Torchbearer 2nd ed: first impressions

[pemerton]

Not in widespread use likely because it's a largely-discredited set of ideas criticized for (among other things) not having any real explanatory power and therefore failing as a theory.

I first read Edwards's essay on simulationism after I'd been playing and GMing Rolemaster as my main game for well over a decade. That essay has the best account of Rolemaster of anything I've ever read. It explained everything that was strong, and that was problematic, about RM play. It also explained why there are so many variant initiative systems published in all the supplements.

The complementary essay on "story now" RPGing is cited by Vincent Baker in Apocalypse World as a primary inspiration for that game, which has probably been the most influential thing in RPG design for over 20 years.

In my view these are powerful ideas which have influenced not just my RPGing, but have had an enduring impact on RPG design and RPG play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But . . . but . . . what about all the players who will insist that their PCs can jump all the way to the moon while carrying 20 longswords strapped to their belts, backs and thighs? Without an authoritative GM, who will keep the rabble in order and the fiction pure?

LOL, yeah. So, I doubt we need expound on that in this thread, hehehehe. I would not in any sense say that 2e facilitates Story Now (and in fact that 2e campaign was my attempt to construct an all-pervasive meta-plot, although it was designed so the PCs were the ones who got to decide which way things went, assuming they cared to do so). I guess at least the XP system was helpful to a degree. Still, the player of the paladin got to deal with his character's angst at his family's bad reputation, and pine after the girl he wasn't supposed to be able to have (many shenanigans). Summer Twilight the Druidess had lots of fun due to her determination to prove that being bossed around by men was BS (male druids that is, who naturally were incensed that she thought she could become an Initiate of the 5th Circle or something like that, now there's a new order of druids, and Kinergh Druidism is way messed up). I can't actually dredge up much about the other PCs off the top of my head, lol. Still, at least one could say that even 2e's somewhat more elaborate mechanics (for classic D&D) mostly got out of the way. I think we skipped the whole NWP/Specialization thing, being that we were basically playing "updated 1e", lol.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That is exactly the text I was thinking of in framing my question, and you highlight its key elements.

I didn't intend to limit my question to just GM (notwithstanding that my actual words did precisely that!) I intended to ask - do you feel that anyone is permitted in TB2 to rule that an instance of using a trait against oneself isn't legitimate? Does such a requirement (to legitmate) exist at all. I believe that the text on reaching firmly implies that it does, because your group can say that your trait doesn't fit the situation.

The flow I have experienced in play is of legitimating narrative being creatively appended, fitting @AbdulAlhazred description. Even so, I feel like a rule folk are tacitly applying is whether said narrative feels true to the trait in the circumstances? Exactly as guided to in the text on reaching.

The first part - being true to the trait - speaks to what is established by virtue of being written on the character sheet and perhaps consistency in interpretation over the arc of play. The second part - in the circumstances - must take into account the fictional positioning. Meaning that to me what is entailed by the text on reaching is that a player cannot use their trait against themselves unless they have said something that is legitimate in the current circumstances; being thus grounded in the fictional position.

Right, I think that is established as canonical. My interpretation of the system, from play and reading, is that the INTENT is that action declarations be firmly rooted in fiction, but also must be clearly motivated by gamist considerations. So, when I see that there's a steep descent to be made, I consider all the ways my character, mechanically could contribute to making the descent, or perhaps avoiding it entirely. Which one I pick will be heavily influenced by its mechanical impact on the game state, but fundamentally it is referent to the fiction, which established the obstacle and my motivations for getting to the bottom of the slope (although a lot of those are 'to get some resources so I will not be ground to death later'). So, definitely there's an intent that fiction is primary, at least in terms of framing, but mechanics are more than just resolution mechanisms in TB2, they are drivers in and of themselves.

