# Torchbearer 2nd ed: first impressions



## pemerton (Jan 24, 2022)

I backed the Torchbearer 2nd edition Kickstarter in April 2020. My books arrived a couple of weeks ago: the two core book (Dungeoneer's Handbook, Scholar's Guide), the expansion book (Lore Master's Manual) and a book of scenarios (Cartographer's Compendium). I also got PDF of all these plus the Scavenger's Supplement, another expansion.

In this post I'll be commenting on the full suite of this material without distinguishing core and supplements. That distinction is a bit unstable in any event, with multiple references in both core books to material in the Lore Master's Manual. Although the two core books are, in both title and the way they address the reader, meant to emulate a PHB and DMG, I don't think they fully succeed in that respect. There is stuff in the Scholar's Guide that players absolutely need to know, including the core action resolution rules; and personally I would have found it easier with a different approach to the presentation of the material, with less overlap between the two core books and less need (as a reader) to read across multiple books including the Lore Master's Manual to get the full picture of a particular subsystem. But maybe there are going to be some RPGers who just use the two core books, which perhaps justifies the way it's been done.

I've not played Torchbearer in either its original or this revised version. But I have played, and am a big fan of, Burning Wheel, which is the system that Torchbearer is (largely) derived from. Where Torchbearer differs from Burning Wheel is first and foremost in the "theme" or focus of play; and the mechanical differences are then (mostly) built around that. The stand-out items in the Games list in the Scholar's Guide bibliography are:

*_The Caverns of Thracia_, by Jennell Jaquays
*_Dungeon Module B2: The Keep on the Borderlands_, by Gary Gygax
*_Dungeons & Dragons Rules for Fantasy Medieval Wargames Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures_, by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, Tactical Studies Rules, 1974
*_Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Adventure Game_, by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson (edited by Tom Moldvay), TSR, 1981.
*_A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming_, by Matthew Finch​
In other words, Torchbearer is what you get if you (i) take the basic Burning Wheel framework for PC build (stock, stats, skills, traits, Wises, Beliefs, Instincts, Resources, Circles, Relationships) and action resolution ("say 'yes' or roll the dice; "fail forward"; pacing and thematically-driven toggling between simple checks and various more-or-less baroque extended resolution systems), (ii) simplify it in places (shorten the length of the stat and skill lists; make traits simpler and more uniform in their mechanical effects; merge the extended resolution systems into a single one - I believe that Mouse Guard did this first, but I don't know it other than by reputation), and then (iii) adapt it and add necessary elements to make it support classic D&D-esque dungeon crawling and wilderness adventuring (classes instead of life paths; levels - from 1st to 10th - as an additional component of the PC; shifting some of the work done by Beliefs into distinct Goal - _what are we going to do this session?_ - and Creed - _what's your alignment?_ - slots; a systematic inventory and encumbrance system; random loot tables, and a whole new suite of downtime resolution systems to soak up that loot).

At a high level of description, Torchbearer can be compared Dungeon World: a modern system dedicated to capturing the feel of classic D&D. At a more detailed level I think there are significant differences; I'll get back to these below.

Anyway, here's my first serious thought about this system: *The flavour is amazing. *For me, this really started to come through in two ways. First, reading the different settlement types, in the context of the _town phase_ (which is the system's downtime resolution framework) and starting to think through how this might feel in play. The differences between Bustling Metropolises, Religious Bastion's, Walled Towns, Borderland Fortresses, and the not-quite-Rivendell-nor-quite-Lorien Elfhomes - just to name a few of over a dozen settlement types - comes through very vividly.

The second way the flavour struck me was via the classes. Each class has a stock ("race", in classic D&D terms), a trait, some core skills, and a list of level benefit. Around this structure we get Halfling Bounders, Burglars and Stoorish, Smeagol-ish Guides; Elven Rangers and Dreamwalkers (the system's version of an Elven magic-user); Dwarven Outcasts (like Thorin Oakenshield; at higher levels they may be joined on their adventures by their cousins) and Stonetellers (the system's version of a Dwarven cleric); and a variety of options for humans: thieves, warriors, skalds and various users of magic, including magicians with their memorised spells, shamans and theurges (two categories of cleric who are nicely differentiated, and correspond a little bit to druids vs clerics in AD&D) and sorcerers who have no D&D analogue but combine aspects of Burning Wheel summoning and Burning Wheel spirit-binding.

Here's my second serious thought: *Play looks incredibly demanding and unforgiving.* This is probably the biggest difference, at least on reading, from Dungeon World. There is not the soft-move/hard-move structure of DW; as in Burning Wheel, many checks will probably be failed (due to high obstacles relative to the abilities and augments the players can muster), but unlike BW there is a systematic process for inflicting consequences in the form of debilitating conditions which range from _hungry and thirsty_ to _dead_. Hungry and thirsty can be recovered by a short rest, provided the characters are carrying rations and/or water. But everything else requires an extended rest to recover (camp phase or the downtime town phase), and the rationing of actions (including recovery checks) in camp phase is brutal; and town phase also rations, not via an action economy but via the need to make a Lifestyle Resources check at the end of each town phase, with the more luxurious accommodations that permit more recoveries also adding to that Lifestyle obstacle. (The relationship between Lifestyle and periodic Resources checks comes from Burning Wheel; the implementation of them in this system is all its own thing!) The death spiral, with multiple layers and moving parts in terms of both PC build elements, the basic structure of play, and the passage of both at-the-table and in-game time,  seems as severe as anything I've seen in a RPG.

On reading, it's very hard to tell how the flavour and the play will intersect. I can see how the system has the tools to resolve Bilbo the Burglar stabbing and tricking the giant spiders in Mirkwood to rescue his captured companions. But I can't tell what Bilbo's chance of success would be; though my intuition is that, to Bilbo's player, things would look pretty dire! 

I don't know if or when I'll be able to persuade some or all of my group to give this a try. Hopefully at some stage. I think it's a system that _wants _to be played.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Jan 24, 2022)

Fire it up on roll20 and I’m in!


----------



## pemerton (Jan 24, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Fire it up on roll20 and I’m in!



Are you in it for the flavour, or for the punishing grind?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 24, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Are you in it for the flavour, or for the punishing grind?



Aren't those the same thing?


----------



## Lidgar (Jan 24, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Aren't those the same thing?



My morning brew says "yes"


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 24, 2022)

I've got a few games of Torchbearer pending right now.  One is on hiatus until a few players are available.  The other one just came up emergently Saturday before last as I spent an evening with my old gaming group in person.  We talked about TB2, talked about the pending game, I showed them the map (I'll attach it here) and discussed the premise (this Norse-like arctic peninsula is crawling out of their holes after an apocalypse from the last century ruined the connections of civilization and sent their tiny world in a desperate spiral for survival).

They got excited.  They each chose one of the iconic characters so we could start play straight-away.  We keyed up the map with their homelands and a few areas sufficient for an initial Journey and Adventure and we ran the Journey to the site.  I'll say more about that and intersect a play excerpt with the lead post once I have a bit more time.  A primer for reference to that subsequent post:


PCs chosen - They went the following route:



> Karolina - Human Warrior from Remote Village.
> 
> Belief: I am the bulwark that stands between my friends and harm.
> 
> ...






> Taika - Elf Ranger from Elfhome
> 
> Belief: I must help my comrades consider every angle before making a decision.
> 
> ...






> Aile - Human Sorcerer from Forgotten Temple
> 
> Belief: I must master myself to master the world.
> 
> ...




The only house rules we use are as follows:

1)  CONFLICTS

Defend vs Attack - 1 HP reduction or 1 HP Regroup (player/GM choice) no matter result of vs test.

2)  HELP

Mark for 1 test per session but if failure and its a Condition + Success (rather than a Twist), both the Helper and the primary player gets the same Condition (not a lesser condition as per normal).

3)  JOURNEYS

We aren't using the TB2 Journey rules w/ Toll per se.  We're (a) treating it like Adventure phase with The Grind suspended, (b) using Journey Legs to represent a day of travel, (b) a Pathfinder Test for off-road Legs (with attendant Twist/Danger-related decision-point pending course charted), (c) Haggler Test for Road to score a caravan (and avoid Road Events) or Road Events if no Haggler Test, (d) mark one food or drink to abate Hungry and Thirsty at the end of each Leg.



I'll do a post in the coming days detailing the map/site conversation we had (their homes, the first adventuring site and premise, the course charted for the Journey) and the Journey phase of play (that is all we got done because we had to cover a lot of things) and have it intersect with the lead post's *flavor *and *unforgiving and demanding* components.

The group is going to try to get together at least once a month (maybe every 3 weeks if we can...basically rendezvous is an hour and change drive for each of us).  Maybe we'll play online a bit if need be (unclear), but 2 of the players hate online play so I doubt it.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Jan 26, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Aren't those the same thing?



Beat me to it.


----------



## aramis erak (Jan 26, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Here's my second serious thought: *Play looks incredibly demanding and unforgiving.*



I tried the 1E solo, to check the math. It's bloody unforgiving, to the point of cruelty to players.
I put it in front of a group. After 1 session, they wanted nothing to do with it ever again. And most of them had played Burning Empires.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 27, 2022)

Well, I made a halfling burglar for @Manbearcat. It is definitely not Bilbo! But maybe a somewhat similar theme can be evoked, I dunno. 
The grind does sound pretty brutal. Basically every 'scene' is a turn, and ever 4 turns you get another condition. Now, scenes are going to vary heavily in what they represent, legs of a journey, an encounter, some bit of exploration, etc. Given that the FIRST condition you are likely to get is Hungry & Thirsty, and you can cure that reasonably easily, my guess is that as long as you're well victualized you can float around without getting completely worn down. OTOH you're DEFINITELY going to fail a lot of checks, and those will impose MORE conditions. Many of them can only really be dealt with in town, so its pretty clear the drill is you have to gauge when you're approaching the point of no return, and TURN BACK, but if you haven't achieved enough resources to make the town recovery checks when you return, then you're basically forked.

I suspect the most common fate of adventurers is simply to end up utterly penniless, having no equipment or resources remaining, and with so many conditions that leaving town is infeasible. I guess you just lair 'in the streets' until accumulated conditions kill you at that point...

The whole shtick seems to be, thematically, 'adventurers are all scum'. You have 'standing' 0 (and I see no mechanism to improve it), which means literally nobody but peasants and workmen, harlots (yay we have not advanced yet since Gygax), soldiers, and other adventurers are THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WILL ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR EXISTENCE. Anyone of higher presence than 1 won't even spit on you, you don't exist. I would assume that there's an implied "unless the GM plots otherwise."

Likewise combat is predicated on 'might', though here adventurers are a 3, which makes them somewhat badass (normal humans are a 2, small animals, children, and kobolds are 1s). 7 is a god, 6 is an elder dragon, 4's and 5's are the nasty monster types you MIGHT be able to avoid being slaughtered by if you're lucky. Technically you can capture something up to equal to your might, slay things up to might +1, and drive off creatures up to might +2. This is sort of hard-coded into the combat system as just an absolute limitation of resolution, no matter how good your plan is, how well you roll, or what equipment or etc. you bring to bear, you CANNOT have any impact at all on a might 6 dragon, period. 

Your might and presence do increase by one at higher levels. I didn't see in a casual scanning of the material outside of 'how to roll up your character' any mechanism to increase those abilities MORE, so I guess the theme is you were, are, and always will be scum, and even when you reach level 10 (the highest level) there are still 3 ranks of monsters above you (admittedly 1 of those being gods, which maybe aren't really something that shows up in play, I dunno...).

Anyway, I figure you could probably play for years without reaching level 10, simply because this game gonna kill every character dead pretty quick! lol. I could be wrong, maybe items and whatnot, and lucky big treasure hauls, can set you up. I guess we shall see...


----------



## Bill Zebub (Jan 27, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, I made a halfling burglar for @Manbearcat. It is definitely not Bilbo! But maybe a somewhat similar theme can be evoked, I dunno.
> The grind does sound pretty brutal. Basically every 'scene' is a turn, and ever 4 turns you get another condition. Now, scenes are going to vary heavily in what they represent, legs of a journey, an encounter, some bit of exploration, etc. Given that the FIRST condition you are likely to get is Hungry & Thirsty, and you can cure that reasonably easily, my guess is that as long as you're well victualized you can float around without getting completely worn down. OTOH you're DEFINITELY going to fail a lot of checks, and those will impose MORE conditions. Many of them can only really be dealt with in town, so its pretty clear the drill is you have to gauge when you're approaching the point of no return, and TURN BACK, but if you haven't achieved enough resources to make the town recovery checks when you return, then you're basically forked.
> 
> I suspect the most common fate of adventurers is simply to end up utterly penniless, having no equipment or resources remaining, and with so many conditions that leaving town is infeasible. I guess you just lair 'in the streets' until accumulated conditions kill you at that point...
> ...



That was actually both entertaining and informative.  Thanks!


----------



## pemerton (Jan 27, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The whole shtick seems to be, thematically, 'adventurers are all scum'.



Or, at least, begin as such.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> You have 'standing' 0 (and I see no mechanism to improve it)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Your might and presence do increase by one at higher levels.



I haven't thought much about Might yet, but I think you can improve your Precedence by gaining a noble title or other social status, which then yields a corresponding Precedence on the chart.

From p 244 of the Lore Master's Manual"

Titles and deeds are valuable because they grant you access to enterprises like businesses, religious offices and nobility. If properly assumed, these titles can lift an adventurer’s Precedence out of the muck and into something quite formidable.​


AbdulAlhazred said:


> harlots (yay we have not advanced yet since Gygax)



In my books (DHB, SG) it says "prostitutes", not "harlots".



AbdulAlhazred said:


> you're DEFINITELY going to fail a lot of checks, and those will impose MORE conditions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I figure you could probably play for years without reaching level 10, simply because this game gonna kill every character dead pretty quick! lol. I could be wrong, maybe items and whatnot, and lucky big treasure hauls, can set you up. I guess we shall see...



If a check is failed, a condition is only suffered if the GM also decides that the PC gets what they wanted: so its success (if the player makes the roll); success with a condition (if the the player fails the roll and the GM chooses this); or a failure in the form of a twist (if the player fails the roll and the GM chooses this).

I've only looked at the maths a little bit. I think Help is incredibly important, and so is Gear and also using Nature.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 27, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Or, at least, begin as such.
> 
> I haven't thought much about Might yet, but I think you can improve your Precedence by gaining a noble title or other social status, which then yields a corresponding Precedence on the chart.
> 
> ...



Ah, OK, so there are 'treasures' which can increase your precedence. I kinda figured that might be true, as I say I rather skimmed the Lore Master's Manual as I was mostly looking for information relevant to character generation. It makes sense of course that some kind of fiction-mediated mechanism would exist, even if only theoretically, to achieve that. I'm still a bit in the dark as to the likelihood of useful quantities of treasure/magic.


pemerton said:


> In my books (DHB, SG) it says "prostitutes", not "harlots".



Ah, the (burning?) wheels of civilization have advanced far since the 1970s! 


pemerton said:


> If a check is failed, a condition is only suffered if the GM also decides that the PC gets what they wanted: so its success (if the player makes the roll); success with a condition (if the the player fails the roll and the GM chooses this); or a failure in the form of a twist (if the player fails the roll and the GM chooses this).
> 
> I've only looked at the maths a little bit. I think Help is incredibly important, and so is Gear and also using Nature.



Right, my conclusion is that it really depends on the GM to regulate how quickly the PCs get worn down by A) the frequency and Ob at which they assess checks, and B) the frequency with which they impose conditions vs twists. Of course you can also get into a lot of trouble from the twists, but conditions represent a very real and immediate death spiral! 

Help is important, though I wonder at @Manbearcat's proposed tweak, which seems like it increases the risk of helping. One of the salient features of helping is that it is LESS risky (but not riskless in general). 

Nature IMHO represents a kind of 'battery', similar to Healing Surges in 4e, you can tax your nature, ideally in a way that engages your traits, and that increases your dice pool and thus removes some failures, at the cost of said tax. Given that successes both avoid conditions/twists, AND presumably could lead to treasures, yes I would say optimizing your use of your Nature is likely to factor heavily into success.

Honestly, from a designer perspective, I think there may be one or two more moving parts here than is ideal, I'm a very 'less is more' type of engineering guy. Still, it should be interesting to see what works, how, and why.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 27, 2022)

Quick drive-by post (I'll get a subsequent post up detailing the Journey phase of that first session...perhaps later today...perhaps tomorrow):

*On Difficulty and Skilled Play*

I find the game to have a difficulty arc somewhat similar to Blades in the Dark (though ramped up for sure).  Its extremely tough to get the positive feedback loop going in your direction, but there is a clear pivot point once you can reliably muster solid Disposition/Attack + Defend pools for the Conflicts that you primarily face and when you can martial resources reliably for Camp phase Tests.  Its not set in stone where that is exactly because play is so dynamic on how characters evolve within through the crucible of play (and that can change dramatically in a 4 session interval).  But it is there and you feel a little bit of a weight lifted.  It never lets up.  The game is always difficult and it can always spiral and get away from you regardless of how safe you are, but there is are a few exhales built-in.

In terms of Skilled Play, there are loads of vectors.

* Team build is very important early on.  If you have particular holes, the game will find them and exploit them.  So build your team and pick your conflicts and targets very carefully.

* Managing the sort of Pictionary + Rock/Paper/Scissors of Conflicts is extremely important.  Concessions in Conflict pile up character ablation just like The Grind so you want to be pick your Conflicts shrewdly, escalate only when necessary (Kill Conflicts are very scary things early), navigate the Attack/Defend/Maneuver/Feint matrix skillfully (including your turn order), and know when to cut your losses/de-escalate.

* Navigating The Grind and your Light clocks are crucial.  Knowing when/how to Make Camp (there are a host of interlocking decisions that come with the initial decision around Camp-making) and how/when to fuel Camp Recovery with getting Checks in the Adventure phase is massive.

* Dealing with the Twist/Condition + Success rhythm of failed Tests is huge.  The GM should basically be doing this every other one so (50 : 50) on the whole (virtually every failed Test could recognizably yield either outcome) so extrapolating outcomes and incorporating that into your decision-space is an important factor.

* Managing the failure component of your advancement (marking Tests/getting Checks) and your thematic space to generate Persona and Fate (to martial for downstream use) is key to passing key tests next session and downstream of that.

* Managing the logistics of the map.  Reliably getting to places to optimize bonuses in Town phase for that upkeep/recovery phase of play and minimize Journey Legs (particularly by maximizing Legs on Road rather than in the Wild) greatly impacts the Adventure phase.

* EDIT - Forgot about Inventory/Gear/Supplies and porter/sentry/guide (et al) acquisition and management all have huge effects on play.

* There are so many resources to call upon to manipulate your dice pools.  I won't mention them all, but there is a huge array.  Managing those and using them wisely for key Tests is as intuitive as a thing gets in terms of importance on Skilled Play. The other aspect is managing the fiction and the attendant risk of Helping to augment dice pools.


Long story short here.  There is a fairly significant gap between unskillful and skillful play in Torchbearer.  I don't agree that play is cruel.  Its just enormously demanding.  And the stakes are very high.  The intersection of that yields extremely rewarding skillful play but also accepting the reality that sometimes, even when you play skillfully, the game will turn violently against you and you'll pay dearly.  Its not for everyone, but its a type of game that some folks love.


*On Might/Precedence and PC Status*

I don't agree that adventurers are scum to start off play.  Its never been that in a game I've run.  Overwhelmingly, the games I've run have featured a world under extreme duress so the stratification of society isn't well-positioned to scarlet letter a lot of folks with "scum."  That seems to me to be the default position of the game.  Further, Precedence 0 + Might 3 actually yields a not-so-tenuous relationship to the hierarchy of the world even early on.

Being on the social strata of soldiers, criminals, and prostitutes means that some level of parley is in play with shopkeepers, laborers, peasants, boatmen, merchants, financiers, and doctors.  Given the a robust suite of capabilities for Tests and Conflicts in the social arena, you can be rather formidable within that strat even at 0 Precedence.  And beyond the tier-up at level 6 (+1 Precedence), you can possibly increase your Precedence locally in a Town or with an NPC/guild via Adventures.  There are also various and sundry "ignore Precedence when x" in various classses.

And the reality that you're Might 3 is a tangible thing that looms.  The Order of Might puts adventurers as very dangerous people.  The social sphere has to manage the calculus that the person who is haranguing you has the physical potential for harm/resilience as that of a Dire Wolf!


*On Marking Pass/Fail for Advancement w/ Help Houserule*

So, to be clear, this is something players get to take advantage of at their discretion; its toggled "on" for a boon at a risk.  Once per session you get to mark a test that you Help on w/ the increased danger of assuming a worse condition that you would otherwise (if you hadn't marked).  So it doesn't push people away from Helping at all.  It just adds a layer of advancement/build/threat calculus for play.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 27, 2022)

Alright, quick excerpt on Journey 1 of the above game.

Referencing map in post above, we settled upon:

* 1 is Elfhome for Taika.  2 is the Remote Village for Karolina.  7 is the Forgotten Temple for Aile.

* The starting point for the game was 2 (Karolina's Remote Village). 

* The first Adventure was related to site 8.  Karolina's mentor has a pupil named Jora who went to explore the haunted fjord (site 8) called The Echoing Walls.  Before The Deep Cold 200 or so years ago (so The Chroniclers say), site 8 was a sister village to Karolina's present Remote Village.  When the apocalypse hit, massive landslides caused a tsunami that wiped out the entire village in a single go.  It is now just a ruined place, filled with angry spirits wailing in the night about their laments and their lost.  Now that the folk of this land are crawling out of their holes (mostly due to the desperation of food shortages, famine, death, and pestilence), many a recovery effort of that once bountiful place has happened in the last few years...all of which have failed. 

A few weeks ago, Jora went to that place by himself to scout it out for a prospective recovery effort.  He has yet to return (and is long overdue).  Karolina's mentor beseeched her to find what became of him.

* So they geared up (default gear) and charted a course from 2 to 4 (via Road) and then from 4 through the Wild to 8.  Why not take 4 to 3 and then 3 to 8?  3 is a once Bustling Metropolis (the only bay/harbor of this frozen arctic peninsula) and is fraught with terrible danger.  The ferry from there to 8 is presently offline.  So 3 Legs - 1 * Road from 2 to 4 and then 2 * Wild (through the Wilderness Twists of Hills then Fjord) from 4 to 8.

The Goals for Adventure 1 (basically a small Adventure of 6 Obstacles OB2-4, Spirits of Might 3 w/ a Disturbed Spirit of Might 5) are as follows:

Karolina - _I will find out what happened to Jora._

Taika - _I will determine what evil haunts this place._

Aile - _I will banish any powerful spirit that sets its will against us._

* Gotta run unfortunately.  I'll detail the 3 Tests/results for the 3 Legs of the Journey tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I wonder at @Manbearcat's proposed tweak, which seems like it increases the risk of helping. One of the salient features of helping is that it is LESS risky (but not riskless in general).



I'm still catching up on this thread, and I think @Manbearcat may have also replied to this. But my understanding is that his tweak allows a player to choose to risk the full condition in return for marking a text towards advancement when helping without having to spend a Fate point.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> it really depends on the GM to regulate how quickly the PCs get worn down by A) the frequency and Ob at which they assess checks, and B) the frequency with which they impose conditions vs twists. Of course you can also get into a lot of trouble from the twists, but conditions represent a very real and immediate death spiral!



From the Cartographer's Compendium (p 6):

[M]ake sure to throw in a few conditions here and there. Conditions often hurt, but they keep the action moving by allowing the characters to continue making progress. If you focus too much on conditions, players will feel that they’re constantly getting beat up and ground down. If you focus too much on twists, players will feel that they never make any progress. So, try to find a healthy balance between twists and conditions.​
The same text, but without the last sentence, is also in the Scholar's Guide (p 232). It also says this (p 213):

Torchbearer provides a series of interlocking systems for the game master to use to create pressure on the characters. However, the system requires the game master to make judgement calls at certain points in play. The most primary mechanism of judgement is when to apply a twist or condition to the result of a failed test. That is a serious decision in the context of the game.​
As to the frequency and obstacle of tests, there is advice on that in the Adventure Design section of the Scholar's Guide. But it does not talk about level-appropriateness, although in the Cartographer's Compendium adventures are rated by level.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 28, 2022)

*On Adventure Difficulty*

The books have robust advice on this that amounts to:

1 - Decreased proximity to Town means more difficult Adventures.  This is two-fold.  The first issue is that threats increase in Might as you go further into the Wild.  The second issue is that distance from Town yields increased Journey Legs which means more Toll in the orthodox handling or more decision-points/tests/costs/conflicts in my way of handling (which is basically the same thing but there are meaty, consequential decision-points in the TB1 way/may way of handling it.  More Toll = more stress on inputs into the Adventure (loading out/costs to do so/potential Resource Tax) and more dynamic issues with respect to Gear/Conditions as you enter the Adventure phase.

2 - There are 3 types of Adventure.  Normal which is 4-6 Obstacles and won't/shouldn't involve a Camp phase.  Large which is 10-12 Obstacles and should involve 1-2 Camp phases.  Mega which 18-20 Obstacles and should involve 2-3 Camp phases.

3 - The bulk of Obstacles should be 3-5 and most adversaries should be able to muster roughly equal dice to the PCs before Traits.  Then a handful of Obstacles that are 1-2 or low Nature/Might creatures.  Then each Adventure should have an Obstacle/Creature that puts the group in a serious bind.  It overmatches them in dice pool such that they'll have to seriously martial resources to contend with/overcome its threat, have to make a concession in their approach based on the creature's Might/Precedence being beyond them, or they'll just have to decide how to avoid it (and perhaps come back another day to explore/confront it).


Some of this should be signaled outright to the players so they can appropriately load out/prepare for their Journey/Adventure in the Town phase.  However, during the Town phase (this is kindred to Info Gathering/Free Play for those familiar with BitD) there are various moves to make (beyond simply recovering) to gain better intel/capability on your Adventure to come and then improve/repair/increase your kit, gear out/provision sufficiently, hire on help, make shrine offerings for boons, etc etc.

So players will (a) know what their Journey entails by way of map (determining total Legs, type of Legs, etc), (b) will know the general gist of their Adventure so they can roughly load out/provision for it, and (c) can make Town moves to amplify their understanding of (a) and (b) to better prepare.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 28, 2022)

Alright, back to the 3 Leg Journey from session 1.

*JOURNEY LEG 1* - _Hire onto/pay for caravan to get from the Remote Village (2) to the Busy Crossroads (4).  _

So there is basically 2 options here.

1 - The group of adventurers go it alone and we roll on 1d6 Road Events table to find out what happens.

2 - Players Persuade the caravan that they're good/trusted help along the road, players Haggle the caravan down to an inconsequential price, players martial their Recourses and just pay for it outright (with Tax on the line as the consequence).  Regardless its Ob2.  The reasoning for that is its basically the same Ob as Lifestyle Cost for an Inn or a hire-on of a Sentry.  That the analogue I use for caravanning from one town to the next (and it shouldn't be a particularly difficult Ob).

* All of them are Resource 0.

* Aile has Haggler 3 but no one else has Haggler nor Manipulator to Help.

* All three PCs have Persuader 2 so they can muster 2 + 1 *2 (Help) + 1 (Fresh condition) = 5d.  They go that route w/ Aile taking the lead and the other two Helping (and marking their 1/session Help for a test as outlined above...they'll suffer full consequence if failure).  

Aile's player decides to use their Trait Colossal Pride against themselves to earn a Check (so if they need to Camp...almost surely won't, but just in case...they'll have a Check to power a Test).  The PC regales the caravan-master of their mastery over the primordial powers of the universe and their unique access to the spiritual world...of course the caravan-master should see themselves as lucky to have a sorcerer of such implacable will and mystical prowess alongside them!  So they take -1d to the test (so now they have 4d) in exchange for the Check.

They get their 2 Successes required so they're apart of the day's long journey to the Busy Crossroads of site 4.  Everyone marks one of their 2 Successes required for Advancement in Persuader (they also need 1 Failure).

We start Journey Leg 2 at the trailhead into the Wild.  I'll go over that in a later post as I'm short on time!


----------



## Bill Zebub (Jan 28, 2022)

This thread is really making me want to check out Torchbearer.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jan 28, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> 2 - Players Persuade the caravan that they're good/trusted help along the road, players Haggle the caravan down to an inconsequential price, players martial their Recourses and just pay for it outright (with Tax on the line as the consequence).



Great write-ups!  Really enjoying these.

If you'll forgive a small editorial/proofreader's quibble, I think from what I've seen of your usage in this thread you've meant _marshal_, "to place in proper rank or position, or "to bring together and order in an appropriate or effective way", rather than _martial_ "related to or suited for war or a warrior".


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 28, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Great write-ups!  Really enjoying these.
> 
> If you'll forgive a small editorial/proofreader's quibble, I think from what I've seen of your usage in this thread you've meant _marshal_, "to place in proper rank or position, or to bring together and order in an appropriate or effective way", rather than _martial_ "related to or suited for war or a warrior".




I appreciate the helpful correction! Unfortunately, my brain already knows I engage in this homophone fail with regularity. I’ve been doing it for probably 2 decades or so. It’s weird thing but there is no uptake on the course correction. I guarantee you will continue to see me type martial at a frequency neither of us will be pleased with!

EDIT - Also, N is right next to B and your phone won't autocorrect to homophone!  Note this for the future folks!


----------



## Mannahnin (Jan 28, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I appreciate the helpful correction! Unfortunately, my brain already knows I engage in this homophobe fail with regularity. I’ve been doing it for probably 2 decades or so. It’s weird thing but there is no uptake on the course correction. I guarantee you will continue to see me type martial at a frequency neither of us will be pleased with!



Ah!  I have one or two similar linguistic quirks.  My sympathies!


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 28, 2022)

Alright, *JOURNEY LEG 2*

My approach to all Journey decision-points in RPGs (at least when they're supposed to be sites of conflict, like this..otherwise, I elide them) is to (a) provide a decision-point (b) that always yields different consequences and (c) sometimes (system-dependent) features different inputs to action resolution based on approach.

So the PCs are at the trail-head and have a decision to make for the 2nd Leg of their Journey:

1 - Well-trod trail (1 Factor) that winds and switches back along the undulating terrain and is the equivalent of a long hike (3 Factor) with a lot of exposure to wind/rain.  This is Obs4 and the consequence on the line here being Exhausted (-1 Disposition to Conflicts and can't use Instinct for free).

vs

2 - Shortcut for the equivalent of "nearby" (1 Factor) but is infrequently used (2 Factor) because of the constant threat of packs of hunting Dire Wolves (Might 3 Creatures with a higher Might Pack Leader).  So this is only Obs3 but the risk is a dangerous and potentially costly Flee or Kill Conflict with a pack of Dire Wolves.


Well, they "didn't want that smoke" of the Dire Wolves, so they elected the long and exposed hike over the shortcut.  Obs4 Test.  So, they go with this formulation:

* Karolina and Taika each have 3 Pathfinder.  However, Taika has Tracks-Wise so she'll use I Am Wise here to help her friend follow the well trod footpath.  This gives Karolina the same +1d from Help but it insulates Taika from getting a Condition on a failure.

* Aile doesn't have any Skill or Wise to help here, but this falls within his Nature descriptor Running (he has spent a large amount of his life on trails through frozen, exposed, and trackless wilderness like this so he'll galvanize the group's mental resiliency with his disposition and capableness throughout the trek).

* I give them a Persona and Fate point for the first Adventure.  Karolina's PC doesn't want to eat the Exhausted Condition this early and doesn't want Aile to eat Hungry and Thirsty due to helping (which he would resolve via marking off 1 Ration or 1 use of Waterskin), so they spend their Persona Point to Channel Within Their Nature (Running descriptor).  This lets them add their 3d from their Nature to their dice pool (with no risk of Taxing Nature - reducing Nature when you act outside of it).


So the total dice pool is 8d vs Obs4 Pathfinder test w/ the following on the line; success or success but Karolina - Exhausted, Alie - Hungry and Thirsty, and Taika - insulated from Condition.

They get their 4 Successes.  The trek is long, arduous, and cold as hell, but they get to their destination in good spirits/order.  We elide a cozy camp and handle their next (and final) Leg of their Journey.


* Of note, Karolina has Cartographer 2 and in Pouch 2 she has Supplies for this (charcoal, parchment).  2 days of Journey is a Factor of 2 and if you're on site its +1.  So at the end of these 2 Legs she's going to expend her Supplies (+1d and that Pouch Slot is now open) and test Cartographer vs Obs3 because she'll be mapping these two Wilderness Legs from 4 to 8.  Success there means that future Journeys that chart this course get automatically elided (the equivalent of "fast travel" in modern video game parlance) so long as (a) they have the map and light to read it and (b) the situation of this region hasn't substantially changed.


----------



## niklinna (Jan 29, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I appreciate the helpful correction! Unfortunately, my brain already knows I engage in this homophone fail with regularity. I’ve been doing it for probably 2 decades or so. It’s weird thing but there is no uptake on the course correction. I guarantee you will continue to see me type martial at a frequency neither of us will be pleased with!
> 
> EDIT - Also, N is right next to B and your phone won't autocorrect to homophone!  Note this for the future folks!



Think of the 't' in _martial_ as a little sword to commit your martial acts, and the 's' in _marshal_ as a squiggly bandolier that you use to marshal your resources.

(N is next to B, and the space bar is right below both of them. Grumble.)


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> The game is always difficult and it can always spiral and get away from you regardless of how safe you are, but there is are a few exhales built-in.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



The descent from Burning Wheel is very evident in these features of the system. The main difference, at least as it looks to me at this stage of my reading and reflection, is in the consequence rules. Also there are no FoRKs; which makes teamwork all the more important.



Manbearcat said:


> Managing the sort of Pictionary + Rock/Paper/Scissors of Conflicts is extremely important.



There's an amusing remark in the Scholar's Guide (p 231):

Beware that it is possible for you to kill the characters in the first conflict. Cavalier players will often charge heedlessly into a pack of skeletal tomb guardians and try to destroy them. That is a kill conflict. Even though the tomb guardians are Might 2 (to the adventurers’ Might 3), they can still kill the characters if they get lucky.

With this in mind, we recommend you play conservatively in early conflicts. Stick to Attacks and Maneuvers. Do not bust out tricky Feints on the third action just yet.​
For those who haven't thought it through: a tempting script for players is Attack/Attack/Defend - ie try to land some blows and then recover at the end of the round. A third action Feint from the GM will negate that Defend and get in some free damage!

In Burning Wheel, the GM is encouraged to script for NPCs and monsters in a manner that reflects their Beliefs, Instincts and Traits even if not fully rational. So far the closest I've found to that in Torchbearer is this, from the Scholar's Guild (p 174):

A monster’s instinct is provided for you as guidance on how to play the monster. Monsters don’t have to test to do mundane things. They just do them (within reason of course). In fact, the game master rolls dice for a monster only when opposing a character. That’s it. So instincts are listed here to help you better portray the beast.​
The Tomb Guardians are Mindless, and have the Nature Descriptors _Guarding, Pursuing, Slaying the Living_ and the instinct _Never leave the tomb unguarded_. That makes me feel like their default script should be Defend (guarding the tomb), Manoeuvre (impeding and positioning), Attack (driving back the intruders). So if I was a player against my conception of Tomb Guardians the best script would be Feint/Attack/Defend. Or maybe Feint/Feint/Defend if we're feeling lucky. Depending on the type of conflict, that could be enough for a one-round victory.



Manbearcat said:


> I don't agree that adventurers are scum to start off play.  Its never been that in a game I've run.  Overwhelmingly, the games I've run have featured a world under extreme duress so the stratification of society isn't well-positioned to scarlet letter a lot of folks with "scum."



I think the clearest statement of this is in the opening of the Dungeoneer's Handbook (pp 6-7, in a section entitled "Born to Lose"):

Adventurer is a dirty word. You’re a scoundrel, a villain, a wastrel, a vagabond, a criminal, a sword-for-hire, a cutthroat.

Respectable people belong to guilds or the church or are born into nobility. Or barring all that, they’re salt of the earth and till the land for the rest of us.

Your problem is that you’re none of that. You’re a third child or worse. You can’t get into a guild - too many apprentices already. You’re sure as hell not nobility - even if you were, your older brothers and sisters have soaked up the inheritance. And if you’re cursed with visions from the Immortals, the temples won’t take you in. You question their authority and subvert their power, so you are outcast like the rest of us.

And if you ever entertained romantic notions of homesteading, think again. You’d end up little more than a slave to a wealthy noble.

So there’s naught for you but to make your own way. There’s a certain freedom to it, but it’s a hard life. Cash flows out of your hands as easily as the blood from your wounds.

But at least it’s your life.

And if you’re lucky, smart and stubborn, you might come out on top. There’s a lot of lost loot out there for the finding. And salvage law is mercifully generous. You find it, it’s yours to spend, sell or keep.​
This seems to be reinforced by the designer notes on the Noble Scion class in the Scavenger's Supplement (p 35):

The Scion class is an advanced option for Torchbearer play, as it is difficult and problematic in a number of ways. First, it breaks the game’s primary conceit—that our characters are regular people down on their luck, cursed by the Immortals and forced into a series of bad choices. The scion is making a bad choice because they were born a fool. Second, the Superior trait is not a point of fact, but a matter of self-perception. No one is inherently superior to anyone, especially not in Torchbearer.​
The word "scum" might be a bit laden, but something like it seems right. The remarks about superiority are very REH Conan, and PCs (except for Noble Scions) start at the bottom of the social hierarchy and make their living by disregarding all social norms.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> *On Adventure Difficulty*
> 
> The books have robust advice on this



I would say it is not as robust as 4e D&D. It's not clear what makes an adventure 1st level or 2nd level, for instance. (Travel to the location isn't a factor in the two adventures I've looked at so far in the Cartographer's Compendium.)

At least on first reading, Tower of Stars - the 1st level adventure in the Compendium - seems quite a bit easier than The Dread Crypt of Skogenby, which is the introductory adventure in the Scholar's Guide.

I was amused to see Thelon's Rift in the Compendium. I first encountered this adventure in the BW Adventure Burner, where it was presented as an example of a "microdungeon". It's interesting to see the trajectory from Thor's Burning THACO pdf (which seems like it's no longer available) through "microdungeoneering" to Torchbearer.

The two biggest changes in Thelon's Rift between versions: the Torchbearer treatment of the stone face is more inspired; but I miss the BW version's remark (paraphrasing from memory) that "A Duel of Wits over what to do with the Orb is not only acceptable, it's encouraged. In fact it's traditional!"

PvP seems like a very high-risk proposition in Torchbearer.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 30, 2022)

I'll be following this thread with interest. I never got to more than dabble with TB1, and I'm going to dive in for the full suite of TB2 stuff today anyway. If nothing else the game seems like a worthy topic of study in terms of tight playloop design.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Jan 30, 2022)

One of my dissatisfactions with 5e is that you rarely stress about resources.  Light, food, water, and rest can all be achieved too easily through magic (even cantrips) and character abilities.  So I find there's very little resource tension in the game.*

But I like that sort of tension.  So maybe I should check out TB.

*As distinct from plot tension.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 30, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> One of my dissatisfactions with 5e is that you rarely stress about resources.  Light, food, water, and rest can all be achieved too easily through magic (even cantrips) and character abilities.  So I find there's very little resource tension in the game.*
> 
> But I like that sort of tension.  So maybe I should check out TB.
> 
> *As distinct from plot tension.



This is one of the main reasons that I've drifted away from 5E and into the murky depths of the OSR.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 30, 2022)

Quick question, are the 2e PDFs on the TB website the final PDFs or the playtest PDFs? I'm not dropping $100 on playtest content....

Edit: They are the full PDFs, not playtest. Just in case anyone else is curious.


----------



## darkbard (Jan 30, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Quick question, are the 2e PDFs on the TB website the final PDFs or the playtest PDFs? I'm not dropping $100 on playtest content....
> 
> Edit: They are the full PDFs, not playtest. Just in case anyone else is curious.



But the HCs are only available to original KS backers?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 30, 2022)

darkbard said:


> But the HCs are only available to original KS backers?



So far, yeah. I suspect that dead tree versions will be available to the genpop at some point. I wanted PDFs anyway.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 30, 2022)

Luke actually just confirmed for me that the physical books will be on sale 'soon'.


----------



## darkbard (Jan 30, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Luke actually just confirmed for me that the physical books will be on sale 'soon'.



Ah, great! Thanks for the info, Fenris! I really want to check out this game, missed the KS, and much, much prefer holding a book to a screen.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 31, 2022)

@pemerton , I'll get up a response to each of your posts later today or tomorrow.  Going to close out the post encapsulating the Journey for Adventure 1 for now.

*JOURNEY LEG 3*

They're at the top of the cliff face of the fjord, looking down at the moraine-covered beach, the huge waterway, and the large island with the ruined settlement (their target) below.  The weather is looming.  The options are as follows:

1) There is a 200 meter mostly sheer face, protected from the wind and weather of the open fjord, that will bring them down to the beach.  They can downclimb that in the course of the bulk of the day and be protected from the weather/threatening elements.  Normally, this would be a Conflict (because everyone is involved and its a complex threat) with Dungeoneer and Health.  But they've brought Rope (Karolina 2 Slots in Satchel) and Spikes (Taika 1 Slot in Satchel) as they knew a climb of some variety was likely in front of them.  However, none of them are proficient climbers (no Dungeoneer Skill) so they'll have to Beginner's Luck.  The Obs for this would be Vertical Pitch (2) + Small Group (2) + 1 for inadequate Tools (no one is trained...if you're trained, the Tools - harness/carabiners - are in your Satchel/Backpack unless you suffer a Gear Twist and loose them) for 5.

2) Alternatively, there are old trails that lead down to the beach from the top of these cliffs, but they haven't been trod in a long time and its a huge trek to work their way down to the beach.  It would cost them the bulk of the day and they'll have to find shelter from the incoming snow, sleet, and blustery winds as the whole trek would be exposed.  Because its as much about finding shelter and a way down, I let them test either Pathfinder or Survivalist.  So Pathfinder Obs 5 (Short Journey 2 and Overgrown 3) or Survivalist Obs 5 (Locate Emergency Shelter 1 a few times in the course of the trek and Snow or Blustery Winds 3).


The elect to go the first route.

Karolina Beginner's Luck Health 4d

Rope (not spending +1d for Supplies to opens up Satchel 2 Slots because they want to retain for later)
NOT USING (see below) Spikes +1d (roll 1d6-1 for number of spikes lost; player rolled 4 so 3 spikes lost; 3 left)
NOT USING (see below) Taika +1d Help (Survivalist)
= 4
/2 =
2d

- 1d using Defender Trait against herself (she's lead so she takes the most dangerous role in the stead of her companions...once per session level 1 Trait)
+Fresh Condition +1d
= 2d

The best they could have mustered here would have been 5d6 and that had an extremely remote chance of success, so they don't spend Spikes and Taika doesn't Help (so she doesn't get a Condition on failure) and Karolina uses her Defender Trait against herself to earn a Check in case they have to Camp.

Obviously, this is an auto-loss.  Net here is Success but:

* Karolina loses Fresh Condition and earns Afraid (apparently there is a reason this is her first time legit climbing; heights and downclimbs are a hell of a lot more than she bargained for) so, until she Recovers can't Help or use Beginner's Luck.

* Karolina marks 1 of 3 Beginner's Luck Tests needed to earn a rating of 2 in Dungeoneer.

* Karolina expresses her Belief (she is the bulwark that stands between her friends and harm...she led the test and basically ate the Condition on behalf of her friends).

* Taika expresses her Belief (she spent a great deal of effort going over every angle/all of their prospects before they came to a decision on this one...they ended up going with her plan).

* 3 Preserved Rations consumed by each PC for the 3 day trek; all from one of their Belt Slots so those are now open for loot or something else salvaged.

* Karolina Cartographer 2d + 1d chalk/parchment Supplies (Pouch 2 is now open) + 1d Aile Scholar Help + 1d Taika Pathfinder Help = 5d vs Obs2 to map the Leg 2/3 of the Journey from the Busy Crossroads of 4 to the ruins of 8 on the map.  They get the success and the map and Karolina marks a Success for Cartographer.


Journey phase complete.  They're at the beach, looking out across the icy waters of the fjord to the distant island and the long ago ruined Remote Village of site 8. Adventure phase begins next time we play.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 31, 2022)

That looks really solid, I like it a lot.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 31, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> That looks really solid, I like it a lot.




If I have time, I’ll do a post and contrast that Journey (and results) with TB2’s Toll procedures for Journey’s in the Loremaster Manual.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 31, 2022)

Thor Olavsrud and D. Koch are doing a 2E adventure _The Slumbering Storm Giant_ and a _Jotunheim Gazetteer_ on Indiegogo. Jotunheim is describes as 'a land of illusion and sublime horror'. Sounds fancy!


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 31, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Thor Olavsrud and D. Koch are doing a 2E adventure _The Slumbering Storm Giant_ and a _Jotunheim Gazetteer_ on Indiegogo. Jotunheim is describes as 'a land of illusion and sublime horror'. Sounds fancy!




I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear that I’ve never looked at a TB (1 or 2) Adventure to any significant degree and the Cartographer’s manual is the TB2 book that has seen my least interrogation!

That being said, I am very acquainted with the tropes abc mythology of the implied settling (which is important).


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 31, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear that I’ve never looked at a TB (1 or 2) Adventure to any significant degree and the Cartographer’s manual is the TB2 book that has seen my least interrogation!
> 
> That being said, I am very acquainted with the tropes abc mythology of the implied settling (which is important).



I was more interested in the Gazetteer half, but adventures are always good to mine for odds and ends. I haven't even bought the Cartographers Manual yet mind you, and may not. I can do adventure design. I also happen to have most of the adventures for 1E anyway if I wanted something quick and dirty. I was just excited about Norse giants.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 31, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> I was more interested in the Gazetteer half, but adventures are always good to mine for odds and ends. I haven't even bought the Cartographers Manual yet mind you, and may not. I can do adventure design. I also happen to have most of the adventures for 1E anyway if I wanted something quick and dirty. I was just excited about Norse giants.




The convergence of conflict-laden mythology and highly functional tropes for actual play is THE important component of setting design. I’ve always had pretty significant misgivings about anything beyond that (particularly as you move toward Information saturation…working from a deficit is always better in my opinion).

One of the really great things about TB1 and 2 is how perfect the Norse-inspired mythology deeply informs the premise of play but doesn’t strangle it. Deeply informing yet not strangling (in that functional play gets lost in the weeds of minutiae) is a neat trick to pull off for setting designers.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 31, 2022)

In that vein I find the implied setting nicely supports some of the surface level nods to Tolkien without them seeming out of place in a setting that is pretty different than Middle Earth in some ways (the OSR/deadly/etc ways).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 31, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> The convergence of conflict-laden mythology and highly functional tropes for actual play is THE important component of setting design. I’ve always had pretty significant misgivings about anything beyond that (particularly as you move toward Information saturation…working from a deficit is always better in my opinion).
> 
> One of the really great things about TB1 and 2 is how perfect the Norse-inspired mythology deeply informs the premise of play but doesn’t strangle it. Deeply informing yet not strangling (in that functional play gets lost in the weeds of minutiae) is a neat trick to pull off for setting designers.



Yeah, it is pretty much the old "draw maps, leave holes" formula. You want myth which can be harnessed easily to produce scene framing by supplying tropes, conflict drivers, color, etc. but you don't want a CANON which tries to inform everything and thus gets in the way of constructing fiction that will best serve the immediate story. Its fine if we know there are 'giants' out there. OTOH what is the relationship of giants to dragons? We will play and find out! Maybe we know they are both 'Chaos Creatures' or something, technically, but without excessive canon we can find out to our mutual entertainment that actually the dragon Nightfang really hates the ruler of the Frost Giants, and generally kills them on sight! If this were canonical, who knows if it would cut for or against any particular needs in play, and its just one more way that the story becomes owned by someone else who isn't even at the table!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 31, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> In that vein I find the implied setting nicely supports some of the surface level nods to Tolkien without them seeming out of place in a setting that is pretty different than Middle Earth in some ways (the OSR/deadly/etc ways).



Yeah, well, there's a lot common in their mythological sources, but it helps when you keep things a bit fuzzy. TB dwarf lore seems pretty Tolkienesque (the outcast is pretty much Thorin Oakenshield) but you certainly can put many different spins on that. Dwarfs could be much more like the old Norse Twarg and it will work fine. Halflings are of course definitely the area where we seem to get the most 'Tolkien', I have not really ever seen a modern take on this concept that wasn't basically lifted whole cloth from his work, and he seems to have largely created the concept in a largely original manner. So, you could surely tweak it a good bit. OTOH a lot of his concept is fairly hard-coded into the basic Halfling Burglar (I kind of tried to subvert some of the trope with my character, but I still ended up with 'It just needs a bit of salt-Wise', lol. Have to see how that plays out in practice...


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 31, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think the clearest statement of this is in the opening of the Dungeoneer's Handbook (pp 6-7, in a section entitled "Born to Lose"):
> 
> Adventurer is a dirty word. You’re a scoundrel, a villain, a wastrel, a vagabond, a criminal, a sword-for-hire, a cutthroat.​​Respectable people belong to guilds or the church or are born into nobility. Or barring all that, they’re salt of the earth and till the land for the rest of us.​​Your problem is that you’re none of that. You’re a third child or worse. You can’t get into a guild - too many apprentices already. You’re sure as hell not nobility - even if you were, your older brothers and sisters have soaked up the inheritance. And if you’re cursed with visions from the Immortals, the temples won’t take you in. You question their authority and subvert their power, so you are outcast like the rest of us.​​And if you ever entertained romantic notions of homesteading, think again. You’d end up little more than a slave to a wealthy noble.​​So there’s naught for you but to make your own way. There’s a certain freedom to it, but it’s a hard life. Cash flows out of your hands as easily as the blood from your wounds.​​But at least it’s your life.​​And if you’re lucky, smart and stubborn, you might come out on top. There’s a lot of lost loot out there for the finding. And salvage law is mercifully generous. You find it, it’s yours to spend, sell or keep.​
> This seems to be reinforced by the designer notes on the Noble Scion class in the Scavenger's Supplement (p 35):
> ...




Alright, back to the "are Adventurers scum" question!

So I think the lines of evidence I put together against the "scum" descriptor are as follows (the Noble Scion entry is something I look to as supporting evidence actually):

* So I would differentiate between the Scoundrels of Blades in the Dark protagonism and "scum."  A scoundrel is an unscrupulous character who works outside of the fabric of societal conceits to improve their lot.  But (a) they aren't intrinsically wicked/vile nor (b) worthless.  Both of those traits are riders for the "scum" descriptor I would think.  In all cases, BitD PCs can't be tarred with "worthless" and in some cases they are the opposite of wicked/vile or at least very conflicted.  Their starting position within the social strata of the game is low for sure (Tier 0 just like Adventurers start at Precedence 0 in TB), but lowness within social hierarchy is necessary but not sufficient for "scum-dom."  The other traits are necessary.

* I think the Noble Scion entry is the most instructive entry available to us; regular people who are down on their luck and forced into a series of bad choices.  But, again, that doesn't connote intrinsically wicked/vile and it certainly doesn't ordain worthlessness.  Even level 1 Torchbearer characters have considerable means:

- They have belief and a goal.  This is a pretty big deal in my opinion.  "Worthless people" (insofar as that is a categorization that someone would use against another person) are almost definitionally listless, without the energy and direction for the prospect of upward trajectory. Having a belief and a goal are the minimum requirements to transcend that state.  TB2 characters have that (and the mechanical teeth of them give them actual propulsion toward their ends).

- They have a level 7 mentor.

- They have friends (including the other PCs), family, home, all of which can assist your plight and your trajectory.

- You also have a nemesis.  Worthless people typically aren't worthy of being opposed.

- Circles 4, Might 3, Nature 4/5, Wises, Traits, a non-fragile set of Skills (and Beginner's Luck rules aren't hostile to progression at all), and sufficient resources in Tools, Supplies, and Gear to call upon to help them transcend their initial conditions (at the outset of play).


So all told, I think Precedence 0 at the outset does some work to inform the nature of the PCs.  But when you look at them holistically, I think the Noble Scion entry with a reasonable upward trend is the best way to look at them.  Further, when you consider that much of the tropes of play rely upon a ruined, desperate orientation of the bulk of the people and the state of the setting, there is a sort of flattening of the social lower strata from Precedence 3 and below that makes epithets/descriptors of "scum" somewhat difficult.  Now that doesn't change the Precedence mechanics (*), but it does give some ground for abstracting out the orientation of the setting toward groups and individuals away from "scum" if you're an Adventurer (and again...particularly with Might 3...you are a dangerous person of means).

Anyone have thoughts on all of that?



> *
> 
> You may convince people whose Precedence is equal to or less than yours.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 31, 2022)

I think that sounds right. I read 'scum' as how society sees them, at least in part as the manifestation of societal worries (in the implied setting) about decay and a fear of the other. Adventurers don't 'fit' into the implied culture because they have been forced by circumstance to engage with a societal taboo. Wealth and fantastic deeds slowly work against this notion as the characters level up. I haven't really delved into the Precedence rules too much yet, so I may have some caveats about this theory at some point.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 31, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Alright, back to the "are Adventurers scum" question!
> 
> So I think the lines of evidence I put together against the "scum" descriptor are as follows (the Noble Scion entry is something I look to as supporting evidence actually):
> 
> ...



I think it sounds reasonable. The Dungeoneer's Handbook seems to want to color adventurers as being perceived as 'scum', but that is more in the same sense that we perceive down-and-out people in our own society(s) in a similar fashion (IE the poor are lazy, shiftless, unreliable, mentally defective, etc.). So, I would think something a bit similar exists within TB canonical society. You are on a social par with Sex Workers, Soldiers, and presumably criminals (given that the only thing lower than Precedence 0 is presumably being actually in jail or similar). I mean, we see a lot of those sorts of people as quite dangerous! 

My point being, as depicted by the RULES, I would expect an Adventurer to be banished from polite society, perhaps barely tolerated as a suspicious but not actively criminal person, etc. As long as you don't smell too bad, stay out of the way of anyone with any real status, and pay with cash you're OK. But as the book says "you may not be heard". I would expect the reaction to be mostly similar to what you'd get in my town if you seemed outside of normal suburban society and approached people for some reason. That is at least a very cautious response aimed at getting you to go away without making trouble! lol.

In the case of higher level adventurers who have lots of money and such, then it might turn to more of a celebrity reaction. That is "OK, as long as you're not chasing after my daughter we'll just accept that you are acceptable, if not really accepted" (IE you are not going to get invited to polite society social events, for sure!). Of course it would be fun to play that adventurer who ends up taking over the Busy Crossroads and seeing how the hoity toity people lick your boots, lol. I guess that is one possible goal/outcome of play...


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 31, 2022)

Even if we read the book RAW I'd submit that your reading would (should?) vary by settlement size. Smaller settlements tend to be much more insular and suspicious of strangers while larger cities have more room for them to disappear into. As far as 'not being heard' I think that directly indexes being outside the establish societal structure (or at the very bottom, however you want to parse it). All that really means is that establishment types (of any rank really) aren't disposed to listen to raggedy-ass adventurers regardless the topic. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I terms of actual gameplay that serves the purpose of the PCs not being able to (easily) engage 'the authorities' to deal with threats, which seems in keeping with the overall teleos of the game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 31, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Even if we read the book RAW I'd submit that your reading would (should?) vary by settlement size. Smaller settlements tend to be much more insular and suspicious of strangers while larger cities have more room for them to disappear into. As far as 'not being heard' I think that directly indexes being outside the establish societal structure (or at the very bottom, however you want to parse it). All that really means is that establishment types (of any rank really) aren't disposed to listen to raggedy-ass adventurers regardless the topic. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I terms of actual gameplay that serves the purpose of the PCs not being able to (easily) engage 'the authorities' to deal with threats, which seems in keeping with the overall teleos of the game.



