Torchbearer 2nd ed: first impressions

[clearstream]

"Carried forward" means nothing more, here, than "not contradicted." No one disputes that there must be consistency with the established fiction. That doesn't mean that the tie-breaking results from fictional positioning - it clearly doesn't, given that regardless of fictional positioning the player is free to choose whether or not to spend the trait.

The set of choices consistent with and following from a fictional position is nearly invariably vast. Say Rose has a gun. She is free to choose to fire or discard it. She can use it as a paper-weight. Whichever she chooses is equally well legitimated by the fictional positioning. Similarly, the use of the trait-against-self to tie-break is legitimated by the fictional positioning... only upon taking into account the tie (in the absence of which tie-breaking cannot follow). Are you requiring that the fictional position admits of only one possible choice? If not, why is the player's freedom to choose at issue?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm me, not @AbdulAlhazred, but my response is that you are pointing to features that are basically constitutive of RPGing as such. All RPGs have established fiction that constraints possible additions to it. That doesn't mean that there are never boxes-to-boxes processes in RPGs.

Also, constrained by is a very different relationship from driven by or entailed by. The latter is the relationship that governs higher ground => +2 to hit or having my space helmet shattered while on the surface of Pluto => big trouble for me!.

I think you have summed up my response quite well, here. The very nature of RPGs is that they're 'open world' games in which situations are fiction that is largely unbounded. Thus ALL action in RPGs will have some reference to fiction, even if it might be a bit oblique in a few cases (IE hit points in D&D, or spending various currencies in certain games where there can be boxes to boxes stuff. Imagine though, even in 4e, where you can avoid referring directly to the fiction much in a fight, the expenditure of a daily power or an AP is STILL ultimately in reference to some fictional framing in which the party was attacked by monsters, etc. Thus @clearstream's pointing out this kind of reference is just acknowledging the overall general structure implicit in essentially all RPGs. In fact I'm finding it hard to conceive of a way to structure a game that is both RPG in any meaningful way AND contains no referent to any fiction. Where would 'role play' even come in? It would be a mere accessory, like imagining your knight in chess running down and killing the pawn, and describing his devotion to the Queen, utterly irrelevant to play.

And your second comment is equally germane. There's a huge difference between something that DRIVES play and something that is merely entailed by a given situation. I mean, you might well be motivated to find higher ground, and it MIGHT even be a 'driver' but its a weaker one at best. Constraints are a whole other class where fiction narrows the scope of possibilities. I think that is really its MAIN function in games like D&D, whereas it is the key motivator in PbtA, shaping everything, which is fair beyond a set of constraints.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Say something that follows seems to be one of the ur-rules of the genre. Okay, I think it is reasonable to characterise the case as FitM.

As such, there is an overarching intention that follows from the fiction (pursuing gnolls, cave, crossbow) and each reversion to mechanics shades its eventual resolution. (I was going to say - takes us closer to - but it seems conceivable that some FitM could take us further from.) I think what we're in dispute over is whether the FP that drives and legitimates that overarching intention also drives and legitimates the FitM declaration? And, further, I think we agree that it does legitimate, so I'll focus on the question of driving.

I believe my intuition toward "yes" is informed by feeling that the trait-against-self FitM declaration arises from mechanics considerations that are connected with the overarching intention. Harguld wouldn't have reached the FitM were it not for the FP driving the overarching intention to load crossbow and attempt an ambush. On the same basis that we don't think of cases of FitM as being rather a series of discrete actions, I think of everything within the arc as being driven by the FP that drove the overarching intention. In part, because it would become inexplicable otherwise (it would be inexplicable for Harguld to decide to use Cunning against himself, were it not driven by the tie, which is a case of FitM within an overarching intention driven from the FP.)