Contrast that with Dungeon World. Mechanics rarely drive anything in DW. Characters DO have an inventory, but it has impact almost entirely due to GM MOVES, not anything the players do. So, for instance the party is exploring deep in some dungeon, and they begin to debate which passage to take. The GM makes a soft move "your torch is flickering, it seems to be near the end of its life." The players consult their various inventories, they have 3 more torches. Should they attempt to continue, or turn back? The inventory mechanic is salient here, but it was the GM making a soft move which is generating tension, there's no RULE about how long a torch actually burns (that is there's no rules about the passage of time in DW as their are in TB2). When a player has input, like deciding to Spout Lore (actually the GM decides that's what happened) it could lead to a mechanical effect (+1 forward) and might constrain the GM to establish some fiction favorable to the PCs, but it won't actually shape their actions much in an immediate sense. At best it might suggestion "Oh, we should undertake X, we have established the basic stakes involved and can get a +1 at some point, so why not?" There's no 'grind' waiting to crush you if you don't make sure some rations result. Worst case in DW you're in up to your neck now instead of your waist, but the GM is a fan, you will have a chance to pull through!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not in widespread use likely because it's a largely-discredited set of ideas criticized for (among other things) not having any real explanatory power and therefore failing as a theory.

Yeah, except for its deep influence on EVERY SINGLE indie game of the last 15 years or so, lol. I mean, its a model you can use to organize your thinking about RPGs. It isn't 'right' or 'wrong', and people have gone on and introduced other models, which even Ron Edwards and Co. seem to mostly like better. Honestly I don't know even where those are being discussed, but I think if you posted this comment there you'd quickly find 99% of the successful game designers in the industry today vehemently disagree with you...

 

[pemerton]

do you feel that anyone is permitted in TB2 to rule that an instance of using a trait against oneself isn't legitimate?

Taking the verb rule literally, then my answer is No. No one has the power to issue an authoritative ruling of that sort. But as a member of the group, they can contribute to, perhaps take the lead in establishing, a conclusion that an attempted trait declaration is reaching.

what is entailed by the text on reaching is that a player cannot use their trait against themselves unless they have said something that is legitimate in the current circumstances; being thus grounded in the fictional position.

But the player can establish the fictional position simultaneously with their declaration of the trait. Here's the example from the Scholar's Guide (pp 33-34):

Dro tells Thor, “I’ll hold off the gnolls while the rest escape.”

Thor inquires for more info, “What does Harguld do exactly?”

Dro says, “ I position myself inside the mouth of this cave, so I can see down the tunnel. Then I load my crossbow and take aim.”

Thor nods, “A gnoll scout emerges from the shadows down the tunnel…”

“I put a bolt in his face!”

“Right. Fighter skill test versus its Ambushing Nature 5.”

Dro announces, “I rolled three successes: 6, 4, 4”

Thor intones, “Three successes here…It’s a tie. What will you do, little dwarf?”

Dro could use his health 5 to make a tiebreaker roll against the gnoll. But he rolled one 6, so first he opts to spend a fate point to reroll that die hoping for another success. It comes up a 2. So now he has to choose to go to a tiebreaker roll or to use his trait against himself and break the tie in Thor’s favor.

After some consideration, he opts to break the tie in Thor’s favor. Dro declares, “I am so cunning! I wait for way too long trying to lure him in.” He used his Cunning trait to get in his own way and earns two checks for his trouble.​

That is very obviously boxes-to-boxes - use of the Trait breaks the tie and grants Dro checks. And there is also a leftward arrow (ie to the clouds): Dro establishes that, in the fiction, Harguld has tried to be cunning, waiting for the gnoll to close in, and has misjudged his timing.

No fiction was established about the error of timing, or even the importance of timing, prior to Dro introducing it as an output of the mechanical decision to use the trait.

My interpretation of the system, from play and reading, is that the INTENT is that action declarations be firmly rooted in fiction, but also must be clearly motivated by gamist considerations.

<snip>

So, definitely there's an intent that fiction is primary, at least in terms of framing, but mechanics are more than just resolution mechanisms in TB2, they are drivers in and of themselves.

Contrast that with Dungeon World. Mechanics rarely drive anything in DW.

