[Forge Midwest] Trollbabe- Player Choices, and a Question for Ron
Alan:
Hi Ron,
I think this is a case of a word meaing something different for much of your audience than it does for you. For me, my first interpretation of "does" includes intentions, while your clarification puts intentions under "What the NPC thinks and feels." I suspect others share this first interpretation.
I just reviewed the examples in the book and don't find anything that would have clarified this for me. I would suggest being more explicit -- maybe something like "the player can say what action the NPC takes, but the GM determines the NPC's evaluations, feelings, and intentions."
rafial:
I've thought about this some more, and for me, it's not even about word choice (i.e. "does" "actions") but the fact that in causal speech and thinking, action and intention are so very bound up with each other. That is after one of the basic things that conflict resolution is trying to wrestle with, making sure that both action and intention are clearly expressed and understood by everybody at the table. These rules take things one step further by pulling action and intention apart and putting different people in charge of each one. Since they are so bound up in the first place, obviously that's going to lead to blurred lines... :/
So I've got the following imagined play dialog in my head:
"I use Oskel as a reroll. He overhears the struggle, and bursts into the room, coming to my aid."
"Sorry, his interests are not aligned with yours in this case. Sure he bursts into the room, but he growls at them, 'Hey boys, you're supposed to keep the dinner quiet'. No reroll for that."
"Oh crap, well his appearance startles his bully-boys none the less. While they are distracted, I squirm free."
"Okay, I'll buy that, roll for it."
Seems reasonable to me, just a little bit of free and clear working up to the roll, no need to play the "it came out of your mouth so it is irrevocably in the fiction" game.
It does make me wonder about this though: It seems like relationships could easily move between categories over time. Oskel was taken as a Comrade, but now stands revealed as an Enemy. A Sidekick could become a Lover, etc.
Ron Edwards:
Hi there,
This is a complex set of ideas about something simple, I hope ...
Alan, I'll start with your point and see whether that helps get at something Rafial's brought up. What your point says to me is that I have to wear two very distinct hats: the guy who wrote the first version of the game, which you are playing, and which he plays too, and the guy who's working on the book version.
The first guy says, "How has this worked out for you in actual play? Have you encountered hassles about what a Relationship NPC does or does not do, or whether his or her presence is or isn't worth a re-roll?"
The second guy says, "Thanks, I agree. I don't think anything in Trollbabe was terribly badly written, but I do think it's not up to my current writing standards, and that point is one example. Especially, the phrases 'try to help,' or 'come to my aid,' are extremely hard to parse as action vs. intent, and I can see that the written rules leave a grey area that shouldn't be there."
Rafial, that distinction between hats is really important for your questions. The following bit is completely from the first hat.
---
Your imagined dialogue trips me up to the extent that I cannot quite answer your question. The GM's response is fine, although there shouldn't be any "sorry," because this how play goes; he shouldn't apologize for following the rules. The player's response, though, is weird ... the player suddenly took over the response of the bully-boys, over whom he has no authority whatsoever. Most especially, their startlement and distraction is the kind of thing one narrates after a roll, not before.
The way you've phrased it seems a lot like the sort of play that I'm seeing called "conflict resolution," which is nothing of the sort. The player states a potential narration of something going well, and then rolls to see whether it happens. That's not how Trollbabe works - intention (of the trollbabe) and action (of everyone) are required, but outcome-statements are emphatically not. Furthermore, it seems as if the player is somehow relying on the GM "buying" the suggestion, which isn't part of play either. Her either gets the re-roll because it follows the rules, or he doesn't - the GM's taste or sense of rightness or whatever has nothing to do with it.
I also don't see how the player's statement is connected to getting a re-roll. Is he checking something off the list on the sheet? He could do that, like a "found item" such as the chamberpot or something. But describing the bully-boys' eventual state if they are successfully rolled against isn't going to do it.
OK, though, let's stick with the real issue at hand, which is Oskel and the relationship and the re-roll. Let's say that the player did check off "found item" and moves on with that re-roll. Can he use Oskel for another re-roll, if this one fails? Well ... not, actually. Because Oskel's eligibility relies entirely on the trollbabe's intent in this conflict, which is fixed throughout the conflict. Oskel can stand there and do stuff, but he can't generate a re-roll.
---
That first hat is a little defensive, isn't he? I'm glad the real me is actually wearing the second hat.
I think if I attend to the issues in my second-hat answer in my reply to Alan, that will do the job. Of course, a big part of that is deciding whether Relationships will be broken into different types with different criteria for re-rolls at all.
My current thinking is to keep certain distinctions among them, with some rules-effects, but not anything about can-I or can't-I regarding using them for re-rolls. I think it will go better for everyone if Relationship NPCs simply always generate re-rolls when called upon.
In that case, the second that Willow named Oskel as a Relationship, and I agreed (as is necessary for a named NPC), then I'd be committed to saying "Oskel will aid her when Willow says so," period. That actually works very well. As it stands, Oskel is kind of trapped between wanting to help her and not wanting to help her, which isn't very fun and makes for vague-ass situations like the one we're discussing.
I greatly appreciate these posts, guys. It's helping me think clearly about the manuscript.
Best, Ron
rafial:
Quote
My current thinking is to keep certain distinctions among them, with some rules-effects, but not anything about can-I or can't-I regarding using them for re-rolls. I think it will go better for everyone if Relationship NPCs simply always generate re-rolls when called upon.
That sounds pretty good to me, because I'll be quite honest, whenever I have run Trollbabe, all that stuff about types of relationships apart from the basic distinction of friend/enemy got completely ignored (well, I think Rival got featured some - that can be fun). When I went to review the text as part of this discussion, I looked at comrade/sidekick/lover/mentor/etc and thought "huh, I remember reading this once, but I don't ever remember using it in play." And it's never been a problem, primarily I think because:
Quote
In that case, the second that Willow named Oskel as a Relationship, and I agreed (as is necessary for a named NPC), then I'd be committed to saying "Oskel will aid her when Willow says so," period.
...yeah, that's the way I've always done it in practice. The GM veto option for named NPCs is all the "plot protection" that is needed.
Arturo G.:
I'm also finding that the simplification is a nice thing.
I recognize that some type of relationships and their effects in play were also a little elusive for me. I was most of the times disregarding the details. Probably it was the origin of a couple of problems in play, that I'm only fully noticing now, that you are exposing how the things should work in Trollbabe as it is written.
Quote
The GM veto option for named NPCs is all the "plot protection" that is needed.
The "plot protection" thing, even being inside quotation marks, makes me feel uneasy. To what extent have I been using the GM veto to protect the character function in the story, or the protect plot-ideas I already had on mind?
I cannot be sure.
What is the real reason for the existence of the GM veto?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page