[Trollbabe] Dungeonbabe & Dragons (Actual Play)
Ron Edwards:
Hi John,
Quite a few things you're struggling with, or at least bumping up against, are altered and clarified in the book version. Please email me your mailing address, and I'll send you a copy as a Christmas gift for the family.
Contrary to my usual habits, I have to break the next series of quesions into individual units in order to be as clear as possible. However, together, they do present a unified issue, and you did ask them in a very coherent unified way, so I recommend reading my answers as a group rather than in isolation.
Quote
For the skulking thugs example on page 12 of the PDF, what action type would it be to watch out for enemies, with the goal of making sure nothing is there?
It could be any of the three action types.
Quote
What if the goal was "to avoid anyone who's trying to bushwhack me?" In the forum discussions, I see that action type is usually determined by goal, regardless of methods used-- i.e. a fight with the goal to protect the companion would be a Social conflict, whereas if the goal was to decapitate the king would be Fighting.
I think you've answered your own question here, which is to say, if bushwhacking is mentioned in the Goal, then bushwhacking is now effectively (potentially) part of what might happen. Or more simply, "Yes."
Quote
But in the cases of "making sure nothing is there" or "avoiding anyone trying to bushwhack me", I'm guessing the action type would be derived from announced actions, rather than hinging on the stated goal. So if I use magical sight, it's a Magic conflict, but if I survey the area using my military training it's a Fighting conflict. Is that right?
Yes, that's correct, but I think that your point applies to "make sure nothing is there" - not to "avoiding anyone trying to bushwhack me," which (if I were to call that conflict) I would instantly peg as Fighting.
Again, I think I made all of this much clearer in the new rules, honing the issue of the unknown into more usable form.
Now for a little rules-and-play detail.
Quote
Skah had been dragged away by a big spider, but it was quick work getting herself untangled and dispatching the beast; on the final roll, I narrated that an arrow came out of the darkness and hit the spider's abdomen at the same time that she dashed it's brains out. Thus, Skah met Vaadish again, now in his true form, and they set off together. I allowed Skah to take Vaadish as a relationship, which gives her a stake in the Stakes and a chance to learn more about the conflict from his perspective.
This is, if not abominable, at least a little bit suspicious-sounding. First, let me make sure I understand correctly: Vaadish's arrow was not brought in as a "sudden ally" re-roll item, right? If it were, then that's fine. But if not, then I think you might be relying on some play-tactics that aren't necessary in Trollbabe.
I'm basing that judgment on my old tactics when GMing Champions and similar games. I often relied on within-action opportunities, specifically moments when I narrated the outcomes of rolls, to introduce characters, information, and "open doors" for characters to walk through. In other words, there was no mechanism in these games for simply introducing such things on their own. If you did, i.e., had a guy walk through a door and get introduced, everyone would turtle up and go passive. So in order to bring someone into play with the tacit message that he or she wasn't a trap or a Trojan Horse, I had to do it during the action, showing the players that this new person was "really a friend" through narrations exactly like your arrow.
But before I go on, do you think I'm on the right track so far?
Quote
What is the etiquette regarding actual play reports? What information is useful and what information is overkill? It's lucidly clear to me how the rules have given rise to the direction and content of the story, but I don't want to be oblique about that if there more mechanical detail is needed.
There's no fixed etiquette, because everyone has his or her own needs and reasons for posting, and I'd rather let that be an individual feature of each thread than dictate some specific format or type of information. All that's needed is whatever you need to raise the questions or issues to discuss, and if anyone reading needs more, or thinks they can help you come up with what's needed, they'll ask. So far, your posts have been models of clarity and content, as far as I'm concerned.
Best, Ron
John S:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on December 08, 2009, 08:14:10 AM
Quite a few things you're struggling with, or at least bumping up against, are altered and clarified in the book version. Please email me your mailing address, and I'll send you a copy as a Christmas gift for the family.
Holy moly, Ron-- thanks!
