Game Mechanics Talks

When you break PCs equipment it's fun but, what do they gain from it? The underlying principle of twists is to move to story forward or to introduce something new. I propose this: GM break a piece of gear, treat as a condition, if it reveal something new (and meaningful) it's a twist. Discuss.....

Still unhappy about your tinderbox I see :) I agree that situation should go more like "You MANAGED to light the torch, BUT you dropped the tinderbox blinded by the sudden light". I have no idea how twists are portrayed in the rulebook but braking equipment sounds more like adding condition as the price of success than an actual story twist. The kind like "You defended yourself from the devastating blow BUT your shield broke in two". Sounds much better than "You failed to defend yourself and were injured (failure) AND your shield broke (why? It was already a failure and it's hardly a twist)". Going back to the tinderbox and torch example - I think it would be much more fun if it went like "You can't seem to light your torch, and somewhere behind you you can hear heavy footsteps, closing in, lured in by the sound of your flint hitting the steel". If GM insisted you could even lose the tinderbox while startled by the sound, but it still would be a nice actual TWIST instead of simple item loss. Still, I seriously doubt it would have ended differently with a lit torch ;)

*twist, not twits. Twits are something very different!! :P I think the rules may be inaccurate in this regard. The intent was probably that gear be lost as part of a twist, not as the exclusive content of the twist. I agree, simply losing gear does not follow with "failing forward." Losing gear as substitution for a condition goes beyond the rules as written, but I think it is (mostly) reasonable and is something that would have to be agreed upon as an extra between everyone at the table. This may be my inner dwarf speaking, but I'd personally rather earn a condition than lose any of my loot.  In light of this (heh), I'd like to give a more proper twist in the spirit of fairness. It was actually a detail that would have been picked up on had the party not failed in such a uniquely spectacular way.  In Nyx's anger and fear, he hardly heeded anything but his own emotions as he reached the other side of the chasm. As Ander struggled across, he was focused on offering jeers and insults at his companion, and sulked when he made it over. Trapped in the stifling darkness as he knelt tiredly on the ledge, Ander's eyes wandered and caught upon something illuminated by the flare of Kemba's lit tinder. The entire wall of this side of the chasm was wholly unlike anything he had ever seen. It was smooth as river stones and ridged by a large diamond-like or wavy pattern of some sort, exquisite in its precision. It looked to be a dull red throughout, like ferrous clay. Before he could inspect it further, the light withered, and he just barely heard Kemba's shout from the other end of the waterfall for them to make ready for him to cross. "I can't wait to take a closer look at this once Kemba has made it over here!" Ander thought to himself.

This is interesting.  I need to reread the section on losing gear as a Twist, and the section on Twists.   Regardless, TED this is more satisfying result of failure.  It gives us something to investigate if and when we can get light. what do the rest of you think?

Figured this thread may as well be expanded into a broader discussion of rules. I found the Travel Conflict a little befuddling when I ran it for you guys, but when I was on the burning wheel forum the other day I stumbled on this:  The Slog . Instead of going to a conflict it functions more like the haggle table. I like it for several reasons. First, it's fairly straightforward and easy to use. It also offers the opportunity for unique and meaningful encounters, based on the region, along the players' journey. Because the grind is going the entire time, it's appropriately tracking the scalar investment of time and resources for the journey: if you want to arrive at a dungeon fresh you're going to have to be careful and lucky on the road, and there will probably be some rest stops. The Slog offers the opportunity to stop and interact if the players wish, or try to be expeditious and get to their destination without spending much game time. I'd be interested in trying it the next time there is a journey to be made. Thoughts?

