Torchbearer 2nd ed: first impressions

[AbdulAlhazred]

EDIT - One final thought on playing with integrity. I have to winder if all of this ENWorld hostility to players and extreme wariness of players playing without integrity/cheating is because the bulk of folks here have internalized such an extremely adversarial model of GM vs players that they don't understand an alternative one. An alternative model where everyone is playing with integrity and players police themselves against any possible integrity-impugning play.

In my experience in these sorts of games (and everyone I've GMed for on here can chime in on this; which is a decent chunk of folks)? I have to actually insert a perspective that affords leniency which my players won't give themselves! The overwhelming bulk of my actual mediation in our play is to relax players from their self-policing impulse!

I suspect it isn't that there is actually highly adversarial play in a 'people at the table sense', even in classid D&D dungeon crawl land, so much as there is just a LONG history of casting people in the roles of the player who exploits everything they can, and the GM who is in charge of saying 'no'. Time and time again in these discussions of narratively focused games/Story Games this same issue comes up in the discussion (although it hasn't really in this thread) where someone will make this absolutist statement about how it is utterly fundamental to all RPG play that 'The DM must do X' where X is one of a handful of things that Gygax decreed to be fundamental in the 1e DMG (IE keep time, map out the dungeon, say all fiction, whatever).

The thing that always amazes me is that after 40+ years the news has not yet permeated every nook and cranny of the RPG world that there are actually more ways to play such games than were imagined in 1974...

And, yeah, we do tend to be fairly self-policing. I mean, I don't really see it as the GM's sole function to weed out silly applications of traits or whatever. Sure, you may be in the best position to do so, at times, but the goal of play is not 'winning' (in TB2 anyway) it is playing the characters and developing who they are, while also exploring the world they are part of, and seeing where all that takes them.

 

[kenada]

Its a carrot/stick combo that players similar to Acting Outside of Nature or using Traits against yourself to earn Checks or Fighting for Your Belief in a situation that leads to an extremely dangerous Kill Conflict for a downstream Fate Point.

But everyone survived, and now that my armor is destroyed, I (presumably) have more slots for wearing things back to town!

One final thought on playing with integrity. I have to winder if all of this ENWorld hostility to players and extreme wariness of players playing without integrity/cheating is because the bulk of folks here have internalized such an extremely adversarial model of GM vs players that they don't understand an alternative one. An alternative model where everyone is playing with integrity and players police themselves against any possible integrity-impugning play.

I’ve not been following the arguments too closely over the last few pages, so I could be off-base, but I would posit that it’s another “gift” of the traditional, story-telling style. Someone who advocates fully for their character (i.e., “does what their character would do”) is a “bad player” who “ruins the story”, and since rules have no teeth (due to rule 0 and the need to protect the story), the only way to police that through paranoia. Even if we’re not talking about or playing that way, old habits die hard.

 

[clearstream]

* Breaking a tie in Torchbearer by bringing in a Trait isn't Fortune in the Beginning/Middle/End. Its not Fortune Resolution at all (its not employing dice, cards, et al; unpredictable, non-behavioral elements). So there is no FitM investigation that needs to be undertaken here. Same thing goes with Acting Within/Outside of Nature.

For me that's a reasonable view. Maybe it was @AbdulAlhazred who identified the tie as a FitM case?

* Its principled, Diceless Resolution or Drama Resolution or Consensus Resolution. And its really not that opaque. Its pretty clear when its Reaching. Are you in Kill Conflict? Is that a party? No? Ok, you can't employ Merrymaking to Act Within Nature or to Help. Does the situation have something about trees, stars, or ancient memories that can be tapped for weal or woe? Great, use First Born. Yes, it is related to fictional positioning but no its not Fortune Resolution.

I currently run Reaching as consensus resolution, because the text implies to me that anyone can call bull.

Resolving these things at the table is not difficult (particularly when the principles/best practice of play are clear and the descriptors are possessed of thematic heft or in clarity in instruction). I think in all of the games I've run with these things, I've probably run into actual table disputes of any consequences to handling time/hard feelings it was way inside a handful of times (so inconsequential that I can barely even recall any offhand). And that is GMing thousands of hours worth of play that involved employing descriptor-based currency contingent upon a relevant match with fictional positioning.

In some ways that's a very fair point. I probably count on one hand the number of times I've run into actual table disputes around game processes using descriptors. Rules generally? Maybe once every few sessions there are doubts or questions. Once in a blue-moon an actual dispute. So many pixels have died on en-world, so unnecessarily. Alternatively, we just enjoy digging into the edge cases where things (can) diverge.