Quote from: Ron Edwards on December 08, 2009, 08:14:10 AM
I think you've answered your own question here, which is to say, if bushwhacking is mentioned in the Goal, then bushwhacking is now effectively (potentially) part of what might happen. Or more simply, "Yes."
Quote
But in the cases of "making sure nothing is there" or "avoiding anyone trying to bushwhack me", I'm guessing the action type would be derived from announced actions, rather than hinging on the stated goal. So if I use magical sight, it's a Magic conflict, but if I survey the area using my military training it's a Fighting conflict. Is that right?
Yes, that's correct, but I think that your point applies to "make sure nothing is there" - not to "avoiding anyone trying to bushwhack me," which (if I were to call that conflict) I would instantly peg as Fighting.
Thank you-- that makes sense.
Vaadish's arrow:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on December 08, 2009, 08:14:10 AM
This is, if not abominable, at least a little bit suspicious-sounding. First, let me make sure I understand correctly: Vaadish's arrow was not brought in as a "sudden ally" re-roll item, right? If it were, then that's fine. But if not, then I think you might be relying on some play-tactics that aren't necessary in Trollbabe.
Vaadish wasn't brought in as a "sudden ally". I'm not exactly sure whether we counted killing the spider as part of escaping from the web-- in which case the pace was Exchange by Exchange, and she used a reroll in the first series to drop a knife out of her sleeve (a carried item) --or if it we considered killing the spider a separate (pace 1) conflict; but her Fighting roll at that point in the story was successful on the first try. So it sounds like I've done something abominable or suspicious. Is this a kind of rail-roading?
I guess I took the rule of GM narrating success to mean that I could introduce any elements or complications that bring the stakes into greater focus. In the conversation that followed the conflict, Skah found out that Vaadish was the raven from the earlier session, and he also mentioned that Adelina is his mother.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on December 08, 2009, 08:14:10 AM
I'm basing that judgment on my old tactics when GMing Champions and similar games. I often relied on within-action opportunities, specifically moments when I narrated the outcomes of rolls, to introduce characters, information, and "open doors" for characters to walk through. In other words, there was no mechanism in these games for simply introducing such things on their own. If you did, i.e., had a guy walk through a door and get introduced, everyone would turtle up and go passive. So in order to bring someone into play with the tacit message that he or she wasn't a trap or a Trojan Horse, I had to do it during the action, showing the players that this new person was "really a friend" through narrations exactly like your arrow.
But before I go on, do you think I'm on the right track so far?
Well, I'm not sure, but probably. I think what you're saying is that narrating outside circumstances to embellish the outcome of a successful roll is de-protagonizing, unless the player asks for it through reroll mechanics. Is that right?
I didn't have a conscious goal to show Vaadish as an ally, but I did have goals of adding drama to the scene, and to bring more focus on the stakes, as I understood them.
I realized, even as I was originally framing the scene, that setting the scene would be the correct time to introduce adversity related to the stakes. So if something abominable or suspicious happened at the end of the scene, it probably has it's roots there: I failed to come up with adversity more clearly related to the stakes. Instead, I used the situation to introduce a character who is pretty close to the main conflict.
I'm glad to get schooled if I'm doing something taboo, especially if it will make the story and the game richer. I don't know anything about Champions, so my response may be anaemic.
Thanks again.
Nick Caldwell:
ooh, ohhh, I wanna try!
First of all, to John: COOL Setting. I want to play in your game. And how cool that you are getting your wife and daughter to play -- in some other thread maybe we could talk about how those relationships affect play (I also play with my wife and my daughter is old enough now to start playing).
To Ron:
Quote
Again, I think I made all of this much clearer in the new rules, honing the issue of the unknown into more usable form
Yes, yes you did. Having just read my copy, I was able to answer each question in turn and indeed, find specific examples that address the question (the "seeeing if someone is ambushing me" is right out of the rewrite, I believe).
so "I see if someone is waiting in ambush" results in:
Success: Someone is and you surprised him!
