Torchbearer - Kickstarter is UP

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't know about making Torchbearer my go-to RPG. Difficulty aside, the game breaks the fourth wall too much for my tastes. A lot of my objections could be toned down with houserules, of course, but even if you did things like give people free checks and allow people to use their traits in a positive way and expanded the list of Nature rules there's the fact that Torchbearer doesn't really have the 'pace' of a game I could see myself playing endless variations of.

In one sense that's good because it stops games from slowing to a crawl. On the other hand, it's bad because it forces the cadence of the adventure to flow a certain way. If it was an action movie or a simulation of an action movie in which the plot was supposed to happen at a structured pace that would be fine. But it's fucking dungeon crawling and interacting in a gritty swords-and-sorcerery fantasy. It's okay if the players decide to just set up camp in the middle of the wildness without first having to have a cutscene of the group arguing over whether they should drink from the dirty pool of water.

[ETortoise]

Yeah, in my mind I was imagining more Burning Wheel with TB conflict rules than anything else.

You can use traits positively though. A level 1 trait can give you +1D once a session, lvl 2 is +1D every time the trait can apply (which is often), lvl 3 gives you an extra success on tied or successful rolls.

Running TB was interesting. The game makes tracking light and time really simple, things I abstract away when running old school D&D. I really disliked the fact I could snuff out lights used riskily "at a whim." If the PCs are going to be ground to dust I want it to be at the orders of the game, not my impulse.

I was a little too liberal handing out conditions on failed rolls. If I'd gone for more twists they would have had more opportunities to use their skills and the paladin wouldn't have been saddled with a Ob 4 test to make on three dice before she could help her companions again.

It looks like I'll be running a 3 or 4 session mini-campaign when we get to a break point in our regular game, so interest was piqued.

[silva]

silva, you do realize that even if we give you your silly idea that a DM-controlled state like 'stressful situation' could ever be a balanced or useful mechanic, that skill checks in stressful situations do not in anyway model realistic training? People don't become badasses by attempting badass things and hoping they work out, they become badasses by spending a lot of time memorizing how to be a badass until it becomes second nature to them.

Yup. And all the games cited (RQ, CoC, BRP, Pendragon) model this through off-time advancement, which you pay for in in-game time and resources. (though you can only rise skills this way until certain thresholds: in RQ it was 75%, in CoC its 80% if I aint mistaken )

Nothing of this has anything to do with the "improve as you use" rules, mind you.

There aren't any advantages to skill check advancement unless you have a very compelling setting reason for people to suddenly know Kung Fu in the middle of a fight... Because expecting people to adjust their character's abilities at the table while action is going on is bullshit.

None of the cited games allow this.

See, this is how a skill check advancement works:

1. you used the skill in some stressful/meaningful/relevant/critical situation.
2. you check the little box beside the skill name.
3. after the adventure ends, or during the first down-time, you roll against the skill checked. If you succeed, you add xd6 to its rating.

Notice that, the lower the skill, the easier it will be to improve it, and the higher it is, the harder it will be.

But well, the baffling thing is that someone thinks that's "natural" or "organic" that you become a better dancer only when you dance under some kind of risk or facing some critical consequence.

Again, for modelling advancement through practicing and study, the games cited use off-time advancement, which you pay for with in-game time and resources.

Frankly, I think that the metagaming of skill advancement is intentional. As in, it's not supposed to smoothly fit into a game 'naturally' but it's just another blunt instrument for the game to force 'drama' in the game.

That may be true in Torchbearer case, but I hardly believe its the case with the BRP family (RQ/CoC/Stormbringer/Pendragon/etc).

[Previn]

See, this is how a skill check advancement works:

1. you used the skill in some stressful/meaningful/relevant/critical situation.

Are there specific rules that tell you when something is stressful/meaningful/relevant/critical? None of those are objective measures.

[silva]

What the group and GM agrees as "stressful/meaningful/relevant/critical".

[Dean]

What I agree is "stressful/meaningful/relevant/critical"

Here, fixed that for you.

Since every imaginable interpretation has been shown to be metagamey, counter intuitive, and unrealistic he will now go hide behind relativism. Of course that makes no sense and as adults we all realize that that defense is paper thin but he thinks it's invulnerable. It's like when babies think they're invisible if they close their eyes.

[silva]

worthless bla bla bla

Here, fixed it for you.

[Ice9]

While "dangerous situations" fixes the Oblivion problem (a good way to boost your skills as an assassin in Oblivion is skipping through the wilderness picking flowers), it still definitely leads to metagame considerations in your actions.