I think it works in dramatic terms too. If you uncover a real threat, guess what, nobody pays attention, so you have to go solve it yourself! hehe. I kind of built the concept of my character (Halfling Burglar) around this idea. She loves to resent the powers that be. Her nemesis is the corrupt town watch sergeant in charge of her street. The treatment of the halfling race is 'unfair', etc. Her Presence 0 is galling, and yet how could she exist if she wasn't basically invisible to the 'big folks'? lol. Not sure how that will all work in play, but I was conceiving of it as suspicious, faux fierce, self-confidence that is possibly a bit too much bravado, and presumably some sort of underlying loyalty to her real companions once they prove their mettle. OTOH it may play as more hollow, especially if the cruel world really crushes her down, lol. I can see either a bitter end, or a heroic future.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 1, 2022)

I would think that the default stance on adventurers would lean toward the outcast. So while they may not be considered scum by a given community, they’re also not really seen as meaningful contributors. Like they specifically don’t fit in and don’t provide a tangible service.

Now that’s generally speaking. Of course, circumstances could change and I’d imagine that a town would welcome adventurers who happen to help them in some meaningful way. Likely even as heroes. “Look at the brave folk who killed the grimling!” and so forth.

I do think that it’d generally take a certain type of person would embrace this lifestyle. There’s often something broken or off about such people. I’d likely have the default response to them be a kind of cautious wariness.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 1, 2022)

I asked on the Discord but I'll ask you guys too. Thoughts on _Jury-Rig-Wise_ for an Outcast looking to add a little interpretive engineering with found objects to his Sapper/Laborer/Etc skill set? I was thinking of it as a -wise that could add a little creative mayhem around the edges when it comes to in-the-moment problem solving. I'm not saying McGuyver precisely. But McGuyver if McGuyver were a cunning and sadistic medieval-adjacent dwarven craftsman.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 1, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> I asked on the Discord but I'll ask you guys too. Thoughts on _Jury-Rig-Wise_ for an Outcast looking to add a little interpretive engineering with found objects to his Sapper/Laborer/Etc skill set? I was thinking of it as a -wise that could add a little creative mayhem around the edges when it comes to in-the-moment problem solving. I'm not saying McGuyver precisely. But McGuyver if McGuyver were a cunning and sadistic medieval-adjacent dwarven craftsman.




I don’t see any issues with that. The issue is when Wises become so broad that they can apply to most Conflicts and Tests. That isn’t the case here. Pretty sure I’ve seen it or similar in a game in the past.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 1, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I don’t see any issues with that. The issue is when Wises become so broad that they can apply to most Conflicts and Tests. That isn’t the case here. Pretty sure I’ve seen it or similar in a game in the past.



I don't know when or how, but I'm _going_ to play this character at some point. He probably cackles and mutters to himself while he's turning your helmet into a microwave.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 1, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> I don't know when or how, but I'm _going_ to play this character at some point. He probably cackles and mutters to himself while he's turning your helmet into a microwave.



Ruby might give him some grudging respect, by like staying far away from his contraptions!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 1, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Ruby might give him some grudging respect, by like staying far away from his contraptions!



Everyone should probably stay far away. The _work against belief - gain persona - use for channeling nature_ play loop is something I'd be hitting hard, and I suspect that would involve rather a lot of things unexpected blowing up or stabbing you through the knee. Same with using his Cunning Trait against himself to gain checks, I expect some mayhem there although perhaps less collateral damage than the first example.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 1, 2022)

I have to say, the more I read TB the more I appreciate the overwhelming slickness of the mechanics. All the parts actually do work, and the right work to produce the desired play experience. Unlike 5th edition, where the mechanics occasionally seem like someone has tried to use a watermelon and the color purple to construct a simple lever.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 1, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Everyone should probably stay far away. The _work against belief - gain persona - use for channeling nature_ play loop is something I'd be hitting hard, and I suspect that would involve rather a lot of things unexpected blowing up or stabbing you through the knee. Same with using his Cunning Trait against himself to gain checks, I expect some mayhem there although perhaps less collateral damage than the first example.



Hmmmm, so maybe I could work the same sort of trick with something like Hidden Depths or Quick Witted, lol. That would be kind of funny, every time Ruby does something clever it ends up blowing up in her face, and its always of the nature of "Oh, I cleverly tossed the malfunctioning gizmo at the bad guys so it wouldn't blow up Joe, but somehow it went off in my face..." which then drives gain persona (because I have a belief of reciprocating in kind to my allies) lol. I'll have to work on how to make that work. The upshot would be something like "No good deed goes unpunished" basically, but every such setback just makes her incrementally more stubbornly determined to come out ahead in the end, lol.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 1, 2022)

That particular loop really highlights the need to write a really good belief for a concept. You need to be able to work both with it and against it in ways that are interesting and appropriate.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 1, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> That particular loop really highlights the need to write a really good belief for a concept. You need to be able to work both with it and against it in ways that are interesting and appropriate.



Yeah, you want to avoid the sappy sort of beliefs that are just truisms and work with something specific enough to be contravened in an interesting way. PACE interestingly can go to the same place if you express a trait as a weakness, like having one of your traits be "habitual liar", lol. Often you can play against it, which is not as easy with positive traits. OTOH it opens up chances for the GM to really stick it to you also! lol.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 1, 2022)

I do like how important it is to forward character progress that you plan for interesting failure and GM shenanigans.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 5, 2022)

So, rules for seafaring. A couple of people have some interesting ideas for Earthsea-like archipelago settings, which I think would be super cool, but it would require some mechanics for journeys by boat. My thought is to have two types of journey there. One, established sea routes from X to Y that have established rutters - thus the perils and whatnot are known and the whole shooting match can probably be elided barring RP type stuff on board. However, if you leave the established routes then you need to get fancy, and I was thinking something like the camp phase with roles and linked skills (not a brand new idea, I know). But it keeps the whole group involved, it mitigates for seafaring backgrounds that will get actual use, and I think the mechanic would sit pretty lightly on top of what's already there. SO you have a navigator, a pilot, a lookout, a guy who climbs on ropes (I'm not a sailor, sue me). Then just use the same roles for determining possible crisis, type and roll determined by role.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 7, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> So, rules for seafaring. A couple of people have some interesting ideas for Earthsea-like archipelago settings, which I think would be super cool, but it would require some mechanics for journeys by boat. My thought is to have two types of journey there. One, established sea routes from X to Y that have established rutters - thus the perils and whatnot are known and the whole shooting match can probably be elided barring RP type stuff on board. However, if you leave the established routes then you need to get fancy, and I was thinking something like the camp phase with roles and linked skills (not a brand new idea, I know). But it keeps the whole group involved, it mitigates for seafaring backgrounds that will get actual use, and I think the mechanic would sit pretty lightly on top of what's already there. SO you have a navigator, a pilot, a lookout, a guy who climbs on ropes (I'm not a sailor, sue me). Then just use the same roles for determining possible crisis, type and roll determined by role.



As far as something like making camp goes, in pre-modern times, particularly in a time period which lacks really large ocean-going vessels, it was not usual to remain at sea constantly. So, for instance, in classical times, and early medieval times, ships pulled out on land QUITE often, and never sailed in the dark, rarely left sight of land, etc. So, making camp under these conditions is likely to be largely the same as in the normal game. You just pull up to some likely looking spot, haul your boat out, or possibly anchor it close to shore, and make camp right there. If the boat is anchored, then it would keep a watch, otherwise the crew will undoubtedly guard their vessel. 

So, yeah, I would think that waterborne travel doesn't really involve anything radically new or different from the existing process. There might be slightly different hazards, and as you say a bit different roles, skills, and toolkit, but it sure seems like there's no need for any radical modifications to the basic framework.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 7, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> As far as something like making camp goes, in pre-modern times, particularly in a time period which lacks really large ocean-going vessels, it was not usual to remain at sea constantly. So, for instance, in classical times, and early medieval times, ships pulled out on land QUITE often, and never sailed in the dark, rarely left sight of land, etc. So, making camp under these conditions is likely to be largely the same as in the normal game. You just pull up to some likely looking spot, haul your boat out, or possibly anchor it close to shore, and make camp right there. If the boat is anchored, then it would keep a watch, otherwise the crew will undoubtedly guard their vessel.
> 
> So, yeah, I would think that waterborne travel doesn't really involve anything radically new or different from the existing process. There might be slightly different hazards, and as you say a bit different roles, skills, and toolkit, but it sure seems like there's no need for any radical modifications to the basic framework.



Well, if you posit a level of technology where sailing outside sight of land is a regular thing then at that point you do need _something_ mechanical to handle it, although I don't think it requires much. In part the need here is going to be based on the map. Sailing and landing is fine in the Mediterranean and up the coast of Europe is fine, so if your map allows that, then great, but if your map requires something more like Vikings ailing to the new world then not so much.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 7, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, if you posit a level of technology where sailing outside sight of land is a regular thing then at that point you do need _something_ mechanical to handle it, although I don't think it requires much. In part the need here is going to be based on the map. Sailing and landing is fine in the Mediterranean and up the coast of Europe is fine, so if your map allows that, then great, but if your map requires something more like Vikings ailing to the new world then not so much.



Well, how far did the Vikings ever actually sail from land, and how long did they ever remain continuously at sea in their vessels. We know that they went from Scandinavia across the North Sea to Britain, but these crossings weren't continuous sea journeys, they stopped in the Shetland Islands (which are pretty much in direct line of almost any crossing from Norway). If you went to Iceland, you then stopped in the Faroe Islands, and there were other islands along the way which were likely 'camping spots' at the very least. So, the biggest gap there is from the Faroes to Iceland, 200km. No doubt you'd be at sea for several days. The gap between Iceland and Greenland is considerably smaller, maybe 60km, though sailing on down to the southern point of Greenland and around into the Labrador Sea is several hundred miles, but all along a coastline where it is quite possible to haul out. 

Its unclear exactly what route was actually taken from Greenland to the west, although the most direct route, straight South West across the Labrador Sea is pretty long. Anyway, the sagas tell us this entire journey was pretty risky! 

So, OK, you might want something for open ocean, if you were dealing with such an epic crossing. I think its likely that 99% of TB2 journeying would be a bit less ambitious, so it seems to me like you could get away with some fairly basic rules and cover most cases (IE sailing up a river, or up or down the coast). It seems like stock TB2 kind of envisages a basic milieu where the action takes place in something a bit like a 'fantasy Greenland' where the PC's society is kind of at the extreme furthest advance of civilization and is doomed to be rolled back, sort of like Viking Greenland. I guess you could mount an epic journey further west for some McGuffin or other...


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 7, 2022)

My point was that you might _want_ something more epic and that the rules can accommodate that pretty easily at need.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 7, 2022)

Beyond my point above I completely agree about sea travel btw, 100%. Super easy.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 9, 2022)

In my customary hour+ insomnia, I figured I'd throw some quick words in here.

Got in an hour of play Saturday night (via Skype as we're all 1 to 2 hours away from each other) with this TB2 group.

It featured dealing with the Obstacle 1 of the Adventure phase:

_* Getting across the large, unnaturally angry sea inlet of the fjord to the island domain of the long ruined Remote Village.  _

To that end, the players went the following route:

* Gather wood (Laborer) and build raft (Carpenter).  Since this was basically a group move, we aren't taxing twice against The Grind, so this is effectively Turn 1 against the Grind (every 4 Turns the PCs earn a condition).  Karolina is the Carpenter so its up to Taika to gather the wood.

* This is, in fact, Torchbearer.  This far-flung northern place sees only a few hours of daylight, and even that sees the sun heavily blotted out from dense cloud cover.  Today is the same.  Allie pulls one of 4 Torches (lasts 2 Turns) from their Backpack and lights the tasks of her allies.  Now while this isn't two actual Turns against The Grind, this is effectively 2 Turns worth of light because these are discrete things that will eat up the Light.  So this whole effort costs a full Torch worth of light.

* Taika doesn't have Laborer, but she has Hunter and Survivalist.  Either of those would have a handaxe as a tool, so effectively she has the tool necessary for this job so she doesn't get an additional 1 Factor for the Test; 1 Factor for gather wood +1 Factor for the wet and wintry conditions.

Taika Beginner's Luck Health 4d

/2
+Fresh Condition +1d
= 3d

She fails the Laborer's Test.  The stakes for the Test were going to be her tools for any subsequent Survivalist and Hunter Test for the rest of this Adventure/Camp (if any) phase(s) (therefore any Test would have +1 Factor).  So she keeps the Fresh Condition, she marks a BL Test for Laborer, but she loses her handaxe/tools (they fail in the process of harvesting/breaking down the wood).

* Karolina builds the raft Carpenter 2 vs Ob2.  The Test fails.  The wood Taika gathered was difficult to work with, the rope weaving was tedious, and the weather was miserable.  The raft gets built but she ends up with the Angry (can't use Wises or Beneficial Traits) from the affair. She marks a failure for Carpenter for Advancement.

* The unnaturally angry sea catches the attention of Allie the Sorcerer.  Allie has the following ability:



> *Otherworldly Senses*: Once per phase, you may attempt to detect the presence of spirits or events with emotional resonance that caused (or will cause) Otherworldly turbulence. To detect spirits seeking to remain hidden from you, test Will against an obstacle equal to 8 minus the spirit’s Might. You don’t need to test to detect spirits that are not hiding themselves. To sense other Otherworldly effects, test your Will with the following factors:




The angry elemental spirits of the sea are not trying to hide themselves so no test is required.  Ever since the cataclysm and the great rock fell from the cliff face (creating a tsunami), these waters have been filled with fury and hungry for ever more destruction.  Getting to the island will be no neat trick.

* The group decides that their next Turn will Test Alie's Summoner 4 to ward the raft on its perilous journey across the waters vs the Nature 5 (Devouring, Breaking, Pursuing) of the fjord's elemental water spirits bent on destroying the raft and claiming its occupants in its depths. Karolina uses another of Allie's torches to light the way (1/2 Turns remaining on this Torch).

Allie Summoner 4d

1d Supplies (Salt and Candles - frees up 1 Belt Slot)
1d Help Taika Loremaster (the elf has experience aplenty with the primal spirits of the world)
+5d Channeling Within Nature (spends their Persona Point for Demanding - this test is effectively a rebuke against the sea's advances on the small raft)

11d vs Nature 6 succeeds (with margin of success 2 which will downthrottle any future test against these waters or the elemental spirits of these waters by that amount).  Allie marks a success for Summoner Advancement.  If this would have failed, it would have been a Flee Conflict.

They've landed their craft safely on the island.  The Grind is now at 2/4 and their present Torch has 1 Turn left.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 9, 2022)

Quick thoughts on the oceanic voyage:

* As a Journey phase (eg the Adventure phase is elsewhere), you’re not dealing with a Camp phase or The Grind. Recovery isn’t possible but Conditions aren’t accruing. Here you’re just worried about (a) # of Legs,  (b) types of Tests, and (c) types of Twists to inflict alongside the Conditions you’re afflicting them with.

* As an actual Adventure Phase, you’re treating it like typical Adventure phase with (a) # of Obstacles, (b) relative Might/Precedence of Obstacles, (c) types of Twists to inflict alongside the Conditions you’re afflicting them with, (d) consequential decision-points around navigation (just like a keyed map), (e) Goals/Theme of the Adventure, (f) what Camp Phase looks like (is it @AbdulAlhazred ’s great idea or is it planned festivities/meals to stave off mutiny and what does the survey/danger/camp amenities factors look like there?), (g) Inventory pressure points that replace light.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 9, 2022)

Yeah, I think that depending on the extent to which you wanted the voyage itself to be an 'event' in the game you could cycle from Journey phase into adventuring phase and back again at need. If seafaring is just transport for you game them you only need the journey bit, but if you want seafaring adventure, you cycle in some adventuring phases. The second would (might?) necessitate camp phases on ship, or some version of it. I'd probably design those two at the same time.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 9, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Yeah, I think that depending on the extent to which you wanted the voyage itself to be an 'event' in the game you could cycle from Journey phase into adventuring phase and back again at need. If seafaring is just transport for you game them you only need the journey bit, but if you want seafaring adventure, you cycle in some adventuring phases. The second would (might?) necessitate camp phases on ship, or some version of it. I'd probably design those two at the same time.




What do you have in mind for Inventory Loadout necessity and attendant Gear Twist pressure points if light isn’t a deal?

That becomes the biggest obstacle to resolve if making seafaring voyage Adventure Phase rather than Journey.

Certainly not insurmountable by any means, but that requires the most care/consideration.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 9, 2022)

Food and water maybe? Probably water as that's something you can't replenish while at sea assuming it's salt water you're sailing on.

Alternatively, you could just call it 'supplies' and have it cover eating, repairs, and whatever, and so connect it to the ship and entire crew rather than the individual PCs. You could pressure that with time related twists (becalmed) or food and water related twists (food spoilage) or recovery twists (healing) or even morale (that party you mentioned to improve morale. So in that picture some combination of twists and conditions pressures your supply, but the narrative details are left open to the GM (or could be linked to a Seaborne encounter table). You could also possibly allow certain sorts of skills checks like navigate, pilot, fisherman or whatever, to replace used supply in some fashion in the Ship version of the camp phase.

Edit - so size of ship (i.e. carrying capacity), which indexes cost to hire/run, could be a limiting factor on length of proposed voyage.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 9, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Food and water maybe? Probably water as that's something you can't replenish while at sea assuming it's salt water you're sailing on.
> 
> Alternatively, you could just call it 'supplies' and have it cover eating, repairs, and whatever, and so connect it to the ship and entire crew rather than the individual PCs. You could pressure that with time related twists (becalmed) or food and water related twists (food spoilage) or recovery twists (healing) or even morale (that party you mentioned to improve morale. So in that picture some combination of twists and conditions pressures your supply, but the narrative details are left open to the GM (or could be linked to a Seaborne encounter table). You could also possibly allow certain sorts of skills checks like navigate, pilot, fisherman or whatever, to replace used supply in some fashion in the Ship version of the camp phase.
> 
> Edit - so size of ship (i.e. carrying capacity), which indexes cost to hire/run, could be a limiting factor on length of proposed voyage.



Yeah, I would think that supplies, and maybe the condition of the ship, would be key factors. I mean, just going by the classic Columbus narrative, the food runs low, equipment breaks, crew morale frazzles in the face of the unknown, etc. Plenty of scope for a quartermaster, navigator, sailor, and leadership if dealing with a crew (which any larger long-range vessel is likely to have). 

So, basically if we are talking about a 'sail into the unknown' kind of scenario, I'd think of it as one or two journey legs, followed by some sort of crisis that is treated like an encounter, perhaps? So, the PCs may have their equipment (ship) and supplies (food and water) attritioned, etc. And then they run into Cherybdis, or a Kraken, or some sort of hostile shoreline, etc. I could think of quite a few such things, ghost ships, sargasso, island, maybe even 'just' a storm.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 12, 2022)

Should be finishing up the rest of the Adventure Phase with this group tonight (which has a very outside chance of also producing a Camp phase...doubtful as this is a small Adventure, but we'll see).

I'll get a post up detailing that in the next bit of time.  But I wanted to do a compare/contrast of the way I handle TB2 Journeys (which is basically a mash-up of TB1 Journeys + some of the Toll mechanics in TB2) and the orthodox Toll procedure for TB2 Journeys.  

*GAME JOURNEY TOLL AND GAIN

Toll*


Karolina loses Fresh Condition.
Karolina gains Afraid Condition.
Allie spent 1/session use Against Yourself of Colossal Pride Trait
Karolina spent their Persona Point
Karolina spent 1/session use Against Yourself of Defender Trait
Karolina spent their Cartographer Supplies
All of Allie's Preserved Rations spent

*Gain*


Allie earned Check * 1
All 3 PCs mark 1 * Success in Persuader toward Skill Advancement
Karolina marks 1 * Success in Pathfinder toward Skill Advancement
Karolina marks 1 * Beginner's Luck to earn Skill in Dungeoneer
Karolina marks 1 * Success in Cartographer toward Skill Advancement
Karolina Pouch 2 now free
Allie Belt Slot now Free
Map from site 4 to site 8 complete (Fast Travel in future Journeys)
Multiple * Express Belief



*IF ACTUAL TB2 TOLL PROCEDURE USE*

* There is no Toll for travelling from the settlements of site 2 to site 4.  The off-road would effectively be 1 Leg as there is only a singular mode of travel (its governed by modes of travel rather than days).  I'm going to use the Leg 

*Toll*

Road:  Delayed. Bad roads, impassable terrain or churlish seas; +1 Toll
Weather:  Blustery Winds and Rain; +2 Toll
Terrain:  Fields, grasslands, open terrain or coastal sailing: +1 Toll
Karolina Shield; +1 Toll
Karolina Cartographer Role; +1 Toll
Taika Guide Role (if Lost - which is +2 Toll all - had come up on the Road result, Taika could Test Ob3 + weather factors to resolve); +1 Toll
There are other Roles, but nothing applies for the Journey + Allie's capabilities.

After this, we would have something akin to the Pathfinder Test outlined in Leg 2 upthread.  The Toll and Gain would be as outlined in that post.  

Then Karolina's Cartographer Test would follow suit (outlined in the Leg 3 post upthread).

Each character's Toll can be paid via 1 Food, 1d Coin (f you have it), varying Gear configurations and other means.  If any Toll is left unpaid, the Adventurer earns a Condition.



Hopefully, this post demonstrates the procedural contrast, the cognitive workspace contrast, and the net cost/gain for each mode of play.  In essence:

* My way yields much more net Gain (in the way of Advancement and prospects for Checks and "thematic flex space" for next session Persona/Fate) with a bit more net Toll (though some variance there depending upon Road/Terrain/Weather and map route complexity), and more intensive decision-points (in terms of total #, stakes per, breadth of, and gamestate/character implications).  It will also be much more intensive in terms of table time spent on it.  Its effectively normal Adventuring phase play without (a) The Grind and (b) persistent Light requirement/resource expenditure.

* The orthodox TB2 still has very interesting decision-points, which lies in the managing of route, managing Roles (you have to have a Guide for overland and Navigator for sea, but the others are optional to mitigate certain Road/Terrain/Weather Results via Tests and assumed cost of Toll by the singular PC assuming the Role), and then managing your personal/intraparty Toll once it is tallied.  And, again, you'll have a Test (typically 1, but sometimes more) that works per the normal rules.


Really, if you want your Journeys to be more granular and more impactful on play and want to spend more table time on them...use my rules.  If you want the inverse (though, again, they're still fun with a few interesting decision-points), use the TB2 Toll rules.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 13, 2022)

Sooooo, even assuming the PCs don't NEED to camp, it would seem like, generally, doing so is CHEAPER than going into town, and could still result in the loss of at least certain common conditions, etc. I'd think if you are hard up, camp first! I guess it depends on how hazardous the camping is...


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 13, 2022)

So the Town phase is governed by a lot of various things (eg Circles is key here), but recovery there involves a Resource test against Lifestyle Cost after you've tallied up all your costs.  The Town phase is not just where you recover/take respite (which costs more), but also where you hire cohorts, trade/spend loot, craft/forge/repair kit, scribe scrolls, practice alchemy/spells, cook for pay, locate a specific person for parley et al, cash out gems/valuables et al, make offerings, join temples/guilds, research, conduct personal business, see parents/friends/mentor/contacts, and get adventures.  Tests in Town will mostly involve Town Twists (which can lead to Conflicts), but will also result in Conditions, or a PC's Enemy appearing (and causing trouble).

The Camp phase is governed very differently:

* What is the status of everyone's Conditions/Gear/Inventory capability?

* Its powered by Checks.  The group has to get at least one Check to enter Camp phase (you get Checks by using Traits against yourself).  It is also powered by Instincts (which allow you to make the test inherent to your Instinct without spending a Check).  You can do more than just recover here (eg you can forge/repair kit, forage, etc).

* Its dangerous and there are layered decision-points and assessments that go into _when _you camp, _where and_ _what about_ (is it a cold camp without a fire, is it ancient ruins or wilderness, what is the danger level, are we/who is keeping watch to avert disaster, do we have any amenities available and should we look for some or another spot) your camp, or even _if _you camp.  And if you camp, you need to decide if you want/can spend a Turn (against the Grind) in the Adventuring phase with a Survivalist test to find a good campsite).

Ultimately, you want enough amenities and buffs to the Camp Events roll table that trouble



In other news...a very interesting...and calamitous resolution to Adventure 1 that should give folks a good idea just how pear-shaped things can go early on in the land of Torchbearer!

I'll get a (much more abstracted as there was a fair amount of content) update at some point here in the future.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> maybe I should check out TB.



I'm still catching up on this thread. But I would say that you should check it out.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> That looks really solid, I like it a lot.



I'm still working through a proper understanding/internalisation of the official journey rules (in the LoreMaster's Manual). These are a bit different from @Manbearcat's house rule, but not wildly different. I think the subtle differences wouldn't be obvious to someone not reasonably familiar with the system.

Anyway, some in this thread might have read me posting the complaint that one of the weakest parts of Classic Traveller - which I like a _lot_ - is that it's rules for world exploration are weak, and basically degenerate to GM fiat. The Torchbearer rules, by way of contrast, look strong to me: clear stakes, clear rules for setting obstacles, meaningful resource management. 

I've resolved journeys in Burning Wheel test Orienteering to lead your group safely across the Bright Desert, and everyone tests Forte to avoid tax). Unsurprisingly, the Torchbearer approach is more gritty! But tightly integrated. Reading and re-reading helps to drive home that the whole system - the different phases, journey and adventures, the rules for settlements (including lifestyle, but also settlement economics and how PCs' base camps can grow into settlements) - is tightly integrated.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> The convergence of conflict-laden mythology and highly functional tropes for actual play is THE important component of setting design.



An advantage of PDFs is you can easily search for key words (Immortals, Lord, Lady and similar) and compile a catalogue of the religious figures that are found in the books. In that respect the approach - from the design point of view - is a bit like 4e D&D.

Anyway, I like the grouping of the various Immortals into the six groups of Lords - Life and Death, Law and Chaos, Plenty and Want, Valour and Terror, Light and Darkness, and Fate.  That covers a lot of terrain, can encompass as good range of more detailed beings/demigods, supports more "monotheistic" approaches (I support Life and oppose Death) as well as more 4e-ish Invoker approaches of serving a variety or a balance of gods.

I also like the Shrine offerings tables in the Scholar's Guide!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Anyone have thoughts on all of that?



I don't think it contradicts what I posted. (Including that the word "scum" is possibly a bit laden!)



AbdulAlhazred said:


> My point being, as depicted by the RULES, I would expect an Adventurer to be banished from polite society, perhaps barely tolerated as a suspicious but not actively criminal person, etc. As long as you don't smell too bad, stay out of the way of anyone with any real status, and pay with cash you're OK.



The LoreMaster's Manual has some discussion of this which is basically the same as what you say here (pp 1808, 182)

Players often come to Torchbearer with the idea that town is a playground for their characters. They assume they can talk to whomever they want in whatever tone they please. They see the amenities of town as theirs for the taking. They feel that the townsfolk should be grateful for their mere presence.

To set the record straight, town doesn’t like adventurers at _all_. Adventurers are dirty. They don’t have jobs. They talk funny. They’re armed. And usually, they’re not from around here.

Town would appreciate it if you did your business, paid your bills and were gone as soon as possible. . . .

If the adventurers attempt to befriend, associate with or ask favors of the regular people in town, those poor souls smile tightly, answer any questions monosyllabically and quickly disengage. . . .

If you get the sense that the folks in town only tolerate you for your coin and otherwise are a bit hostile, you’re onto something. If you feel dread about heading to town and you’re eager to leave as soon as you get within those walls, then you have the right idea.

Town is designed to feel bad to adventurers. It’s expensive and there are a lot of petty rules. Even in their hometown, adventurers are outsiders. They don’t fit in.

Best to do your business and get back into the wilderness as quickly as possible.​
This reminds me of REH's Conan. It's a feel that some D&D play goes for, but I think Torchbearer has a more robust set of mechanics to back it up.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> My point was that you might _want_ something more epic and that the rules can accommodate that pretty easily at need.



I think the journey rules are a good starting point.

Eg roll for Trouble on the Road, you get Waylaid. The lookout (Scout) tests to circumvent it, and fails, so a twist is in order - now there's a conflict with pirates! Either a drive off, a flee (whose boat is faster?) or even a kill if you're feeling saltier than them.

And all the minutiae of gear and resources is handled via the Steward and Purser roles and the rules for paying down toll. To me it looks pretty workable.



Manbearcat said:


> Hopefully, this post demonstrates the procedural contrast, the cognitive workspace contrast, and the net cost/gain for each mode of play.  In essence:
> 
> * My way yields much more net Gain (in the way of Advancement and prospects for Checks and "thematic flex space" for next session Persona/Fate) with a bit more net Toll (though some variance there depending upon Road/Terrain/Weather and map route complexity)



I think you can earn checks on a journey in the official rules. Given the official rules include tests made while travelling into the Grind, it seems to be that it's best conceived as an element of the Adventure Phase but governed via a distinct process (toll, roles) in exchange for not having to actually make gritty bit-by-bit decisions about where you go, what rock you look under, etc. In other words it's exactly what Classic Traveller is missing!

If the adventure itself demanded making those gritty decisions then you wouldn't use the journey rules. And there would be more checks and hence more Grind and hence food, gear etc would be used up in the standard Adventure Phase fashion.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sooooo, even assuming the PCs don't NEED to camp, it would seem like, generally, doing so is CHEAPER than going into town, and could still result in the loss of at least certain common conditions, etc. I'd think if you are hard up, camp first! I guess it depends on how hazardous the camping is...



Also, you need checks!

So you have to do something to earn them. That's part of why I think journeying _needs_ to allow earning checks. That's one way to go from travel to camp before entering the dungeon.



Manbearcat said:


> So the Town phase is governed by a lot of various things (eg Circles is key here), but recovery there involves a Resource test against Lifestyle Cost after you've tallied up all your costs.  The Town phase is not just where you recover/take respite (which costs more), but also where you hire cohorts, trade/spend loot, craft/forge/repair kit, scribe scrolls, practice alchemy/spells, cook for pay, locate a specific person for parley et al, cash out gems/valuables et al, make offerings, join temples/guilds, research, conduct personal business, see parents/friends/mentor/contacts, and get adventures.  Tests in Town will mostly involve Town Twists (which can lead to Conflicts), but will also result in Conditions, or a PC's Enemy appearing (and causing trouble).



The journey rules in the LMM have various examples interpolated (in a different font).

Now they're not all accurate - one of them seems to contradict the rules for the Cook role (by suggesting that the Cook paid down weather-related toll) and when I posted a question about it on the official forums got a reply from Luke Crane that opened with an "ugh" (which I hope was directed at the example, rather than me) and then said the reference in the example to the weather was just colour.

That said, here's another one of them (p 138):

A road that leads to a river that leads to a port where the adventurers book passage to an island - that’s three legs.​
Now in the rules as presented, the only way to book passage is during the town phase, as a type of "downtime" activity at the Docks (LMM p 187):

*Book Passage*
*Adventurers looking to travel by sea or river may begin their journey at the docks. See The Road Goes Ever On chapter for the travel rules.

*Some captains will take on another set of hands at the oars for no additional fee. However, the game master may impose a fee on erstwhile travellers for a berth on a ship. Add the fee to your lifestyle cost when leaving this town phase.

Book Passage Lifestyle Cost: short journey +1, moderate length journey +2, long journey (to another continent, for example) +3​
So taking this all literally, what we have in the example is a two-leg journey (road to river; river to port), then a town phase where the PCs' accommodation is the streets and their only activity is booking passage, which adds to their lifestyle cost (probably +2 for a moderate length journey to the island), then the journey to the island.

To me, this seems like an example of the system being highly structured but very flexible. Town phase can be an extended downtime affair, but doesn't have to be. Similar illustrations of flexibility (at least it seems to me) are found in the discussion of town adventures (LMM p 183) which build on the idea of camps that are squats in town (Scholar's Guide, pp 91, 274-76).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2022)

I made an actual play post here.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 15, 2022)

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.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 15, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




This is a keen observation. 

GMing Torchbearer is very similar to GMing Dungeon World in precisely the way you've mentioned.  When you're resolving failure, looking at Condition + Success as a harder (soft/hard move continuum) version of the 7-9 result is extremely apt (its like getting a success but earning a Debility).  Looking at Twists as a softer version of the 7-9 result is also apt (though some Twists might be harder, or much harder, than others).  Winning a Conflict but enduring either a minor or half compromise is akin to a 7-9 result. 

Looking at success in tests as a 10+ result is apt.  Winning a Conflict but enduring no compromise is akin to a 10+ result.

Losing a test is akin to a 6- result in that it feeds into Advancement whereas losing a Conflict (though here, there is relatively extreme nuance in both procedures and outputs I'd say) is akin to 6- because of the fallout.

The treatment of Journeys and Cohorts shares a lot of overlap in the two games.

The main differences would be (a) the intensity of the focus of Gear/Inventory (its absolutely present in DW, though its not nearly as potent as in TB) on play, (b) the impact of The Grind in TB, (c) the potency of the demands of Light in TB (those are certainly present in DW though neither as prolific nor as impactful), (d) how prolific and impactful Help is in TB (this is much more akin to Blades).  Then, of course, you have (e) the nature of spontaneous map generation in DW vs the hexcrawling nature of an established map in TB.  You have (f) the heavily structured play loop and intense procedures of TB vs the structured free form of DW.  Finally, (g) DW is a big damn hero, Action Adventure game vs the very grim, Points of Light struggle against a world positioned to (and in part delights in) make your life a struggle.  DW PCs are extremely potent when compared to TB PCs (though, like Blades, there is a crestable hill in TB where PCs become much more potent and robust than their earlier selves).

On dramatic concerns, there are similarities (which is natural given how much DW was inspired by BW).  In both games you have very clear and espoused session goals and ethos/nature statements that are thematic.  These both serve as inputs to content generation (framing, twist generation) and facilitate resource generation and character growth/change/advancement.  Relationships matter and content should be generated around these things (Bonds and then emergent Fronts/Dooms in DW and Circles, enemy, mentor, parents, friends et al in TB) which test their nature, put them in the crosshairs, (creating related Fronts/Dooms in DW and generating Adventures to pursue or Conflicts in TB).

Then there are things with similarities but also differences (Lore Master + Wises share some overlap with Spout Lore and the like, but there are also some key differences).

Depending upon your vantage at any given moment, you can come away with "wow, these games are quite kindred" and then the next moment "these games are rather far afield from each other."  Its a lot of little things that add up and synergize to make both the GMing experience and the play experience of Dungeon World and Torchbearer rather distinct from each other. 

I would say the contrast between the two is extremely instructive when considering the general claim of "well 5e D&D can do that" or "5e D&D is basically that."  5e D&D cannot produce anything approximating either the zoomed out or zoomed in visceral experience of those games.  And neither of those games can do each other.  Nor can they do 5e D&D.

Its almost like system matters or something!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 15, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Depending upon your vantage at any given moment, you can come away with "wow, these games are quite kindred" and then the next moment "these games are rather far afield from each other."



The first one might reflect a vantage point of 2nd ed AD&D. The second would be getting down into the nitty gritty of actually thinking about playing or running either Dungeon World or Torchbearer.



Manbearcat said:


> I would say the contrast between the two is extremely instructive when considering the general claim of "well 5e D&D can do that" or "5e D&D is basically that."  5e D&D cannot produce anything approximating either the zoomed out or zoomed in visceral experience of those games.  And neither of those games can do each other.  Nor can they do 5e D&D.



The idea that you might do Torchbearer or DW with 5e D&D is just ludicrous.

Given this is a Torchbearer thread I'll only elaborate on it. And only in one respect - where is the help rule in 5e D&D? Or the rule that every test (outside of a conflict, and recognising that Town and Camp Phase have their own logic) costs a turn? 5e D&D is a completely different game, once the superficial resemblances of trope are looked past.


----------



## darkbard (Feb 15, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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.*



I'm interested if, as a result of this insight, your thinking on skilled play in PbtA games has shifted at all from your disagreement with @Manbearcat on the possibility of skilled play in DW some months ago.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 15, 2022)

darkbard said:


> I'm interested if, as a result of this insight, your thinking on skilled play in PbtA games has shifted at all from your disagreement with @Manbearcat on the possibility of skilled play in DW some months ago.



As you probably know, my DW experience is modest. (So is my Torchbearer, but I've worked harder at both the theory and practice of the latter!)

But the following seems right to me:



Manbearcat said:


> The main differences would be (a) the intensity of the focus of Gear/Inventory (its absolutely present in DW, though its not nearly as potent as in TB) on play, (b) the impact of The Grind in TB, (c) the potency of the demands of Light in TB (those are certainly present in DW though neither as prolific nor as impactful), (d) how prolific and impactful Help is in TB (this is much more akin to Blades).  Then, of course, you have (e) the nature of spontaneous map generation in DW vs the hexcrawling nature of an established map in TB.  You have (f) the heavily structured play loop and intense procedures of TB vs the structured free form of DW.  Finally, (g) DW is a big damn hero, Action Adventure game vs the very grim, Points of Light struggle against a world positioned to (and in part delights in) make your life a struggle.



Some of that is colour and overarching thematics.

But not all of it.

My feeling about PbtA is that the soft/hard progression should be closer to the "pass/fail cycle" in HeroQuest revised. That feeling is reinforced by the fact that DW doesn't really emphasise changing the odds of checks - I know there is Discern Realities to take +1 forward, and Defy Danger can be stat-based to reflect narration, but the 6-. 7-9, 10+ structure is pretty ubiquitous.

Whereas Torchbearer seems to suggest a greater expectation of hard moves without a soft-move precursor, and absolutely emphasises changing the odds of checks (by using Help, Wises, spending Fate and Persona, using Gear and Supplies, etc). In the journey context, having a lookout/scout generates a cost (in Toll, which then has to be paid down by rations, other gear, coin or conditions) that is like a downpayment to avoid a certain sort of hard move.

To echo Manbearcat a bit, though: maybe DW comes closest to Torchbearer in its Perilous Journey rules? I've never played them, and have read them but not really tried to internalise them. Even there, I feel maybe the soft/hard progression provides the ovearching logic? Replies from the more experienced are welcome!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 15, 2022)

Torchbearer feels a little more to me like FitD (especially in terms of the above) than it does PbtA, although the comparison to DW is indeed apt in many ways.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 15, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Torchbearer feels a little more to me like FitD (especially in terms of the above) than it does PbtA, although the comparison to DW is indeed apt in many ways.



Hmmm, I think 'operational' level stuff, and the mechanisms of stress are a bit different. OTOH yeah, a  TB2 adventure COULD almost be a BitD heist. The handling of checks is definitely different in detail, but the idea isn't too different. TB2 players don't get quite the same 'knobs', instead the knobs are more about using various features of the system that relate to your character, vs negotiating the parameters of a check itself.

You could probably make something pretty similar to TB2 with FitD though. Resources would definitely be approached somewhat differently though!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 15, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Hmmm, I think 'operational' level stuff, and the mechanisms of stress are a bit different. OTOH yeah, a  TB2 adventure COULD almost be a BitD heist. The handling of checks is definitely different in detail, but the idea isn't too different. TB2 players don't get quite the same 'knobs', instead the knobs are more about using various features of the system that relate to your character, vs negotiating the parameters of a check itself.
> 
> You could probably make something pretty similar to TB2 with FitD though. Resources would definitely be approached somewhat differently though!



Yeah, I wasn't trying to say they were all _that_ similar really, but FitD has more "changing odds with help and whatnot" as well as position vs effect (as opposed to PbtA), which I think brings it closer to TBs help and twists/conditions mechanics. At least in how it feels if not specifically how the mechanics work.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 15, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Yeah, I wasn't trying to say they were all _that_ similar really, but FitD has more "changing odds with help and whatnot" as well as position vs effect (as opposed to PbtA), which I think brings it closer to TBs help and twists/conditions mechanics. At least in how it feels if not specifically how the mechanics work.



Right, TB2 certainly has nothing quite like position and effect, but you do have a lot of potential ways to approach a test (somewhat varies depending on how the test came about and what resources you have already used up). My impression is that FitD's approach overall is a bit simpler.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 15, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, TB2 certainly has nothing quite like position and effect, but you do have a lot of potential ways to approach a test (somewhat varies depending on how the test came about and what resources you have already used up). My impression is that FitD's approach overall is a bit simpler.



Yes and no. My personal experience (mine and that of others) is that GMing position and effect is a really steep learning curve. Adjudicating outcomes between the two is probably about similar IMO. For the players though, sure, probably simpler (although gaming P-E also takes some getting used to).


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 16, 2022)

I have my first session of TB2E tonight, so I should be bale to join in a little more fully here.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 16, 2022)

*ON SKILLED PLAY, TORCHBEARER, BLADES IN THE DARK, AND DUNGEON WORLD*

Alright, some thoughts on each of these.  First, I'm going to rate each of them on a 1-10 in terms of Skilled Play and then I'm going to discuss the nature and magnitude (in terms of impact upon play's trajectory) of each of these ratings.

*Torchbearer - 10*

Quite simply, it is the most demanding game (in terms of Skilled Play) that I've ever GMed.  I can't imagine a game being more demanding than this.

Players must manage a huge suite of cognitive overhead including:

* building characters as not only expressions of thematic archetype but also with a deft eye upon synergistic Skill breadth and then the downstream deft deployment of Help on tests, for disposition in varying Conflicts, and for Conflict actions

* all the various facets of the Inventory system (loading out proficiently and efficiently, managing the decisions about when to deploy each item, making room efficiently to bring treasure back, making decisions about what to bring back)

* Cohort/Help management in Journey, Camp, and Adventure phases

* deftly using your Persona and Fate points

* managing your Traits effectively each session in order to both (a) power up your dice pools and (b) having them work against you in order to earn Checks to power Camp tests

* leveraging your Nature and Wises effectively (and this, like everything else, is multivariate)

* managing the map/route well, Roles, and each Leg of the Journey phase's various decision-points effectively to reduce their impact on your resources/capability in the coming Adventure phase

* being efficient and effective in the Adventuring phase in terms of both Turn and Light management (thereby reducing the impact of The Grind upon play, the attrition of precious resources overall, and staving off the debilitating effects of Condition accrual and Darkness)

* being effective in Obstacle management in the Adventure phase (this includes carefully navigating decision-points to identify what you want to engage with and what you want to avoid - this includes many different parameters from spatial to temporal to short/longterm resources to relative potency to cost/benefit, marshalling the dizzying array of resources the group can call upon to optimize dice pools to best handle tests and vs)

* effectively deciding on Conflict types, Conflict Captains, and teasing out the likely action script of the enemy and deploying your own action script deftly in response (to achieve win con and reduce disposition loss when you get there)

* when to use Beginner's Luck to work toward Skill Acquisition

* managing the abundant decision-space around Camp phase (spend a Turn in Adventure phase to find a good spot w/ amenities or take what you can get, Light or Dark camp, Setting Watch and whom, managing Checks across the collective to recover and loadout/repair kit, averting calamity decisions if it hits)

* managing the abundant decision-space around Town (assessing the group's conditions and equipment status + sorting out loot, sorting out accommodations, effectively "market-ing", leveraging your array of social resources to best effect when recovering and conducting personal business and engaging with the available Town facilities and workshops, triangulating on your next Adventure, managing Twist trouble when it invariably strikes, acquiring Cohorts/Help or managing them)

* managing the significant array of thematic triggers for Fate and Persona; setting a Goal and working toward it, acting on your Belief, allies benefiting from your Instinct, injecting a grim moment of Gallows Humor, struggling with your Belief and acting against it, accomplishing your Goal, a costly moment where they either stand up for their Creed or struggle with it, the player with the play of the session (MVP), the player who sacrificed their well being or goals for their mates or worked hardest to keep the group together (Teamworker).

*Blades in the Dark - 8.75*

Next to Torchbearer, it is the most demanding game that I've ever GMed.

*Dungeon World - 6.75 *

Well north of average in terms of the demands of Skilled Play, but well below the above two games.




Good lord.  That took me a good while just to do Torchbearer.  Torchbearer is pretty staggering in terms of the intricacy and totality of tactical, strategic, and thematic agency, overhead, and demandingness.  The total number of variables to weigh and manage under a lot of duress is extreme.  Blades is up there in terms of total number of variables and duress, but its a step back in each of those.  HOWEVER, fictional positioning management in both Blades and Dungeon World is extreme (an area where both games edge out Torchbearer...Torchbearer's fictional positioning management is significant, but its certainly below both of those two games by a fair margin and a lot of that rests upon the significant capability of Blades and DW PCs).

I'm out of time.  I'll come back and update this tomorrow with the other two games.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 21, 2022)

So, how important is the Cartographer skill in terms of making sure _someone_ in the party has it?


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 22, 2022)

I haven't forgotten about this thread (or the other one where I need to excerpt the play session that resolved Adventure 1), I just haven't had the time + inclination to get back in here and fully post.



Fenris-77 said:


> So, how important is the Cartographer skill in terms of making sure _someone_ in the party has it?




Personally, I would say quite important.  As long as you have the map on you (that you've attained via Cartographer test), you're able to effectively establish "Fast Travel" (to use CRPG parlance) entire Legs of Journeys.  Not having to make that Pathfinder or Sailor Test due to that mapped Leg (or Legs) means one (or more) less chance for a Condition or Twist along the way.

This is extremely valuable in a game where (a) Journeys are ubiquitous and (b) each Condition or Twist endured has significant downstream effect.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Feb 23, 2022)

I've recently purchased Burning Wheel and am still only halfway through the books. I've been curious about Torchbearer, but what exactly it is still hasn't fully jelled in my mind.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 24, 2022)

TheAlkaizer said:


> I've recently purchased Burning Wheel and am still only halfway through the books. I've been curious about Torchbearer, but what exactly it is still hasn't fully jelled in my mind.




_TB2 Scholar's Guide pg 4 and 5_



> *The Light Dims *
> Here is a grim land. Summers are short. Winters are long. The towns are overcrowded. Food is expensive. Guilds control trade. Nobles
> control taxes. Priests pray for our damned souls.
> 
> ...






If you have any specific, focused questions, ask them and I'll answer them (the above and the below is a lot of the "why and what"...if you have questions of "how", I'll gladly answer those).  Here are a few of my own thoughts:

If you took Mouse Guard (if you're familiar with it) and made it brutal, much more emotionally demanding and taxing, throttled up Skilled Play to 11, oriented the PCs less toward heroes initially and more toward desperate souls in a world that has and will continue to lay them low and trample them under foot if they do not act (and very likely will even if they do act).

Fight for what you believe, fight for a single good night's sleep and a warm meal, fight for a moment's reprieve, fight for your destiny, fight for your friends and parents and mentor, fight for your hometown, fight for your creed, fight to determine your true nature in spite of all this horror and desperation around you.

Just...fight...

Wake up...and do it again...if you're lucky (or perhaps not).


----------



## clearstream (Feb 24, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The first one might reflect a vantage point of 2nd ed AD&D. The second would be getting down into the nitty gritty of actually thinking about playing or running either Dungeon World or Torchbearer.
> 
> The idea that you might do Torchbearer or DW with 5e D&D is just ludicrous.
> 
> Given this is a Torchbearer thread I'll only elaborate on it. And only in one respect - where is the help rule in 5e D&D? Or the rule that every test (outside of a conflict, and recognising that Town and Camp Phase have their own logic) costs a turn? 5e D&D is a completely different game, once the superficial resemblances of trope are looked past.



I don't want to derail the main purpose of this interesting thread. We've found 5e and DW possible to run in similar (but not _identical_, that's not the claim) ways, both by erroneously running DW as a traditional game (answering the question, can you run DW at all like 5e?) and by applying agenda and principles to run 5e as a fiction-first game (answering the question, can you run 5e at all like DW?) We have different grasps of some fundamental concepts, such as including effectiveness in our construct for fictional-positioning, and rejecting any hard separation of fiction and system. One timeline, not two. I don't think we should get into those here, but I mention them in order to point out committments that can lead to differing judgements.

Torchbearer 2e is impossible to run like 5e, and vice versa. At the very least, the grind separates it out. We've found so far that the price of a turn for each test, and the gearing that translates tests and turns into conditions, creates a mechanical vise. Additionally, 5e has nothing approaching the story-now mechanics of Torchbearer 2e. In particular, we've found instinct to be a crucial lever that there is no way to emulate in 5e, because the cost it obviates doesn't exist. I've found writing instincts that will be effective in play, _without reaching_, is a clutch skill. Speaking of skills, understanding the help and gear web, and ensuring characters are properly set up to work together, makes a huge difference. 5e TIBFs cannot approach the story-mechanics relationships that are defined with precision in the TB2e game text. And that's without going into conflict and disposition!

TB2e is a tour-de-force of game design, as is DW, but they are very different games. TB2e has highly detailed, precise mechanics that are meshed together to deliver what feels like very strongly story-now play. In urging players to huddle, and many hints at thinking mechanically, I felt TB2e doesn't sign up to fiction-first as strongly as DW does. TB2e is not about winning in a traditional sense (although you're certainly intended to strive for it). To my understanding the intended narratives use that only as a kind of magnetic pole. To me, it's the dramatic character development that counts most in TB2e. Given the brutally hard game-world, it's the only goal you can rely on satisfying! Perhaps the mechanic for gaining checks in particular speaks to that.

I wonder if it comes down to the way each game reifies its intent? I felt that TB2e reifies its intent in its _mechanics_. Whereas DW reifies its intent in its _principles_. The DW mechanics ensure a certain basic pattern is followed, but you can follow that pattern in different ways (i.e. play DW the way many play 5e). TB2e has numerous bespoke and yet tightly interwoven mechanics, such as those for each phase, and for each element in each phase: it's an absolute _machine_. Impossible to play TB2e as 5e (and vise versa.)


----------



## clearstream (Feb 24, 2022)

TheAlkaizer said:


> I've recently purchased Burning Wheel and am still only halfway through the books. I've been curious about Torchbearer, but what exactly it is still hasn't fully jelled in my mind.



For me, Torchbearer 2e has been far easier to get into and play than Burning Wheel. That might be because I feel more motivated to do so, because TB2e's play is so distinctive. Everything makes sense in an interwoven whole.


----------



## BrokenTwin (Feb 24, 2022)

I've got Burning Wheel and Mouseguard 2E on my bookshelf, but haven't been able to find a group willing to try either of them. I'd love to pick up Torchbearer as well, to see if a more traditional dungeon oriented game might draw my players in.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2022)

TheAlkaizer said:


> I've recently purchased Burning Wheel and am still only halfway through the books. I've been curious about Torchbearer, but what exactly it is still hasn't fully jelled in my mind.



Burning Wheel is probably, on balance, my favourite RPG. I find it amazingly intense.

Here's my take on some of the differences between BW and Torchbearer:


pemerton said:


> 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.



A related point: it's possible to play BW with skill - both dramatic skill (leaning into Beliefs, Relationships etc) and mechanical skill (trying for tests, and adjusting dice pools, to optimise advancement) - but BW doesn't demand _skilled play_ in the classic sense. Speaking from my own experience as a player, if you inhabit your PC and play Beliefs etc without too much regard to how you're doing in terms of tests, advancement, gear,etc, the game will keep going. Your PC will be put through the ringer, but the approach to framing and consequence narration will keep things moving.

Torchbearer, on the other hand, is brutal! It absolutely demands skilled play - managing inventory, conditions vs progress through the adventure phase, collecting checks for camp phase, etc. I think if you lose your grip on any of those aspects, the whole thing will collapse around you!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2022)

I made some more actual play posts here.

In my group's session today, with multiple players who are experienced RPGers, we saw the bite of the inventory system - food, light, supplies. And the importance of help/aid. And also the beginner's luck quirk: everyone can pile in and help with beginner's luck, whereas helping a skill test requires some appropriate skill, wise or Nature.

I'm still not sure how the colour and the gameplay fit together. My impression is quite different from @clearstream's: I don't see it as a story now vehicle, because of the overwhelming demand it imposes for skilled play. And killing four bandits for a helmet, two candles and an indecipherable note (as happened in our session today) has a hint of Vance but otherwise is too close to a parody of 1st level Moldvay or AD&D play for me to deeply invest in the story. Though the flavour definitely infuses play, I'm so far seeing it as closer to background colour than the essence of things that it would be in (say) Burning Wheel.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 27, 2022)

A desperate battle against Bandits is fine by me. I don't rate the treasure there unless that was the reason for the fight.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 27, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> A desperate battle against Bandits is fine by me. I don't rate the treasure there unless that was the reason for the fight.



Sure, but I think what @pemerton is saying is that the entire flavor of the game is "scrabble in the dirt for scraps" in an environment that is overwhelmingly deadly and basically dooms you to slow (if not outright immediate) death at the first mistake. Its ALMOST like playing Paranoia, except instead of NO possibility of success, there is this very narrow path which is fraught with danger and requires managing a whole bunch of mechanical game levers to navigate. The overall 'ouvre' in that case is a kind of pathos. 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible to present a bit different tone, but a desperate scrape with bandits over a couple of virtually worthless bits of equipment sure seems to evoke that. I'm assuming the treasure is something that the adventure Pemerton ran specifies. Maybe you could have adequate rewards for danger that generally produce a result worth the cost and here are there some 'healing potions' or something that would tend to keep the grind at bay. Now you'd probably have something closer to Moldvay, the doughty adventurers are in real danger, the grind could eat them up if they make a few mistakes and fail to calculate when to turn back, but overall things are not quite so grim. I suspect that would be getting away from the intended feel of the game a bit, but I don't know for sure.

I think a bit less harsh milieu might also encourage more of a story game approach in terms of the characters being able to articulate and achieve broader aims and really move the story forward in a direction of the player's choosing. I'm still trying to get a chance to play, so I am not totally sure just exactly how narrow the character's typical viable choices are at all times, but it feels to me like the standard is its pretty tight, like you might have some basic directional choices, but your supply and conditions, combined with the current framing, will almost entirely dictate what you can do next. So your choices are mostly in terms of "do we push on now, or turn back?" and such.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> A desperate battle against Bandits is fine by me. I don't rate the treasure there unless that was the reason for the fight.



It wasn't very desperate - the PCs escalated it from drive-off to kill, and killed the bandits in one mighty Attack round. It was a little comical.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, but I think what @pemerton is saying is that the entire flavor of the game is "scrabble in the dirt for scraps" in an environment that is overwhelmingly deadly and basically dooms you to slow (if not outright immediate) death at the first mistake. Its ALMOST like playing Paranoia, except instead of NO possibility of success, there is this very narrow path which is fraught with danger and requires managing a whole bunch of mechanical game levers to navigate. The overall 'ouvre' in that case is a kind of pathos.
> 
> I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible to present a bit different tone, but a desperate scrape with bandits over a couple of virtually worthless bits of equipment sure seems to evoke that. I'm assuming the treasure is something that the adventure Pemerton ran specifies.



I inserted the bandit encounter because one of the players built a skald, and while preparing for the session I'd decided that if someone built a "talk-y" PC I would place a (potential) social encounter at the start of the dungeon. The loot was generated by rolling once on Loot Table 1 for the additional area, and once on Loot Table 2 for each 2 of the Might 2 bandits, so twice in total (4 bandits): I got gear (a helmet), more gear (2 candles) and some stuff (an indecipherable note which the dreamwalker was able to decipher).

