This is not a very convincing argument in favor of Torchbearer being for me.
Have people mentioned yet that Torchbearer heavily inspired the computer game Darkest Dungeon?
I mean, my concern was “it’s not clear by what principles I’m meant to determine when to give success with a condition and when to give a twist” and your answer was “you just have give up on being neutral.” Ok, well, I guess that’s fine, but if I’m not sure I’m ready to make that leap, this advice just tells me I should stay way from the game. At the very least, some advocacy for why I should want to embrace partiality would be preferable. Better yet would be to suggest some principles a GM who is hesitant to abandon neutrality might be able to lean on to help wean themselves off of it.
The basic idea in a lot of these games is that the GM is not neutral. They are not paid to be there and arbitrate a game as a neutral referee. They are effectively a player too who is there to have fun with the group and find out what happens in the game. It's expected that the GM is much of a fan of the player characters as the players themselves are. The GM also wants to see the PCs succeed over challenges, but this requires filling their lives with a waterhose of adversity.
But if you need something to work with, let consider what are the principles for when a check are applied in D&D 5e?
Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:
- Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
- Is a task so inappropriate or impossible- such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.
It says to call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. It's honestly not that far removed in Torchbearer 1, so you can probably apply similar principles for whenever tests or conditions are needed. If it's unnecessary to make a Test, because possible consequences from either a Condition or Twist don't make sense, then don't call for one.
Then let the players describe their characters’ interactions with the surroundings. Once you reach a point at which they are in danger or going forward is impossible without some feat, make them test a skill or ability.
Alternately, if they devise a plan, determine the point at which they are in greatest danger and make them test then.
After the players have described their actions, you respond. Ask the players one or two additional questions about their actions to make sense of what’s happening. The players may use their answers to embellish with colorful roleplay that brings their traits and wises into the description.
If the action doesn’t merit a possible twist or condition, then you should simply describe the outcome of the action and move on. Sometimes, an action a player describes isn’t relevant or doesn’t alter the situation. That’s OK, but always look for an opportunity to insert new information. If the players are spending too much time on inconsequential actions, look for a way to ratchet up the tension. During the adventure phase, players should never feel as if their characters are safe or have time to spare.
Finally, if the action would merit a twist or condition, decide which ability or skill makes sense to test based on the players’ description and set an obstacle. Once the GM calls for a test, the players are committed. The player making the test should gather dice for the skill or ability the GM called for. Players who described their help and who have a skill or wise relevant to the test should add their helping dice. Anyone who described helping is committed. No backsies.
As to when to apply a Condition or Twist, I can understand that the advice "when it makes sense" can seem unhelpful, but this is where following the fiction comes in. What are the PCs doing? Where are they doing it? What is the fictional context of their actions?
But consider, how are you determining if there is a "meaningful consequence for failure" in D&D 5e and what that would look like? The DMG offers Goldilocks-style advice - not too easy, but not too hard - but fails to substantiate what a "meaningful consequence for failure" entails. Even the "Resolution and Consequence" section kind of glosses over the consequences of failure.
You determine the consequences of attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. In most cases, doing so is straightforward. When an attack hits, it deals damage. When a creature fails a saving throw, the creature suffers a harmful effect. When an ability check equals or exceeds the DC, the check succeeds.
He is a big fan of Holmes Basic. Of RuneQuest. Of Champions, of course. Just to name a few.
Yeah, Edwards spends a fair number of videos on his YouTube channel gushing over RuneQuest and Champions.
I think that was the point!
@Charlaquin is adopting something from Dungeon World that they do like and applying it to B/X.
Edit: Corrected 5e to B/X.
I wonder if it would almost be easier to use Worlds Without Number for this purpose as WWN uses d20+Attribute for Combat Skills, but 2d6+Attribute as Task Resolution for Non-Combat Skills. WWN does not have the best exploration rules, but those could be ported in from OSE.
