The Forge Archives

So this Trollbabe walks into a tavern...
~useless setup for the punchline~
and the barkeep says, "that's not Author Stance, that's my WIFE!"

Being that I lack imagination I would like to ask for some examples of injury in play. Specifically of the Social type, but Magical and Fighting injury are welcome as well if they are not overtly physical.

I am looking to see how others deal with a failed Social (or any) reroll. How is the Trollbabe injured (and incapacitated)? Does this injury affect the Trollbabe later on in other conflicts, or is it instantly recovered from? I have read just about everything I could in these forums, but there is not much talk on this subject.

As an example,
Lets say the Trollbabe goes to see a sage for some information. The sage is reluctant and we have a conflict... lets say single roll. First roll fails, so the Trollbabe uses a (physically present) relationship to vouch for her. If this reroll fails, the Trollbabe is injured and the relationship incapacited. What just happened? And what happens if she fails the next reroll and is incapacited with a dead friend?

Trollbabe is more rules-light than most games I have played and requires the players to fill in the gaps, I need your examples to exercise my atrophied imagination.

So... tell me about your failures.

I'm not getting why you're talking about a dead freind, but anyway.

So, she fails the first roll, and she's discommoded. If you stop here, the player describes what happens. Maybe the Trollbabe said the wrong thing - accidentally insulted the Sage's clan, so she looks insensitive and ignorant.

Or, instead, she crosses off the "Sudden Ally," and a freind comes in to vouch for her. That roll fails too! If the player stops here, the Trollbabe is Injured. At this point, what actually happens to the Trollbabe is color... "an Injured Trollbabe always ignores the 'discommoeded' step and proceeds to further injury right away on a failed roll." - Pg. 20

This applies to all rolls, no matter what the action type is. So getting hit by a sword is just the same as having your "sudden ally" go around town spreading tales about your boorishness.

Social Incapacitation is a little trickier. I too would like to see some examples of this. I can imagine the Trollbabe being shunned, maybe, or having zero credibility anywhere in the surrounding area, but in general, it's hard to come up with social reasons for the Trollbabe to be unable to act.

I suppose you can always have the Sage get so ticked off that he whacks her on the head with his staff and gives her a concussion...

How about this...

Sage proceeds to break down the duo, psychologically.  

"You came here not for information, but to keep running from your problems.  Or will you finally admit that you were responsible for his death?!?  And you there, you follow her around, hoping that one day she'll acknowledge you, instead of standing up for yourself and saying how you feel!  Isn't that how you lost your first girlfriend?  Because you weren't man enough to speak up?  How pathetic!  If you don't have this courage, how can you face the Green Eyed Dragon?"

Trollbabe standing there shocked, perhaps falls to knees in tears.  Friend runs out and jumps off a cliff...

Chris

Paganini,

You seem to be in the same boat as me. You understand the rules good enough, just wondering how the apply in play.

BTW..When a relationship gets involved in a conflict and is physically present, that person always ends up one degree worse than the Trollbabe. So if the Trollbabe is injured the relationship is incapacitated, if the Trollbabe is incapacitated the relationship is dead (or gone, I suppose).

What I want to avoid is exactly what you mentioned in jest.
Trollbabe: So, hows life? ~roll fails
Old Sage: How dare you ask about my private affairs! ~Vern comes in as a character witness
Vern: This Trollbabe is good people. ~ reroll fails
Old Sage totally flips out and turns into a ninja, giving our heroin a nasty shiner and knocking Vern into a coma.

Bankuei responded as I wrote the above.
That's good, I like the whole "lets alter the whole idea of what's going on here". That is what I am looking for.

Hello,

Gabriel, your issue actually concerns something far more serious than merely defining injury effects. It all goes back to understanding what a conflict is. You're running into trouble, and so is Nathan, because neither of you are really talking about a conflict at all.

"Hi sage, whaddaya know about X?"

"Don't feel like telling you."

That is not a conflict. Think conflict of interest with everything the term entails. If you or the player is going to call for a conflict (and in the situation as you describe, it's most likely to be you, or perhaps the player will do so if you play a sage in a certain way), then it's gotta be more than "The sage just happens to be closemouthed." That's only saying, "The door is locked." No conflict - just a barrier.

Social conflict is not a trivial thing. "I wanna candy bar," "They're outta candy bars," is not a social conflict. "I need to learn why Hilde is keeping that little boy in her woodshed," "I'll get the chieftain to set the warriors on you if you keep poking around in this matter," is definitely a social conflict.

If you lose a social conflict, there's a price to play, either in reputation or in blood & bone. If you can't think of such a price, then back all the way up and see if you're even talking about a conflict in the first place.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I don't buy it, at least not yet. The "guy with information" who's too scared, or to stubborn, or hates you, or whatever, to talk is a major story component. (By that I mean, you encounter him constantly in books and other role-playing.) So, if trying to worm information out of him isn't a conflict, what is it?