I like the encounters but testing Pathfinder again and again is kinda weird.(what about a table that tell you which outdoorsy skill to roll?) Also why hiding the table result? How can the player make any meaningful decisions if they don't know what they are choosing from. Without an actual map, is it worth the extra rolls? I know i'm the one who introduced travel "stuff" but the more i think about it the less i like it. Is traveling that interesting? I guess it depends what kind of adventure your running.

traveling stuff sounds ok like instead of just the only group on the road you might encounter depending the length of time it takes to travel to your destination. You could met bandits merchants etc whether they are friend or foe depends on the roll I guess

My primary reservation is also the repeated testing of Pathfinder. I wouldn't be so keen on a table of other outdoorsy skills because pathfinding is really what should be involved, and then it leads to situations in which other skills may be necessary to overcome obstacles on the road. I think we'd have to see it in play to find out if the pathfinder tests feel repetitive or if there's a lot of tests players choose to take in between to break them up. I think the writer chose to hide the table result on a passed pathfinder test so that the players are given a strong hint as to what each path may lead to without it being explicitly said. How are you supposed to know what lies down a path without traveling it? This is actually one of my favorite elements from the idea, because it introduces interesting choices and forks in the road. Perhaps it could even be used at junctures to alternate routes - you could stay on the short road, or you could explore that rumor of wealth down the untamed path. The table results are no different from standard exploration in Torchbearer - you have some information to go on when making a choice, but rarely all of it. The only way to know for certain is by doing. The idea to go by is that travel should be interesting. There is an entire world to be explored between town and dungeon, and I don't see why it should be ignored. What would The Hobbit be without any of the journey to the Lonely Mountain? Bilbo would never have found Sting or Glamdring, would never have met Gollum or found the One Ring, and probably would have been eaten by Smaug as soon as he got there. We would have a much shorter, but much less interesting story. I don't see why you have to be standing inside a dungeon to find wealth and adventure when it's hiding around every bend in the road. There is plenty of opportunity to have fun on the road, so I don't believe it should be treated as a rote exercise.

Sounds interesting TED.  I wasn't there for the Travel Conflict so I cannot comment on it; however, I have run several in Mouse Guard. In MG it is different because the patrol goes against the Season (Spring, Summer, Fall). The season has a ranking much like a Nature ranking. Some have gone well; others not so much. A lot depends on how much the players invest in role playing the conflict.  I am am all for trying the SLOG as long as it's not a session-long play test of a new mechanic.  I think a 2-3 leg slog would be good enough to try it out without occupying too much time. The one reservation I have is that the slog would require repeating Pathfinder tests which goes against the "let it ride" or "only test once" or whatever the rule is called inTB. Really the difficulty of navigating different "legs" of a journey should be fActored into a Pathfinder test.  I guess I would probably save a travel Conflict for a situation where something is actively opposing the party, such as the weather, rather than making a journey into a conflict just because it is long or arduous. The other hesitation I have is that slog incidents should enrich or contribute to the story. I am not really a fan of random stuff happening just because. If the GM can incorporate slog events into the story then I think it would be ok    I guess after all of this text with a beer in between I have some reservations about the slog. I would prefer to spend my time exploring s dungeon rather than on random encounters on the road. That said, using the slog sparingly as a travel/story development manner would probably be ok. 

Acting Against Your Nature You can use your Nature as a reservoir of strength to help overcome difficult hurdles. If your character is in a situation that is outside his Nature and he doesn’t have the proper skill, you make the test using your current Nature rating. This is not Beginner’s Luck. You roll your full current Nature rating, not half. However, if you’re testing to overcome an obstacle that’s outside of your Nature, your ability rating could be taxed. ^ Some situations have arisen in which I ask for a test and set an Ob only to discover the character is afraid and cannot test beginner's luck. In these situations the character can (and thereby must) test, but they'll be forced to a Nature roll. Costly, but at least you get to test, and roll your full nature! You can choose to use Nature instead of Beginner's Luck at any time, though the tax will add up.

Good find TED.  That will be useful.

TED said: The idea to go by is that travel should be interesting. There is an entire world to be explored between town and dungeon, and I don't see why it should be ignored. What would The Hobbit be without any of the journey to the Lonely Mountain? Bilbo would never have found Sting or Glamdring, would never have met Gollum or found the One Ring, and probably would have been eaten by Smaug as soon as he got there. We would have a much shorter, but much less interesting story. I don't see why you have to be standing inside a dungeon to find wealth and adventure when it's hiding around every bend in the road. There is plenty of opportunity to have fun on the road, so I don't believe it should be treated as a rote exercise. I think this is the key.  If the encounters resulting from the Slog enrich the story, whether through a chance encounter with a helpful NPC, finding lost, immeasurable wealth (magic elven swords anyone?), or encountering a piece of the puzzle that will be integral later on, the events can provide a lot to the game. Travel would be exciting rather than just a test to get to the next dungeon. Since the PC's rely on loot to survive, Travel by the slog needs to provide ample opportunities to find it.

