollbabe cought them when they were waiting in ambush, spelled them and then went away with Hrefna and Scarphedin. It could be some action but first long time was talking all this in the farm.
So they said that it was too less action and too much talking and i admitt that my scene framing wasn't very good.

Hi Maciej,

Here are two things you can tell your players. Both of them involve the power they have, both during an adventure and between adventures.

1. If a player wants fights, all he or she has to do is to declare Fight conflicts, during a scene. The GM has no power to disagree or to block this announcement. (The reverse is also true - the GM may declare a conflict and define it as well, and the player cannot disagree or block the announcement.)

So the player cannot say to the GM "I want more fights in the next adventure" and expect the GM to do anything different. Yes, the GM could announce more Fight conflicts, but that is a kind of backwards way to get what you want. The player has full authority to announce Fight conflicts, if he or she wants them, and that is the direct and simple route to that end.

2. If the players want their trollbabes to be in the same adventure, then all they have to do is announce the same location for the next adventure. The GM has no power to dictate where a trollbabe is for a new adventure (I bet your players don't really realize that). That's right - no power at all. This isn't like point #1 above, in which player and GM are mirrors (have the same rights about announcing conflicts). This is player-centric and you cannot meet their demand. Only they can do it.

Regarding descriptions, Exploration, tasks, and conflicts, here are some ideas.

1. Descriptions of actions are good things. I suggest keeping and encouraging them. Focusing on conflict resolution does not mean ignoring or abandoning good, fun descriptions of actions.

2. Your emphasis on what the dice are for is good. Your question about the goal of the sleep spell during play to the player was, I think, a good one.

3. Beware of one common trap: pre-narrating possible outcomes before rolling. This is a very bad idea and ruins the fun of the narration rules.

It sounds like you and your group have made a great start!

Best, Ron

Thanks

I was net surfing and have read some of lumpel blog esseys about gaming. I think that are some major points i missed concernig story structure. First i was thinking that trollbabes choice (protagonist choice) is making cllimax and i think i was wrong. I rather should start all story or give it another kick. Then should come obstacles and escalation of conflict and then climax which is the resolution of conflict and it decide what consequences would appear. Am i right ? So description of all situation should come rather quickly and then, according to his decision protagonist should act to obtain what he has chosen. So i should not let the players finish story quickly after they choose the side but rather make as many trouble in executing it as it is reasonable ?
What do You think ?

The Lumpley Blog is very, very good stuff.  Vincent has a gift for explaining things very clearly.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, Maciej, because it's very abstract.  Can you give an example of what you did?

Usually in Trollbabe, the GM introduces the the story (or a scene).  The player gets involved; there is a Conflict.  As a result of the conflict, the story changes.  The GM figures out how the NPC's react to these changes.  The players figure out how the Trollbabes react.  This usually leads to more conflicts.  As the conflicts progress, and the story keeps changing, eventually the Stakes (Gorgh's life, in this case) will be decided, and that's the end.

Hi Maciej,

I think I understand your point, and I agree. Let me say it in my own words, and then you tell me if we are communicating.

The GM's first job is simply to provide descriptions of the situation, including the physical area and the actions and words of the NPC characters. Sometimes this will involve conflicts with the trollbabe and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the trollbabe player puts in their own reactions and conflicts.

You will find, very swiftly, that once the trollbabe becomes active in the situation, you will have to generate a new scene using information and attitudes that did not exist until just recently. For example, if a trollbabe insults a chieftain, no matter how much you liked that chieftain or how you thought perhaps he and she could become lovers, then probably your next scene, or a later one, will involve a confrontation between the two.

So when you say "The GM starts all the story," that is right if you mean that the GM is constantly generating new situations. But it is not correct if you mean that the GM controls where the story is going, because he does not.

You are entirely correct in that when the protagonist acts, that does not necessarily mean the story is now over. In most cases, in fact, the actions of the protagonist will only change the situation, just as James says. But in Trollbabe, you also have a guide in play, the Stakes. Sooner or later, if you are doing your job and involving the Stakes a lot, then the person or group who represents the Stakes will eventually come to a final point: killed, escaped, whatever, however you phrased it originally.

At that point, the story of that adventure comes to an end.

Best, Ron

Thanks

Thats all true, and i want to say about few other things.
Presenting the stakes to the players: i mean not literally but rather presenting them the situation. In my example in the begining of the topic there is a troll and humans. There is trolls point of view and humans one. The first scene: lets say (it is how i did in our second game which was much better then first) trollbabe walks the path and meets five vikings who was looking for troll or trolls who killed three viking warriors and took their heads. They propose her to go to the camp to meet with the chief... and so on. Later on trollbabe meets the troll and talk with him. Now she knows both sides and decide to help the troll. Then as she met the troll during looking for him with humans, she escapes from them and meet the troll, then helping him to run away with climax battle in the end. The question is how to present both (or more) sides of conflict (all participants views and what they want and what they do or would do), when to do it and how to develope action after that. I admitt that a lot is dependand of what the players decide or how would conflicts finish but i as a GM have to give them 1st scene and maybe (if there is a chance) present the other point of view. In our second game all of it appeared rather naturally without "must scenes" from me as a GM and with a lot of improvisation. Off course we have problems with some mechanics and still learn to build the scenes and story together but it was much, much better then the first time. As i said my first concern is how to present the situation to players to let them now the problem (isuee) and produce the theme. And how to make later on action amusing (what i as a GM have to prepare to do that). It also include how to build first and next scenes? Thats my problem now, also as i said during our second game all of it worked well. I have read lampley blog and some of the problems are described there.
I have to admit that i was little worry about how descriptions of actions would go using conlfict resolution but it much more amusing then in task resolution play. There were some action which i could not imagine to occure during typical task res. play. 

