Torchbearer 2nd ed: first impressions

[Fenris-77]

In that vein I find the implied setting nicely supports some of the surface level nods to Tolkien without them seeming out of place in a setting that is pretty different than Middle Earth in some ways (the OSR/deadly/etc ways).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The convergence of conflict-laden mythology and highly functional tropes for actual play is THE important component of setting design. I’ve always had pretty significant misgivings about anything beyond that (particularly as you move toward Information saturation…working from a deficit is always better in my opinion).

One of the really great things about TB1 and 2 is how perfect the Norse-inspired mythology deeply informs the premise of play but doesn’t strangle it. Deeply informing yet not strangling (in that functional play gets lost in the weeds of minutiae) is a neat trick to pull off for setting designers.

Yeah, it is pretty much the old "draw maps, leave holes" formula. You want myth which can be harnessed easily to produce scene framing by supplying tropes, conflict drivers, color, etc. but you don't want a CANON which tries to inform everything and thus gets in the way of constructing fiction that will best serve the immediate story. Its fine if we know there are 'giants' out there. OTOH what is the relationship of giants to dragons? We will play and find out! Maybe we know they are both 'Chaos Creatures' or something, technically, but without excessive canon we can find out to our mutual entertainment that actually the dragon Nightfang really hates the ruler of the Frost Giants, and generally kills them on sight! If this were canonical, who knows if it would cut for or against any particular needs in play, and its just one more way that the story becomes owned by someone else who isn't even at the table!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In that vein I find the implied setting nicely supports some of the surface level nods to Tolkien without them seeming out of place in a setting that is pretty different than Middle Earth in some ways (the OSR/deadly/etc ways).

Yeah, well, there's a lot common in their mythological sources, but it helps when you keep things a bit fuzzy. TB dwarf lore seems pretty Tolkienesque (the outcast is pretty much Thorin Oakenshield) but you certainly can put many different spins on that. Dwarfs could be much more like the old Norse Twarg and it will work fine. Halflings are of course definitely the area where we seem to get the most 'Tolkien', I have not really ever seen a modern take on this concept that wasn't basically lifted whole cloth from his work, and he seems to have largely created the concept in a largely original manner. So, you could surely tweak it a good bit. OTOH a lot of his concept is fairly hard-coded into the basic Halfling Burglar (I kind of tried to subvert some of the trope with my character, but I still ended up with 'It just needs a bit of salt-Wise', lol. Have to see how that plays out in practice...

 

[Manbearcat]

I think the clearest statement of this is in the opening of the Dungeoneer's Handbook (pp 6-7, in a section entitled "Born to Lose"):

Adventurer is a dirty word. You’re a scoundrel, a villain, a wastrel, a vagabond, a criminal, a sword-for-hire, a cutthroat.​

​

Respectable people belong to guilds or the church or are born into nobility. Or barring all that, they’re salt of the earth and till the land for the rest of us.​

​

Your problem is that you’re none of that. You’re a third child or worse. You can’t get into a guild - too many apprentices already. You’re sure as hell not nobility - even if you were, your older brothers and sisters have soaked up the inheritance. And if you’re cursed with visions from the Immortals, the temples won’t take you in. You question their authority and subvert their power, so you are outcast like the rest of us.​

​

And if you ever entertained romantic notions of homesteading, think again. You’d end up little more than a slave to a wealthy noble.​

​

So there’s naught for you but to make your own way. There’s a certain freedom to it, but it’s a hard life. Cash flows out of your hands as easily as the blood from your wounds.​

​

But at least it’s your life.​

​

And if you’re lucky, smart and stubborn, you might come out on top. There’s a lot of lost loot out there for the finding. And salvage law is mercifully generous. You find it, it’s yours to spend, sell or keep.​

This seems to be reinforced by the designer notes on the Noble Scion class in the Scavenger's Supplement (p 35):

The Scion class is an advanced option for Torchbearer play, as it is difficult and problematic in a number of ways. First, it breaks the game’s primary conceit—that our characters are regular people down on their luck, cursed by the Immortals and forced into a series of bad choices. The scion is making a bad choice because they were born a fool. Second, the Superior trait is not a point of fact, but a matter of self-perception. No one is inherently superior to anyone, especially not in Torchbearer.​

The word "scum" might be a bit laden, but something like it seems right. The remarks about superiority are very REH Conan, and PCs (except for Noble Scions) start at the bottom of the social hierarchy and make their living by disregarding all social norms.

Alright, back to the "are Adventurers scum" question!

So I think the lines of evidence I put together against the "scum" descriptor are as follows (the Noble Scion entry is something I look to as supporting evidence actually):

* So I would differentiate between the Scoundrels of Blades in the Dark protagonism and "scum." A scoundrel is an unscrupulous character who works outside of the fabric of societal conceits to improve their lot. But (a) they aren't intrinsically wicked/vile nor (b) worthless. Both of those traits are riders for the "scum" descriptor I would think. In all cases, BitD PCs can't be tarred with "worthless" and in some cases they are the opposite of wicked/vile or at least very conflicted. Their starting position within the social strata of the game is low for sure (Tier 0 just like Adventurers start at Precedence 0 in TB), but lowness within social hierarchy is necessary but not sufficient for "scum-dom." The other traits are necessary.

