Torchbearer 2nd ed: first impressions

[clearstream]

@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!

Can you say how the example makes sense at all unless there are pursuing gnolls, a cave, Harguld, already in the fiction? I felt the example of being on Pluto to be apt. The scope for legitimate declarations is broad, yet there's enough in the fiction that players would be able to reject nonsensical declarations. Likewise, Dro said something fitting. Had Dro not said something fitting, the declaration per Reaching could have been rejected.

The fiction - pursuing gnolls etc - resulted in the situation in which there was a tie and it made sense that Harguld was too cunning for his own good. I do take your point about latency, but isn't that just a question of immediacy? Can the player recycle the same declaration in every situation (every time they want to use Cunning against themselves), and say that it's always legitimate because it's only driven by the mechanics?

 

[pemerton]

Can you say how the example makes sense at all unless there are pursuing gnolls, a cave, Harguld, already in the fiction? I felt the example of being on Pluto to be apt. The scope for legitimate declarations is broad, yet there's enough in the fiction that players would be able to reject nonsensical declarations. Likewise, Dro said something fitting. Had Dro not said something fitting, the declaration per Reaching could have been rejected.

The fiction - pursuing gnolls etc - resulted in the situation in which there was a tie and it made sense that Harguld was too cunning for his own good. I do take your point about latency, but isn't that just a question of immediacy? Can the player recycle the same declaration in every situation (every time they want to use Cunning against themselves), and say that it's always legitimate because it's only driven by the mechanics?

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!.

 

[clearstream]

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.

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

 

[clearstream]

I realised this question might help me understand something else I've been puzzling over. In the below, "=" will mean results in, "-" will mean legitimates, and ">" will mean drives. Mechanics are in bold, required narration is italicised. Our fictional position is underscored.

[Courtesy of @pemerton] 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.

I posit a pursuit F containing gnolls, a shadowy tunnel, H at its mouth, a crossbow.

Here is one analysis

1. Pursuit F -> ambush declaration
2. Ambush test = tie FitM
3. Tie -> spending fate declaration
4. Fate = tie FitM
5. Tie -> trait-against-self declaration
6. No one calls bull
7. T-A-S = tie breaks against H, H gains two checks

Here I've made it that each mechanical step sufficiently legitimates and drives the following action. No legitimating or driving information is carried forward from pursuit F. In this case, I believe Dro can use the same T-A-S declaration in every case of a tie, seeing as no one is referring back to pursuit F in determining bull. Bull is determined solely in consideration of the mechanical fact of a tie.

Here is another analysis

1. Pursuit F -> ambush declaration
2. Ambush F + test = tie FitM + tie F
3. Tie -> spending fate declaration
4. Fate = tie FitM + fateful F
5. Fateful F + tie -> trait-against-self declaration
6. No one calls bull
7. T-A-S = tie breaks against H, H gains two checks, outcome F

Here I've made it that the pursuit F translates to an ambush F, which in turn translates to a tie F. That maps change along the second of Baker's two timelines. Our pursuit F (pursuing gnolls, a shadowy tunnel, H at its mouth, a crossbow) is changed by an ambush declaration into ambush F, which in turn is changed by test results into tie F, which is then nuanced by fate into fateful F (rerolling wyrms a character might come to have a deeper understanding, or rerolling 6s they might laugh or shudder in the face of the grimdark.) Our fateful F distinguishes this tie from other tied situations, so that a declaration that might be deemed bull elsewhere, works here.

Unsurprisingly my intuitions lean toward the second analysis. Pursuit F alone is necessary, but not sufficent to drive Dro's T-A-S declaration. On the other hand, if I say that fateful F is necessary and sufficient then I can simply write out a discrete action with fateful F as my new starting point.

I posit a fateful F containing a shadowy tunnel, a gnoll and H at its mouth, a crossbow, an ambush that could go either way.