Failure: Someone is and he gets the drop on you.
Regarding Vaadish's arrow - IIRC, the new rules are much more explicit about not introducing new elements in this way. It violates the "clear" part of free-and-clear --- you're springing a new element on your players with no possible way for them to react to it. There already exists a way to bring new elements in through the re-rolls.
But to get him there would have been pretty easy -- during the free-and-clear stage just mention Vaadish is taking part. Or simply frame the next scene as Vaadish showing up. To me, reading the AP it feels like you kind of had two scenes here that kind of got smudged together instead of being explicitly framed -- is that accurate?
You could have had a conflict with him during the battle (During free-and-clear they see Vaadish standing at the edge of the clearing, nocking an arrow at the beast) or after the battle (Skah convinces Vaadish to accompany her or decides she wants no witnesses to the spider's death and kills him or whatever). To me it feels like the players didn't really have a chance to affect his influence on the story.
I'm not sure I'm being clear -- I just have this feeling not that you did something abominable but that you let something wonderful slip away. :-) Let me try this -- here's how the Actual Play reads to me:
1. Oh noes a giant spider let's kill it
2. Oh noes Vaadish shows up
and instead it could have been:
1. Oh noes a giant spider let's OMFG Vaadish is here too WTF do we do about that?
You just turn the screws tighter on the Trollbabes -- and they REALLY start to shine. :-)
(Hmmmm -- remember that separate family question I had? Are you perhaps unconsciously trying to lead them through the story to make sure they have a good time? I did that the first time I played with my wife -- holding back a bit. The problem is that TBs always want to be at the center of the storm.)
The new rulebook is an absolute joy. (Kudos, Ron). Given that you've played with the PDF and been successful at it, I'd say things are going to get a lot easier on the technical side once your holiday gift arrives. :-)
Please keep posting, John -- I want to see what happens next and you are asking GREAT questions.
Sincerely,
Nick
John S:
Thanks, stingray! There's a whole lot I'd like to respond to in your message, but I won't have time to write until later. I wanted to at least mention this bit:
Quote from: stingray20166 on December 08, 2009, 11:49:42 AM
Regarding Vaadish's arrow - IIRC, the new rules are much more explicit about not introducing new elements in this way. It violates the "clear" part of free-and-clear --- you're springing a new element on your players with no possible way for them to react to it.
That is exactly what I missed, and I see that you're right. I mentioned before that I'm weak declaring official "fair & clear", I guess because I'm steeped in the culture of players-declare-actions/GM-narrates-results-and-events that Trollbabe blows to smithereens. I told my people that it's an official phase that needs to be explicitly settled before dice are rolled, and I even wrote it one a quick-reference index card for them, but sometimes I still forget. Having you spell it out is pretty helpful.
Quote from: stingray20166 on December 08, 2009, 11:49:42 AM
There already exists a way to bring new elements in through the re-rolls.
Speaking of re-roll items, I want to ask this since I thought about it when Ron asked me if Vaadish was brought in as a "sudden ally". Who narrates surprises brought in as reroll items? The way we've been playing, the player gets to narrate the stimulus side before the die roll, and the person who narrates the results of the surprising action or thing is based on Success or Failure of the associated reroll. This seems to be borne out in the PDF rules:
Quote from: Trollbabe
The player states that she seizes a (heretofore unmentioned) dagger from her belt and uses it to stab a crucial part of the (heretofore unmentioned) map on the table, to emphasize her point.
If I'm interpreting this right, only the players can spring new elements or surprises on the conflict through rerolls. Right? I guess the GM could narrate (heretofore unmentioned) complications if a reroll is successful, but unless the success is the result of a reroll, no new elements may come into play. Is that right? I feel like Tevye, when told that that the previous two statements can't both be right: "You are also right."
stingray, I hope to get back to you on your other comments later. Thanks again!
John S:
Oops, Nick-- I missed your name. Sorry about that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page