The dealing with the bandits cost 3 turns plus two conditions (angry, and hungry and thirsty), and a PC's helmet was damaged in the fight, so it was kind-of a break-even scenario at best: some tests were clocked, a Fate point or two earned, and (in effect) some food swapped for some candles. So while the combat wasn't deadly, it wasn't what it would be in Burning Wheel. You've compared it to Paranoia; I think my comparison to Vance-ish grim fantasy comedy also holds up under analysis.

I'm not criticising the game in saying it's not "story now" - I'm just calling it how I see it, and especially how I see it in relation to Burning Wheel, which is a natural point of comparison.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Maybe you could have adequate rewards for danger that generally produce a result worth the cost and here are there some 'healing potions' or something that would tend to keep the grind at bay. Now you'd probably have something closer to Moldvay, the doughty adventurers are in real danger, the grind could eat them up if they make a few mistakes and fail to calculate when to turn back, but overall things are not quite so grim. I suspect that would be getting away from the intended feel of the game a bit, but I don't know for sure.
> 
> I think a bit less harsh milieu might also encourage more of a story game approach in terms of the characters being able to articulate and achieve broader aims and really move the story forward in a direction of the player's choosing. I'm still trying to get a chance to play, so I am not totally sure just exactly how narrow the character's typical viable choices are at all times, but it feels to me like the standard is its pretty tight, like you might have some basic directional choices, but your supply and conditions, combined with the current framing, will almost entirely dictate what you can do next. So your choices are mostly in terms of "do we push on now, or turn back?" and such.



Most of the decision-making I've seen in my three first sessions involves how to approach the situation - what skill to test, what gear to use, etc. Classic operational play, which is what a game with the title _Torchbearer_ should be delivering!

But the very fact that the basic premise of play is a GM-designed dungeon that the players explore and try and "beat" via their PCs pushes against "story now" - though as I've said, of course the flavour the players bring in their PC creation will inform the details of the GM's situation and consequence narration.


----------



## clearstream (Feb 27, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I made some more actual play posts here.
> 
> In my group's session today, with multiple players who are experienced RPGers, we saw the bite of the inventory system - food, light, supplies. And the importance of help/aid. And also the beginner's luck quirk: everyone can pile in and help with beginner's luck, whereas helping a skill test requires some appropriate skill, wise or Nature.
> 
> I'm still not sure how the colour and the gameplay fit together. My impression is quite different from @clearstream's: I don't see it as a story now vehicle, because of the overwhelming demand it imposes for skilled play. And killing four bandits for a helmet, two candles and an indecipherable note (as happened in our session today) has a hint of Vance but otherwise is too close to a parody of 1st level Moldvay or AD&D play for me to deeply invest in the story. Though the flavour definitely infuses play, I'm so far seeing it as closer to background colour than the essence of things that it would be in (say) Burning Wheel.



I found the "Player Cheat Sheet 2e" that a kind person posted on the Burning Wheel Torchbearer forum helpful. It lays out important reminders that for me at least reduced the cognitive load of forming an effective plan. Have your characters levelled as yet?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 27, 2022)

clearstream said:


> I found the "Player Cheat Sheet 2e" that a kind person posted on the Burning Wheel Torchbearer forum helpful. It lays out important reminders that for me at least reduced the cognitive load of forming an effective plan. Have your characters levelled as yet?



The cheat sheet are good yeah. I also snipped and the printed out the flowcharts from the end of the Dungeoneer's Book for easy reference.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Have your characters levelled as yet?



I've run three first sessions. So no one has spent any Fate or Persona. And no one has earned 3 of both yet. So no levelling.



Fenris-77 said:


> The cheat sheet are good yeah. I also snipped and the printed out the flowcharts from the end of the Dungeoneer's Book for easy reference.



Are you GMing? Playing?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 27, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I've run three first sessions. So no one has spent any Fate or Persona. And no one has earned 3 of both yet. So no levelling.
> 
> Are you GMing? Playing?



Playing. We just finished characters and the actual adventure starts Tuesday.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 2, 2022)

Well, that went badly.    My outcast failed every single roll all session except one combat roll. Got injured by skeletons, failed to recover (on a huge pile of rolled dice), and then thanks to a failed heal check I had to grit my teeth. Wheeee!


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Mar 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, that went badly.    My outcast failed every single roll all session except one combat roll. Got injured by skeletons, failed to recover (on a huge pile of rolled dice), and then thanks to a failed heal check I had to grit my teeth. Wheeee!



Sounds like Torchbearer all right!


----------



## pemerton (Mar 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, that went badly.    My outcast failed every single roll all session except one combat roll. Got injured by skeletons, failed to recover (on a huge pile of rolled dice), and then thanks to a failed heal check I had to grit my teeth. Wheeee!



As a group, how did you approach the distribution of tests? That was an issue in the session I GMed on the weekend.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As a group, how did you approach the distribution of tests? That was an issue in the session I GMed on the weekend.



Over the course of the session? Or in camp?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Over the course of the session? Or in camp?



I was thinking in the Adventure Phase.

Turns are a group resource, and - as a general rule - each test costs a turn. This means that making a test consumes a group resource for what is (at least in part) an individual benefit, namely, getting an advancement tick against a skill/ability. Which is a significant difference from Burning Wheel and RuneQuest (the two other systems I'm familiar with where advancement is based on making tests/rolls).

This means that action declarations take on an extra degree of significance.

In the session I GMed, the distribution of checks was not as equal as it might have been, and at least one of the players noticed.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I was thinking in the Adventure Phase.
> 
> Turns are a group resource, and - as a general rule - each test costs a turn. This means that making a test consumes a group resource for what is (at least in part) an individual benefit, namely, getting an advancement tick against a skill/ability. Which is a significant difference from Burning Wheel and RuneQuest (the two other systems I'm familiar with where advancement is based on making tests/rolls).
> 
> ...



We had a pretty solid coop for rolls IMO. Lots of help dice and tactical decisions that suited our strengths. Just terrible rolling.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 3, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> We had a pretty solid coop for rolls IMO. Lots of help dice and tactical decisions that suited our strengths. Just terrible rolling.



We had plenty of cooperation, and a moderate degree of tactical decision-making. It's the actual distribution of _who tests_ that I'm referring to.

In BW a helping character gets an advancement tick, but in Torchbearer that has to be paid for (with Fate). So _who makes the roll_ becomes a bigger deal.

The books acknowledge this (if a little obliquely) in the discussion of spotlight sharing early on in the Scholar's Guide. But it wasn't until actual play that I got to see how it really matters.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 3, 2022)

TB is more about accruing passed and failed tests generally.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 5, 2022)

@Fenris-77, I think I'm failing in my communication.

In the session I GMed last weekend, one of the players rolled 5 of the dozen or so (non-conflict) test that were made. That means that that player's PC gets considerably more advancement checks than the others. But the other players suffer the advances on the grind that result from the making of those tests.

In BW, by way of comparison, declaring an action takes up _time_ at the table - and that's a group resource. But it doesn't generate an automatic mechanical consequence for every other player's position in the way that taking a turn does in Torchbearer.

This aspect of Torchbearer introduces a dimension into the social dynamic of who declares actions that is new, or at least is new for me. I was wondering how it worked out in your group.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 5, 2022)

We did a pretty good job sharing the actions around, at least that's my memory of the session. I don't we made poor decisions as players, it was just a bad rolling night. Like our poor thief rolling 8 dice to resist some mind control effect and getting zero successes.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 9, 2022)

In our first session (finally) things seemed moderately straightforward. However, I agree that the whole "every time someone does something it ticks off the grind" is pretty limiting. There is only the party and its action economy, there's no notion at all really of characters 'doing their thing'. Nor can you really just 'poke around' or carry out some tentative action very easily, or at least it comes down to whether or not the GM is going to jump in and frame you into a formal obstacle or not. My character, for instance, kind of wanted to try to loot the ruined shrine, as it appeared to have some treasure. I decided it was too dangerous after looking at what dice I would have a chance to roll. Maybe I could have proposed a less hazardous course, but with the grind in mind I wasn't that tempted to burn one of the party's limited number of turns on something marginal.

OTOH I was PERFECTLY happy to go for it when we ran into the tentacled horror (whatever that monster was). We had some pretty solid luck, and seemed to be playing within our overall competencies on that one, and I imagined that there was at least a decent chance of getting something out of it, though honestly the upshot of the whole thing seems to be I lost my cloak and got a hat, lol. 

I'm not sure we accomplished much on the whole trip, but I guess we'll see after next time when we play out extricating ourselves from the ruins and getting home. I managed to earn one check, at the cost of a point of Persona. Nature is definitely the really heavy weight tool here, overall! As Nik noted, we need to get better at exploiting chances to get checks and such, but at least our play didn't seem too inept! lol.


----------



## niklinna (Mar 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> In our first session (finally) things seemed moderately straightforward. However, I agree that the whole "every time someone does something it ticks off the grind" is pretty limiting. There is only the party and its action economy, there's no notion at all really of characters 'doing their thing'. Nor can you really just 'poke around' or carry out some tentative action very easily, or at least it comes down to whether or not the GM is going to jump in and frame you into a formal obstacle or not. My character, for instance, kind of wanted to try to loot the ruined shrine, as it appeared to have some treasure. I decided it was too dangerous after looking at what dice I would have a chance to roll. Maybe I could have proposed a less hazardous course, but with the grind in mind I wasn't that tempted to burn one of the party's limited number of turns on something marginal.



Yes, these tough decisions are clearly part of the game design's intent. It "should" have been such an easy call to snoop around the ruined shrine, but with a character Afraid and unable to help, and another without the skill needed, you just didn't have the dice to be confident in pulling it off. (A shame too, I did want to interact in some way with that shrine. Maybe we should have left an offering anyhow! From our copious treasure hoard....)


AbdulAlhazred said:


> OTOH I was PERFECTLY happy to go for it when we ran into the tentacled horror (whatever that monster was). We had some pretty solid luck, and seemed to be playing within our overall competencies on that one, and I imagined that there was at least a decent chance of getting something out of it, though honestly the upshot of the whole thing seems to be I lost my cloak and got a hat, lol.



Yes, our party is decently built for fights (which don't give the option of passing, like the shrine did). A warm hat is a heck of a reward for the risk, though, isn't it?


AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm not sure we accomplished much on the whole trip, but I guess we'll see after next time when we play out extricating ourselves from the ruins and getting home. I managed to earn one check, at the cost of a point of Persona. Nature is definitely the really heavy weight tool here, overall! As Nik noted, we need to get better at exploiting chances to get checks and such, but at least our play didn't seem too inept! lol.



From other session recaps I've read, we did all right. Apart from getting checks when we could have; that's gonna bite us hard unless we manage to get a few before we camp, or get some better loot before returning to town.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 10, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Yes, these tough decisions are clearly part of the game design's intent. It "should" have been such an easy call to snoop around the ruined shrine, but with a character Afraid and unable to help, and another without the skill needed, you just didn't have the dice to be confident in pulling it off. (A shame too, I did want to interact in some way with that shrine. Maybe we should have left an offering anyhow! From our copious treasure hoard....)



It rather goes against Ruby's 'sneaky hoarding thief filled with suspicion' gig, but on the pure objective "what is likely to work" level of playing 1000 games of D&D, yeah, we should leave a bit of something for the goddess on our way out.


niklinna said:


> Yes, our party is decently built for fights (which don't give the option of passing, like the shrine did). A warm hat is a heck of a reward for the risk, though, isn't it?



ROFL! Yeah, I should probably acquire a helmet, and maybe a missile weapon. I'm still trying to figure out a good shtick for employing criminal 4 though! hehe. Also I only have 3 health, so not the toughest of all PCs either.


niklinna said:


> From other session recaps I've read, we did all right. Apart from getting checks when we could have; that's gonna bite us hard unless we manage to get a few before we camp, or get some better loot before returning to town.



Yeah, maybe that's what we employ our "make obeisance to the goddess" thing for. hehe. I'm sure someone can figure out a trait to play against that. If we can combine it with Nature, well that seems to be the golden formula right there. I mean, I got 8 dice for an Ob3 and that was after I knocked one off for being Quick Witted to earn a check. So, I think basically the key to TB2 success is to develop a couple of these patterns your character can repeat often. I'm assuming, I'll have to reread a bit, that this eventually runs into the danger of jacking your Nature up to 7, and that's presumably the point of THAT rule, mechanically. In an RP sense I guess you become such a cliche that you just sort of implode, lol.


----------



## niklinna (Mar 11, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It rather goes against Ruby's 'sneaky hoarding thief filled with suspicion' gig, but on the pure objective "what is likely to work" level of playing 1000 games of D&D, yeah, we should leave a bit of something for the goddess on our way out.



It's too bad going against that gig doesn't earn you anything, like using a trait against yourself.


AbdulAlhazred said:


> ROFL! Yeah, I should probably acquire a helmet, and maybe a missile weapon. I'm still trying to figure out a good shtick for employing criminal 4 though! hehe. Also I only have 3 health, so not the toughest of all PCs either.



Those would be good, yeah. I'm a bit surprised you picked a 3/5 skew for health & will, now that you mention it.

Per the Criminal description, it's good for picking locks, escaping bonds, and, well crime (presuably in town). Don't know how else you would be using it.


AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, maybe that's what we employ our "make obeisance to the goddess" thing for. hehe. I'm sure someone can figure out a trait to play against that. If we can combine it with Nature, well that seems to be the golden formula right there. I mean, I got 8 dice for an Ob3 and that was after I knocked one off for being Quick Witted to earn a check. So, I think basically the key to TB2 success is to develop a couple of these patterns your character can repeat often. I'm assuming, I'll have to reread a bit, that this eventually runs into the danger of jacking your Nature up to 7, and that's presumably the point of THAT rule, mechanically. In an RP sense I guess you become such a cliche that you just sort of implode, lol.



We could toss your new hat into the ruined shrine!

And oh yeah, you want to be careful about ratcheting Nature up. Which kinda means, occasionally knocking it down, which introduces its own problems....


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 11, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Per the Criminal description, it's good for picking locks, escaping bonds, and, well crime (presuably in town). Don't know how else you would be using it.



_Wait, I swear I had three rations left in my pack. Hey, hold on a minute, why do you have crumbs all down your shirt?_


----------



## pemerton (Mar 11, 2022)

niklinna said:


> I'm a bit surprised you picked a 3/5 skew for health & will, now that you mention it.



I think that's dictated for a burglar. An outcast is 5/3, and a ranger 4/4.


----------



## niklinna (Mar 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think that's dictated for a burglar. An outcast is 5/3, and a ranger 4/4.



Egad, you're right! Only humans get to pick their skew. Master of the rules, I am not.


----------



## kenada (Mar 11, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Yes, these tough decisions are clearly part of the game design's intent. It "should" have been such an easy call to snoop around the ruined shrine, but with a character Afraid and unable to help, and another without the skill needed, you just didn't have the dice to be confident in pulling it off. (A shame too, I did want to interact in some way with that shrine. Maybe we should have left an offering anyhow! From our copious treasure hoard....)



In retrospect, I wonder if I should have been going along with things anyway in spite of being Afraid due to being Foolhardy (and needing to earn some checks). I assume I would have had to take the lead while people tried to help, possibly risking rolling Nature. That could go badly, but I think that’s the point.


----------



## kenada (Mar 11, 2022)

I’m also pretty sure I should have used a fate point to reroll the sixes I got when I failed the test that ultimately lead to being Afraid. I didn’t really appreciate how bad success at a cost could be.


----------



## Manbearcat (Mar 11, 2022)

As I said to you guys personally; "you did rather well for your first game."

As time goes on you'll get a better feel for the cost benefit analysis of interacting with the environment for possible mechanical/thematic return/gamestate change (vs rationing turns exclusively for clear Obstacles) and you'll get better at threading the needle of your thematic portfolio of resources and the tactical/strategic demands of play (and there are a lot of them!).

We'll see how things go Monday with the end of Adventure 1.  I'll be curious how you guys feel about your individual and collective play once that resolves.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 11, 2022)

kenada said:


> In retrospect, I wonder if I should have been going along with things anyway in spite of being Afraid due to being Foolhardy (and needing to earn some checks). I assume I would have had to take the lead while people tried to help, possibly risking rolling Nature. That could go badly, but I think that’s the point.



Ruby was also Afraid, so I kept figuring it was better to just lead into it, so at least Nik's character could help, though the same logic would have applied for your character. I was really trying to find something that seemed like I could be successful AND leverage my skills, but it wasn't that easy. Maybe I could have gone with 'Hoarding' and triggered nature again. Sounds like 'Hidden Depths' to resist the effects of the cold water might have also been feasible, for another die if needed. 

Ah well, clearly we are all still fumbling around with the game's levers, lol.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 11, 2022)

How come you guys had Fate and Persona in your first session?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> How come you guys had Fate and Persona in your first session?



Our GM is a nice guy


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 11, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Our GM is a nice guy



@pemerton, OK, maybe he was just trying to give us rope so we could hang ourselves? ROFL. I'm not sure how I would have acquired a check without having a Persona point, TBH. Seems to me like there's little harm in giving out a point of each to start with so players can get a better feel for how the game works. Maybe once TB2 grinds these guys out of existence our NEXT characters won't be so lucky, haha.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 12, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> @pemerton, OK, maybe he was just trying to give us rope so we could hang ourselves? ROFL. I'm not sure how I would have acquired a check without having a Persona point, TBH. Seems to me like there's little harm in giving out a point of each to start with so players can get a better feel for how the game works. Maybe once TB2 grinds these guys out of existence our NEXT characters won't be so lucky, haha.



Well, when you make your new PC you get to carry over Fate and Persona from your dead PC to a max of 3 of each (this is the "Heir to the Pauper's Throne" rule).

In my three first sessions I dutifully followed the rule of "no rewards to start with". All the checks that were accrued - and there weren't more than a handful - were based on taking a penalty to a check that already had no chance of success given the size of the pool relative to the obstacle.

What I found in my sessions - I don't know about yours - was that players didn't spend their Traits to buff as freely as they should have. In all three sessions there were unspent Traits left over at the end. To me, that looks disastrous.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 12, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The first one might reflect a vantage point of 2nd ed AD&D. The second would be getting down into the nitty gritty of actually thinking about playing or running either Dungeon World or Torchbearer.
> 
> The idea that you might do Torchbearer or DW with 5e D&D is just ludicrous.
> 
> Given this is a Torchbearer thread I'll only elaborate on it. And only in one respect - where is the help rule in 5e D&D? Or the rule that every test (outside of a conflict, and recognising that Town and Camp Phase have their own logic) costs a turn? 5e D&D is a completely different game, once the superficial resemblances of trope are looked past.



Help rule in D&D 5e § *Working Together* page 179


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 12, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Well, when you make your new PC you get to carry over Fate and Persona from your dead PC to a max of 3 of each (this is the "Heir to the Pauper's Throne" rule).
> 
> In my three first sessions I dutifully followed the rule of "no rewards to start with". All the checks that were accrued - and there weren't more than a handful - were based on taking a penalty to a check that already had no chance of success given the size of the pool relative to the obstacle.
> 
> What I found in my sessions - I don't know about yours - was that players didn't spend their Traits to buff as freely as they should have. In all three sessions there were unspent Traits left over at the end. To me, that looks disastrous.



Right, well, I THINK the conclusion I've come to is that traits are sort of a form of color that lets you add a die here or there, or subtract one to get checks of course, but that BASICALLY you can use those options almost any time you wish (I concede that there can be situations where you simply cannot justify a specific trait in the fiction, though with traits like the ones my PC has, that should be a minority of the time). 

So, yeah, I think the truth is the party should come out of an adventure with basically every one of those 'I used my trait' boxes checked, pretty much always. We definitely didn't flog it that hard, lol. While we were playing fairly cautiously and the moves we made seemed reasonably good, there was definitely some coin left lying on the table! hehe.


----------



## niklinna (Mar 12, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, well, I THINK the conclusion I've come to is that traits are sort of a form of color that lets you add a die here or there, or subtract one to get checks of course, but that BASICALLY you can use those options almost any time you wish (I concede that there can be situations where you simply cannot justify a specific trait in the fiction, though with traits like the ones my PC has, that should be a minority of the time).



Traits are not just color (although they include it)—they are a fundamental mechanism in the game. No checks for using them against yourself, no camp phase or recovery!


AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, yeah, I think the truth is the party should come out of an adventure with basically every one of those 'I used my trait' boxes checked, pretty much always. We definitely didn't flog it that hard, lol. While we were playing fairly cautiously and the moves we made seemed reasonably good, there was definitely some coin left lying on the table! hehe.



We aren't done yet, but yes, for the whole group we have marked one beneficial use, and one use against. We need to flog them hard in the next session or face dire consequences....


----------



## pemerton (Mar 12, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Traits are not just color (although they include it)—they are a fundamental mechanism in the game. No checks for using them against yourself, no camp phase or recovery!



I think that what @AbdulAlhazred means is that the _triggering condition_ for a trait tends towards mere colour (unlike, say, the triggering condition for an instinct) and hence they are close to an all-purpose resource.


----------



## niklinna (Mar 12, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think that what @AbdulAlhazred means is that the _triggering condition_ for a trait tends towards mere colour (unlike, say, the triggering condition for an instinct) and hence they are close to an all-purpose resource.



Ah okay, I can see that. They are definitely an all-purpose resource you can—and must—use quite broadly.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 12, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think that what @AbdulAlhazred means is that the _triggering condition_ for a trait tends towards mere colour (unlike, say, the triggering condition for an instinct) and hence they are close to an all-purpose resource.



Right, the process basically goes from boxes to cloud, 'leftward arrow'. I say "I want to get get another check, and I'm facing an obstacle I can easily handle, so I'll describe how I didn't take the time to be careful enough by relying on my quick wits, when I shouldn't have." Now that I think about it, there may be some traits like Hidden Depths which are going to be really hard to cast in a negative light, lol. I guess I could foolishly tough it out instead of preparing well enough in some situation, maybe? OTOH that particular trait seems especially easy to use in a positive way (I mean, who's ever TOO TOUGH, right?).


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 13, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, the process basically goes from boxes to cloud, 'leftward arrow'. I say "I want to get get another check, and I'm facing an obstacle I can easily handle, so I'll describe how I didn't take the time to be careful enough by relying on my quick wits, when I shouldn't have." Now that I think about it, there may be some traits like Hidden Depths which are going to be really hard to cast in a negative light, lol. I guess I could foolishly tough it out instead of preparing well enough in some situation, maybe? OTOH that particular trait seems especially easy to use in a positive way (I mean, who's ever TOO TOUGH, right?).



Hidden depths can easily be used...
"I'm distracted by studying the motion of the fangs" (borderline)
"While talking down the ogre we're here to hire, I start a story, and time escapes us all as everyone notes new elements about my childhood." (Setting up a Tired or hungry condition in case of failure for complicated success)


----------



## clearstream (Mar 13, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Ah okay, I can see that. They are definitely an all-purpose resource you can—and must—use quite broadly.



On the subject of all-purpose resources, how has your group been using Nature to date (if at all)?


----------



## clearstream (Mar 13, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, the process basically goes from boxes to cloud, 'leftward arrow'. I say "I want to get get another check, and I'm facing an obstacle I can easily handle, so I'll describe how I didn't take the time to be careful enough by relying on my quick wits, when I shouldn't have." Now that I think about it, there may be some traits like Hidden Depths which are going to be really hard to cast in a negative light, lol. I guess I could foolishly tough it out instead of preparing well enough in some situation, maybe? OTOH that particular trait seems especially easy to use in a positive way (I mean, who's ever TOO TOUGH, right?).



Your motive is boxes to cloud, but isn't the play in fact cloud to boxes? (You added to the fiction, yielding a mechanical effect.)


----------



## pemerton (Mar 13, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Your motive is boxes to cloud, but isn't the play in fact cloud to boxes? (You added to the fiction, yielding a mechanical effect.)



No. This is like Vincent's example of imposing a debuff on a NPC and narrating it as being due to the warm weather: the decision is about boxes (ie to buff or debuff, depending on how the trait is used) and then that generates a leftward arrow (in the fiction, Ruby was distracted by her hunger, or drew upon her innner Hobbitishness, or whatever).


----------



## clearstream (Mar 13, 2022)

pemerton said:


> No. This is like Vincent's example of imposing a debuff on a NPC and narrating it as being due to the warm weather: the decision is about boxes (ie to buff or debuff, depending on how the trait is used) and then that generates a leftward arrow (in the fiction, Ruby was distracted by her hunger, or drew upon her innner Hobbitishness, or whatever).



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



> Player - "_I work quickly, not worrying about being careful_."
> 
> Assuming it's a context where working quickly isn't needed and being careful would be beneficial, then...
> 
> GM - "_Sounds like Quick Witted is working against you, lose one die and mark a check._"




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 @AbdulAlhazred'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 "_It’s about making difficult choices, and it involves exploring the world and your character through the game rules and systems._" 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.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 13, 2022)

Thor and Luke both have encouraged players to think about mechanics while framing narrations. Plus, certain things that would result in changes in the character sheet of a PC are expected to be mechanicalized. Work the mechanics with the story and vice versa.


----------



## clearstream (Mar 13, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Thor and Luke both have encouraged players to think about mechanics while framing narrations. Plus, certain things that would result in changes in the character sheet of a PC are expected to be mechanicalized. Work the mechanics with the story and vice versa.



For sure. It probably just needs to be considered under a more complex diagram, such as that for Ars Magica.

F (Hobbitishness) > S (motivating availability trait mechanics) > F (decision to go against the trait) > S (suffer the penalty, gain the check)

Perhaps @pemerton is looking at the middle part so S > F.

Where I look at the whole with weight on where it lands so F > S.

Given it's a continuous timeline, we must be mindful about why we choose to cut where we do. If we go against the trait, perforce we suffer the penalty and gain the check, therefore for me it is not valid to cut before that rightmost S. I can accept both F > S and S > S depending on the particulars of play. (We are not forced spend the check, so the pattern terminates after that rightmost, rightwards arrow to S.)


----------



## niklinna (Mar 13, 2022)

clearstream said:


> On the subject of all-purpose resources, how has your group been using Nature to date (if at all)?



I mis-used it as if it were a trait to add dice to a Lore Master roll, thinking I could say I was boasting about how great at divination my character was. Nature descriptors aren't like that, though: Boasting really is just about straight-up blowing your own trumpet. I don't think any of the other players used Nature, but I have been wrong about many things Torchbearer.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 15, 2022)

clearstream said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



Right, what I was saying to @pemerton was that I was seeing it as "Hmmm, I want to get a check for Quick Witted." I take a 1d penalty and make my roll, including the penalty and pass, so I note the earned check, and explain it as "I was going fast and not being careful." I agree that fiction plays a part here from the start in that my action requires proper fictional position, but I think that's sort of a ground rule for most everything in an RPG... As you point out, it feels rather different from a PbtA move, like in DW, where you are told you MUST start with the fiction, though certainly it gets close to splitting hairs when you, for example, decide you're going to invoke DR and start 'looking at stuff' with the clear intention that the GM will recognize your fiction as being an invocation of that move. 

I think it is safe to say that all the talk of boxes and arrows and whatnot has THEORETICAL MERIT, but we should not over play things there. Real play is not so clear cut that we can always unambiguously analyze every element of every instance of play.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 20, 2022)

I posted another actual player report.

Here are my concluding thoughts from that post:



pemerton said:


> I enjoyed this session. We got to see a lot of the game's subsystems in action: a reasonably extended conflict; camping; journeying; and a town phase. I was happy with how I handled the failure and consequence narration, including the weaving in of the friends and enemies (in both cases the players made this easy).
> 
> For me, it reinforced my view expressed in the other thread that this is not really a "story now" engine: it's all about super-skilled play plus testing your luck with the dice. But it also confirmed my view in that thread that the colour in the game is really strong: in this session we had the camp in the ruined tower, the journey with an inadequate guide, the stay in the houses of healing but the dwarf remaining angry, the dreams of the Dreamwalker, and the feud with Ebenezer. How many FRPGs can have a whole story cycle between vindictive Dwarf and arrogant scholar play out over the course of a reasonably brief period of downtime resolution? And not as any sort of accident - it shows the design of the system at work.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 24, 2022)

I think, after starting another adventure in TB2 I definitely find that the way I approach it at least is from a mechanics standpoint. I find I'm deciding how to deploy my character's mechanical attributes in a way that produces effective results, and then working out how that can be extracted from the current fictional position and my conception of the character's personality (which is already rather heavily embodied in attributes like goal and instinct as well). 

That makes it pretty distinct from, say, Dungeon World, where IME the use of mechanics was much more an outgrowth of the GM and players generating the story. Like, you would decide what to do in DW, and then someone (the GM in theory at least) "Oh, that's an XYZ move." Yeah, you can definitely act in ways that hopefully produce optimal moves and thus better outcomes for you as a player, but in general it seems like that is a lot less explicit than in TB2 where you better always move in a way that is both strategically and tactically well-considered. TB2 is aiming to grind you down, and you're aiming to dodge the grind and make enough payday to have resources to survive the NEXT grind. In DW you are just ALWAYS IN TROUBLE, there's not really a sense of being ground down, certainly not in such an explicit way. DW characters will always have a way out, TB2 characters could well reach a point where death is the only possibility, no matter what you do.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2022)

@AbdulAlhazred 

I think the same contrast you are pointing to obtains in relation to Burning Wheel.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 24, 2022)

pemerton said:


> @AbdulAlhazred
> 
> I think the same contrast you are pointing to obtains in relation to Burning Wheel.



Right, While BW is obviously using fairly similar machinery to TB2, it definitely deploys it in a less 'survivalist' fashion. So you would tend to work more from fiction and general character conception outwards to story, vs 'playing the game' to so high a degree as seems required in TB2. But, as you mentioned, this is all rather a factor of degree as much as anything else.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, While BW is obviously using fairly similar machinery to TB2, it definitely deploys it in a less 'survivalist' fashion.



At least so far, the biggest difference between BW and TB is that the former has nothing analogous to the grind. And its approach to failure is different from "twist or condition" - it's more like "thematically salient twist".

So making a test doesn't have an inherent cost, and failing a test isn't as seriously adverse. So there is not the pressure to "skilled play" that TB generates.


----------



## clearstream (Mar 25, 2022)

pemerton said:


> At least so far, the biggest difference between BW and TB is that the former has nothing analogous to the grind. And its approach to failure is different from "twist or condition" - it's more like "thematically salient twist".
> 
> So making a test doesn't have an inherent cost, and failing a test isn't as seriously adverse. So there is not the pressure to "skilled play" that TB generates.



To me, that's a good way of putting it: TB generates a pressure toward "skilled play". I do share @AbdulAlhazred's sense that TB is separated from DW. I would put it that TB encourages players to form their actions mindful of hefty system considerations. Elsewhere "skilled play" has been discussed in a way that might separate it from system considerations, i.e. the player saying what their character does without directly appealing to mechanics. I see that even serving as a basis for disagreement between neo-trad and OSR ideas of skilled play... yet TB seems to demand player cognisance of system.

Because I see fiction-first and story-now as sympathetic but separate modes of play, to me TB doesn't forestall dramatic character development. Rather it specifies the scope of that development (this will be a gritty story about doomed adventurers.) Where I feel TB might depart pretty substantially from BW is that TB seems to lean into GM-prep, while I interpret BW as desiring more on-the-fly invention responsive to player goals.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 25, 2022)

pemerton said:


> At least so far, the biggest difference between BW and TB is that the former has nothing analogous to the grind. And its approach to failure is different from "twist or condition" - it's more like "thematically salient twist".
> 
> So making a test doesn't have an inherent cost, and failing a test isn't as seriously adverse. So there is not the pressure to "skilled play" that TB generates.



Right, and in that sense 4e is, for example, maybe a bit to the TB2 side of BW in an SC, as each failure canonically ticks off one of the three boxes of the 'fail track' of the SC (and that itself can sometimes trigger a 'twist' or 'condition'). Any of these games could be played in a more 'hardcore' fashion, or in a few other ways. I think BW seems to encourage the GM to fashion outcomes in a thematic way which is maybe a bit looser than PbtA's 'things always snowball' but has at least some of the same character. I mean, at least in 'adventure' RPGs there's always likely to be some sort of rising danger, and even in other types of theme pretty much any RPG must have SOME sort of drama, right? I mean it would seem rather pointless to me to play an RPG where you just recount the various actions of a character where none of them has any real consequence. Its all really a matter of just how consequences are delivered, or avoided!


----------



## kenada (Mar 26, 2022)

Rather than Story Now, Torchbearer strikes me as more Right to Dream. In our sessions at least, the mechanics have really enforced the game’s themes. Being an adventurer is _hard_. The Grind _will_ wear you down even if you play well, but if you do, you might get to return home and enjoy some of the treasure you found.

If there’s anything I dislike about TB2, it’s the way the game is organized.



clearstream said:


> Elsewhere "skilled play" has been discussed in a way that might separate it from system considerations, i.e. the player saying what their character does without directly appealing to mechanics. I see that even serving as a basis for disagreement between neo-trad and OSR ideas of skilled play... yet TB seems to demand player cognisance of system.



I’ve been wanting to compare DW to TB in that DW is “what you thought D&D would be like” to TB’s “what people say old-school D&D was like”, but this pretty well kills my analogy. OSR-style skilled play is all about avoiding mechanics as much as possible, but TB expects the opposite. One really wants to understand the system and take full advantage of it (probably my biggest frustration between the game’s organization and my limited time for reading the books).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 26, 2022)

kenada said:


> Rather than Story Now, Torchbearer strikes me as more Right to Dream. In our sessions at least, the mechanics have really enforced the game’s themes. Being an adventurer is _hard_. The Grind _will_ wear you down even if you play well, but if you do, you might get to return home and enjoy some of the treasure you found.
> 
> If there’s anything I dislike about TB2, it’s the way the game is organized.
> 
> ...



Yeah, to be perfectly honest TB2 has too many mechanics for my taste. That is, I would probably never run it. There are just too many specific rules to remember. In that sense, it maybe is not that different from AD&D, lol, except the rules in a game like that are much more 'inexact', so you can pretty much just wing it. So, I think TB2 actually IS what most of OSR thinks D&D was in the old days, but really never was. OTOH I agree, DW is more like B/X as it was imagined to be, but never was. I am very happy to run DW, I feel like I have 100% total mastery of the rules and a good understanding of how to deploy them. 

Its funny because it sure isn't the EXTENT of the rules, 4e was no problem for me, easy peasy. My own game has something like 200 pages of 'rules', but it is a stupidly easy game to describe and play, there's really nothing to it, its all just more elaborations of the same 2 or 3 concepts, and 'material'. I'm having fun playing TB2, and I will lean into it, but I don't anticipate it is going to win me over to "wow, this is the FRPG I am in love with!" Its fun, in its own way, but too intricate.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 27, 2022)

clearstream said:


> 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.



Motivation is not relevant to Baker's clouds and boxes analysis. The player has their PC take the higher ground in order to be better able to fight their foe. The player has their PC use a trait in a certain way to get some or other advantage. But one is clouds-to-boxes, the other is boxes-to-clouds.



clearstream said:


> 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?



The object of analysis is the process of play: how the shared fiction is established, and what role (if any) cues/mechanics play in establishing it.

In the high ground example, it is already established in the fiction that that there is high ground. Then the player declares _I stand on the high ground_ - and that fictional change yields a mechanical consequence. Hence it is clouds-to-boxes.

That mechanical consequence (+2 to hit) interacts with another mechanical state of affairs (the dice roll to hit) to produce an arrow from boxes back to clouds - _Your character hits mine_.

When a TB trait is used, it's in the context of resolving a test, in order to settle the content of the fiction. It is established that the PC is doing such-and-such a thing: that is the action declaration. But it's not established that they are doing it hurriedly, or carefully, or whatever. And the process is that the player establishes a mechanical state of affairs - eg suffering a debuff and thereby earning a check; or spending a limited resource (uses per session) and getting an advantage die - and as part of the rules for doing that, also establishes some fiction (eg _I was quick-witted and so go the drop on them_ or _I jumped the gun and misjudged the situation_). The fiction has no "life" to it other than as mere colour that is an accompaniment to doing the mechanical thing. It is boxes-to-clouds.



clearstream said:


> 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
> 
> 
> > Player - "_I work quickly, not worrying about being careful._"
> ...



I don't think this is an accurate account of how Torchbearer plays. Torchbearer is _not_ "if you do it, you do it"; and as a special case of that general feature, the GM does not impose trait-based mechanical consequences that follow from how players declare their actions. Players establish trait-based mechanical consequences when they want them, and as part of the rules for doing that must also narrate some appropriate fiction.



clearstream said:


> For me, this all suggests a very great divide between PbtA and TB.



As best I can judge, PbtA and Torchbearer do not have a great deal in common as far as the process of action declaration and action resolution is concerned, until we get to _consequence narration_ where a Torchbearer GM who is familiar with the PbtA "soft move, hard move" approach to narrating consequences will benefit from that, I think, in narrating twists.



clearstream said:


> I don't recall anything in the TB2e text urging a fiction-first approach.



I think it is labelled _Describe to live_. The GM describes the situation or obstacle - which is fiction - and the players describe what their PCs do to overcome it - which is fiction. But the process of then determining the full scope of the action declaration - including who is helping or aiding, what gear is being used, etc - and the process of resolving that - what skill is being tested, what fate or persona is being spent, what traits activated, etc - is not fiction first at all. AW and DW have no real analogue to this. And obviously rolling the dice in those RPGs is not much like building and then rolling and resolving a dice pool in Torchbearer.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think, after starting another adventure in TB2 I definitely find that the way I approach it at least is from a mechanics standpoint. I find I'm deciding how to deploy my character's mechanical attributes in a way that produces effective results, and then working out how that can be extracted from the current fictional position and my conception of the character's personality (which is already rather heavily embodied in attributes like goal and instinct as well).
> 
> That makes it pretty distinct from, say, Dungeon World, where IME the use of mechanics was much more an outgrowth of the GM and players generating the story. Like, you would decide what to do in DW, and then someone (the GM in theory at least) "Oh, that's an XYZ move."



At least to me, you seem to be describing here exactly the difference between DW's "If you do it, you do it" approach, and the lack of that in TB. In TB there are _lots_ of ways to do it, in mechanical terms - skills, buffed in various ways, with or without help, gear, etc, all which is brought in by the player, or not, depending on available resources - and a big part of the player skill required is to decide how to do it on this occasion.



clearstream said:


> I do share @AbdulAlhazred's sense that TB is separated from DW.



I don't think this is contentious at all. From the OP:


pemerton said:


> At a high level of description, Torchbearer can be compared Dungeon World: a modern system dedicated to capturing the feel of classic D&D. At a more detailed level I think there are significant differences; I'll get back to these below.






clearstream said:


> I see fiction-first and story-now as sympathetic but separate modes of play



Burning Wheel is "story now", but I don't think is "fiction first" if by that we mean DW-style "If you do it, you do it." Conversely, Classic Traveller is fiction first in that sense, but needs a bit of tweaking to play as "story now", and Moldvay Basic can be played fiction first in that sense and will need a _lot_ of tweaking to play as "story now".

In general: "fiction first" is a description of (some features of) the process of action declaration and resolution. Whereas "story now" is a description of the "creative agenda" - ie _what are we all hoping to get out of creating this shared fiction together_.



clearstream said:


> 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?



I'm not sure what you mean by fiction first. First in respect of what process, or what unit of analysis?

Like Torchbearer, in Burning Wheel descriptions of situations, and descriptions of what is being done to overcome them, begin with the fiction. But when a player is building their dice pool - _OK, I test Inconspicuous and I'm FoRKing in Acting and Cultists-wise_ - it's not wildly different from Torchbearer: it's all about building up a mechanically-framed conception of what the PC is doing.

In an extended resolution process like Fight! or Duel of Wits there is an action economy, and a suite of moves to choose from, much like a conflict in Torchbearer. In TB, the reason that PC X is acting this round, rather than PC Y, is not flowing from the fiction; it's driven by the rule that if there are at least two characters involved then no one can take consecutive actions. In Burning Wheel, the reason that a player blind declares 3 actions in a Duel of Wits is not because anyone thinks that's the fiction of argument: it's a mechanical device, adapted into social conflict resolution from the melee combat resolution framework.

Burning Wheel is not "if you do it, you do it" any more than Torchbearer is. In this respect both resemble 4e D&D, and differ from (say) Classic Traveller and (I think) some approaches to classic D&D.



clearstream said:


> Where I feel TB might depart pretty substantially from BW is that TB seems to lean into GM-prep, while I interpret BW as desiring more on-the-fly invention responsive to player goals.



BW has systems for prep - for "burning" monsters, magic items, NPCs, etc. But it is actively hostile to GM prep of situations, whereas Torchbearer is (as far as I can tell) reliant on GM prep of situations.



clearstream said:


> TB doesn't forestall dramatic character development. Rather it specifies the scope of that development (this will be a gritty story about doomed adventurers.)





kenada said:


> Rather than Story Now, Torchbearer strikes me as more Right to Dream. In our sessions at least, the mechanics have really enforced the game’s themes. Being an adventurer is _hard_. The Grind _will_ wear you down even if you play well, but if you do, you might get to return home and enjoy some of the treasure you found.



I don't think it is Right to Dream, because as a player you can't just turn up and play with no metagame agenda other than exploring your character and the situation. I think if you do that, you'll get hosed. You have to actively think about how you can "win" - collecting and spending your resources, optimising the distribution of tests across the party, etc.

But I agree with @kenada that it isn't "story now" just because play might, over time, tend to produce a narrative character arc.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 27, 2022)

kenada said:


> If there’s anything I dislike about TB2, it’s the way the game is organized.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> One really wants to understand the system and take full advantage of it (probably my biggest frustration between the game’s organization and my limited time for reading the books).



Yes, I commented on this in the OP. I think the organisation of the information could have been better. Eg half the journey rules are in LMM, the other half in the DHB skill descriptions. Most of the advancement rules are in the relevant chapter of the DHB, but the Wise-related advancement rules are in a different chapter of the DHB and the Mentor advancement rules are in part in the DHB skill descriptions and in part the Town Phase rules in the SG. Etc.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Mar 27, 2022)

Going to start a new campaign of TB tomorrow evening. Now that I have the books, I'll be reading the actual rules lol...


----------



## kenada (Mar 27, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I don't think it is Right to Dream, because as a player you can't just turn up and play with no metagame agenda other than exploring your character and the situation. I think if you do that, you'll get hosed. You have to actively think about how you can "win" - collecting and spending your resources, optimising the distribution of tests across the party, etc.



Isn’t that part of the genre emulation? I would expect someone who isn’t concerned enough about succeeding in a dangerous environment to fare very poorly.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 27, 2022)

kenada said:


> Isn’t that part of the genre emulation? I would expect someone who isn’t concerned enough about succeeding in a dangerous environment to fare very poorly.



I think Ron Edwards comments here apply, with "gamist/step on up" in place of "narrativist/story now":

Jesse: I'm just still a little confused between Narrativism and Simulationism where the Situation has a lot of ethical/moral problems embedded in it and the GM uses no Force techniques to produce a specific outcome. I don't understand how Premise-expressing elements can be included and players not be considered addressing a Premise when they can't resolve the Situation without doing so.

Me: There is no such Simulationism. You're confused between Narrativism and Narrativism, looking for a difference when there isn't any.​
In the context of Torchbearer, I want to say there is no such "simulationism" as one where the situation has lots of challenges/obstacles embedded in it and the GM uses no Force techniques to produce a specific outcome, and so the players can't resolve the situation with actually "stepping on up" and deploying the resources the game gives them to overcome those challenges. That's gamism/"step on up"/"skilled play".

To put it another way: in Torchbearer I can't just portray a character who is concerned about succeeding in a dangerous environment, and make Dungeoneering checks to overcome those dangers in the way a Classic Traveller player makes Engineering checks at certain specified moments to make sure the jump drive works. I have to actually come up with solutions to the problems that deploy the resources the game gives me. To use language I see often on these boards, which I don't think is perfect but which might convey my point, the game challenges the player, not (just) the character.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 28, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Motivation is not relevant to Baker's clouds and boxes analysis. The player has their PC take the higher ground in order to be better able to fight their foe. The player has their PC use a trait in a certain way to get some or other advantage. But one is clouds-to-boxes, the other is boxes-to-clouds.
> 
> The object of analysis is the process of play: how the shared fiction is established, and what role (if any) cues/mechanics play in establishing it.
> 
> ...





pemerton said:


> I don't think this is an accurate account of how Torchbearer plays. Torchbearer is _not_ "if you do it, you do it"; and as a special case of that general feature, the GM does not impose trait-based mechanical consequences that follow from how players declare their actions. Players establish trait-based mechanical consequences when they want them, and as part of the rules for doing that must also narrate some appropriate fiction.



Right, this is all true IME. So, the very example @clearstream mentions is one that is derived from our play. My character was quick-witted, and descending a drop using ropes and pitons. I'd already invoked my Nature, so I had rather more dice than I needed (and invoking nature itself followed a similar logic of "hey I need more dice"). So, I chose to do a hasty job, using Quick-witted to justify taking a 1d penalty and earning a check. It was a pure 'boxes' thing! No way did it start with the fiction! Fiction is clearly pretty important in any RPG, TB2 included, but it is OFTEN a 'map of possibilities', like a maze, you can go left or right, well, you can deploy various traits, abilities, skills, and wises, which ones depend on the fiction at any given moment. You make your check, you succeed/fail by some margin, the GM does his thing, and it all references the fiction, but a LOT of it starts in mechanics. Where fiction is MORE significant, in a story sense, is in deciding how things play out.

So, for example, last week we beat a Hedge Witch in a negotiation. Well, that was tricky, but at the end we naturally had to compromise a bit. We agreed to take on another adventure, we got some help from him, and assuming we survive, we'll get what we were originally after. At least in the case of my character, that 'originally after' stems from his belief and general background. So, fiction is central in terms of the overall story and thus establishing our goals in a given scenario, but at a detailed level IME so far, we operate based on "what mechanics can I justify being invoked here that will give me the best advantage." In that sense TB2 feels very OSR D&D!


pemerton said:


> As best I can judge, PbtA and Torchbearer do not have a great deal in common as far as the process of action declaration and action resolution is concerned, until we get to _consequence narration_ where a Torchbearer GM who is familiar with the PbtA "soft move, hard move" approach to narrating consequences will benefit from that, I think, in narrating twists.



Yeah, at least in my PbtA play, there's much more of a feel of really starting purely from the fiction. Your bonds may be considered when you think about how you will react, for example, but I don't recall a lot of strategizing how I'm going to get +1 forward or something. Its more like if I don't have a good idea how to proceed I might invoke DR in a DW game, but its less about getting dice bonuses and closer to a D&D-esque sort of "I want to evaluate which directions I can go next." I would generally think (though my experience is pretty limited) that TB2 is going to put "get me a check" or "How can I bring untaxed nature into play so I get more dice?" TB2 is also a very 'conflict centered' game. Exploration is more 'glue' than anything. You get to a conflict, and its all basically this structured process where you roll against obstacles in a structured way. Even in exploration it has felt more like we came to some keyed situation and it has an Ob rating, and we came up with how to get the dice we needed with the least grind, chance of a twist/consquence, and the most chance of a check! (all without using any inventory that wasn't required).


pemerton said:


> I think it is labelled _Describe to live_. The GM describes the situation or obstacle - which is fiction - and the players describe what their PCs do to overcome it - which is fiction. But the process of then determining the full scope of the action declaration - including who is helping or aiding, what gear is being used, etc - and the process of resolving that - what skill is being tested, what fate or persona is being spent, what traits activated, etc - is not fiction first at all. AW and DW have no real analogue to this. And obviously rolling the dice in those RPGs is not much like building and then rolling and resolving a dice pool in Torchbearer.



Exactly. DW for instance is generally more forgiving in absolute mechanical terms, there aren't the sort of harsh conditions that stack up on you through the grind/failure as there are in TB2. You generally feel a lot less urgency to milk every throw of the dice, though some will be pretty significant. The dice throwing mechanics are also a lot simpler. You always have 2d6, the target numbers don't vary. You might get hold/forward, and you do have ability bonuses, but that stuff is simple to game out, the strong guy tosses checks for 'strong stuff'. TB2 requires a LOT more thought in terms of getting the right dice etc. So in DW you spend a second or two probably with "OK, what am I doing about the charging orc?" but in TB2 you might well all spend 2 minutes with your sheets figuring that out! 

Now maybe the differences get compressed with some GMs. DW can definitely produce very high pressure play that really rewards "hey, if I make a DR check now, I can possible get a significant advantage later, but it might also expose us to a soft move, hmmm...." and things can 'snowball', the PC's inventory DOES have significance, etc. Likewise I think a GM could really surface the story and move things quicker and slightly de-emphasize the "milking the mechanics" kind of thing in TB2. It might require building a certain confidence in the GM using a style where maybe not every misstep or untaken advantage is deadly.


pemerton said:


> At least to me, you seem to be describing here exactly the difference between DW's "If you do it, you do it" approach, and the lack of that in TB. In TB there are _lots_ of ways to do it, in mechanical terms - skills, buffed in various ways, with or without help, gear, etc, all which is brought in by the player, or not, depending on available resources - and a big part of the player skill required is to decide how to do it on this occasion.



Yeah, right, DW is just not a game where you are worrying the boxes a lot. You get pushed there by the fiction, the box happens, you are back at the story without a lot of wandering around on that side. Each action is pretty atomic and most of what happens is fiction-first. There's a lot more of a feeling of in TB2 you describe the general thing you will accomplish and then sort of fiddle around with it a bunch until it trips the right mechanical buttons. At least in my DW play that doesn't really happen. You declare an action, a move is (perhaps) equated to it, and you just roll to see how it goes.


pemerton said:


> I don't think this is contentious at all. From the OP:
> 
> 
> Burning Wheel is "story now", but I don't think is "fiction first" if by that we mean DW-style "If you do it, you do it." Conversely, Classic Traveller is fiction first in that sense, but needs a bit of tweaking to play as "story now", and Moldvay Basic can be played fiction first in that sense and will need a _lot_ of tweaking to play as "story now".
> ...



Yeah, it can be subtle. So, in 4e you have this pretty mechanistic combat process where both sides roll against the other guy's defenses. You can certainly bring a lot of story into that via various paths, but in my game, HoML, there are no 'defenses' and the players roll all the dice. If a monster attacks you, you pick a 'defense' (which can be basically anything you can fictionally justify and that works within your action economy). Its a rather more story now kind of way of running combat. In the limited play we've managed to get in it seems like the typical process has been that the player comes up with a fiction of how they defend, and then there's sort of a fuzzy decision made as to exactly what that is, but the general point being its pretty centered on the fiction. I mean, you may well do like in DW and describe what your character does full well understanding exactly what mechanic will result, but that feels a lot close to 'PC Stance' reasoning "I know how to use this axe really well, I'll threaten the orc with it." vs TB2 putting the mechanics more front and center (or even 4e doing that in a lot of typical cases).


pemerton said:


> BW has systems for prep - for "burning" monsters, magic items, NPCs, etc. But it is actively hostile to GM prep of situations, whereas Torchbearer is (as far as I can tell) reliant on GM prep of situations.



Right, a TB2 adventure is a fairly structured affair. It has a location, which you have to get to via the rules for traveling, and it consists of a number of obstacles, some of which may be conflicts, and some not. While its going to be pretty flexible in terms of "Oh, the players decide to talk to the goblins instead of trying to hack them to bits." the existence of goblins at a point in the adventure as an obstacle is keyed AFAIK. There isn't anything like the back-and-forth that happens in DW establishing the shape of the world or what you will run into next. Players do get to inject some fiction, similarly to BW I think, but I don't think the idea of the game is that this is going to shape everything in quite the same sense. Maybe more in a strategic sense it does? Not so much in a tactical sense within an adventure though.


pemerton said:


> I don't think it is Right to Dream, because as a player you can't just turn up and play with no metagame agenda other than exploring your character and the situation. I think if you do that, you'll get hosed. You have to actively think about how you can "win" - collecting and spending your resources, optimising the distribution of tests across the party, etc.
> 
> But I agree with @kenada that it isn't "story now" just because play might, over time, tend to produce a narrative character arc.



'Right to Dream'? lol. There sure seems to be a mind-boggling amount of very specific terminology out there now...


----------



## pemerton (Mar 28, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 'Right to Dream'? lol. There sure seems to be a mind-boggling amount of very specific terminology out there now...



In this case, it is nearly 20 years old although perhaps not in widespread use: The Forge :: Simulationism: The Right to Dream


----------



## kenada (Mar 28, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, fiction is central in terms of the overall story and thus establishing our goals in a given scenario, but at a detailed level IME so far, we operate based on "what mechanics can I justify being invoked here that will give me the best advantage." In that sense TB2 feels very OSR D&D!



OSR “skilled play” is all about player skill over character skill though — “the answer’s not on your character sheet”. TB2 creates the feel of an OSR game, but the techniques it uses are _very_ different. I’d expect the level of sheet-based play in TB2 to be off-putting to someone who really buys into that approach.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> 'Right to Dream'? lol. There sure seems to be a mind-boggling amount of very specific terminology out there now...



“Right to Dream” a/k/a “Simulationism”. As far* I can tell, people haven’t been using GNS terms here, and “simulationism” carries so much baggage that I’d rather just use the article’s subtitle instead anyway.

Update: added missing word*


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 28, 2022)

kenada said:


> OSR “skilled play” is all about player skill over character skill though — “the answer’s not on your character sheet”. TB2 creates the feel of an OSR game, but the techniques it uses are _very_ different. I’d expect the level of sheet-based play in TB2 to be off-putting to someone who really buys into that approach.



Right, it invests much of the authority of the game on the sheet, and the associated mechanics, than it does in the GM. So GM has plenty of clout, but players look first to their own defined mechanics, and then comes "oh, and what is Ob?" and "Oh, gosh, margin of failure one, lets see, twist or condition?" etc. Definitely different.


kenada said:


> “Right to Dream” a/k/a “Simulationism”. As I can tell, people haven’t been using GNS terms here, and “simulationism” carries so much baggage that I’d rather just use the article’s subtitle instead anyway.



Yeah, well, people quickly warped the meaning of that one. I think it was a poor choice of terminology. Anyway, sometimes it can be useful, but clearly the world has moved on from GNS, though perhaps that is more evolution for some than revolution.


----------



## clearstream (Mar 30, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, this is all true IME. So, the very example @clearstream mentions is one that is derived from our play. My character was quick-witted, and descending a drop using ropes and pitons. I'd already invoked my Nature, so I had rather more dice than I needed (and invoking nature itself followed a similar logic of "hey I need more dice"). So, I chose to do a hasty job, using Quick-witted to justify taking a 1d penalty and earning a check. It was a pure 'boxes' thing! No way did it start with the fiction!



Do you feel a GM is permitted in TB2 to rule that an instance of using a trait against oneself isn't legitimate? Or to put it another way, on what grounds was your use of the trait against yourself legitimate?



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Fiction is clearly pretty important in any RPG, TB2 included, but it is OFTEN a 'map of possibilities', like a maze, you can go left or right, well, you can deploy various traits, abilities, skills, and wises, which ones depend on the fiction at any given moment. You make your check, you succeed/fail by some margin, the GM does his thing, and it all references the fiction, but a LOT of it starts in mechanics. Where fiction is MORE significant, in a story sense, is in deciding how things play out.



Perhaps your case could be put S > D > S where the first S is your appreciation of the mechanics, the D is some form of Describe to Live giving the GM enough detail to drive resolution, and the final S is the change in the system (−1D, gain a check.) I think though that somewhere in there is intended to be legitimating fiction. You put it that the legitimating fiction comes where I put D. The text admonishes against "reaching" so it seems to me that prior fiction must also matter. Your desire to avail of the mechanic provokes a speech act that must not jar with prior fiction (ideally follows naturally from it).