For example, a while ago, I played in a BRP game that used a similar method of skill advancement. People weren't literally pickpocketing each-other, but there was definitely a "fill out the checklist" feeling in terms of the actions you took. Stuff like - "Ok, this fight is starting to wrap up, so time to use as many skills as possible. I'll look for weak points so I can count Perception, and then try stabbing him so I can count Blades. Shit, the adventure's almost over and I haven't used Lore yet. Maybe I can ask something about those demons earlier and hope it counts as important enough?"

For example, with the lockpicking thing mentioned earlier, that would just mean the PC goes to the bad part of town and pickpockets random people instead, which is still a nonsensical action from an IC point of view.

[Lago PARANOIA]

For example, with the lockpicking thing mentioned earlier, that would just mean the PC goes to the bad part of town and pickpockets random people instead, which is still a nonsensical action from an IC point of view.

The people who wrote this RPG would probably say that the OOC-ness of this action was justified by the conflict and drama and suspense it would generate.

I'm not against people taking narratively disadvantageous/mechanically advantageous actions in an RPG to create drama. I think FATE Core is a well put-together game. But they really took it too far in Torchbearer.

[silva]

While "dangerous situations" fixes the Oblivion problem (a good way to boost your skills as an assassin in Oblivion is skipping through the wilderness picking flowers), it still definitely leads to metagame considerations in your actions.

For example, a while ago, I played in a BRP game that used a similar method of skill advancement. People weren't literally pickpocketing each-other, but there was definitely a "fill out the checklist" feeling in terms of the actions you took. Stuff like - "Ok, this fight is starting to wrap up, so time to use as many skills as possible. I'll look for weak points so I can count Perception, and then try stabbing him so I can count Blades. Shit, the adventure's almost over and I haven't used Lore yet. Maybe I can ask something about those demons earlier and hope it counts as important enough?"

For example, with the lockpicking thing mentioned earlier, that would just mean the PC goes to the bad part of town and pickpockets random people instead, which is still a nonsensical action from an IC point of view.

Ice, while I totally understand your point, wouldnt it be better for the folks who want to raise lockpick or pickpocket or whatever to just.. you know.. looking for some local rogue teacher or thieves guild and pay for training ?

I suspect the skill check advancement of RQ (and BRP) are meant to be something that the player dont bother too much with and just let it to the GM. If you really want to train your skills you should look for the local guilds, cults, or libraries and pay for it. (I dont remember now if you must roll for advancement while learning from a teacher, but I think that, even if you must roll, the odds are better than learning at the field)

[Username17]

Ice, while I totally understand your point, wouldnt it be better for the folks who want to raise lockpick or pickpocket or whatever to just.. you know.. looking for some local rogue teacher or thieves guild and pay for training ?

That's not a serious question is it? The answer is "Yes." The answer is obviously "Yes." There is not now and hasn't been serious debate on this point for longer than you've been alive. Having characters spend some time and possibly other resources to train in skills the player wants the character to improve isn't metagame bullshit at all. That's totally in-character.

The player wants the character to be better at picking locks, so the character trains at lockpicking and gets better at lockpicking. That's a completely associated action. It is entirely clear to the characters in-world why the character spends time training at picking locks (the character wants to get better at picking locks), and it is is entirely clear to the characters in-world why the character gets better at lockpicking (practice makes perfect).

In BRP land, the player wants to get better at lock picking, so just before escaping from the burning building, the character stops what he's doing to pick the lock on an empty room. That's fucking insane. There is no in-character justification for that action, and no particular reason to associate that behavior with getting better at picking locks. It's metagamey and stupid. And people have leveled this complaint since before José Sarney overturned the military dictatorship of Brasil. And there's no fucking answer for this complaint, because if there was one someone would have articulated it in the last thirty fucking years.

I suspect the skill check advancement of RQ (and BRP) are meant to be something that the player dont bother too much with and just let it to the GM. If you really want to train your skills you should look for the local guilds, cults, or libraries and pay for it. (I dont remember now if you must roll for advancement while learning from a teacher, but I think that, even if you must roll, the odds are better than learning at the field)

The advancement of RQ and BRP in general is completely fucked, and people have been making fun of it for longer than I've been alive. And they've been right to do so.

-Username17

[silva]

But thats my entire point, Frank. BRP allows the first option (paying a teacher for advancement with in-game time and money, just like Gurps really). So say, you have 54% in lockpicking and want to improve it because you know you will have to infiltrate the Duke manor sooner or later. Then you go look for a lockpicking teacher (it could even be a fellow player-character) in the local community and pays him the necessary money to raise your skill.

Thats entirelly covered by the game rules. And always been, from first edition of RQ back in 1978. Then you have the other method of advancement, the "get better as you [meaningfullly] use it" one.

