Hello,

This is a problem I encounter in almost ALL Fortune-In-The-Middle based systems but I want to discuse it in a Trollbabe context because the mechanics are the simplest and most well defined and thus won't confuse the issue.

A lot of players I've encountered (a few in my own group, people I've met at cons, etc) REALLY REALLY like the whole share-the-narrative, Fortune-In-The-Middle approach to combat and other physical conflicts but REALLY REALLY hate it when it applies to social scenes. These players often equate Roleplaying with Dialogue. Thus when it comes to diplomatic scenes, or seduction scenes, or otherwise primarily social scenes, they want to be primarily in Actor Stance REALLY delivering their argument based on what their character knows and feels and for the GM to respond in kind, from what the NPC knows and feels. A die roll is really only to be used as a mitigating factor if the GM is torn whether or not an NPC accepts the argument or if the PC knows what their argument strategy is but is having trouble articulating it as clearly and forcefully as they would like to.

So, I'm curious. In a Trollbabe scene involving a negotiation centric conflict, where does the actual argument, dialgue and banter go and who delivers it? Where does the die roll go? Given that there are no bonus dice and what not in Trollbabe is there any effect their actual argument or performance can have on the outcome?

Thanks.

Jesse

We've had dialog set up a Conflict situation...
(following his refusal to take the Truth potion, the Nobleman's guards draw their weapons)
We've had Social Conflict situation replace Dialog
(I convince the Herald that the Regent-to-Be may be behind the death of the King)

I guess I would use a Social Conflict set of rolls, as well as the previous dialog to determine the way the diplomacy goes. Using the narration to state what effect the statements had (an unintended insult, or this guys mind is set in stone, etc).

A bit like Orx in that way...use the dice results of Series to determine where to take the dialog...

"Ok, this Series you werre trying to hammer out the non-aggression pact of the overall Diplomatic Alliance Conflict...oops failed...ok Discommode...you want to narrate the failure player? ok, go ahead...take into account the stalling of the NAP issue."

A die roll is really only to be used as a mitigating factor if the GM is torn whether or not an NPC accepts the argument or if the PC knows what their argument strategy is but is having trouble articulating it as clearly and forcefully as they would like to.

Hi Mike,

Rolls are necessary when a Conflict is called for. Anyone may call for a Conflict; whoever calls it states its Action Type, which sets the target number (which may or may not be added to) and its Pace, which sets how many rolls (which may be modified).

Only trollbabes involved in a Conflict roll dice; the GM never rolls.

I should also point out that although anyone may call for a Conflict, Conflicts may only occur during a Scene, and the GM has final power over the onset and the closure of a Scene.

And finally, that Conflict-calling includes both (a) some situation that is so full of conflict-of-interest with some in-game person (or whatever) that a Conflict must be called, and (b) starting with calling the Conflict, in which case its phrasing sets the parameters for whatever in-game elements are involved.

Best,
Ron

Bob McNamee wrote:
"Ok, this Series you werre trying to hammer out the non-aggression pact of the overall Diplomatic Alliance Conflict...oops failed...ok Discommode...you want to narrate the failure player? ok, go ahead...take into account the stalling of the NAP issue."

Hi Jesse,

Couldn't you just use the basic rule used for Relationship type characters? That is the player states the facts but leaves the "roleplaying" up to the GM?

Example:
I fail my Social roll to convince the guard to let my Trollbabe through the gate....

A) "He won't let me through, and he's unfriendly!"
GM roleplays unfriendly guard
B) "He won't let me through, but he's friendly enough.."
GM roleplays friendly, but uncooperative guard(maybe makes pass at Trollbabe)
C) "He won't let me through"
Basically handing the ball back to the GM, GM may roleplay guard as ruthlessly unfriendly(calls more guards) to really helpful aside from that one fact("I can't let anyone through, or I'd lose my head, I can't stand the King, what an ass...")

This would seem to be a good way of working within the rules and opening the door for some fun interactions.

Chris

What Chris said. Works both ways (player/GM, GM/player) depending on who's narrating.

Best,
Ron

here's another possible idea: the role-playing (in the sense used by the players who dislike FitM for social situations) occurs during the free-and-clear phase, with the conflict roll only being used to resolve the tail-end of the interaction. since this is conflict resolution and not task resolution, the roll doesn't say "despite all the good suggestions you have used, the guard says `no'". it says "the discussion went exactly as we've played it out, but some complication has occurred."

maybe other guards join the first, setting up a different conflict.

maybe the guard agrees with you to let you pass, but the conversation took so long that what you were actually trying to accomlish (get in to stop an assassination, steal a priceless relic) has been set back in some way.

maybe the guard lets you pass, but something happens as you pass him and he changes his mind (he catches a glimpse of a hidden weapon and shouts "guards! an assassin at the gates!")

or maybe I'm misunderstanding th problem.

I usually like to use reroll systems as tools to help guide the actual "roleplaying" that's happening.

So the players walk up to the guard and want to try and convince him to step aside. The players and the GM start going at it. Somewhere along the lines a conflict is called for; people start rolling dice. Depending on the outcome of that roll, the GM starts to shift the NPC's attitude to reflect a success or failure.