Are there any guidelines given for non-encounter loot? It seems like that might be a starting place in order to not simply be adding an additional layer of obstacles between the party and their goal/dying alone in the dark.

Perhaps you need to explore more than one room to find it :p The GM is simply encouraged to sprinkle treasure throughout the dungeon at their discretion. Treasure is often not immediately obvious, well-hidden, or protected. The book only definitively ties treasure to monster encounters because it introduces an important choice to the players: do we risk everything against the monsters to get a shot at the good stuff, or do we try to scrape by with the small bits that aren't well-protected? You're right, it is an additional obstacle between the party and their goal, but achieving your goals in Torchbearer is meant to be hard. I ask, what would be the purpose of the monsters if they weren't between you and your goal? Think of Torchbearer as using a treasure-versus-difficulty formula. The more treasure you want, the more difficult it is to get. This game isn't like (modern editions of) D&D, where gold and glory are going to be pissed into your lap by divine provenance. You want to find the temple made of gold? Sure. But it's going to have Cthulhu in it, and he's going to murderrape you into a gibbering pile of gelatin. Them's the ropes. The game knows you want treasure, and it's going to challenge you by asking, "How badly do you want this treasure? What will you sacrifice, risk, and face to obtain this treasure? What values would you betray in the name of wealth?" Dying alone in the dark happens when you get too greedy, too reckless, too slow, or too unlucky. Murder dungeons are hella dangerous, this is why normal people stay the heck away from them.

TED said: Perhaps you need to explore more than one room to find it :p The GM is simply encouraged to sprinkle treasure throughout the dungeon at their discretion. Treasure is often not immediately obvious, well-hidden, or protected. The book only definitively ties treasure to monster encounters because it introduces an important choice to the players: do we risk everything against the monsters to get a shot at the good stuff, or do we try to scrape by with the small bits that aren't well-protected? You're right, it is an additional obstacle between the party and their goal, but achieving your goals in Torchbearer is meant to be hard. I ask, what would be the purpose of the monsters if they weren't between you and your goal? Think of Torchbearer as using a treasure-versus-difficulty formula. The more treasure you want, the more difficult it is to get. This game isn't like (modern editions of) D&D, where gold and glory are going to be pissed into your lap by divine provenance. You want to find the temple made of gold? Sure. But it's going to have Cthulhu in it, and he's going to murderrape you into a gibbering pile of gelatin. Them's the ropes. The game knows you want treasure, and it's going to challenge you by asking, "How badly do you want this treasure? What will you sacrifice, risk, and face to obtain this treasure? What values would you betray in the name of wealth?" Dying alone in the dark happens when you get too greedy, too reckless, too slow, or too unlucky. Murder dungeons are hella dangerous, this is why normal people stay the heck away from them. Well put TED. Exploration is key to gathering loot. That is a major reason for exercising caution when thinking of making travel more complex to make it more fun. TB requires a certain amount of loot be available for the group to scrape out a living. Therefore complex travel should have ample opportunity for loot.  Murder dungeons should be hella-dangerous. TB isn't DnD, and I am glad for it. 👹

Clarification: I meant as a starting point for new travel rules, so you can balance the general progress of resource loss and gain to be roughly on par with the dungeon (or not) as required.

