Torchbearer: dungeon exploring and survival simulation

StormBringer · August 07, 2013, 05:54:36 PM

Quote from: K Peterson;678556Maybe, depending on your perspectives on campaign lengths and having a deep-dive into a game system. But it doesn't seem that impressive a period of time for writing a dedication, or love letter, to the source material.

If someone said to me, "They've played Call of Cthulhu (or RuneQuest) for a year and a half! So they've done enough research to justifiably produce a love letter!", well, I'd be dubious. Seems more like casual flirtation, to me.

Exactly. Three decades on, I am still learning new information about the games I enjoyed back then. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, games more complicated than tic-tac-toe (RPGs broadly and AD&D specifically) cannot possibly be 'mastered' in a year and a half. Even if that was daily exposure and use of the system, I doubt one could claim much more than 'proficiency' implementing the rules.

robiswrong · August 07, 2013, 07:21:15 PM

Quote from: K Peterson;678556Maybe, depending on your perspectives on campaign lengths and having a deep-dive into a game system. But it doesn't seem that impressive a period of time for writing a dedication, or love letter, to the source material.

If someone said to me, "They've played Call of Cthulhu (or RuneQuest) for a year and a half! So they've done enough research to justifiably produce a love letter!", well, I'd be dubious. Seems more like casual flirtation, to me.

You should read Luke Crane's discussion of basic D&D on G+. I pretty well agree with what he says about it.

And by "a ton" I had more meant that they were playing it heavily for that time period, not that it's a long period of time, compared to those that picked up their boxed set in '80 and never stopped playing that game. So, yeah, bad choice of words.

K Peterson · August 07, 2013, 08:17:55 PM

Quote from: robiswrong;678617You should read Luke Crane's discussion of basic D&D on G+. I pretty well agree with what he says about it.

How about a link?

I know that he's in to Moldvay Basic. Last year, he hosted a panel at Pax Prime called "The D&D You Never Knew", where he apparently gushed about Moldvay Basic. I went to Pax, but on a prior day, and so didn't attend the panel. I probably wouldn't have attended anyway - because it was the edition I "knew" and started gaming with. I didn't need the enlightenment.

robiswrong · August 08, 2013, 06:00:30 PM

https://plus.google.com/111266966448135449970/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5

Archangel Fascist · August 08, 2013, 11:18:44 PM

One of the things I like about Torchbearer is that you can succeed at a cost. You might fuck up your roll to kick down the door, but the DM can let you succeed by making you fatigued. It seems a good mechanic to represent a hopeless, despondent world in which the heroes are forever beaten down.

Still not yet willing to part with the $30 or whatever to buy the game. I'll probably come around in time.

Regarding Luke's commentary on D&D, he just doesn't fully "get" it.

QuoteHeaven forfend we get into an in-character argument at the table, the game is utterly silent on that resolution. Might as well knife fight.

Do you need rules for arguing in real life?

Kyle Aaron · August 09, 2013, 05:12:55 AM

When you're a shit roleplayer, gamer and DM, you need rules for everything.

Piestrio · August 09, 2013, 12:17:02 PM

Okay, so I grabbed torchbearer.

I'll make an effort to read it this weekend and post my thoughts.

robiswrong · August 09, 2013, 03:32:08 PM

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;679205Regarding Luke's commentary on D&D, he just doesn't fully "get" it.

Do you need rules for arguing in real life?

No, but the lack of those rules can lead to a couple of negatives:

1) It can be hard to play a charismatic/manipulative/expert negotiator character if you, yourself, are not charismatic/manipulative/etc.
2) In-character discussions can end up stopping the game for flippin' hours.
3) It's too easy for the most bull-headed/least willing to compromise person to drive the game due to their lack of compromise and the implicit social contract.

A game doesn't need these types of things, but I don't think it's an inherent badness.

crkrueger · August 09, 2013, 04:00:45 PM

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;679205One of the things I like about Torchbearer is that you can succeed at a cost. You might fuck up your roll to kick down the door, but the DM can let you succeed by making you fatigued.

Is that something the GM comes up with or can the player make that choice? If the GM proposes it, can the player refuse like Compels, etc.?

fuseboy · August 09, 2013, 04:22:18 PM

Quote from: CRKrueger;679485Is that something the GM comes up with or can the player make that choice? If the GM proposes it, can the player refuse like Compels, etc.?

No, if there's a failure, the GM decides what happens next; if that's a condition (Exhausted, etc.) or a loss of gear, it happens. (I mean, players can whine, of course.)

Noclue · August 09, 2013, 04:54:04 PM

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;679205Do you need rules for arguing in real life?

It's generally considered a good idea if you want to reach the best outcome. Of course, not if you just want to yell at each other.

silva · August 10, 2013, 10:26:17 AM

Quote from: Noclue;679510It's generally considered a good idea if you want to reach the best, and pacific, outcome. Of course, not if you just want to yell at each other.

Added just a small detail.

Phillip · August 11, 2013, 05:39:34 PM

The original D&D set (and 1E AD&D, with its long list of factors) rules devote more attention to interpersonal reactions than to many other things. If you want to apply those to PCs, you're free to do so; most people, in my experience, prefer to use their own discretion in role-playing.

A line must be drawn somewhere so that there's actually a point in having human players as opposed to mechanical dice rollers, and -- barring extraordinary forms of influence such as charm spells -- this seems generally to be well over that line. I see players on occasion by their own choice using a dice roll to settle a question of how Character X would respond, but that's different from having it imposed on them.

Phillip · August 11, 2013, 05:45:36 PM

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;679205One of the things I like about Torchbearer is that you can succeed at a cost. You might fuck up your roll to kick down the door, but the DM can let you succeed by making you fatigued. It seems a good mechanic to represent a hopeless, despondent world in which the heroes are forever beaten down.

A single kick causing fatigue? Weird, but I wouldn't call immediate success in return "hopeless."

In old D&D, if you fail your 1/3 (or whatever) chance of immediate success, you just need to keep working at it until you get the door open. That could be tiring, but basically the cost is time and noise.

Archangel Fascist · August 11, 2013, 07:35:49 PM

QuoteA single kick causing fatigue? Weird, but I wouldn't call immediate success in return "hopeless."

It's not literally a single kick; it's an abstraction. But the success is usually at a cost. You rarely get exactly what you want. The conditions imposed gradually gnaw away at your character--Hungry and Thirsty reduces your disposition (hit points), Injured and Sick reduce your dice pool, and so on.