I don't disagree with this in any way. I just want to reiterate the fundamental contrast: DW, like AW, is grounded in if you do it, you do it and to do it, do it. There is no such principle in Torchbearer: to that extent it is very close to its Burning Wheel cousin.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Taking the verb rule literally, then my answer is No. No one has the power to issue an authoritative ruling of that sort. But as a member of the group, they can contribute to, perhaps take the lead in establishing, a conclusion that an attempted trait declaration is reaching.

But the player can establish the fictional position simultaneously with their declaration of the trait. Here's the example from the Scholar's Guide (pp 33-34):

Dro tells Thor, “I’ll hold off the gnolls while the rest escape.”​

​

Thor inquires for more info, “What does Harguld do exactly?”​

​

Dro says, “ I position myself inside the mouth of this cave, so I can see down the tunnel. Then I load my crossbow and take aim.”​

​

Thor nods, “A gnoll scout emerges from the shadows down the tunnel…”​

​

“I put a bolt in his face!”​

​

“Right. Fighter skill test versus its Ambushing Nature 5.”​

​

Dro announces, “I rolled three successes: 6, 4, 4”​

​

Thor intones, “Three successes here…It’s a tie. What will you do, little dwarf?”​

​

Dro could use his health 5 to make a tiebreaker roll against the gnoll. But he rolled one 6, so first he opts to spend a fate point to reroll that die hoping for another success. It comes up a 2. So now he has to choose to go to a tiebreaker roll or to use his trait against himself and break the tie in Thor’s favor.​

​

After some consideration, he opts to break the tie in Thor’s favor. Dro declares, “I am so cunning! I wait for way too long trying to lure him in.” He used his Cunning trait to get in his own way and earns two checks for his trouble.​

That is very obviously boxes-to-boxes - use of the Trait breaks the tie and grants Dro checks. And there is also a leftward arrow (ie to the clouds): Dro establishes that, in the fiction, Harguld has tried to be cunning, waiting for the gnoll to close in, and has misjudged his timing.

No fiction was established about the error of timing, or even the importance of timing, prior to Dro introducing it as an output of the mechanical decision to use the trait.

Right, exactly, you don't have to spell out the cause-and-effect in fiction, it is enough to establish that everyone agrees the usage is plausible. At most you might be asked to narrate the details, though FRPG tradition in terms of 'combat' situations is pretty well-established by decades of D&D that it can be left a bit abstract at that level. So, maybe some tables will be more demanding in that respect.

I don't disagree with this in any way. I just want to reiterate the fundamental contrast: DW, like AW, is grounded in if you do it, you do it and to do it, do it. There is no such principle in Torchbearer: to that extent it is very close to its Burning Wheel cousin.

Right, and we can see WHY this difference exists in game design terms. TB2's agenda is more strongly oriented towards a skilled manipulation of the 'boxes', which requires some slightly looser coupling to the fiction. It makes up for it in terms of consequences being more mechanically gated. In DW things are more centered IN the fiction, you don't need to go back and revisit anything, you declare a move and toss 2 dice, there's no real choices to be made beyond "how do I fictionally react to this fictional situation." At most you might first think "oh, if I do X I have hold" or something like that, but you'd never go back and elaborate on a move you just made for any reason.

 

[clearstream]

Taking the verb rule literally, then my answer is No. No one has the power to issue an authoritative ruling of that sort. But as a member of the group, they can contribute to, perhaps take the lead in establishing, a conclusion that an attempted trait declaration is reaching.

If you feel a player is reaching, tell them so. Give them a moment to readjust. If they don’t have anything better to add, then move on. The trait doesn’t apply.

The text addresses the reader directly - "if you feel" - so while I agree that there is room for the design intent to be that it should be a group consensus, the words on the page do not imply that. The group must be convinced yes, but to me the words imply that any member of the group can call bull. You - the person reading these rules - may do so. Thus, following the text someone does have the power to issue an authoritative ruling.

That said, I don't believe it harms what I am saying whether it is any one or several members of the group. The rule (as a literal rule) can very well be one available to the group, even if not to individual members. An example might be a rule where board members can vote a director out. They can't exercise that rule individually, but they can do so collectively.