Gareth G. said: Are there any guidelines given for non-encounter loot? It seems like that might be a starting place in order to not simply be adding an additional layer of obstacles between the party and their goal/dying alone in the dark. The majority of loot should be non-encounter based, or rather, should be placed in the dungeon ahead of time.  it can be in a room with an encounter, or in an area with no encounter.  Generally a test or a series of tests are required to find it.  It can be as simple as a Scout test to "see" it (spotting the hilt of a sword hidden behind a book case, for example) or it could require located a hidden door (Scout) and then unlocking it (Criminal), dodging a trap (Health) and/or shrugging off the affects of a hallucinogenic toxin (Will). It's all really up to the GM.  Encounter, rather, Wandering Monster (random-encounter) loot comes in play when an encounter occurs as the result of a Twist (resulting from a failed test). Then it is truly random.  The GM rolls on a loot table, and you can get stuck with useless crap like lint or bone fragments.   It's really up to the GM to provide enough loot so that the party can keep going; the flip-side is that the it is the players driving the story.  If you want loot you need to make sure your actions are moving you in that direction.  In my experience, a lot of groups get derailed because they start focusing on doing things that does not provide them with opportunities to get loot.  A savvy GM can try to steer them back on course and avoid throwing in Tests for pointless stuff so that they re-focus on exploration (i.e. finding loot), but it's not always easy.  There is a sharp learning curve with Torchbearer, and it more often than not involves several characters dying horrible deaths before players realize that they should be focusing on finding loot.

I don't think that the focus should be only on loot. Imagine a dungeon without placed loot. (only twist loot) Could it works? I guess we need to ask yourselves what is the purpose of loot in Torchbearer? If you need food you can hunt, light, craft a couple torches. Armor and arms can be good loot, but are they necessary? I don't think so. I see loot as a carrot, that can be used in many ways.(it can compel players to do certain things)

SionoiS said: I don't think that the focus should be only on loot. Imagine a dungeon without placed loot. (only twist loot) Could it works? I guess we need to ask yourselves what is the purpose of loot in Torchbearer? If you need food you can hunt, light, craft a couple torches. Armor and arms can be good loot, but are they necessary? I don't think so. I see loot as a carrot, that can be used in many ways.(it can compel players to do certain things) I think we are in agreement.  Loot is a carrot, a giant carrot. If there isn't enough loot available the party is going to die, regardless.  The Grind will ensure that.  It's explicitly stated in the text, and the occupation of the characters is Adventurer in the sense that they need to go to dungeons to find enough treasure to scrape out a living.  If they can't, they are dead. That is why it can/should compel players to do "certain" things.  if they don't, they risk death. That said, I don't think acquiring loot is, nor should it be, the sole M.O. of a character. That is why they have a Belief and a Goal.  That is what drives the story.  Sure, they can be tied to loot, but they don't have to be. The key for any GM is pitting a character's B and G against their need for loot. Based on my experience with TB, I still don't think I've been in a game like those I read about on the forums.  Players/GMs reference sessions where the party does 2 adventure phases, camps 1-2 times and goes to Town.  I have never had a session like that.  Granted, our sessions are relatively short on the 2-2.5 hr playing time end of things; I am sure these other groups are playing 4-6 hour sessions (or longer). Still, our Town phases come every 8 sessions or so.  Something seems off about that to me.  I think the reason we don't go to Town is because we don't have Treasure or don't need to buy things. That is the result of either not finding enough treasure or not doing enough to exhaust resources.  Both of those things are the result of not enough exploration.  My interpretation of that is that too much time is spent doing other stuff.  A lot of that is hemming and hawing about which way to go, how to spend checks, what to do next, what should we do with our last turn before camping (that one drives me crazy.  The party should be exploring during Adventure Phase! If it's not exploring, save it for Camp Phase). The other result of this is that you have characters that have spent enough rewards to gain multiple levels at Town Phase.  While there is nothing explicitly wrong or against the rules about that, it does seem a little odd in my opinion, and it is probably not the way the game was intended to be. It seems like the party should be going to Town every 2-3 sessions. One gripe I have with the book is that there aren't any real guidelines for stocking a dungeon with treasure; it's all trial and error.  Maybe we have been too stingy? Simon, a dungeon with only Encounter loot?  I think that would only work if you ensure that many of those encounters are winnable, so that the loot can be obtained, just like when populating a dungeon it is recommended to make the majority of Test ob's achievable.  Also, why wouldn't you have some things hidden away so the party can use other skills to get loot?  If you instead mean that all the loot is generated randomly, that is the GM's choice.  Personally, I like to have a little more control as a GM, and it's nice to place dungeon-specific and story-specific items. ps - please, nobody take my gripes personally.  Every RPG (except Fiasco) that I have played is too slow-paced for me.  It's a symptom of my limited availability for gaming.

