D&D 5E Justin Alexander's review of Shattered Obelisk is pretty scathing

[FitzTheRuke]

This thread is probably not the place to set out the Torchbearer conflict resolution in detail. The approaches to success with the movement in steps along the way is handled via the Attack, Defend and Manoeuvre actions. The accumulation of problems unfolds in two ways - immediate problems or obstacles arise via the checks made on the other side; while more long term or latent problems are established via the "compromise" that is owed by the successful part at the end of the conflict: the compromise is established having regard to the fiction established by the resolution of the actions declared in the course of the conflict.

The last two Trick/Riddle conflicts in our game were (1) a Troll Haunt trying to lure the PCs into the middle of the Troll Fens so that it could catch and eat them - this was a GM-initiated conflict, after the players failed their Pathfinder test during a journey - and (2) the PCs trying to persuade the bandits at the Moathouse that they were emissaries of another bandit, Roy, there to forge an alliance - this was a player-initiated conflict, an attempt to secure food and shelter.

The players lost both conflicts. In the case of (1),that meant that they found themselves lost in the middle of the swamp. But the Dwarven PC's "riddle" - Whose keys do I have in my pocket? (he has two of them, collected during his adventures) - had resulted in the Troll losing a good chunk of its own disposition in the conflict, and so (as a substantial compromise) it went back to its Troll-hole to consult its book of riddles to try and see what sorts of keys a Dwarven traveller might be carrying.

In the case of (2), that meant that the bandits were not tricked, and achieved their intent, of having the PCs surrender. But again a compromise was owed - a minor one. Earlier the PCs had captured a Dire Wolf from the Moathouse and persuaded it to join with them, and the Dwarven PC had relied on the presence of the Wolf to reinforce the impression that the PCs were allies of, rather than enemies of, the Moathouse bandits. The minor compromise took the form of the bandits accepting that the Wolf was still one of them, and had carried out its mission of bringing intruders to the Moathouse, meaning that the PCs now have a Wolf ally "on the inside" with the bandits.

I don't know if this satisfies your demands of granularity or not. Based on actual play, I think it produces pretty interesting and unexpected outcomes that reflect player choices about how to approach the situation in the fiction, and what elements of their PCs and their PCs' circumstances to put at stake as part of that approach.

That sounds really great. I'm gonna have to check out Torchbearer sometime.

 

[Staffan]

A lot of people have no concept of high level. At high level, the lock should be the last line of a multi layered defense network.

Or a construct that gets into the PCs backpack when they don't notice so there's an easy scry target for tracking.

Or be just one of the hundred locks that keep the chest closed.

But I guess people just want to keep adventuring with slightly higher numbers.

This reminds me of Hogfather, where some shady characters are breaking into the eponymous Hogfather's home and try to break into his vaults. These locks use very exotic methods of unlocking, such as light going through a prism in just the right way, or a particular music tone, and so on.

Note: the lockpicker does get through, it just takes some time.

 

[Maxperson]

I prefer to think of it as, "in keeping with a consistent picture of a setting, where aspects of the world operate in a way that logically follows from the rules of that world.

And in this view, Tolkien has a lot of verisimilitude with Middle Earth. Even though he was constantly tinkering with things, they stayed consistent with the world view he established.

 

[pemerton]

That sounds really great. I'm gonna have to check out Torchbearer sometime.

Thanks! I'll point you to my actual play thread here, which has a few responses from Thor (one of the designers) and was called out favourably by Luke (the other designer) on his forum.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I prefer to think of it as, "in keeping with a consistent picture of a setting, where aspects of the world operate in a way that logically follows from the rules of that world.

And by that definition, it is going to be different in every game.

 

[nevin]

Setting aside for the moment that I find the proposition of quality necessitating the giving of offense to be dubious...

"Um... Demons? Devils? Never heard of 'em. <ahem>", said 2e-era TSR, nervously pulling at its collar.

It's just funny to hear that TSR was so willing to offend people; that certainly wasn't the general perception I saw discussed at the time. If you're referring to content that would be regarded by many as offensive today rather than decades ago, I would argue that such content existed not out of any willingness to offend, but due to lack of recognition of the offense.

I didn't go into cultural difference or the fact that we have our Google, Twitter and X overloards to beat us mercilessly for every mistake and make sure that the mistake is never forgotten. It's just a fact that every modern company in America at least is trying to be completely non-offensive to anyone. This is like making food that tastes good to everyone. Most of the time it'll just be bland fair that meets the baseline for food.

 

[Remathilis]

I didn't go into cultural difference or the fact that we have our Google, Twitter and X overloards to beat us mercilessly for every mistake and make sure that the mistake is never forgotten. It's just a fact that every modern company in America at least is trying to be completely non-offensive to anyone. This is like making food that tastes good to everyone. Most of the time it'll just be bland fair that meets the baseline for food.

So your saying the only way to make something that isn't bland is to offend someone or group or people?

 

[nevin]

No I'm saying it dramatically decreases the amount of thing creative people are willing to do or the things companies are willing to publish.

thus reducing the overall quality of what actually makes it to sale. but you are close, "IT's easier to get something Bland and non offensive Published, than it is to push the envelope and make something exciting and fun". It's design by committee out of fear of offending any one person.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So your saying the only way to make something that isn't bland is to offend someone or group or people?

Not the only way, but I do think you need to be able to risk offending someone.

 

[Remathilis]

Not the only way, but I do think you need to be able to risk offending someone.

All fun and games until you're the offended one...