Where are all of these dastardly, insincere players that ENWorld GMs goes on and on and on and on and on about! Its like their Game Theoretical Model of what actually happens in the wild is instructed from an alternate reality (certainly alternate than the one I've experienced)! @niklinna , @kenada , and @AbdulAlhazred (the 3 players in one of my TB2 games) don't match that profile and our play thus far hasn't been saddled with descriptor-based hardship! And while I've known AA for a long while on the boards, I've only recently become friends with niklinna and kenada so they've very little reason to not treat me and our play as disposable (except for the typical reason of being a decent, honest person who appreciates integrity of play and enjoys a fun game...which is pretty much my experience with players except for an extremely small minority!).

Yes indeed, where are they?! I also wonder where the rules gestapo are? Lolling about in barracks when they should be at our shoulder making sure we obey the rules in conformity with the Standard Interpretation. (I picture the Standard Interpretation as an additional rulebook, that tells us how to interpret the rulebook.)

EDIT - One final thought on playing with integrity. I have to winder if all of this ENWorld hostility to players and extreme wariness of players playing without integrity/cheating is because the bulk of folks here have internalized such an extremely adversarial model of GM vs players that they don't understand an alternative one. An alternative model where everyone is playing with integrity and players police themselves against any possible integrity-impugning play.

Honestly, I don't think so. More I think we (or at least I) are very curious and opinionated and love chewing over this stuff. In the past my interests have been principally ontological - to see what is there - but I've recently moved to thinking about what would be worth designing... what could be designed? In light of the deluge of fascinating design work being done right now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But everyone survived, and now that my armor is destroyed, I (presumably) have more slots for wearing things back to town!


I’ve not been following the arguments too closely over the last few pages, so I could be off-base, but I would posit that it’s another “gift” of the traditional, story-telling style. Someone who advocates fully for their character (i.e., “does what their character would do”) is a “bad player” who “ruins the story”, and since rules have no teeth (due to rule 0 and the need to protect the story), the only way to police that through paranoia. Even if we’re not talking about or playing that way, old habits die hard.

Well, yes, OTOH I never really ran into too much of that even back in the day... I remember one of my big 1e characters was a ranger. When he was first adventuring, like 'we are walking down the road to town to start our adventuring career' these demogorgon worshipers made our lives super miserable and wiped out the rest of the party. So ever after that my character was totally about NOTHING but getting revenge on the whole lot of them. I got the GM to let me change my 'giant bonus' to apply to these crazies instead.

So, my character DEFINITELY DID NOT care about 'other stuff', like getting more treasure vs killing some of those buggers. I don't recall this was ever a problem in our games, everyone just thought it was great, the character's behavior was entirely consistent, etc. Now, it was 1e AD&D, so there were no mechanics that supported, encouraged, or had any basis in personality, motive, etc. (noting the GM allowing me to switch my giant bonus out). Still, we always played our characters vs 'what is the best way to win D&D'. OTOH my other main character basically was the definition of 'lets win', which was a pretty heavily encouraged way to go in that game...

 

[kenada]

Well, yes, OTOH I never really ran into too much of that even back in the day... I remember one of my big 1e characters was a ranger. When he was first adventuring, like 'we are walking down the road to town to start our adventuring career' these demogorgon worshipers made our lives super miserable and wiped out the rest of the party. So ever after that my character was totally about NOTHING but getting revenge on the whole lot of them. I got the GM to let me change my 'giant bonus' to apply to these crazies instead.

So, my character DEFINITELY DID NOT care about 'other stuff', like getting more treasure vs killing some of those buggers. I don't recall this was ever a problem in our games, everyone just thought it was great, the character's behavior was entirely consistent, etc. Now, it was 1e AD&D, so there were no mechanics that supported, encouraged, or had any basis in personality, motive, etc. (noting the GM allowing me to switch my giant bonus out). Still, we always played our characters vs 'what is the best way to win D&D'. OTOH my other main character basically was the definition of 'lets win', which was a pretty heavily encouraged way to go in that game...

I’m pretty sure I’ve been that player. I’ve “broken” a couple of campaigns because I did “what my character would do”, and that completely screwed up the campaign the GM had planned.

In one Mage: the Awakening game, it was revealed that our employer (a government agency) was actually the bad guy. Dun dun dun! While we were escaping, I encountered our boss, who asked me where we were going, so I told him. This was a character with a history of bad decision-making and deference to superiors. Of course that is what he would do. I assumed we would pick up next session with the fallout of that action, but we never played that campaign again.