That's what I'm mulling over, anyway

Right, but as in my comment on @pemerton's response, I think that's all just part-and-parcel of RPGs. So, yes, the original FP presented Harguld with a way to solve a problem using his crossbow, which he availed himself of. Yes, the post-fortune decision to use his clever attribute against himself to gain a check is certain IN THE CONTEXT OF, and thus actualizable due to the whole FP, but it still DIRECTLY arose from mechanics. Its PROXIMATE CAUSE was the failure to come up with enough successes to make success a viable prospect.

Thus our analysis distinguishes something that IMHO yours doesn't. We both attribute the whole sequence to a response to a problem posed by the fiction, but we go deeper and look at how one part of the mechanics triggered another, acknowledging that a different fiction situation might have constrained Harguld so as to be unable to invoke clever this way. I'd note though, such a scenario wouldn't remove the player's motivation to invoke it, Dro still wants to accumulate checks, it just would have blocked it, or forced him to pick a different trait perhaps.

 

[pemerton]

The set of choices consistent with and following from a fictional position is nearly invariably vast. Say Rose has a gun. She is free to choose to fire or discard it. She can use it as a paper-weight. Whichever she chooses is equally well legitimated by the fictional positioning. Similarly, the use of the trait-against-self to tie-break is legitimated by the fictional positioning... only upon taking into account the tie (in the absence of which tie-breaking cannot follow).

The choice made by Rose's player about what to do with the gun is a choice to author some fiction - that is what happens when a player declares an action for their PC. (I put to one side approaches to RPGing that I regard as somewhat degenerate, in which it is deemed that only the GM can change the fiction so that players' action declarations for their PCs are treated simply as suggestions to the GM as to how to add to the fiction.) We can see this illustrated in Step 1 of Vincent's first resolution system, where a player says "I take position on the crest of the hill" and the other player replies "Okay". That is clouds-to-clouds.

The choice to use a trait in Torchbearer is not a choice about authoring some fiction. It is a choice about how to manipulate a resolution process. It has, as its immediate field of operation, not the clouds but the boxes. In this respect it's the same as using a Fate Point to open-end sixes in either Torchbearer or Burning Wheel, the same as using a Call-On trait in Burning Wheel, the same as spending a Plot Point to keep an extra die in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic. In Vincent's examples, it's analogous to Step 4 of the third resolution system, which requires a player who wishes to answer to reroll (a player can always opt to open negotiations for consequences instead: In A Wicked Age rulebook p 19). And unsurprisingly that is marked as boxes-to-boxes, with an ensuing leftward arrow (boxes to clouds) at Step 5 as you "say what your character does".

The choice is constrained by the fiction: the established fiction has to be "taken into account" (your phrase) by the In A Wicked Age player, just as it does by Dro when playing Torchbearer. But what is this supposed to show? In Vincent Baker's example of the oppressive heat being the cause of the debuff, the fiction has to be taken into account (presumably no one is going to narrate oppressive heat as the cause of a debuff suffered by a PC who is trekking across Antarctic plateaus). The use of Call-On trait may have to have regard to the established fiction (eg Graceful can be used as a call-on trait for social skill checks requiring "grace" or "presence" - and that's something that is settled by the state of the fiction, it's not a technical mechanical term). In Marvel Heroic RP, Dr Strange's player can use the Alliterative Invocations ability to spend a plot point to buff certain actions involving magic - this depends upon the fiction in two ways, in that (i) the action has to pertain to magic, which is a matter of fiction and not mechanics, and (ii) (at least as I interpret the ability) the player actually has to have Dr Strange utter the invocation ("By the Seven Rings of Raggador", etc). That doesn't change the fact that, in all these cases, the decision to use the ability is still a decision to manipulate the cues (boxes) in a certain way.

Are you requiring that the fictional position admits of only one possible choice? If not, why is the player's freedom to choose at issue?

I am saying that Dro deciding to break a tie is not the same as taking the high ground granting +2 to hit, nor as shattering the faceplate of a character on the surface of Pluto causing that person to begin freezing, suffocating and decompressing. In both those cases, we have a relationship of entailment.