I'm not trying to assert as certainly right or rebut an analysis: I intend and hope my comments are understood as investigatory. How might this be true, could we look at it this way, etc. Note though - as an aside - that I do share intuitions with the poster who asked



> I don't get why you want to tightly couple "positioning" and "legitimacy" into a single concept and then have a different independent concept of "effectiveness" that touches on a lot of the same things as your positioning. It seems to me that it would make more sense to think of positioning as a concept which feeds into the process of determining both legitimacy and effectiveness.



Baker in the end resisted that suggestion and chose to keep effectiveness separated from positioning. In this I depart from his construction. A version that doesn't include effectiveness can't be predictive. What I believe goes on is that folk apply it with tacit intentionality.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 30, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Do you feel a GM is permitted in TB2 to rule that an instance of using a trait against oneself isn't legitimate? Or to put it another way, on what grounds was your use of the trait against yourself legitimate?



honestly I haven't dissected the rules with a fine toothed eye to try to suss out every little turn of phrase and such to say if the rules do or do not claim that one particular participant is envisaged as some final authority. The system certainly does not have the tone or feel of a game where the GM swaggers a bit 'Rule 0' kind of stick around and gets to say "Oh, no you don't!" OTOH in our actual play the process felt like consensus. At no point did @Manbearcat tell us that wasn't going to fly, though he sometimes pointed out various factors or things that we might have been overlooking (some of this might be a reaction to the fact that we are all new to this system too).

My feeling is that the traits and such are pretty general. So they have clear connotations, but were picked so as to allow them to be evoked in a wide variety of situations. Still, if the GM or the other players thought my use of one didn't relate to the fiction and was thus inappropriate; I think the best course of action would be to go with the feeling of the table. I think we all played with that idea in mind.


clearstream said:


> Perhaps your case could be put S > D > S where the first S is your appreciation of the mechanics, the D is some form of Describe to Live giving the GM enough detail to drive resolution, and the final S is the change in the system (−1D, gain a check.) I think though that somewhere in there is intended to be legitimating fiction. You put it that the legitimating fiction comes where I put D. The text admonishes against "reaching" so it seems to me that prior fiction must also matter. Your desire to avail of the mechanic provokes a speech act that must not jar with prior fiction (ideally follows naturally from it).



Right, and that seems like what generally happens. In the conflict we played in our last session my character invoked his 'First Born' trait, explaining to the Hedge Witch that he was simply carrying out his responsibilities and how it would be advantageous to be on his side, since he was the next head of what he implied is a powerful elf family (honestly, I'm not sure how much of that will turn out to have been exaggeration and how much turns out to be just fact, but that's how he spun it). 

He also has 'Quiet', maybe I could have employed that by staring down my opponent? As you can see, these things are fairly flexible. I can just say that definitely I looked to my sheet and imagined ways that I could trigger mechanics that would add dice where I needed them, or allow rerolls or whatever.


clearstream said:


> I'm not trying to assert as certainly right or rebut an analysis: I intend and hope my comments are understood as investigatory. How might this be true, could we look at it this way, etc. Note though - as an aside - that I do share intuitions with the poster who asked
> 
> 
> Baker in the end resisted that suggestion and chose to keep effectiveness separated from positioning. In this I depart from his construction. A version that doesn't include effectiveness can't be predictive. What I believe goes on is that folk apply it with tacit intentionality.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 31, 2022)

I think the GM pretty has to be able to rule against certain instances of using a trait against the PC. Much like @AbdulAlhazred I have found that in actual play the process tends to very much a matter of discussion and consensus, but in terms of where the buck stops, it's the with the GM, IMO anyway.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 31, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> I think the GM pretty has to be able to rule against certain instances of using a trait against the PC. Much like @AbdulAlhazred I have found that in actual play the process tends to very much a matter of discussion and consensus, but in terms of where the buck stops, it's the with the GM, IMO anyway.



Yeah, it might be interesting to closely read the rules text. Not that I think rules text is always definitive of the character of actual play in a lot of RPGs, but it often at least tells you what the authors had in mind.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 31, 2022)

The rules text on traits is pretty clear. From the DH, p 80:

There’s a phenomenon with traits that we call _reaching_. It’s a situation when a trait clearly doesn’t fit, but a player is working really hard to convince the group that it’ll work. This behavior is not creative. It’s just short of begging, and it’s certainly always bull.

If you feel a player is reaching, tell them so. Give them a moment to readjust. If they don’t have anything better to add, then move on. The trait doesn’t apply.​
And here's what's said on pp 79, 80, 82, 177:

When you want to use a trait to benefit a roll, describe your action and incorporate the trait into your narration. If the group feels it’s appropriate, take your trait benefit for that test.

Be creative with your traits. They are open to interpretation, so you can be inventive and surprise the other players with interesting descriptions of your character. . . .

If you can incorporate a trait into your description of your character’s actions so that it hinders you, you apply a penalty to your roll. . . . 
Using traits against yourself allows you to demonstrate your character’s quirks and foibles. . . .

The following section describes each trait. The entries offer suggestions on how to use the trait, both to benefit your character and get them into trouble.​
It is the player who invokes traits, via their action declarations. The player is expected to be creative, inventive and even surprising: the suggestions given in the trait list are just that; they are not prescriptions. This can include the GM, given that NPCs (but not monsters) have traits that the GM is able to invoke in their action declarations for those NPCs.

The group is expected to ensure that there is no "reaching": so it will be the interplay between the creativity of members and their sense of what does or doesn't fall under a given trait that will shape the meaning of various traits at a given table. Different tables will likely draw the boundaries and shape the meaning in different ways.

There's no unilateral GM power mentioned here. It is the player who invokes, and the _GM_ can't deem the trait to have been invoked by a _player's_ action declaration. (and thus consume a use, and modify a dice pool). And when the GM is playing a NPC, they can't unilaterally deem a trait to be appropriate: the rules are clear that this is the group's role. Similarly, the GM does not unilaterally police reaching. The group does this, as part of its judgements of appropriate uses.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 31, 2022)

Yikes, unilateral is a big word. Lets say player A invokes a trait, and players B through D, for whatever reason, don't identify it as a reach. Is the GM then bound to allow it? I think not. The GM can still identify it as a reach and bat it back to the table. Unless you think the GM has to allow it I dont see much to argue about.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 31, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Yikes, unilateral is a big word. Lets say player A invokes a trait, and players B through D, for whatever reason, don't identify it as a reach. Is the GM then bound to allow it? I think not. The GM can still identify it as a reach and bat it back to the table. Unless you think the GM has to allow it I dont see much to argue about.



For me the big word is not "unilateral" but "GM". So I think the key point is that the GM is no different, in this process, from players B through D. The GM is simply player E. Anyone can query whether something is a reach.

The rules don't prescribe a method for reaching finality on what "the group" thinks is appropriate. I guess, inspired by BW, there could be a vote. But I'd expect that most tables most of the time will reach consensus without the need for a vote, because the objector will withdraw their objection if they see that others really think it's not well-founded.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 1, 2022)

pemerton said:


> For me the big word is not "unilateral" but "GM". So I think the key point is that the GM is no different, in this process, from players B through D. The GM is simply player E. Anyone can query whether something is a reach.
> 
> The rules don't prescribe a method for reaching finality on what "the group" thinks is appropriate. I guess, inspired by BW, there could be a vote. But I'd expect that most tables most of the time will reach consensus without the need for a vote, because the objector will withdraw their objection if they see that others really think it's not well-founded.



That's fair, and I agree. Even then the GM is more likely to be the final bump before something hits the fiction and is going to have a different set of concerns _vis a vis_ exercising that particular bit of agency. The GM's set of responsibilities at the table mitigate, I think, for a level of attention to issues like this that the other players can more safely ignore, at least on occasion.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 1, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> the GM is more likely to be the final bump before something hits the fiction and is going to have a different set of concerns _vis a vis_ exercising that particular bit of agency.



I think this distinction, between _what is especially salient to the GM, given their role at the table_ and _the authority that the GM enjoys_, is a very important one.

I see it elided very often. And very often the upshot (if not the self-conscious purpose) of the elision is to present a shift from _responsibility_ or _attention_ or _whose job it it to keep an eye on that?_ to a claim about _power_ and _decision-making_ and _primacy at the table_ as if that shift was an inevitable one. It's not. It can be someone's job to keep an eye out - and other aspects of their role can be configured to make it easy and even "automatic" for them to do that job - without having to give them any special power over other participants in the shared endeavour.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 1, 2022)

Just for my part, my overall philosophy with things like this is to be somewhat permissive in what I accept, and somewhat conservative in what I propose. That being said, I will often float an idea about how to use something like a trait and see what people think. I'm pretty sure even back in my 2e days I pretty much ran a game where everyone decided what would be fun and it got done. lol. Certainly that was the way most of our 4e got played.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 1, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm pretty sure even back in my 2e days I pretty much ran a game where everyone decided what would be fun and it got done. lol. Certainly that was the way most of our 4e got played.



But . . . but . . . what about all the players who will insist that their PCs can jump all the way to the moon while carrying 20 longswords strapped to their belts, backs and thighs? Without an authoritative GM, who will keep the rabble in order and the fiction pure?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 1, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think this distinction, between _what is especially salient to the GM, given their role at the table_ and _the authority that the GM enjoys_, is a very important one.
> 
> I see it elided very often. And very often the upshot (if not the self-conscious purpose) of the elision is to present a shift from _responsibility_ or _attention_ or _whose job it it to keep an eye on that?_ to a claim about _power_ and _decision-making_ and _primacy at the table_ as if that shift was an inevitable one. It's not. It can be someone's job to keep an eye out - and other aspects of their role can be configured to make it easy and even "automatic" for them to do that job - without having to give them any special power over other participants in the shared endeavour.



I'd agree that those two ideas are often conflated, at the cost of the former, in a lot of conversations about agency.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 1, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The rules text on traits is pretty clear. From the DH, p 80:
> 
> There’s a phenomenon with traits that we call _reaching_. It’s a situation when a trait clearly doesn’t fit, but a player is working really hard to convince the group that it’ll work. This behavior is not creative. It’s just short of begging, and it’s certainly always bull.​​If you feel a player is reaching, tell them so. Give them a moment to readjust. If they don’t have anything better to add, then move on. The trait doesn’t apply.​
> And here's what's said on pp 79, 80, 82, 177:
> ...



That is exactly the text I was thinking of in framing my question, and you highlight its key elements.

I didn't intend to limit my question to just GM (notwithstanding that my actual words did precisely that!) I intended to ask - do you feel that _anyone_ is permitted in TB2 to rule that an instance of using a trait against oneself isn't legitimate? Does such a requirement (to legitmate) exist _at all_. I believe that the text on reaching firmly implies that it does, because your group can say that your trait doesn't fit the situation.

The flow I have experienced in play is of legitimating narrative being creatively appended, fitting @AbdulAlhazred description. Even so, I feel like a rule folk are tacitly applying is whether said narrative _feels true to the trait in the circumstances_? Exactly as guided to in the text on reaching.

The first part - _being true to the trait_ - speaks to what is established by virtue of being written on the character sheet and perhaps consistency in interpretation over the arc of play. The second part - _in the circumstances_ - must take into account the fictional positioning. Meaning that to me what is entailed by the text on reaching is that a player cannot use their trait against themselves unless they have said something  that is legitimate in the current circumstances; being thus grounded in the fictional position.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 1, 2022)

pemerton said:


> In this case, it is nearly 20 years old although perhaps not in widespread use: The Forge :: Simulationism: The Right to Dream



Not in widespread use likely because it's a largely-discredited set of ideas criticized for (among other things) not having any real explanatory power and therefore failing as a theory.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 1, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> Not in widespread use likely because it's a largely-discredited set of ideas criticized for (among other things) not having any real explanatory power and therefore failing as a theory.



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.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 1, 2022)

pemerton said:


> But . . . but . . . what about all the players who will insist that their PCs can jump all the way to the moon while carrying 20 longswords strapped to their belts, backs and thighs? Without an authoritative GM, who will keep the rabble in order and the fiction pure?



LOL, yeah. So, I doubt we need expound on that in this thread, hehehehe. I would not in any sense say that 2e facilitates Story Now (and in fact that 2e campaign was my attempt to construct an all-pervasive meta-plot, although it was designed so the PCs were the ones who got to decide which way things went, assuming they cared to do so). I guess at least the XP system was helpful to a degree. Still, the player of the paladin got to deal with his character's angst at his family's bad reputation, and pine after the girl he wasn't supposed to be able to have (many shenanigans). Summer Twilight the Druidess had lots of fun due to her determination to prove that being bossed around by men was BS (male druids that is, who naturally were incensed that she thought she could become an Initiate of the 5th Circle or something like that, now there's a new order of druids, and Kinergh Druidism is way messed up). I can't actually dredge up much about the other PCs off the top of my head, lol. Still, at least one could say that even 2e's somewhat more elaborate mechanics (for classic D&D) mostly got out of the way. I think we skipped the whole NWP/Specialization thing, being that we were basically playing "updated 1e", lol.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 1, 2022)

clearstream said:


> That is exactly the text I was thinking of in framing my question, and you highlight its key elements.
> 
> I didn't intend to limit my question to just GM (notwithstanding that my actual words did precisely that!) I intended to ask - do you feel that _anyone_ is permitted in TB2 to rule that an instance of using a trait against oneself isn't legitimate? Does such a requirement (to legitmate) exist _at all_. I believe that the text on reaching firmly implies that it does, because your group can say that your trait doesn't fit the situation.
> 
> ...



Right, I think that is established as canonical. My interpretation of the system, from play and reading, is that the INTENT is that action declarations be firmly rooted in fiction, but also must be clearly motivated by gamist considerations. So, when I see that there's a steep descent to be made, I consider all the ways my character, mechanically could contribute to making the descent, or perhaps avoiding it entirely. Which one I pick will be heavily influenced by its mechanical impact on the game state, but fundamentally it is referent to the fiction, which established the obstacle and my motivations for getting to the bottom of the slope (although a lot of those are 'to get some resources so I will not be ground to death later'). So, definitely there's an intent that fiction is primary, at least in terms of framing, but mechanics are more than just resolution mechanisms in TB2, they are drivers in and of themselves.

Contrast that with Dungeon World. Mechanics rarely drive anything in DW. Characters DO have an inventory, but it has impact almost entirely due to GM MOVES, not anything the players do. So, for instance the party is exploring deep in some dungeon, and they begin to debate which passage to take. The GM makes a soft move "your torch is flickering, it seems to be near the end of its life." The players consult their various inventories, they have 3 more torches. Should they attempt to continue, or turn back? The inventory mechanic is salient here, but it was the GM making a soft move which is generating tension, there's no RULE about how long a torch actually burns (that is there's no rules about the passage of time in DW as their are in TB2). When a player has input, like deciding to Spout Lore (actually the GM decides that's what happened) it could lead to a mechanical effect (+1 forward) and might constrain the GM to establish some fiction favorable to the PCs, but it won't actually shape their actions much in an immediate sense. At best it might suggestion "Oh, we should undertake X, we have established the basic stakes involved and can get a +1 at some point, so why not?" There's no 'grind' waiting to crush you if you don't make sure some rations result. Worst case in DW you're in up to your neck now instead of your waist, but the GM is a fan, you will have a chance to pull through!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 1, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> Not in widespread use likely because it's a largely-discredited set of ideas criticized for (among other things) not having any real explanatory power and therefore failing as a theory.



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...


----------



## pemerton (Apr 1, 2022)

clearstream said:


> do you feel that _anyone_ is permitted in TB2 to rule that an instance of using a trait against oneself isn't legitimate?



Taking the verb _rule_ literally, then my answer is No. No one has the power to issue an authoritative ruling of that sort. But as a member of the group, they can contribute to, perhaps take the lead in establishing, a conclusion that an attempted trait declaration is reaching.



clearstream said:


> what is entailed by the text on reaching is that a player cannot use their trait against themselves unless they have said something that is legitimate in the current circumstances; being thus grounded in the fictional position.



But the player can establish the fictional position simultaneously with their declaration of the trait. 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.​
That is very obviously boxes-to-boxes - use of the Trait breaks the tie and grants Dro checks. And there is also a leftward arrow (ie to the clouds): Dro establishes that, in the fiction, Harguld has tried to be cunning, waiting for the gnoll to close in, and has misjudged his timing.

No fiction was established about the error of timing, or even the _importance_ of timing, prior to Dro introducing it as an output of the mechanical decision to use the trait.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> My interpretation of the system, from play and reading, is that the INTENT is that action declarations be firmly rooted in fiction, but also must be clearly motivated by gamist considerations.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with this in any way. I just want to reiterate the fundamental contrast: DW, like AW, is grounded in  _if you do it, you do it_ and _to do it, do it_. There is no such principle in Torchbearer: to that extent it is very close to its Burning Wheel cousin.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 1, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Taking the verb _rule_ literally, then my answer is No. No one has the power to issue an authoritative ruling of that sort. But as a member of the group, they can contribute to, perhaps take the lead in establishing, a conclusion that an attempted trait declaration is reaching.
> 
> But the player can establish the fictional position simultaneously with their declaration of the trait. Here's the example from the Scholar's Guide (pp 33-34):
> 
> ...



Right, exactly, you don't have to spell out the cause-and-effect in fiction, it is enough to establish that everyone agrees the usage is plausible. At most you might be asked to narrate the details, though FRPG tradition in terms of 'combat' situations is pretty well-established by decades of D&D that it can be left a bit abstract at that level. So, maybe some tables will be more demanding in that respect.


pemerton said:


> I don't disagree with this in any way. I just want to reiterate the fundamental contrast: DW, like AW, is grounded in  _if you do it, you do it_ and _to do it, do it_. There is no such principle in Torchbearer: to that extent it is very close to its Burning Wheel cousin.



Right, and we can see WHY this difference exists in game design terms. TB2's agenda is more strongly oriented towards a skilled manipulation of the 'boxes', which requires some slightly looser coupling to the fiction. It makes up for it in terms of consequences being more mechanically gated. In DW things are more centered IN the fiction, you don't need to go back and revisit anything, you declare a move and toss 2 dice, there's no real choices to be made beyond "how do I fictionally react to this fictional situation." At most you might first think "oh, if I do X I have hold" or something like that, but you'd never go back and elaborate on a move you just made for any reason.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 1, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Taking the verb _rule_ literally, then my answer is No. No one has the power to issue an authoritative ruling of that sort. But as a member of the group, they can contribute to, perhaps take the lead in establishing, a conclusion that an attempted trait declaration is reaching.






> *If you feel *a player is reaching, tell them so. Give them a moment to readjust. If they don’t have anything better to add, then move on. *The trait doesn’t apply.*



The text addresses the reader directly - "_if *you* feel_" - so while I agree that there is room for the design intent to be that it should be a group consensus, the words on the page do not imply that. The group must be convinced yes, but to me the words imply that any member of the group can call bull. You - the person reading these rules - may do so. Thus, following the text someone does have the power to issue an authoritative ruling.

That said, I don't believe it harms what I am saying whether it is any one or several members of the group. The rule (as a literal rule) can very well be one available to the group, even if not to individual members. An example might be a rule where board members can vote a director out. They can't exercise that rule individually, but they can do so collectively.

I do agree that what you say isn't mere quibbling: it is reasonable to consider if anything authoritative is in play or not. My interpretation is that yes, something authoritative is in play - and it can be exercised by any one (or more) member(s) of the group. The player accused of reaching can have their declaration overruled. The nature of the rule is *regulatory*: a player has the prior ability to use a trait against themselves. The rule regulates that use.



pemerton said:


> But the player can establish the fictional position simultaneously with their declaration of the trait. 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!”​



I feel here that a great deal of fictional positioning is in play and - because the example has to start and end somewhere - not mentioned until it is apposite. For example

There are gnolls intent on pursuing
There is a shadowy tunnel
We're presently at its mouth, able to peer in
Harguld has a crossbow
To my reading, what you are describing is simply the absence of an outline of the fictional position obtaining at the start of the action. Such omission is common. I don't believe it right to read the example as the position being established simultaneously with the player declarations.



pemerton said:


> “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.​
> That is very obviously boxes-to-boxes - use of the Trait breaks the tie and grants Dro checks. And there is also a leftward arrow (ie to the clouds): Dro establishes that, in the fiction, Harguld has tried to be cunning, waiting for the gnoll to close in, and has misjudged his timing.
> 
> No fiction was established about the error of timing, or even the _importance_ of timing, prior to Dro introducing it as an output of the mechanical decision to use the trait.



In the given fictional position a timing misjudgement is legitimate. Dro narrated something that made sense in the circumstances: it was valid given the fictional position. Compare with something else Dro might have said:



> "I am so cunning, I earlier tied my laces together [for avoidance of doubt, that never happened] and I now stumble breaking the tie."




That doesn't work. If the laces were tied, how did that not matter when he positioned himself in the tunnel mouth? And so on. Others can probably come up with better examples. In your interpretation, for me there is an overlooking of the validating function of the fictional position, and no true consideration of what declarations would count as invalid.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 1, 2022)

clearstream said:


> The text addresses the reader directly - "_if *you* feel_" - so while I agree that there is room for the design intent to be that it should be a group consensus, the words on the page do not imply that. The group must be convinced yes, but to me the words imply that any member of the group can call bull. You - the person reading these rules - may do so. Thus, following the text someone does have the power to issue an authoritative ruling.
> 
> That said, I don't believe it harms what I am saying whether it is any one or several members of the group. The rule (as a literal rule) can very well be one available to the group, even if not to individual members. An example might be a rule where board members can vote a director out. They can't exercise that rule individually, but they can do so collectively.
> 
> ...



I'm not really convinced. It appears to me to be a very 'Fortune In the Middle' sort of resolution system where you establish intent, then a roll is made, and then how the result of that roll plays out is described. RE even mentions the common case of spending additional currency of some kind (or possibly other mechanics I suppose) to further tweak the outcome or alter fortune more in your favor. I think this case where Dro actually earns checks by accepting a LESS favorable outcome is consonant with that as well. I think @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! 

Honestly, in GNS terms I think the thrust of TB2 is MOSTLY gamist. It certainly ties the mechanics more closely to fiction in some ways than say D&D does (generally, though spells can be different). There's definitely a Narrativist kind of DNA in there though, you are really specifying INTENT and then using 'Fortune In The Middle' to guide how it plays out fictionally, whereas Pemerton's favorite example game, Traveller is usually much more task oriented, for example and usually character intent is thus much more latent. Though I think he makes some reasonable points about how it can often play in a rather 'Story Now' mode.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 2, 2022)

@clearstream, @AbdulAlhazred

Further on the issue of fictional positioning, and going back to Baker:

_When you want to give another player a die penalty, make a roll. On a success, a) say what's making life hard for their character, and b) give them a -2 to their roll._

That's a) boxes to cloud, with a simultaneous b) boxes to boxes.​
No one thinks that you can say "the heat is oppressive" if the character of the player suffering the penalty is (say) driving over the surface of Pluto in a rover. That is, of course established fiction constrains future narrations.

And so if we think about Baker's example, and imagine that the ability in question is tied to being a weather-controller, then maybe if the target character is in their rover on Pluto then there is _nothing_ plausible that can be added to the fiction, and hence the player of the weather-controller can't put a penalty on that other player. This comes up in Marvel Heroic RP quite a bit: it has many abilities that are more sophisticated versions of what Baker describes, and whose use is constrained by plausible conformity with the established fiction. (There is even a rule for allowable "reaching", called stunting - if you want to do something non-standard but still plausible as a type of "one-off", then you have to spend a plot point (a player-side resource) but in exchange you get a bonus die in your pool.)

None of this stops it being FitM. The mechanical consequence is not flowing from an already-established fiction. It is flowing from a mechanical process.

Contrast the case where the action declaration is _I smash the rover-driver's space helmet!_ If that succeeds, then we know that the driver is exposed to the no-atmosphere of the surface of Pluto, and suffers all the adverse consequences that flow from that, due to fictional positioning. _That_ would be an example of clouds-to-boxes-to-clouds(-to-boxes, again, if we mechanise the adverse consequences).


----------



## pemerton (Apr 2, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Pemerton's favorite example game, Traveller is usually much more task oriented, for example and usually character intent is thus much more latent. Though I think he makes some reasonable points about how it can often play in a rather 'Story Now' mode.



On this tangent: I think that "story now" Traveller emulates PbtA, not BW/Torchbearer. That is, it is not based on intent. It's based on _if you do it, you do it._ That's how you can combine a task-type focus in action declaration and the player-side of action resolution, while getting a "story now" output.

Of course, as I freely and frequently admit, the maths of PbtA is more robust than Traveller. But who can resist the lure of space with machine guns, room-sized computers and no mobile telephony?


----------



## clearstream (Apr 2, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> @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 (Apr 2, 2022)

clearstream said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Apr 3, 2022)

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.”
> 
> ...




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

Here is one analysis

Pursuit F -> ambush _declaration_
Ambush *test *= *tie* FitM
*Tie *-> *spending fate *declaration
*Fate *= *tie *FitM
*Tie *-> *trait-against-self* _declaration_
No one calls bull
*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

Pursuit F -> ambush _declaration_
Ambush F + *test* = *tie* FitM + tie F
*Tie *-> *spending fate *declaration
*Fate *= *tie *FitM + fateful F
Fateful F + *tie *-> *trait-against-self* _declaration_
No one calls bull
*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.

Fateful F -> *trait-against-self* _declaration_
No one calls bull
*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

Fateful F + *tie* -> *trait-against-self* _declaration_
No one calls bull
*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 (Apr 3, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Our fictional position is underscored.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 3, 2022)

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 (Apr 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Apr 3, 2022)

clearstream said:


> 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 (Apr 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> _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-breake_r prior to the roll. "Trajectory" is sleight-of-hand for accepting that the fiction is carried forward.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 3, 2022)

clearstream said:


> The player could not use the trait against themselves _as a tie-breake_r 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.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> "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 (Apr 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Apr 3, 2022)

clearstream said:


> _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.
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 4, 2022)

clearstream said:


> 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.



clearstream said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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".
> 
> ...



Do you agree on fateful F?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 4, 2022)

clearstream said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## pemerton (Apr 4, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> 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.



I don't see how it's "immune to analysis" - for instance, in this active thread, discussion is taking place of the relationship between "step on up"/gamist play and "story now"/narrativist play.

Edwards also accurately predicted the main flashpoints around 4e D&D. As I posted nearly a decade ago:


pemerton said:


> Of course from the process simulation perspective 4e is not very attractive. But that's no great surprise. The key points of criticism of 4e by those who prefer process simulation mechanics were identified by Ron Edwards in an essay written in 2003, more than 5 years before 4e was released:
> 
> if Simulationist-facilitating design is not involved, then the whole picture changes. Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things:
> 
> ...



I think that's a theory (or analysis, or account - not much is at stake in this choice of terminology) with a significant degree of power. At the very least, it strongly suggests that he successfully identified some important features of approaches to RPGing.



Fifth Element said:


> 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.



Nearly everything I understand, these days, about RPGing I owe to Edwards, Vincent Baker, Paul Czege, Robin Laws and Luke Crane.

But I don't think I share all, or even many, of their preferences. Edwards grew up on Champions; I've never played it. If you look at Baker's and Czege's RPGs, they have a type of thematic seriousness or sophistication or "edginess" that is not part of my RPGing, which mostly involves pretty standard fantasy and adventure tropes.

I didn't find Edwards's essays _convincing_. I found them _illuminating_. They explained RPGs - like T&T and HeroWars - that up to that point I had found incomprehensible (for different reasons in those two particular cases). They explained, what up until that point had been mysterious to me, why I found RM more enjoyable than RQ even though both are, on their surface, hardcore process-simulations RPGs. The same thing also explained why archery builds were the least interesting sort of RM PC. (The explanation is that RM melee and spellcasting - but not archery - contains a distinctive site of player decision-making that allows the player to inject their own conception of _how much is at stake_ into the resolution process. It somewhat resembles the decision-making, in HeroWars, about how many action points to bid.)

By laying out different sorts of techniques and orientations, they allowed me to take self-conscious control of my RPGing in a way that I never had before. I'm a better GM, better player, and have had far richer RPG experiences, as a result.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 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 think you might mean Luke Crane (and Thor Olavsrud) rather than Vincent Baker.

But yes, Luke and Thor know Edwards's work. Edwards (and also Baker) is thanked in Burning Wheel, and games by both appear in the list of influences/further reading. RPGs by Edwards also appear in that list in the Torchbearer Scholar's Guide.

Vincent Baker states, in the acknowledgements for Apocalypse World, that "The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now”
by Ron Edwards."

Paul Czege, in My Life With Master, thanks "Ron Edwards, who showed me what was holding me back. My Life With Master can trace its existence to conversations with Ron that gave dramatic renewal to my appreciation for this hobby."

What has driven these games, it seems to me, is the attention to the relationship between (i) mechanical design, (ii) non-mechanical principles and allocations of authority, (iii) orientations of play, and (iv) aesthetics of presentation, which were the subject-matter of discussion at the The Forge among Edwards et al circa 20 years ago. It seems to have been a pretty fruitful set of discussions!

And as you allude to in your post, it's almost inconceivable that 5e D&D would exist in the way that it does but for those discussions.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 4, 2022)

clearstream said:


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



Yes, it clearly did, at least that is the case IF the GM doesn't fall for letting it be relitigated later! This is really a huge problem for task-based systems, you're really never clearly done litigating any given situation! Of course they are also SIMPLER in that the GM has one less worry, its just that 'fortune' can't really 'be in the middle' in a task system, not REALLY. It can APPEAR to be, but at least until the GM decisively puts the scenario to bed there's always some additional task someone can attempt.

So, yeah, the Fortune (the F you are presumably referring to here) seems 'fateful' to me when applied to an intent-based system (which TB2 certainly is). Now, interestingly I also explicitly stated in the HoML rules that the player states the action AND the intent, so that explicitly handles the "there's a kernel of fiction that comes before the Fortune" thing. Fortune still mediates achieving intent, but the player has also described at least some of how it is happening, and THAT PART is surely based entirely on fiction (though it will certainly involve a mechanic as well). Then comes fortune, and then some fairly TB2-like combination of triggering additional mechanics and describing the final arbitration of the intent. 

Of course, the other thing to consider is that the scope of intent is still regulated by something in the process of play. Dro cannot say he's dicing to see if the entire gnoll tribe is defeated by this one action. TB2 has conflicts, ala BW, and HoML has 'challenges' and 'action sequences', which generally bound a resolution to the scale of a single scene, but its less clear when simply dealing with a basic obstacle, or say in PbtA when a move is made, could it resolve some global intent in a single throw of the dice? That doesn't seem to happen in actual play, probably mostly because the game is present in such a way as for that not to be done, but its one of those areas where a lot of systems don't really technically spell things out.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 4, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Do you agree on fateful F?



As I understand it, "fateful F" is an assertion, or perhaps a _posit_, that the use of a Fate point to apply Deeper Understanding so as to reroll a wyrm/traitor is a component of, or a contributor to, fictional positioning. I'm not sure what the capital "F" adds to the underscore in your notation system.

As I see it, rerolling a wyrm by spending a Fate point to use Deeper Understanding is no different from using a Trait to buff. @AbdulAlhazred has posted a very detailed parsing, not far upthread, of one instance of what the fiction looks like at the moment when all these decisions are made. The question of whether the character's Wise bears upon the situation at stake is no different, in how it is posed and answered, from the question of whether the character's Trait bears upon the situation. The player says "Ah hah!" but it can hardly be the _character_ saying that, or at least not at that moment within the fiction - when Dro rolls the dice for Fighter that means that, in the fiction, Harguld is shooting his crossbow, and Harguld can hardly wait to see whether or not the shot lands true and, if it doesn't, retrospectively apply some deeper insight!

As AbdulAlhazred has spelled out in detail, it's FitM resolution and Dro is reasoning about boxes - what sorts of resources does he want to spend to improve his fictional position (eg by rerolling wyrms, or open-ending sixes, in pursuit of success) and/or what sorts of burden on his fictional position is he willing to endure now (eg by spending a trait to break a tie in the gnolls' favour) in order to get resources that will be helpful down the track (checks that can be spent in camp phase or at the start of town phase)? Once that decision about cues/boxes has been made, he then introduces some fiction (about how his Wise helped his shot; about how his tendency towards Cunning tripped him up on this occasion) which adds colour, but has no consequences for resolution - all those consequences follow from the mechanical choices. If Dro can't think of any such fiction, then he's not allowed to do his stuff with the boxes - thus we could say that creativity and imagination act as a constraint on mechanical exploitation of resources, which seems a reasonable enough way to design a RPG; but that doesn't change the fact that it is boxes to boxes, followed by boxes to clouds (just as Vincent's example of answering and then narrating in In A Wicked Age, as per my post to which you replied).

************************************

It's interesting to compare this with the decision to FoRK a skill in Burning Wheel. The following example is given on p 40 of Revised:

Rich's Orc Great One is laying waste to his inferiors with his Axe skill. Rich wants to fight dirty, so he adds in a die from his Brawling skill - he describes his Orc throwing elbows and knees and generally being a bastard.​
When I first read this, I was puzzled - why wouldn't a player FoRK every plausible skill every time? The answer, I later worked out, lies in the advancement rules.

The same thing - puzzlement and realisation - occurred when I read (p 30) that "A player may lobby for one +1D advantage per test. In order to gain this advantage, he must state how and why he deserves such a boon in one clear sentence". Why does a player not want every advantage die they can get? Because advancement requires that some tests be against an obstacle that is larger than the dice pool!

So players have a mechanical incentive to toggle these bonus dice - from FoRKS, from lobbying for advantage - based on their preferences around succeeding on tests (and thus improving their immediate fictional position) versus earning the tests (Routine, Difficult and Challenging) that they need to advance their PCs' skills and attributes. And the result is the same FitM structure as in Torchbearer - the GM narrates a situation, the player decides their basic intent and approach, additional colour is introduced in the course of lobbying for advantage and FoRKing in skills (there's a nice worked example in the Adventure Builder, pp 245-7; in the Codex it's at pp 109-11).

The difference between BW and Torchbearer is that the colour used to support FoRKing and advantage dice in BW can be drawn on by the GM in the narration of consequences. This is part of "intent and task", and it helps give that colour "life" in the fiction.

Torchbearer doesn't use "intent and task", and I don't think that the colour that is introduced during the FitM process is as apt to take on life in this way. Admittedly, though, my experience with Torchbearer is less than with Burning Wheel.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think you might mean Luke Crane (and Thor Olavsrud) rather than Vincent Baker.
> 
> But yes, Luke and Thor know Edwards's work. Edwards (and also Baker) is thanked in Burning Wheel, and games by both appear in the list of influences/further reading. RPGs by Edwards also appear in that list in the Torchbearer Scholar's Guide.
> 
> ...



Yes, Luke Crane (I am sure Thor can be put in there too, I just know nothing about them, lol). And yeah, I didn't mention 5e in my post, I kind of left off at 4e, but 5e, and IMHO Numenera and all the stuff since then (Cypher System) not to mention games like Strike! and 13th Age, these are all either reactions to, or part of, or a mix of both, the whole Ron Edwards 'thing', GNS, the Forge, etc. But certainly 5e and Cypher seem to be actually consciously designed to push back, or at least steer strongly in a certain direction WRT indy games. I mean, 5e is SO consciously a Simulationist "play like a D&D genre game" thing. Why else is the only thing it doesn't actually do well is anything close to what was unique about 4e! lol. I can perfectly describe that contrast using GNS or similar kinds of analysis.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 5, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As I understand it, "fateful F" is an assertion, or perhaps a _posit_, that the use of a Fate point to apply Deeper Understanding so as to reroll a wyrm/traitor is a component of, or a contributor to, fictional positioning. I'm not sure what the capital "F" adds to the underscore in your notation system.
> 
> As I see it, rerolling a wyrm by spending a Fate point to use Deeper Understanding is no different from using a Trait to buff. @AbdulAlhazred has posted a very detailed parsing, not far upthread, of one instance of what the fiction looks like at the moment when all these decisions are made. The question of whether the character's Wise bears upon the situation at stake is no different, in how it is posed and answered, from the question of whether the character's Trait bears upon the situation. The player says "Ah hah!" but it can hardly be the _character_ saying that, or at least not at that moment within the fiction - when Dro rolls the dice for Fighter that means that, in the fiction, Harguld is shooting his crossbow, and Harguld can hardly wait to see whether or not the shot lands true and, if it doesn't, retrospectively apply some deeper insight!
> 
> ...



That's a good discussion. For you then, is there anywhere in the example that the initial fictional positioning (that I denoted pursuit F) is changed?

Perhaps at the outcome? When the tie is broken?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 5, 2022)

clearstream said:


> For you then, is there anywhere in the example that the initial fictional positioning (that I denoted pursuit F) is changed?
> 
> Perhaps at the outcome? When the tie is broken?



Here is the example of play on pp 33-34 of the SG:

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.​
Here is the fiction at the start - we don't know who exactly is responsible for it, or what play processes led to it being narrated:

There is a group of PCs. They are in a cave. They are leaving the cave via some exit (unspecified in the example). There is another way into the cave - a tunnel. There are Gnolls in that tunnel, and they are bearing down on the PCs.​
One of the players, Dro, declares an action for his PC, Harguld. The action declaration is elaborated in part in response to a question from the GM:

_I’ll hold off the Gnolls while the rest escape: I position myself inside the mouth of this cave, so I can see down the tunnel. Then I load my crossbow and take aim._​
Obviously there is some established fiction that underlies this action declaration: Harguld is a Dwarf armed with a crossbow, etc. And this action declaration establishes some new fiction: Harguld is at the cave-mouth aiming his crossbow down the tunnel, ready to hold off the Gnolls if they advance. This new fiction also, to me at least, implies that Harguld has his back to the other PCs, the ones who are escaping. I mention this because it is the sort of thing that could be relevant to the narration of a twist.

In addition it seems worth noting, at least in passing, that the GM doesn't call for a test to see if Dro's action declaration is successful. This is consistent with the GMing advice on SG pp 216-7:

Use the good idea rule to set up big moments. Bypass the minutiae; focus on what’s important. Highlight exciting actions. . . .

If you focus too closely on the fine-grained details, you’ll crush the players.

In general, good ideas move the action along, but they do not grant special benefits like +1D bonuses, advancement or rewards.​
Notice the contrast with Burning Wheel, where _taking position_ in itself might be worth testing (eg if Harguld has a Belief like "I will always defend my friends"), say a Speed test or even a Stealth test with Observation FoRKed in, serving as a linked test for any subsequent shot of the crossbow.

Having resolved Dro's action declaration as a Good Idea, the GM then introduces some more framing:

_A Gnoll scout emerges from the shadows down the tunnel._​
To use PbtA parlance, this is a soft move. It establishes that Harguld, having taken position at the cave mouth, sees a Gnoll advancing towards him. Unsurprisingly, it prompts another action declaration from Dro:

_I put a bolt in his face!'_​
At this point, it is established in the fiction that Harguld is shooting. It's not established, though, what happens as a result of that shot. And the GM, recognising that this is an _exciting action_, calls for a test. Everyone at the table knows that this test will determine what that result is - the fiction is "suspended" while the dice are rolled and their implications worked through. In storytelling terms, this would be like the director and editor giving us (the audience) a close up on Harguld, about to pull the trigger of the crossbow, and then cutting away, leaving us in suspense for a brief moment. Of course, in the Torchbearer case the moment of suspense is less brief!

The dice are rolled and the tie noted. We are still in suspense - what has happened to Harguld's shot? Dro spends a Fate point to open-end his six, but gets another wyrm. We are still in suspense - in our minds, we see that bolt has left Harguld's crossbow but it still hangs in the air, it's final destination unrevealed. And we still don’t know exactly what was happening when he shot.

Finally, Dro decides to break the tie against him with a trait. And now we see what has happened, in the fiction.

So first, we get something like a retcon. In cinematic terms, we could imagine that the cut from the Harguld about to shoot moves our perspective: we are now looking from behind and over the shoulder of the advancing Gnoll scout:

The Gnoll advances cautiously, wary of this tunnel mouth and the danger it poses.​
We don't know whether the fiction includes the Gnoll seeing Harguld or not. In my mind's eye, we cut back to Harguld:

Harguld, hand on the crossbow trigger, waits for the Gnoll to close, luring it in to get a good shot.​
And then the climax.

The Gnoll suddenly rushes the tunnel mouth. Harguld has waited too long to take his shot: as the Gnoll looms before him, Harguld looks into its face and pulls the trigger.​
But what happens to the bolt, to Harguld, to the Gnoll? Notice that we _can’t_ know what it is that follows, in the fiction, from the declaring of the shot and then the triggering of the trait and Harguld's failed cunning, without also hearing the GM's consequence narration and building that in.

Page 36 of the SG tells us that the GM responds to the failed check with success plus a condition:

Thor declares that Dro's Dwarf Harguld drives off the Gnoll scout with his cunning shot. "But Harguld knows there are more out there and he's running out of options. For the first time, he feels fear in his heart. Mark the Afraid condition!"​
In that case, here's the fiction I envisage:

The Gnoll suddenly rushes the tunnel mouth. Harguld has waited too long to take his shot: as the Gnoll looms before him, Harguld looks into its face and pulls the trigger. The bolt goes wide but the Gnoll, startled by the shot, fall back into the shadows. Harguld's heart pounds and his hands sweat in fear!​
An alternative, from a more generous or a more bloody-minded GM, would have been killing rather than driving off

The Gnoll suddenly rushes the tunnel mouth. Harguld has waited too long to take his shot: as the Gnoll looms before him, Harguld looks into its face and pulls the trigger. The Gnoll collapses in front of him, dead, as his heart pounds and his hands sweat in fear!​
Here another alternative, that assumes that the GM narrates a twist rather than success with a condition:

The Gnoll suddenly rushes the tunnel mouth. Harguld has waited too long to take his shot: as the Gnoll looms before him, Harguld looks into its face and pulls the trigger. The bolt goes wide and the Gnoll is upon him!​
The twist I'm envisaging here is a conflict, either a Kill or a Capture conflict, depending on where the GM is going with the Gnoll's Devouring and Worshipping Nature.

Upthread, AbdulAlhazred posted a different idea for the twist:



AbdulAlhazred said:


> 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
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


In effect, what is being posited here is framing the PCs into a Flee conflict - perhaps with Harguld also having dropped his bow, and with the additional possibility that Dro might offer the death of Harguld as a trade-off for the other PCs escaping automatically.

Ignoring the "good idea" of Harguld being eaten, here's my sense of the fiction looks with AbdulAlhazred's twist:

The Gnoll suddenly rushes the tunnel mouth. Harguld has waited too long to take his shot: as the Gnoll looms before him, Harguld looks into its face and pulls the trigger. The bolt goes wide and the Gnoll is almost upon him! Harguld drops his crossbow, turns and runs!​
The changes are subtle - mostly turning on the introduction of an "almost" - but they support the framing into a Flee rather than a Kill or Capture conflict.

So, to summarise, I see 5 points in the fiction:

* The initial framing - the party in the cave, trying to escape;

* Action declaration - Harguld takes up his defensive position - this is resolved as a "good idea" and thus is clouds-to-clouds;

* More framing - a Gnoll scout emerges - this is more clouds-to-clouds;

* The crucial action declaration - Harguld shoots. This is clouds-to-boxes, but we don't know the exact fictional circumstances of Haguld’s shot until the mechanical resolution, including consequence narration, is complete - this is the practical effect of FitM resolution, and involves plenty of boxes-to-boxes before we get some boxes-to-clouds;

* Something happens next, which includes the Gnoll getting closer than Harguld wanted. I’ve sketched four possibilities above, all consistent with the fiction up to the point of the dice being rolled, and all consistent with Dro’s use of his trait break the tie in the Gnoll’s favour. These are the clouds that flow from the FitM boxes, and also from a fair bit of decision-making by the GM within the rather wide parameters for consequence narration that Torchbearer permits.​
Hopefully that’s all clear enough!


----------



## clearstream (Apr 5, 2022)

@pemerton @AbdulAlhazred I can see two ways that how we interpret and what we experience differs.

First, my idea of fictional positioning includes intentionality. Words I find useful to describe that include effectiveness and motivation. A model should be predictive, and it's not possible for fictional positioning to be predictive unless something about intention is tacitly or expressly incorporated. Differences in our model mean we interpret examples in different lights.

Second, your feelings about entailment mean only - sufficiently well entailed to satisfy you. I don't require prescriptive snippets written by game designers to produce my fiction. So for me, the tie, spent-fate and trait-against-self each sufficiently well entail to satisfy me. There's no objective standard for sufficiently entailed in these cases (only normative ones.) Suppose another character has a signet that can give +1s to a creature they can see that is tied in an ambush. I think that character can use that signet to help H, but how do they know H is _tied_ in an ambush. You might want to say that such a signet isn't a valid design.

I have an intuition toward interpreting the majority of mechanics in RPG as our way of seeing what is in the game world. I could use the words simulationist or immersionist to describe that impulse. So I don't think in terms of purely abstract triggers as you do. Hence I don't see the fictional positioning blip* forward from gnoll_pursuit_positioning to ambush_test_outcome positioning, but rather it updates continuously as we find things out. There's less retconning, although I suspect there is some super-positioning.

The way we experience the play leading to a given written example can differ. Edwards expressed a similar skepticism: saying that one couldn't tell from a written example of play - a story - whether it had been produced by story-now principles. The implication is that a like example can be produced in unlike ways.


*The blip is from (gnoll_pursuit_positioning(test(tie(fate, trait)))) to (ambush_test_outcome_positioning(etc)).It feels unnatural to me.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 5, 2022)

clearstream said:


> my idea of fictional positioning includes intentionality. Words I find useful to describe that include effectiveness and motivation. A model should be predictive, and it's not possible for fictional positioning to be predictive unless something about intention is tacitly or expressly incorporated.



I don't understand this.

_Fictional positioning_ is normally used to refer to one of two (related) things:

(1) A _player's_ position, in the game, that results from what everyone agrees about their PC and their PC's potential for action in the shared fiction. (I take this from here.)

(2) What everyone agrees about a character and that character's potential for action in the shared fiction.​
When used the second way, the term refers to the underpinning (in the shared fiction) of what is referred to when it is used the first way. The first usage is cognate with the general notion of a player's _position_ in a game, but particularised having regard to the significance of the shared fiction in RPGing. The second usage is cognate with a person's position or circumstance in the world, but applied to an imagined person's position or circumstances in an imagined world.

My reason for spelling all this out is that I don't see how either (1) or (2) is a _model_: both usages are references to reasonably straightforward states of affairs. Thus I don't see how the notion of _prediction_ comes in: talking about a player's, or a character's, fictional position is a way of describing some current aspect of the play of a game, not a way of predicting or modelling anything.

And I don't see how the notion of _intention_ or _motivation_ comes in either. To explain by way of example: used the first way, Dro's fictional position at step 2 (as per the last bit of my post just upthread) includes that Harguld is at the cave mouth with a loaded crossbow ready to shoot Gnolls. This is not a statement about Dro's intention or motivation. Used the second way, Harguld's fiction position at step 2 includes that he is at the cave mouth with a loaded crossbow ready to shoot Gnolls. This is a statement about (inter alia) Harguld's intention or motivation, but not about Dro's. When we get to step 3, and the GM introduces the emergence of a Gnoll scout into the tunnel not to far from Harguld, fictional position changes - Harguld is at the cave mouth with a loaded crossbow ready to shoot Gnolls _and a Gnoll scout has just emerged from the shadows_ - but nothing has changed about Harguld's (imagined) intention or motivation, nor about Dro's (actual, real world) intention or motivation.

I'm spelling all this out to explain why I don't understand what you mean by your idea of fictional positioning.



clearstream said:


> your feelings about entailment mean only - sufficiently well entailed to satisfy you. I don't require prescriptive snippets written by game designers to produce my fiction. So for me, the tie, spent-fate and trait-against-self each sufficiently well entail to satisfy me. There's no objective standard for sufficiently entailed in these cases (only normative ones.) Suppose another character has a signet that can give +1s to a creature they can see that is tied in an ambush. I think that character can use that signet to help H, but how do they know H is _tied_ in an ambush. You might want to say that such a signet isn't a valid design.



I don't understand this either.

First, here are my thoughts on your posited magic item (the _signet of fostering quickness and bloodiness_ or something along those lines): I don't think it's an ideal design for Torchbearer, because it lets one player interfere in another's action resolution in a way that is at odds with the general design of the game. But I don't think this has anything to do with _entailment_. It's an item that gives one player a Call-On with respect to another player's test. That's a metagame effect, in the sense that, in the fiction, no one can "see" the tie; but in the fiction the item (presumably) fosters quick reactions in those who are caught in ambush situations, be that ambusher or ambushed depending on which way the player who is declaring the Call-On chooses to deploy it.

Second, my comments upthread about entailment were not about _feelings_. I was referring to _inferential relationships between things_. In one case I was referring to inferential relationships between components of the fiction: if someone wearing a space suit on the surface of Pluto has their space helmet shattered, they are exposed to freezing vacuum and hence (all else being equal) begin to freeze, suffocate and decompress. The inference here rests upon a shared understanding of the fiction. (It's notorious that if that understanding is not shared - eg because not everyone regards all else as being equal - then disputes at the table can break out. See all the debates, in the history of RPGing, about whether a PC was standing in the right place or touching the right thing to trigger a trap.)

In another case the inferential relationship was between a cue and a fiction: _taking the high ground_ grants a +2 to hit. This inference rests upon the rules of the game - whether a specific rule about high ground (in AD&D, both OA and WSG state such a rule, though I think the bonus is +1 rather than +2), or a general rule about advantage (analogous to the advantage die rule in Burning Wheel).

I don't see what the existence, or absence, of these inferential relationships has to do with a magic item - in game play terms, a cue that is a component of a player's position - that permits a player to activate an other-regarding Call-On in particular mechanical circumstances (ie when a certain sort of dice roll is tied).



clearstream said:


> The way we experience the play leading to a given written example can differ. Edwards expressed a similar skepticism: saying that one couldn't tell from a written example of play - a story - whether it had been produced by story-now principles. The implication is that a like example can be produced in unlike ways.



The written examples Edwards was referring to were _stories_. Not detailed, analytic accounts of the actual process of play.

Of course, from the analytic account of Thor and Dro's play that I set out above there are things we can't tell: we can't tell whether or not Dro was enjoying himself, or whether or not Thor was bored or frustrated or sitting on the edge of his seat. Nor can we tell exactly what each was picturing in their mind's eye at various points - I've set out _my_ picturing in general terms, and would imagine most people's to be similar, but similarity is not identity. Just to give one example: what people imagine when Thor describes the Gnoll scout emerging from the shadows is likely to vary quite a bit.

All that said, I've done my best in my post upthread to explain what I take the actual process of making gameplay decisions looked like, and what the resulting fiction was.



clearstream said:


> I have an intuition toward interpreting the majority of mechanics in RPG as our way of seeing what is in the game world.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> we find things out



OK. The words "seeing" and "finding" seem, to me, to introduce obscurity. I mean, when Dro decides to spend a trait, he is not _discovering_ something. He is choosing it. Hence why Baker says

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. . . . Mechanics . . . exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table.​
Likewise when Thor decides that the crossbow shot drives off the Gnoll, but that Harguld feels fear. That's a choice, not a discovery.

Describing what is _negotiation_, and _decision-making_, using the language of "seeing" and "finding", seems to me apt to introduce confusion.



clearstream said:


> I could use the words simulationist or immersionist to describe that impulse.



Again, OK. I still don't see the rationale for labelling processes of decision-making as if they were processes of discovery.



clearstream said:


> I don't think in terms of purely abstract triggers as you do.



I haven't made any reference to "abstract triggers", so I'm not sure what you're referring to. When Dro chooses to use a Fate point, the "trigger" is not abstract, it's concrete: there is a die sitting on the table showing a 6. And when Dro chooses to use his Cunning trait, the "trigger" is not abstract, it is concrete: there are two pools of dice, and in each pool the number of dice showing a 4, 5 or 6 is the same. Hence the tie.

These are the cues (boxes) that I have referred to in my posts. They are real things that we produce through our game play, and that we use - in accordance with the rules of the game - to establish a shared fiction.



clearstream said:


> Hence I don't see the fictional positioning blip* forward from gnoll_pursuit_positioning to ambush_test_outcome positioning, but rather it updates continuously
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I don't know what you mean by this. There is an actual moment, in the real world of gameplay, when Dro has declared that Harguld shoots, but the dice have not landed on the table. At that point in time, in the real world, no one knows what is happening to Harguld's bolt, no one knows how close the Gnoll is to Harguld, no one knows whether it is a hard or easy shot.

The dice land, and are tied. Still no one knows those things, because everyone knows that there is stuff that Dro can do to mechanically manipulate the result. And in the example, he does those things. First, he spends a resource to reroll a die. But fails the roll. That decision does not represent anything new happening in the fiction. Perhaps it tells us how desperate Harguld is, how much he hopes the shot will land: but if so, that was a fact about Harguld that was already true at the moment the action declaration was made.

Then Dro uses his trait. This makes it true that the Gnoll is close ("I wait for way too long trying to lure him in"). But that must have been true when the shooting of the crossbow was declared, as the _waiting_ takes place, in the fiction, before the _shooting_. Hence why I describe it as a retcon. If you want to call that "updating continuously" that's your prerogative, but the "updating" in the real world does not correspond to the time sequence in the fiction: in the fiction the time sequence was _gnoll comes close, Harguld shoots_ but in the real world the time sequence is _Dro decides that Harguld shoots, Dro decides that the gnoll comes close_. That's not ambiguous: it's crystal clear.

Hence my point that there is a time, in play, when we know what Harguld has done - he's shot his crossbow - but we don't know what the circumstances were in which he did this - we don't know how close the Gnoll was. Given that we didn't know that, it wasn't part of Harguld's (or Dro's) fictional position - the Gnolls's proximity to Harguld was _not_ something on which everyone was agreed, that was an element of Harguld's potential for action. It is something that everyone comes to agree upon _after_ Harguld's action - shooting his crossbow - has already been introduced as a component of the shared fiction.

I don't see what it adds to the analysis of RPGing to try and elide the roll of cues, to try and elide the roll of decision-making, and to speak as if elements of the fiction that get made up _after_ actions are declared are constituent elements in the possibility of declaring those actions. It seems obscurantist to me.


----------



## Manbearcat (Apr 5, 2022)

I’m not really participating in the thread as I haven’t the time nor initiative to digest the various takes and respond.

But can I ask to clarify the following @clearstream ?

After only a skim (I admit), it looks like your series of posts bear all the hallmarks of the 4e take of “Immediate Interrupts are destructive to play because they retcon established fiction.”

That take is premised upon the idea that all conversation of play and every dice throw is immediately and irrevocably enfolded into the shared imagined space without exception or procedural exemption.

That premise is both (a) not a truism about TTRPGs and (b) therefore an “opt-in.”

Finally, If that is your position, then you’re going to have a pretty entangled time resolving the relationship of shared imagined space every time you (i) reroll dice and (ii) deal with the constrained negotiation phase that is the post-Conflict Compromise (which is this interesting “Story After becomes Story Now” procedure because you’re in-filling a lot of abstracted intraConflict detail which you’re required to leave open-ended in order to functionally facilitate the Conflict procedures - particularly the Regrouping aspect of them).


----------



## clearstream (Apr 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I don't understand this.
> 
> _Fictional positioning_ is normally used to refer to one of two (related) things:
> 
> ...



