Torchbearer 2e - actual play of this AWESOME system! (+)

[Manbearcat]

A couple of further thoughts:

* This was a big session for Golin from the point of view of PC build. His Will improved to 4, and he opened three new skills - Lore Master, Manipulator and Persuader. This all resulted from the social-intensive action of the past few sessions. He also improved his Cook to 3.

* @Manbearcat and I have talked in the past about the adventure-building rules. As I posted in the OP of this thread, I find them very good for their focus on fictional situation and mechanical obstacles. But compared to (say) 4e D&D, I find them a bit trial-and-error in terms of getting a sense for how easy or punishing an adventure will be.

But what has become clear is that adventuring in town, with no need to journey to or from the adventure site, is much more forgiving than having to travel. Which the rulebook says; but I think it might have been helpful to have another few sentences or a paragraph explaining this a bit more - I think one reason for this is the splitting of the rules across the Scholar's Guide and the Lore Master's Manual, so the former doesn't explicitly include Journeys in its discussion of adventure difficulty, while the latter's Journey rules don't link back to that discussion either.

As I said I think our next session will involve delving beneath Megloss's house. I would then expect the next town phase to be a Respite. And then I think it must be time for another journey, eg back to the Tower of Stars which remains unexplored by the PCs to a significant extent. There are also the NPC bandits they're interested in, and Korvin has an enemy (Nob H the Bandit Lord) and Golin has two of them (Ebenezer the Erudite, and his rival in the Forgotten Temple Complex also called Golin) who haven't figured yet. Plus there is the rumour form last session about how Vaccin may have known Golin's parents (I imagine Golin's father must have been named Gilim).

If the players remain interested, I think there's enough stuff there to support several more sessions at least.

4e's is "better" than TB's for a few system architecture reasons I'd say:

* Less parameters governing the difficulty of the throughline of play in 4e than in TB.

* The Milestone mechanic is a negative feedback loop which ameliorates the hardship of "pressing on" within the Adventuring Day paradigm.

* Torchbearer's attrition model is a continuous, layered positive feedback loop which continues its work beyond each singular loop of play (Journey > Adventure > Camp > Town) whereas 4e's is overwhelmingly siloed with little in the way of mechanical knock-on effects (unless the Disease Track is employed in particular ways).


With TB, you've got a host of converging elements beyond the Adventure Design parameters (# of Problem Areas based on Adv size + Obstacle difficulties and #s divided into tiers, Rest areas, Proximity to Town, Challenge Types, among other pieces of clear and excellent direction):

* Journey phase as multifaceted, variable attrition element.

* The incentive structures inherent to advancement (folks are going to make Tests that they aren't good at and this is going to yield Conditions/Twists that diversely complicate the model of play).

* The interplay between Grind Clock + Light Clock + "Must Secure Checks to Camp" + the complex decision-tree that Team PC must navigate around the question of "when do we need to camp and can we afford to make a Survey test for Camp amenities/Events Roll etc + this area is Dangerous...do we want to push on to a less Dangerous site", etc, etc. This, by itself, is so deeply complex, that it makes trying to accurately model and predict play in Adventure Design deeply difficult if not impossible.

* The importance of Gear and Tools and Supplies in the course of play.

* The role that Twists play in significantly perturbing (difficulty, length, the overall attrition model, the downstream role in impacting subsequent players' decision-trees) every single Phase of play.

* The decisions players will face and the variance with which one subset of players will make (vs what another subset might make) when it comes to managing Order of Might interactions/decisions and the same for Precedence.

* As mentioned before, the overall positive feedback loop of play is such a powerful parameter to all of this. Its powerful holistically and its also powerful discretely (my Resources sucks...oh boy that is going to be a problem loading out and Paying Debs in Town Phase).

---

So I guess my position on this is:

4e's model is just profoundly less complex than TB's so its inputs into "The Adventuring Day" are going to inherently be more reliable (GM perspective) whereas TB's are so multivariate with so many consequential short and long-term feedback loops that the best you can hope for is what they've provided. And with that in consideration, what they have provided as absolutely excellent in my opinion. Wonderful design that works quite well. When I contrast it with other systems that are considerably less complicated that offer both lesser and worse instruction at "the game layer" (in terms of reliability and durability)...let us just say that Luke and Thor should win alllllllllllllllll the design rewards and be heralded for their work!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

4e's is "better" than TB's for a few system architecture reasons I'd say:

* Less parameters governing the difficulty of the throughline of play in 4e than in TB.