I was also accused of metagaming earlier in that campaign when I guessed the end of the story for the session. We had been sent out to suburbia to investigate a werewolf. I was like: “Where would I hide …. Are there any golf courses around here?” The ST was not pleased.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I’m pretty sure I’ve been that player. I’ve “broken” a couple of campaigns because I did “what my character would do”, and that completely screwed up the campaign the GM had planned.

In one Mage: the Awakening game, it was revealed that our employer (a government agency) was actually the bad guy. Dun dun dun! While we were escaping, I encountered our boss, who asked me where we were going, so I told him. This was a character with a history of bad decision-making and deference to superiors. Of course that is what he would do. I assumed we would pick up next session with the fallout of that action, but we never played that campaign again.

I was also accused of metagaming earlier in that campaign when I guessed the end of the story for the session. We had been sent out to suburbia to investigate a werewolf. I was like: “Where would I hide …. Are there any golf courses around here?” The ST was not pleased.

Hehehe, well that system never was really all that helpful towards players. AFAICT its main design point was to make sure the GM could railroad everyone into whatever plot they had already cooked up. GUESSING THE PLOT, ANATHEMA! lol. There were some cool ideas in terms of themes and concepts and background in that whole series of games (though it is all rather dated at this point) but it really richly deserved a much much better implementation.

 

[clearstream]

Resolving these things at the table is not difficult (particularly when the principles/best practice of play are clear and the descriptors are possessed of thematic heft or in clarity in instruction). I think in all of the games I've run with these things, I've probably run into actual table disputes of any consequences to handling time/hard feelings it was way inside a handful of times (so inconsequential that I can barely even recall any offhand). And that is GMing thousands of hours worth of play that involved employing descriptor-based currency contingent upon a relevant match with fictional positioning.

Observations like this (which I feel are quite-well shared) are part of why I lean toward LP-maximalism.

 

[niklinna]

EDIT - One final thought on playing with integrity. I have to winder if all of this ENWorld hostility to players and extreme wariness of players playing without integrity/cheating is because the bulk of folks here have internalized such an extremely adversarial model of GM vs players that they don't understand an alternative one. An alternative model where everyone is playing with integrity and players police themselves against any possible integrity-impugning play.

In my experience in these sorts of games (and everyone I've GMed for on here can chime in on this; which is a decent chunk of folks)? I have to actually insert a perspective that affords leniency which my players won't give themselves! The overwhelming bulk of my actual mediation in our play is to relax players from their self-policing impulse!

I grew up in the era when RPG mechanics were, well, mechanical, and achievement-based. Everything you could do was rated, and so-called character deficits were most often just ways to get more build points for you to engage in min-maxing with (GURPs and Champions, I'm looking at you). The deficits themselves were in the nature of vulnerabilities to things, activation rolls, rolls to see if your nemesis/frail grandma showed up. At best these things provide random genre-appropriate events, and at worst actively detracted from the fun of play. In any case, the systems governed playing to "win" over some other character via use of stats, and left the rest to the table. The other characters were usually NPCs, of course, so an adversarial stance was highly likely.

Then I played games like Spirit of the Century/Fate, with its encouragement to create two-edged aspects that could be used to help or hinder your character—except now it would be more appropriate to put "hinder" in scare quotes, because the currency involved was not just in building your character but something you traded actively in play: You accepted a compel on your aspect but got a Fate point to spend on overcoming the problem! Now we had more genre-appropriate things happening, but, crucially, negotiated between participants based on contribution to making events/story more interesting and fun by mutual agreement.

Torchbearer ups the ante there significantly by baking the setback/advance currency into the mechanics in such a way that you need to trigger your deficits to have a hope of surviving. It isn't even an optional, fungible currency any more: If you don't use your traits against yourself, you aren't going to be able to make camp, or won't be able to recover enough when you do make camp. Maybe players will try reaching to get an advantage on some roll, but there's a fundamental shift in perspective that we're not playing this game just to outroll the NPCs or whatever. We're exploring an interesting, gritty story of desperate adventurers facing hardship. I think that subtly affects the motivation to reach for every mechanical bonus you can get in order to "beat" the challenge—although Torchbearer still has plenty of mechanics around gaining every bonus you can get!

But even there, the pass/fail mechanics also change the ground, and I have complained several times with @Manbearcat's group about how the term "fail" really isn't appropriate. If you "fail" in Torchbearer, you (often) don't fail to achieve the objective of your test. You (often) get it, but then face a consequence or twist. It's an ongoing adjustment for me, and I'm sure for the other players, to judge whether to try something or not based on considerations other than the mere odds of passing the roll. We're learning to ask what might happen on a fail, or ponder it ourselves, knowing it's likely we'll still get the thing we want (the shiny bauble, a critical bit of information), but have to pay a price for it rather than just get it (and there's always a minimal price to pay in terms of the Grind). This isn't the same as who gets to call bull when someone is reaching, but it's fed by the same underlying philosophy of the game engine, which makes reaching less likely to come up and less likely to be a problem to work out amongst the participants in the game.