Thank you for a detailed response. I'll dig into this part first. When I say model I mean it in the normal sense of a simplied description that has explanatory value. The series you link to is Baker's evolution of his model of fictional positioning. The fictional positioning construct is a simplified description: it doesn't capture every detail and dynamic... such a thing would be impossible!

One might just feel fictional positioning is simply a definition of a thing, but if you follow the series of essays from your link, you'll come to examples like this one. There Baker puts it that - "_Fictional positioning is how the fictional timeline touches the real timeline._" This is descriptive and Baker uses it to arrive at and explain his ideas. There is no real, parallel timeline containing fiction: that's _descriptive_.

When it comes to prediction, you quote two definitions containing the word "_potential_"? By definition, potential is "_having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future._" For everyone to agree about the potential for action, they must be agreeing as to what the fictional positioning predicts.

You say that "_Dro's fictional position... includes that Harguld is at the cave mouth with a loaded crossbow ready to shoot Gnolls._" You add that, "_Harguld's fiction position... includes that he is at the cave mouth with a loaded crossbow ready to shoot Gnolls._" These descriptions are replete with intentionality! We have no way of agreeing what the potential for actions must include in the absence of our intuitive sense for intention. If Dro says next that H removes one of his boots and examines it for discolorations, and the GM responds that the gnolls individually weigh the pebbles, stones, or handfuls of gravel they collect from the cave floor, the bare facts of the fictional position - sans intentionality - support that perfectly well. We can object that this would be unsatisfying and players would lose interest in the game. Yes, that is certainly one reason why we must include intentionality in fictional positioning, but for me there is a far more important reason. The set of actions that follow from a fictional position in the absence of intentionality is _vastly large_, and we're disinterested in _almost all_ of the contents of that set. What we are interested in is an extremely tiny subset. When we say what is in a fictional position - just as you have - intentionality brings that subset into focus so that all can agree that what follows equates with (could be predicted by) the _potential_ for action.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 6, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I’m not really participating in the thread as I haven’t the time nor initiative to digest the various takes and respond.
> 
> But can I ask to clarify the following @clearstream ?
> 
> After only a skim (I admit), it looks like your series of posts bear all the hallmarks of the 4e take of “Immediate Interrupts are destructive to play because they retcon established fiction.”



No, that's entirely off the mark. I'm not objecting to retcons, I'm observing that there are fewer of them.



Manbearcat said:


> That premise is both (a) not a truism about TTRPGs and (b) therefore an “opt-in.”



It's "opt-ins" all the way down.



Manbearcat said:


> Finally, If that is your position, then you’re going to have a pretty entangled time resolving the relationship of shared imagined space every time you (i) reroll dice and (ii) deal with the constrained negotiation phase that is the post-Conflict Compromise (which is this interesting “Story After becomes Story Now” procedure because you’re in-filling a lot of abstracted intraConflict detail which you’re required to leave open-ended in order to functionally facilitate the Conflict procedures - particularly the Regrouping aspect of them).



What I would suggest contemplating here is the veracity of two timelines. Are there _really_ two timelines? Specifically, is there a real second timeline paralleling our physical one that contains fiction? Suppose we were to agree that there is only one real universe in which our play occurs, and anything that happens must change the state of that universe; on the grounds that in the absence of such change we can't possibly attest to anything happening.

Then consider how the game must be played in _just one timeline_, so as to produce the experiences that a _simplified description_ pictures as two timelines with information exchanges between them. As (in the way that) the fictional timeline informs the real timeline, we can call the fictional positioning. To reiterate, there is no such second timeline and there is no possibility of an event that we can know about that causes no change at that moment on our single timeline*.

FitM enables us to do some useful retconning to reconstruct the fictional positioning, but think too about my _signet of fostering quickness and bloodiness_. (I would like to remark here that so much of @pemerton's narrating and naming is truly excellent, such as the outcomes he suggested for the ambush test.) Seeing as I include intentionality in my construct for fictional positioning, I don't exclude informing intentions from entailing potential actions sufficiently well without necessitating further commitment at that moment.

*I should be clear here that my actual thoughts on time are far more complex than simple acceptance of a single corridor of time. I would point to JME McTaggart and B Greene as starting points about that.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 6, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Finally, If that is your position, then you’re going to have a pretty entangled time resolving the relationship of shared imagined space every time you (i) reroll dice and (ii) deal with the constrained negotiation phase that is the post-Conflict Compromise (which is this interesting “Story After becomes Story Now” procedure because you’re in-filling a lot of abstracted intraConflict detail which you’re required to leave open-ended in order to functionally facilitate the Conflict procedures - particularly the Regrouping aspect of them).



When it comes to Regrouping, they really just should have called it the "shout wounds closed" procedure!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 6, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I’m not really participating in the thread as I haven’t the time nor initiative to digest the various takes and respond.
> 
> But can I ask to clarify the following @clearstream ?
> 
> ...



Right, TB2 definitely seems to involve a lot of this 'filling in' or as Pemerton called it, 'retcon'. I don't actually agree it is retcon, it may be out of order, but it is not generally, certainly not ideally, reversing anything already established. I DID take some 4e powers as doing that, though! At least implicitly. A lot of forced movement could fall into this category where MECHANICALLY the orc went 'over there' and then the Warlord made it slide 'over here', but in the fiction it was described as the Warlord inducing the orc to move 'over here' in the first place (granting that it is not always possible to color it that way in fiction, say if going 'over there' triggered some effect). We kind of discovered that about 4e in play, but with TB2 its more that you KNOW this kind of stuff is coming, and its all bound within a single obstacle, so you just learn the technique of being a bit nonspecific in the 'before the roll' part of the fiction.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 6, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Thank you for a detailed response. I'll dig into this part first. When I say model I mean it in the normal sense of a simplied description that has explanatory value. The series you link to is Baker's evolution of his model of fictional positioning. The fictional positioning construct is a simplified description: it doesn't capture every detail and dynamic... such a thing would be impossible!
> 
> One might just feel fictional positioning is simply a definition of a thing, but if you follow the series of essays from your link, you'll come to examples like this one. There Baker puts it that - "_Fictional positioning is how the fictional timeline touches the real timeline._" This is descriptive and Baker uses it to arrive at and explain his ideas. There is no real, parallel timeline containing fiction: that's _descriptive_.
> 
> ...



This all seems to me to fall under PREMISE and how the premise in Story Now play drives the action. Yes, the player and the character do have wants and needs, which translate presumably into an intent to act, but that is DETERMINED BY THE PLAYER. That is Dro determined, unilaterally, Dro's intentions. NOTHING constrained him to make them thus, or such, except his own whim! I don't see how that is similar to the SHARED IMAGINING that is the the fiction, and thus produces the position. We could argue that, practically speaking successful play requires POST HOC that Dro exhibited some intention that was consonant with what the other participants agree they are all doing (IE playing adventurers in TB2). OK, but I still don't think that's fictional position, its premise and associated genre, and table culture, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 6, 2022)

clearstream said:


> One might just feel fictional positioning is simply a definition of a thing, but if you follow the series of essays from your link, you'll come to examples like this one. There Baker puts it that - "_Fictional positioning is how the fictional timeline touches the real timeline._" This is descriptive and Baker uses it to arrive at and explain his ideas. There is no real, parallel timeline containing fiction: that's _descriptive_.





clearstream said:


> What I would suggest contemplating here is the veracity of two timelines. Are there _really_ two timelines? Specifically, is there a real second timeline paralleling our physical one that contains fiction? Suppose we were to agree that there is only one real universe in which our play occurs, and anything that happens must change the state of that universe; on the grounds that in the absence of such change we can't possibly attest to anything happening.
> 
> Then consider how the game must be played in _just one timeline_, so as to produce the experiences that a _simplified description_ pictures as two timelines with information exchanges between them. As (in the way that) the fictional timeline informs the real timeline, we can call the fictional positioning. To reiterate, there is no such second timeline and there is no possibility of an event that we can know about that causes no change at that moment on our single timeline*.
> 
> ...



Vincent Baker doesn't seem to me to be making any commitment, in his blog posts, to any particular view about the metaphysics of fictions.

He is saying that there is an imagined world (clouds), with its sequence of (imaginary) events, and there is a real world, the world of cues (boxes). And there are rules - rules of RPGing - which mean that when certain things are imagined by everyone, certain things have to be done in the real world. This is where we get rightward arrows - the fictional timeline "touches" the real timeline.

In the story of Harguld shooting the Gnoll, there is no point at which _the closeness of the Gnoll to Harguld_ - which is part of the fictional timeline - touches the real timeline. That is because it only becomes part of the fictional timeline - we only all agree to imagine it - as a result of a _leftward_ arrow generated by Dro's use of his trait. Thus it is not part of the relevant fictional position.

Of course, now that it is established that the Gnoll got close to Harguld, that might inform future narration (eg if the GM gave my alternative successs-with-condition, where the Gnoll is killed rather than driven off, it is established in the fiction that there is a Gnoll corpse close to the cave mouth). But that did not inform the resolution of Harguld shooting the Gnoll.



clearstream said:


> When it comes to prediction, you quote two definitions containing the word "_potential_"? By definition, potential is "_having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future._" For everyone to agree about the potential for action, they must be agreeing as to what the fictional positioning predicts.



When I say something is a seed, I am saying (inter alia and ceteris paribus) that it has the potential to germinate and grow. I'm not predicting that, however. Most seeds that I encounter are in the fruit that I prepare for cooking and eating, and they don't grow into plants.

On the rest, about intention, I basically agree with @AbdulAlhazred. You seem to be talking about various sorts of functional or non-functional interaction between participants in establishing fiction. That doesn't make it part of any player's (or, if you prefer my second usage, character's) fictional position.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Vincent Baker doesn't seem to me to be making any commitment, in his blog posts, to any particular view about the metaphysics of fictions.



Show me where I say that he does, or my argument relies on him doing so?



pemerton said:


> He is saying that there is an imagined world (clouds), with its sequence of (imaginary) events, and there is a real world, the world of cues (boxes). And there are rules - rules of RPGing - which mean that when certain things are imagined by everyone, certain things have to be done in the real world. This is where we get rightward arrows - the fictional timeline "touches" the real timeline.



Indeed, and he says himself that he sees the clouds and boxes model as a simplification.

"THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I THINK THAT WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO IS AS SIMPLE AS MY LITTLE DIAGRAMS *OR* AS SIMPLE AS A GAME'S RULES."

Which I agree with. One way that the model can be elaborated on and explored is in terms of information. Set aside for a moment any judgement about what counts as fiction. The information about the tie is immediately available to each participant, joining information in their cognitive space (which we can largely treat as private excepting their speech acts.) A player with my signet can't help having their picture of the situation changed in a way that matters to them.

One way to redress that in terms of fiction might be to suspend the situation and update it after all decisions and rolls. Another way might be to roll the situation forward in a relaxed manner, finding things out as we go. The second more closely matches what I observe my own and other groups doing. The other way seems more methodical to me: more concerned to maintain a preconceived abstraction.



pemerton said:


> When I say something is a seed, I am saying (inter alia and ceteris paribus) that it has the potential to germinate and grow. I'm not predicting that, however. Most seeds that I encounter are in the fruit that I prepare for cooking and eating, and they don't grow into plants.



As you show here, any prediction you want to make about seeds must be based on a description that includes what you intend to do with them. As much as they have the potential to grow, they have the potential to be eaten.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 6, 2022)

@clearstream, I am struggling to follow your posts. A seed is a seed. It can be planted. It can be eaten. It can be glued to cardboard by a child i the course of making an illustration at childcare. And there are limitless other things that might be done with a seed. The fact that we can think of some things that can't be done with a seed - eg it can't be ridden on to the moon, not even if we were really small - doesn't mean the things that can be done with it aren't limitless.

Harguld's fictional position is that he is standing, in a cave mouth, crossbow cocked and loaded, waiting for Gnolls. Any number of things could follow from that. The GM decides on one: a Gnoll scout emerges from the shadows. Now any further number of things could follow (eg Harguld could shout a threat to the Gnoll; could offer a bribe to the Gnoll; could lose his nerve and run from the Gnoll), but Dro chooses one: Harguld shoots at the Gnoll. We can track these changes in fictional position without needing to invoke notions of intention, or latency, or anything else. The position is what it is, and in most cases can be very easily described.

But none of this will make the fact that Harguld waits too long, luring the Gnoll in, part of the fictional position at the moment Dro declares that Harguld shoots. Because that bit of fiction hasn't been authored yet. It is authored as part of the process of resolving the test that takes place in response to Dro's action declaration.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> @clearstream, I am struggling to follow your posts. A seed is a seed. It can be planted. It can be eaten. It can be glued to cardboard by a child i the course of making an illustration at childcare. And there are limitless other things that might be done with a seed. The fact that we can think of some things that can't be done with a seed - eg it can't be ridden on to the moon, not even if we were really small - doesn't mean the things that can be done with it aren't limitless.



Yes. It surprises me that you can see that it is limitless without seeing what that implies. The fictional position cannot be solely an enumeration of objects: there must be an aboutness or intentionality to know that we do/do-not agree what follows.



pemerton said:


> Harguld's fictional position is that he is standing, in a cave mouth, crossbow cocked and loaded, waiting for Gnolls. Any number of things could follow from that. The GM decides on one: a Gnoll scout emerges from the shadows. Now any further number of things could follow (eg Harguld could shout a threat to the Gnoll; could offer a bribe to the Gnoll; could lose his nerve and run from the Gnoll), but Dro chooses one: Harguld shoots at the Gnoll. We can track these changes in fictional position without needing to invoke notions of intention, or latency, or anything else. The position is what it is, and in most cases can be very easily described.



I feel that intentionality has to be included whether I like it or not because every example requires it. Perhaps take a look at the Stanford entry on Intentionality and come back to this question.



pemerton said:


> But none of this will make the fact that Harguld waits too long, luring the Gnoll in, part of the fictional position at the moment Dro declares that Harguld shoots. Because that bit of fiction hasn't been authored yet. It is authored as part of the process of resolving the test that takes place in response to Dro's action declaration.



Hence as I denoted, tied f differs from pursuit f. Agreement on what may follow is changed by the tie. It's consistent with the job being done by fictional positioning to describe that it has changed.

We might end up having to accept our versions as simply definitional. When I speak of fictional positioning it's my version that I mean, and that results in differences between our analyses.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 7, 2022)

Hmm, let me throw out a situation here. My PC declares that he is going to shoot an arrow at the Gnolls in the above example. The game then moves into the mechanics and conversation of actions and adjudication. Personally, I think the idea of intentionality is at work there in some fashion. The PC hasn't actually fired the arrow yet, and yet in the midst of the mechanical bits they might decide to take a negative die for a trait working against them once they realize that the die pool isn't big enough to ensure success (or a bunch of other decisions that modify the original declaration in some way). There's a conversation there, a back and forth between the GM and the Player, that is bounded in some way by the intentionality of the action declaration. The objects and circumstances involved are all encompassed by that intentionality. If you took the same objects and circumstances but changed the action declaration, i.e. changed the intentional framework if you like, then the adjudication and whatnot changes - a decision to hide for example, or whatever.

I'm not at all sure that's what @clearstream is talking about however. Or even how useful the example is.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 7, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Yes. It surprises me that you can see that it is limitless without seeing what that implies. The fictional position cannot be solely an enumeration of objects: there must be an aboutness or intentionality to know that we do/do-not agree what follows.
> 
> 
> I feel that intentionality has to be included whether I like it or not because every example requires it. Perhaps take a look at the Stanford entry on Intentionality and come back to this question.
> ...



The question is, why conflate two distinct things, intent, and situation? There is a thing, lets call it 'situation' since you are not wanting to use the standard term. Situation consists of all the factors known to be present in the consensus fictional state of the story at this time. Gnolls are emerging from the shadows, Harguld is at the mouth of the cave with a loaded crossbow, waiting for them, the rest of the party is leaving the vicinity, making good their escape. FURTHERMORE each of the characters in the scene has some sort of immediate intent, as well as presumably larger goals and plans. These will inform the participants action declarations. Are they all part of 'game state', yeah I think that's not an unreasonable construction at all. So, now we have simply reduced this to a terminological question, is Fictional Position, the term, identical to what I here called 'situation', and I think that is how it was used in Forge Speak generally, or does it encompass my situation AS WELL AS intent? Personally I lobby for the former, as it is more precise and allows us to discuss things in a clearer way, and its how I've always meant that term.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 7, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Hmm, let me throw out a situation here. My PC declares that he is going to shoot an arrow at the Gnolls in the above example. The game then moves into the mechanics and conversation of actions and adjudication. Personally, I think the idea of intentionality is at work there in some fashion. The PC hasn't actually fired the arrow yet, and yet in the midst of the mechanical bits they might decide to take a negative die for a trait working against them once they realize that the die pool isn't big enough to ensure success (or a bunch of other decisions that modify the original declaration in some way). There's a conversation there, a back and forth between the GM and the Player, that is bounded in some way by the intentionality of the action declaration. The objects and circumstances involved are all encompassed by that intentionality. If you took the same objects and circumstances but changed the action declaration, i.e. changed the intentional framework if you like, then the adjudication and whatnot changes - a decision to hide for example, or whatever.
> 
> I'm not at all sure that's what @clearstream is talking about however. Or even how useful the example is.



Right, we all agree that there's fictional position AND intent, which both feed into some sort of resolution process for the conflict at hand. If either of them is changed, then you have a different trajectory for the fiction to take, you get a different story out of it. I've always liked, honestly, the PbtA process in the sense that it makes this VERY VERY CLEAR! You describe your actions, what you are attempting to achieve, and the GM tells you what move you made. Very clear, you've got distinct mechanics that the resolution process gets channeled through for each general type of thing you were attempting. Now, it may still be there's more than just the move, Hack & Slash could leave a lot of choices, but in PbtA those have already been made! You said "I'm shooting the gnoll" and then the GM says "OK, that's Volley" and you roll your 2d6, add up whatever bonuses or penalties might apply, and read off where things go next. Either the player or the GM may have further input at that point, depending on the result (I think only the player gets to make any choices with Volley). 

Anyway, I think we're all on the same page, @clearstream isn't way off in the woods, he just has what I consider an odd definition of Fictional Position that combines it with intent.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 7, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, we all agree that there's fictional position AND intent, which both feed into some sort of resolution process for the conflict at hand. If either of them is changed, then you have a different trajectory for the fiction to take, you get a different story out of it. I've always liked, honestly, the PbtA process in the sense that it makes this VERY VERY CLEAR! You describe your actions, what you are attempting to achieve, and the GM tells you what move you made. Very clear, you've got distinct mechanics that the resolution process gets channeled through for each general type of thing you were attempting. Now, it may still be there's more than just the move, Hack & Slash could leave a lot of choices, but in PbtA those have already been made! You said "I'm shooting the gnoll" and then the GM says "OK, that's Volley" and you roll your 2d6, add up whatever bonuses or penalties might apply, and read off where things go next. Either the player or the GM may have further input at that point, depending on the result (I think only the player gets to make any choices with Volley).
> 
> Anyway, I think we're all on the same page, @clearstream isn't way off in the woods, he just has what I consider an odd definition of Fictional Position that combines it with intent.



Well, if I were to get granular I'd say that intent is _part _of fictional positioning and not a separate thing, but that's not a distinction that matters too much at this point in the conversation.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 7, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Yes. It surprises me that you can see that it is limitless without seeing what that implies. The fictional position cannot be solely an enumeration of objects: there must be an aboutness or intentionality to know that we do/do-not agree what follows.



This makes no sense to me. I am currently sitting on my couch. That is my position. I am in my living room, and it is late at night. I could turn on the TV, play a DVD, lie down on my couch and go to sleep, get up and get a drink of water, and that's all before I think about leaving the house or going upstairs.

It does not follow from that partial list of things I might do, that my position is anything other than _sitting in the living room of a fairly conventional 21st century Australian house_.



clearstream said:


> I feel that intentionality has to be included whether I like it or not because every example requires it. Perhaps take a look at the Stanford entry on Intentionality and come back to this question.



I don't feel the need to look at the Stanford entry. I'm reasonably well-read in the philosophy of action. I can't remember if my copy of Davidson on Action and Events is here or at work - maybe one of the things I could do from my current position is go to the room with the bookshelves, pick it up and read it! That would be an additional bit of information about my position. It doesn't require any elaborate account of my mental states.

When it comes to _fictional_ position, of course, notions like "I can't remember if <my position includes such-and-such>" and "I just discovered the there's a gelati truck outside, so my position includes easy access to ice cream", don't apply. Because fiction is not self-existent and amenable to discovery. It is authored, and in RPGing as Baker tells us it is authored collectively, by way of system-mediated negotiation.

Suppose my PC's fictional position is _on the couch at home_. And then I declare the action, "I'm going into my library to look for my copy of Davidson on Action and Events!" There are a very wide range of ways of resolving this action declaration, but one might be that the GM calls for a Scholar check - how well stocked is your library? And let's suppose that our game has a rule like DW's Spout Lore: when you succeed on a Scholar check, you have to explain how you came by the knowledge, tome, or whatever it is in question. Furthermore, let's suppose that there's a rule that if it's self-evident to everyone at the table that no such explanation is available, then the check automatically fails.

So I make the check, and succeed. And I narrate, "I go to my library and pick my copy of Davidson of the shelf. It's the same copy I bought as an Honours student writing a research paper on Gilbert Ryle's essay on pleasure." We now have some newly-established fiction: my PC's fictional position has changed to being in the library and having a copy of Davidson ready-to-hand. And my PC's backstory includes new facts about an Honours research paper. But that backstory was not part of the fictional position that underpinned the action resolution. It bears the same relationship to the action declaration and resolution as Harguld's waiting too long does to Dro's action declaration and the resolution of that. They are both bits of fiction that are downstream of resolution, not upstream of it. They did not come "first".

Suppose that, instead of Davidson, my action declaration is "I'm going into my library to look for my copy of the Necrinomicon!". And someone at the table says, "Hang on, that's a notoriously rare book, with all the known copies accounted for and none of them is said to be in your house. There's nothing about your PC that suggests an antiquarian collector of rare books. We've never had cultists hanging around your suburb trying to catch a glimpse of your copy. Etc, etc." And I say, "Fair enough, I guess there's no way I would have a copy of the Necronomicon at home, I withdraw that action declaration." That would be an example of fictional position - the fact that my PC is at home, coupled with the established fiction about my home - ruling out an action declaration, similar to the "reaching" rules in Torchbearer ruling out the use of a trait.

That such a thing can happen doesn't make the narration that flows from the use of the trait, or (in my toy example) the narration the explains how I have a book on my shelf at home, part of the fictional position that leads up to that narration. In the real world, subject to possible weird exceptions that don't apply at roleplaying tables, effect follows cause and can't proceed it. If narration follows resolution, the fiction that is narrated cannot have been a component of the fictional position that underpinned the resolution.



clearstream said:


> Agreement on what may follow is changed by the tie.



How is this anything but a restatement of Baker's point that the purpose of mechanics is to mediate negotiation over the content of the shared fiction? If the tie didn't change anything about what people might agree to include within the fiction, then the mechanics would be pointless and epiphenomenal (now as it happens a fair bit of mainstream RPGing exhibits such epiphenominalism of mechanics, but in this thread we're talking about Torchbearer).

That doesn't make the tie a feature of the fiction. It is a cue.



clearstream said:


> It's consistent with the job being done by fictional positioning to describe that it has changed.



I don't know what the second occurrence of "it" refers to. What has changed?

Fictional positioning is changed by changing the fiction. The rolling of the tie leads to a change in the fiction, in accordance with the rules of the game. The rolling of the tie is not itself a change in the fiction.

Even in systems without FitM resolution, it is helpful to distinguish between the boxes and the clouds. For instance, in Rolemaster play I declare my attack (clouds, leads to . . . ), I roll the dice (boxes, leads to . . ), I add the modifiers (boxes, leads to . . .), I consult the weapon chart (boxes, leads to . . .), I roll the crit (boxes, leads to . . .), I consult the crit chart (boxes, leads to . . . ) I learned what happened to the victim of my attack (clouds). We can see that by distinguishing the boxes and the clouds, we can explain why RM is not a "lite" system and why some people find that it involves too much "search and handling" to be worth the resulting specific and visceral fiction.

We can also see that introducing called shots into RM is not trivial: where would the intention to strike at (say) the head - which is something in the fiction - be injected into the process just described? At my table, the rule -adapted from (I think) RMCIII - was that every 2 points of attack bonus allocated allowed 1 point of crit shift (with a special rule about not shifting to 66 unless the Ambush skill was also used). But notice that then produces the following sequence:

I declare my attack (clouds, leads to . . . ), I roll the dice (boxes, leads to . . ), I add the modifiers which include my crit shift (boxes, leads to . . .), I consult the weapon chart (boxes, leads to . . .), I roll the crit (boxes, leads to . . .), I consult the crit chart (boxes, leads to . . . ), I apply my crit shift (boxes, leads to . . .) I learn what happened to the victim of my attack and *I learn where I was aiming my attack* (clouds). Reread that bolded bit: the crit shift rule means that RM, one of the most purist-for-system simulationist engines on the market, has suddenly become FitM - I don't know what I was aiming at when I declared my attack until after I resolve the attack having applied my crit shift to my crit roll!



clearstream said:


> We might end up having to accept our versions as simply definitional. When I speak of fictional positioning it's my version that I mean, and that results in differences between our analyses.



It's not just definitional. As best I can tell, you are asserting that the cues, which constrain the establishment of fiction, are themselves components of the fiction and hence of the fictional positioning. Which to me seems obviously false.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 7, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, if I were to get granular I'd say that intent is _part _of fictional positioning and not a separate thing, but that's not a distinction that matters too much at this point in the conversation.



I guess there's an argument that says CHARACTER intent is 'part of the fiction' because the character, and thus the character's mental state is 'part of the fictional setting at that moment'. However, as you say, it seems like hair-splitting, and not only that but (at least in the majority of games I've played) the character's intent is not necessarily known to all the people at the table, and is decided only by the player. So it may NOT be a part of the 'shared fiction' (though it will usually emerge). That means its a bit different from other things, like where the gnolls are. Honestly, I would think in most cases the player only decides intent AFTER the scene is framed, right? It feels almost more like a 'move' than a 'thing'.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 7, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I guess there's an argument that says CHARACTER intent is 'part of the fiction' because the character, and thus the character's mental state is 'part of the fictional setting at that moment'. However, as you say, it seems like hair-splitting, and not only that but (at least in the majority of games I've played) the character's intent is not necessarily known to all the people at the table, and is decided only by the player. So it may NOT be a part of the 'shared fiction' (though it will usually emerge). That means its a bit different from other things, like where the gnolls are. Honestly, I would think in most cases the player only decides intent AFTER the scene is framed, right? It feels almost more like a 'move' than a 'thing'.



I was linking intentionality to fictional positioning at the moment of action declaration, which is known to the table. If it's not know to the table it's not really framing the fiction in the same way, IMO anyway.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Hmm, let me throw out a situation here. My PC declares that he is going to shoot an arrow at the Gnolls in the above example. The game then moves into the mechanics and conversation of actions and adjudication. Personally, I think the idea of intentionality is at work there in some fashion. The PC hasn't actually fired the arrow yet



Are we talking about Torchbearer still?

If so, at the moment Dro says "I put a bolt in his face!" then it is true, in the fiction, that Harguld has shot his crossbow. Still on p 33 of the SG, Thor's response (as GM) to Dro's action declaration is "Right. Fighter skill test versus its Ambushing Nature 5." The test being made follows from the (newly)established fiction that Harguld is shooting a bolt at the Gnoll. This is just the same as Vincent Baker's _When your character attacks mine, roll dice_ (a rightward arrow, from clouds/fiction to boxes/cues/mechanics).

In the case of Torchbearer, the point is reinforced by the SG discussions of action declaration and resolution: "If a player describes their character's actions in relation to an obstacle . . . they make the test. There's no backing out" (p 31); "Don't negotiate with players. . . . [W]hen relaying their decisions to you, player describe the actions of their characters. You then interpret that action into a skill test an an obstacle" (p 217).



Fenris-77 said:


> in the midst of the mechanical bits they might decide to take a negative die for a trait working against them once they realize that the die pool isn't big enough to ensure success (or a bunch of other decisions that modify the original declaration in some way). There's a conversation there, a back and forth between the GM and the Player, that is bounded in some way by the intentionality of the action declaration.



None of this changes the fact that the action has been declared, and in the fiction that thing is happening.



Fenris-77 said:


> The objects and circumstances involved are all encompassed by that intentionality. If you took the same objects and circumstances but changed the action declaration, i.e. changed the intentional framework if you like, then the adjudication and whatnot changes - a decision to hide for example, or whatever.



As far as I can tell, what you're saying here is that if the action declaration - and hence the fictional position - was different (eg instead of declaring _I shooot_, Dro declares _I scarper_) then the fictional constraints that govern the use of a trait would change. That's true, but is not about "intentionality". It's about the fiction being different: Harguld would be doing a different thing.



Fenris-77 said:


> Well, if I were to get granular I'd say that intent is _part _of fictional positioning and not a separate thing, but that's not a distinction that matters too much at this point in the conversation.



Whose intent? Harguld's intention to shoot the Gnoll is part of the fictional position, but largely irrelevant as Torchbearer has no mechanical processes that are sensitive to a character's intent - the relevant mechanics (eg what skill or attribute is tested) are all determined by task, not intent. (Contrast, say, In A Wicked Age where the character's intent might enliven With Love or For Others rather than With Violence or For Myself; or HeroWars/Quest, where if a PC's intent pertains to a relationship, then that relationship rating can figure in the process of action resolution.) I also agree with @AbdulAlhazred's remarks that more subtle aspects of the character's mental states, while perhaps being imagined by individual participants, are frequently not part of the _shared_ fiction because not really articulated. And of course in the example we're discussing, one key part of Harguld's mental state - ie his Cunning, which leads him to wait too long trying to lure the Gnoll in - is not made part of the shared fiction until _after_ the mechanical process of resolution is complete.

Turing from character to player: Dro's intent (ie, how Dro is hoping the shared fiction will turn out; what Dro thinks this action declaration will contribute to the play experience at the table; that Dro is looking for a chance to spend a trait to earn some checks; etc) is a real thing and not part of the fiction and hence not part of anyone's fictional positioning.



Fenris-77 said:


> I was linking intentionality to fictional positioning at the moment of action declaration, which is known to the table.



Again, we don't need _intentionality_. Action does the job: Harguld is shooting his crossbow at the Gnoll. Introducing discussions of Harguld's mental state only muddies the waters, because it leads to this obscurantist notion that Harguld's _waiting too long_ is a part of the fictional position that caused the tie and caused the use of the trait; whereas the actual process, that I've spelled out in posts upthread, is that the rolling of the dice and the noting of the tie is a cue, and the expenditure of a trait is another cue, and these mechanical processes all culminate in the introduction of a new bit of fiction: namely, that Harguld waited too long. And some thing that is narrated as an output of action resolution is, simply in virtue of that, not a component of the fiction that underpinned the action declaration.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 8, 2022)

I see intentionality at work as part of what frames the adjudication process. You don't. It probably doesn't really matter who's version we go with since the process looks the same either way. It's not a hill I even want to particularly defend, never mind die on, I was just trying a situation on for size to see what people made of it.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> I see intentionality at work as part of what frames the adjudication process. You don't. It probably doesn't really matter who's version we go with since the process looks the same either way. It's not a hill I even want to particularly defend, never mind die on, I was just trying a situation on for size to see what people made of it.



I'm just puzzled by what the intentionality is that you (and @clearstream?) are referring to.

If it's Harguld's intention to shoot the gnoll, the concept of _action_ seems to cover all the ground that we need. As you say, the process looks the same if _action_ is the operative notion.

And if it's Dro's intention, then that's real and not fictional.

And just to be clear - given that I feel you're something of an innocent bystander in this exchange who's taking fire from entrenched positions you didn't even know were there! - there is a hill I'm defending. Which is that the use of a Trait, in Torchbearer, is not fiction-first. And the reason I'm defending that hill is because the difference between Torchbearer and DungeonWorld is a real one. And if we want to have good play experiences in TB, and good play experiences in DW, we should keep that in mind. DW is "if you do it, you do it". TB isn't. That's part of what opens up TB to skilful play in ways that are different from DW. Not all skilful play in TB is skilful play of the fiction. Quite a bit of it is skilful play of "meta"-resources, like Traits. (I'll @Manbearcat on this point, in case he has any thoughts to share.)


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 8, 2022)

Hmm, I'd agree that DW and TB are very different beasts, for sure. I was really just talking about TB in my example. Your description of skillful play in TB is precisely where I think TB opens itself up to intentionality as a bounding factor on fictional positioning. Not that intentionality doesn't play into PbtA games, but that's a whole different convo.

I'm not fashed about responses contra at all though. I was just trying an idea on for size.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> I think TB opens itself up to intentionality as a bounding factor on fictional positioning.



Can you explain what this means?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 8, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Can you explain what this means?



The exact nature of the action can change over the course of the adjudication process, but it's bounded by the intent of the declaration. Specifically things like deciding to use a trait against yourself once the die pools are set. The intention maintains the teleos even while the details might change. I'd have a similar argument about declaring combat via cards.


----------



## niklinna (Apr 8, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> The exact nature of the action can change over the course of the adjudication process, but it's bounded by the intent of the declaration. Specifically things like deciding to use a trait against yourself once the die pools are set. The intention maintains the teleos even while the details might change. I'd have a similar argument about declaring combat via cards.



TB's conflict rules, in which both sides declare three ordered actions, is essentially declaring combat via cards.

Oh, look.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 8, 2022)

niklinna said:


> TB's conflict rules, in which both sides declare three ordered actions, is essentially declaring combat via cards.
> 
> Oh, look.



Sure, but the context of each action, which is what I'm referring to as intentionality, projects to the others. They aren't happening sequentially with no impact, the players discuss the whole range of tactical possibilities at every step along the way.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> The exact nature of the action can change over the course of the adjudication process, but it's bounded by the intent of the declaration.



I think we might disagree on this.

Additional fiction can be authored that pertains to the action - like in the SG example, Harguld waits too long and so the Gnoll gets too close.

But that is not a change to the fiction (unless you count adding an element as changing the fiction). The fiction remains _that Harguld shot the Gnoll who had emerged from the shadow while Harguld was standing in the cave mouth, crossbow loaded and ready_.

Suppose that Dro wanted to use a different trait, that would put Harguld's intention in a different light - eg Desperate, and Harguld shoots too soon. This introduces an element of fear or desperation into Harguld's intention that wasn't present in the initial action declaration. That doesn't make it an impermissible reaching, though. Because it is still consistent with the established fiction _that Harguld shot the Gnoll who had emerged from the shadow while Harguld was standing in the cave mouth, crossbow loaded and ready_.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 8, 2022)

So, no offense, even after your elucidation, I'm still not sure it's super important. I think intentionality matters, you don't, and the game remains the same. I'm good.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2022)

Notice how Dro's narration of his Cunning establishes fiction that is located, in time, prior to Harguld's decision to shoot, which Dro made part of the fiction ("I put a bolt in his face!") before the dice were even rolled.

That's what I described upthread as a "retcon", which Google/Oxford defines as:

a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.​
Here, the new information is _that Harguld waited too long, trying to lure in the Gnoll_, while the previously described event is _I [Harguld] put a bolt in its face!_. The different interpretation is that what initially was presented as competence is, in fact, not. And the dramatic plot shift is that Harguld, rather than confidently shooting the Gnoll, is afraid.

I don't think Burning Wheel has anything quite like this - maybe the Steel rules? In which case Torchbearer makes me think about them in a new light.

I don't think Apocalypse World has anything like this either, but I don't know it quite as well.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 8, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Notice how Dro's narration of his Cunning establishes fiction that is located, in time, prior to Harguld's decision to shoot, which Dro made part of the fiction ("I put a bolt in his face!") before the dice were even rolled.
> 
> That's what I described upthread as a "retcon", which Google/Oxford defines as:
> 
> ...



Yeah, not in Dungeon World. As you say, its a more immediate kind of thing, if you say you do it, you do it. So, in DW you'd not get the chance to impose factors after the check that would alter the fiction, though I think we can still claim it to be Fortune In the Middle, as there are often elements of the fiction left unresolved after you declare your action and the GM names your move. Once you roll, you will still have to describe the outcome. In Harguld's case it could be that he outright hits the gnoll, or that he hits but has to choose a complication (out of ammo, reduced damage, or some sort of complication that the GM gets to name, hard move basically). He could also miss of course. In the 7-9 case there is definitely added fiction to be dealt with, although it might be fairly cut and dried.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 8, 2022)

So @pemerton  is displaying what I'd call intentionality but calling it something else. I don't want to argue.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> So @pemerton  is displaying what I'd call intentionality



Well I'm engaging in actions. They can be described in a way that will reveal my intention, and other underlying mental states; and also in ways that won't.

I just don't think we need this sort of apparatus from phil of action and phil of mind to talk about what Thor and Dro were doing!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2022)

But the connection to the BW Steel rules is something that I intend to think more about.

(And I'm not 100% sure how I ended up with this weird two-part post.)


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 8, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Well I'm engaging in actions. They can be described in a way that will reveal my intention, and other underlying mental states; and also in ways that won't.
> 
> I just don't think we need this sort of apparatus from phil of action and phil of mind to talk about what Thor and Dro were doing!



Like I said, I don't think it changes the game any at all which of us is right here, and I'm not even sure I am.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 8, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I just don't think we need this sort of apparatus from phil of action and phil of mind to talk about what Thor and Dro were doing!



I will always defend games as a proper topic for the full force of intellectual, philosophical, social and academic study. And I believe we can rightly hold such conversations on this site, specifically dedicated to conversation about games, where we happily find intelligent interlocuters deeply versed in the domain.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Apr 8, 2022)

clearstream said:


> I will always defend games as a proper topic for the full force of intellectual, philosophical, social and academic study. And I believe we can rightly hold such conversations on this site, specifically dedicated to conversation about games with intelligent interlocuters deeply versed in the domain.



That's a lot of words. I do think that intentionality plays in though. Cut me some slack though, I'm a History guy, not a Phil guy.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 8, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> Like I said, I don't think it changes the game any at all which of us is right here, and I'm not even sure I am.



Well, I think its a bit fuzzier. So, intention is a thing, but its a bit like the fiction that we're adjudicating in FitM, nothing is quite nailed down yet. At least this is the case in both DW and TB2, but remember, in BW you describe INTENT, the actual outcome you envisage happening. That might be a bit removed from intention. In other words I might attack the gnolls with the INTENT of delaying them, and my intentions are to protect my friends at any cost. My action is shooting. Now, as to the value of these distinctions in terms of analysis and formulation of process in game designs? Or informing techniques of play? I prefer to wait and see, but I just didn't want to prematurely lump intent into the related, but distinct, fictional position.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 8, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> That's a lot of words. I do think that intentionality plays in though. Cut me some slack though, I'm a History guy, not a Phil guy.



Cheer up, I'm a mathematician and science + computers guy. Logic and 'process' I get. When you all start digging into higher level philosophical discussions it just sounds like navel gazing to me, lol. I wire boxes and arrows and whatnot together and run it and see what happens.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 9, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> intention is a thing.



Whose? Dro's? That's real, not part of the fiction. Harguld's? That's part of the fiction, but at the moment of action declaration is fully subsumed within the action - indeed, it's this relative thinness of the established fiction pertaining to Harguld's intention, ie we know nothing more than that he is shooting a bolt at the Gnoll, that permits the subsequent retcon created by use of the trait.

This isn't really aimed at you (AbdulAlhazred) as on this I think we're agreed. But I don't think that either @clearstream or @Fenris-77 has said whose intention they are having regard to, when they say that the intention is a component of the fictional position.



clearstream said:


> I will always defend games as a proper topic for the full force of intellectual, philosophical, social and academic study.



Sure. But I will always take the view - whether in conversations on a discussion board, or when supervising my students, or when doing my own work, that it is a mistake to wheel out more machinery than you need.

Dro declares Harguld's action, which is to shoot at the Gnoll with a crossbow bolt. Although Dro's literal words are "I put a bolt in his face!", we all know that (i) Torchbearer has no hit location, so "in his face" is mere flavour, and (ii) a player saying it doesn't make it so, so the description of the action as "putting a bolt" in the Gnoll really means "shooting at the Gnoll, hoping thereby to stop and perhaps kill it".

We don't need any deeper analysis of Harguld's mental states to know what the declared action is. Nor do we need any notion of potentiality. We have all the relevant components of the fiction established: a cave, with a mouth and beyond that a shadowy tunnel; Harguld at the mouth, having just launched a bolt from his crossbow at a Gnoll in the tunnel.

The question is, _what happens next_. Whatever answer is given, the established fiction constrains the subsequent narration of that new fiction; no one can change the fact that Harguld is there, that the Gnoll is there, that Harguld has shot at the Gnoll.

But none of that subsequent narration is part of Dro's fictional position when he declared that Harguld shot the Gnoll. Not even if that subsequent narration establishes something that was true, in the fiction, when Harguld shot - such as the Gnoll got in close because Harguld waited too long to take the shot, trying to cunningly lure the Gnoll in.

What I've just posted can be explained without needing any account of Harguld's mental states beyond the description of his action: he shoots at the Gnoll hoping to stop or kill it ("put a bolt in his face!"). And adding some richer analysis of Harguld's mental state won't change the way the use of a trait works, the retcon works, and the GM's narration of consequences works.

That's why I think its unnecessary machinery.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 9, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Whose? Dro's? That's real, not part of the fiction. Harguld's? That's part of the fiction, but at the moment of action declaration is fully subsumed within the action - indeed, it's this relative thinness of the established fiction pertaining to Harguld's intention, ie we know nothing more than that he is shooting a bolt at the Gnoll, that permits the subsequent retcon created by use of the trait.
> 
> This isn't really aimed at you (AbdulAlhazred) as on this I think we're agreed. But I don't think that either @clearstream or @Fenris-77 has said whose intention they are having regard to, when they say that the intention is a component of the fictional position.



Something Baker wrote that I find interesting is -



> Fictional positioning is only and always retroactive. You can *guess* what your position is, and you can *plan* for your future position, but it's only when you test your position by making a move that you learn whether the move is legitimate




It's hard to see if this means that the fictional position is ever known. One way to read it might be to suppose that at time T I don't know my fictional position, and at T+1 I make a test to establish something about it, so that at time T+2 presumably the outcome of that test is known and thus I know something about my fictional position. The nature of the test is to make a move and learn whether it is legitimate.

Alternatively, it might rule out establishing with certainty any of the contents of fictional position at any time, so that a fact that legitimated a move and thus might seem to have been established at time T+2 _cannot_ be reliably known at time T+3, and I can only *guess* at the result of testing something also (seemingly) connected with it at T+4.

Perhaps this is more a comment on the nature of declarations: avoiding assuming that future (and thus not yet known) declarations can be reliably connected with the contents - established or otherwise - of a fictional position. Suppose that a player's subsequent declaration is identical to their first? At T1 "I pick a pine needle from the Christmas tree" which we test and say that it's okay. At T4 "I pick a pine needle from the Christmas tree"... is it no more than a guess that this will be legitimate in the absence of intervening change?

We regularly speak of established or prior fiction, so for now my view is the first one. Through speech acts and tests we gradually establish some known contents of our fictional position. Even if we never establish all of its the contents.



pemerton said:


> Dro declares Harguld's action, which is to shoot at the Gnoll with a crossbow bolt. Although Dro's literal words are "I put a bolt in his face!", we all know that (i) Torchbearer has no hit location, so "in his face" is mere flavour, and (ii) a player saying it doesn't make it so, so the description of the action as "putting a bolt" in the Gnoll really means "shooting at the Gnoll, hoping thereby to stop and perhaps kill it".
> 
> We don't need any deeper analysis of Harguld's mental states to know what the declared action is. Nor do we need any notion of potentiality. We have all the relevant components of the fiction established: a cave, with a mouth and beyond that a shadowy tunnel; Harguld at the mouth, having just launched a bolt from his crossbow at a Gnoll in the tunnel.



Suppose we had a description of fictional positioning that assumed it was a set of facts. Earlier you suggested that Harguld's fictional position is that he is standing, in a cave mouth, crossbow cocked and loaded, waiting for Gnolls. These facts seem to include both imaginary physical facts (imagined tension in the spring arm of a crossbow) and imaginary mental facts (waiting for Gnolls).

What I believe Baker might have been dealing with is that Dro can say something like "H picks a pebble up off the cave floor" - and everyone may well agree that yes, cave floors no doubt have pebbles and picking up a pebble is something H can do. In that light, it seems hard to pin fictional position down to a finite set of facts, rather it has to be thought of as a scene with some known contents and some unknown.

What contents become known? Only those we intend to know.



pemerton said:


> The question is, _what happens next_. Whatever answer is given, the established fiction constrains the subsequent narration of that new fiction; no one can change the fact that Harguld is there, that the Gnoll is there, that Harguld has shot at the Gnoll.
> 
> But none of that subsequent narration is part of Dro's fictional position when he declared that Harguld shot the Gnoll. Not even if that subsequent narration establishes something that was true, in the fiction, when Harguld shot - such as the Gnoll got in close because Harguld waited too long to take the shot, trying to cunningly lure the Gnoll in.



We must avoid assuming here that Dro's fictional position is completely known at time T when Dro declares that H shot. According to Baker, and my own reasoning, it is not. Whatever is known about its contents at time T omits something that comes to be known at time T+1.

The only known contents of the fictional position are those we intend to know, and at time T+1 it has gained additional or modified contents that will legitimate (or not, e.g. rule out as reaching) Dro's further declarations.



pemerton said:


> What I've just posted can be explained without needing any account of Harguld's mental states beyond the description of his action: he shoots at the Gnoll hoping to stop or kill it ("put a bolt in his face!"). And adding some richer analysis of Harguld's mental state won't change the way the use of a trait works, the retcon works, and the GM's narration of consequences works.
> 
> That's why I think its unnecessary machinery.



Of all the things we can argue about, arguing about what we are allowed to include in our process of understanding seems to me the least appealing. Especially given the nascent state of game studies and ludology.


----------



## Manbearcat (Apr 9, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Something Baker wrote that I find interesting is -
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Given the context of his works and GMing of Dogs in the Vineyard + Apocalypse World + his other contributions to The Forge and his own blog + seminars/things he's said on podcasts, I'm confident this means the following:

_* Fictional Positioning error *on the part of the character (their own perception of things*) is in play as an input to GMing rendering consequences/updating the fictional positioning so long as it doesn't violate rules/established stuff about the fiction.  _

For instance:

"I believe I can exorcise this demon <no you can't vs yes you can>."

"I believe Brother Abner to be above the Sin of False Testimony <no he isn't vs yes he is>."

"I believe my rebuke of Brother Abner by the way of the words of The Book will bring him back into the fold of The King of Life <no it won't vs yes it will>."

"I believe I can break this horse <no you can't vs yes you can>."

"When I need it, my aim is always true <no it isn't vs yes it is>."

"Matilda and Baroness Zuma don't have the cajones to bring weapons to this cease-fire meeting <no they don't vs yes they do>."

"I can get this hunk of junk started <no you can't vs yes you can>."

Etc etc.

The match between pre-move and post-move conception of setting and situation and character is up for grabs as an outgrowth of move resolution (so long as that rendered consequence doesn't violate any rules, principles, or firmly established priors).


----------



## clearstream (Apr 9, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Given the context of his works and GMing of Dogs in the Vineyard + Apocalypse World + his other contributions to The Forge and his own blog + seminars/things he's said on podcasts, I'm confident this means the following:
> 
> _* Fictional Positioning error *on the part of the character (their own perception of things*) is in play as an input to GMing rendering consequences/updating the fictional positioning so long as it doesn't violate rules/established stuff about the fiction.  _
> 
> ...



This page contains his summary to that point. You'll have to say more about how his comment's meaning is limited in the way you suggest it is.

I think that any participant (not solely GM) is intended to be able to judge declarations of trait moves in TB2. (Per the Reaching rules.)


----------



## Manbearcat (Apr 9, 2022)

pemerton said:


> And just to be clear - given that I feel you're something of an innocent bystander in this exchange who's taking fire from entrenched positions you didn't even know were there! - there is a hill I'm defending. Which is that the use of a Trait, in Torchbearer, is not fiction-first. And the reason I'm defending that hill is because the difference between Torchbearer and DungeonWorld is a real one. And if we want to have good play experiences in TB, and good play experiences in DW, we should keep that in mind. DW is "if you do it, you do it". TB isn't. That's part of what opens up TB to skilful play in ways that are different from DW. Not all skilful play in TB is skilful play of the fiction. Quite a bit of it is skilful play of "meta"-resources, like Traits. (I'll @Manbearcat on this point, in case he has any thoughts to share.)




Yup, I agree with this.  Its a fundamental part of my lead post of the _Story Now vs et al _thread (which is invoking Torchbearer in part!).

* Some of Torchbearer Skilled Play will be about skillful play of the fiction (eg where you're able to avoid a Test yet defeat an obstacle...or you're able to correctly infer one or more aspects of a GM's upcoming turn in a Conflict based upon the "Pictionary-esque" telegraphed components of the fictional positioning they've relayed or that has been updated from the prior turn).

* A lot of Torchbearer Skilled Play will be about skillful play of system architecture (eg we need a Check for Camp and I'm surely going to lose this test so I may as well use a Trait against myself here...or I'm going to navigate my decision-space by playing hard to my strengths in this moment because we really need to avoid a Condition/Twist here).

* Some of Torchbearer Skilled Play will about skillful play of both the fiction and the system architecture (eg during Conflict Compromise the Conflict saw me using my Trait to Defend/Regroup my companions <navigating the headspace of player and PC at the same time>, but I took full HP loss at the end so perhaps if I accept an Injury, that will likely provide my companions the purchase they need from danger to see them through the rest of the Adventure...and I'm more capable than most of surviving Injury so perhaps I give myself a remote shot as well...or I'm hopeful that my precious magical helmet will survive the fall down that crevasse from that Twist, but we can't afford the Tests and risks nor can I in good conscious assume the liability of terrible fallout from an Adventure-impacting excursion to go get my Gear so maybe we'll go back for it after we achieve our Goals here.)


----------



## Manbearcat (Apr 9, 2022)

clearstream said:


> This page contains his summary to that point. You'll have to say more about how his comment's meaning is limited in the way you suggest it is.
> 
> I think that any participant (not solely GM) is intended to be able to judge declarations of trait moves in TB2. (Per the Reaching rules.)




V.B is a big believer in both the legitimacy of axioms broadly applied but also the nuance that comes with an individual game's autonomous ruleset.

When he's invoking this for Apocaylypse World, we know that "the move is legitimate from a game perspective because we've agreed that a move was triggered."  If it wasn't legitimate, a move wouldn't be triggered and we wouldn't be rolling dice.  However, we don't know if the character's perspective on the fictional positioning (both the nature of all things in the shared imagined space + their orientation to each other) that helped them navigate their decision-space was legitimate until after the move is made and the shared imagined space is updated (downstream Consequences have been rendered by the GM).

When he's invoking Dogs in the Vineyard for this (which shares kindred tech with Torchbearer in that Traits, Things, Relationships are fictional tags/PC build components that come with associated dice pool which you martial during conflicts), he means.  In Dogs in the Vineyard, your stuff martialed (the Attributes you've deployed + their results + any Traits/Things/Relationships you've just pulled into the conflict) and deployed on any given turn are both:

* _What is at stake_ is the fundamental question of how the fiction will be changed as a result of this conflict.

* Your total dice and their results (your pool to pull from as you Raise/See et al) give _your relevant bargaining position_.

* Your Raise is both _what your character doe_s and _the dice you put forth to back it up_.

* How this turns resolution pans out and if your bargaining position in a "just talking" conflict winnows to the point of _no bargaining position at all_ (forcing you to either escalate to "merely" physical...or make the situation outright life-threatening...or give/fold) will give a whole lot of shape to the nature of "what your character does/did" and "what is at stake."


----------



## clearstream (Apr 9, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> V.B is a big believer in both the legitimacy of axioms broadly applied but also the nuance that comes with an individual game's autonomous ruleset.
> 
> When he's invoking this for Apocaylypse World, we know that "the move is legitimate from a game perspective because we've agreed that a move was triggered."  If it wasn't legitimate, a move wouldn't be triggered and we wouldn't be rolling dice.  However, we don't know if the character's perspective on the fictional positioning (both the nature of all things in the shared imagined space + their orientation to each other) that helped them navigate their decision-space was legitimate until after the move is made and the shared imagined space is updated (downstream Consequences have been rendered by the GM).
> 
> ...



I was thinking something similar. Moves is defined and referenced, and that points well to the PbtA instantiation. TB2 adds nuance.

In both cases, someone is at some point contemplating the fictional position and deciding on legitimacy. Say it's the GM in a PbtA game. They decide legitimacy at the point they say that a move was triggered. In TB2 there can be escalation of the sort you say, and that is examined for legitimacy per the rules on reaching. (And possibly the rules on good ideas suggest that some especially legitimate moves accurately answer all doubts.)

You seem to be saying that what the player is guessing about is whether other players will agree that the fictional position legitimates their move. Where I presuppose a reasonable accord between players. It's not up to Jo to say - I don't like can-openers so nothing you declare involving can-openers will ever be legitimate. Jo has to accept Dro's declaration that they open the can of tomato soup with the can-opener. (And this is true even if the rules are silent on cans of tomato soup and can-openers.) This isn't a case of lines and veils, which is an agreement made in entering the magic circle, which of course could _possibly_ exclude tomato soup, cans or can-openers.

Its a game of - do the contents of the fictional position in your mind match what is in my mind. And - does what you think the contents of the fictional position imply match what I think they imply (whether the same or dissimilar from what I think they include)? To which GMs in some modes of play bring privileged information.

In all these cases, what is in the fictional position is that which we intend. What you highlight, I believe, is that we are dealing with intentionality on a per mind basis. Which is what I think, too. And that certainly plays a part in guesswork. But... do you feel that in say DW it may matter more what the GM intends than what players intend? Given the GM decides when to say that a move is rightly invoked.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 10, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Something Baker wrote that I find interesting is -
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to see if this means that the fictional position is ever known. One way to read it might be to suppose that at time T I don't know my fictional position, and at T+1 I make a test to establish something about it, so that at time T+2 presumably the outcome of that test is known and thus I know something about my fictional position. The nature of the test is to make a move and learn whether it is legitimate.



All Vince is saying, IMHO, is that 'the fiction' is really a SHARED CONSTRUCT, it exists as a mix of things that are fairly manifest (IE we have some minis and they are in certain spots on a battle mat, certain clear statements have been made that everyone should have internalized, etc.) and it also contains things that are LESS manifest, or not manifest at all and simply exist in the head of one participant. Some things will clearly never have been established at all (IE the color of the cave walls). IF these things become relevant in play, they will be tested, or someone responsible for framing that part of the scene will do so, etc. In TB2 it is mostly the GM that would do this sort of stuff, unless perhaps a player adds some details to the scene in support of using a trait or something like that. If he does, there's a risk the rest of the table might not accept that new detail, but its probably pretty safe in many cases.