But even the "get better as you use" one do NOT work as you say: you cannot pick random locks before escaping the burning tower to have your skill raised instantly because you just make the skill advancement test by the end of the adventure or in some down-time within it. So NO, your example would not work. As most other examples shown in the thread would not work too. It only shows a misreading of the rules on you guys part.

P.S: I admit I laugh wi th the Jose Sarney part.

[Username17]

silva, you're wrong. First of all, yes the "get better as you use it" part of the advancement system does indeed work exactly as I described it. You can read the fucking manual if you don't believe me. Read it hard. During each week, you geta chance to advance any skill you've checked during stressful situations, which encourages bullshit like swapping out equipment near the end of combats and picking pointless locks near the end of action scenes. That is how it fucking works, it's on page 23. And it is dumb. This is the part of your argument where you are factually wrong, where the thing you are saying is simply not true and we can prove that you are wrong empirically by looking at actual evidence.

Secondly, the fact that the game has other forms of advancement that are less metagamey than the advance by in-game grinding system doesn't make the grinding system any less dumb. D&D has equipment advancement which is entirely in-character and associated, but that doesn't in any way make the XP and levels system any less stupid. Each separate advancement subsystem simply is as metagamey and stupid as it is, irrespective of how metagamey and stupid (or not) any other parallel advancement scheme is. This is the part of the argument where you are structurally wrong, where the thing you are saying is simply logically incapable of being true. Regardless of what the facts of the matter were, there is no way that you couldn't be "not wrong."

Now as it happens, you're actually double wrong, because learning by training is capped by your learning by experience in RuneQuest. You are literally required to get your skill stamped during some arbitrary "on camera" action sequence before you are allowed to get any more benefit from training. Seriously. It's that fucking stupid. It's on page 23.

-Username17

[nockermensch]

And people have leveled this complaint since before José Sarney overturned the military dictatorship of Brasil.

It's an aside, but holy crap, this was hilarious. Sarney was a member of the ARENA, the dictatorship approved right-wing party. His family "owns" the state of Maranhão through the tight coupling between business, media and political positions and things are expected to remain like this for the time being.

Sarney's current party is the PMDB, which evolved from the MDB, the dictatorship approved left-wing party. The only reason people join PMDB is because they want to remain in power, forever. PMDB's entire political platform is "UNLIMITED POWER!!!", and they achieve it by being huge, having a huge influence through pork-barrel politics all around Brazil and then throwing their huge size around. The result is that any party with actual political goals that they want to accomplish must get PMDB in the coalition to win, rewarding them with ministries and such. Our current vice-president is from them, for example.

So, Sarney may or may not had "overturned" the dictatorship because the story of that period is confusing as shit, but in any case, he is one of the regressive oligarchs that were benefiting from the system during the dictatorship, and kept benefiting from the system under the democracy. What you wrote conjures images of Sarney being some kind of populist, democratic hero freeing Brazil from the clutches of a CIA backed coup, and nothing could be farther from the truth.*

*DISCLAIMER: That's a figure of speech. There are other things still farther from the truth, possibly.

[silva]

silva, you're wrong. First of all, yes the "get better as you use it" part of the advancement system does indeed work exactly as I described it. You can read the fucking manual if you don't believe me. Read it hard. During each week, you geta chance to advance any skill you've checked during stressful situations

Nope. its in the end of the scenario/adventure. Let me transcribe it here:

"..At the end of the scenario, when the character can take a week to relax or meditate upon his experience, there is a chance he will learn from what hapenned to him".

Thats what the book says. So, your example above is incorrect because: A) the character checks the skill box only once per adventure, no matter how many times he used it, and B) the character needs some down-time to reflect upon and consolidate the experience (even then he must succeed at a roll, else he doesnt improve anything), which means he can only do that between adventures.

which encourages bullshit like swapping out equipment near the end of combats and picking pointless locks near the end of action scenes. That is how it fucking works, it's on page 23. And it is dumb.

Well, if your players are activelly seeking to do it, treating the whole thing like a MMO - and everybody is in the same boat about it - I see no problem really. IN MY GROUP this kind of behaviour would be shunned upon, but my group is not representative of the whole hobby.

And that happens in any game, really. Min-maxers are the proof of it - no matter how roleplaying-focused your game are, or roleplaying-focused the gaming advice on the GM section are, there will always be players who min-max the hell out of it like it was a competitive MMO, making the perfect-uber-optimized Assassin in Gurps or Street Samurai in Shadowrun, while the roleplaying-focused players keep making the flawed and interesting characters. Tell me one game that is not prone to that, and I will concede the point.

*EDIT*

its also worth noting that different games from the BRP family have different qualifiers for the skill check advancement: RQ2 considers any use of the skill as qualifiable; RQ3 specifically cites it must be under stressful and meaningful situations; Pendragon requires a critical success roll; and RQ6 actually cut if off from the rules - in it, you have 3 free advancement to do after each adventure, and you spend it as you wish, regardless of having used skills or not.