In the first, we have one bit of fiction (taking the high ground) entailing a mechanical state of affairs (gaining +2 a +2 to hit): the arrow in Step 3 of Vincent's first resolution system does not reflect a choice made by a participant, but a requirement that follows from the game's rules.

In the second case, we have one bit of fiction (I'm on the surface of Pluto and the faceplate of my space helmet has been shattered) entailing another bit of fiction (I'm freezing, suffocating and decompressing). Depending on the RPG being played, that second bit of fiction might also entail something mechanical (eg in my Classic Traveller rules I make it 1D of wounds, +1D per 15 seconds until dead).

These are the rightward pointing arrows that Vincent notes are missing from In A Wicked Age, and that make a moment of RPG resolution fiction first. They are present in AW and DW, captured by the slogan "If you do it, you do it." There are aspects of Torchbearer that exhibit this structure - for instance, when Dro decides to have Harguld hold of the Gnolls by shooting at them with a crossbow, that establishes the need for a Fighter check. That's fiction first!

We can also compare the use of a trait to break a tie to the Burning Wheel rules. In BW versus tests, a tie actually represents something in the fiction, namely, the opponents having fought to a standstill. On p 275 of the Adventure Burner (reproduced on pp 142-43 of The Codex), are the following two examples:

Two wrestlers attempt to best each other with their skill. They tie. They cannot overcome each other with technique, so they surge back into the fight and attempt to overpower their opponent - Power tests. This too results in a tie. They are matched in skill and power, so now it's a matter of endurance - Forte tests. Who can outlast the other? . . .​

​

Two characters rush for the sword. They tie on a Speed test. They get there at the same time. They both grab for the sword. They tie on an Agility test. They both grab it at the same time. The attempt to wrestle it out of each other's hands. the test Power and . . .​

​

It's an effective technique . . . It does require the GM to be nimble and ready with lightning-quick complications and descriptions so the players stay tightly focused on this immediate, pernicious problem.​

We can see how the tie is not just a mechanical state of affairs, but a state of affairs in the fiction (ie there is a leftward arrow, from boxes to clouds) which the GM has to narrate (with "lightning-quick" complications and descriptions) that then demands a new action declaration from the player(s) (like "I try to wrestle the sword from her hands!") which then generates a rightward arrow just the same as the rightward arrow that led to Dro testing Fighter to try and hold off the Gnolls.

It's obvious that breaking a tie by spending a trait check is nothing like this.

 

[Fifth Element]

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...

I didn't say many people don't find it influential, but if it's immune to analysis of whether it accurately reflects RPGs, then it fails as a theory. It will always remain conjecture.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

You understand that this is an argument from personal experience? If you share the same preferences and biases as the authors do, for example, you should expect to find it convincing.

 

[clearstream]

The choice made by Rose's player about what to do with the gun is a choice to author some fiction - that is what happens when a player declares an action for their PC. (I put to one side approaches to RPGing that I regard as somewhat degenerate, in which it is deemed that only the GM can change the fiction so that players' action declarations for their PCs are treated simply as suggestions to the GM as to how to add to the fiction.) We can see this illustrated in Step 1 of Vincent's first resolution system, where a player says "I take position on the crest of the hill" and the other player replies "Okay". That is clouds-to-clouds.

The choice to use a trait in Torchbearer is not a choice about authoring some fiction. It is a choice about how to manipulate a resolution process. It has, as its immediate field of operation, not the clouds but the boxes. In this respect it's the same as using a Fate Point to open-end sixes in either Torchbearer or Burning Wheel, the same as using a Call-On trait in Burning Wheel, the same as spending a Plot Point to keep an extra die in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic. In Vincent's examples, it's analogous to Step 4 of the third resolution system, which requires a player who wishes to answer to reroll (a player can always opt to open negotiations for consequences instead: In A Wicked Age rulebook p 19). And unsurprisingly that is marked as boxes-to-boxes, with an ensuing leftward arrow (boxes to clouds) at Step 5 as you "say what your character does".