* The Milestone mechanic is a negative feedback loop which ameliorates the hardship of "pressing on" within the Adventuring Day paradigm.

* Torchbearer's attrition model is a continuous, layered positive feedback loop which continues its work beyond each singular loop of play (Journey > Adventure > Camp > Town) whereas 4e's is overwhelmingly siloed with little in the way of mechanical knock-on effects (unless the Disease Track is employed in particular ways).


With TB, you've got a host of converging elements beyond the Adventure Design parameters (# of Problem Areas based on Adv size + Obstacle difficulties and #s divided into tiers, Rest areas, Proximity to Town, Challenge Types, among other pieces of clear and excellent direction):

* Journey phase as multifaceted, variable attrition element.

* The incentive structures inherent to advancement (folks are going to make Tests that they aren't good at and this is going to yield Conditions/Twists that diversely complicate the model of play).

* The interplay between Grind Clock + Light Clock + "Must Secure Checks to Camp" + the complex decision-tree that Team PC must navigate around the question of "when do we need to camp and can we afford to make a Survey test for Camp amenities/Events Roll etc + this area is Dangerous...do we want to push on to a less Dangerous site", etc, etc. This, by itself, is so deeply complex, that it makes trying to accurately model and predict play in Adventure Design deeply difficult if not impossible.

* The importance of Gear and Tools and Supplies in the course of play.

* The role that Twists play in significantly perturbing (difficulty, length, the overall attrition model, the downstream role in impacting subsequent players' decision-trees) every single Phase of play.

* The decisions players will face and the variance with which one subset of players will make (vs what another subset might make) when it comes to managing Order of Might interactions/decisions and the same for Precedence.

* As mentioned before, the overall positive feedback loop of play is such a powerful parameter to all of this. Its powerful holistically and its also powerful discretely (my Resources sucks...oh boy that is going to be a problem loading out and Paying Debs in Town Phase).

---

So I guess my position on this is:

4e's model is just profoundly less complex than TB's so its inputs into "The Adventuring Day" are going to inherently be more reliable (GM perspective) whereas TB's are so multivariate with so many consequential short and long-term feedback loops that the best you can hope for is what they've provided. And with that in consideration, what they have provided as absolutely excellent in my opinion. Wonderful design that works quite well. When I contrast it with other systems that are considerably less complicated that offer both lesser and worse instruction at "the game layer" (in terms of reliability and durability)...let us just say that Luke and Thor should win alllllllllllllllll the design rewards and be heralded for their work!

Yeah, this resonates with me. I added some options in HoML. So, you can trade damage for wounds, which are a type of affliction, which is just a generalization of 4e disease. Thus if your character is tragically crushed by the T-Rex and is now at -5 hit points, you can 'trade', getting back HS worth of hit points (so now you're still probably not in good shape, but up) and instead you might have 'broken leg' or something (you can pretty much color them as you wish, though that will potentially reflect in fiction). The GM gets to decide what the wound is, but of course the usual GMly constraining considerations apply.

That brings into play a more long-term dynamic where you can balance between longer lasting debilitation and basic hit point damage. Also, since afflictions require more specific sorts of treatments than just "heal me" and can get WORSE if not treated, its a bit of a more complex thing, and could almost be played a bit like the way TB conditions wear down the PC's capacity. You could introduce affliction types that represented things like general fatigue and hunger as well, though I have not tried to do that (HoML is not intended to be so grindy, I was more motivated to give players the ability to have 'cool wounds', but it is pretty flexible).

 

[Manbearcat]

GM guidance “at the game layer” is the most important aspect of GMing advice a game can offer. Developing, managing, and executing your mental model for “the (fictional) world” is mostly your own. The requirements and responsibility for managing “the social layer” is wholly your own.

How to create a vital, dynamic gamestate (physical, social, violent, emotional challenges) filled with an array of compelling, provocative decision-trees for players to relentlessly manage within the system’s engine; “the game layer”? Engaging with the game’s “meta” while threading the (systemitized to be incentivized if the game is designed well) thematic needle; “the game layer?”

