Torchbearer 2nd ed: first impressions

[niklinna]

In terms of imagined space/consequences, its pretty tough because (a) its a Creed problem for one of the PCs, (b) a Belief problem for another, and (c) the reality that the group "befriended" one of these feral children on their initial expedition into the cave (before they discovered the...let's just saw "awfulness" of this clan). If they do end up trying to and successfully sparing these feral children, they'll have to repatriate them back in Strond (problem).

I don't even know how that's an option in Torchbearer 2. We are in a kill conflict, we have to fight to the death, no? Or do we have the option on a victory of saying, well no, we don't kill them, even if they would have killed us.

 

[pemerton]

I don't even know how that's an option in Torchbearer 2. We are in a kill conflict, we have to fight to the death, no? Or do we have the option on a victory of saying, well no, we don't kill them, even if they would have killed us.

This is an interesting question - can the GM, having put killing on the table, allow the players to take it off (eg treat it, from their side, as a capture conflict, which is what @Manbearcat seems to be flagging).

My first-blush reading of the books is that the answer is "no", but maybe I'm wrong. A capture (rather than kill) result is one outcome the books flag for a major compromise in a kill conflict, but that seems to be on the premise that the other side is trying to kill. What if the other side is trying to capture?

I await Manbearcat's reply!

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't even know how that's an option in Torchbearer 2. We are in a kill conflict, we have to fight to the death, no? Or do we have the option on a victory of saying, well no, we don't kill them, even if they would have killed us.

This is an interesting question - can the GM, having put killing on the table, allow the players to take it off (eg treat it, from their side, as a capture conflict, which is what @Manbearcat seems to be flagging).

My first-blush reading of the books is that the answer is "no", but maybe I'm wrong. A capture (rather than kill) result is one outcome the books flag for a major compromise in a kill conflict, but that seems to be on the premise that the other side is trying to kill. What if the other side is trying to capture?

I await Manbearcat's reply!

This has been a situation with Twists into a Conflict since TB1. The best practices I've always seen (and used) is that even though GM picks the Conflict type in a Twist, that basically just means "I have the initiative (not game jargon) so I get to dictate outright the intent of my team and bring in the mechanical consequences of that (eg play to the strong suits of my assets and bring in major consequences like in a Kill Conflict)." But the players don't lose their intent if it differs than mine. What they're losing is the ability to dictate the terms of the engagement (mechanical consequences and ramifications to concession-space inherent to the Conflict type).

So if their intent is to Drive-Off or Capture the kids and they reduce them to 0 disposition. Cool. But any concessions for their disposition loss will be on my terms (Kill conflict terms).

* And the intent situation still has to be evaluated against Order of Might/Precedence disparity.

 

[pemerton]

This has been a situation with Twists into a Conflict since TB1. The best practices I've always seen (and used) is that even though GM picks the Conflict type in a Twist, that basically just means "I have the initiative (not game jargon) so I get to dictate outright the intent of my team and bring in the mechanical consequences of that (eg play to the strong suits of my assets and bring in major consequences like in a Kill Conflict)." But the players don't lose their intent if it differs than mine. What they're losing is the ability to dictate the terms of the engagement (mechanical consequences and ramifications to concession-space inherent to the Conflict type).

So if their intent is to Drive-Off or Capture the kids and they reduce them to 0 disposition. Cool. But any concessions for their disposition loss will be on my terms (Kill conflict terms).

* And the intent situation still has to be evaluated against Order of Might/Precedence disparity.

That makes sense. So the GM still gets to use Kill parameters for their weapons too.

But the players would use the Capture parameters for their weapons? (Should these be different - I'm not thinking of swords but eg nets and pits.)

 

[Manbearcat]

That makes sense. So the GM still gets to use Kill parameters for their weapons too.

But the players would use the Capture parameters for their weapons? (Should these be different - I'm not thinking of swords but eg nets and pits.)

I would sub "could" for "would" here. An interesting little artifact/side-effect of this kind of intent-disparity between the sides is the disposition abstraction gets opened up (HP = surviving aggression for your side and they = forestalling capture/drive-off on the other side) as well as the weapon-space for the players. I (the GM) get to dictate the terms of the engagement.my intent via the Conflict choice, but (assuming the fiction of the situation allows for it) the players' weapon-space is opened up a wee bit (spears still provide openings and shields still block while nets/traps ensnare and harangue).

 

[pemerton]

I would sub "could" for "would" here.

Hp would still be generated as for a kill conflict even on the player side, yes?

 

[Manbearcat]

Hp would still be generated as for a kill conflict even on the player side, yes?

Yup.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How hardcore do you regard this as? (As opposed to, say, capture so the PCs can be sacrificed in an appropriate frenzied rite.)

Watch it Mac, you're invoking GM evilness here! lol. This is all very Lord of the Flies already!

 

[niklinna]

Watch it Mac, you're invoking GM evilness here! lol. This is all very Lord of the Flies already!

Easy for you to say. I'm the one being rushed by hungry feral kids with knives while holding a bloody newborn I just ripped from the belly of their dead den mother!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just as a comment on TB2; Because it attempts to make the fiction subject to the mechanics you run into these problems a lot where you follow a given mechanical process, but the fiction isn't really coherent with that. In some cases this is minor, torches last half a day sometimes, and 5 minutes other times can be pretty much just ignored, and you could certainly come up with some rationalization in any given case (IE some torches are just better than others). In other cases, like one side wants to capture, but the other declared a kill conflict, things kind of break down. I guess, again, you could simply go with the letter of the rules and simply answer it as "well, in the end it was kill or be killed."

As a point of interest, have you found this issue comes up in Burning Wheel generally? It seems like its a bit more flexible overall, but there might still be some corner cases at least!