It seems like you're saying that you should only invoke the mechanics when the consequences of the of the conflict are obvious and important. That is, basically, if the Trollbabe is going to be incapacitated if she loses, then you should only call for a conflict in a situation where she could plausibly *be* incapacitated. Which is fine, I guess, but what are you supposed to do the rest of the time? Just use Social Contract play to decide whether or not the Sage talks?

I'm not sure exactly what Ron's answer will be, but let me throw this out.

Why do you assume that the player doesn't or shouldn't know exactly what the key to getting the reluctant sage to talk is?

So...the trollbabe character wants information.  The sage character has a reason he doesn't want to share.  The sage player (presumeably the GM) knows the answer to why the sage character doesn't want to share and what would convince him otherwise...

...why doesn't the trollbabe player also have access to this information?

At that point, the terms of the conflict seem to become pretty obvious...doing what's necessary to get the sage to talk, vs. failing to do what's necessary and receiving injury in the attempt.

If there is no reason for the Sage's recalcitrance other than just controling the pacing of the story by deferring the next stage of the story until later (i.e. the story can't proceed until the information is gained, you as GM don't want the story to proceed that way just yet so you withhold the information)...

...then there is no conflict.  You don't WANT the Troll babe to win and get the information because then the whole point of regulating the pacing is lost.  You WILL present the Troll babe with the information eventually so there is no need for the player to "win it" in a conflict.

zat make any sense?

Hello,

Ralph, I'd phrase it just a little differently ... in Trollbabe, the GM doesn't have the "not gonna tell you" option. If the player declares a conflict in which certain information is the goal, then the information is potentially available to the character.

Therefore there is no such thing as "game-over" information. Scenario design centers on Stakes, not on whether the trollbabe knows X or knows Y. If she ferrets out some information, play is not over - she still has to do something, whatever that will be.

Andy, if there is no conflict in a scene, then it's resolved through Drama on the parts of all the people involved. That's basic, simple, and rapidly conducted:

TB: "Hey sage, I wanna know about that funny rock you guys have on the pedestal in the town square."

Sage: "Funny you should ask! It's the fossilized phallus of the Blue Dragon that the hero killed so long ago. We dance around it every spring solstice festival."

No conflict? No conflict. Hence, no roll. No stress.

Also, Andy, I suggest that you revise your entire approach to using such barrier events as you describe in role-playing. "I'm not gonna tell you." "That door is locked and you can't get through." All of these are possible in Trollbabe play, but only as outcomes to conflicts, not as fixed features of preparation.

A huge, huge, huge amount of habitual role-playing that relies on the imposition of such outcomes is incompatible with the power-distribution in Trollbabe - and I might add, that imposition usually constitutes an enormous turn-off to a very specific and widespread sector of people who encounter role-playing.

So when the GM does have an NPC act in such a way as potentially to be such a barrier, it's up for grabs!

a) Declare conflict, successful roll, barrier overcome without hassle.

b) Declare conflict, unsuccessful roll, decide whether you want to incur risk by pushing it.

The point is that if someone wants to inflict risk to the trollbabe by pushing such a "potential barrier," they can. The GM does not know, either during prep or at the outset of the scene, whether this will be the case.

Best,
Ron

Ralph, yes, except that the way I run games, *I* wouldn't necessarily know what information the Sage has, or why he doesn't want to tell.

There's an example in the book where Ron talks about a Trollbabe asking for a roll to notice guys sneaking up on her, implying that the guys are *already* sneaking up on her, success means she finds them without getting ambushed, failure means she walks into a trap.

I run most of my games this way. I doubt that I would ever set up a game so that one NPC had a single vital piece of information that kept the game from continuing until the PCs found out what it is... that's way to d20 for me. :)

It's much more likely that the Sage would have just been a bit of color that I mentioned in passing, or even something completely player invented, as in "I want to go find a Sage to ask about the lights we saw in Viserion's tower!" The fact that the Sage doesn't want to talk would most likely be the result of a previous Incommoded result. "Yeah, I found the Sage, but he won't help me cos a Troll ate his grandmother!"

Ron lists "to convince," and "to gain information" both on the Big List of Things that the Social action type is good for.

So I call my friend in to explain that *I'm* not like *those* trolls, fail two rolls, and BAM. My friend is *dead,* and I can't do anything until the Injury Refresh Breakpoint comes along (end of session by default).

Whoops, I said "Andy" when I meant "Nathan."

Best,
Ron

Hello,

I appreciate the feedback, but I really just wanted examples of Social Injury and/or incapacitation.

Don't focus in on the Sage so much, it was just something I thought of as I wrote the original post.

Tell me about YOUR Trollbabe. Tell me about YOUR failure and how it injured YOUR Trollbabe.

Ron, I understand what you are talking about (at least I think I do). The GM should not keep secrets or block paths. I just need some help with my imagination. I believe others would benefit from more examples as well.

Whoops, I never got back to this, did I? All that ZatB and Matrix stuff.

Social damage management #1
This is the default approach. Treat it very much like any other injury - the 'babe has experienced such damage to her esteem that she's all bummed out (or over-compensatory, or whatever), and therefore less effective at anything she tries. Her ego has to heal very much as a sword-slash wound to her body has to heal.