* I think the Noble Scion entry is the most instructive entry available to us; regular people who are down on their luck and forced into a series of bad choices. But, again, that doesn't connote intrinsically wicked/vile and it certainly doesn't ordain worthlessness. Even level 1 Torchbearer characters have considerable means:

- They have belief and a goal. This is a pretty big deal in my opinion. "Worthless people" (insofar as that is a categorization that someone would use against another person) are almost definitionally listless, without the energy and direction for the prospect of upward trajectory. Having a belief and a goal are the minimum requirements to transcend that state. TB2 characters have that (and the mechanical teeth of them give them actual propulsion toward their ends).

- They have a level 7 mentor.

- They have friends (including the other PCs), family, home, all of which can assist your plight and your trajectory.

- You also have a nemesis. Worthless people typically aren't worthy of being opposed.

- Circles 4, Might 3, Nature 4/5, Wises, Traits, a non-fragile set of Skills (and Beginner's Luck rules aren't hostile to progression at all), and sufficient resources in Tools, Supplies, and Gear to call upon to help them transcend their initial conditions (at the outset of play).


So all told, I think Precedence 0 at the outset does some work to inform the nature of the PCs. But when you look at them holistically, I think the Noble Scion entry with a reasonable upward trend is the best way to look at them. Further, when you consider that much of the tropes of play rely upon a ruined, desperate orientation of the bulk of the people and the state of the setting, there is a sort of flattening of the social lower strata from Precedence 3 and below that makes epithets/descriptors of "scum" somewhat difficult. Now that doesn't change the Precedence mechanics (*), but it does give some ground for abstracting out the orientation of the setting toward groups and individuals away from "scum" if you're an Adventurer (and again...particularly with Might 3...you are a dangerous person of means).

Anyone have thoughts on all of that?

*

You may convince people whose Precedence is equal to or less than yours.

You may haggle with people whose Precedence up to one greater than yours.

You may convince a crowd whose members have Precedence up to two steps higher than yours.

You may trick or riddle with any one, regardless of Precedence.

Without the proper level of Precedence, you simply won’t be heard.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think that sounds right. I read 'scum' as how society sees them, at least in part as the manifestation of societal worries (in the implied setting) about decay and a fear of the other. Adventurers don't 'fit' into the implied culture because they have been forced by circumstance to engage with a societal taboo. Wealth and fantastic deeds slowly work against this notion as the characters level up. I haven't really delved into the Precedence rules too much yet, so I may have some caveats about this theory at some point.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Alright, back to the "are Adventurers scum" question!

So I think the lines of evidence I put together against the "scum" descriptor are as follows (the Noble Scion entry is something I look to as supporting evidence actually):

* So I would differentiate between the Scoundrels of Blades in the Dark protagonism and "scum." A scoundrel is an unscrupulous character who works outside of the fabric of societal conceits to improve their lot. But (a) they aren't intrinsically wicked/vile nor (b) worthless. Both of those traits are riders for the "scum" descriptor I would think. In all cases, BitD PCs can't be tarred with "worthless" and in some cases they are the opposite of wicked/vile or at least very conflicted. Their starting position within the social strata of the game is low for sure (Tier 0 just like Adventurers start at Precedence 0 in TB), but lowness within social hierarchy is necessary but not sufficient for "scum-dom." The other traits are necessary.

* I think the Noble Scion entry is the most instructive entry available to us; regular people who are down on their luck and forced into a series of bad choices. But, again, that doesn't connote intrinsically wicked/vile and it certainly doesn't ordain worthlessness. Even level 1 Torchbearer characters have considerable means:

- They have belief and a goal. This is a pretty big deal in my opinion. "Worthless people" (insofar as that is a categorization that someone would use against another person) are almost definitionally listless, without the energy and direction for the prospect of upward trajectory. Having a belief and a goal are the minimum requirements to transcend that state. TB2 characters have that (and the mechanical teeth of them give them actual propulsion toward their ends).

- They have a level 7 mentor.

- They have friends (including the other PCs), family, home, all of which can assist your plight and your trajectory.

- You also have a nemesis. Worthless people typically aren't worthy of being opposed.

- Circles 4, Might 3, Nature 4/5, Wises, Traits, a non-fragile set of Skills (and Beginner's Luck rules aren't hostile to progression at all), and sufficient resources in Tools, Supplies, and Gear to call upon to help them transcend their initial conditions (at the outset of play).