[Kaelik]

Thats what the book says. So, your example above is incorrect because: A) the character checks the skill box only once per adventure, no matter how many times he used it, and B) the character needs some down-time to reflect upon and consolidate the experience (even then he must succeed at a roll, else he doesnt improve anything), which means he can only do that between adventures.

For fucks sake, learn to read. Frank just fucking told you that at the end of the adventure, before you finish/leave the stressful situation, you do some random ass thing. It doesn't matter if the random ass thing is pick a lock to an empty room in a burning building, or put down the bow you are good with and use a sword you suck with to fight, or try to convince someone to give you five dollars.

The point is that if anything is unchecked that you want checked, then at the end of the adventure you do something stupid and metagamey to get it checked. No one is saying you get better at it right that fucking second, they are saying you do something stupid and metagamey to get better at it.

And that happens in any game, really. Min-maxers are the proof of it - no matter how roleplaying-focused your game are, or roleplaying-focused the gaming advice on the GM section are, there will always be players who min-max the hell out of it like it was a competitive MMO, making the perfect-uber-optimized Assassin in Gurps or Street Samurai in Shadowrun, while the roleplaying-focused players keep making the flawed and interesting characters. Tell me one game that is not prone to that, and I will concede the point.

No see, that is the thing. If your game is actually roleplaying focused, it is because the rules of the fucking game do not incentivize stupid metagame actions. So if your rules are actually roleplaying focused they don't let you get better by doing random shit during showtime, they let you get better by practicing whatever you want to get better at in downtime.

And then... Stormwind. Here are some games not prone to that: Shadowrun and D&D 3e. Because when you minmax in those games absolutely nothing about minmaxing makes your characters less interesting (or sane, as would be in minmaxing in RQ).

[Red_Rob]

no matter how roleplaying-focused your game are, or roleplaying-focused the gaming advice on the GM section are, there will always be players who min-max the hell out of it like it was a competitive MMO, making the perfect-uber-optimized Assassin in Gurps or Street Samurai in Shadowrun, while the roleplaying-focused players keep making the flawed and interesting characters.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

I'm pretty immersed in my IRL character. And if I thought I could get better at playing the guitar by practicing in a room that's on fire, I'd seriously take that under consideration when looking at the thousands of hours becoming a virtuoso takes.

[ETortoise]

I hate with the passion of a thousand fiery suns love that Silva is defending the advancement system in a game by talking about a completely different game with a similar system.

Torchbearer deals with the power leveling problem by making rolls a limited resource. Every four times the dice are rolled the PCs all get a condition; you don't have time to fuck around on things that aren't moving your party towards treasure.

It doesn't deal with the metagamey problem at all. The best you can say is that it lampshades it. BWHQ likes their metagame.

[silva]

ETortoise, I dont know Torchbearer enough to talk. I just rebated Frank assertion that "improve as you use" is bad. As always, he confuses his personal tastes to objective truth.

Perhaps in Torchbearer its even better implemented, I dont know. In fact, judging by what you say, it looks like an interesting twist to the concept.

[Kaelik]

I just rebated Frank assertion that "improve as you use" is bad.

You didn't rebate or even rebut anything. You just told us that the advancement you get for picking a lock into an empty room while escaping from a burning building comes later.

That is still bad. Being rewarded for stupid metagamey actions is stupid, even if the reward comes slightly later.

[DSMatticus]

Silva just unironically trotted out a rollplay vs roleplay argument (amusingly, in defense of a mechanic that rewards metagaming over playing your character). How sure are we silva is actually a dumbass and not a comedic genius?

[silva]

The mechanic only rewards metagaming if the group playing it is composed of powergamers. Indeed, any mechanic rewards metagaming for this kind of group - min-maxers will min-max regardless of system. Trying to build anti-min-maxers rules is futile.

Thats my point.

[Pedantic]

The mechanic only rewards metagaming if the group playing it is composed of powergamers. Indeed, any mechanic rewards metagaming for this kind of group - min-maxers will min-max regardless of system. Trying to build anti-min-maxers rules is futile.

Thats my point.

Gosh. That's brilliant. Do you think we could apply the same principle to the world economy? If everyone just ignored incentives that produced results you didn't like, everything would work so great!

[RadiantPhoenix]

The mechanic only rewards metagaming if the group playing it is composed of powergamers. Indeed, any mechanic rewards metagaming for this kind of group - min-maxers will min-max regardless of system. Trying to build anti-min-maxers rules is futile.

Thats my point.

The way you make optimizers not metagame is by making the optimal choices not involve metagaming.