Simon - are you suggesting bringing loot in as a result of other twists than just twist-based encounters? That would be an interesting dungeon - it means you couldn't find treasure unless you failed at something. I don't think it's necessarily a good dungeon though, because I think there is already ample motivation to fail - in order to advance - while the motivation to succeed is generally progressing, surviving, and winning loot. On the off chance that the players have an entire dungeon where they don't fail, it would be really shitty to claim there's no treasure in there. Nate, people seriously get through an entire dungeon and town phase in a single session? They must be doing short dungeons - though it would help having sessions twice the length of ours. I think most people are inclined to be very cautious and deliberate in Torchbearer for fear of falling into a bad situation or piling on conditions from tests that may not be worth the investment. This isn't a bad way to play, but it's also fun to use RPGs to take risks and see what happens. A less cautious group could certainly blaze through things much faster by simply doing the thing when others would ask if they should do the thing. I think an efficient and clean playstyle would be only ever asking yourself the question, "would my character do the thing?" The faster you progress the more loot you may find the better equipped you are to retreat from the dungeon to town on your own terms. If you want to make faster progress, take charge! It's the job of the players to move forward, I'll only push you if you're making me bored with your lollygagging. I think there's a kind of unwritten checklist for when to go to town: -Can I gain useful/needed information or aid by going to town? -Can I advance my resources or level by going to town? -Do I have enough treasure to safely make it out of town? -Have I taken care of any pressing twists or complications that might worsen in my absence from this dungeon? If the answers to all those questions are yes, the players should then question if the players are satisfied with what they have or if they wish to keep pressing forward to achieve their goals and find more treasure. I think Nate's correct in his belief that we've been too stingy - especially with magical items. In a thread online Thor gave a bucket list of all the things he had handed out so far in the course of a single campaign, and there were a lot of weak magical trinkets, scrolls, and potions. Expendable and situational magical loot should pop up in every dungeon. I also think distribution of loot - in terms of where in the dungeon it is - should be well-varied. Some dungeons it may make sense for it to end in a motherlode that you need to navigate through the entire dungeon to reach, while others may have a fairly even distribution of things peppered all over the place. Looking for clues as to where in the dungeon the wealth might be is an important job of the adventurers, as it helps them conserve their time and resources going straight for the good stuff.

Good input TED.  What I have read is that groups do 1-2 Adventure phases in a session, not that they complete a dungeon.  One can infer then that those groups are accruing enough treasure in 1-2 Adventure phases to at least attempt a Town Phase.  Whether or not they get out with a clean slate is another story.

Obstacle 0 Tests, P.104 An obstacle 0 test does not count toward advancement. That means in a conflict you want to track versus tests for advancement, not so much independent tests—like an independent Attack or Feint. The real question is, if a factor is increasing the obstacle, does it then count toward advancement? Dim light or exhaustion could then actually be a cash cow in conflicts.

TED said: Obstacle 0 Tests, P.104 An obstacle 0 test does not count toward advancement. That means in a conflict you want to track versus tests for advancement, not so much independent tests—like an independent Attack or Feint. The real question is, if a factor is increasing the obstacle, does it then count toward advancement? Dim light or exhaustion could then actually be a cash cow in conflicts. I would say it does. It specifically says "Ob 0 Tests" not "Independent Tests.  Those are very different things.  Also, if you are in a Versus test and the opponent gets 0 successes you would not get a pass for advancement if you win the Test.