This isn't as cogent as I'd like but I can only spend so much time revising a forum post. I hope it was clear enough.

edits: fixed some typos

 

[pemerton]

Breaking a tie in Torchbearer by bringing in a Trait isn't Fortune in the Beginning/Middle/End. Its not Fortune Resolution at all (its not employing dice, cards, et al; unpredictable, non-behavioral elements). So there is no FitM investigation that needs to be undertaken here.

But it is a step in a fortune resolution process. That overall process is FitM, in that we don't know what actually occurred in the fiction until the whole process is complete - as the example of Harguld shooting at the Gnoll shows, the steps in the resolution process, including the breaking of the tie by triggering a trait, can establish the fictional parameters that governed the shot in the first place (eg that Harguld let the Gnoll get too close).

I don't know how big a deal the previous paragraph is, but it reveals some truths about TB - eg we can't use a map-and-tokens to track everyone's positions. (At least not without some system of interrupts - eg by being too cunning, Harguld allows the Gnoll to use an interrupt to get closer than it was when the attack was declared.)

Same thing goes with Acting Within/Outside of Nature.

I think Nature has to be declared with the action, either as help or as a self-buff. So I agree it doesn't feed into any FitM concerns.

Resolving these things at the table is not difficult

This isn't the same as who gets to call bull when someone is reaching, but it's fed by the same underlying philosophy of the game engine, which makes reaching less likely to come up and less likely to be a problem to work out amongst the participants in the game.

I haven't seen much Torchbearer action, and hence not much trait action. But combining my play experience with my reading of the text, I don't think the function of the "reaching" rule is to restrain player use of traits. The restraint on the use of traits is the once-per-session rule; and the Scholar's Guide has a discussion on how to adjust the balance of the system if session refreshes become too frequent due to short sessions.

As best I can tell, the function of the "reaching" rule is a reminder to keep the fiction coherent (whatever that means for a given table) and vivid. If a player can think of a way in which First Born figures despite the absence of trees, stars and ancient memories - perhaps the blandness of their preserved rations makes them pine for lembas, and that sets back a test being made on the back of a recovery from hungry and thirsty - then to me that seems to be a virtue rather than a flaw. To me, at least, it seems that characterisation in Torchbearer is expected to be bright-hued and in-your-face, and traits are part of that, and the reaching admonition is part of that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But it is a step in a fortune resolution process. That overall process is FitM, in that we don't know what actually occurred in the fiction until the whole process is complete - as the example of Harguld shooting at the Gnoll shows, the steps in the resolution process, including the breaking of the tie by triggering a trait, can establish the fictional parameters that governed the shot in the first place (eg that Harguld let the Gnoll get too close).

I don't know how big a deal the previous paragraph is, but it reveals some truths about TB - eg we can't use a map-and-tokens to track everyone's positions. (At least not without some system of interrupts - eg by being too cunning, Harguld allows the Gnoll to use an interrupt to get closer than it was when the attack was declared.)

I think Nature has to be declared with the action, either as help or as a self-buff. So I agree it doesn't feed into any FitM concerns.


I haven't seen much Torchbearer action, and hence not much trait action. But combining my play experience with my reading of the text, I don't think the function of the "reaching" rule is to restrain player use of traits. The restraint on the use of traits is the once-per-session rule; and the Scholar's Guide has a discussion on how to adjust the balance of the system if session refreshes become too frequent due to short sessions.

As best I can tell, the function of the "reaching" rule is a reminder to keep the fiction coherent (whatever that means for a given table) and vivid. If a player can think of a way in which First Born figures despite the absence of trees, stars and ancient memories - perhaps the blandness of their preserved rations makes them pine for lembas, and that sets back a test being made on the back of a recovery from hungry and thirsty - then to me that seems to be a virtue rather than a flaw. To me, at least, it seems that characterisation in Torchbearer is expected to be bright-hued and in-your-face, and traits are part of that, and the reaching admonition is part of that.

Well, that and the fact that you are pretty limited if you run out of persona/fate points is going to MAKE you go for 'in-your-face' kind of play, because you will simply dry and die as a non-entity... Of course that also means you really need to horde those suckers, which is the whole other dynamic at play.