I do agree that what you say isn't mere quibbling: it is reasonable to consider if anything authoritative is in play or not. My interpretation is that yes, something authoritative is in play - and it can be exercised by any one (or more) member(s) of the group. The player accused of reaching can have their declaration overruled. The nature of the rule is regulatory: a player has the prior ability to use a trait against themselves. The rule regulates that use.

But the player can establish the fictional position simultaneously with their declaration of the trait. Here's the example from the Scholar's Guide (pp 33-34):

Dro tells Thor, “I’ll hold off the gnolls while the rest escape.”​

​

Thor inquires for more info, “What does Harguld do exactly?”​

​

Dro says, “ I position myself inside the mouth of this cave, so I can see down the tunnel. Then I load my crossbow and take aim.”​

​

Thor nods, “A gnoll scout emerges from the shadows down the tunnel…”​

​

“I put a bolt in his face!”​

I feel here that a great deal of fictional positioning is in play and - because the example has to start and end somewhere - not mentioned until it is apposite. For example

• There are gnolls intent on pursuing
• There is a shadowy tunnel
• We're presently at its mouth, able to peer in
• Harguld has a crossbow

To my reading, what you are describing is simply the absence of an outline of the fictional position obtaining at the start of the action. Such omission is common. I don't believe it right to read the example as the position being established simultaneously with the player declarations.

“Right. Fighter skill test versus its Ambushing Nature 5.”​

​

Dro announces, “I rolled three successes: 6, 4, 4”​

​

Thor intones, “Three successes here…It’s a tie. What will you do, little dwarf?”​

​

Dro could use his health 5 to make a tiebreaker roll against the gnoll. But he rolled one 6, so first he opts to spend a fate point to reroll that die hoping for another success. It comes up a 2. So now he has to choose to go to a tiebreaker roll or to use his trait against himself and break the tie in Thor’s favor.​

​

After some consideration, he opts to break the tie in Thor’s favor. Dro declares, “I am so cunning! I wait for way too long trying to lure him in.” He used his Cunning trait to get in his own way and earns two checks for his trouble.​

That is very obviously boxes-to-boxes - use of the Trait breaks the tie and grants Dro checks. And there is also a leftward arrow (ie to the clouds): Dro establishes that, in the fiction, Harguld has tried to be cunning, waiting for the gnoll to close in, and has misjudged his timing.

No fiction was established about the error of timing, or even the importance of timing, prior to Dro introducing it as an output of the mechanical decision to use the trait.

In the given fictional position a timing misjudgement is legitimate. Dro narrated something that made sense in the circumstances: it was valid given the fictional position. Compare with something else Dro might have said:

"I am so cunning, I earlier tied my laces together [for avoidance of doubt, that never happened] and I now stumble breaking the tie."

That doesn't work. If the laces were tied, how did that not matter when he positioned himself in the tunnel mouth? And so on. Others can probably come up with better examples. In your interpretation, for me there is an overlooking of the validating function of the fictional position, and no true consideration of what declarations would count as invalid.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The text addresses the reader directly - "if you feel" - so while I agree that there is room for the design intent to be that it should be a group consensus, the words on the page do not imply that. The group must be convinced yes, but to me the words imply that any member of the group can call bull. You - the person reading these rules - may do so. Thus, following the text someone does have the power to issue an authoritative ruling.

That said, I don't believe it harms what I am saying whether it is any one or several members of the group. The rule (as a literal rule) can very well be one available to the group, even if not to individual members. An example might be a rule where board members can vote a director out. They can't exercise that rule individually, but they can do so collectively.

I do agree that what you say isn't mere quibbling: it is reasonable to consider if anything authoritative is in play or not. My interpretation is that yes, something authoritative is in play - and it can be exercised by any one (or more) member(s) of the group. The player accused of reaching can have their declaration overruled. The nature of the rule is regulatory: a player has the prior ability to use a trait against themselves. The rule regulates that use.


I feel here that a great deal of fictional positioning is in play and - because the example has to start and end somewhere - not mentioned until it is apposite. For example

• There are gnolls intent on pursuing
• There is a shadowy tunnel
• We're presently at its mouth, able to peer in
• Harguld has a crossbow

To my reading, what you are describing is simply the absence of an outline of the fictional position obtaining at the start of the action. Such omission is common. I don't believe it right to read the example as the position being established simultaneously with the player declarations.