I'm not sure where the discussion regarding last night's (Tuesday, Dec. 29th) session of TB ended, but when I left we were discussing an asymmetrical conflict with gigantic bats. &nbsp; To summarize, as a Twist from a failed test 7 gigantic bats flew into the room we were in and began buffeting us with their leathery wings and clawing and biting at us. &nbsp;We decided to run for it. Kemba the minotaur shouted "Run!" so GM elected for a Flee conflict. &nbsp;The GM announced that the Bats had a Goal to sic "severely hurt us and drive us off". We were thoroughly beaten in the Flee conflict, gaining only a minor compromise. As a result of our losing the Conflict we were allowed to Flee while gaining Injured and Angry conditions. However, we were only allowed to Flee down the tunnel from which we had come, or down another tunnel in the room, but not through the door we had opened to leave the room (through which the bats came).&nbsp; I think all three of us players agreed that the result of our failure was really (unduly?) harsh and some of us agreed that is was an incorrect usage of some rules. Some thoughts (no book with me, so no page numbers for now), 1. The loser of a Conflict does not achieve their goal. That said we should not have been able to flee. &nbsp;the obvious result here is that we cannot flee the room and are forced into another Conflict to Drive Off or Kill the bats, or a Group Test to do the same thing if another Conflict is not desired. &nbsp;It was a quick Flee Conflict, so a subsequent combat conflict would have been fine and fit the narrative well.&nbsp; 2. The loser of a Conflict can achieve part of their goal with a compromise. We had only a minor compromise so we should have gotten something useful, although minor. One of us could have successfully fled (not very useful), or maybe we force one or two of the bats from the room, making a subsequent combat easier (very useful). Or maybe give a condition to the bats, like Angry or Afraid, for interloping in an area they clearly did not want us in (also useful), or maybe they get Hungry/Thirsty since they haven't eaten us yet (also useful and pretty minor). 3. Since we could not achieve our goal, the option to let us achieve it and give out conditions (like for a failed Test) should not have been an option. Even if it had, giving out Injured with any other condition is wicked harsh. &nbsp;Injured in a bitch of a condition on its own, and adding another condition to it is adding insult to injury. Also, getting injured didn't seem to really fit with the conflict. &nbsp;We were trying to run. &nbsp;Yes, they were big bats, but it seemed out of place in my opinion. &nbsp;Afraid would have been a good option if it had been a failed Test. 4. Even if we could have achieved our goal and fled, we were restricted in the direction we could go, as a result of our losing the Conflict. &nbsp;This really felt like 3 punishments for losing. Two conditions plus our path was blocked. It's already been mentioned that we could have returned to take on the bats later, but again, all 3 negative consequences as a result of losing a Conflict was tough to swallow. It seemed to fit the narrative equally well that with the bats in the room, flying around, we could have just as easily slipped through the door, as either tunnel. It felt like closing off that option was a result of the Goal of the bats, which they should not have had anyways. I think this speaks to why Monsters do not have goals. &nbsp;Their goal was a) to injure us and b) to drive us off. Those are two different things, and then we were angry about it on top of that. 5. There was mention of an asymmetrical conflict, which allowed the bats to have their own goal against our own. &nbsp;I don't think this is the way asymmetrical conflicts are meant to be played out: There are some good threads in the forums regarding this: <a href="https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php" rel="nofollow">https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php</a>?... <a href="https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php" rel="nofollow">https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php</a>?... <a href="https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php" rel="nofollow">https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php</a>?... Monsters/Opponents don't have goals. &nbsp;The writing is a bit weird in TB in places, but the Intent section in the Conflicts Chapter is pretty clear. The players determine the Conflict. &nbsp;The game is from their perspective, not the monsters'. Asymmetrical conflicts refer to a difference in Might which means one side can do something the other can't, like a Dragon being able to Kill PC's while they cannot kill it. That doesn't mean if the PC's try to flee from it the dragon can kill them. It simply means the players cannot enter into a Kill conflict with it, so if they try the GM can say, "The ancient beast is gigantic, it's dripping maw of razor-sharp fangs the size of a halfling cottage. Suddenly your once stout spear feels like a toothpick in your hand, and your heart sinks knowing you cannot best this beast." Now you really have no option but to flee. A caveat to this is that anyone that has the Injured condition can be killed by a failed Test or lost Conflict. That means anyone with Injured that loses a Flee Conflict with a dragon CAN be killed. In fact, a character with Injured fleeing from kobolds that loses the Conflict could be killed. The links above discuss this at greater length, giving many more interesting examples, and address what happens if Might changes during a Conflict. Finally, I want to give us all a pat on the back. &nbsp;Despite the potential hang up of getting bent out of shape on the rules during the game, we all sucked it up (not mechanically speaking) and moved on. &nbsp;That was the right choice. &nbsp;The game progressed, we survived, and we had fun. Rules discussions should be done after the game so that everyone is in agreement and understands what is happening. The asymmetrical conflict/Might issue has taken up a lot of forum space; it's obviously not always crystal clear. I grappled with it at least a couple of times in the Moathouse.