The choice is constrained by the fiction: the established fiction has to be "taken into account" (your phrase) by the In A Wicked Age player, just as it does by Dro when playing Torchbearer. But what is this supposed to show? In Vincent Baker's example of the oppressive heat being the cause of the debuff, the fiction has to be taken into account (presumably no one is going to narrate oppressive heat as the cause of a debuff suffered by a PC who is trekking across Antarctic plateaus). The use of Call-On trait may have to have regard to the established fiction (eg Graceful can be used as a call-on trait for social skill checks requiring "grace" or "presence" - and that's something that is settled by the state of the fiction, it's not a technical mechanical term). In Marvel Heroic RP, Dr Strange's player can use the Alliterative Invocations ability to spend a plot point to buff certain actions involving magic - this depends upon the fiction in two ways, in that (i) the action has to pertain to magic, which is a matter of fiction and not mechanics, and (ii) (at least as I interpret the ability) the player actually has to have Dr Strange utter the invocation ("By the Seven Rings of Raggador", etc). That doesn't change the fact that, in all these cases, the decision to use the ability is still a decision to manipulate the cues (boxes) in a certain way.


I am saying that Dro deciding to break a tie is not the same as taking the high ground granting +2 to hit, nor as shattering the faceplate of a character on the surface of Pluto causing that person to begin freezing, suffocating and decompressing. In both those cases, we have a relationship of entailment.

In the first, we have one bit of fiction (taking the high ground) entailing a mechanical state of affairs (gaining +2 a +2 to hit): the arrow in Step 3 of Vincent's first resolution system does not reflect a choice made by a participant, but a requirement that follows from the game's rules.

In the second case, we have one bit of fiction (I'm on the surface of Pluto and the faceplate of my space helmet has been shattered) entailing another bit of fiction (I'm freezing, suffocating and decompressing). Depending on the RPG being played, that second bit of fiction might also entail something mechanical (eg in my Classic Traveller rules I make it 1D of wounds, +1D per 15 seconds until dead).

These are the rightward pointing arrows that Vincent notes are missing from In A Wicked Age, and that make a moment of RPG resolution fiction first. They are present in AW and DW, captured by the slogan "If you do it, you do it." There are aspects of Torchbearer that exhibit this structure - for instance, when Dro decides to have Harguld hold of the Gnolls by shooting at them with a crossbow, that establishes the need for a Fighter check. That's fiction first!

We can also compare the use of a trait to break a tie to the Burning Wheel rules. In BW versus tests, a tie actually represents something in the fiction, namely, the opponents having fought to a standstill. On p 275 of the Adventure Burner (reproduced on pp 142-43 of The Codex), are the following two examples:

Two wrestlers attempt to best each other with their skill. They tie. They cannot overcome each other with technique, so they surge back into the fight and attempt to overpower their opponent - Power tests. This too results in a tie. They are matched in skill and power, so now it's a matter of endurance - Forte tests. Who can outlast the other? . . .​

​

Two characters rush for the sword. They tie on a Speed test. They get there at the same time. They both grab for the sword. They tie on an Agility test. They both grab it at the same time. The attempt to wrestle it out of each other's hands. the test Power and . . .​

​

It's an effective technique . . . It does require the GM to be nimble and ready with lightning-quick complications and descriptions so the players stay tightly focused on this immediate, pernicious problem.​

We can see how the tie is not just a mechanical state of affairs, but a state of affairs in the fiction (ie there is a leftward arrow, from boxes to clouds) which the GM has to narrate (with "lightning-quick" complications and descriptions) that then demands a new action declaration from the player(s) (like "I try to wrestle the sword from her hands!") which then generates a rightward arrow just the same as the rightward arrow that led to Dro testing Fighter to try and hold off the Gnolls.

It's obvious that breaking a tie by spending a trait check is nothing like this.

Do you agree on fateful F?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For the sake of argument, say that being tied as a result of a dice roll cannot be part of our fictional position. In that case, how do we ever determine reaching other than by seeing if the given trait-against-self declaration accords or discords with a particular system-state. There being no other context, the declaration must accord equally well with all similar system-states... that is, with any tied dice roll.