Hi Maciej,

I understand! You're making a lot of sense, and I think your posts will be helpful to many people who ask me questions about Trollbabe.

It also sounds as though you and your group are arriving at all the right solutions and skills very quickly.

Best, Ron

Hi, Maciej!

Ron is right. The posts in this thread make a lot of sense to me. You are helping me to better understand things I had on mind but I had a hard time to express in words.

I started to play Trollbabe in July, and since then I have not had the time or opportunity to play anything. Some of my experiences playing Trollbabe for the first time were somehow similar.

One of the things that took me sometime to realize is that to initiate the action is enough to actively expose the different sides of the situation. However this does not directly create the theme. The nice part is that players may easily introduce their priorities, not only to the kind of actions that take place (more action/more social), but to what they like or think about the situation. This is what really creates the theme.

During play the GM's job is just a matter of reacting to Trollbabe's actions involving them more and more in the Stakes. This naturally leads to complications and a climax when the Stakes are to be solved.

Thanks for this thread!
Arturo

Arturo,
I generally agree with You but want to say few words about the problem. First, it is not always easy to present different sides in elegant way. In narrativism as i understand it, we play to create meaningfull story. I would like it to be a good one in estheic way also. So i don't like to create scenes which are without sense according to situation. In the earlier example when trollbabe was in the vikings camp she didn't know and could not know trolls point of view. She could choose to help vikings to kill the troll just after hearing what humans said to her and after spotting him near the river declare conflict with a goal to kill him and win. The story is finished, or i rescue it, improvising other, lets say, two trolls which came to rescue the first one and so on. Thats ok but that is what i am learning to do in elegant fashion. It is technique i think which have to be mastered. So i asked about techniques of creating begining and next scenes in a way to elegantly and smoothly build the story with high participation of players. The other problem are mine and players old habits which sometimes are not what i want to see. In trollbabe a player as i understand it, is mainly an author and then actor, for players and me as GM sometimes it is not so easy to remember about it, and to know each other new responsibilities. For example a players creates a trollbabe, who wants to live in peace and wants to rather avoid engagment in npces problems - it always was not easy to gm but now, when PC forget about his/her author responsibilities and just play the character i was cought in a very strange siuation. But all of this are matters of expirience and techniques i think. Maybe the post was not very usefull but i had to write it :)

To make it more interesting, i hope, i would ask a question. My next play of Trollbabe would be still on personal level and i have a story idea. The stakes: old trolll shaman/chief life and position. His name is let say Nargh. From a month or two he does not leave the cave in which his troll group/family live. He says he cannot because there are some strange spirits/ghosts awaiting for him outside. Firsty he wanted others to do not go out also but after a week they started and nothing happend so everybody goes out. There are some other groups nearby very worried about the situation because the tribe leader and very powerfull shaman, Norgh is, become mad as they are sure. Some wants him to be cured by other shamans (he doesn't agree), some wants to kill him (he is danger for community) and some wants to leave him in the cave. But his relatives wants to cure him in the first place and to know what is the reason (if it is) of his fear. Trollbabes approach. After few scenes the secret is uncovered:
A) His wife has died a few months ago but he was able to stay her soul/spirit in the reality bonding her to the tree. He could not let his love to pass. She wanted and he agreed to let her posses a body of a young troll girl and the love to continue. At that moment Nargh realised what he is supposed to do and started to hesitate and decided to not do it. But the wifespirit has learned her new powers and was pushing him, started to scary him. All of this make him stay in the safe cave. Both of them know that if trolls discover what happended they would be dead. When trollbabes come he wants to use them as: a) a body for wife or b) the solvers of his situation. But many other trolls know what they want: his mad and his position should be given to someone else. If they discover what happened more of them would like to kill him but some of his family would say that what he's done was done because of love and he would never do it again. How to make such an attack at trollbabe cause litrerally it can be done by herself only with rerolls (i think it would be better to give him only "b" way of thinking maybe)?
B) Generally the same but he has a wife and the spirit in the forest is a dryad, and they felt in love with each other.
What You think is better ? 

Hi,

I think (B) is better because it's simpler and the emotions can be strong without so many layers and secrets.

Best, Ron

So the dryad You think. Thats how it came to my mind. Firstly it was much like a fearie tale, with little sprites acompaniig her. As i understand You, You suggest to stay at family level with strong jeolousy of his wife, his children emotions and so on, giving up all the chief position attack situation ?