When I called out Intention as separate, what I mean, and this relates to @pemerton's response, is it really is virtually NEVER in the manifest part of the fiction. Intentions change constantly with circumstances. Make up a new plan, begin to execute it, new intentions. The GOAL, the overall intent, may change less often, but the character's immediate goals are like water flowing in the river, its constantly moving and changing, its fluid! So it can really ONLY be established at the moment it is relevant by the player, or possibly tested by some dice or something like that. I don't think anything except the player can really change it in TB2. At most the GM could drop a condition or twist on you that UNDERMINES your intentions but it won't actually change or create them, the player does that.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> All Vince is saying, IMHO, is that 'the fiction' is really a SHARED CONSTRUCT, it exists as a mix of things that are fairly manifest (IE we have some minis and they are in certain spots on a battle mat, certain clear statements have been made that everyone should have internalized, etc.) and it also contains things that are LESS manifest, or not manifest at all and simply exist in the head of one participant. Some things will clearly never have been established at all (IE the color of the cave walls). IF these things become relevant in play, they will be tested, or someone responsible for framing that part of the scene will do so, etc. In TB2 it is mostly the GM that would do this sort of stuff, unless perhaps a player adds some details to the scene in support of using a trait or something like that. If he does, there's a risk the rest of the table might not accept that new detail, but its probably pretty safe in many cases.



I feel that "shared" is similar to "on a per mind basis". Both are right.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> When I called out Intention as separate, what I mean, and this relates to @pemerton's response, is it really is virtually NEVER in the manifest part of the fiction.



It's _always_ manifest in the fiction, and every example given thus far has shown that. One version of the fiction offered had among its proposed contents "_waiting_ for Gnolls." Waiting is replete with intention. Waiting for Gnolls doubly so.

I am starting to notice two types (or layers) of intention present in fictional positioning.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Intentions change constantly with circumstances. Make up a new plan, begin to execute it, new intentions. The GOAL, the overall intent, may change less often, but the character's immediate goals are like water flowing in the river, its constantly moving and changing, its fluid! So it can really ONLY be established at the moment it is relevant by the player, or possibly tested by some dice or something like that. I don't think anything except the player can really change it in TB2. At most the GM could drop a condition or twist on you that UNDERMINES your intentions but it won't actually change or create them, the player does that.



The fact that they change is not at odds with forming part of the fictional positioning. Another way to put that is - can you say how you think it is at odds? Fictional positioning is fluid, right? It's not - set it up and it's static from then on.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 10, 2022)

clearstream said:


> I feel that "shared" is similar to "on a per mind basis". Both are right.
> 
> 
> It's _always_ manifest in the fiction, and every example given thus far has shown that. One version of the fiction offered had among its proposed contents "_waiting_ for Gnolls." Waiting is replete with intention. Waiting for Gnolls doubly so.
> ...



Sure, but the player can come up with the character's intentions for a given scene on the fly. It isn't manifest (at least unless its really spelled out in a formal way on the character sheet perhaps) in any sense, not until the player says what the character does. I mean, some of it may be pretty obvious from the start, and thus probably part of the "everyone has the same idea in mind" part of the fiction, but a lot of times I can't really guess exactly what a player is going to say, until they say it. It becomes part of the FICTION at that point, but I don't think it is POSITION, it is more REACTION. Anyway, this is all idealized, and real play is this mix of things, right? So I don't feel like you want to get too rigid, but it IS helpful to do these analyses.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 11, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Something Baker wrote that I find interesting is



Here's a fuller quote:

A player's *position* is the total set of all of the legitimate gameplay options available to her at this moment of play. *Positioning* refers to the various factors and processes, including in-fiction, cue-mediated, and interpersonal, that determine a player's position. . . .

When you say that your character does something, no, she doesn't. Not until every person at the table agrees that she's done it. 

Fictional positioning can give legitimacy to other players' assertions and challenges about "your" character, thus showing the character to be not your own at all, after all. . . .

Fictional positioning is only and always retroactive. You can guess what your position is, and you can plan for your future position, but it's only when you test your position by making a move that you learn whether the move is legitimate. (It usually is.)​
This conforms broadly with what @AbdulAlhazred and @Manbearcat have posted:



Manbearcat said:


> I'm confident this means the following:
> 
> _* Fictional Positioning error *on the part of the character (their own perception of things*) is in play as an input to GMing rendering consequences/updating the fictional positioning so long as it doesn't violate rules/established stuff about the fiction.  _
> 
> ...



Manbearcat's examples of action declarations which have an uncertain outcome at the moment they are declared reflect Baker's remark that a character doesn't do a thing until everyone agrees that they do, and hence that fictional positioning is retroactive, in the sense that it a player's intuition about what the shared fiction is vis-a-vis their PC is not confirmed until after they declare an action on the strength of it. Manbearcat's examples of action declarations all involve the triggering of fortune mechanisms (I think - I'm not sure about Matilda and the Baroness) but another example, which turns on sheer consensus unmediated by a fortune mechanism, is declaring a trait.

So @clearstream is correct in mentioning that (in post 260) but in my view wrong to think it's any sort of counter-example to Manbearcat's post.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> All Vince is saying, IMHO, is that 'the fiction' is really a SHARED CONSTRUCT



Right. And because we can't know what is shared until we put it to some sort of test, that's why it becomes confirmed retroactively. In the context of the sorts of examples Manbearcat has in mind, the main contributor to uncertainty - and hence the locus of the "test" - is the roll of the dice. (Or toss of the coin, or draw of the cards, etc.)

In the case of a drama-type resolution, like Dro declaring that Harguld's cunning leads him to wait too long, then the uncertainty arises from the possibility that fellow participants will reject the suggested addition to the shared fiction. Personally I think that Baker here is too sceptical and/or behaviouristic about our knowledge of the contents of others' minds, but I'll willing to let that pass. He kind-of concedes the point with his parenthetical "It usually is." Why is that? Because usually we know what our fellow players are thinking about the fiction.)

None of this seems to connect in any particular way to intentions - either the imaginary intentions of imaginary people (ie the characters in the fiction) or the real intentions of real people (those who are together constituting the shared fiction in virtue of their collective imagining.



clearstream said:


> It's hard to see if this means that the fictional position is ever known.



That would depend on one's standard for knowledge. To use a phrase from Russell's Problems of Philosophy, it can certainly be a matter of "probable opinion". Eg when Dro declares that Harguld shoots his crossbow, that is drama resolution (before we get to the fortune aspect of _whether or not the Gnoll is shot, or driven back by the shot_) and the fictional position that underlies it is Harguld waiting in the cave mouth with his crossbow loaded and ready. Dro can be pretty confident that his fictional position permits the making of that move, as there is no provision in Torchbearer that I'm aware of that would permit another participant to veto that sort of action declaration grounded in that sort of robust fictional position.



clearstream said:


> One way to read it might be to suppose that at time T I don't know my fictional position, and at T+1 I make a test to establish something about it, so that at time T+2 presumably the outcome of that test is known and thus I know something about my fictional position. The nature of the test is to make a move and learn whether it is legitimate.



Well, it can depend. In Dro's case, what you learn is whether your conjecture about what your fellow players are envisaging, and that it's the same as what you are envisaging, is true. You learn this twice: once when you declare that Harguld shoots, and a second time when you declare that Harguld's Cunning led him to wait too long trying to lure the Gnoll in.

You don't learn anything new about _the fiction_ out of this. What you do learn is the truth (or otherwise, if your move is not accepted) of your conjecture about what your fellow participants believed about the fiction. You learn what your fictional position _was_. (Not what it _is_ - that would contradict the claim about retroactivity.)

Contrast @Manbearcat's fortune-based examples. In those cases, what the dice do is lead you to learn something new about the fiction. Eg is your PC _really_ able to abjure the spirit?



clearstream said:


> it might rule out establishing with certainty any of the contents of fictional position at any time, so that a fact that legitimated a move and thus might seem to have been established at time T+2 _cannot_ be reliably known at time T+3, and I can only *guess* at the result of testing something also (seemingly) connected with it at T+4.



Fictional position is, says Baker, confirmed retroactively, in that it is tested by finding out if everyone agrees with your own conception of what the fiction contains and permits. At T+4 you know that your move at T+3 was legitimate, but that doesn't mean that your move at T+4 will be.



clearstream said:


> Suppose that a player's subsequent declaration is identical to their first? At T1 "I pick a pine needle from the Christmas tree" which we test and say that it's okay. At T4 "I pick a pine needle from the Christmas tree"... is it no more than a guess that this will be legitimate in the absence of intervening change?



What does "intervening change" mean here? In Baker's terminology, it is a _guess_ that your fellow participants agree with you, the declaring player, that the fiction has not relevantly changed. (Maybe think there are no needles left on the tree, or that you've fallen asleep, or that by touching the tree you were paralysed by a contact poison.)

I've set out my quibbles with his use of the word "guess" above and so won't reiterate them. Those quibbles don't go to the main point, which is that the status of the fiction as _shared_ depends upon consensus at every moment. It is never "locked in" by the conception of one particular participant at one particular moment.



clearstream said:


> We regularly speak of established or prior fiction, so for now my view is the first one. Through speech acts and tests we gradually establish some known contents of our fictional position. Even if we never establish all of its the contents.



I don't think this is what is being said at all. He's not talking about the process of building up the fiction. He's talking about the issue of consensus. This is brought out by linking the remarks about fictional position to the remarks about _what a character does_ - eg Dro says "I put a bolt in his face!" but that doesn't actually become part of the shared fiction unless everyone agrees, and everyone will agree only if certain cues - results of dice rolls, etc - come up certain ways. Otherwise all that Dro establishes is that Harguld has shot a bolt from his crossbow.



clearstream said:


> Suppose we had a description of fictional positioning that assumed it was a set of facts. Earlier you suggested that Harguld's fictional position is that he is standing, in a cave mouth, crossbow cocked and loaded, waiting for Gnolls. These facts seem to include both imaginary physical facts (imagined tension in the spring arm of a crossbow) and imaginary mental facts (waiting for Gnolls).
> 
> What I believe Baker might have been dealing with is that Dro can say something like "H picks a pebble up off the cave floor" - and everyone may well agree that yes, cave floors no doubt have pebbles and picking up a pebble is something H can do. In that light, it seems hard to pin fictional position down to a finite set of facts, rather it has to be thought of as a scene with some known contents and some unknown.



The picking of a pebble from a cave floor is an action declaration that takes, as a premise, that Harguld is in a cave with pebbles on the floor. Dro finds out if his fictional position permits that action declaration when people agree or they don't - maybe the GM calls for a Scavenger test! (In my last Burning Wheel session, I made a Scavenger test for my PC to find a burning brand in the inn that would let him light his way.)

This doesn't change the point that fictional position flows from (or if one focuses on character rather than player, is constituted by) an imagined state of affairs. But the state of affairs has to be imagined by everyone, and every attempt to introduce some new content into it - and for players, it is action declarations that are the main way of doing that - reopens the question of what exactly it is that everyone agrees on!



clearstream said:


> What contents become known? Only those we intend to know.



Whose intention are you referring to here? Who is the "we"?

Dro declares "Harguld picks up a pebble." This is a suggestion to introduce some new content. The GM calls for a Scavenger test. The test fails. The GM narrates a twist - _groping around on the cave floor in the semi-darkness, Harguld accidentally drops his crossbow. The Gnolls hear the clatter and rush the cave mouth!_ We still don't know whether or not there are pebbles on the cave floor. We know that Harguld has dropped his bow, and that the Gnolls are charging at him. These newly-known things are not things anyone at the table intended to know.



clearstream said:


> In all these cases, what is in the fictional position is that which we intend.



If that were so, RPGers couldn't play to find out.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 11, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Waiting is replete with intention. Waiting for Gnolls doubly so.



All action is replete with intention. _I put a bolt in its face!_ is replete with intention. _I pick up a pebble_ is replete with intention. But the intention is encompassed by the description of the action.

I also note here that you are talking about Harguld's imaginary intention; whereas when you refer to _intending_ the fictional positioning, you are referring to game participants' actual intentions. Upthread I asked _whose intention_ and I'm still quite unclear on that.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, but the player can come up with the character's intentions for a given scene on the fly. It isn't manifest (at least unless its really spelled out in a formal way on the character sheet perhaps) in any sense, not until the player says what the character does. I mean, some of it may be pretty obvious from the start, and thus probably part of the "everyone has the same idea in mind" part of the fiction, but a lot of times I can't really guess exactly what a player is going to say, until they say it. It becomes part of the FICTION at that point, but I don't think it is POSITION, it is more REACTION.



The point can be made more strongly than you have made it here.

Dro declares (speaking for Harguld): "I put a bolt in its face!" The explanation exclamation mark that is used in the type suggests a degree of immediacy and enthusiasm in Dro's utterance at the table. Yet we learn, later on (ie after the trait is declared) that Harguld _didn't_ shoot immediately and with enthusiasm, but that in fact he waited too long (Dro's narration of Cunning) and that he barely got the shot off in time (Thor's narration, as GM, of the success + condition). There is not the least hint in the rulebook that anyone might declare Dro's use of the trait to be "reaching" because of the immediacy implied by his enthusiastic action declaration, uttered in Harguld's voice.

This greatly reinforces your point that character intentions are made up on the fly, are typically not regarded as part of the fictional position beyond the declared action itself (in this case, shooting at the Gnoll), and are rather injected retrospectively as needed to make sense of what is going on. In Edwards' terminology Dro, in using his Cunning trait, first enters author stance, narrating that Harguld waits too long; and then enters director stance, narrating that the Gnoll comes in close before Harguld takes his shot. Attributions of intention to Harguld help establish credible fiction around these moments of narration, but they are not part of the fictional position. Even when Thor narrates consequences, the salient fictional position that he relies on is not _that Harguld waited_ but rather _that the Gnoll closed_ and thus that the shot was a desperate one - hence Harguld becomes Afraid.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> If that were so, RPGers couldn't play to find out.



There is no conflict between intending, and finding out: RPGers find out what is within the scope of what they intended to find out. Anything else is meaningless. But more interestingly...



pemerton said:


> Well, it can depend. In Dro's case, what you learn is whether your conjecture about what your fellow players are envisaging, and that it's the same as what you are envisaging, is true. You learn this twice: once when you declare that Harguld shoots, and a second time when you declare that Harguld's Cunning led him to wait too long trying to lure the Gnoll in.
> 
> You don't learn anything new about _the fiction_ out of this. What you do learn is the truth (or otherwise, if your move is not accepted) of your conjecture about what your fellow participants believed about the fiction. You learn what your fictional position _was_. (Not what it _is_ - that would contradict the claim about retroactivity.)



There may be some unhelpful ideas about the timeline coming into play here. There is no fictional position that _was_. There is only our present belief about the fictional position, given what we know right now. It might be better to use the term "reflectively". You learn (through your own and others reflection upon it) what your fictional position _is_ believed to be _now_.

Additionally, we're close to saying that fictional position _is_ the judgement of what is legitimate. So that it has no other form than the sense for legitimacy. Whereas almost all of our earlier discussion has given it (incompletely known) form, so that players might be expected to be capable of self-reporting much about what they believe the fictional position is.

In any case, when I think of intention there are two ways that applies. The first is aboutness. In order to be capable of saying what follows (or does not follow, say in the case of reaching) we must know what the fiction is about. That's an important aspect of fictional positioning: a shared idea of what the fiction is about. In the case at hand, it's about (inter alia) being pursued by gnolls.

Suppose contrary to that, it was not? That will commit us to accepting non-sequiteurs - absurdly disconnected sequences of actions - as always justified. That's not the sort of game that anyone plays. Given the vast number of possible declarations, taken sincerely it would rule out anyone saying anything that follows.

The second way is the question of whether someone can hold a belief about the fictional position that includes an intention - such as I believe the parson intends to strike the child - and then make judgements of declarations in that light (retroactively, reflectively, whatever.) Such as counting justified a player's invoking their Good Parent trait (were there such a thing) to oppose the parson. I do not see how that can be ruled out and therefore one must accept at minimum that fictional positioning _can include_ intentions.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> All action is replete with intention. _I put a bolt in its face!_ is replete with intention. _I pick up a pebble_ is replete with intention. But the intention is encompassed by the description of the action.
> 
> I also note here that you are talking about Harguld's imaginary intention; whereas when you refer to _intending_ the fictional positioning, you are referring to game participants' actual intentions. Upthread I asked _whose intention_ and I'm still quite unclear on that.
> 
> ...



Right, so between us all we have pretty much come to an understanding, as I see it. There are already agreed-upon elements of fiction, which are presumably shared in consensus fashion and possibly in the form of cues. These, at least some of them, provide us with a fictional position, a frame in which participants can employ the game's process to extend the fiction. This process consists of assertions, which are then supported or not supported. Ultimately they are or are not accepted as new facts, which may alter the fictional position of the characters and thus feed into a new cycle of assertions. Things like character intent seem to me to relate more to AGENDA and PREMISE, and don't so much belong to the realm of fictional position. They may well become part of the fiction itself, though I would note they take on a character of more being 'narrative' than fact assertions (IE some sort of omniscient 'god view' or maybe 'first person' narrator would describe Harguld's intentions and mental state). I think a player might even plausibly deny that they are fictionally established after the fact (IE claim some alternative motive for a character action later on, who is to say which is true, given that they both lead to the same facts). 

Anyway, bringing all that back to TB2 we can certainly see where it engages process at a good number of points to bolster or constrain what can be said about a character's nature and intentions. You can cut against that, or go with it, and either way it has some impact on play. If my character abandons his belief in favor of some other goal (my current character for example could cause harm to his elf community to save another PC) that's accounted for as a possibility, and I think there's even a potential reward of Personality points for that kind of thing. I might also have to rewrite my belief, so it engages with game premise in a mechanical way (changing some cues). I think that is really ultimately what pushes it into being Gamist vs purely Narrative in character, as a game. I think that's pretty uncontroversial though at this point.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2022)

clearstream said:


> There is no conflict between intending, and finding out: RPGers find out what is within the scope of what they intended to find out. Anything else is meaningless. But more interestingly...
> 
> 
> There may be some unhelpful ideas about the timeline coming into play here. There is no fictional position that _was_. There is only our present belief about the fictional position, given what we know right now. It might be better to use the term "reflectively". You learn (through your own and others reflection upon it) what your fictional position _is_ believed to be _now_.
> ...



I think the problem is you are sort of invoking some form of degenerate play. In what game would players fiddle with pebbles instead of dealing with an immediate threat which opposes their goals? I think we have to take it as a given that Story Now (and the other agendas equally it would seem) only work when the participants actually play the game. If I play chess and just make random moves, I'm not really engaging, the game will be at best highly uninteresting and have little of the character of an actual chess game beyond the basic form.

So, given that players will address their agenda and specific intent, I don't think we need to consider this intent to be a part of the fiction, certainly not a part of the bit we are establishing RIGHT NOW. It more supervenes over position. Yes, in a good faith game it will act like a constraint, but its one that is under player control to a large degree, and it is what animates the game in a way that no fiction does.


----------



## JAMUMU (Apr 11, 2022)

I don't want to interrupt the thread, but I just joined to let you know that I've been glued to it. It's been a fantastic read. Thank you, and carry on!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 12, 2022)

clearstream said:


> There is no fictional position that _was_. There is only our present belief about the fictional position, given what we know right now.



Vincent Baker: "Fictional positioning is only and always retroactive. You can *guess* what your position is, and you can *plan* for your future position". I think it follows fairly closely from those two things that you can know what your fictional position - that is, "how the game's fictional stuff affects real-world gameplay" by being one of the "factors and processes . . . that determine" your "total set of all of the legitimate gameplay options available to [you] at [a] moment of play" - _was_. For instance, if Dro declares "I put a bolt in its face!" and that move is accepted as legitimate, Dro now learns that his fictional position included Harguld having a crossbow ready to shoot. Dro was probably already confident about that, for the reasons I posted upthread, but that confidence is now shown to be fully warranted.

Conversely, I don't think it would be consistent with the retroactivity of fictional positioning to deny that there _was_ some or other fictional position.



clearstream said:


> It might be better to use the term "reflectively". You learn (through your own and others reflection upon it) what your fictional position _is_ believed to be _now_.



To me, this does not seem to describe something which is known only retroactively. I also don't find "reflection" that helpful. Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. It is that negotiation that determines fictional positioning. At the core of negotiation is _making decisions together_. Reflection may contribute to this - eg upon reflection, everyone agrees that a shattered faceplate on the surface of Pluto means freezing, suffocating and decompressing - but I don't think reflection is at the core.



clearstream said:


> Additionally, we're close to saying that fictional position _is_ the judgement of what is legitimate.



I'm not. As per Baker, I'm saying that it is one of the factors that determines what moves are legitimate. It's not the only such factor. Cues - eg that two dice pools are tied for successes - constitute another factor. And so do interpersonal considerations.



clearstream said:


> So that it has no other form than the sense for legitimacy.



You seem to be ignoring both cues, and the interpersonal, as factors that underlie legitimacy of moves. 



clearstream said:


> In any case, when I think of intention there are two ways that applies. The first is aboutness. In order to be capable of saying what follows (or does not follow, say in the case of reaching) we must know what the fiction is about. That's an important aspect of fictional positioning: a shared idea of what the fiction is about. In the case at hand, it's about (inter alia) being pursued by gnolls.
> 
> Suppose contrary to that, it was not? That will commit us to accepting non-sequiteurs - absurdly disconnected sequences of actions - as always justified. That's not the sort of game that anyone plays. Given the vast number of possible declarations, taken sincerely it would rule out anyone saying anything that follows.



I don't agree with this. How do we even _know_ that the fiction of Harguld and the Gnolls is about being pursued by Gnolls? We don't know what Harguld's Belief is, nor what his Goal is - and in Torchbearer these are key determinants of what the fiction is about. In this way (and others) TB betrays its origins in BW.

The fiction _contains_ or _includes_ a pursuit of Harguld and friends by Gnolls. That's enough to let us understand the example of play, including how actions are declared. And it marks a _contrast_ with BW - in BW we can't understand an example of play, and in particular how a GM declares consequences of failure, without knowing what the fiction is about, because in BW and unlike in TB, the GM in doing those things must have regard to the Beliefs, Instinct and Traits of the PCs. But what the fiction is _about_ is not itself an element of the fiction (absent 4th-wall breaking stuff, like some approaches to Over the Edge). Rather, it pertains to some of the interpersonal factors that Baker mentions: _being interesting_, _being engaging_, _being relevant_ given that everyone has gathered together here and now to play this game and not this other game. The same is true of your concerns about non-sequiturs. These are not elements of the fiction.

Returning from BW to Torchbearer, the game is about hardscrabble adventurers trying to make their fortunes in a hostile world (see DHB pp 6-7, SG pp 4-6). That means that - typically - the GM would probably be going awry to narrate the Gnoll rushing up to Harguld and planting a kiss on his cheek. We can explain that in part by reference to established elements of the fiction - the cue for Gnolls (ie their statblock on SG p 186) describes their Nature as Ambushing, Devouring and Worshipping, with an Instinct to attack from ambush rather than directly, and that cue supports a shared fiction (as @AbdulAlhazred has mentioned not far upthread), a shared imagining of what Gnolls are like, which makes the planting of the kiss seem inapt. But we can also explain that inaptness by reference to what the rulebooks tells the game is about. Contrast, say, The Dying Earth where something so absurd might be less inapt.



clearstream said:


> The second way is the question of whether someone can hold a belief about the fictional position that includes an intention - such as I believe the parson intends to strike the child - and then make judgements of declarations in that light (retroactively, reflectively, whatever.) Such as counting justified a player's invoking their Good Parent trait (were there such a thing) to oppose the parson. I do not see how that can be ruled out and therefore one must accept at minimum that fictional positioning _can include_ intentions.



You are referring here to a NPC, it seems. AbdulAlhazred and I have been talking primarily about PCs.

The parson about to strike a child seems no different from the Gnoll about to kill and eat Harguld. These are persons in the fiction, doing some things and hoping to do other things. No one disputes that such intentions are part of a fiction. But they are not particularly worthy of remark. Flowers can also be parts of fictions. Hallucinations can also be parts of fictions.

What I have said, and what I believe AbdulAlhazred has also said, is that:

(i) imagined intentions of imagined people play no special or distinctively interesting role in the shared fiction - they are just more imagined stuff;

(ii) the imagined intentions of PCs are highly mutable in play, and often are introduced into the fiction ex-post to make sense of, or support the integration into the fiction of, declared actions (and this is why I mentioned Ron Edwards on stance - stances are particular ways of relating imagined PC intentions and action declarations, and Torchbearer is clearly not a game that promotes predominantly actor stance play;

(iii) that the real intentions of real people are not part of the fiction, and are not part of fictional positioning either.​


AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think the problem is you are sort of invoking some form of degenerate play. In what game would players fiddle with pebbles instead of dealing with an immediate threat which opposes their goals?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> given that players will address their agenda and specific intent, I don't think we need to consider this intent to be a part of the fiction, certainly not a part of the bit we are establishing RIGHT NOW. It more supervenes over position. Yes, in a good faith game it will act like a constraint, but its one that is under player control to a large degree, and it is what animates the game in a way that no fiction does.



Here, you are describing interpersonal factors - playing in good faith, having regard to the overarching purpose/logic of the game, etc - that inform position (ie the suite of available legitimate moves).

Baker himself clearly distinguishes the from the fictional aspect of a particpant's position.

And also related to the issue of legitimate moves, though on the GM-side:


AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think that is really ultimately what pushes it into being Gamist vs purely Narrative in character, as a game. I think that's pretty uncontroversial though at this point.



I think we're not agreed on this point. The features that you mention - players changing intentions, goals, beliefs etc - are all present in Burning Wheel. As I posted in the other thread, the difference I see between the systems is the relationship between player-established priorities, and the considerations that inform the GM's framing and consequence-narration.

As I said above in this post, that is why we can't make sense of a BW episode of play without knowing what the play was "about" - ie the Beliefs etc of the protagonists.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 12, 2022)

clearstream said:


> The fact that they change is not at odds with forming part of the fictional positioning. Another way to put that is - can you say how you think it is at odds? Fictional positioning is fluid, right? It's not - set it up and it's static from then on.



Consider the following from Paul Czege, which has been quite influential on my GMing:

More often than not, the PC's have been geographically separate from each other in the game world. So I go around the room, taking a turn with each player, framing a scene and playing it out. I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​
The "unfixedness" of NPC personalities is a useful GMing technique. That is an instance of the sort of "fluidity" that @AbdulAlhazred has described, I think, though on the GM rather than player side.

But the fluidity is not a component or feature of the fictional position. Rather, it means that there is no fictional position in which these NPCs' personalities figures. Only once the personality becomes fixed, does it become a part of the shared fiction.

This contrasts with a change in fictional position that reflects changes in the fiction - eg at the start, Harguld's crossbow is loaded, but at the end it's not because he's shot at the Gnoll.

We see similar fluidity (not _change_) in relation to _when_ Harguld shoots. Only after Dro has delared the shot, and only after he has then triggered Cunning, do we learn that Harguld waited and that the Gnoll was thus too close.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 17, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Vincent Baker: "Fictional positioning is only and always retroactive. You can *guess* what your position is, and you can *plan* for your future position". I think it follows fairly closely from those two things that you can know what your fictional position - that is, "how the game's fictional stuff affects real-world gameplay" by being one of the "factors and processes . . . that determine" your "total set of all of the legitimate gameplay options available to [you] at [a] moment of play" - _was_. For instance, if Dro declares "I put a bolt in its face!" and that move is accepted as legitimate, Dro now learns that his fictional position included Harguld having a crossbow ready to shoot. Dro was probably already confident about that, for the reasons I posted upthread, but that confidence is now shown to be fully warranted.
> 
> Conversely, I don't think it would be consistent with the retroactivity of fictional positioning to deny that there _was_ some or other fictional position.
> 
> To me, this does not seem to describe something which is known only retroactively. I also don't find "reflection" that helpful. Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. It is that negotiation that determines fictional positioning. At the core of negotiation is _making decisions together_. Reflection may contribute to this - eg upon reflection, everyone agrees that a shattered faceplate on the surface of Pluto means freezing, suffocating and decompressing - but I don't think reflection is at the core.



For me it depends on whether you are grasping the fictional position referenced as that which existed at a past time, or grasping that it can only exist in the present and accepting that you're doing some glossing over that is useful even while not being always correct.

To attempt to diagram my argument out a bit, let's suppose we are in an RPG session and it's 8pm. For convenience, I'll step time in 5 minute increments. I will assume that player cognitive states include beliefs, emotions and inclinations.

[20.00][20:05][20:10][20.15][20:20][20:25] Clock time
[....1_...._][....2._..._][....*3*_...._][....4_...._][....5._..._][....6_...._] Real world states
PLAYER COGNITIVE STATES
[....A_...._][....*B*._..._][....C_...._][....D_...._][....E._..._][....F_...._]  Fictional positions

At *20:05* the player establishes they are waiting to ambush a gnoll in a cave. Everyone agrees, so the group might be assumed to have some information about the fictional position at *B*.

At *20:10* GM narrates a gnoll scout emerging and the player character fires. Dice pools are assembled and rolled, establishing that the world state at *3* contains a tie.

At *20:15* the player announces using a trait against themselves to break the tie...

One way to describe the above is to say that world state 3 produces no fiction, and when we come to 20:15 we retroactively assess or gain knowledge of a pristine B that has remained exactly as it was at 20:05.

For many purposes that is adequate, but it will sometimes misguide intuitions because at 20:15 it is only physically possible for players to use what exists at 4 and D. That is because cognitive states change continuously and imperfectly. It is even possible for imperfections to creep into the world state (a dropped die, an incorrectly marked fail on a sheet and so on). Unless we have the benefit of a perfect-stenographer with access to our cognitive states, it will only be with reference to our beliefs, emotions and inclinations _now_ that the fictional position now can be determined. My cognitive state cannot return to a previous moment to say what was in that moment: it can only say what I believe now about what I believed then.

Sometimes we are dealing with simple matters of recollection, such as did you show me a card with the letter A on it at 20:00? The facts of the matter in such cases can be abstract. Establishing reaching is a complex matter. It is not a simple test of world state. For example, what does our group _feel _it is to be cunning? What are they inclined to deem meet in light of what they _remember_ and believe? Reaching isn't enacting a system step incorrectly, it's misapprehending or missapplying something quite fundamental in our fiction.

What I observe in play is no discounting of FitM events from feelings about our fiction. I don't believe folk are easily capable of discounting them. Rather I see folk weave system events into updates of what they think is in the fiction. I'd possibly say that the very best rules are those that do that job effectively (update the fiction effectively). What we decide is acceptable due to fictional positioning references everything in our cognitive states at the time it's queried... and the tie is in that state colouring our fiction.



pemerton said:


> You are referring here to a NPC, it seems. AbdulAlhazred and I have been talking primarily about PCs.
> 
> The parson about to strike a child seems no different from the Gnoll about to kill and eat Harguld. These are persons in the fiction, doing some things and hoping to do other things. No one disputes that such intentions are part of a fiction. But they are not particularly worthy of remark. Flowers can also be parts of fictions. Hallucinations can also be parts of fictions.



I am referring to characters, both PC and NPC. A gnoll that had sense ambush would be just as capable of sensing the *PC *ambush. Were such a gnoll included in the example, then it would amount to the GM grasping Dro's intent and (based on that _intent_) giving said gnoll additional options.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2022)

clearstream said:


> To attempt to diagram my argument out a bit, let's suppose we are in an RPG session and it's 8pm. For convenience, I'll step time in 5 minute increments. I will assume that player cognitive states include beliefs, emotions and inclinations.
> 
> [20.00][20:05][20:10][20.15][20:20][20:25] Clock time
> [....1_...._][....2._..._][....*3*_...._][....4_...._][....5._..._][....6_...._] Real world states
> ...



Fictional position is not a player's cognitive state. It's one of the factors that determines a player's total set of legitimate moves/gameplay options. It is the factor that consists in the "fictional stuff" ie the shared fiction. As I've already posted, I don't think we need to get deeply into the metaphysics of fiction. But clearly one player's cognitive state doesn't settle the content of a shared fiction. And there are parts of a player's cognitive state - eg wishing that they'd rolled higher on the dice - which are not relevant to the content of any shared fiction.



clearstream said:


> Unless we have the benefit of a perfect-stenographer with access to our cognitive states, it will only be with reference to our beliefs, emotions and inclinations now that the fictional position now can be determined.



You seem, here, to be disagreeing with Baker that fictional position can only be known retroactively.

As I already posted, all I think he is getting at with that is that you can't really be certain that what _you_ think is part of the shared fiction is _really_ shared until you put it to the test by using it as the basis of a declared move. At that point you learn whether or not everyone else shared your conception of that element being part of the fiction!



clearstream said:


> I see folk weave system events into updates of what they think is in the fiction.



I'm not sure what you mean by a "system event" - do you mean creating or referring to a cue? Eg rolling dice and reading the result; deciding to use a trait to break a tie; etc?

In which case, I think it's uncontroversial that the purpose of referring to cues is to generate updates to the fiction:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players _and_ GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not. . . .​​So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​
But that doesn't tell us anything about what the arrows are, in any given episode of play, between cues and cues, cues and fiction, or fiction and fiction.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 21, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Fictional position is not a player's cognitive state.



Given that belief we may find ourselves even more unlikely to find common ground.

My view is that fictional position exists as a set of cognitive states of the participants, supplemented in the normal human way by symbolic ephemera. (A miniature on a grid can be such a symbol; they can be seen as reminders, but are also subject to manipulation. Jo pointing to their figure "I'm there, by the door, right?" is one example.)

To put it another way, if fictional position exists elsewhere, then where?



pemerton said:


> It's one of the factors that determines a player's total set of legitimate moves/gameplay options. It is the factor that consists in the "fictional stuff" ie the shared fiction. As I've already posted, I don't think we need to get deeply into the metaphysics of fiction. But clearly one player's cognitive state doesn't settle the content of a shared fiction. And there are parts of a player's cognitive state - eg wishing that they'd rolled higher on the dice - which are not relevant to the content of any shared fiction.



I did not say "one player", although I do say that each player must settle their judgement of fictional position in their present cognitive state, as influenced by the speech acts of others. You might view the fictional positioning as shared - which is useful for some purposes. I suggest accepting that there is no objective / independent version of the fictional position - nothing that can be crystallised and stand separate from player cognitive states, unchanged over time.

Do we believe that fictional position can be queried so long as even a single member of the group remains? So that Jo could declare a use of trait against self and ask themself whether they felt they were on solid ground? From experience I would predict that over multiple such tests, Jo will attest to differences in the strengths of their conviction that they were not reaching. I believe that Jo can very well imagine a possible trait against self declaration and dismiss it - decide not to proceed with it - on the basis that it felt to Jo (alone) as reaching.

Another possibility is to rule out fictional positioning in the case of solo play. Journaling RPGs might form a good set of counter-examples, unless those are ruled out of being RPGs? In any case, my view is that individuals remain capable of inventing and inventively querying a fiction (querying without being sure of the answer prior to making the query). Fictional position subsists on individual cognitive states.

We agree I think that the position is never completely articulated, but each player will have a sense of fit that reaching may transgress, prompting a complaint. Cognitive states are so complex that it's impossible to draw a hard boundary around what will bear on a given determination. Based on work I've seen on games and brain imaging (fmri) the better assumption is that everything will. The whole brain isn't necessarily activating, but potentiation is an extremely subtle thing. Example, Jo is tilted by a low roll and responds more critically to Dro's declaration than she might have otherwise.



pemerton said:


> You seem, here, to be disagreeing with Baker that fictional position can only be known retroactively.
> 
> As I already posted, all I think he is getting at with that is that you can't really be certain that what _you_ think is part of the shared fiction is _really_ shared until you put it to the test by using it as the basis of a declared move. At that point you learn whether or not everyone else shared your conception of that element being part of the fiction!



I am disagreeing with any referencing back to a fictional position crystallised in time based on the temporal implications of "retroactive" . I agree that the position is never fully known, and we normally learn something about it each time we query it. That you can learn if your grasp of it is shared comes about _because_ fictional position exists in present cognitive states.



pemerton said:


> So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​



I agree as to _crucial_, but probably not _sole_. To me Baker explored, demonstrated, and took advantage of that crucial function.



[Note edits as further thoughts struck me.]


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 22, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Given that belief we may find ourselves even more unlikely to find common ground.
> 
> My view is that fictional position exists as a set of cognitive states of the participants, supplemented in the normal human way by symbolic ephemera. (A miniature on a grid can be such a symbol; they can be seen as reminders, but are also subject to manipulation. Jo pointing to their figure "I'm there, by the door, right?" is one example.)
> 
> To put it another way, if fictional position exists elsewhere, then where?



Fictional position, that is to say THE FICTION ITSELF, obviously exists as cognitive states, as well as cues (IE some may be written down or whatever). Nobody is disputing that. What we are disputing is that you can somehow say WHAT THAT IS, without testing it. How do you know what each participant is thinking the state is if say we process a statement like "my character moves through the door"? Joe might have meant he just takes a step in, Charlie might interpret it to mean the character is moving steadily into the space beyond and is now substantially clear of the doorway. Betty might think it means he's moved in and taken up a position where her character can move through and resume some existing defined relative position in a predetermined marching order. Suddenly the GM reveals some threat, and we are about to find out which of these alternatives (or none of them) is going to actually prevail... How that happens can vary widely. In some games it could be the GM's prerogative to decide. It could be strictly the business of Joe, who declared the action of his character. Joe however, might decide he likes Betty's interpretation better, and adopts it as his own. Frank might invoke some sort of character ability and as part of determining the results of achieving his intent maybe HE defines where Joe's character actually is as a way of explaining the outcome. ONLY PLAY WILL TELL, though obviously in some cases it might be a fairly trivial amount of play.



clearstream said:


> I did not say "one player", although I do say that each player must settle their judgement of fictional position in their present cognitive state, as influenced by the speech acts of others. You might view the fictional positioning as shared - which is useful for some purposes. I suggest accepting that there is no objective / independent version of the fictional position - nothing that can be crystallised and stand separate from player cognitive states, unchanged over time.



How is this different from what @pemerton is saying? Only play can or will determine what becomes canonical fiction, and that can only, definitionally by the laws of temporal mechanics, be something that occurred in the past. That is what is meant, only further play resolves it. Thus whatever we are thinking is the situation NOW is simply a hypothesis about the shared fiction, not established (again said establishment may be trivial, so the distinction is not always very important). In many game systems, like TB2, the importance of the distinction is pretty large, as only the use of specific mechanics and interaction with specific cues can resolve it.


clearstream said:


> Do we believe that fictional position can be queried so long as even a single member of the group remains? So that Jo could declare a use of trait against self and ask themself whether they felt they were on solid ground? From experience I would predict that over multiple such tests, Jo will attest to differences in the strengths of their conviction that they were not reaching. I believe that Jo can very well imagine a possible trait against self declaration and dismiss it - decide not to proceed with it - on the basis that it felt to Jo (alone) as reaching.



OK, I don't think anyone really disputes this possibility. I'd have to say though that there are ALWAYS at least 2 participants in TB2, the GM and a player.


clearstream said:


> Another possibility is to rule out fictional positioning in the case of solo play. Journaling RPGs might form a good set of counter-examples, unless those are ruled out of being RPGs? In any case, my view is that individuals remain capable of inventing and inventively querying a fiction (querying without being sure of the answer prior to making the query). Fictional position subsists on individual cognitive states.



I think it is determined by querying those states, and using the process of play to resolve these hypotheses and prove them true or false. Again, some will be relatively uncontroversial. Everyone may clearly understand they are in a hallway, and that the walls cannot be passed through or over, but I would say this is so BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED ALREADY. Now, in solo play the mechanisms of such resolution may be substantively different from say TB2, where you have a GM. OK, but I think the player still constructs some idea (hypothesis) about what the fiction will be/is and then tests it somehow. If no such test exists, whatsoever, then I'm not sure where the GAME part of an RPG would reside...


clearstream said:


> We agree I think that the position is never completely articulated, but each player will have a sense of fit that reaching may transgress, prompting a complaint. Cognitive states are so complex that it's impossible to draw a hard boundary around what will bear on a given determination. Based on work I've seen on games and brain imaging (fmri) the better assumption is that everything will. The whole brain isn't necessarily activating, but potentiation is an extremely subtle thing. Example, Jo is tilted by a low roll and responds more critically to Dro's declaration than she might have otherwise.
> 
> 
> I am disagreeing with any referencing back to a fictional position crystallised in time based on the temporal implications of "retroactive" . I agree that the position is never fully known, and we normally learn something about it each time we query it. That you can learn if your grasp of it is shared comes about _because_ fictional position exists in present cognitive states.



Again, I see what we hold presently in mind about what has not yet been resolved to be hypothesis. It will be valid to some varying degrees which we will only know when we try to find out by playing. Play to Find Out, what else can it mean?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 23, 2022)

A child can think of the following: a basket with two apples, into which are placed two more apples. The child is now thinking of a basket with two + two apples. Is the child thinking of a basket with 4 apples? That's a difficult question. I imagine the developmental psychologists have something to say about it. There were also discussions among philosophers, between the wars and in the immediate post-WWII literature, about whether a drunk person who is "seeing" pink elephants is seeing a denumerable number of such elephants.

When Conan Doyle tells us that Holmes left the house, this probably implies that Holmes is wearing shoes even if Conan Doyle doesn't mention them and never thought of them.

The relationship between _cognitive states_ - be they one person's, or shared - and the content and implications of what is believed and imagined is a complicated one. I don't think we need to establish what that relationship is in order to talk about shared fiction in RPGing, but it is part of the reason why I think it is both unnecessary and unhelpful to assert that "fictional position" is a cognitive state.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 23, 2022)

pemerton said:


> A child can think of the following: a basket with two apples, into which are placed two more apples. The child is now thinking of a basket with two + two apples. Is the child thinking of a basket with 4 apples? That's a difficult question. I imagine the developmental psychologists have something to say about it. There were also discussions among philosophers, between the wars and in the immediate post-WWII literature, about whether a drunk person who is "seeing" pink elephants is seeing a denumerable number of such elephants.



Well, considering that post-modern philosophy has pretty much annihilated the VERY IDEA of truth as a valid topic of discussion, we shall leave this where it is... (and now you know why I have little truck with modern philosophy, in general, as it seems almost absurdist, lol).


pemerton said:


> When Conan Doyle tells us that Holmes left the house, this probably implies that Holmes is wearing shoes even if Conan Doyle doesn't mention them and never thought of them.
> 
> The relationship between _cognitive states_ - be they one person's, or shared - and the content and implications of what is believed and imagined is a complicated one. I don't think we need to establish what that relationship is in order to talk about shared fiction in RPGing, but it is part of the reason why I think it is both unnecessary and unhelpful to assert that "fictional position" is a cognitive state.



Right, I think I was hinting at that when I mentioned that a lot of what is 'unresolved' in terms of fictional position in an RPG is probably fairly trivial. It may be that it has been at least loosely established before (IE the walls down the hall were brick, these ones probably are too), or it may simply be established largely by convention (IE gravity is in force, there is a down, and it is directed at the floor, which is probably the main point of convention in this context), or it may be largely established by genre, or just common sense. It may also be true that much of what isn't established is simply irrelevant, nobody cares what the exact color of the floor tiles are in the dungeon corridor, it simply never comes up. 

I would think, personally, that there is really only a fairly small residue in most situations, of factors which are both significant in a drama/plot sense, and also likely not to have been resolved. These are most likely to include things like the mental states of characters (both NPC and PC), the exact physical location of each character at some level of fine detail, and the nature and properties of materials and locales where they become relevant (IE is the floor wood, can it burn?) As you've pointed out, RE, VB, and other RPG theorists have largely come down on the side of believing that resolving these things is a matter of forming a consensus, and game design is largely a set of mechanisms and conventions for doing so. 

Frankly I haven't seen any OTHER theoretical framework of RPG analysis that is even coherent! We could definitely argue about the categories (IE what are the fundamental types of agenda) and even Vince, Ron, etc. have evolved their thinking in that area quite a bit since the GNS days. Still, the core elements of the theory all seem to hold together, the function of rules, the nature of fiction, etc.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 23, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> How is this different from what @pemerton is saying? Only play can or will determine what becomes canonical fiction, and that can only, definitionally by the laws of temporal mechanics, be something that occurred in the past.



What version of fictional positioning it is tested against seems to be where we don't agree.

I say that by the laws of temporal physics it can only occur in the _present_. It is tested, yes? We agree that. When is it tested? _Now_.

I say that only the present version of the fictional position is available to be tested against.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> That is what is meant, only further play resolves it. Thus whatever we are thinking is the situation NOW is simply a hypothesis about the shared fiction, not established (again said establishment may be trivial, so the distinction is not always very important). In many game systems, like TB2, the importance of the distinction is pretty large, as only the use of specific mechanics and interaction with specific cues can resolve it.



Language to describe time is notoriously confusing. Suppose that when 20:00 was _now_, D made a declaration. That's D's hypothesis. Here at 20:05 we test our beliefs about fictional positioning. Beliefs we can only have _now_ i.e. given our present cognitive states.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think it is determined by querying those states, and using the process of play to resolve these hypotheses and prove them true or false. Again, some will be relatively uncontroversial. Everyone may clearly understand they are in a hallway, and that the walls cannot be passed through or over, but I would say this is so BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED ALREADY. Now, in solo play the mechanisms of such resolution may be substantively different from say TB2, where you have a GM. OK, but I think the player still constructs some idea (hypothesis) about what the fiction will be/is and then tests it somehow. If no such test exists, whatsoever, then I'm not sure where the GAME part of an RPG would reside...



Supposing all involved collectively forgot there was a wall, not a door at the end of a hall (and we're not using a drawn map.) When they say they go through the door _now_, what happens?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 23, 2022)

clearstream said:


> Supposing all involved collectively forgot there was a wall, not a door at the end of a hall (and we're not using a drawn map.) When they say they go through the door _now_, what happens?



Look, obviously the participants can agree on any alteration to the fiction they want, even to things that have been causally established, that is become canonical. Obviously this will create an incoherent narrative in those cases, but otherwise it is just an agreement to make a change. I don't think whether is is due to 'forgetting' or some other process really matters. In that case the FICTIONAL PAST is now "there has always been a door here", though obviously the IRL trajectory of the fiction's history includes a retcon. Honestly, when we are talking about the past state of the fiction, what is 'past'?

I mean, remember the classic Sci-Fi story about the guy who invents the time machine, and the then the spy shows up and tells him "You fool, what have you done, the past starts an INFINITESSIMAL instant before 'now', you have just abolished the very concept of secrets!" (IE I can simply use the machine to look at a 'past time' 1 nanosecond ago). Likewise, much of the time our testing of fiction will happen very quickly upon its first arrival in play. To argue about 'now' vs 'a microscopic instant ago' is to split hairs pointlessly.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 23, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Look, obviously the participants can agree on any alteration to the fiction they want, even to things that have been causally established, that is become canonical. Obviously this will create an incoherent narrative in those cases, but otherwise it is just an agreement to make a change. I don't think whether is is due to 'forgetting' or some other process really matters. In that case the FICTIONAL PAST is now "there has always been a door here", though obviously the IRL trajectory of the fiction's history includes a retcon. Honestly, when we are talking about the past state of the fiction, what is 'past'?



I'm not suggesting a retcon or disingenous "forgetting". Rather I am outlining a thought experiment to help see that it is player cognitive states _now_ that are used to judge fictional position (to agree or deny the hypothesis). People are occasionally forgetful. Someone says something like - "Wasn't there a door there?" - and everyone may nod _even if_ as it happens, half an hour ago, it had been established there were only walls. We forgot, or perhaps we didn't care, or maybe it suited us. In the case of genuine forgetting, the narration will continue coherently for those involved. (Given we genuinely forgot, we're not in possession of any conflicting facts to produce a sense of incoherence.)



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, remember the classic Sci-Fi story about the guy who invents the time machine, and the then the spy shows up and tells him "You fool, what have you done, the past starts an INFINITESSIMAL instant before 'now', you have just abolished the very concept of secrets!" (IE I can simply use the machine to look at a 'past time' 1 nanosecond ago). Likewise, much of the time our testing of fiction will happen very quickly upon its first arrival in play. To argue about 'now' vs 'a microscopic instant ago' is to split hairs pointlessly.



I won't adress the question of whether arguing about now vs a microscopic instant ago would be splitting hairs, because that isn't what I've been arguing. To tie this back to what I was arguing, I proposed two descriptions of events. I'll update the second as follows. I've flipped the arrows to make it clearer that I agree the declarations are tests against fictional positioning at that moment.

We have a pursuit fictional position which we know (have agreed) to be containing gnolls, a shadowy tunnel, H at its mouth, a crossbow.

Pursuit fictional position <- ambush _declaration_
Ambush fictional position <- test = tie FitM + tied fictional position
Tie <- spending fate _declaration_
Fate = tie FitM <- fateful fictional position
Fateful fictional position + tie <- trait-against-self _*declaration*_
No one calls bull
T-A-S = tie breaks against H, H gains two checks, outcome fictional position
At *1.* the ambush declaration is validated in a fictional position evaluated at that time (the pursuit fictional position.)
At *2.* the fictional position has been agreed to contain an H intent on ambush, and this drives a test, which results in a tie (case of FitM.) Here I am suggesting that it is either unavoidable or very likely that - were a hypothesis put to players - their evaluations would be influenced by the tie. I observe folk narrating that sort of thing during play sessions. There is a noticeable difference versus narration around wide disparities in number of successes. The SIS changes.
At *3.* I believe that spending fate isn't subject to validation by the group. (Happy to be corrected if mistaken.)
At *4.* The trait against self declaration has to be validated by the group (per Reaching) so there is a test at this time of fictional positioning. My intuition is that it will be normal for the tied roll to be a factor in grasping how things stand beyond its provision of a system state that permits or prompts the declaration (i.e. how things stand in the _fiction_.) Folk will be considering the use of Cunning _in light_ of the tie. They'll think about what D says: does it make sense where things are tight? It seems unavoidable and in fact desirable to me that the tied roll can influence their grasp of the fictional position. I also suspect that for some groups, sometimes, the "denied" fate itself will inform their sense of the fiction. (Hence fateful fictional position, to leave the door open to that possibility.)

So that is what was at issue. I picture that the time between 2. and 5. will be minutes or certainly no less than seconds. Anything much over 1/5th of a second is long enough for cognition to accurately respond to information.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 24, 2022)

clearstream said:


> I'm not suggesting a retcon or disingenous "forgetting". Rather I am outlining a thought experiment to help see that it is player cognitive states _now_ that are used to judge fictional position (to agree or deny the hypothesis). People are occasionally forgetful. Someone says something like - "Wasn't there a door there?" - and everyone may nod _even if_ as it happens, half an hour ago, it had been established there were only walls. We forgot, or perhaps we didn't care, or maybe it suited us. In the case of genuine forgetting, the narration will continue coherently for those involved. (Given we genuinely forgot, we're not in possession of any conflicting facts to produce a sense of incoherence.)
> 
> 
> I won't adress the question of whether arguing about now vs a microscopic instant ago would be splitting hairs, because that isn't what I've been arguing. To tie this back to what I was arguing, I proposed two descriptions of events. I'll update the second as follows. I've flipped the arrows to make it clearer that I agree the declarations are tests against fictional positioning at that moment.
> ...



I still think the point is valid, that we cannot say what, exactly the fiction was at time X until AFTER we test what happened at time X, that's all we are saying. H is at the mouth of the cave, can he stop the gnolls? We don't know if the conditions prevailing at that moment actually allow for that possibility or not until we test it, in the process of which we create a new fictional position located at time X+N (where N is probably at least related to the mechanics, but may also relate to other things like what action was taken).


----------



## pemerton (Apr 25, 2022)

clearstream said:


> I'm not suggesting a retcon or disingenous "forgetting". Rather I am outlining a thought experiment to help see that it is player cognitive states _now_ that are used to judge fictional position (to agree or deny the hypothesis). People are occasionally forgetful. Someone says something like - "Wasn't there a door there?" - and everyone may nod _even if_ as it happens, half an hour ago, it had been established there were only walls. We forgot, or perhaps we didn't care, or maybe it suited us. In the case of genuine forgetting, the narration will continue coherently for those involved. (Given we genuinely forgot, we're not in possession of any conflicting facts to produce a sense of incoherence.)



In these sorts of cases, or Baker's imagined example of the smelly chamberlain, there can be uncertainty over the fiction.

For instance, what happens if everyone "remembers" the door and then, an hour later, someone turns up an old map in their notes from a month ago that reveals actually the door was in another room that everyone had forgotten about? At some tables, the map prevails and we have to retcon the last hour of play. At some tables, the last hour of play prevails - it turns out the map was wrong (all along! even though it was "correct" - ie conformed to what everyone was agreeing vis-a-vis the fiction) when drawn a month ago). At some tables, it's the GM's job to reconcile all this, a bit like an old Marvel letters page "no prize" - the GM makes up some secret background fiction that explains why the door disappeared, and perhaps even explains why all the PCs forgot about it (I'm actually doing something similar to this in my current 4e game, though it's a carried item rather than a door, and the failure of record keeping is not on a map but on a PC equipment list).

At some tables, maybe the argument over the door is enough to break the group up, just like one of the possible outcomes of the smelly chamberlain.

But nothing like this is going on in the example of play in the Scholar's Guide.



clearstream said:


> What version of fictional positioning it is tested against seems to be where we don't agree.
> 
> I say that by the laws of temporal physics it can only occur in the _present_. It is tested, yes? We agree that. When is it tested? _Now_.
> 
> I say that only the present version of the fictional position is available to be tested against.



Here is what Baker has in mind (at least as it seems to me, and I think also to @AbdulAlhzared):

* Dro has a conception of the fictional situation - Harguld in the cave mouth, crossbow ready to shoot; Gnolls are closing in.

* Thor has a conception of the fictional situation, presumably similar - and adds to it: _A Gnoll scout emerges from the shadows down the tunnel!_ Is Thor correct about the fictional position, that it permits a Gnoll scout to emerge like that? Thor can't be certain until he posits it and finds out - as Baker says 'When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not." What if the PCs had earlier generated some sort of Magelight effect that made it impossible for there to be shadows, but Thor had forgotten it? Or what if Thor remembered it, but thought that the pillars in the area would create shadows despite the bright light? Also relevant here is Thor's authority, as GM, which is typically high when it comes to framing the arrival of NPCs like the Gnoll.

* Dro accepts Thor's suggestion - thus retroactively confirming that Thor was correct about the fiction - and adds some more fiction - Harguld shoots! ("I put a bolt in his face!") Players have a high degree of authority over fiction about what their PCs are doing, but is there some other element of the shared fiction that's relevant here? When Thor progresses to action resolution, calling for a Fighter test, Thor reveals that he accepts Dro's understanding of his fictional position. Again, we see the "retroactivity" that Baker refers to - Dro can only know what moves are open to him, in virtue of the shared fiction, after he declares a move and no one objects that he's got the fiction wrong.

* Dice are rolled, and tied, and Dro decides that Harguld waited too long. Is this consistent with his fictional position, or is it reaching? Dro only finds out _that it is permitted_, ie that it is not reaching, after declaring it, when no one objects. So now the fiction includes not only Harguld, and a Gnoll, and a crossbow shot, but _the Gnoll having got close to Harguld because Harguld, trying to be cunning, waited too long_.

* Thor, using his authority to decide what happens on a failed check by a player, authors yet more fiction: the Gnoll is driven back by Harguld's shot, but Harguld feels fear. Notice that Thor is once again learning, after making the suggestion about what the fiction should contain, whether or not others accept it as consistent with the shared fiction. What would have happened if, rather than fear, Thor had suggested _sick_ as the condition, or _injured_? Maybe Dro would have protested, and Thor would have had to backtrack? I can see _angry_ (because of Harguld's frustration at having misjudged things), or even _exhausted_ (from holding the crossbow, poised to shoot, as the Gnoll slowly slinked closer and closer before its final rush). I can't really see _hungry and thirsty_  but Dro mightn't protest because it's a light consequence.​
As I posted upthread, I think this is all fairly clear. I don't think it needs any departure from Baker's framework. Nor any account of what _fictional position_ is beyond what Baker says: the fiction-derived/determined component of the set of legitimate moves open to a RPG participant.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 25, 2022)

clearstream said:


> tied fictional position



This is not a "fictional position". It's a mechanical state of affairs. See further below in this post.



clearstream said:


> fateful fictional position



This is not a "fictional position". It's a mechanical state of affairs.



clearstream said:


> spending fate isn't subject to validation by the group.



