[Trollbabe] Harmed relationships - pg 61
Moreno R.:
Hi James!
Why Billy the Beggar Boy would be lethal to relationships? Well, it's because the trollbabe don't go straight to "incapacitated". She is not fainting in the middle of the street after the first roll.
First roll: she fail. She is inconvenienced. Note that this can be caused by Billy that push or hit her.
First re-roll: she fail. She is HURT. This can mean a psychological, magical (for example, if she has used a spell to get the reroll) or even physical wold. Maybe Billy stabbed her. Maybe she was hurt by her spell, but SOMETHING happened. Something that turned the situation in something SERIUS.
At this moment, the trollbabe use the relationship for a reroll.
What doest it mean? Well, he could push the boy away, he could try to stop the effect of the botched spell, or he could some other thing.
But then the trollbabe fail the second reroll.
And kill her friend, not recognizing him, during a bout of madness caused by the spell
And Billy, scared (he think that the relationship want to hurt HIM because of what he did to the trollbabe) stab him in the neck, killing him.
Or any other thing.
At the time of the relationship's death, the conflict is really, really escalating out of control. People got hurt (the trollbabe is one of them), No matter what started it. And if people got hurt, other people can get dead. It's not even necessary that that death will be caused by the trollbabe's opponent in the conflict.
James_Nostack:
Hi Moreno!
I understand that, for one NPC, you can imagine a social interaction where a friend gets killed. But it is hard to imagine a world where this could happen in any social interaction, at any time. I don't argue with people very often, but when I do, my friends don't usually die. Apparently that's not the case with Trollbabes...?
John S:
Quote from: James_Nostack on December 02, 2010, 06:19:16 PM
But it is hard to imagine a world where this could happen in any social interaction, at any time.
My view is that you don't use the social conflict rules for every single argument-- you only call a Conflict when you or the GM recognize the risk of a situation. Also, the Stakes are usually in such a volatile state, and a Trollbabe is such a pressing concern for the NPCs that anything can happen if there's a real Conflict. If there's no chance that the argument could escalate into something dangerous, you shouldn't be using the Conflict rules. If the Stakes aren't in such a volatile stake that the NPCs are beginning to shake off normative constraints, then something has gone amiss.
James_Nostack:
.... I guess I can see that. I like the way you phrased that, although I still feel the rule is a little extreme.
The emergent effect seems to be: either don't invoke your relationship at all, or if you're already injured and the relationship is involved, you might as well burn off another re-roll item to go all the way to incapacitated. Mechanically incapacitation isn't a huge deal since you get to heal up very soon after, and at least your relationships will survive. (Note that at higher Scales, getting a relationship killed might involve mass-murder or genocide.) To the extent that I care about the relationship as a fictional character, this rule strongly discourages me from bringing them into deadly danger. Maybe that's the whole idea, but in the past I haven't regarded Trollbabe as being quite that bleak.
Moreno R.:
Quote from: James_Nostack on December 02, 2010, 06:19:16 PM
Hi Moreno!
I understand that, for one NPC, you can imagine a social interaction where a friend gets killed. But it is hard to imagine a world where this could happen in any social interaction, at any time. I don't argue with people very often, but when I do, my friends don't usually die. Apparently that's not the case with Trollbabes...?
If they are your friends, they are your relationships. You don't need a conflict to say what they do, in Trollbabe... ;-)
But yes, the world depicted in the game text, illustrations and examples is a dangerous world. With monsters, trolls who want to eat you (or humans that want to kill you). evil spirits, blood feuds, and worse. People go around ARMED! Just imagine that every time you argue with someone, that someone has a weapon and probably has already used it in some local skirmish, blood feud or war. Maybe he has already killed someone.
I think that in this kind of situation, you would tend to argue less, and anyway, you would try to avoid escalating to conflicts, yes? (It was Robert E. Howard, who wrote in "The tower of the Elephant" that "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing")
John's answer is the correct one, by the rules: if there is no chance of a violent escalation, it isn't a conflict. But, by the description of the setting, it's very EASY for a conflict to escalate to violence.... (and remember, the conflict rules don't say that the trollbabe's opponent must be the one doing violence. The player can use anything and anybody present at the conflict to justify harm)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page