Hi Maciej, how much pity do you want the players to feel?  The first option--dead wife--makes Nargh seem sad, insane, dangerous, wrong, depressing, and complicated.  The second option--alive wife, dryad girlfriend--makes Nargh seem foolish and petty.  Personally, I like the first way more--but it puts the players in a strange spot, because it is harder to pass judgment on him.  In a lot of Forge games, the players discover a strange situation, explore the reasons behind it, make a judgment, and move to the next town to do it all over again.  It is hard to judge Nargh in the first version with the dead wife.  This complexity might be fun, but it might be frustrating too.  Depends on your players, maybe.

I would make the situation more "grabby" too.  In both cases, Nargh is a pathetic character, and players might say, "Eh, this guy's problems give me a headache.  Let's go away."  So they might need more reason to care about what happens to him.  (Just a thought.)

Give Nargh a child who takes a shine to the Trollbabe.

Lets talk about situation A but it all is more less the same with B.
Judgement: Why it should be simple? Personaly i wanted it to be hard and not obvious. Players should feel pain choosing one or second side. If it would be obvius, how would it be interesting ? I want them to face their own values. In both situation it is not obvious how to judge Nargh. He loves and loves to the point to make a horrible crime which endanger his people but what should be the price: death, infamy, lose of position, exile or what ?
Maybe i am missing something but would it not drive good story ? I am just beginning the narrative adventure so pls feel free to say what You think.
NPCes. Firstly he has a dougher who loves him very much and do everything for him. She is his sunshine also. And he has a som who wants to challange his position. There are other npces in all spectrum.

Is he pathetic ? He is probably in the situation but otherwise he is greate leader and shaman who made mistake and PCes would know it. 

When i would make clear situation why should it be better for story and for players and play ? Pls answer this question because i consider this one of my biggest problems!
And thanks for Your response, it is VERY HELPFULL

Pls tell me what "to take a shine to somebody" means ? It is too difficult to my English...

Hi Maciej,

To "take a shine to" someone means to like him or her, usually when you first meet them or when you see them doing something. The person has met your approval and you want to help them.

To answer your question about your scenario, I think the best way to make the situation clear is to have the characters tell the trollbabe what they think. But no character has the whole story, so some of what they say will be a guess. Also, even what they say accurately will be altered by the character's attitude. And finally, all of them want the trollbabe to do something in their favor, so they will try to influence her by altering the facts slightly.

So the players are constantly getting information, but they should understand that no single NPC is going to be your (the GM's) mouthpiece for saying the "true" story.

Best, Ron

MacTele wrote:
Judgement: Why it should be simple? Personaly i wanted it to be hard and not obvious. Players should feel pain choosing one or second side. If it would be obvius, how would it be interesting ? I want them to face their own values. In both situation it is not obvious how to judge Nargh. He loves and loves to the point to make a horrible crime which endanger his people but what should be the price: death, infamy, lose of position, exile or what ?

Maybe i am missing something but would it not drive good story ? I am just beginning the narrative adventure so pls feel free to say what You think.

Hi James,

It's more complex than that, although the rules are simple.

1. A broken heart isn't a scraped knee. "Fixing" it is not actually a meaningful effect, if you think about it. What does "fixing it" mean? What is the trollbabe actually doing or offering, concretely? Without that consideration, a goal such as you state amounts to mind-control and scenario re-write, if applied to the degree that I think you're applying it. It would be kind of The Next Generation solution: "Ohhh, he has a broken heart? Here, I'll hug him, he'll have a good cry, and everything can be solved because he'll be reasonable now."

The relevant rule is, Goals must include who is in conflict, about what, and what Action Type is involved. I think you'll see that "I fix his broken heart" doesn't apply. Perhaps "I help him to let go of his commitment to his dead wife" will work better ... but think carefully about what opposes it. The GM might well roll Magic into it as the ghost/spirit/dryad is directly threatened.

2. The GM narrates player-character successes. Period. He cannot undercut that goal's success in terms of saying the trollbabe can't her point across, and the guy doesn't understand it. She did and he does. But he narrates the actual effect - what that means to the NPC's behavior. What's this NPC like? Will he react by taking a day to think it over? By deciding that the person who broke his heart needs to die? If that's not possible, deciding to take revenge on the trollbabe? In fact, I can think of a dozen different strong reactions to a successful heart-to-heart, weepy chat, none of which actually snaps its fingers and makes the basic scenario's problem vanish.

The relevant rule is, The trollbabe cannot leave the adventure until the Stakes are resolved. She can't do it because the player says "I just leave," and she can't do it because the GM narrates "Oh, well, I guess that solves the problem, so uh, gee, it's over." If a given roll does affect the Stakes in a final way, then that is sufficient to end the adventure, but only then. Making Nargh feel good by having a nice chat doesn't do that.

3. The player may choose to take an NPC as a Relationship, with the GM's permission if the NPC is named (I almost always give permission). That needs to be factored in as well, because the player might say "And we're now lovers," providing a useful constraint as well as direction for the GM's narration.

Best, Ron

One more question about preparations before actual play. Do You really just create the sakes, consequences for it and situation described in 2-3 sentences (3 named npces) ?? As i see it the rest should improvisation during play... ?