It also isn't changing anything about the fiction.



clearstream said:


> outcome fictional position



This is not a "fictional position". It's a mechanical state of affairs. The fictional position hasn't changed since Dro declared _I put a bolt in his face!_

Following the use of the trait, Dro adds to the fiction - ie that Harguld waited too long before taking his shot.

The fact that Harguld waited is now part of Dro's fictional position - and, as per my post just upthread - it informs Thor's establishing of a consequence (ie _afraid_ is OK, _sick_ probably isn't).



clearstream said:


> the fictional position has been agreed to contain an H intent on ambush, and this drives a test



No. Dro adds - or, rather, suggests an addition - to the fiction _that Harguld shoots at the Gnoll_. Thor has three options in response to that: (1) reject the suggested addition to the fiction, but for the reasons I posted just upthread it's not surprising that Dro's action declaration is accepted; (2) treat the action declaration as a "good idea" and narrate something that follows; (3) call for a test. Thor calls for test.

There's no evidence that Harguld is intent on an ambush - as far as I know, the Gnolls know he's there - only that he is intent on shooting at approaching Gnolls from his position in the cave mouth. But in any event it is the action declaration that leads to Thor calling for a test.



clearstream said:


> Here I am suggesting that it is either unavoidable or very likely that - were a hypothesis put to players - their evaluations would be influenced by the tie. I observe folk narrating that sort of thing during play sessions. There is a noticeable difference versus narration around wide disparities in number of successes. The SIS changes.



I have no knowledge of how your group plays Torchbearer beyond your posts.

Canonically, though, a tie does not generate new fiction. As we see in this case! (And I assume that Thor and Luke intend their example of play to illustrate the canonical game procedures.) Upthread (post 204) I already said a bit about the difference, in this respect, between a tie in BW and a tie in Torchbearer.



clearstream said:


> The trait against self declaration has to be validated by the group (per Reaching) so there is a test at this time of fictional positioning. My intuition is that it will be normal for the tied roll to be a factor in grasping how things stand beyond its provision of a system state that permits or prompts the declaration (i.e. how things stand in the _fiction_.) Folk will be considering the use of Cunning _in light_ of the tie. They'll think about what D says: does it make sense where things are tight?



In Torchbearer, the GM should only call for a test if things are tight.

Suppose, instead of using the trait to break a tie, Dro had used the trait _in advance_ of rolling the dice, to give himself a -1D penalty? He could have narrated it exactly the same way, and there is no reason to think it would be any more (or less) of a reach.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 25, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I have no knowledge of how your group plays Torchbearer beyond your posts.



Likewise! Maybe it will help if we clarify the experiences informing our arguments?

I gather you play with family members and a university or peer group. Based on the titles you reference, I assume you have decades of TTRPG experience. My grasp of how you play is that you don't allow mechanical cues to influence your fiction, except where the game designers have dictated that unequivocally in writing. (I've worded that strongly only in the hope that it will be easier for you to clarify.) Funnily enough, you often cite titles that chimed now or in the past with my own tastes.

I play with family members, a peer group (formerly a university group, now more often work colleagues), and in the last few years folk I connect with on discord or VTT. Like you I have decades of TTRPG experience. My work has kept me in close connection with games and gamers. I have also been involved with research on play and cognition over several years. One caveat is that the overwhelming majority of folk I have played with have been _committed_ gamers: more steeped in gaming than average. (Average for players broadly I mean, not average for these boards.) I and the folk I have played with do allow mechanical cues to influence our fiction, while also aiming to take advantage of the game as designed.

Broadly, I view games as tools. As I've said elsewhere, I share Aareth's intuition that they amount to mechanisms. Tools have expected uses that they are shaped for, but a tool's use is ultimately settled by its user.


----------



## Manbearcat (Apr 25, 2022)

As one of the few gamers of Torchbearer on this website, I've been vaguely following along.  Let me just offer the following to the conversation.

@clearstream , I get why you're keen on including participant cognitive states to the fictional positioning of any given instance of play.  I do.  So let me unpack that:

1) Any imagined space, definitionally (because, despite it being communicated, it is imagined and therefore prone to a number of biases), must include the cognitive state (and its attendant variability) of the person imagining it.  If you're sad, inattentive, distracted, excited, etc, this is going to perturb your personal imagined space (with respect to what it might be otherwise in a different cognitive state).  Even if just subtly.

2) This subtle (or greater) perturbance of cognitive state will necessarily perturb your actual decision-space or at least your perception of it.

3) When you extend this to multiple participants at any given table (say 1 GM and 3 players), their individual imagined spaces is not just apt to have some drift from one imagining to the next, its a surety. 

4) Consequently, the shared imagined space of the table will be a somewhat (or greater) volatile place.  So the individual decision-space in which they perform their OODA (observe > orient > decide > act) will be somewhat (or greater) at odds with each other.  One person might perceive a move that another has not been able to access because of their particular cognitive state (and its downstream effect on their individual imagined space).  And vice versa and on and on.


So I get it. 

BUT...

This formulation is not useful to conversation for a number of reasons.  The most important is that it just bakes in a level of variability...and not just variability, but a series of unknowns...that *effectively makes conversation on the subject intractable.* 

Further, every human endeavor is prone to this error at both the individual level and then proliferated at the collective level.  So its just pointless to get bogged down in this.  We communicate our best to clarify and shore up our shared imagined space such that we're as close as humanly possible to being on the same page so that we're making action declarations that sensibly address the present situation at hand in the fiction.  We just have to take that for granted in these conversations.

So I not only don't see the usefulness of bringing in cognitive states (even though it is obviously a parameter here) to the discussion on shared imagined space (and related fictional positioning and decision-space), I contend that *it is fundamentally a conversation-killer (and decreases the prospect of us accumulating further/better knowledge on the play of Torchbearer)*.  We won't get anywhere haggling over this inherent fallibility of human operating systems + communication.  Can we just assume that humans do their best to align individual imagined spaces within the limits of their cognitive capacities/communication apparatus and move on?  On to actual functional conversation about how to best play Torchbearer 2e and what that play looks like?


----------



## clearstream (Apr 25, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> As one of the few gamers of Torchbearer on this website, I've been vaguely following along.  Let me just offer the following to the conversation.
> 
> @clearstream , I get why you're keen on including participant cognitive states to the fictional positioning of any given instance of play.  I do.  So let me unpack that:
> 
> ...



I agree with what you say. You make important and valuable points. I would not pursuse the argument were it over noise, rather than signal.

As to signal, the Reaching rule forces a querying of the fictional position at a moment when players have knowledge of the tie. What they are picturing about the tie can reasonably be predicted to influence their judgement of whatever D declares for using H's Cunning trait against H. That's important because it implies we should be sensitive to system influences on fictional positioning all along the flow, not just at the end when final results are in. It casts doubt on FitM which should make proponents desire a more robust investigation of its assumptions.

From the point of view of game design, it suggests (or reconfirms) that the method can matter along with the result. From the point of view of the putative schism between system and fiction, it suggests that the two are more closely correlated on an ongoing basis than might be felt from a superficial look at Baker's model (or in some of the ways that it might be grasped.)

For Torchbearer, it would legitimate a player turning down a declaration from D that paid no heed to the tie - in which things came down more than usually close to the wire. D's declaration actually _makes use of the tie_ to sell itself to us: the fiction D proposes is one in which the tie matters. I really don't follow how folk can overlook that.

Bottom line I hear you as to avoiding noise and focusing on signal. Hopefully above I have outlined some aspects of what I see as signal.


----------



## Manbearcat (Apr 25, 2022)

clearstream said:


> I agree with what you say. You make important and valuable points. I would not pursuse the argument were it over noise, rather than signal.
> 
> As to signal, the Reaching rule forces a querying of the fictional position at a moment when players have knowledge of the tie. What they are picturing about the tie can reasonably be predicted to influence their judgement of whatever D declares for using H's Cunning trait against H. That's important because it implies we should be sensitive to system influences on fictional positioning all along the flow, not just at the end when final results are in. It casts doubt on FitM which should make proponents desire a more robust investigation of its assumptions.
> 
> ...




This is much more focused than what I was addressing in my post above (about generally belaboring the impact of cognitive states on TTRPGing and how they intersect with OODA Loop which intersects with the shared imagined space).

My thoughts on this specific issue is:

* Breaking a tie in Torchbearer by bringing in a Trait isn't Fortune in the Beginning/Middle/End.  Its not Fortune Resolution at all (its not employing dice, cards, et al; unpredictable, non-behavioral elements).  So there is no FitM investigation that needs to be undertaken here.  Same thing goes with Acting Within/Outside of Nature.

* Its principled, Diceless Resolution or Drama Resolution or Consensus Resolution.  And its really not that opaque.  Its pretty clear when its Reaching.  Are you in Kill Conflict?  Is that a party?  No?  Ok, you can't employ Merrymaking to Act Within Nature or to Help.  Does the situation have something about trees, stars, or ancient memories that can be tapped for weal or woe?  Great, use First Born.  Yes, it is related to fictional positioning but no its not Fortune Resolution.


I've run dozens and dozens and dozens of games that entail descriptor-based currency where you marshal resources based on the intersection of system-based principles and/or social contract.  I've also run dozens of games with descriptor-based xp triggers and how they work within the architecture play.  Its an interesting conversation and I've had dozens upon dozens of them.  The most recent one I've had is when Delight xp trigger is triggered in Stonetop (for my 2nd Stonetop game I'm GMing); like all others it should be when it causes legitimate mischief/conflict - soft move - that requires either (a) a move be made to avoid a hard move follow-up or (b) triggers a hard move that you voluntarily take on the chin or (c) triggers a Grim Portent tick for a Threat or (d) initiates a new Threat).  Are you willingly or accidentally violating norms/customs/boundaries/laws/rights to sate your curiosity/exalt in your delight?  Are you inviting into your domain an entity that wishes to prey upon your Instincts to entice you toward a fell end?  If so...we have some badness to resolve and your Delight Instinct triggers.  This is a way for players to dictate the trajectory of play and earn xp for their trouble.  Its a carrot/stick combo that players similar to Acting Outside of Nature or using Traits against yourself to earn Checks or Fighting for Your Belief in a situation that leads to an extremely dangerous Kill Conflict for a downstream Fate Point.

Resolving these things at the table is not difficult (particularly when the principles/best practice of play are clear and the descriptors are possessed of thematic heft or in clarity in instruction).  I think in all of the games I've run with these things, I've probably run into actual table disputes of any consequences to handling time/hard feelings it was way inside a handful of times (so inconsequential that I can barely even recall any offhand).  And that is GMing thousands of hours worth of play that involved employing descriptor-based currency contingent upon a relevant match with fictional positioning.

Where are all of these dastardly, insincere players that ENWorld GMs goes on and on and on and on and on about!  Its like their Game Theoretical Model of what actually happens in the wild is instructed from an alternate reality (certainly alternate than the one I've experienced)! @niklinna , @kenada , and @AbdulAlhazred (the 3 players in one of my TB2 games) don't match that profile and our play thus far hasn't been saddled with descriptor-based hardship!  And while I've known AA for a long while on the boards, I've only recently become friends with niklinna and kenada so they've very little reason to not treat me and our play as disposable (except for the typical reason of being a decent, honest person who appreciates integrity of play and enjoys a fun game...which is pretty much my experience with players except for an extremely small minority!).


EDIT - One final thought on playing with integrity.  I have to winder if all of this ENWorld hostility to players and extreme wariness of players playing without integrity/cheating is because the bulk of folks here have internalized such an extremely adversarial model of GM vs players that they don't understand an alternative one.  An alternative model where everyone is playing with integrity and players police themselves against any possible integrity-impugning play.

In my experience in these sorts of games (and everyone I've GMed for on here can chime in on this; which is a decent chunk of folks)?  I have to actually insert a perspective that affords leniency which my players won't give themselves!  The overwhelming bulk of my actual mediation in our play is to relax players from their self-policing impulse!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 25, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> EDIT - One final thought on playing with integrity. I have to winder if all of this ENWorld hostility to players and extreme wariness of players playing without integrity/cheating is because the bulk of folks here have internalized such an extremely adversarial model of GM vs players that they don't understand an alternative one. An alternative model where everyone is playing with integrity and players police themselves against any possible integrity-impugning play.
> 
> In my experience in these sorts of games (and everyone I've GMed for on here can chime in on this; which is a decent chunk of folks)? I have to actually insert a perspective that affords leniency which my players won't give themselves! The overwhelming bulk of my actual mediation in our play is to relax players from their self-policing impulse!



I suspect it isn't that there is actually highly adversarial play in a 'people at the table sense', even in classid D&D dungeon crawl land, so much as there is just a LONG history of casting people in the roles of the player who exploits everything they can, and the GM who is in charge of saying 'no'. Time and time again in these discussions of narratively focused games/Story Games this same issue comes up in the discussion (although it hasn't really in this thread) where someone will make this absolutist statement about how it is utterly fundamental to all RPG play that 'The DM must do X' where X is one of a handful of things that Gygax decreed to be fundamental in the 1e DMG (IE keep time, map out the dungeon, say all fiction, whatever). 

The thing that always amazes me is that after 40+ years the news has not yet permeated every nook and cranny of the RPG world that there are actually more ways to play such games than were imagined in 1974... 

And, yeah, we do tend to be fairly self-policing. I mean, I don't really see it as the GM's sole function to weed out silly applications of traits or whatever. Sure, you may be in the best position to do so, at times, but the goal of play is not 'winning' (in TB2 anyway) it is playing the characters and developing who they are, while also exploring the world they are part of, and seeing where all that takes them.


----------



## kenada (Apr 25, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Its a carrot/stick combo that players similar to Acting Outside of Nature or using Traits against yourself to earn Checks or Fighting for Your Belief in a situation that leads to an extremely dangerous Kill Conflict for a downstream Fate Point.



But everyone survived, and now that my armor is destroyed, I (presumably) have more slots for wearing things back to town! 



Manbearcat said:


> One final thought on playing with integrity. I have to winder if all of this ENWorld hostility to players and extreme wariness of players playing without integrity/cheating is because the bulk of folks here have internalized such an extremely adversarial model of GM vs players that they don't understand an alternative one. An alternative model where everyone is playing with integrity and players police themselves against any possible integrity-impugning play.



I’ve not been following the arguments too closely over the last few pages, so I could be off-base, but I would posit that it’s another “gift” of the traditional, story-telling style. Someone who advocates fully for their character (i.e., “does what their character would do”) is a “bad player” who “ruins the story”, and since rules have no teeth (due to rule 0 and the need to protect the story), the only way to police that through paranoia. Even if we’re not talking about or playing that way, old habits die hard.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 25, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> * Breaking a tie in Torchbearer by bringing in a Trait isn't Fortune in the Beginning/Middle/End.  Its not Fortune Resolution at all (its not employing dice, cards, et al; unpredictable, non-behavioral elements).  So there is no FitM investigation that needs to be undertaken here.  Same thing goes with Acting Within/Outside of Nature.



For me that's a reasonable view. Maybe it was @AbdulAlhazred who identified the tie as a FitM case?



Manbearcat said:


> * Its principled, Diceless Resolution or Drama Resolution or Consensus Resolution.  And its really not that opaque.  Its pretty clear when its Reaching.  Are you in Kill Conflict?  Is that a party?  No?  Ok, you can't employ Merrymaking to Act Within Nature or to Help.  Does the situation have something about trees, stars, or ancient memories that can be tapped for weal or woe?  Great, use First Born.  Yes, it is related to fictional positioning but no its not Fortune Resolution.



I currently run Reaching as consensus resolution, because the text implies to me that anyone can call bull.



Manbearcat said:


> Resolving these things at the table is not difficult (particularly when the principles/best practice of play are clear and the descriptors are possessed of thematic heft or in clarity in instruction).  I think in all of the games I've run with these things, I've probably run into actual table disputes of any consequences to handling time/hard feelings it was way inside a handful of times (so inconsequential that I can barely even recall any offhand).  And that is GMing thousands of hours worth of play that involved employing descriptor-based currency contingent upon a relevant match with fictional positioning.



In some ways that's a very fair point. I probably count on one hand the number of times I've run into actual table disputes around game processes using descriptors. Rules generally? Maybe once every few sessions there are doubts or questions. Once in a blue-moon an actual dispute. So many pixels have died on en-world, so unnecessarily. Alternatively, we just enjoy digging into the edge cases where things (can) diverge.



Manbearcat said:


> Where are all of these dastardly, insincere players that ENWorld GMs goes on and on and on and on and on about!  Its like their Game Theoretical Model of what actually happens in the wild is instructed from an alternate reality (certainly alternate than the one I've experienced)! @niklinna , @kenada , and @AbdulAlhazred (the 3 players in one of my TB2 games) don't match that profile and our play thus far hasn't been saddled with descriptor-based hardship!  And while I've known AA for a long while on the boards, I've only recently become friends with niklinna and kenada so they've very little reason to not treat me and our play as disposable (except for the typical reason of being a decent, honest person who appreciates integrity of play and enjoys a fun game...which is pretty much my experience with players except for an extremely small minority!).



Yes indeed, where are they?! I also wonder where the rules gestapo are? Lolling about in barracks when they should be at our shoulder making sure we obey the rules in conformity with the Standard Interpretation. (I picture the Standard Interpretation as an additional rulebook, that tells us how to interpret the rulebook.)



Manbearcat said:


> EDIT - One final thought on playing with integrity.  I have to winder if all of this ENWorld hostility to players and extreme wariness of players playing without integrity/cheating is because the bulk of folks here have internalized such an extremely adversarial model of GM vs players that they don't understand an alternative one.  An alternative model where everyone is playing with integrity and players police themselves against any possible integrity-impugning play.



Honestly, I don't think so. More I think we (or at least I) are very curious and opinionated and love chewing over this stuff. In the past my interests have been principally ontological - to see what is there - but I've recently moved to thinking about what would be worth designing... what could be designed? In light of the deluge of fascinating design work being done right now.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 25, 2022)

kenada said:


> But everyone survived, and now that my armor is destroyed, I (presumably) have more slots for wearing things back to town!
> 
> 
> I’ve not been following the arguments too closely over the last few pages, so I could be off-base, but I would posit that it’s another “gift” of the traditional, story-telling style. Someone who advocates fully for their character (i.e., “does what their character would do”) is a “bad player” who “ruins the story”, and since rules have no teeth (due to rule 0 and the need to protect the story), the only way to police that through paranoia. Even if we’re not talking about or playing that way, old habits die hard.



Well, yes, OTOH I never really ran into too much of that even back in the day... I remember one of my big 1e characters was a ranger. When he was first adventuring, like 'we are walking down the road to town to start our adventuring career' these demogorgon worshipers made our lives super miserable and wiped out the rest of the party. So ever after that my character was totally about NOTHING but getting revenge on the whole lot of them. I got the GM to let me change my 'giant bonus' to apply to these crazies instead. 

So, my character DEFINITELY DID NOT care about 'other stuff', like getting more treasure vs killing some of those buggers. I don't recall this was ever a problem in our games, everyone just thought it was great, the character's behavior was entirely consistent, etc. Now, it was 1e AD&D, so there were no mechanics that supported, encouraged, or had any basis in personality, motive, etc. (noting the GM allowing me to switch my giant bonus out). Still, we always played our characters vs 'what is the best way to win D&D'. OTOH my other main character basically was the definition of 'lets win', which was a pretty heavily encouraged way to go in that game...


----------



## kenada (Apr 25, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, yes, OTOH I never really ran into too much of that even back in the day... I remember one of my big 1e characters was a ranger. When he was first adventuring, like 'we are walking down the road to town to start our adventuring career' these demogorgon worshipers made our lives super miserable and wiped out the rest of the party. So ever after that my character was totally about NOTHING but getting revenge on the whole lot of them. I got the GM to let me change my 'giant bonus' to apply to these crazies instead.
> 
> So, my character DEFINITELY DID NOT care about 'other stuff', like getting more treasure vs killing some of those buggers. I don't recall this was ever a problem in our games, everyone just thought it was great, the character's behavior was entirely consistent, etc. Now, it was 1e AD&D, so there were no mechanics that supported, encouraged, or had any basis in personality, motive, etc. (noting the GM allowing me to switch my giant bonus out). Still, we always played our characters vs 'what is the best way to win D&D'. OTOH my other main character basically was the definition of 'lets win', which was a pretty heavily encouraged way to go in that game...



I’m pretty sure I’ve been that player. I’ve “broken” a couple of campaigns because I did “what my character would do”, and that completely screwed up the campaign the GM had planned.

In one Mage: the Awakening game, it was revealed that our employer (a government agency) was actually the bad guy. Dun dun dun! While we were escaping, I encountered our boss, who asked me where we were going, so I told him. This was a character with a history of bad decision-making and deference to superiors. Of course that is what he would do. I assumed we would pick up next session with the fallout of that action, but we never played that campaign again.

I was also accused of metagaming earlier in that campaign when I guessed the end of the story for the session. We had been sent out to suburbia to investigate a werewolf. I was like: “Where would I hide …. Are there any golf courses around here?” The ST was not pleased.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 25, 2022)

kenada said:


> I’m pretty sure I’ve been that player. I’ve “broken” a couple of campaigns because I did “what my character would do”, and that completely screwed up the campaign the GM had planned.
> 
> In one Mage: the Awakening game, it was revealed that our employer (a government agency) was actually the bad guy. Dun dun dun! While we were escaping, I encountered our boss, who asked me where we were going, so I told him. This was a character with a history of bad decision-making and deference to superiors. Of course that is what he would do. I assumed we would pick up next session with the fallout of that action, but we never played that campaign again.
> 
> I was also accused of metagaming earlier in that campaign when I guessed the end of the story for the session. We had been sent out to suburbia to investigate a werewolf. I was like: “Where would I hide …. Are there any golf courses around here?” The ST was not pleased.



Hehehe, well that system never was really all that helpful towards players. AFAICT its main design point was to make sure the GM could railroad everyone into whatever plot they had already cooked up. GUESSING THE PLOT, ANATHEMA! lol. There were some cool ideas in terms of themes and concepts and background in that whole series of games (though it is all rather dated at this point) but it really richly deserved a much much better implementation.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 25, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Resolving these things at the table is not difficult (particularly when the principles/best practice of play are clear and the descriptors are possessed of thematic heft or in clarity in instruction).  I think in all of the games I've run with these things, I've probably run into actual table disputes of any consequences to handling time/hard feelings it was way inside a handful of times (so inconsequential that I can barely even recall any offhand).  And that is GMing thousands of hours worth of play that involved employing descriptor-based currency contingent upon a relevant match with fictional positioning.



Observations like this (which I feel are quite-well shared) are part of why I lean toward LP-maximalism.


----------



## niklinna (Apr 25, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> EDIT - One final thought on playing with integrity.  I have to winder if all of this ENWorld hostility to players and extreme wariness of players playing without integrity/cheating is because the bulk of folks here have internalized such an extremely adversarial model of GM vs players that they don't understand an alternative one.  An alternative model where everyone is playing with integrity and players police themselves against any possible integrity-impugning play.
> 
> In my experience in these sorts of games (and everyone I've GMed for on here can chime in on this; which is a decent chunk of folks)?  I have to actually insert a perspective that affords leniency which my players won't give themselves!  The overwhelming bulk of my actual mediation in our play is to relax players from their self-policing impulse!



I grew up in the era when RPG mechanics were, well, mechanical, and achievement-based. Everything you could do was rated, and so-called character deficits were most often just ways to get more build points for you to engage in min-maxing with (GURPs and Champions, I'm looking at you). The deficits themselves were in the nature of vulnerabilities to things, activation rolls, rolls to see if your nemesis/frail grandma showed up. At best these things provide random genre-appropriate events, and at worst actively detracted from the fun of play. In any case, the systems governed playing to "win" over some other character via use of stats, and left the rest to the table. The other characters were usually NPCs, of course, so an adversarial stance was highly likely.

Then I played games like Spirit of the Century/Fate, with its encouragement to create two-edged aspects that could be used to help or hinder your character—except now it would be more appropriate to put "hinder" in scare quotes, because the currency involved was not just in building your character but something you traded actively in play: You accepted a compel on your aspect but got a Fate point to spend on overcoming the problem! Now we had more genre-appropriate things happening, but, crucially, negotiated between participants based on contribution to making events/story more interesting and fun by mutual agreement.

Torchbearer ups the ante there _significantly_ by baking the setback/advance currency into the mechanics in such a way that you _need_ to trigger your deficits to have a hope of surviving. It isn't even an optional, fungible currency any more: If you don't use your traits against yourself, you aren't going to be able to make camp, or won't be able to recover enough when you do make camp. Maybe players will try reaching to get an advantage on some roll, but there's a fundamental shift in perspective that we're not playing this game just to outroll the NPCs or whatever. We're exploring an interesting, gritty story of desperate adventurers facing hardship. I think that subtly affects the motivation to reach for every mechanical bonus you can get in order to "beat" the challenge—although Torchbearer still has plenty of mechanics around gaining every bonus you can get!

But even there, the pass/fail mechanics also change the ground, and I have complained several times with @Manbearcat's group about how the term "fail" really isn't appropriate. If you "fail" in Torchbearer, you (often) don't fail to achieve the objective of your test. You (often) get it, but then face a consequence or twist. It's an ongoing adjustment for me, and I'm sure for the other players, to judge whether to try something or not based on considerations other than the mere odds of passing the roll. We're learning to ask what might happen on a fail, or ponder it ourselves, knowing it's likely we'll still get the thing we want (the shiny bauble, a critical bit of information), but have to pay a price for it rather than just get it (and there's always a minimal price to pay in terms of the Grind). This isn't the same as who gets to call bull when someone is reaching, but it's fed by the same underlying philosophy of the game engine, which makes reaching less likely to come up and less likely to be a problem to work out amongst the participants in the game.

This isn't as cogent as I'd like but I can only spend so much time revising a forum post.  I hope it was clear enough.

edits: fixed some typos


----------



## pemerton (Apr 25, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Breaking a tie in Torchbearer by bringing in a Trait isn't Fortune in the Beginning/Middle/End.  Its not Fortune Resolution at all (its not employing dice, cards, et al; unpredictable, non-behavioral elements).  So there is no FitM investigation that needs to be undertaken here.



But it is a step in a fortune resolution process. That overall process is FitM, in that we don't know what actually occurred in the fiction until the whole process is complete - as the example of Harguld shooting at the Gnoll shows, the steps in the resolution process, including the breaking of the tie by triggering a trait, can establish the fictional parameters that governed the shot in the first place (eg that Harguld let the Gnoll get too close).

I don't know how big a deal the previous paragraph is, but it reveals some truths about TB - eg we can't use a map-and-tokens to track everyone's positions. (At least not without some system of interrupts - eg by being too cunning, Harguld allows the Gnoll to use an interrupt to get closer than it was when the attack was declared.)



Manbearcat said:


> Same thing goes with Acting Within/Outside of Nature.



I think Nature has to be declared with the action, either as help or as a self-buff. So I agree it doesn't feed into any FitM concerns.



Manbearcat said:


> Resolving these things at the table is not difficult





niklinna said:


> This isn't the same as who gets to call bull when someone is reaching, but it's fed by the same underlying philosophy of the game engine, which makes reaching less likely to come up and less likely to be a problem to work out amongst the participants in the game.



I haven't seen much Torchbearer action, and hence not much trait action. But combining my play experience with my reading of the text, I don't think the function of the "reaching" rule is to restrain player use of traits. The restraint on the use of traits is the once-per-session rule; and the Scholar's Guide has a discussion on how to adjust the balance of the system if session refreshes become too frequent due to short sessions.

As best I can tell, the function of the "reaching" rule is a reminder to keep the fiction coherent (whatever that means for a given table) and vivid. If a player can think of a way in which First Born figures despite the absence of trees, stars and ancient memories - perhaps the blandness of their preserved rations makes them pine for lembas, and that sets back a test being made on the back of a recovery from hungry and thirsty - then to me that seems to be a virtue rather than a flaw. To me, at least, it seems that characterisation in Torchbearer is expected to be bright-hued and in-your-face, and traits are part of that, and the reaching admonition is part of _that._


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 25, 2022)

pemerton said:


> But it is a step in a fortune resolution process. That overall process is FitM, in that we don't know what actually occurred in the fiction until the whole process is complete - as the example of Harguld shooting at the Gnoll shows, the steps in the resolution process, including the breaking of the tie by triggering a trait, can establish the fictional parameters that governed the shot in the first place (eg that Harguld let the Gnoll get too close).
> 
> I don't know how big a deal the previous paragraph is, but it reveals some truths about TB - eg we can't use a map-and-tokens to track everyone's positions. (At least not without some system of interrupts - eg by being too cunning, Harguld allows the Gnoll to use an interrupt to get closer than it was when the attack was declared.)
> 
> ...



Well, that and the fact that you are pretty limited if you run out of persona/fate points is going to MAKE you go for 'in-your-face' kind of play, because you will simply dry and die as a non-entity... Of course that also means you really need to horde those suckers, which is the whole other dynamic at play.


----------



## niklinna (Apr 25, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, that and the fact that you are pretty limited if you run out of persona/fate points is going to MAKE you go for 'in-your-face' kind of play, because you will simply dry and die as a non-entity... Of course that also means you really need to horde those suckers, which is the whole other dynamic at play.



I have definitely not been hoarding my fate/persona points. Looks like I'll be in trouble soon!

Currency/limits reminds me that I need to look up what's involved in getting a trait up to 3, at which level you just have +1s to all applicable rolls. What better excuse to start reaching?


----------



## clearstream (Apr 25, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As best I can tell, the function of the "reaching" rule is a reminder to keep the fiction coherent (whatever that means for a given table) and vivid. If a player can think of a way in which First Born figures despite the absence of trees, stars and ancient memories - perhaps the blandness of their preserved rations makes them pine for lembas, and that sets back a test being made on the back of a recovery from hungry and thirsty - then to me that seems to be a virtue rather than a flaw. To me, at least, it seems that characterisation in Torchbearer is expected to be bright-hued and in-your-face, and traits are part of that, and the reaching admonition is part of _that._



The first part seems right (keep the fiction coherent), but the second part raises questions for me. The Reaching rule reads



> *Reaching *There’s a phenomenon with traits that we call reaching. It’s a situation when a trait clearly doesn’t fit, but a player is working really hard to convince the group that it’ll work. This behavior is not creative. It’s just short of begging, and it’s certainly always bull. If you feel a player is reaching, tell them so. Give them a moment to readjust. If they don’t have anything better to add, then move on. The trait doesn’t apply.



My take is more that it admonishes against trying to spatchcock traits into every situation. What do you think? Here is an example trait



> *Bitter* Some turn bitter in their travels and grow to feel all their efforts are for nothing. This bitterness may protect them from the many and varied disappointments of life as an adventurer, but it also burdens them. They have trouble taking the optimistic course.



Many of the fictional elements in Torchbearer are bleak, and we interpret it as a grim story. In-your-face feels right. Bright-hued not so much!

[EDIT Or do you mean bright-hued in a blood-against-snow, bright-blade-edge sort of way? We've seen the world as grimier, but I can see that working too.]


----------



## pemerton (Apr 25, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Currency/limits reminds me that I need to look up what's involved in getting a trait up to 3



I think it comes from the trait vote during respite.


----------



## niklinna (Apr 25, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think it comes from the trait vote during respite.



Yep that's it, thanks!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 25, 2022)

clearstream said:


> The Reaching rule reads
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is not written in a technical fashion. It begins by positing that _the trait clearly doesn't fit_, but then allows that the player might "readjust" by _adding something better_. In a technical text, that would be contradiction. But in this text I don't take it to be a contradiction, because when it posits that the trait clearly doesn't fit, what it really means is that _the player hasn't offered some fiction in which the trait figures coherently_. If the player can "readjust" by coming up with some better fiction, then the trait _does_ apply. Hence why I posted, upthread, that the concern is with coherent and vivid fiction, _not_ with rationing the use of traits - the rationing function comes from elsewhere, and is based on cues - _end of session_ refresh - and not fiction.

Other parts of the text encourage players to use traits against themselves, and remind the GM to remind the players of this possibility (DHB p 82; SG p 220). This reinforces, to me, the view I've expressed about how traits are to be rationed, and what it is that the reaching rule is concerned with.



clearstream said:


> Many of the fictional elements in Torchbearer are bleak, and we interpret it as a grim story. In-your-face feels right. Bright-hued not so much!
> 
> [EDIT Or do you mean bright-hued in a blood-against-snow, bright-blade-edge sort of way? We've seen the world as grimier, but I can see that working too.]



I mean bright-hued as opposed to subtle. Burning Wheel can be subtle. I think Apocalypse World is intended to admit of subtlety. Torchbearer doesn't strike me as subtle at all in the characterisation and setting it fosters. The PCs are painted in these bright, broad brushstrokes. The setting elements have their gameplay function called out front and centre - camps for camp phase and settlements for town phase - and they have shrines for blessings and temples for joining cults and guilds for crafting and taverns for drinking and learning rumours. Your friends always put you up, and your parents always have a small gift for you, unless a disaster has wiped their settlement from the map!

It's a game that knows, and embraces, its tropes.


----------



## clearstream (Apr 26, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This is not written in a technical fashion. It begins by positing that _the trait clearly doesn't fit_, but then allows that the player might "readjust" by _adding something better_. In a technical text, that would be contradiction. But in this text I don't take it to be a contradiction, because when it posits that the trait clearly doesn't fit, what it really means is that _the player hasn't offered some fiction in which the trait figures coherently_. If the player can "readjust" by coming up with some better fiction, then the trait _does_ apply. Hence why I posted, upthread, that the concern is with coherent and vivid fiction, _not_ with rationing the use of traits - the rationing function comes from elsewhere, and is based on cues - _end of session_ refresh - and not fiction.



I see. Your take is an appealing one. I find it off the mark because to me it doesn't speak to where traits sit in the game economy. I see the pressure on players to use them wherever possible, and Reaching articulates a natural design response to that. It admonishes against begging and advises the group to move on. How that might play out is a small delta in the game economy between our tables.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 26, 2022)

niklinna said:


> I have definitely not been hoarding my fate/persona points. Looks like I'll be in trouble soon!
> 
> Currency/limits reminds me that I need to look up what's involved in getting a trait up to 3, at which level you just have +1s to all applicable rolls. What better excuse to start reaching?



Well, my problem was I guess I didn't really push as hard as I should have on my character, which meant that I got NO persona points in the first end of session, and thus I had just the one I started with, which ran out pretty fast... (and even that's a non-canonical @Manbearcat gift, lol). I did earn one at some point, and now I've earned a third one and haven't spent that yet! Fate points seem to be slightly less potent, but are still pretty useful. I mean, Tap Nature is really basically THE most potent move you can make in the game, especially if it is aligning with your descriptors. So there is REALLY strong incentives to accomplish your goal, or go against your belief. Using your Instinct of course being the 'easy' way to get fate, though I didn't actually find it THAT easy, since it seemed like doing it in my case would tap the grind...


----------



## Manbearcat (Apr 30, 2022)

Alright.

@AbdulAlhazred , @kenada , @niklinna . You’re through 2 x Journey/Adventure/Town phases of play with 3 x Camp phases.

You’ve lost 2 PCs but heroically/nobly (RIP Ruby and Jasper.

You’ve rediscovered Elfhome (Woodcleft), rescued an elven babe and gained Precedence with the Elves.

You’ve barely survived a Spiritual Conflict with a fell entity from another world (fleeing with Ruby sacrificing herself so the others might live.

You’ve dealt with your Enemies (Merrick and The Bear) for both good and for ill.

You’ve recovered Awanye the Elf’s sister’s body for proper burial in their homelands.

You’ve mapped an entire mountain expedition.

You’ve dealt with a haunted Hangman Tree.

You’ve lost a Trick Conflict to a Witch who lured you into an illusory enchanted forest where Jasper was cursed to do her bidding (which later led to his noble fate).

You’ve ritually thawed the Valkyrie stop her mountain perch by relighting Orin’s Everburning Brazier, heralding the return of warriors from faraway lands as she can once again watch over their battles and take them to Valhalla.

You’ve fearlessly (or foolishly!) fought a White Dragon (neither Adult nor Ancient…but Dragon nonetheless!) by her side and taken its horde.


Thoughts on Torchbearer 2 thus far?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 30, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Alright.
> 
> @AbdulAlhazred , @kenada , @niklinna . You’re through 2 x Journey/Adventure/Town phases of play with 3 x Camp phases.
> 
> ...



I think its interesting. In terms of basic game design aspects, I am of a mind that less is more, and TB2, like its parent BW/MG systems, is definitely more of a 'more is more' kind of design philosophy. Also the books are horribly badly organized, lol. OTOH it is pretty solid, the system WORKS and it is, presumably, supporting the type of gameplay, themes, and genre that the designers intended. We're having fun, or at least I've been having fun. 

In terms of theme/genre/tone, I think TB2 clearly has a goal of laying on a kind of 'crapsack world, but with a chance of being an actual hero'. From a standpoint of a goal of skilled play I think that's generally a pretty effective spot to be in (I'd note that Stonetop sounds like it isn't too far off from that thematically, though with more of a feel of society will eventually flourish even if these are rough times. TB2's conceit seems to be more like "civilization is doomed, but maybe you can put a pin in it for a while." 

Anyway, its fun and I assume we will try to keep playing, as I'm happy to go on trying to figure out what the next threat to Elfhome is and attempt to thwart it (though I could also see some sort of personal crisis on that point, if say a love interest or something interfered, except TB2 is kind of grim, so I guess its a question of whether the doomed love interest would outweigh helping the doomed community, lol).


----------



## niklinna (Apr 30, 2022)

It's a mixed bag for me. The game delivers on the tone it promises: Everything is scarce, every choice is difficult, danger is ever-present. Unrelentingly so, as your personal strength is ground down the whole time. Even when we got the dragon hoard we were like, "How are we even gonna carry all this stuff!?" and had to plan a return trip, and then lost a bit of our loot on arrival at town too. I'm not sure how much I need to be emulating that feeling in a game given the state of the real world right now, but Torchbearer 2 certainly has it, which has made for some very engaging play.

I find the rules overly complicated, poorly written, and poorly organized. It has many distinct yet interlocking subsystems: abilities & skills (with several special ones that have additional rules), instincts, traits/checks, wises, persona points, fate points (because why have just one currency?), conditions, conflicts, arcana, invocations, and more. Every rule seems to have exceptions. No given thing is described completely in any one place, except perhaps spells & invocations: I was routinely surprised to learn new things about something I thought had been covered as I read through the two base books—which do not split material into player/game master stuff, but mostly PC creation and "everything else, including some stuff you wish you'd known while creating your PC".

Speaking of character creation, it's a mix of package-deal classes, questionnaire-based "customization" via a few either/or choices, and a random roll or two just for good measure. I'm not a fan of _any_ of those methods of character creation and the particular combination here, along with the winding prose, made this process not at all fun for me. The game seems to assume a party of three as the baseline, and there's no way to cover all the bases with only three characters—which does perhaps fit back into the tone they're going for!

Gameplay is interesting. The rules are difficult to learn, but once you have a grasp of them, they do work. But they are always front and center, standing in between me and the unfolding drama/action, as we go from the description of the situation, to determining which currencies we have in what amounts and how to combine them to deal mechanically with the situation. The agony of small and dwindling inventories is cool; the agony of calculating how many points of this currency feed into that currency is more like bookkeeping (which is funny because in most games I've played, players hate tracking inventory/supplies but don't mind tracking hit points and spell slots and such!). It's nowhere near as smooth as Apocalypse world or Blades in the Dark, where the rules do their best to keep things moving along—any delays are usually due to player dithering on position & desired effect.

Skill tests are cool. I can see some traditional players not being happy with "fail" not meaning, well, failure, and I'm still adjusting my gut reaction to the term in play. But it's really neat that you can fail the test and still get what you want, but also get something you don't want, rather than merely whiffing, which I've always felt is boring (which I also like about Apocalypse World & Blades in the Dark). Scrambling for more dice to boost your roll is fun, but again there are too many fiddly different ways of doing that.

I like the advancement system, in spite of its exceptions. It makes sense that you get better at something after some number of both successes and "failures".

I found the conflict rules utterly confounding at first. They simply don't make sense to me and occupy this weird Tunnels & Trolls space of "throw some points around", but in a way more complicated manner. Again, as I become more familiar with the process, it's going a little more smoothly, but it's definitely an odd beast of a system compared to those I'm familiar with. (God help the people in the simulation thread if they were to try it.) Planning actions and then revealing them for resolution is interesting, and captures some of that feel of "no plan survives first contact".

I gotta run soon, I'll try to write more later.


----------



## kenada (Apr 30, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Alright.
> 
> @AbdulAlhazred , @kenada , @niklinna . You’re through 2 x Journey/Adventure/Town phases of play with 3 x Camp phases.
> 
> ...



Torchbearer does a really good job of deploying its mechanics. Having inventory and light and all those things actually matter is great. It’s helped me give me a target for that kind of play in my homebrew system. It’s also helped give me an idea of how far I should _not_ go.

However, I find it difficult to articulate how I feel about the game overall. I’ve enjoyed our session and our group, but I’m not sure I’d want to play another TB campaign or with another group. In a way, it can be exhausting to play. Even though I can point to the items on my character sheet that show Jakob has gotten some nice gear, it feels like he’s no better or possibly worse off than before we started playing. My helmet and cloak are still damaged, and he could just barely afford to buy food rations after returning to town with a dragon’s hoard. On top of that, and I understand this was the result of choices made by the players, instead of getting to celebrate our victory, we get to find a new companion (again).

One area where I struggle with the system a bit is that almost every decision we make while adventuring is tied to a test. I don’t know if that’s the fault of having the scale of adventures tied to a certain number of obstacles or just what we’ve done so far, but in spite of trying to be evocative of old-school dungeoneering, it doesn’t feel very successful at it. There have been few opportunities to deploy player skill or to solve riddles or problems without invoking a test. Skilled play has been how we engage with the system rather than how we engage as our characters. I peeked at the example adventure in the _Scholar’s Guide_, but it seems more like a modern adventure (a series of challenges) rather than an old-school dungeon. Could one even run something like _Winter’s Daughter_ using Torchbearer? How would the grind make sense during a wedding party?

I will also echo that the books are awful. I stopped reading them because I thought I had read enough of the _Scholar’s Guide_ (up through town phase), but it seems like that’s not enough. While the _Lore Master’s Manual_ is purportedly optional, it seems like one is best off to read all the things. At least it’s not letter-sized, but it’s still a _lot_ reading. It doesn’t help that the PDFs’ tables of contents are horrible. Whoever thought putting the index in the PDF ToC was a good idea should have their InDesign license taken away. I also don’t understand the split sometimes. Why are the diagrams for the phases included at the back of the _Dungeoneer’s Handbook_ when the phases are explained in the _Scholar’s Guide_?

With all that said, I just want to end by reemphasizing that I’ve been enjoying our sessions and our group. It’s been fun, and I want to keep playing.

Edit: Oh, and I don’t like how skill advancement works. I’m pretty sure I have messed up tracking my skills. “Use it to advance skills” is a thing that makes sense but feels crappy in practice, especially when whether you get to mark advancement depends on how the skill is being deployed. For a new player, it feels safest to err on the side of not marking, which means I’ve probably shorted myself a bunch.


----------



## kenada (May 1, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Speaking of character creation, it's a mix of package-deal classes, questionnaire-based "customization" via a few either/or choices, and a random roll or two just for good measure. I'm not a fan of _any_ of those methods of character creation and the particular combination here, along with the winding prose, made this process not at all fun for me. The game seems to assume a party of three as the baseline, and there's no way to cover all the bases with only three characters—which does perhaps fit back into the tone they're going for!



I want to add to this. I didn’t like how there were trap options in the questionnaire. My character is a loner, which means I was supposed to sit out that part while everyone else finished their questionnaires. All I got was a trait in exchange for terrible circles and no friends or family. Doesn’t feel worth the trade-off at all (and I’ve read TB1 was even worse!). I also didn’t like that I was being asked to make decisions on things before they were introduced and explained.

“Write a belief”. Oh, okay.  _writes a belief_

Here’s the chapter that explains beliefs, instincts, etc.  _reads how those are supposed to be written  _Time to rewrite some things….


----------



## Manbearcat (May 1, 2022)

Good posts @AbdulAlhazred , @kenada , and @niklinna ! That kind of honest, thoughtful, and thorough review should be helpful for onlookers thinking about playing.

The only thing I’ll add is the following:

* Personally, I loved @niklinna ’s decision to risk his life by sparing the child and engaging with her spectral mother to remove his curse. He could have trivially removed it. His death is extremely meaningful. When I GM these types of games I love these brutal decisions no matter how they turn out because they reveal the character to us. And personally, I love tragic themes and meaningful sacrifice so Jasper has just become a much more meaningful character to me than he would have been if he would have just marked the child’s door for the witch.  I will remember him.

* I totally understand that it is a grueling experience player-side (as intended), but I want to let folks know that (once you understand the system) it isn’t such GM-side. If you’re a curious GM, if you enjoy the themes/premise of the game, and you like creating these types of thematic/decision-point-intensive “obstacle courses”…TB (and TB2) is a joy to GM.


----------



## kenada (May 1, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I totally understand that it is a grueling experience player-side (as intended), but I want to let folks know that (once you understand the system) it isn’t such GM-side. If you’re a curious GM, if you live the themes/premise of the game, and you like creating threes types of thematic/decision-point-intensive “obstacle courses”…TB (and TB2) is a joy to GM.



I think that’s a good summary of the problems I mentioned with the example adventure. Looking at it wearing an OSR GM hat, a good OSR adventure isn’t _just_ an obstacle course. When I hear “obstacle course”, I think “modern” adventure design where dungeons are reduced to a series of challenges. In particular, it seems like there have been few or no opportunities to use a Good Idea to avoid a test (and thus advancing the grind).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 1, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Good posts @AbdulAlhazred , @kenada , and @niklinna ! That kind of honest, thoughtful, and thorough review should be helpful for onlookers thinking about playing.
> 
> The only thing I’ll add is the following:
> 
> ...



Just as an observation, Awanye FULLY expects the party will be 'haunted' by the ghost of Jasper from now on, lol! Whether he's a helpful ghost or a baleful one (or maybe some of each) I guess will be up to how we leverage that in play, hehe. And, I think TB2 definitely has tools that can work for that, It certainly would be easy enough to describe losing a tie, or tossing an extra die using a Fate point as having some supernatural explanation!


----------



## kenada (May 1, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Personally, I loved @niklinna ’s decision to risk his life by sparing the child and engaging with her spectral mother to remove his curse. He could have trivially removed it. His death is extremely meaningful. When I GM these types of games I love these brutal decisions no matter how they turn out because they reveal the character to us. And personally, I love tragic themes and meaningful sacrifice so Jasper has just become a much more meaningful character to me than he would have been if he would have just marked the child’s door for the witch. I will remember him.



I want to respond to this because rereading your post made brought something important to mind. I think this event very nicely exposes the tension between skilled play (Step On Up) and Story Now in Torchbearer. After the harsh adventure, I shifted fully into the former because I didn’t want to “lose” town and not be in a good position to have a better next adventure. That’s why I went for help instead of getting pulled into a conflict with the thugs in the market, and it’s why I hedged to avoid taxing my resources _again_ when I left town. @niklinna on the other hand went fully into what Jasper would do. I don’t really have more to say other than to point that out for illustrative purposes.

Also, isn’t it theoretically possible to remove the dead condition?


----------



## Manbearcat (May 1, 2022)

@kenada and @niklinna and @AbdulAlhazred

Look at Pay the Terrible Price (LMM p 94) .  This gives procedures and thematics for what you're talking about.

Journeys to Hell and other things are covered as well there.

EDIT - Interestingly, what you're describing above is precisely what makes D&D 4e such a great synthesis of Step On Up and Story Now priorities; the allocation of the Step On Up component overwhelmingly being at the scene level rather than overwhelmingly as an aspect of a strategic through-line that transcends scenes.  Blades has a similar allocation to 4e (the both have Skilled Play that manifests as a strategic through-line that transcends scenes...but the big bulk of Skilled Play is deft management of move-space and resource deployment and fictional positioning within the scene).

That is a huge deal.  Overwhelmingly, games that coherently express both priorities (at least in part if not "whole-hog") are possessed of this architectural feature.


----------



## kenada (May 1, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> @kenada and @niklinna and @AbdulAlhazred
> 
> Look at Pay the Terrible Price (LMM p 94) .  This gives procedures and thematics for what you're talking about.
> 
> Journeys to Hell and other things are covered as well there.



Wasn’t sure that was in play, which is why I didn’t mention it explicitly, but yes. On the other hand, I do think Jasper had a good end. It’s certainly better than falling off the side of a mountain or being eaten by a tree.


----------



## niklinna (May 1, 2022)

kenada said:


> Edit: Oh, and I don’t like how skill advancement works. I’m pretty sure I have messed up tracking my skills. “Use it to advance skills” is a thing that makes sense but feels crappy in practice, especially when whether you get to mark advancement depends on how the skill is being deployed. For a new player, it feels safest to err on the side of not marking, which means I’ve probably shorted myself a bunch.



Wanted to hit this point before I continue reading. I do agree here; it's very easy to forget to actually mark the advancement. I feel that's more due to us playing remotely for some reason—this is not the only game stat I've noticed is harder to track playing virtually. I feel that if I were playing in person with paper sheets, it would be pretty easy to keep track of. I could be wrong.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 1, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Wanted to hit this point before I continue reading. I do agree here; it's very easy to forget to actually mark the advancement. I feel that's more due to us playing remotely for some reason—this is not the only game stat I've noticed is harder to track playing virtually. I feel that if I were playing in person with paper sheets, it would be pretty easy to keep track of. I could be wrong.



I think it is easier, but maybe not SIMPLE. Does TB2 have roll20 support? If so that might be useful as there would likely be automatic tracking, as well as hopefully it would help with knowing what mechanical options you have at any given time, at least in rules terms.


----------



## niklinna (May 1, 2022)

kenada said:


> I want to respond to this because rereading your post made brought something important to mind. I think this event very nicely exposes the tension between skilled play (Step On Up) and Story Now in Torchbearer. After the harsh adventure, I shifted fully into the former because I didn’t want to “lose” town and not be in a good position to have a better next adventure. That’s why I went for help instead of getting pulled into a conflict with the thugs in the market, and it’s why I hedged to avoid taxing my resources _again_ when I left town. @niklinna on the other hand went fully into what Jasper would do. I don’t really have more to say other than to point that out for illustrative purposes.



Oh I did find myself wondering if I shouldn't just take the easy path, as a player. I was actually a little surprised to see that my options were starkly success vs. death rather than the usual "you might get what you want, but with some complications". And that being so different actually prompted me to go for broke—only to come up with zero successes on 7 dice!

I think if the little girl hadn't—perhaps mistakenly, now that we know more—tried to protect Jasper when we met, he would not have felt a need to remove the curse other than by fulfilling the command.


kenada said:


> Also, isn’t it theoretically possible to remove the dead condition?



Why yes, it is. How badly do you want Jasper back?


----------



## niklinna (May 1, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think it is easier, but maybe not SIMPLE. Does TB2 have roll20 support? If so that might be useful as there would likely be automatic tracking, as well as hopefully it would help with knowing what mechanical options you have at any given time, at least in rules terms.



I think marking bubbles on a track is pretty simple, myself.

In any case, I put formulas in the character spreadsheets we're using so that when you enter the right amounts, you get a big bright red indicator to level up the stat. But you still have to remember to update the fields....


----------



## Manbearcat (May 1, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Oh I did find myself wondering if I shouldn't just take the easy path, as a player. I was actually a little surprised to see that my options were starkly success vs. death rather than the usual "you might get what you want, but with some complications". And that being so different actually prompted me to go for broke—only to come up with zero successes on 7 dice!
> 
> I think if the little girl hadn't—perhaps mistakenly, now that we know more—tried to protect Jasper when we met, he would not have felt a need to remove the curse other than by fulfilling the command.




This is good conversation for both you guys and any bystanders as to how certain intricacies of Torchbearer work:

* While *injured*, an adventurer is at serious risk. If a test involves the risk of physical harm, the game master may apply the dead condition to an injured character as the result of a failed test.  The game master is obligated to inform the player that death is on the line before the player rolls the dice.

* While *sick*, a character is at serious risk. If the circumstances of a test involve sickness, disease, poison, madness or grief, the game master may apply the dead condition to any sick character as the result of a failed test. The game master is obligated to inform the player that death is on the line before the player rolls the dice.


So for this particular situation sub "cursed" for injured/sick and sub in test involving "removing the curse" for test involving <all the stuff mentioned above>.


----------



## niklinna (May 1, 2022)

I'm back from board games. Fun was had. Back to Torchbearer 2!

@kenada raised a good additional point about character creation. I'll expand that to leveling up. You get two exclusive choices each new level, and you cannot pick a lower-level choice later on. I have always hated that arbitrary kind of limitation in ability selection. At several levels I definitely wanted both picks, particularly magician level three: spell slot vs. familiar. I mean, come on. Grr.

This leads into the magic system. It is, like the game at large, restrictive and claustrophobic, mostly in a good way. Beginning wizards have a random set of three spells they know, tied thematically to a school. They can have exactly one spell memorized, and if they want more versatility they can chew up two inventory slots to carry their spellbook, or scribe some scrolls (after their first adventure, if they can spare the lifestyle cost). I _really_ don't like randomly rolling up my spells, as those determine the sort of magician you're playing and I think that should be up to the player. Having only one spell is fine, as is needing/being able to cast from your spell book (better than AD&D Magic Users got!). Unfortunately, magicians in TB2 are fixed at Scholar 2 with maybe one option for bumping that—tied to your hometown—and so casting from your spell book means you have to make a very difficult test to copy back from your master library, which you must do in your hometown and possibly incur lifestyle cost. On the one hand, I feel that yes, this captures what a fantasy wizard should be, and on the other hand, it's a lot of bookkeeping hassle. And considering the hard choices you have to make just to get a mere handful of spell slots (see above about leveling up), well, I sometimes wonder why I decided to play a magician, if I can't do more magic! But being the knowledge guy has its perks.

(I'll add that you get saddled with Alchemist as a magician, whether you want it or not, and while the skill doesn't look useful at first, it could be a nice supplementing to making camp if folks have certain conditions that need clearing. It also might come up in further play, but frankly I'd rather my Jasper had ranks in Theologian since he was a lore-hound and geek.)

My character's randomly rolled spells were divination: Aetherial Premonition (Alarm), Supernal Vision (Detect Magic), and Wayfarer's Friend (sub Arcanist for Pathfinder). At first I wasn't thrilled to get them, but they all turned out to be very handy. So much so that I did cast them out of my spell book and had to re-scribe them later. Now I'm creating a new magician—I don't feel our party will do well without one—and facing that random roll again, and not liking it one bit. My one consolation is that we have Jasper's spell book and gear to rob so my new character can do the tests to learn those spells (at some lifestyle cost). We'll see how that pans out.