That is the absolutely the most important GMing advice a game can offer. Candidly, transparently reveal to aspiring GM’s how to ever and always and diversely challenge the players within the game’s engine + premise. GMing instruction that falls short of that mark (typically with too much or exclusive page-space devoted to free play, or world-building, or managing the social layer/identifying aspects of it for curating play with a mind on the social layer) is GM instruction that falls short period. TB1 and 2 not only don’t fall short of that mark, they tread well beyond.

 

[pemerton]

4e's model is just profoundly less complex than TB's so its inputs into "The Adventuring Day" are going to inherently be more reliable (GM perspective) whereas TB's are so multivariate with so many consequential short and long-term feedback loops that the best you can hope for is what they've provided. And with that in consideration, what they have provided as absolutely excellent in my opinion. Wonderful design that works quite well. When I contrast it with other systems that are considerably less complicated that offer both lesser and worse instruction at "the game layer" (in terms of reliability and durability)...let us just say that Luke and Thor should win alllllllllllllllll the design rewards and be heralded for their work!

As you know I'm a fan of Luke and Thor's designs. And in my view the Adventure Burner (or that part of the Codex) is probably the best GM guide ever written. It helped me tremendously with 4e D&D, as well as (unsurprisingly) Burning Wheel.

I still think there's scope to better connect the stuff around "number of obstacles" with the stuff around "distance to town" with the Journey rules. Even something as simple as "each point of toll is functionally comparable to X obstacles" - given that toll either consumes gear (a bit like twists can) or requires food and drink (a bit like 4 obstacles will, though with the possibility of using Cook to defray this, but at the cost of 2 more points of toll so the actual maths gets a bit intricate) or requires coin (which is somewhat comparable to one obstacle in the town phase) or earns a condition (a bit like 4 obstacles will).

Somewhat related: I think my players are going to get a bit of a shock when their PCs enter the Shadow Caves beneath Megloss's house - because it is an inherently more demanding environment than poking around town and burgling a house. I think they've become a bit soft with the comforts of town adventuring.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Somewhat related: I think my players are going to get a bit of a shock when their PCs enter the Shadow Caves beneath Megloss's house - because it is an inherently more demanding environment than poking around town and burgling a house. I think they've become a bit soft with the comforts of town adventuring.

This smacks of a GM 'lets be a bit evil' agenda! lol.

 

[pemerton]

This smacks of a GM 'lets be a bit evil' agenda! lol.

I think the way that I approached the system worked for experienced RPGers, but could have backfired for newbies.

The initial adventure location - the Tower of Stars - was a bit of a way from anywhere, and so our second session involved a debilitating journey. And the players also hadn't yet got the hang of the "earn checks, make camp" dynamic. So the early experiences of the system were pretty brutal.

The "second phase" of our last few town-based sessions has allowed the players a bit of respite (in the non-technical sense): they've been able to build up their positions a little bit, grow their Resources, engage with NPCs, and have some skills and abilities improve (which has been helped by earning some success in tests against modest obstacles and conflicts with human-scale opponents).

When they enter the Shadow Caves, I'm expecting it to feel a bit more like the earlier sessions, but they should have a bit more experience to bring to bear. I'm curious as to how exactly it will play out!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the way that I approached the system worked for experienced RPGers, but could have backfired for newbies.

The initial adventure location - the Tower of Stars - was a bit of a way from anywhere, and so our second session involved a debilitating journey. And the players also hadn't yet got the hang of the "earn checks, make camp" dynamic. So the early experiences of the system were pretty brutal.

The "second phase" of our last few town-based sessions has allowed the players a bit of respite (in the non-technical sense): they've been able to build up their positions a little bit, grow their Resources, engage with NPCs, and have some skills and abilities improve (which has been helped by earning some success in tests against modest obstacles and conflicts with human-scale opponents).

When they enter the Shadow Caves, I'm expecting it to feel a bit more like the earlier sessions, but they should have a bit more experience to bring to bear. I'm curious as to how exactly it will play out!

Right, it should be cool. What do you think they want to find? hehe.

 

[pemerton]

Right, it should be cool. What do you think they want to find? hehe.