Incapacitation in this context simply means the trollbabe is so behaviorally out-of-it that the GM takes over narration and can frame her directly into her next scene in an extremely prejudicial way. Looking at the damage rules, you can see, I hope, that this is what "incapacitation" means in game terms anyway.

Imagine the player saying, OK, re-roll, and failing, giving the GM the incapacitation rights, and the player doesn't want to push it from there. So the GM says, "You shout 'Fuck you!' at the magistrate." And next scene: "All right, there you are, looking at the bars of the prison."

Death in these circumstances (if the player does push it) probably calls for shifting to option #2 below.

Social damage management #1-sub-a
Treat it as above, but the next scene-framing establishes that the injury gets healed.

Keep in mind that scene-framing plays a big roll in recovery. So if the player says, "I want a scene to meditate in the forest," and if the GM doesn't toss a conflict in and if the player doesn't call for one, then they can agree that the injury goes away.

This isn't any different from the regular rules for physical injury. "I want a scene with the herb-woman," is a great way simply to remove physical injuries, if the GM isn't inclined to hit you with a conflict during that scene.

So this option merely calls attention to the fact that social injuries may be considered "easy to heal" if the group likes it that way, with no special rules or tweaks to establish it.

Social damage management #2
This is a totally different approach. Consider the injury actually to be physical, as a consequence of the conflict itself. This is what you referred to as the sage becoming a ninja and thwacking the trollbabe, inflicting physical injury. Incapacitation would therefore be an outcome of that physical injury

Frankly, it's not my favored approach at all, not only because it may break whatever parameters I had in mind for the NPC ("the sage becomes a ninja"), but because I'm partial to the social injury concept and its emphasis on the trollbabe's sense of self (or lack thereof).

On the other hand, once in a while either I or a player decides we like this approach in a given situation, and that does the job. I've had trollbabes get injured or incapacitated because they tried to bully someone, or tried to cast a "get me out of this forest" spell, and each time it was due to the player's narration - without the mistaken assumption that they had to bring in physical injury.

And finally, as I mentioned, when the player wants to push it to the "death" point, he or she is basically saying, "All right, bring in a physical ramification for this social failure" - so it's OK to go this route for this purpose.

That oughta cover the range of approaches I take, Gabriel. Let me know if it makes sense for you.

Best,
Ron

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the help.

Though I still would like to see some examples...

Quote from: Ron EdwardsSocial damage management #2
This is a totally different approach. Consider the injury actually to be physical, as a consequence of the conflict itself. This is what you referred to as the sage becoming a ninja and thwacking the trollbabe, inflicting physical injury. Incapacitation would therefore be an outcome of that physical injury

Frankly, it's not my favored approach at all, not only because it may break whatever parameters I had in mind for the NPC ("the sage becomes a ninja"), but because I'm partial to the social injury concept and its emphasis on the trollbabe's sense of self (or lack thereof).

On the other hand, once in a while either I or a player decides we like this approach in a given situation, and that does the job. I've had trollbabes get injured or incapacitated because they tried to bully someone, or tried to cast a "get me out of this forest" spell, and each time it was due to the player's narration - without the mistaken assumption that they had to bring in physical injury.

One modification of #2 that I think is consistent with Trollbabe Principles.

A failure on a conflict rule isn't necessarily a "miss," right? It's a requirement that the participant with narration rights explain why the initiator of the conflict doesn't achieve her stated goal. So a physical injury from a failed social roll stands in the same relation: It's not necessarily that the sage becomes a ninja and whacks your TB. You can narrate it so that the sage simply refuses (Trollbabe fails) and unconnected ruffians jump her in  the alley afterward, or that the Trollbabe gets so angry during the confrontation that she pounds the table, breaking it and her hand.

OR, you could narrate that the injury already happened. In the Trollbabe session Bill and I recounted a few weeks ago, I had, um, forgotten the provision for "social injuries," so we were assigning physical ones to social failures. Toward the end of the adventure, Dave's Trollbabe got an injury failure when trying to convince the chieftain of the Ice Trolls to join their pursuit of the Winged Man. So Dave narrated the Chieftain noticing a seemingly insignificant wound his TB picked up from a prior fight beginning to sprout fresh blood: "must have been hurt worse than she thought."

We also, because SOMEONE had forgotten the bit about how Relationships that aren't physically present at a conflict don't suffer for it, "had" to kill off a sage (oh yes! they're everywhere!) many leagues to the south. Here the key was not confusing intragame with metagame - the conflict failure was a metagame requirement that the sage die, not an intragame cause of death. I just did the briefest of flash-forwards to: "And on the day you return to Rottenmere you learn that [the Sage] passed away months ago in his sleep."

There's always a way, even under Ron's approach #2, so long as participants keep in mind that the die result requires an outcome but is agnostic as to the cause of that outcome.

That probably constitutes "the tricky part" of the game.

Best,


Jim