We cannot accept that any declaration at all will always do, because the game text on Reaching makes it clear that some declarations won't do. (And surely a moment's reflection will turn up some examples!) Therefore we are saying that there is something about the tied dice roll that allows us to determine that some trait-against-self declarations would be reaching and not others. What is that something?

I am of the opinion, and I think RE's essay supports this in a general sense, that FitM is a pretty generalized pattern. That is, the participants together describe a situation and approach (with in TB2 the GM being pretty much the exclusive 'setter of the stage'), at which point we have established the ELEMENTS of the situation, and the INTENT to be resolved (IE in this case Dro wants to slow down the gnolls and the elements are the PC, the gnolls, the crossbow, the cave with the turn at the end, and the relative positions of the two parties).

AT THAT POINT no fiction beyond this has been established. We know in a general sense that Dro's character is going to use his crossbow to slow down the gnolls, and this seems plausible, when they encounter his fire they will likely take cover, at least long enough to assess the situation/mass up to all charge him at once, etc. The point is this 'pre-Fortune' stage is when the GM has decided that valid elements of a challenge exist, and the player has committed himself to action, etc. NO FICTION HAS HAPPENED YET beyond in initial establishment. There's nothing beyond the basic situation to hang narrative upon.

Now the 'Fortune' happens. AFTER THAT the GM and/or player (some set of participants) will narrate some kind of appropriate fiction. In this case Dro fails the check, so he knows some sort of narration is coming which nullifies his intent, in this case it means CLEARLY that the gnolls are not going to be delayed. He thus invokes another mechanical option in an attempt to swing the result to a success. Had that happened, his intent would be achieved, although the exact effects (IE is the gnoll hit by the bolt or merely frightened enough to take cover and thus cause his allies to also pause) would still need to be narrated. In fact, the check still failed, and now Dro decides it is more worthwhile to get checks than to succeed (this seems a purely gamist/mechanical consideration, earning a type of currency in return for a less favorable fictional position). Note that what the fiction actually is STILL HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED, so it is clear it could be ANYTHING and Dro isn't reacting to that specifically, there's no 'cloud' at this point to start from!

Finally the second half of the fiction comes in which Dro justifies, in the fiction, where his invocation of Cunning is coming from and how it manifests, that he waits too long to take the shot and loses the moment.

There are some interesting questions here about how things should proceed from that point, but I don't think they're germane to your argument. They are more in terms of following framing options and how the GM should respond to any additional action declarations by Dro which appear to essentially relitigate the situation (IE what if he takes up another choke point further on and again attempts to delay the gnolls?). In a task based system this kind of question doesn't arise, you can simply establish that you have another opportunity to carry out your task and do it. In a game where intent is being adjudicated this doesn't make sense, you already failed! Thus I would probably frame the next scene something like "Dro sees the whole pack bearing down on him swiftly! Can he turn and flee before they are upon him?" At this point I might simply apply a twist to the previous failure, saying that he's dropped his crossbow and he's now fleeing, with the gnolls literally nipping at his heels! I suppose, alternately, if the player wants to acquire the dead condition, maybe I'd let him have a "good idea" and be eaten, surely the gnolls will be slowed by THAT! lol. Even that might deserve another check though, they could just run past and leave him for the gnoll cubs... lol.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I didn't say many people don't find it influential, but if it's immune to analysis of whether it accurately reflects RPGs, then it fails as a theory. It will always remain conjecture.

And yet, here we are successfully analyzing TB2 in light of it! I'd point out that TB2 was designed in light of it as well, as Vince Baker is most certainly well aware of, and has participated in, these kinds of discussions many times as a matter of record. Now, I won't pretend to be so close a follower of all this, and where it has led in the almost 20 years since this essay was written, to say EXACTLY what the opinions of the TB2 authors are on GNS or how they would apply it to analyzing TB2 themselves. Still, surely their work bears the marks of being in the wake of RE's writing.