1. Fateful F -> trait-against-self declaration
2. No one calls bull
3. T-A-S = ambush tie breaks against H, H gains two checks, outcome F

If I don't want to do that, then I feel that I am saying that pursuit F matters to the whole arc. Otherwise fateful F is just the outcome F of an earlier discrete action. My choice feels like one between deeming it a genuine case of FitM, or saying that it's not. Choosing the latter, I'd want to also feel sure how I can exclude this case without calling into doubt the notion of FitM altogether. However

1. Fateful F + tie -> trait-against-self declaration
2. No one calls bull
3. T-A-S = tie breaks against H, H gains two checks, outcome F

Is probably more accurate. Timeline one (the tie system state) is supplying the sinew binding the action into one arc and sustaining the T-A-S declaration as FitM. Does one then suppose that sinew to be sufficent, so timeline two (fiction) needn't be perturbed by results of interstitial mechanics... and there is no tie F or fateful F? If so, one commits to a lacuna, after which the fiction blips forward to catch up with the system state. One has the same problem distinguishing tied situations for determining bull as I described above... as it ought to be impossible to say what happens in fiction between pursuit F and outcome F.

Seeing as I think it is possible to say what happens - in fiction - I end up suggesting that fiction is both updated and it is carried and changed by system elements. Salient information is continuous even if in diversified form.

 

[pemerton]

Our fictional position is underscored.

<snip>


Ambush F + test = tie FitM + tie F

I don't understand how a tied dice roll is part of anyone's fictional position. It's purely a fact about the cues ("boxes").

 

[pemerton]

Thinking more about this: here is the Cunning trait (DHB p 178): "The cunning are adept at deceit and at plotting traps. They are often arrogant and underestimate their opponents."

Dro's use of cunning against himself is to say that he waits too long. But he could equally have said "Pleased with my plan, I release at the first glimpse of the gnoll. But it was just toying with me, not really breaking cover and closing the distance until I'd already shot my bolt." That would equally fit with the trait description, but is a completely different fiction - a shot that is too early rather than too late.

And of course there are any number of other traits that a PC could have used in Dro's situation (Devil May Care could be narrated very similarly to the given narration of Cunning; Quick-Witted could be narrated similarly to my alternative suggestion for Cunning; or consider Loner: I'm used to working on my own - all these people behind me, relying on me, wrecks my focus and makes me miss my shot; etc). That seems sufficient to show that this is not a case of the fiction yielding or requiring some particular outcome.

 

[clearstream]

I don't understand how a tied dice roll is part of anyone's fictional position. It's purely a fact about the cues ("boxes").

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?

 

[pemerton]

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?

Reaching is about the conformity of the player's narration with the group's understanding of the established fiction and its trajectory. The tied die roll is not part of that fiction. It is a mechanical trigger which grants a player permission to use a trait in a particular way. The player could, instead, have used the trait in advance of the roll ("I'm more cunning than any Gnoll trying to get the drop on us!") or have declined to use the trait, and gone to a tie-breaker roll instead.

That's what makes Torchbearer resolution fortune-in-the-middle: "the Fortune system is brought in partway through figuring out 'what happens,' to the extent that specific actions may be left completely unknown until after we see how they worked out." And until Fate points are spent, traitors re-rolled and sixes open-ended, and trait points spent to break ties, the fortune process is not resolved.

Here is how Edwards describes action declaration in the same paragraph: "The point is to announce the character's basic approach and intent, and then to roll." An attempted use of a trait will count as reaching if it doesn't conform to that declared approach and intent - in Dro's case, this is that Husgar positions himself inside the mouth of this cave, so he can see down the tunnel, and shoots at any advancing Gnoll As my post 196 points out, that is a constraint that leaves a great deal of latitude for trait narration.

 

[clearstream]

Reaching is about the conformity of the player's narration with the group's understanding of the established fiction and its trajectory. The tied die roll is not part of that fiction. It is a mechanical trigger which grants a player permission to use a trait in a particular way. The player could, instead, have used the trait in advance of the roll ("I'm more cunning than any Gnoll trying to get the drop on us!") or have declined to use the trait, and gone to a tie-breaker roll instead.

The player could not use the trait against themselves as a tie-breaker prior to the roll. "Trajectory" is sleight-of-hand for accepting that the fiction is carried forward.

 

[pemerton]

The player could not use the trait against themselves as a tie-breaker prior to the roll. "Trajectory" is sleight-of-hand for accepting that the fiction is carried forward.

"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.

Nor does it mean that the prior fiction entails the new fiction - again, it clearly doesn't, given that there are many possible ways to introduce the trait without reaching, some of which are mutually contradictory (as per my post 196). This is sufficient to show that they are not entailed by the established fiction, given that the established fiction - if itself consistent - cannot entail a contradiction.