Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Torchbearer 2nd ed: first impressions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8571751" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>I've read through those cases many times. To me, Vincent sometimes muddies the lines. I think you will not agree, so perhaps it's best to say that I do not assess cases as always clearly or extricably going one way. I see on-surface similar cases assessed as F > S or as F < S, depending on the particulars of play. Perhaps an example is the one of high-ground. Vincent says it is F > S, but you here seem to say that you would analyse it as F < S if the player described a motivation that they sought high-ground to gain the mechanical outcome.</p><p></p><p>One way to settle things can be to scrutinise where we land. That produces results consistent with Vincent's assessment in many cases, such as that for high ground. The end result in the case at hand is marking the box on the character sheet to store up a check for the next camp phase. Or maybe scrutiny doesn't belong on where we land... I'd be curious about the reasoning for that, if so?</p><p></p><p>Coming back to the case at hand, the written description feels a little unnatural to me. If as I think the razor is how it is played at the table, then it could be</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I feel like that is fiction-first. Player said what they were doing without invoking mechanics. GM translated that into system. F > S. There's a possible assumption - and not a bad one - that players are adopting a more systematic attitude to TB. Thus driving their play from system. I'm not sure it has to be played that way. If player motives matter to the arrows analysis, then why does the case at hand not produce S > S? The underlying Hobbitishness only joins the timline if it is narrated now. And if it is narrated now, then F > S. Are you saying that the written fiction rides and thus is sufficient? That seems like a view with many difficulties to me.</p><p></p><p>For me, this all suggests a very great divide between PbtA and TB. The former gets system largely out of my way. It's not so much that it lacks system - in fact, I see the system as very concrete and refined - even extensive - but more that it focuses system on specific jobs and makes it orthodox and streamlined so that it's not in my face. TB puts an elaborate system, replete with hefty special cases (aka idiosyncracies) in my face, and demands I engage with it. Productive of [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER]'s systematically constructed play.</p><p></p><p>Conversely, I'm seeing some parts of TB - once fully learned - get out of our way. Invoking traits and instincts is becoming more natural. But on the other hand, I don't recall anything in the TB2e text urging a fiction-first approach. I bear in mind the text that "<em>It’s about making difficult choices, and it involves exploring the world and your character through the game rules and systems.</em>" Still, my vignette above seems possible after the recommended 10 or 20 sessions.</p><p></p><p>I gather you have a very large amount of experience with Burning Wheel. Have you found a point where system gets out of your way, and you can uphold a fiction-first approach? Or would you say that fiction-first isn't on the table for TB2e? Thus profoundly and permanently separating it from a PbtA game such as DW.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8571751, member: 71699"] I've read through those cases many times. To me, Vincent sometimes muddies the lines. I think you will not agree, so perhaps it's best to say that I do not assess cases as always clearly or extricably going one way. I see on-surface similar cases assessed as F > S or as F < S, depending on the particulars of play. Perhaps an example is the one of high-ground. Vincent says it is F > S, but you here seem to say that you would analyse it as F < S if the player described a motivation that they sought high-ground to gain the mechanical outcome. One way to settle things can be to scrutinise where we land. That produces results consistent with Vincent's assessment in many cases, such as that for high ground. The end result in the case at hand is marking the box on the character sheet to store up a check for the next camp phase. Or maybe scrutiny doesn't belong on where we land... I'd be curious about the reasoning for that, if so? Coming back to the case at hand, the written description feels a little unnatural to me. If as I think the razor is how it is played at the table, then it could be I feel like that is fiction-first. Player said what they were doing without invoking mechanics. GM translated that into system. F > S. There's a possible assumption - and not a bad one - that players are adopting a more systematic attitude to TB. Thus driving their play from system. I'm not sure it has to be played that way. If player motives matter to the arrows analysis, then why does the case at hand not produce S > S? The underlying Hobbitishness only joins the timline if it is narrated now. And if it is narrated now, then F > S. Are you saying that the written fiction rides and thus is sufficient? That seems like a view with many difficulties to me. For me, this all suggests a very great divide between PbtA and TB. The former gets system largely out of my way. It's not so much that it lacks system - in fact, I see the system as very concrete and refined - even extensive - but more that it focuses system on specific jobs and makes it orthodox and streamlined so that it's not in my face. TB puts an elaborate system, replete with hefty special cases (aka idiosyncracies) in my face, and demands I engage with it. Productive of [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER]'s systematically constructed play. Conversely, I'm seeing some parts of TB - once fully learned - get out of our way. Invoking traits and instincts is becoming more natural. But on the other hand, I don't recall anything in the TB2e text urging a fiction-first approach. I bear in mind the text that "[I]It’s about making difficult choices, and it involves exploring the world and your character through the game rules and systems.[/I]" Still, my vignette above seems possible after the recommended 10 or 20 sessions. I gather you have a very large amount of experience with Burning Wheel. Have you found a point where system gets out of your way, and you can uphold a fiction-first approach? Or would you say that fiction-first isn't on the table for TB2e? Thus profoundly and permanently separating it from a PbtA game such as DW. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Torchbearer 2nd ed: first impressions
Top