I mean, my own game is designed much in terms of the discussions that have been had here in this forum. Extensive discussions which have covered the whole gamut of topics germane to RPGs in theory and practice. First hand experience tells me this kind of analysis works! You can reason from the way RE looks at and parses RPGs to ways to structure the mechanics, play aids, game play process, etc. of actual games to successfully produce desired results. Beyond TB2 you see this TIME AND TIME AGAIN, with games like Dungeon World and other PbtAs, BitD and its variations, as well as games like BW and its siblings, Cortex, FATE, etc. in all their variations and on and on. It is even pretty clear that 4e D&D was designed at least with an understanding of this whole analytical school (and I believe it is a matter of record that MM participated in some of the discussions back in the day).

It seems extremely hard, based on observation of the state of the RPG industry, to sustain your position here.

 

[clearstream]

I am of the opinion, and I think RE's essay supports this in a general sense, that FitM is a pretty generalized pattern. That is, the participants together describe a situation and approach (with in TB2 the GM being pretty much the exclusive 'setter of the stage'), at which point we have established the ELEMENTS of the situation, and the INTENT to be resolved (IE in this case Dro wants to slow down the gnolls and the elements are the PC, the gnolls, the crossbow, the cave with the turn at the end, and the relative positions of the two parties).

AT THAT POINT no fiction beyond this has been established. We know in a general sense that Dro's character is going to use his crossbow to slow down the gnolls, and this seems plausible, when they encounter his fire they will likely take cover, at least long enough to assess the situation/mass up to all charge him at once, etc. The point is this 'pre-Fortune' stage is when the GM has decided that valid elements of a challenge exist, and the player has committed himself to action, etc. NO FICTION HAS HAPPENED YET beyond in initial establishment. There's nothing beyond the basic situation to hang narrative upon.

Now the 'Fortune' happens. AFTER THAT the GM and/or player (some set of participants) will narrate some kind of appropriate fiction. In this case Dro fails the check, so he knows some sort of narration is coming which nullifies his intent, in this case it means CLEARLY that the gnolls are not going to be delayed. He thus invokes another mechanical option in an attempt to swing the result to a success. Had that happened, his intent would be achieved, although the exact effects (IE is the gnoll hit by the bolt or merely frightened enough to take cover and thus cause his allies to also pause) would still need to be narrated. In fact, the check still failed, and now Dro decides it is more worthwhile to get checks than to succeed (this seems a purely gamist/mechanical consideration, earning a type of currency in return for a less favorable fictional position). Note that what the fiction actually is STILL HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED, so it is clear it could be ANYTHING and Dro isn't reacting to that specifically, there's no 'cloud' at this point to start from!

Finally the second half of the fiction comes in which Dro justifies, in the fiction, where his invocation of Cunning is coming from and how it manifests, that he waits too long to take the shot and loses the moment.

There are some interesting questions here about how things should proceed from that point, but I don't think they're germane to your argument. They are more in terms of following framing options and how the GM should respond to any additional action declarations by Dro which appear to essentially relitigate the situation (IE what if he takes up another choke point further on and again attempts to delay the gnolls?). In a task based system this kind of question doesn't arise, you can simply establish that you have another opportunity to carry out your task and do it. In a game where intent is being adjudicated this doesn't make sense, you already failed! Thus I would probably frame the next scene something like "Dro sees the whole pack bearing down on him swiftly! Can he turn and flee before they are upon him?" At this point I might simply apply a twist to the previous failure, saying that he's dropped his crossbow and he's now fleeing, with the gnolls literally nipping at his heels! I suppose, alternately, if the player wants to acquire the dead condition, maybe I'd let him have a "good idea" and be eaten, surely the gnolls will be slowed by THAT! lol. Even that might deserve another check though, they could just run past and leave him for the gnoll cubs... lol.

Same question then, do you concur that fateful F properly arises?