Quote from: fuseboy;650025Inventory is the core of the resource system, because space is at a premium. All the dungeoneering and survival gear you need to survive the adventure plus the treks to and from town is bulky, and you've only got two hands. Sacks don't float magically along side you, you have to carry them, and that uses up a hand (two, for large sacks).

ROPE (or leather strap) has not been invented yet, eh?

Hey, the thread just got interesting. Should shields be given an extra bonus versus medieval missile weapons due to the air gap between most of the user and the shield, or is that too much? The idea of becoming immune to most arrows and bolts by hiding behind a couple of inches of wood is a bit worrying, balance wise.

Quote from: Spinachcat;650097Explain.



How long are these expeditions?

How many meals are assumed per day and what constitutes a meal? AKA, how much foraging / hunting has to be done to feed 6 adults? Does the game get into details like 1 Rabbit = 1 meal, 1 Deer = 12 meals?

And did anyone say "Blue Wizard needs Food!" at any point?

This is my question too. The challenges of a 1st level adventurer in Old School D&D fade to a great degree by 4th level where wealth and magic can solve many of the problems. Even if the monsters are tougher, the dungeoneering aspect can be somewhat overcome in an easier manner.

By 'unsettling', I meant that it was a surprise to find that as the GM, I was only one source of the challenges that the players faced, so initially it felt like I wasn't in control of what was happenign.  Many dangers were boiling up out of the mechanics, whether my 'it's dramatically appropriate time to mention that they're running low on oil' instincts said so or not.

I suppose you could say that the mechanics are designed to make sure that the central challenges of the game actually occur.  It's easy to ignore encumbrance in D&D (I usually did), but Torchbearer character sheets don't let you. You can't carry anything without saying where you're putting it (because that's where you write it down), so unless you really deviate and start writing equipment down on note paper, you're using the encumbrance rules.

Time in Torchbearer is abstract.  One 'turn' is the time it takes to do something meaningful that's resolved with a single test (or extended conflict mechanic).  In some ways, I really like this - it makes it really easy to keep track of light expenditure and hunger, which the GM does on the test log sheet. I suspect it also gave rise to some of the players' reasoning about how to use their time: however long it takes, you know the impact to your food and light reserves of deciding to trying to get a chest open or whatever.

BW and MG are both games that, in different ways, discourage you from playing out every 60-minute increment of time, you just skip to the highlights. I like the fast pacing this produces.  (I really loathe questions like, "What are the rest of you doing while Bartle sharpens his sword?" I'd much rather skip to the next event where either the GM or the players have something to enact that they care about.)

Torchbearer is similar in this respect - you track turns diligently, but the actual hours or days that slip by are much more plastic.  One turn's worth of orienteering might get you through a single natural cavern with a confusing layout, or an entire labyrinth - that's up to the GM.

This caused some furrowed brows outside the dungeon, where interesting events are naturally spaced further apart in time.

Being in town is similar. Torchbearer has a simple mechanic where your lifestyle expenses ratchet up for each piece of business you conduct in town. The costs are biting and the penalties for coming up short are painful - but the benefits of splashing out are hooked into the rest of the mechanics. (Staying in nice accommodations, for example, can help you restore some of the nastier conditions like Sick and Exhausted.)

So.. how long are the expeditions?  I think in all three cases, the adventuring forays were generally resolved in around 16-20 turns.  But then, dungeons aren't the massive things that they are in D&D, where PCs can fight their way through a dozen encounters in a row, they're more like the layout you'd expect in a movie - a few logistical problems, a few baddies, a few surprises, and some loot.

And yes, during one of my games, someone did make a Gauntlet joke.

Quote from: Phillip;650129ROPE (or leather strap) has not been invented yet, eh?

There are satchels, which are a little like sacks on a strap. Players are encouraged to come up with inventive ways to haul out more shit than they would normally be able to carry, there's a whole skill for that.

Quote from: The Traveller;650138Hey, the thread just got interesting. Should shields be given an extra bonus versus medieval missile weapons due to the air gap between most of the user and the shield, or is that too much? The idea of becoming immune to most arrows and bolts by hiding behind a couple of inches of wood is a bit worrying, balance wise.

On the other hand, "balance - wise", a ranged weapon usually gives you 2 - 3 rounds of fire before your target usually gets to you . I liked the notion of what WFRP 2e did. -10 to BS when trying to shoot at someone carrying a shield. It exists also in BRP to a degree (Shield gives an actual cover, I believe).

Of course, the shield itself may splinter from the impact force as well. In systems without item HP, or when one'd wish to simplify that, I'd go with "one critical hits damages, second destroys" practice.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650142Of course, the shield itself may splinter from the impact force as well. In systems without item HP, or when one'd wish to simplify that, I'd go with "one critical hits damages, second destroys" practice.

I trim down armour as it gets penetrated anyway, for a couple of reasons, so I guess things like bodkinhead arrows do work mechanically. I treat cover and armour seperately though, like most systems.

I think the utility against missiles is really the biggest draw of a shield. Not that it isn't also good against hand-to-hand weapons, but there are modes of fighting that can (from what I've heard, more than personally tried) best the sword-and-board man.

Quote from: fuseboy;650025I playtested an earlier version of Torchbearer.....