Rinse, repeat until the conflict is resolved mechanically and then likewise in-game.

The reason I asked about the who calls for the rolls is that, if the player doesn't want to roll a particular conversation, and the GM senses this, can't they just "talk it out"?

Why do you have to roll at all? I think you're letting your interperetation of the rules get in the way of playing the way you and your players like. As GM just never call for a Social Roll. If the players want to, they can do so. Problem solved.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Why do you have to roll at all? I think you're letting your interperetation of the rules get in the way of playing the way you and your players like. As GM just never call for a Social Roll. If the players want to, they can do so. Problem solved.

Jesse, this is a Narrativist game. Failure isn't a bad thing. Going into a fight injured could be seen as advantageous. In that case it's the player who foregos the roll who's missing out.

If your players are Gamists, and see an advantage in not rolling, then they'll all not call for rolls and it'll still be balanced (and I'd suggest you play something else).

I'm totally not seeing a problem here. I can't speak for the text but I'm just not seeing an imperative of any sort here. It's like you're saying that in order for the game to work correctly, you have to do stuff that makes play suck.

I can't imagine that Ron made a game in which this is so. If it really is the case, Jesse, that the text absolutely requires it, then Drift the game a little. Who says you have to play by the rules (I rarely do)?

Mike

Jesse,

Perhaps you could agree up front with the group to play out social situations through pure roleplay up to the point where a story-critical decision has to be made and there's no one clear way to go ("'Alas, will I betray my people -- or betray my love?' groaned Harng the Hunter") -- at which point you call for a one-roll Social conflict with no re-rolls and incorporate the result.

That way you've got the Narrativist-play enjoyment of making meaning out of the throw of a die, but it impinges as little as possible on the "pure roleplay" stuff -- does this strike you as a worthwhile compromise, Jesse?


Rod

Hi there,

Mike, just for clarification, and you've probably picked up on this already, Scene and Conflict have extremely fixed meanings in Trollbabe, and not all Scenes contain Conflicts.

If two characters enter into dialogue, that's not a conflict until the dialogue indicates that their aims are unavoidably opposed. Either that's established by the content of the dialogue itself, in which case someone says, "Looks like it's a conflict," or it's established retroactively after someone says "I want a conflict."

Anyway, Jesse, let me now address your inquiry directly.

Part of the problem is that we're dealing not with you, not with me, and not with any given instance of real play, but with a rather nebulous construct of yours called "a player who doesn't like [fill-in]." The trouble I have with discussing this construct's issue is that he, she, or it will flap and warp in the wind of the discussion rather than provide a foundation for it.

That said, we now know that "player" doesn't like rolling a die and then saying, "Oh, I failed. OK, that means that I say ..." and then narrates a thing or two. This player likes to know what was said before the roll, case closed.

Am I right about that? If so, then there are two avenues to discuss. The first is if "player" is really extreme about this issue, and in which case, Trollbabe, Dust Devils, Otherkind, The Dying Earth, and InSpectres are totally not the game for this person. He, she, or it must simply find something else. A minimum willingness to play in this fashion is necessary in these games.

The second avenue is if "player" has a certain tolerance for playing in this fashion, but not too too much. Fine - now, merely establish more about what's up in the Fair & Clear stage of announcement, so that certain consequences of failure are well-established beforehand. However, in Trollbabe, this kind of "what will happen if I miss" thinking has a limit, and the player will indeed have to buckle down and do some retroactive dialogue to a certain extent.

Best,
Ron

Whoa, Ron's right, this coversation is wobbling a little bit. Allow me to focus it a bit. First of all, the reason I'm asking specifically about Trollbabe is because I'm preparing a serious effort to pitch this game as the next "long term" game we play to my group. Through out my study of the rules I realized that Trollbabe includes a "problem" that I encoutered during my brief session with Deathwish. The problem being that Social Conflicts have the EXACT SAME mechanical consequences as Physical Conflicts and thus it makes NO SENSE to resolve Social Conflicts via Drama as they often are in other games.

During my Deathwish run I had one player comment, "The thing I don't like about these kinds of games is that they actually, eliminate roleplaying." It took a bit of thought but I realized that "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.

So, I would run into this problem. The player would start to talk to an NPC. I would detect that this was clearly an attempt to persuade the NPC to do something. So, I would stop the player and ask them to clearify what their goal would was. Once the goal was understood, I would employ the system. But once the outcome was determined the player would clam up. They simply saw no point in playing out the details because now that the outcome was determined their "roleplaying" was rendered "meaningless."

While reading Trollbabe, I realized that the rules specifically DICTATE the above structure. So, I wondered if I was missing something. Am I calling for the Goal Clearification/Roll too early in the process? Am I not facilitaing the post-roll "roleplaying" properly? This is why I wanted to clearify what a Social Conflict looks like within the confines of the Trollbabe Scene-Conflict-Goal-Roll-Re-Roll structure.

It's entirely possible that it is simply a Player Preference vs Game Design Assumptions incompatibility problem. I'm will to accept that. I just want to make it sure it wasn't a GM not doing his job problem.

Jesse

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.

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

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

Bankuei wrote:
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.

rafial wrote: 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?

greyorm wrote: 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.

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