Interesting points TED. I have several thoughts about the other night's session, as I do after EVERY session. :) "Multiple consecutive twists can open interesting new subplots - or force the players on a huge tangent that none of us find any joy in pursuing. As we also discovered this week they can quickly spiral into "set a camp? we haven't even managed to light a torch tonight." While earning a condition at least guarantees that the goal of a test is achieved, often a twist may nullify success or introduce an entirely new obstacle to overcome. In many ways this can be a more severe and far-reaching consequence than earning a condition. " To clarify things, there was only 1 Twist used the other night. The ghouls began hunting the party as a result of a Twist from a previous session. The happened several tests before the subsequent Twist that put the party at Conflict with the ghouls (Grazzer failing to open the door and spy on them without being seen). Sure, there are two ways to handle that failed test: Go with the Twist and have a Conflict or hand out a Condition and let the party escape unnoticed, leaving the suspense of having ghouls on the hunt. My intention was to drive the party deeper into the dungeon, and that is what transpired. I think both options are viable, and both would have resulted with movement of the party. "In a session where things seem to be turning south for the adventurers (did we succeed on anything?) sometimes it's more important to hand out a condition (or a minor twist that doesn't demand more tests) and a met goal to change up the pacing and throw us, as players, the proverbial bone. Remember, it's Torchbearer; we will inevitably find our own deaths, you needn't show us the way." I definitely did throw you guys a bone, although you may not know it or completely appreciate it yet. The party is still alive, with a chance to survive. What more can you ask for? The gnolls offered several avenues of survival to the party, and more may or may not be available, if Huron stops threatening them :) "Another thought is with regard to twist conflicts. Conflicts are by far the most protracted part of the game as well as one of, if not the most, dangerous parts of the game. Conflicts as the result of a twist should not be handed out lightly, as even a flawless success in the contest still forces compromises on the party (note: I personally think this point should be reconsidered). Furthermore, by the above scale, I'd place twist conflicts in the 5-7 range, with a very easy one (superior might + numbers) falling at a 4. Exhausted gets handed out a LOT from conflict compromises with additional twists on top of them, so I feel a conflict given as the result of a twist should be reserved for more consequential failures. Additionally, I would avoid giving out more than one conflict twist in a single session (and seriously consider alternatives if a non-twist conflict has already occurred that night) simply because it's a large portion of our time, and in the case of monsters that are already in our way and we'll have to get around to anyway, I'd much rather be able to spend my night doing some adventuring with a condition or some other twist than say, "what did I do with my night? Well, I got into a couple fights and... then we had to end." I have noticed this fatigue as well, both as GM (a lot) and as a player. I try to limit Conflicts to 1 or maybe 2 per session depending on how things are going, and if the party just went through a Conflict, I try to follow up with Conditions rather than a Conflict leading to a Conflict leading to a Conflict. I think in the entire time I have GMed this game I have never had a Conflict lead to a Conflict as a result of a compromise/loss. That said, Conflicts are a necessary part of the game, and can add a lot to it when used appropriately. I honestly felt that after being spotted by ghouls, it made perfect sense to flee from them, and a Conflict was a nice way to resolve that. As I said above, the Twist from Grazzer's failure instigated a Conflict that was waiting to happen. It wasn't as if I said, oh the door squeaked and for that I am going to send 4 undead flesh eater upon you!" The party decided to go back and look (which you have made perfectly clear that you are against. Maybe it is time for Marfose to take charge of the party? If nothing else, you have learned a valuable lesson about delving).On top of that, it was the party's choice to not camp or light more light sources before making the test leading to the Conflict, which allowed the torch to burn out and greatly increase the difficulty of the Conflict. Furthermore, because of the ensuing darkness your Conflict options were completely limited, and may or may not have resulted in a much more difficult Conflict. As players, you all need to be accountable for your choices, as much as the GM is accountable for his/hers. That is the beauty of this system and I think the party learned another valuable lesson about delving. Regarding your last point, the funny thing about last session is that you guys were not in a single fight. Also to clarify the compromise results, because it was a tie neither side won. Therefore, it could have been, "the ghouls don't capture you, but you don't escape from them either." It would take the Flee Conflict off the table, since we had just finished that, so where does that leave us? According to the rules, there isn't really any other option, so I either make something up on the spot, or change the compromise. The rules clearly state that it should be painful to both sides, so you guys effectively go what you wanted, "escaping from the ghouls", but at a painful cost, Exhausted and Afraid. As I said Wednesday, I thought those two conditions fit very well with the situation and reflected the effort and near complete failure of your escape. Twists can most certainly be more dangerous than a condition; I think that is the point. Twist are supposed to range from something trivial, so something dire. Having a "scale of risk" is an option, but since it is not in the rules, I am not using one. I try to make the Twists fit with the story at hand, while considering the difficulty and context of the test. I most likely wouldn't set a dragon loose on you because you fail to carry a heavy barrel from a store room.... unless that dragon happened to be sleeping in the same store room. "Something else that may be worth considering is giving players options for failure. I can think of two potential ways of doing this. The first method could be involve the players having opportunities to say, "hey, we'll just take a condition instead of this twist" or vice-versa. The frequency of this could take many forms, from every player having X chances to do this between each town phase, to the party leader getting a couple opportunities per session to choose for the group. Alternatively, it could be the GM that chooses in some situations to say, "hey, you failed and things go wrong. You can push yourself and take this condition in your effort to recover the failure before it snowballs into this twist, or you can steel yourself and accept your failure and the new challenge it presents." In this way, the players can have a little bit more choice in where the story leads and how their characters face adversity (ex. "Marfose is a tireless paragon of Dwarven commitment, stubbornness, and ingenuity. He'd rather work himself and his companions to exhaustion than see the bridge he's building crumble into ruin. That and there's no way that Ted the player wants to have to deal with getting this caravan across the raging river some other way.")." I completely understand where this is coming from, and I like the idea of collaborative play. However, I have some major resignations about it. First, the game can stall enough as it is. Choosing actions in a Conflict eats up a lot of time. Imagine of every Test results in a player choice! That means the GM has to first think of two possible outcomes, rather than 1; then the player has to choose which of those they want, carefully considering the ramifications of each choice. I can only imagine the other players weighing in as well. I think the game would grind to a halt very quickly. I say, rather than looking for more control in choosing between Twist and Condition, TAKE control of you character and make things happen. I'll go back to the ghoul situation because it is so poignant. Any party member could have said, "Wait! Before you crack that door open I'm going to light a torch... just in case." Also, maybe it is time for someone to step up and BE the party leader, whoever that may be. I think the, "let's take turns being leader" concept has run its course. The party languishes because of it, and it could benefit from having a focused leader, whether their focus is obtaining treasure, eradicating the cultists, finding lost lore, etc. Another thing that you guys can do is roleplay your tests. If Marfose would push himself to exhaustion building the bridge, describe that to me. If you fail, sure I may give Exhausted, but I may not because I have something else in mind, but at least you are taking control of Marfose for the test and giving me more detail to work with. Also, as GM I can try to reciprocate that effort and describe things in such as way that the potential consequences of failure are more clear. I think that would be a good way to go; just keep in mind that some Tests happen spontaneously so the GM doesn't always have a clear consequence of failure in mind. I'm always happy to get feedback or perspective from players as long as it is constructive. It helps me become a better GM, and hopefully in turn will make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
