[Trollbabe] One out of three ain't bad: a musing on Numbers
Ron Edwards:
Hiya,
My thinking is that the trollbabe's heavyweight status should be with something very tangible: Fighting or Magic. Partly that's because she is viewed as so consequential by anyone she meets, which I think needs to be legitimized by the system, and partly because even on her own, she should be a doer. I like the idea that the talkiest trollbabe is a bit hosed in the other fields, not too much, but enough to point out that with a point shifted either way, she's much better off.
Um, Jules (angel etc) said it better.
Best, Ron
Markus:
Hi guys,
just a quick comment (I'm working on that Trollbabe actual play report I promised to post in every snippet of spare time I can find...)
I always used the 'new' rule in all my games and I'd say that I would not change it in any way. There IMHO are two main reasons to keep things as they are (social = lower range):
(1) The usual "successful roll = good for the player" does not apply that much or that directly to Trollbabe. In fact, *winning* most rolls is one of the worst situations for beginning players especially, since you don't get to narrate anything and/or use rerolls, and the game falls sort of flat in my experience. So, by allowing character builds that maximize TWO conflict arenas, you minimize all the good things that the system would make happen 'by itself'.
(2) I know this is largely non-mechanical, but deciding to approach problems with spell and axe rather than with words does indeed have a different (usually stronger) thematical impact in good old fantasy stories. So, by not allowing high social scores, you indirectly sort-of-guarantee that sooner or later, it will come to sword & sorcery if the Trollbabe cares about the current situation. This is ultra-elegant, no-frills game design, IMHO, and not mere coincidence.
Also, this rule contains a secondary premise-y question for the players, which is represented by the following. If you WANT to stick to social (ie non-violent, non-supernatural) confrontations for solving stuff, then you'll be less successful, on average, than what you would be if you resorted to violence or magic. So this means that in long term, you'll have to use more of those relationship rerolls. And we all know what this means, isn't it? (THIS is the main system-supported premise of Trollbabe, in my opinion).
But don't take my word for it. Try to picture in your head, or better yet, do a playtest session in which you allow either 2 very high scores, or a social score of (let's say) 9. Then compare this to the current rules, and note down the differences...
I hope this helps!
bye
M
Brand_Robins:
I once (only once) played a version of Trollbabe hacked to run an Exalted-like universe, in which I let players chose their "high/middle/low" attributes -- so you could set social to high exclusive, or middle inclusive, or whatever.
One of the players made a talking primary character, with a fall back to magic, and a very low fighting. And that character, while she worked in the context of the game we were playing, made very different choices and had a very different impact than the more Swords and Sorcery feeling Trollbabes. It suddenly became a much more political, gradual game and lacked a lot of the hit it hard aspect that my other Trollbabe play has had.
So, for me at least, letting players shift their ratios around didn't kill the game, but it did change the focus of it quite quickly.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page