Well, their Scholar success was only for common knowledge, so all they know is that there was an Elf who turned from the West to the Outer Dark. And that Megloss's house was built by its original owner, the wizard Pallando, around the stolen Dreamhouse post brought there by the renegade Elf.

I'm sure they'll be able to make up some goals though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, their Scholar success was only for common knowledge, so all they know is that there was an Elf who turned from the West to the Outer Dark. And that Megloss's house was built by its original owner, the wizard Pallando, around the stolen Dreamhouse post brought there by the renegade Elf.

I'm sure they'll be able to make up some goals though.

Oh, Dreamhouse, well that sounds pretty interesting. My elf had some fun with one of those too...

 

[Manbearcat]

As you know I'm a fan of Luke and Thor's designs. And in my view the Adventure Burner (or that part of the Codex) is probably the best GM guide ever written. It helped me tremendously with 4e D&D, as well as (unsurprisingly) Burning Wheel.

I still think there's scope to better connect the stuff around "number of obstacles" with the stuff around "distance to town" with the Journey rules. Even something as simple as "each point of toll is functionally comparable to X obstacles" - given that toll either consumes gear (a bit like twists can) or requires food and drink (a bit like 4 obstacles will, though with the possibility of using Cook to defray this, but at the cost of 2 more points of toll so the actual maths gets a bit intricate) or requires coin (which is somewhat comparable to one obstacle in the town phase) or earns a condition (a bit like 4 obstacles will).

Somewhat related: I think my players are going to get a bit of a shock when their PCs enter the Shadow Caves beneath Megloss's house - because it is an inherently more demanding environment than poking around town and burgling a house. I think they've become a bit soft with the comforts of town adventuring.

I agree with you on the Toll supplementary rules in Loremaster's Manual. They could have done more work in explaining the mathematical relationship between Toll : Obstacle.

So I've run 8 x TB1 games and 2 TB2 games. The two TB2 games I've run I've treated just like TB1 when it comes to Journey which is basically the LMM's guidance for Journeys except remove Toll. It makes it pretty easy to determine the relative difficulty added to an entire Adventure phase in my opinion:

* Journeys are one of five things:

Elided - At low-level and close proximity to Town, you just start at the entrance to the Adventure (which is typically, though not always, a delve).

Connected by Road - As above, its typically just "you're there at the entrance (because the road is safe and, in CRPG parlance, "fast travel")" unless the road itself is a problem area to navigate. Then you make a test in Adventure phase.

1 x Wilderness Obstacle/Problem Area - Short or Long Journey (Pathfinder or Sailor test overwhelmingly, but possibly another test given the obstacle/problem area) counts toward Adventure phase.

Multi-Leg - TB1 calls this a "pre-adventure" Adventure. Essentially, this is a reskinned Mouse Guard Mission. You've got 3 to 4 linked obstacles/problem areas where you deal with each one at a time and they should be diverse (like the LMM discusses and just like the Mouse Guard Mission instruction entails). This is Adventure phase. Add this up with a Short Adventure and you've got # of obstacles/problem areas = Medium Adventure!

Wilderness Adventure - Employ Adventure Design procedures as normal.

---

With those relationships to Adventure Design, it becomes straight-forward in adding up the extra obstacles to the Adventure and just subtracting one from the Adventure to net the total problem areas/obstacles or adding 3-4 to turn a Short Adventure into a Medium one. Toll-tallying + Roles adds another layer to the whole affair that makes things (a) much more variable, (b) more book-keeping intensive, and (c) likely more arduous for both for both players and GMs in managing play. Its not clear to me that "the juice is worth the squeeze" of those two things. The game is already deeply complex and book-keeping intensive as is. When I reviewed it, it also wasn't clear to me that the decision-points inherent to course-charting + Toll-tallying + Roles are particularly provocative and interesting. IMO, the problem area/obstacle framing > LEDATR (Listen, Explore, Decide, Act, Test, Result) Loop is what is important to the Adventure phase (along with all the other layers of Grind, Light, Checks, Inventory Management, etc). That is what I want out of Journey/Wilderness Adventuring (along with course-charting). Adding another layer on top seemed (seems) one of the only questionable decisions in the new ruleset.