The Order of Might and killing something with a Good Idea (specifically trolls)

[chrispwolf]

Is it possible within the rules for players to kill something outside of a conflict? What about something Might 5 or higher?

Specifically I am designing a dungeon with a troll in it. There is a way for clever players to flood the troll’s lair with sunlight, which would turn the troll to stone, of course killing it.

How would you handle this mechanically? The players aren’t necessarily in direct conflict with it, so conflict seems wrong, and also rules out killing the thing. Is it acceptable for the players to eliminate an otherwise tough monster by exploiting its weakness? It’s the kind of thing I like to reward and encourage when GMing, so I’d like to think so. Is there a “proper” way to do it in TB?

Thanks!

[sameoldji]

I was about to ask something similar. By reading the rules I kinda understand that a might 3 cannot kill might 5 or higher. So does that really means that it’ll be impossible for a party of adventurer either 2 individuals or 6, to kill a might 5 beast? Isn’t that strange? I mean by the numbers you should be able to destroy it. I understand the design choice behind it so its ok I find it interesting BUT I just wanna make sure I get it right as well. Great question chrispwolf, thanks!

[noclue]

In the example, the sunlight is killing the troll. It really has little to do with the character’s and their relative might.

[luke (Luke Wheel)]

I’m all for it. Just make sure it’s something that the players arrive at themselves and it’s not “the” way.

[Jared (Jared A. Sorensen)]

> Hit troll with branch.

[Evil_Lincoln]

I will often allow for things like sneaking up on a hobgoblin guard and slitting his throat in a single roll, rather than a Kill conflict.

I think conflicts in general are reserved for things that would be drawn out scenes in film or fiction.

If it’s just a beat in the story, it should still be a roll, but no need to force a conflict.

[DagaZ]

@sameoldji

I was about to ask something similar. By reading the rules I kinda understand that a might 3 cannot kill might 5 or higher. So does that really means that it’ll be impossible for a party of adventurer either 2 individuals or 6, to kill a might 5 beast? Isn’t that strange? I mean by the numbers you should be able to destroy it. I understand the design choice behind it so its ok I find it interesting BUT I just wanna make sure I get it right as well. Great question chrispwolf, thanks!

I was thinking in having characters increase their Might in increments of ten: so ten soldiers count as Might 4, a hundred as Might 5, a thousand as 6, etc.

Stay cool

[DrLame]

I read a thread last night about goals, and this thread made me think of something Thor said in it. Thought it might help, because as soon as you started describing the situation you have with the troll it made me think of how an area should feel organic, and not like you have a level with minions in your way to reach the boss with everything being a required encounter. A living place isn’t like that, it has some sort of ecosystem with the players barely brushing against some parts, and getting submerged in others with tangible effects rippling out from their actions.

@Thor

I can unpack a little: I pay attention to beliefs and instincts (especially for characters that last more than one session), but I actively discourage players from telling me their goals.

I view my job as fairly representing the play location (generally the dungeon), the inhabitants and their reactions to the characters’ actions. They shift naturalistically in response to the characters’ actions, but not in response to the players’ actions. For example, if I’ve put giant frogs in the moat near the entrance to the dungeon and the players cleverly avoid that entrance, skirt the moat and enter the dungeon another way, I won’t move the giant frogs to another location to force the encounter. The players earned their success. On the other hand, if the characters wind up making a lot of noise and warn the monsters of their approach, I’ll have the monsters react – moving to more defensible locations and concentrating their numbers.

In the same way, I don’t want to tempt myself to ramp up the opposition just because a player found a clever way to approach her goal and bypassed the trap or monsters that I thought they would struggle with.

Anyway, sorry this isn’t exactly %100 on topic but I thought this might help for your design ideas. It sounds to me like you’re already on the right path with clever players being able to defeat the troll, but unsure of the footing because so many games tend to ‘force the encounter’ that anything else feels unnatural.

[jovialbard]

To address the OP, I don’t think it has to be a conflict, or at least not just a conflict. It might be a roll for one of the players to get into position, then a trickery conflict to get the troll into position, and then a roll to trigger the sunlight. Or it might be a drive off conflict, to force the troll into position. Or it might be a couple rolls to get into position, and then a lot of waiting and hiding until the troll naturally gets into position, and then a roll or two trying to spring the trap before he realizes what’s going on. Any of those things and probably more would be great, and not all of them involve a conflict. What I think everyone else is saying is that all of these should be on the table, and also on the table should be not killing the troll at all, or maybe even negotiating with the troll. Don’t over think it, put the resources there, and then see what they do with them. Describe to Live.

[DrLame]

@jovialbard

… It might be a roll for one of the players to get into position, then a trickery conflict to get the troll into position, and then a roll to trigger the sunlight. Or it might be a drive off conflict, to force the troll into position. Or it might be a couple rolls to get into position, and then a lot of waiting and hiding until the troll naturally gets into position, and then a roll or two trying to spring the trap before he realizes what’s going on…

It seems like in those examples you’re making the players roll over and over for a single outcome. If they pass (multiple times), the troll will get a sunburn. If they fail any of the rolls, the twist is that the troll becomes aware of them in some capacity. Seems like the outcomes can be rolled up into one roll with situational facors, or a single conflict if you want to draw it out (altho the OP’s original intent was to avoid that it seems).

[DrLame]

@jovialbard

… It might be a roll for one of the players to get into position, then a trickery conflict to get the troll into position, and then a roll to trigger the sunlight. Or it might be a drive off conflict, to force the troll into position. Or it might be a couple rolls to get into position, and then a lot of waiting and hiding until the troll naturally gets into position, and then a roll or two trying to spring the trap before he realizes what’s going on…

It seems like in those examples you’re making the players roll over and over for a single outcome. If they pass (multiple times), the troll will get a sunburn. If they fail any of the rolls, the twist is that the troll becomes aware of them in some capacity. Seems like the outcomes can be rolled up into one roll with situational facors, or a single conflict if you want to draw it out (altho the OP’s original intent was to avoid that it seems).

[jovialbard]

I could buy that. I feel like elaborate plans involve at least two rolls, one to set it up and one to execute, and then possibly one in between to hold position. However, if the plan is more of a good idea, or not that elaborate, or not that high stakes, then I can see your point.