The highlight of the adventure still stands out in my mind.  The players had rapelled down into a flooded chapel where the crypt lord sat in his slimy chair. The precious treasure the players sought was glinting at them from under the water's surface.  At this point, the lord (who was not a threat in and of himself) banged his ceremonial gong, calling forth his crypt servants.  The players didn't know what these were, but they began to hear the distant splashes of undead emerging from their niches.

This kicked off the most tense moment I can remember in a while - the players suddenly had some brutal decisions to make, and no time to make them.  How long should they spend pulling these rotted sacks from under the water? What could they do without? Tomas was Exhausted and Afraid, would leaving the tinderbox be a death sentence? The spare oil? The rope? Could they do without some of their remaining food? Now practiced with the system, the players knew that leaving these things behind might be a death sentence - their angst was genuine.  Super intense!

Awesome. Its exactly what Im looking for in this game.

Thanks for sharing the experience.

Quote from: The Traveller;650143I trim down armour as it gets penetrated anyway, for a couple of reasons, so I guess things like bodkinhead arrows do work mechanically. I treat cover and armour seperately though, like most systems.

Well, bodkin arrows "technically" work - bows weren't really very good against armour, bodkin arrows or not. You had to be at a relatively close distance for the arrows to pierce even chainmail with padding underneath. So the "Arrows Wave" attack, as seen in the films, was effective against unarmed opponents. Against heavily armoured ones, it all came down to the discipline of the unit - they had to wait until enemy came close enough and not break the ranks. Not to mention that longbows weren't exactly a sniper's weapon at distance.

Of course, that also depended on a bow - the famed Longbows had certainly more packing power, but even then, it is somewhat assumed that the French knights who fell during battles against the English were looking like hedgehogs, because the armour did a fair job of protecting them, at least over the large distance.

In the end, crossbow was cheaper or relatively expansive to produce, and easier to train with and packed a larger punch over a larger distance. And later of course, firearms were even cheaper and easier to train*.

But in  the realm of RPG's abstractions, yes, bodkins would work.

*Contrary to the often depicted view, as per WFRP for example, firearms were actually cheaper in production than crossbows and bows. Bows required very good wood, which was often a domain of nobleman's forestry rights, and crossbows required wood practically just as good, and a lot of fiddly parts - the wood just had to age a bit quicker, I believe. And on the other hand, until the advent of flintlock mechanisms, the firearms were, for the most part, metal - wooden tubes which did not require such quality of work, nor the long wait for the weapon to be done.

Quote from: Phillip;650145I think the utility against missiles is really the biggest draw of a shield. Not that it isn't also good against hand-to-hand weapons, but there are modes of fighting that can (from what I've heard, more than personally tried) best the sword-and-board man.

Well, two handed weapons on the other hand nigh - guaranteed that you'd be chopped to bits if the man holding it hit you, and that played an important reasoning when faced against them. Then again, two - handed swords, until Landsknechts, were mostly a dominion of cavalry (aka knights) as well - speed and good armour allowed you to, for the most part, ignore danger of the arrows.

Get a pilum in your shield, you toss the shield.

Get a pilum in your gut, you toss your cookies.

Fuseboy: you haven't answered my question so I am going to ask again: how do you organize/prep the dungeon in this game? Do you map it? What are the guidelines provided by the game about this?

Quote from: fuseboy;650025- their angst was genuine.  

Probably the most descriptive statement of Luke Crane ever.

Quote from: fuseboy;650140Time in Torchbearer is abstract.

Help me understand this. Time is abstract, but light and food exists for X number of turns?

I am getting this image of adventurers constantly eating Ritz crackers going down dungeon hallways. Is food really a code word for endurance? AKA, how long does their body's energy keep them active between meals?

"I'm too hungry to open that chest" sounds very odd. But we did have a Food counter for turns in the Ultima computer game.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650081Blocking the blow, turning a blow aside, mobile cover, secondary melee weapon — all of that makes sense (to my largely-untutored mind). What else?

My homebrew uses opposed d20 attack rolls.  A shield will add another die to the defense roll, from d2 to d8, so they can be quite effective.  They also make it easier to get a riposte (if defense die is a natural 20, get a riposte if your modified total beats the attack by 10 or more).

Quote from: fuseboy;650025I playtested an earlier version of Torchbearer.

I played BECMI and AD&D back in the day, preferred AD&D. But, I would suspect that the majority of adventuring I did fell into what was common back then: fight bad guys, find treasure, level up.

Now I read Benoist and Estar talking about their dungeon crawling (Ben with OD&D, Estar with GURPS) and I'm really intrigued. I don't know if that model of adventuring is something I'd enjoy, but I'd like to have been given the chance.

So, I'd like to know — is what fuseboy describes something like your ideal playing style? If not, what are the differences and similarities?

More importantly: Where is there a well-written, succinct article on this style of play? I don't mean something scattered through dozens of posts in a thread about something else, I mean a concentrated description of the play style, appeal of the play style, and suggested methods for DM's and players to engage in the mode.

Has it been written? If not — why not?

I really want to find out about it, but don't know where to begin.

("Read AD&D DMG" (or some other entire game manual) isn't a good answer, IMHO. That is not a concentrated article about this style, so doesn't qualify.)