My discussion with @Manbearcat in the actual play thread linked just upthread, together with more reading and pondering, has prompted a post with a few further thoughts:
(1) Narrating twists is (at least as I see it) closer to GM moves in a PbtA game, than to narrating consequences in Burning Wheel. The latter is all about (i) failure of intent, and (ii) putting pressure on a PC's Beliefs, Instincts and traits. In PbtA, and it seems to me in Torchbearer, there is less focus on those dramatic concerns, and more focus on what follows from the fiction. GM prep of twist ideas plays a similar sort of function to preparing a front in AW or DW.
(2) Having said the above, I think that an important part of the fiction from which twists follow is what the PCs - as played by their players - have done to help avert disaster. Twists should honour players' skilled play.
An example - not from play, but from thinking about the journey rules - would be the following: one of the roles that can be taken up on a journey is Scout. In the rules discussion, having a Scout grants only one sort of benefit, namely, a test (against a modest-to-high-ish obstacle) to avoid two of the "trouble on the road" outcomes. These outcomes are generated by the GM rolling a die at the start of the journey - their are six possible outcomes, four of which are bad, and Scout provides a chance to avoid two of those bad ones.
On its face, this may not look like a super-effective choice. But I think if a group is travelling with a scout, then that should have the potential for other ramifications. For instance, suppose a Pathfinder test while portaging boats is failed. If the group does not have a scout, then a legitimate twist might be framing the group into a relatively close-quarters ambush - eg As you realise the ravine you're travelling down is a dead end, and turn around to retrace your steps, you see your way blocked by ruffians! Whereas if the group is travelling with a scout, then it seems that the framing of the twist should respect that - so the narration for the failed test might be something more like - As you realise the ravine you're travelling down is a dead end, and turn around to retrace your steps, you [the scout] hear a curse from somewhere above you as small rocks and scree tumble down the cliff-side. Someone is up there, following you!
The first twist puts the PCs into an immediate surprise confrontation of some sort; the second is a softer move (in PbtA language) that recognises the effort the players have made to ensure that they have someone paying attention to what's going on around them as they travel.
(3) Several of the journey roles have the same label as a skill. I think Scout would be better as Lookout, and Steward as Provisioner. Given that the Cook and Cartographer roles involve nothing more than using those skills, they're probably less in need of relabelling.
(1) Narrating twists is (at least as I see it) closer to GM moves in a PbtA game, than to narrating consequences in Burning Wheel. The latter is all about (i) failure of intent, and (ii) putting pressure on a PC's Beliefs, Instincts and traits. In PbtA, and it seems to me in Torchbearer, there is less focus on those dramatic concerns, and more focus on what follows from the fiction. GM prep of twist ideas plays a similar sort of function to preparing a front in AW or DW.
(2) Having said the above, I think that an important part of the fiction from which twists follow is what the PCs - as played by their players - have done to help avert disaster. Twists should honour players' skilled play.
An example - not from play, but from thinking about the journey rules - would be the following: one of the roles that can be taken up on a journey is Scout. In the rules discussion, having a Scout grants only one sort of benefit, namely, a test (against a modest-to-high-ish obstacle) to avoid two of the "trouble on the road" outcomes. These outcomes are generated by the GM rolling a die at the start of the journey - their are six possible outcomes, four of which are bad, and Scout provides a chance to avoid two of those bad ones.
On its face, this may not look like a super-effective choice. But I think if a group is travelling with a scout, then that should have the potential for other ramifications. For instance, suppose a Pathfinder test while portaging boats is failed. If the group does not have a scout, then a legitimate twist might be framing the group into a relatively close-quarters ambush - eg As you realise the ravine you're travelling down is a dead end, and turn around to retrace your steps, you see your way blocked by ruffians! Whereas if the group is travelling with a scout, then it seems that the framing of the twist should respect that - so the narration for the failed test might be something more like - As you realise the ravine you're travelling down is a dead end, and turn around to retrace your steps, you [the scout] hear a curse from somewhere above you as small rocks and scree tumble down the cliff-side. Someone is up there, following you!
The first twist puts the PCs into an immediate surprise confrontation of some sort; the second is a softer move (in PbtA language) that recognises the effort the players have made to ensure that they have someone paying attention to what's going on around them as they travel.
(3) Several of the journey roles have the same label as a skill. I think Scout would be better as Lookout, and Steward as Provisioner. Given that the Cook and Cartographer roles involve nothing more than using those skills, they're probably less in need of relabelling.