So all told, I think Precedence 0 at the outset does some work to inform the nature of the PCs. But when you look at them holistically, I think the Noble Scion entry with a reasonable upward trend is the best way to look at them. Further, when you consider that much of the tropes of play rely upon a ruined, desperate orientation of the bulk of the people and the state of the setting, there is a sort of flattening of the social lower strata from Precedence 3 and below that makes epithets/descriptors of "scum" somewhat difficult. Now that doesn't change the Precedence mechanics (*), but it does give some ground for abstracting out the orientation of the setting toward groups and individuals away from "scum" if you're an Adventurer (and again...particularly with Might 3...you are a dangerous person of means).

Anyone have thoughts on all of that?

I think it sounds reasonable. The Dungeoneer's Handbook seems to want to color adventurers as being perceived as 'scum', but that is more in the same sense that we perceive down-and-out people in our own society(s) in a similar fashion (IE the poor are lazy, shiftless, unreliable, mentally defective, etc.). So, I would think something a bit similar exists within TB canonical society. You are on a social par with Sex Workers, Soldiers, and presumably criminals (given that the only thing lower than Precedence 0 is presumably being actually in jail or similar). I mean, we see a lot of those sorts of people as quite dangerous!

My point being, as depicted by the RULES, I would expect an Adventurer to be banished from polite society, perhaps barely tolerated as a suspicious but not actively criminal person, etc. As long as you don't smell too bad, stay out of the way of anyone with any real status, and pay with cash you're OK. But as the book says "you may not be heard". I would expect the reaction to be mostly similar to what you'd get in my town if you seemed outside of normal suburban society and approached people for some reason. That is at least a very cautious response aimed at getting you to go away without making trouble! lol.

In the case of higher level adventurers who have lots of money and such, then it might turn to more of a celebrity reaction. That is "OK, as long as you're not chasing after my daughter we'll just accept that you are acceptable, if not really accepted" (IE you are not going to get invited to polite society social events, for sure!). Of course it would be fun to play that adventurer who ends up taking over the Busy Crossroads and seeing how the hoity toity people lick your boots, lol. I guess that is one possible goal/outcome of play...

 

[Fenris-77]

Even if we read the book RAW I'd submit that your reading would (should?) vary by settlement size. Smaller settlements tend to be much more insular and suspicious of strangers while larger cities have more room for them to disappear into. As far as 'not being heard' I think that directly indexes being outside the establish societal structure (or at the very bottom, however you want to parse it). All that really means is that establishment types (of any rank really) aren't disposed to listen to raggedy-ass adventurers regardless the topic. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I terms of actual gameplay that serves the purpose of the PCs not being able to (easily) engage 'the authorities' to deal with threats, which seems in keeping with the overall teleos of the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Even if we read the book RAW I'd submit that your reading would (should?) vary by settlement size. Smaller settlements tend to be much more insular and suspicious of strangers while larger cities have more room for them to disappear into. As far as 'not being heard' I think that directly indexes being outside the establish societal structure (or at the very bottom, however you want to parse it). All that really means is that establishment types (of any rank really) aren't disposed to listen to raggedy-ass adventurers regardless the topic. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I terms of actual gameplay that serves the purpose of the PCs not being able to (easily) engage 'the authorities' to deal with threats, which seems in keeping with the overall teleos of the game.

I think it works in dramatic terms too. If you uncover a real threat, guess what, nobody pays attention, so you have to go solve it yourself! hehe. I kind of built the concept of my character (Halfling Burglar) around this idea. She loves to resent the powers that be. Her nemesis is the corrupt town watch sergeant in charge of her street. The treatment of the halfling race is 'unfair', etc. Her Presence 0 is galling, and yet how could she exist if she wasn't basically invisible to the 'big folks'? lol. Not sure how that will all work in play, but I was conceiving of it as suspicious, faux fierce, self-confidence that is possibly a bit too much bravado, and presumably some sort of underlying loyalty to her real companions once they prove their mettle. OTOH it may play as more hollow, especially if the cruel world really crushes her down, lol. I can see either a bitter end, or a heroic future.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would think that the default stance on adventurers would lean toward the outcast. So while they may not be considered scum by a given community, they’re also not really seen as meaningful contributors. Like they specifically don’t fit in and don’t provide a tangible service.

Now that’s generally speaking. Of course, circumstances could change and I’d imagine that a town would welcome adventurers who happen to help them in some meaningful way. Likely even as heroes. “Look at the brave folk who killed the grimling!” and so forth.

I do think that it’d generally take a certain type of person would embrace this lifestyle. There’s often something broken or off about such people. I’d likely have the default response to them be a kind of cautious wariness.

 

[Fenris-77]

I asked on the Discord but I'll ask you guys too. Thoughts on Jury-Rig-Wise for an Outcast looking to add a little interpretive engineering with found objects to his Sapper/Laborer/Etc skill set? I was thinking of it as a -wise that could add a little creative mayhem around the edges when it comes to in-the-moment problem solving. I'm not saying McGuyver precisely. But McGuyver if McGuyver were a cunning and sadistic medieval-adjacent dwarven craftsman.