In the given fictional position a timing misjudgement is legitimate. Dro narrated something that made sense in the circumstances: it was valid given the fictional position. Compare with something else Dro might have said:



That doesn't work. If the laces were tied, how did that not matter when he positioned himself in the tunnel mouth? And so on. Others can probably come up with better examples. In your interpretation, for me there is an overlooking of the validating function of the fictional position, and no true consideration of what declarations would count as invalid.

I'm not really convinced. It appears to me to be a very 'Fortune In the Middle' sort of resolution system where you establish intent, then a roll is made, and then how the result of that roll plays out is described. RE even mentions the common case of spending additional currency of some kind (or possibly other mechanics I suppose) to further tweak the outcome or alter fortune more in your favor. I think this case where Dro actually earns checks by accepting a LESS favorable outcome is consonant with that as well. I think @pemerton's noting the timing of when the fiction comes up about the character's excessive cunning is pretty on the mark. Yes, there's a the possibility of an objection from the table based on fictional position, but no fiction DROVE it. I don't buy that the situation was already inherent in the scenario and its description was just latent. These facts appear IMHO to be fiction generated de novo in response to the player's use of the mechanics. It seems like pretty classical gamist play to me!

Honestly, in GNS terms I think the thrust of TB2 is MOSTLY gamist. It certainly ties the mechanics more closely to fiction in some ways than say D&D does (generally, though spells can be different). There's definitely a Narrativist kind of DNA in there though, you are really specifying INTENT and then using 'Fortune In The Middle' to guide how it plays out fictionally, whereas Pemerton's favorite example game, Traveller is usually much more task oriented, for example and usually character intent is thus much more latent. Though I think he makes some reasonable points about how it can often play in a rather 'Story Now' mode.

 

[pemerton]

@clearstream, @AbdulAlhazred

Further on the issue of fictional positioning, and going back to Baker:

When you want to give another player a die penalty, make a roll. On a success, a) say what's making life hard for their character, and b) give them a -2 to their roll.

That's a) boxes to cloud, with a simultaneous b) boxes to boxes.​

No one thinks that you can say "the heat is oppressive" if the character of the player suffering the penalty is (say) driving over the surface of Pluto in a rover. That is, of course established fiction constrains future narrations.

And so if we think about Baker's example, and imagine that the ability in question is tied to being a weather-controller, then maybe if the target character is in their rover on Pluto then there is nothing plausible that can be added to the fiction, and hence the player of the weather-controller can't put a penalty on that other player. This comes up in Marvel Heroic RP quite a bit: it has many abilities that are more sophisticated versions of what Baker describes, and whose use is constrained by plausible conformity with the established fiction. (There is even a rule for allowable "reaching", called stunting - if you want to do something non-standard but still plausible as a type of "one-off", then you have to spend a plot point (a player-side resource) but in exchange you get a bonus die in your pool.)

None of this stops it being FitM. The mechanical consequence is not flowing from an already-established fiction. It is flowing from a mechanical process.

Contrast the case where the action declaration is I smash the rover-driver's space helmet! If that succeeds, then we know that the driver is exposed to the no-atmosphere of the surface of Pluto, and suffers all the adverse consequences that flow from that, due to fictional positioning. That would be an example of clouds-to-boxes-to-clouds(-to-boxes, again, if we mechanise the adverse consequences).

 

[pemerton]

Pemerton's favorite example game, Traveller is usually much more task oriented, for example and usually character intent is thus much more latent. Though I think he makes some reasonable points about how it can often play in a rather 'Story Now' mode.

On this tangent: I think that "story now" Traveller emulates PbtA, not BW/Torchbearer. That is, it is not based on intent. It's based on if you do it, you do it. That's how you can combine a task-type focus in action declaration and the player-side of action resolution, while getting a "story now" output.

Of course, as I freely and frequently admit, the maths of PbtA is more robust than Traveller. But who can resist the lure of space with machine guns, room-sized computers and no mobile telephony?