I read the chapter on Invocations once, and decided I want nothing to do with that system. It definitely overflowed my buffer for rules complexity, both in being yet another distinct subsystem, and in being hard to understand on its own. It also looks like no fun to keep track of. And yet theurges get the ability to do manageable spiritual conflicts, whereas magicians have to commit to a kill conflict. Ah well!


----------



## niklinna (May 1, 2022)

Now, while I feel the game goes overboard on its various currencies and interlocking subsystems, I really like the principle that you have to court danger to get opportunities for recovery. I am talking specifically about taking checks through using your traits against yourself in order to be able to make camp and do recovery rolls. It harks back to my time playing Fate with its double-edged aspects, which was one of my big "aha" moments in gaming. I really like this idea a lot, even though we've been pretty bad at actually using it. I've had to remind myself several times of good opportunities to do it with low risk, or to do it even though the risk is high because it makes the drama more fun.

Light deserves a mention of its own. It's a truly oppressive, overbearing, inventory-stuffing factor that makes this game _so_ much grittier than any D&D I ever got to play. Somebody has to carry that lantern, or somebodies, plural, have to carry those torches, and that means hands not free for tools & weapons. Tracking multiple light sources along with the Grind is a bit of a hassle, but the feelig of claustrophobia and limited time adds so much to the tone of the game. I don't get the impression from the rules or the sessions we've had, but I can imagine a party making multiple forays into a dungeon just to lay down supply caches so they can penetrate deeper. I don't know how much fun RPing that process would be, but it definitely comes to mind.


----------



## niklinna (May 1, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> This is good conversation for both you guys and any bystanders as to how certain intricacies of Torchbearer work:
> 
> * While *injured*, an adventurer is at serious risk. If a test involves the risk of physical harm, the game master may apply the dead condition to an injured character as the result of a failed test.  The game master is obligated to inform the player that death is on the line before the player rolls the dice.
> 
> ...



True, and you were quite up-front that I was risking Jasper's death on a failed roll. The condition simulating the curse was Exhausted and not Injured/Sick, but I knew the danger. Again, if I were playing to "win" (or perhaps, given the game, just "not lose"), I should have turned right around and marked the door then and there. But I am a dirty narrativist player at heart.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 1, 2022)

niklinna said:


> True, and you were quite up-front that I was risking Jasper's death on a failed roll. The condition simulating the curse was Exhausted and not Injured/Sick, but I knew the danger. Again, if I were playing to "win" (or perhaps, given the game, just "not lose"), I should have turned right around and marked the door then and there. But I am a dirty narrativist player at heart.




Yup!

There is a reason I selected Exhaustion as the placeholder for Cursed here!  Because if I made it Injured or Sick then, effectively, I would be putting you in a better position by Cursing you than if you had either of those two Conditions (because it would be taking the Dead Condition off the table for tests that risk physical harm, sickness, disease, poison, madness or grief)!

I learned that little trick a long while back GMing TB1!

So any GMs in the future wanting to run TB2, take note:  Don't make Sick or Injured the placeholder for Cursed.  Make it be Exhausted as that won't contract the danger for the PC (which would effectively and oddly turn Cursed into a boon).


----------



## niklinna (May 1, 2022)

kenada said:


> Torchbearer does a really good job of deploying its mechanics. Having inventory and light and all those things actually matter is great. It’s helped me give me a target for that kind of play in my homebrew system. It’s also helped give me an idea of how far I should _not_ go.



Agree 100% here.



kenada said:


> However, I find it difficult to articulate how I feel about the game overall. I’ve enjoyed our session and our group, but I’m not sure I’d want to play another TB campaign or with another group. In a way, it can be exhausting to play. Even though I can point to the items on my character sheet that show Jakob has gotten some nice gear, it feels like he’s no better or possibly worse off than before we started playing. My helmet and cloak are still damaged, and he could just barely afford to buy food rations after returning to town with a dragon’s hoard. On top of that, and I understand this was the result of choices made by the players, instead of getting to celebrate our victory, we get to find a new companion (again).



Yeah, I didn't want to give any kind of summary "I love it" / "I hate it". I'm definitely enjoying the experience of playing with our particular group, but for all the reasons we've both given, the game has its problems!

I do feel a pang of regret at losing Jasper so soon after we lost Ruby, particularly since we had just returned triumphant, as it were. I should have remembered that every singel die roll we made involving that witch went poorly....



kenada said:


> One area where I struggle with the system a bit is that almost every decision we make while adventuring is tied to a test. I don’t know if that’s the fault of having the scale of adventures tied to a certain number of obstacles or just what we’ve done so far, but in spite of trying to be evocative of old-school dungeoneering, it doesn’t feel very successful at it. There have been few opportunities to deploy player skill or to solve riddles or problems without invoking a test. Skilled play has been how we engage with the system rather than how we engage as our characters. I peeked at the example adventure in the _Scholar’s Guide_, but it seems more like a modern adventure (a series of challenges) rather than an old-school dungeon. Could one even run something like _Winter’s Daughter_ using Torchbearer? How would the grind make sense during a wedding party?



I agree with this too. To me it feels, again, like mechanics intruding on story rather than supporting story. It's clear that they're _trying_ to support the story/tone/etc., but I don't think it's working particularly well.

Or maybe it's just our lousy GM's fault


----------



## niklinna (May 1, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Yup!
> 
> There is a reason I selected Exhaustion as the placeholder for Cursed here!  Because if I made it Injured or Sick then, effectively, I would be putting you in a better position by Cursing you than if you had either of those two Conditions (because it would be taking the Dead Condition off the table for tests that risk physical harm, sickness, disease, poison, madness or grief)!
> 
> ...



Not sure I understand. Are you saying that if you had made me take Injured to simulate the curse, you couldn't have applied that as its own thing, thereby masking the very possibility that Jasper might actually be injured? That seems more like an artifact of the character sheet. I don't know if this curse thing was something from the rulebook or not...did it have to be handled by applying a condition that isn't really a condition?


----------



## Manbearcat (May 1, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Not sure I understand. Are you saying that if you had made me take Injured to simulate the curse, you couldn't have applied that as its own thing, thereby masking the very possibility that Jasper might actually be injured? That seems more like an artifact of the character sheet. I don't know if this curse thing was something from the rulebook or not...did it have to be handled by applying a condition that isn't really a condition?




You got it.  

Traps and Monsters and stuff can cause special Conditions.  You can just have them eat up Exhausted or a lower condition (which is the easiest thing in my opinion) or make them entirely separate conditions that require different means to recover (like a different Recovery Test, or a metagame currency spent/reward on end of session earned, or a particular bit of fictional positioning like in this case).  

Cursed is easiest to sub in for Exhausted.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 1, 2022)

My feelings on TB2 chargen is that PCs are much closer to pregens than to fully defined PCs. Races and classes have pretty narrow stereotyped setups, etc. Every halfling is a burglar, every burglar is a halfling. All halflings are obsessed with food, etc. You can diverge a bit, but in basic outline you really just pick a pregen.

I think it's easy enough to open it up more, though I am not sure if it's really going to add to the game.


----------



## kenada (May 1, 2022)

Torchbearer reminds me of basic D&D. It has (almost) race-as-class and a similar equipment list. The grind is very reminiscent of the exploration structure in that game, which also imposes penalties unless you rest regularly.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 1, 2022)

kenada said:


> Torchbearer reminds me of basic D&D. It has (almost) race-as-class and a similar equipment list. The grind is very reminiscent of the exploration structure in that game, which also imposes penalties unless you rest regularly.




That is because Moldvay Basic is the exact inspiration for it!

TB1 even more so.

It’s basically Moldvay Basic Mouse Guard-ified!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 1, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> That is because Moldvay Basic is the exact inspiration for it!
> 
> TB1 even more so.
> 
> It’s basically Moldvay Basic Mouse Guard-ified!



Right, that is definitely the basic inspiration for the character selection. Basic D&D is much more 'free wheeling' though in terms of not really having a 'grind' in nearly as explicit a fashion. Yes, you can run out of torches, for example, and that would be BAD, but taking a minute to accomplish some minor task won't burn a turn, and its quite happy to let the party members multi-task too! So it is a LOT less structured in many respects, plus of course the lack of 'currencies' aside from hit points (I guess you could also call spell slots a currency). At the very least Basic put a lot more leeway in the hands of the DM as far as handling this kind of stuff went. I can remember games where we stuffed our packs with rations and water skins and torches and never even bothered to track what we used, perhaps noting that we burned a few spare silvers of pocket change restocking them. Other games the DM was pretty detailed about tracking supply use, at least at low levels. TBH it ALWAYS became kind of tedious and generally got elided for the most part later on.


----------



## kenada (May 1, 2022)

It’s the tyranny of rule zero. If the referee can decide that the rules have no teeth (and I’d argue that’s what allowing multitasking and actions that take less than a turn do), then there’s a high risk that the experience the rules were trying to create will be undermined or broken.

The encumbrance rules stank though. Tracking with an abstraction is fine, but coins is too much granularity. Item-based inventory systems seem popular right now in OSR games. I like the slot-based system in Torchbearer for its visual approach and implemented something similar (but less granular) in my homebrew system.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 2, 2022)

kenada said:


> It’s the tyranny of rule zero. If the referee can decide that the rules have no teeth (and I’d argue that’s what allowing multitasking and actions that take less than a turn do), then there’s a high risk that the experience the rules were trying to create will be undermined or broken.
> 
> The encumbrance rules stank though. Tracking with an abstraction is fine, but coins is too much granularity. Item-based inventory systems seem popular right now in OSR games. I like the slot-based system in Torchbearer for its visual approach and implemented something similar (but less granular) in my homebrew system.



Yeah, I've debated whether I want to go to something abstract in HoML, like just having the players decide what sort of luggage they have, and then let them try to pull stuff out of it that is relevant to the current situation, a bit like the way BitD works. I started out with just basically the 4e encumbrance rules, but it seems like maybe it isn't really hauling its weight...


----------



## pemerton (May 2, 2022)

niklinna said:


> it's very easy to forget to actually mark the advancement. I feel that's more due to us playing remotely for some reason—this is not the only game stat I've noticed is harder to track playing virtually. I feel that if I were playing in person with paper sheets, it would be pretty easy to keep track of. I could be wrong.



Tracking advancements in Burning Wheel/Torchbearer is also a pain using paper sheets!



niklinna said:


> I put formulas in the character spreadsheets we're using so that when you enter the right amounts, you get a big bright red indicator to level up the stat. But you still have to remember to update the fields....



I have an Excel sheet for Burning Wheel that similarly keeps track of how many advancements are needed, and when your ability is due for a raise. But the tracking of the advancements is still something that has to be done by the player.



niklinna said:


> I read the chapter on Invocations once, and decided I want nothing to do with that system. It definitely overflowed my buffer for rules complexity, both in being yet another distinct subsystem, and in being hard to understand on its own. It also looks like no fun to keep track of.



Another complication with Theurges and Shamans is that (a bit like B/X and AD&D clerics) you have access to the full list of invocations all the time.

For that reason, I advised my players in our first session not to create any theurges or shamans, as being too hard to play when you're still learning the system.



niklinna said:


> I sometimes wonder why I decided to play a magician, if I can't do more magic! But being the knowledge guy has its perks.



Arcanist also lets you cast spells from scrolls (should you find any . . .).

One of the PCs in my (two sessions only so far) campaign is a Dreamwalker, who has a magician-like spread of skills (though Healer rather than Alchemist) but no starting magic: only at 2nd level can a Dreamwalker start building a memory palace. The knowledge skills have proved useful so far. And a Dreamwalker does get to start with a half-moon glaive (= halberd) rather than a dagger!


----------



## pemerton (May 2, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> In terms of basic game design aspects, I am of a mind that less is more, and TB2, like its parent BW/MG systems, is definitely more of a 'more is more' kind of design philosophy. Also the books are horribly badly organized





kenada said:


> I will also echo that the books are awful. I stopped reading them because I thought I had read enough of the _Scholar’s Guide_ (up through town phase), but it seems like that’s not enough. While the _Lore Master’s Manual_ is purportedly optional, it seems like one is best off to read all the things.





niklinna said:


> I find the rules overly complicated, poorly written, and poorly organized. It has many distinct yet interlocking subsystems: abilities & skills (with several special ones that have additional rules), instincts, traits/checks, wises, persona points, fate points (because why have just one currency?), conditions, conflicts, arcana, invocations, and more. Every rule seems to have exceptions. No given thing is described completely in any one place, except perhaps spells & invocations: I was routinely suprised to learn new things about something I thought had been covered as I read through the two base books



Spells and invocations are also covered in the conflicts chapter of the SG, though I think it might be overlap rather than new information.

It's interesting to see such unanimity with, or even stronger opinions than, what I said in the OP:


pemerton said:


> Although the two core books are, in both title and the way they address the reader, meant to emulate a PHB and DMG, I don't think they fully succeed in that respect. There is stuff in the Scholar's Guide that players absolutely need to know, including the core action resolution rules; and personally I would have found it easier with a different approach to the presentation of the material, with less overlap between the two core books and less need (as a reader) to read across multiple books including the Lore Master's Manual to get the full picture of a particular subsystem.



On the "more is more" thing, I remember reading a rpg.net review of a Luke Crane game - Mouse Guard, maybe? - that objected to the two currencies (Fate and Persona). Of course Burning Wheel has Deeds points as well!



niklinna said:


> The rules are difficult to learn, but once you have a grasp of them, they do work. But they are always front and center, standing in between me and the unfolding drama/action, as we go from the description of the situation, to determining which currencies we have in what amounts and how to combine them to deal mechanically with the situation.



This also seems consistent with the OP:


pemerton said:


> At a high level of description, Torchbearer can be compared Dungeon World: a modern system dedicated to capturing the feel of classic D&D. At a more detailed level I think there are significant differences; I'll get back to these below.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


But I don't think my OP quite called out the place of the mechanics in the scheme of play (in Baker's terminology, how much time one spends dealing with boxes rather than clouds).

Finally, this reminded me of the experience of my own play, limited as that is:


kenada said:


> Even though I can point to the items on my character sheet that show Jakob has gotten some nice gear, it feels like he’s no better or possibly worse off than before we started playing.



The PCs in my game, leaving town after their first town phase, are no longer fresh, are still Resources zero (having spent all their loot), and have fewer supplies. In exchange, they have some advancement checkboxes ticked (though no one has actually advanced a skill or ability yet) and they have some Fate and Persona. (But not enough Persona, after two sessions, to earn second level, even if they were to spend it all.)

Also, one has added to his Enemy list, while another has learned that her Friend has been captured by her Enemy.


----------



## niklinna (May 3, 2022)

One new little thing I noticed playing tonight: We went back to the last area we explored, and had fully mapped out. It costs us no light/food resources to just traipse the whole way up that mountain now. Not terribly "realistic," but very convenient!

Also, my character—having come back from the dead—is already level three and must decide between a second spell slot and a familiar. That's still a really tough choice. Any thoughts? Familiars in Torchbearer 2 do look to be much more capable than in D&D. Of course, you need the 2 spell slots to even be able to cast 2nd-circle spells.... Sheesh.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 3, 2022)

niklinna said:


> One new little thing I noticed playing tonight: We went back to the last area we explored, and had fully mapped out. It costs us no light/food resources to just traipse the whole way up that mountain now. Not terribly "realistic," but very convenient!
> 
> Also, my character—having come back from the dead—is already level three and must decide between a second spell slot and a familiar. That's still a really tough choice. Any thoughts? Familiars in Torchbearer 2 do look to be much more capable than in D&D. Of course, you need the 2 spell slots to even be able to cast 2nd-circle spells.... Sheesh.




Its really as simple as this.  The Familiar will give you more breadth of competency in terms of the groups' capability of positively resolving a variety of conflicts (more Help overall for and more cross-conflict competency).  Your extra spell slot will give you a greater chance of having a specific answer to a specific problem and open up your move space a little bit when it comes to obstacle approach.  Which of those two do you value more?

Any other thoughts on last night's session?  On your PC Paying the Terrible Price and the consequences upon your play and play generally?

@AbdulAlhazred and @kenada , any new thoughts come to mind about last night's session (system, your play, your collective play)?


----------



## niklinna (May 3, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Its really as simple as this.  The Familiar will give you more breadth of competency in terms of the groups' capability of positively resolving a variety of conflicts (more Help overall for and more cross-conflict competency).  Your extra spell slot will give you a greater chance of having a specific answer to a specific problem and open up your move space a little bit when it comes to obstacle approach.  Which of those two do you value more?



Well again, the tricky part is that my past experience of familiars in that other game have kind of soured me on them. I think I need to review the 2nd-circle spells again to see what options one of those would open up. And of course, get one of them!


Manbearcat said:


> Any other thoughts on last night's session?  On your PC Paying the Terrible Price and the consequences upon your play and play generally?



I had mixed feelings about reviving Jasper so quickly, but given the context, with the valkyrie just having been awakened, there was some juicy story stuff to motivate it. Mechanically, it's quite interesting. I had 1 advance in a couple of skills, so with Nature now reduced to 1, they bumped up to rank 2 right away. I'll be strongly motivated to use Beginner's Luck. I'll be motivated to use Nature, too, but only for the two descriptors I have left, and who knows how often those are likely to come up? In any case, it seems there's a strong argument to make for a near-death experience in this game.


----------



## niklinna (May 3, 2022)

Oh also, I'm not a fan of level 3 traits. I much prefer adding a die to my test, even at only 1–2 uses, which improves my odds of succeeding, than bumping tied or successful rolls by 1 success, which is only going to matter in a versus test.


----------



## kenada (May 3, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> @AbdulAlhazred and @kenada , any new thoughts come to mind about last night's session (system, your play, your collective play)?



We were able to accomplish a lot with a few Good Ideas, but it seemed like we ran into a wall where the only way for the weather to change was to advance The Grind. That felt a bit awkward — like the careful balance of mechanics was a bit off and not working right.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 3, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Oh also, I'm not a fan of level 3 traits. I much prefer adding a die to my test, even at only 1–2 uses, which improves my odds of succeeding, than bumping tied or successful rolls by 1 success, which is only going to do that in a versus test.




I get your position (truly). But consider Wizard-Sight in Spiritual Conflicts or any conflict where you use a spell to
sub Arcanist for x (eg Fight) where MoS is everything.

Also consider spells where you get +
Effect based on MoS.

And we’ve already discussed Tie-breaking (we’ve had 4 consequential tie-breaks in the last few sessions).



kenada said:


> We were able to accomplish a lot with a few Good Ideas, but it seemed like we ran into a wall where the only way for the weather to change was to advance The Grind. That felt a bit awkward — like the careful balance of mechanics was a bit off and not working right.




Hmmmm…let me break out my thoughts on that sequence:

* Turns aren’t a static amount of time. They could be a moment, an hour, or even days of trekking. The consequential thing about Turns is that they are chunky moments of effort/resolution where a matrix/layered decision-points intersect to move play forward. In order for play to have perpetual teeth, this needs to be well GMed and well played.

* We have an opportunity (a cache) you guys want to explore in a wilderness environment prone to terrible weather. The effort to resolve this opportunity is, on its face, cumbersome in terms of effort and time (sawing through a thick sheet of ice in a frozen environment at great altitude and exposure).

Most courses of action include significant time so need to have a weather roll like Journey to determine if we have complicating factors/consequence space. However, there would be a few that aren’t time-intensive you might think of (eg deploying a bomb) that wouldn’t constitute a complicating weather roll but would constitute (a) a higher Ob by default and (b) a particular type of consequence-space on a “failure.”

* You guys decide to go with the safer, more likely to yield success move, but it brings in the volatility of the weather.

That volatility went “gong” in a big way (bringing increased factor and brutal consequence-space).

You can still make your test in the Thundersnow Storm, but you have to deal with the +1 Factor and worsened consequence-space. You would be assuming this risk in exchange for not having to spend a Turn to hunker down (and not make a test in a fictional positioning that warranted one; eg one where “cave in granite face” wasn’t established).



Ok, take the above.

Now imagine that the game didn’t require either/or/both (a) a Survivalist move + Turn to find a place to hunker down and wait out the storm to proceed with your plan or (b) hunkering down in the nearby already-established cave (no Survivalist test) but + Turn + dealing with whatever is in the cave.

If you don’t have the above, you entirely lose the teeth/consequential components of you guys’ collective OODA Loop and resolution (your weather roll). Skilled Play becomes irrelevant because the factors that are by default baked into your situation and the factors you brought in via your final decision-point (bringing in the volatility of the weather - with attendant prospects for factors and consequence-space - in exchange for a more efficacious move + less potent consequence-space) are rendered irrelevant (color).


Does that make sense?


----------



## niklinna (May 3, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I get your position (truly). But consider Wizard-Sight in Spiritual Conflicts or any conflict where you use a spell to
> sub Arcanist for x (eg Fight) where MoS is everything.
> 
> Also consider spells where you get +
> ...



Oh I do appreciate the benefits of level 3 traits. Level 3 is just so different from what I had before—it isn't a direct enhancement, after all—that I am also keenly aware of the loss.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 4, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Its really as simple as this.  The Familiar will give you more breadth of competency in terms of the groups' capability of positively resolving a variety of conflicts (more Help overall for and more cross-conflict competency).  Your extra spell slot will give you a greater chance of having a specific answer to a specific problem and open up your move space a little bit when it comes to obstacle approach.  Which of those two do you value more?
> 
> Any other thoughts on last night's session?  On your PC Paying the Terrible Price and the consequences upon your play and play generally?
> 
> @AbdulAlhazred and @kenada , any new thoughts come to mind about last night's session (system, your play, your collective play)?



It was a bit unfortunate that our camp situation didn't let me deploy my instinct. I could really use more points. I sort of feel like I am falling a bit short in play. Awanye has certainly contributed, OTOH it feels a bit like the really big moments have belonged to Js. Like, TB2 rewards playing in a very showy sort of way more than maybe just playing as a steady but less showy contributor? I mean, honestly its not really an ISSUE in that some of it is pure happenstance and we haven't played a ton yet (this was what, session 5?). However I could see where certain types of player might just not come out well in this game. You really need to want to push to be THE PROTAGONIST at least some of the time...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 4, 2022)

kenada said:


> We were able to accomplish a lot with a few Good Ideas, but it seemed like we ran into a wall where the only way for the weather to change was to advance The Grind. That felt a bit awkward — like the careful balance of mechanics was a bit off and not working right.



Yeah, while I certainly have no issue in a basic pure gamist sense with the grind; it is one of those things that in practice is rather klunky. I mean, its no more of an abstraction, I suppose, than combat rounds, hit points, etc. in D&D (as an example) but it can yield some of the same sorts of issues when it comes to how you build your narrative off that. Like, you can journey for several days without any grind at all, and then spend an hour doing something substantive and all of a sudden you're burning up light source time. I have mixed feelings. It seems necessary in TB2's terms to have some objective way to deal with time progressing. OTOH I wish there was a way that was a bit less forced.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It was a bit unfortunate that our camp situation didn't let me deploy my instinct. I could really use more points. I sort of feel like I am falling a bit short in play. Awanye has certainly contributed, OTOH it feels a bit like the really big moments have belonged to Js. Like, TB2 rewards playing in a very showy sort of way more than maybe just playing as a steady but less showy contributor? I mean, honestly its not really an ISSUE in that some of it is pure happenstance and we haven't played a ton yet (this was what, session 5?). However I could see where certain types of player might just not come out well in this game. You really need to want to push to be THE PROTAGONIST at least some of the time...




Specifically last night, that was the case of having a safe camp site prior due to the constituent elements of the fiction leading to that part (which in turn makes the pre-Camp Survivalist Test in the Adventuring phase - which is what your Instinct is for - unnecessary).  This is the first time that has happened (and it doesn't happen often at all).

Generally, the problem that you guys are having with that is one of build.  (a) I don't think the other players were even aware that this was your Instinct until last week + (b) Jakob actually has a higher Survivalist Skill than Awanye (so he has made that test in the past as a result).

So the top was just circumstance (and rare one at that).  The other part is clarity of build capacity and group synergy + specific build dynamics. Given the situation, it seems the following few Instinct changes might be apt:

* Always find or make shelter when we're making Camp.  This will do the following:  Split duties between you and Jakob when making Camp, thereby lower that Ob by 1 (thereby reducing the prospect of Condition/Twist) and always give you guys that +1 to Camp Events Table (on top of your +1 from Ranger that is always a +2).

* Always Scout out an unfamiliar area (just like it sounds).

* (at level 3) Always sing the Ancient Song of Soothing to heal a friend in Camp.  This would let you automatically let you use your Nature 4 (5 when restored) and +2d for each allies help (they have Survivalist and Alchemist) to "treat" a friend of a Condition in camp (using the Healing Factors).  This is mega powerful and thematic for Rangers.


----------



## niklinna (May 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, while I certainly have no issue in a basic pure gamist sense with the grind; it is one of those things that in practice is rather klunky. I mean, its no more of an abstraction, I suppose, than combat rounds, hit points, etc. in D&D (as an example) but it can yield some of the same sorts of issues when it comes to how you build your narrative off that. Like, you can journey for several days without any grind at all, and then spend an hour doing something substantive and all of a sudden you're burning up light source time. I have mixed feelings. It seems necessary in TB2's terms to have some objective way to deal with time progressing. OTOH I wish there was a way that was a bit less forced.



Agreed. The tone/mood engendered by the Grind is really cool, but its artificial nature is always apparent. And we've also managed to de-fang it a little bit by just making camp any time we hit Grind 3. I'm sure that won't continue working, though...and it doesn't help us preserve our light & food.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 4, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Oh I do appreciate the benefits of level 3 traits. Level 3 is just so different from what I had before—it isn't a direct enhancement, after all—that I am also keenly aware of the loss.



One compensating factor is going to be the Respite, which comes with the promise of potentially gaining new traits, which will have the level 1or level 2 options. Given that traits are FAIRLY open ended, it makes sense, you might not have EXACTLY the same move space available, but whatever it is will be close to the same, or at least equally likely to factor into the game in your favor.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 4, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Specifically last night, that was the case of having a safe camp site prior due to the constituent elements of the fiction leading to that part (which in turn makes the pre-Camp Survivalist Test in the Adventuring phase - which is what your Instinct is for - unnecessary).  This is the first time that has happened (and it doesn't happen often at all).
> 
> Generally, the problem that you guys are having with that is one of build.  (a) I don't think the other players were even aware that this was your Instinct until last week + (b) Jakob actually has a higher Survivalist Skill than Awanye (so he has made that test in the past as a result).
> 
> ...



Yeah, that is a good point, and good ideas. We can discuss that in the discord as part of the whole question of getting up a 'posse' as well as our Respite, etc.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 4, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Agreed. The tone/mood engendered by the Grind is really cool, but its artificial nature is always apparent. And we've also managed to de-fang it a little bit by just making camp any time we hit Grind 3. I'm sure that won't continue working, though...and it doesn't help us preserve our light & food.



Well, we could lean into that tactic! I think what @Manbearcat is proposing as possible changes to Awanye's instinct would be one component of that. I mean, there are probably a few ways to build a super-effective party, but the "camp is a stupidly great option, do it as much as possible" is certainly one! I mean, if we can get a few bonuses into our camp events roll, especially if we can easily leverage NATURE there, then the threat of a 'dangerous camp' is a LOT less as well! 

Although, I assume without actually researching it, that the GM is going to have some ways to push back on that, as more experienced adventurers certainly seem likely to optimize in this sort of way. Maybe camp DOES get overall safer, but when it goes wrong it goes HORRIBLY wrong. I guess the other option is the GM just cranks the story consequences of camping enough to balance things out (that seems a bit problematic in game design terms though).


----------



## kenada (May 4, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Hmmmm…let me break out my thoughts on that sequence:
> 
> * Turns aren’t a static amount of time. They could be a moment, an hour, or even days of trekking. The consequential thing about Turns is that they are chunky moments of effort/resolution where a matrix/layered decision-points intersect to move play forward. In order for play to have perpetual teeth, this needs to be well GMed and well played.
> 
> ...



It does and it doesn’t. Where I’m feeling a disconnect is whether our actions with the Orilsdottirs would count as consequential. We didn’t make any tests or have any conflicts! But we managed to deescalate and get them to allow us to stay in their caves. That struck me as the product of some Good Ideas, but maybe my impression was wrong? What stuck out to me was our reasoning for investigating the glyphs was purely mechanical: we needed to make a test to advance The Grind, which would end the weather. I understand that time is handled abstractly, but that’s my point: the abstraction appeared to leak.


----------



## kenada (May 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It was a bit unfortunate that our camp situation didn't let me deploy my instinct. I could really use more points. I sort of feel like I am falling a bit short in play. Awanye has certainly contributed, OTOH it feels a bit like the really big moments have belonged to Js. Like, TB2 rewards playing in a very showy sort of way more than maybe just playing as a steady but less showy contributor? I mean, honestly its not really an ISSUE in that some of it is pure happenstance and we haven't played a ton yet (this was what, session 5?). However I could see where certain types of player might just not come out well in this game. You really need to want to push to be THE PROTAGONIST at least some of the time...



I’ve noticed that too. I try to volunteer other players when I can think of something during end of session because it feels like Jakob is hoovering up all the points, but Jakob does manage to do a bunch of stuff because that tends to be how I play my characters. Honestly, I’m not a fan of MVP-style awards.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 4, 2022)

kenada said:


> It does and it doesn’t. Where I’m feeling a disconnect is whether our actions with the Orilsdottirs would count as consequential. We didn’t make any tests or have any conflicts! But we managed to deescalate and get them to allow us to stay in their caves. That struck me as the product of some Good Ideas, but maybe my impression was wrong? What stuck out to me was our reasoning for investigating the glyphs was purely mechanical: we needed to make a test to advance The Grind, which would end the weather. I understand that time is handled abstractly, but that’s my point: the abstraction appeared to leak.




Ah, I gotcha.

Yeah, the situation with Orilsdottirs was an outgrowth of (a) you spending 2 x resources (Rations) + (b) A Good Idea of invoking the Valkyrie AND showing them proof of Vidar's Edge + (c) your successful Persuader vs Persuader test (with the 2d from your resource expenditure).  That culminated in the fictional positioning of "safe camp to wait out the storm."

As far as "the abstraction appeared to leak" because a weather table result + decision-point leads to accepting 1 Tick of the Grind in exchange for a "cleaned-up" (lets call it) move-space to extract the cache (as you guys wait out the storm).  Well...that is just game engine stuff!  We accept that to play at all!

And the decision to just let the Grind Tick as a function of time (while you wait out the weather) vs make a Test isn't consequence free.  You accept the prospect of a Condition or a Twist when Jasper made that Loremaster Test.  it just so happened that he succeeded!


----------



## kenada (May 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, while I certainly have no issue in a basic pure gamist sense with the grind; it is one of those things that in practice is rather klunky. I mean, its no more of an abstraction, I suppose, than combat rounds, hit points, etc. in D&D (as an example) but it can yield some of the same sorts of issues when it comes to how you build your narrative off that. Like, you can journey for several days without any grind at all, and then spend an hour doing something substantive and all of a sudden you're burning up light source time. I have mixed feelings. It seems necessary in TB2's terms to have some objective way to deal with time progressing. OTOH I wish there was a way that was a bit less forced.



I also have mixed feelings. I prefer the way turns work in Molday Basic. Time progresses as you take actions, and it does not wait for you. It’s abstract, but it’s a pretty low-level abstraction. However, I don’t think that would work in Torchbearer. Having The Grind tick constantly would be very punishing. I also think it would be too procedural for the type of game TB is trying to be.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 4, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Agreed. The tone/mood engendered by the Grind is really cool, but its artificial nature is always apparent. And we've also managed to de-fang it a little bit by just making camp any time we hit Grind 3. I'm sure that won't continue working, though...and it doesn't help us preserve our light & food.




On this there are a few different factors:

1)  You guys have played well.  That counts (and should count...that is the point!).  You have a group that is set up to typically get +2 or +4 to the Camp Table Roll and you've done well to pick your spots in the Grind to reset it post Camp.  And don't forget that you have to earn Checks in order to initiate Camp phase at all.  So its multiple factors converging here.

2)  The Danger Level of your camp sites hasn't been on the high end and they've all been mostly wilderness (affording you the Rangers +1 bonus).

3)  You guys haven't gotten unlucky on a Camp Events Table roll yet.  Don't worry!  Its coming!  We'll see how you guys bounce back from Calamity then!


----------



## kenada (May 4, 2022)

We had that really bad amenities check that ultimately ended in Jasper’s death, and our last camp completely flipped our impression of the Orilsdottirs. And it can get worse!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 4, 2022)

kenada said:


> We had that really bad amenities check that ultimately ended in Jasper’s death, and our last camp completely flipped our impression of the Orilsdottirs. And it can get worse!



Yeah, I think things can go bad quickly, though I would expect the bad situations are similar to the one that lead to Jasper's curse. That is, you are in bad shape and MUST camp; at least the alternatives are equally dangerous, and then there's a bad camp check, or one of the related checks brings down some bad consequence, etc. and at that point the party just death spirals. We have managed to avoid sinking into a really bad scenario so far, but I could see where every PC in the party has 4 conditions, there's no food left, the light is gone. Well, sure you can try to camp here... lol.


----------



## pemerton (May 6, 2022)

A couple of thoughts/questions - I'll also summon @Manbearcat



niklinna said:


> The tone/mood engendered by the Grind is really cool, but its artificial nature is always apparent. And we've also managed to de-fang it a little bit by just making camp any time we hit Grind 3. I'm sure that won't continue working, though





AbdulAlhazred said:


> I assume without actually researching it, that the GM is going to have some ways to push back on that



I assume that you're accruing checks to make those camps at Grind 3?

The techniques for GM push-back I can think of include the danger level of the camp, which penalises the camp events roll. If you're camping without having made the area safe, that seems like it might be a dangerous camp!

A question about weather: in one of the simulationism/gamism threads, Manbearcat has said that weather doesn't affect camps. But weather gives mods to recovery checks, which only happen in camp or in town. And it also gives mods to things like crossing rivers, etc, which might come up in the adventure phase but not as part of the toll-based journey procedure. So I have assumed that, once established by leaving town, weather is a thing that can bleed out of the journey and into the adventure and camp phases. When I posted a question about this on the BWHQ forums, I got a response (not from Luke or Thor) that suggested something similar.

But maybe that's a controversial approach?


----------



## Manbearcat (May 6, 2022)

About to GM Stonetop so just a few moments.

So they're folding in Camp Events (Wilderness or Squatting or anywhere outdoors) into the weather question we're having.  So this isn't a discrete Weather Table move like in Journey or Adventure.  Its folded into the Camp Events move that you can make and ameliorated via various means.  Also, those are low, low, low, low, low on the Events Table so will be enormously rare to ever come up.

So, consequently, this strikes me as in pretty extreme tension with Process Simulation along multiple axes (its a an outgrowth of a Gamist Camp Events roll, enfolded with all kinds of other calamaties or purchase from them + where it lies on the table means it will very, very, very rarely come up).

If I was wanting an actual Process Simulation design here I would want (a) a discrete Weather Table roll (like in Journey/Adventure) and (b) the odds would be significantly higher of it hitting (if you're camping 4 hours in a place...the odds of the weather turning are pretty damn good!).

QUICK EDIT BEFORE I START PLAY - I hope its clear that I don't disapprove of the design choice of integrated Camp Events roll with a singular (or maybe dual...I can't remember) but very low hit for a weather event.  I love the design.  Its just not remotely Process Simulation for multiple reasons (hence why I didn't introduce it into the conversation because then I'd have to complicate things by unpacking that to folks who aren't playing the game).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> A couple of thoughts/questions - I'll also summon @Manbearcat
> 
> 
> I assume that you're accruing checks to make those camps at Grind 3?
> ...



Well, we mere players would not presume to judge how the GM did it!  (translation: I am WAY too lazy to dig that carefully around in the books, since I'm not running the game). I'd also say that weather would affect things like Survival checks made to establish a better camping location, etc. wouldn't it? I'm pretty sure we did run into that when we tried to camp on the mountain. That was the situation which evolved into Jasper getting cursed, which eventually lead to his briefly being dead (much later)! Also, since the twist for failing the check was a conflict, we ended up with a whole bunch of other rolls that were +1 Ob. In fact it was actually TWO conflicts. We were fairly lucky we came out of that in good enough shape to keep going.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 6, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> About to GM Stonetop so just a few moments.
> 
> So they're folding in Camp Events (Wilderness or Squatting or anywhere outdoors) into the weather question we're having.  So this isn't a discrete Weather Table move like in Journey or Adventure.  Its folded into the Camp Events move that you can make and ameliorated via various means.  Also, those are low, low, low, low, low on the Events Table so will be enormously rare to ever come up.
> 
> ...



Eh, it is enough to say that TB2, while it has things like a camp events check which COULD be misconstrued as being Process Simulation (or in this case 'World Sim') the game is making NO attempt to be realistic in any fashion. These events are simply a way of throwing curve balls at the PCs. You decide to camp, which has some positive effects for you, and in return you take a few risks, like Thunderhail or freezing rain, or more likely you'll get a nice friendly bear or something...


----------



## niklinna (May 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> niklinna said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. The tone/mood engendered by the Grind is really cool, but its artificial nature is always apparent. And we've also managed to de-fang it a little bit by just making camp any time we hit Grind 3. I'm sure that won't continue working, though...and it doesn't help us preserve our light & food.
> ...




Not enough, but yes. We really need to get better at taking checks.


----------



## niklinna (May 10, 2022)

Well tonight we had an interesting session. We had been on our way back to our previous adventure locale, to recover a bit of loot left behind and explore the region beyond, but on the way found a small group of cave-dwellers who had some prisoners who were in...bad shape. Lines & veils!

Anyhow, tonight we headed back to town to recruit a posse—but not _into_ town as that would trigger town phase, which we were not prepared for. My character was Afraid and could not help or use Beginner's Luck. So we did a convince crowd conflict (and paid some cash) and were rewarded with the company of an officer who was along for glory but would not actually fight, and two guards. We did not accumulate any checks during the conflict. I thought about doing so at the beginning, but as I was also taking notes, that just got lost in the shuffle. We are _really_ bad at taking checks!

Se we went back to the cave, had to tick the Grind a couple times just to get to the cave-dwellers. Our ranger took two checks to break a tie (finally!). There were 6 of them to fight against 4 capable fighters in our group (not including me, as my character still couldn't help!). Fortunately, our main fighter was able to do two incredible novas and take out all the foes, including the pregnant and near-term matriarch.

But then my character, whose Creed is "The innocent are worth protecting," rushed to do a C-section and deliver the baby. Of course the Obstacle was ridiculous and he failed the die roll (on which I took a check, knowing it was futile), resulting in a twist: Although I delivered the baby, all the feral children, seeing me go at the mother with a knife, grabbed knives of their own and rushed my character. Cut to title card—same time next week!

I gotta say, there are some aspects of conflicts I get, and a whole lot that just goes over my head. For some reason I can't follow the disposition of the NPCs at all. The idea of "weapons" in convince crowd conflicts also confused me at first. The "weapons" listed in the book (and there aren't many) each only have a benefit for a particular conflict action, but you have to have such a weapon to avoid a penalty with the others. It's starting to make sense, but at the time threw me for a loop.

I also wasn't expecting to have to do multiple checks to return to the cave when we'd already been there, and the system really was obtrusive there in that little clock time apparently passed but our torches were going. Still, the challenge was thick and when we did pull off that very skewed fight it was great! If only my character had been able to contribute....

But then he's back from the dead with a Nature of 1, so after one Beginner's Luck on Fighter, he'll have that rated at 2!

Too bad he's Afraid and unable to use Beginner's Luck....


----------



## Manbearcat (May 10, 2022)

Cool, cool, cool.  Alright, let me tease out mechanically what this all looks like:

* Maps - "Fast Travel" to Strond.

* 1 Turn/No Light spent - Strond (beyond the gates festival celebrating relighting brazier/Return of Valkyrie) - Convince Crowd Conflict.  Concession for Precedence difference + Minor Concession.  Non-fighting Captain + 2 Sentries w/ Ob2 Resource for first and 3 gold pin for other + Light Sources and standard Sentry loadout.

* Maps - "Fast Travel" up mountain to mountain redoubt; Orelsdottir Cave.

* 1 Turn/Light - Reindeer Obstacle at entry chamber (effectively an "alarm").  Nature - Success.

* 1 Turn/Light - Scout Test to sneak into Orelsdottir Living Quarters.  Fail; Success w/ Condition (had multiple Twists in a row at this point and you guys were mostly Condition Free with a few having Fresh).

* 1 Turn/Light - Fighter vs Nature to take out sentinel w/ bow; Success.

* 1 Turn/Light - Kill Conflict declared by players.  Order of Might same but 6 vs 4 disadvantage and terrain advantage for Team Monster (-1s Defend and Maneuver to close to melee w/ area rugs, refuse, potholes, privy in the middle of the room).  Huge Feint vs Defend for Team PC (Defend Action Lost and Feint Independent Ob0) w/ massive Nova and overflow at 1st actions of round 3 (following big Defend move to Regroup end round 2).  Minor Concession (barely; only 1 Disposition).  Condition to Jakob.

* 1 Turn/No Light (C-section at Orelsdottir stanchion flame) - Healer; Failure.  Twist to Kill Conflict w/ feral children.


----------



## pemerton (May 10, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Twist to Kill Conflict w/ feral children.



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


----------



## Manbearcat (May 10, 2022)

pemerton said:


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




Hardcore in terms of brutal imagined space/consequences or difficulty level?

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).

In terms of difficulty, its more difficult than a Capture Conflict as these kids are Kill/Flee/Pursue as their primary Conflicts (so less Disposition and dice pool for Capture).

In terms of fiction, the Twist just made sense as abject bloodlust and loss of care for consequences given that the 7 adults of clan Orelsdottir were just slaughtered!

In terms of situation design, "feral kids w/ potent Capture conflict capacity and a PC being drug away to an appropriate frenzied rite on a concession" is awesome!


----------



## pemerton (May 10, 2022)

@Manbearcat

I was meaning hardcore in terms of difficulty, and the risks that a kill conflict gives rise to (I've run kill conflicts in my limited time as a Torchbearer GM, but initiated by the players not me). I assume that the kids are Might 2, and so they have the possibility of getting a kill result against the PCs.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 10, 2022)

pemerton said:


> @Manbearcat
> 
> I was meaning hardcore in terms of difficulty, and the risks that a kill conflict gives rise to (I've run kill conflicts in my limited time as a Torchbearer GM, but initiated by the players not me). I assume that the kids are Might 2, and so they have the possibility of getting a kill result against the PCs.




Yup.  Order of Might gives the PCs +1s but I'll be going for the throat here on concessions given the situation; Injury Minor Compromise and 1 PC Death on Half Compromise.

Neither of the PCs we've lost so far have been on Kill Conflicts, but we'll see how this sticky situation sorts out!


----------



## niklinna (May 10, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> 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 (May 10, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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 (May 10, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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 said:


> 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 (May 10, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> 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 (May 10, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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 (May 10, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


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



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


----------



## Manbearcat (May 10, 2022)

pemerton said:


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




Yup.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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 (May 11, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 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 (May 11, 2022)

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!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 11, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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!



Sounds like maybe our side of this should be a Convince, lol. Bloody Jasper holds up the wiggling newborn, "BEHOLD THE BLOOD PRINCE! All hail!" (or I guess you could go with a different spin on that, but...).


----------



## niklinna (May 11, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sounds like maybe our side of this should be a Convince, lol. Bloody Jasper holds up the wiggling newborn, "BEHOLD THE BLOOD PRINCE! All hail!" (or I guess you could go with a different spin on that, but...).



My inclination is to grab an animal pelt and hide under it. But your idea does not lack merit....


----------



## pemerton (May 11, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 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!



Not really, because BW doesn't use a "generic", shared-stakes conflict resolution system. There is Duel of Wits for talking, Range and Cover for missiles and skirmishing (and it can also be adapted to mass combat, although Luke recently released a set of warfare rules closely resembling the Torchbearer ones in the LMM), and Fight! as the equivalent of the D&D combat rules.

The only way I've seen this sort of mismatch issue come up is expressly covered by a rule (and interestingly there is a similar rule in HeroQuest revised): if someone throws a punch or swings a sword, to turn it into a versus test you must declare something that can handle that (eg parry or dodge or whatever). There is no opposing a kill-intent-type check with a talk-y action.


----------



## kenada (May 12, 2022)

niklinna said:


> My inclination is to grab an animal pelt and hide under it. But your idea does not lack merit....



Jasper has a weapon. This is the time to work on your Fighter skill.


----------



## niklinna (May 12, 2022)

kenada said:


> Jasper has a weapon. This is the time to work on your Fighter skill.



I might, if I had access to Beginner's Luck! Kids ain't as innocent as everybody says. Oh no, everybody's got an agenda.

Hm, maybe that will be Jasper's new Belief.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 12, 2022)

So just to be clear, you can't change the GM's intent when you get a Twist into a Conflict.

The GM gets to choose the Conflict type.  If I choose Kill Conflict, I've escalated to violence and that is that.  If you want to diffuse the situation without killing your opposition, you're going to have to do it physically (via Fleeing or Capturing or Driving Off).  After this conflict is over and you've changed the situation sufficiently (by winning the conflict), now you can dictate terms and parley (or whatever).  Maybe you've retreated to a terrain position where I can't attack you.  Maybe you have captured my guys.  Whatever.  Now you can dictate terms and parley or suss out if this is a cult and the leader is possessed and you want to perform an exorcism...again, whatever.

This is different than if you guys initiate the Conflict OR if I give you rights to establish the Conflict type on a Twist to Conflict.  In that case, like when we did the Supernatural to Flee conflict in the first Adventure, if you guys decide you want to do something else halfway (like Fleeing instead of continuing a Bind/Abjure/Banish ritual), then > we resolve the round we're on > you suck up any concession you have to make due your disposition loss to this point relative to your total, and > we start a new conflict (like Flee).

But like anything else it has to be supported by prior play and the rules.  If you've slaughtered my people and I want vengeance (eg I'm not a coward) or our Precedence differential yields insurmountable status, you can't just transition from (to use Dogs parlance) "guns" to "just talkin'."


----------



## Greg K (May 12, 2022)

I don't know much about Torchbearer other than what I learned fromsome Youtube unboxing and review videos plus several posts that I have read in this thread. The impression I get is that it is focused on staying alive, getting treasure to increase one's status, and the choices character's make. To enforce this in play, you have the Adventure Phase, Camp Phase, and Going to Town/Leaving Town.
Is it focused on dungeon delving and survival or can the mechanics also support a session or two of courtly intrigue and investigations? For example, a party returning to the castle where a character grew up as a servant and find the character, in his absence, was framed for a crime and the party needs to uncover who framed him and prove his innocence.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 12, 2022)

Greg K said:


> I don't know much about Torchbearer other than what I learned fromsome Youtube unboxing and review videos plus several posts that I have read in this thread. The impression I get is that it is focused on staying alive, getting treasure to increase one's status, and the choices character's make. To enforce this in play, you have the Adventure Phase, Camp Phase, and Going to Town/Leaving Town.
> Is it focused on dungeon delving and survival or can the mechanics also support a session or two of courtly intrigue and investigations? For example, a party returning to the castle where a character grew up as a servant and find the character, in his absence, was framed for a crime and the party needs to uncover who framed him and prove his innocence.



Well, there's a genre/tone kind of thing there. I mean, YES, you could certainly do various types of conflicts and the location isn't super important. The game focuses a lot on characters in this harsh sort of world where they are kind of dregs of society and are clearly expected to spend a lot of their time out in the boonies digging around in dark places. So, some things are missing that you might want to have as tools in, say an intrigue focused campaign. That is, you don't have any way of increasing your character's Precedence (aside from a modest increase you get from leveling up). I'd expect if intrigue and social combat was central that there would be more focus on how that impacts your status and such. I mean, you can gain enemies and friends, and your circles and resources ratings can change, so its not like there's NOTHING there, but I would say an adventure like you are describing would be more of a variation on the usual fare. You can do it, and I'd think something like that will come up now and then, but it isn't a focus.


----------



## kenada (May 12, 2022)

Greg K said:


> For example, a party returning to the castle where a character grew up as a servant and find the character, in his absence, was framed for a crime and the party needs to uncover who framed him and prove his innocence.



This sounds suspiciously like trying to impose a plot on TB, which it’s not really designed to do.


----------



## Greg K (May 12, 2022)

@AbdulAlhazred and @kenada

thank you for your replies. I understood the game to be about being dregs and spending their time exploring and trying to survive"dark places".  I was wondering how focused it was on those things or if it could do more outside that as my players like to do more than spend their time "in dark places". They like to explore the land, occasionally deal with other matters related to  character backstories. For example.  lowly court servant PC, who escapes to adventurer leaving behind their love, and later returns to find they were framed for a crime by someone whom had eyes on their love and having to set things right.

So, essentially, I was tryinng to get a clearer idea if  Torchbearer  would be the right game for my group. One review mentioned that Social Conflict is handled like normal  conflict and that while adventuring there is a clock (?) that opposes conditions.  So, I was wondering if the game could handle the party returning to the castle and, as the party tries to clear their friends name, the clock could be used to impose some kind of relevant conditions as time gets closer to the PC's sentencing.

From your replies, I am guessing that I and my players would be better served by another game.

.


----------



## pemerton (May 12, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> That is, you don't have any way of increasing your character's Precedence (aside from a modest increase you get from leveling up).



This isn't quite right.

There's Finery to step up your precedence, and also you can gain (or steal) a noble title or similar and get the appropriate Precedence.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 12, 2022)

Greg K said:


> @AbdulAlhazred and @kenada
> 
> thank you for your replies. I understood the game to be about being dregs and spending their time exploring and trying to survive"dark places".  I was wondering how focused it was on those things or if it could do more outside that as my players like to do more than spend their time "in dark places". They like to explore the land, occasionally deal with other matters related to  character backstories. For example.  lowly court servant PC, who escapes to adventurer leaving behind their love, and later returns to find they were framed for a crime by someone whom had eyes on their love and having to set things right.
> 
> ...



To a degree it depends on what 'phase' action happens during. In adventure phase each action a party member takes advances the grind. Every 4 ticks of the grind imposes a condition on each PC (which is normally Hungry/Thirsty, which you then immediately cure by eating or drinking, which itself doesn't use any grind). Once you run out of water/rations then eventually you would start accumulating nastier conditions, though adventures IME have not lasted long enough for much of that to happen so far. Now, if you are in 'town phase' then there's not a grind, but instead there's lifestyle cost. So, if a castle is a civilized place, then it might count as 'town' (there are several subtypes of towns). Conflicts and such can certainly happen inside the town, so in TB you'd have to choose which phase is in force, which changes the overall turn/exploration type mechanics considerably (and town is mostly intended to be a place where you rest, though most anything COULD happen there).

TB2 is a pretty Narratively focused and player focused game which is not much about 'setting tourism' IMHO. The intent is for there to be pretty much constant pressure on the PCs. You don't normally 'wander around looking for stuff to do' all that much, trouble finds you! If nothing else, then something your character cares about is likely to be threatened soon. At the least you are required to have goals, instincts, a creed, friends/enemies (usually), family (optional but often present), etc. Best case you are low on torches and food pretty soon, or lifestyle cost is threatening to jack way beyond what you can pay and you need to go out looking for coins and such so you can feed yourself. Life is never easy, So, the story you outlined could well happen. The lover could be a 'friend', mechanically, and the castle a 'town', etc. 

Conflicts are all handled using a similar system, though it has somewhat different parameters depending on the type of challenge. It could be a fight, kill/capture/drive off, or a convince (social), and there are a couple other types. Conflicts are a bit like melee in some other games, more abstract than 5e, but there's a rough analogy. Each side picks tactics, etc. and then stuff happens, wash, rinse, repeat. I'd note that TB is not super intent on any kind of 'simulationist' approach to things, its a game, and the fiction is important and feeds back into mechanics, but it isn't as cut and dried as D&D where each attack roll is definitely a specific type of individual action against a specific target.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 12, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This isn't quite right.
> 
> There's Finery to step up your precedence, and also you can gain (or steal) a noble title or similar and get the appropriate Precedence.



Ah, OK. That's interesting. I feel a bout of vanity coming on!  lol.


----------



## kenada (May 13, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Ah, OK. That's interesting. I feel a bout of vanity coming on!  lol.



Wouldn’t that require us to have more than just enough money to buy food? We can barely afford light sources!


----------



## Manbearcat (May 28, 2022)

Greg K said:


> I don't know much about Torchbearer other than what I learned fromsome Youtube unboxing and review videos plus several posts that I have read in this thread. The impression I get is that it is focused on staying alive, getting treasure to increase one's status, and the choices character's make. To enforce this in play, you have the Adventure Phase, Camp Phase, and Going to Town/Leaving Town.
> Is it focused on dungeon delving and survival or can the mechanics also support a session or two of courtly intrigue and investigations? For example, a party returning to the castle where a character grew up as a servant and find the character, in his absence, was framed for a crime and the party needs to uncover who framed him and prove his innocence.




I apologize. I forgot to reply to this.

So a few thoughts/examples:

1) Play is certainly about “survival against a hostile, mythological world bent on laying you low” but it’s also about:

* Fighting for what you Believe.

* Struggling with your Creed.

* Aiding/being aided by/confronting your Friend, Family, Hometown, Mentor, Enemy and making new Friends and Enemies.

2) The way significant game content can manifest in Town is the following:

* Fallout from a Town Events Roll as you enter.

* Fallout from an Adventure you just took on and resolved or didn’t (and the implications that has on Town or the denizens therein).

* Personal Business in Town (which has an associated Lifestyle Cost; this is something you must manage and resolve when you leave Town). What you could do might directly lead to a Test with rather significant (to both the shared fiction and the gamestate) stakes or a Twist from a failed Test might lead to a spiraling Conflict or the  players might directly invoke a Conflict themselves (Conflicts lead to getting what you want, or not, or getting what you want with a little or a lot of fallout…and that could lead to snowballing content).

3) So the orientation to Town phase for the GM is not at all Traditional. I’m following the procedures and I’m following the players around and we’re resolving their Town moves within very codified, principally-guided and constrained structure.

So physical, spiritual, or social conflict might break out (Convince, Convince Crowd, Kill, Banish/Disrupt Banishment, Flee/Pursue), but it’s always (a) Events Table related (procedures) or (b) player-invoked and resolved (and now it’s either _get what you want _or _things get complicated_).

4) As to what you’re invoking? Honestly, I could see it happening due to some chain like -

Town Events Roll in Hometown gone bad > a snowballing series of Personal Business Tests (involving Circles, Scholar and various and sundry other means/resources). This is pretty much quintessential Story Now and procedural snowballing. The GM doesn’t unilaterally conceive and deploy in (Home)Town the kind of “resolve the intrigue/mystery” metaplot that it seems like you might be invoking? Again, something kindred can emerge, but (a) the introduction of and resolution of the content and the orientation of the participants to it is quite different than in Trad D&D.

This could lead to a “Social Crawl” at an Adventure Site (eg The Castle) in Town (Loremaster’s Manual discusses this).

It’s just that “getting there” is not Traditional in the slightest and neither is resolving it (a Social Crawl at The Castle would still entail the Adventure Design for a Wilderness or Ruins Crawl and The Grind would be in play the same…Camp phase would be a respite that has to be reskinned a little bit; Survival wouldn’t be the move to resolve the surveiling for the respite and the amenities sought would be different as would Camp Events Table).


----------



## kenada (May 28, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> a Social Crawl at The Castle would still entail the Adventure Design for a Wilderness or Ruins Crawl and The Grind would be in play the same



Those courtly politics are brutal!


----------



## Manbearcat (May 28, 2022)

kenada said:


> Those courtly politics are brutal!




A real…Grind…you might say…


----------

