Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1189192" data-attributes="member: 10201">First, please don't discount an innovative game because i like or advocate it, or because of a single quote without context (which, when you point it out that way, i see isn't the best example for demonstrating how Trollbabe is intended to play).Now, what that quote doesn't make clear is that it's not a matter of word games--the point isn't to second-guess the GM, it's to decide what you want to happen.  A good GM would let you know the results of success and failure for your choice, and make sure you understood them.  The point is intent, not phrasing.  IOW, if you want to check to "make sure nothing is there", then a success means that you have "made sure"--i.e., there really is nothing.  The goal is to put more of the control into the players' hands.  Let my compare and contrast to how most RPGs expect to be run (commenting on the rules-as-written, not the game-as-played, so if you play it differently, that's beside the point).  In a typical D&D scenario, the GM is gonna have an encounter loosely planned out.  Let's say it's a small band of orcs ambushing the group.  So the GM has decided their actions and motives, and to some degree their personalities.  The players get to choose how to interact within that framework (for example, the half-orc in the party may attempt to parley once the orcs reveal themselves, rather than fight), but not the framework itself.  The potential downside is that if the players want a social encounter, and the GM gives them a combat encounter, they may not be able to shift it to their tastes without breaking SoD.Trollbabe would shift much of that decision-making power to the players right from the get-go.  The GM wouldn't decide that the orcs were hostile, or even that there was going to be an encounter with orcs.  Instead, the players dictate this.  If they want to have a good rousing fight, they'll "check to see if anyone is set to ambush us ahead".  If they want some cool social interaction, they'll "keep our eyes open for any groups of travelers going our way on the road".  If they want to be heros they'll "check the ravine for any wagons that might have been ambushed by the orcs known to roam this pass" [n.b.: such a statement wouldn't require that it had previously been established that there were orcs in the area, that it was a major trade route, that the orcs were a problem, or that there was even a pass.].  If they just want to get where they're going withouthaving to deal with a side encounter, it'll be "we keep our eyes open for possible orc ambushes so that we can avoid them".  And if they want politics it'll be "We keep our eyes open for any orcs with bodypaint or clothes that indicate rank, so that we can approach them appropriately without having to fight them."  Does that make any more sense? It's not supposed to be about outguessing the GM, or twisting the players' words--it's supposed to be about the players getting the type of game they want.  Now, this may not be the sort of RPG you want--that's fine.  I just want you to reject it for what it is, not because of a misapprehension brought on by a poor example on my part.Yes, you would.  Are you sure it's a more meaningful measure, however?  Doesn't it make more sense to attempt an "objective" measure of the complexity of various rulesets, and point out that the median, mean, and mode are most definitely *not* aligned, rather than skew the whole graph so that fairly disparate games end up close together when they happen to be rules-light, but far apart when they happen to be rules-medium?</blockquote>

Verification