*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 12, 2022, 07:18:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 76 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Print
Author Topic: [Trollbabe] novice questions, pls help  (Read 12244 times)
MacTele
Member

Posts: 20


« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2006, 03:23:47 PM »

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...
Logged
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2006, 04:10:13 PM »

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
Logged
James_Nostack
Member

Posts: 642


« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2006, 04:30:44 PM »

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.

I think it's an excellent idea for a good story.  I like these difficult decisions too.  In fact, I wish I could play in your game!  But, if your group is new to these types of stories, it might be a big adjustment for them.  That's all.  No big deal. 

(Maciej, both your story ideas are great, and I might use them next time our group plays Trollbabe.)

Ron, quick question: the GM can't nix a player's Goal, right?  (I don't have the rules with me, and haven't played in a year.)  So, in the Nargh-the-troubled-shaman story, a player might say: "I declare a social-magical conflict.  Goal: fix Nargh's broken heart and get his head straight."  The GM might tinker with the pace, and might add a conflict type (Fighting vs. the son and his allies, for example), but the player can propose whatever he or she wants, right?  There's no way to outlaw it explicitly, or implicitly through an absurdly high level of difficulty.
Logged

--Stack
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2006, 05:46:55 AM »

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
Logged
MacTele
Member

Posts: 20


« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2006, 09:03:24 AM »

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... ?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!