[Trollbabe] Harmed relationships - pg 61
James_Nostack:
Thanks for your replies, John and Moreno. I appreciate your time, but I think ultimately I'm not convinced.
I understand that in a game of Trollbabe all Conflicts are potentially dangerous, but I have a hard time envisioning how all conflicts are potentially lethal to third parties. I'm not talking about mere violence or danger. I'm talking about murder or some strange, lethal accident.
Specifically, this was not how conflicts worked in the PDF version of Trollbabe. See pages 30-31 of the PDF, which I'll quote from...
Quote from: PDF Version
Relationships can be damaging to the people involved. If a re-roll based on a relationship fails, no matter how the whole series turns out, the person in question will wind up at one “consequence" level worse than the trollbabe does, if he or she is physically present during the conflict.
============
Retta finishes a [social conflict] Series during which she used her relationship with Skalgar Hog’s Son, in which she happened to fail at the “injured" level. He was present during the conflict, and thus he is incapacitated and may be considered unavailable for rerolls for some time, which may be specified by the player as part of his or her narration of the result of the Series.
============
This is how people with relationships to the main characters can die: when a trollbabe is incapacitated, and if any relationships were involved in the Series as re-rolls–and if those people were physically present or otherwise directly involved–then they die. Note that Skalgar Hog’s Son, in the debate example, is
not at risk because he is not present in the conflict itself.
Why is a rule requiring Skalgar's death a better rule than one requiring Skalgar's incapacitation?
I understand that the rules on page 61 change the connection between a Trollbabe's harm and the Relationship's harm. Under the old rules, the Relationship only suffered harm if a roll ended in a failure, and the Relationship's status was directly (and boringly) linked to the Trollbabe's stauts. But the new rule strikes me as being crazily (and boringly) aggressive, as if compensating for the weakness in the earlier rule.
I also understand that given the nature of the Goals in the conflict there's bound to be some tension between accomplishing your goal and avoiding harm. But this rule is like the GM constantly asking, "Well? Well??? Are you going to get into a conflict even though it could mean your friend's DEATH?!?!?! If you could only save your girlfriend, or your mom, and you had 5 seconds to decide, which would you pick?!?!?!?! Come on, wussy! CHOOSE!" To which the sensible response is, "You're crazy. I just asked if you wanted to go out for pizza."
Instead of "killed" I suggest, "The relationship breaks up," with that being understood to range from "I don't want to be friends anymore" to "I'm dying." It's still pretty aggressive, but it doesn't completely break my suspension of disbelief.
Gregor Hutton:
For me, it works as it is in the book because when I use a Relationship for a re-roll I'm not just invoking it like a Trait. I mean, I'm really putting this person that I have the Realtionship with at risk, to get what I want. And if it goes wrong and I want a different outcome I can use other re-rolls to change the outcome again. I think it's punchy and dramatic, and it stops people getting "easy" re-rolls from Relationships (i.e. where the choice of using a re-roll is a no-brainer).
jburneko:
This conversation has reminded me of this brief exchange between Ron and myself, from WAY BACK (pdf version of Trollbabe).
http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=6285.msg65258#msg65258
Ron, never did tell me what the "essential variable" was.
I haven't really run into a problem with the Injury/Death stuff for Relationships in Social conflicts because the context in which they occur are usually pretty volatile. One of two things seems to be the case. Either the stakes are so high that there's at least one NPC in the scene whose got a finger on the trigger anyway OR the stakes are so low that the PC is usually willing to bail on the conflict long before any of her relationships are at that kind of risk.
Jesse
Ron Edwards:
Hi James,
Before I compose my contribution to this thread, how tequila are you feeling? If I write the post straight from the hip, it could be construed by a reader as abrasive and pugnacious. If you can accept that in the spirit of the tequila forum, though, with a foundation that you and I both like the game and each other, then it will be easier to write and much faster.
Best, Ron
James_Nostack:
Ron, in the spirit of tequila: it's difficult to imagine what you could say that would affect my self-image. But a few things at the outset:
* Are you okay doing this slowly? This is a busy week for me, and I suspect it is for you too. I'm engaged in the topic! But I can't do full-auto.
* Maybe this thread bleeds into the other Trollbabe threads I've opened - and possibly an AP if I have time for it. I'm okay with that if you are.
* If I think I'm not getting enough rigor, or a claim's been made that I think is bullshit, I'll let you know.
Other than that - I'm buying this round.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page