Also, does anyone have a page number for where it says Dwarves have the appropriate tools for every skill? &nbsp;I couldn't find it last night. &nbsp;Thanks! And here is a great quote describing the results of an asymmetrical conflict with a dragon and how/when to kill PC's! (from the Cheese It! thread) "This is one of the more sticky problems that I've never been able to wrap my head around. I think the idea is that you are captured by the dragon, and are probably injured in the process (?). Now you have to deal with a dragon that is trying to eat you, if you do nothing, he eats you, but you can try something else to escape. You probably should be allowed to try to run away again, since the circumstances haven't changed enough (thought technically there's no specific Let it Ride rule in TB) but you could try convincing the dragon not to eat you if you do a favor for it or something. However, since you are now injured failing here could mean death. Basically, never just kill adventurers unless they have a chance to do something heroic as they die, or unless they have put themselves into a climactic battle to the death of their own choose. To kill them off in other circumstances is just bad storytelling that makes everyone at the table unhappy. This is my current best interpretation of the rules and intent of the game, I'm still not 100% sure about it though."

Mention of unskilled tools and dwarves is page 34. My confusion on this stemmed from reading conflicting rules in Mouse Guard. In Mouse Guard both sides must clearly state their goals in a conflict. In Torchbearer only the players do, and the GM waits til the end to choose cruel consequences to spring on players. Though there isn't much better elaboration of what the GM can do when they win the conflict in those threads, at numerous points it's implied (even in those bits you quoted) that the players can become injured as the result of a lost conflict. I really wish the book did a better job of outlining what good options are, it only gives one example to me for fleeing: captured. Might 1 bats cannot capture you, so I got creative. I gave you what you wanted, with a caveat (must run away from the incoming bats), and threw conditions at you for your failure instead. Injured was a no-brainer, it's the best my feeble bats could have done trying to kill you, but angry I threw in because you lost pretty badly and had good cause to be very upset with one another for the choices that led up to that failure. Rather than the characters getting mad with one another, the players got mad at the GM, though. An interesting twist for sure. Trust me, if I was pitting you against monsters interested in capturing you, that's what would have happened. Conflicts can end with varied combinations of twists and conditions, though, and I can't always take the single option suggested in the book. To be perfectly honest, after the whiffed conflict with the fishman by the river, Simon said, "we failed the conflict with no compromise, so nothing else bad happens." The after-effects of that conflict demonstrated to me that this is wrong. By completely throwing a capture conflict, you essentially succeeded on a drive off conflict with zero ill effects. In the future, I'm giving you guys consequences for such things happening. Because you so thoroughly lost to the creature, you're at the mercy of what it wants out of the situation. It could have easily snuck off with some of your gear, or left you both exhausted from the endeavor.

Good points TED. Just bear in mind that people are referring to giving out Injured for a failed Flee Conflict with a dragon, one of the most dangerous creatures in any fantasy game. Bats are a very different animal.&nbsp; I guess I am still a bit at odds with your viewpoint regarding the fisherman. "Because you so thoroughly lost to the creature, you're at the mercy of what it wants out of the situation." That is the hang up. The players determine the Conflict as Capture, so the only thing the fisherman is doing is trying to not be captured.&nbsp;I agree with Simon. The consequence of losing the Capture conflict so badly (no compromise) is that we do not capture the creature or get anything out of the encounter. It gets away scot-free. You narrated the creature jumping into the river. We didn't ask for that, so we didn't get a free Drive Off. The other consequence is that we got zero information about the mine (a big loss) and probably made an enemy of someone who could have potentially been an ally. I think this was your intent by having the creature escape. I certainly felt as if we had blown a great opportunity by letting the fisherman escape into the river. Certainly those are enough negative consequences for failing.&nbsp; An alternative could have been to have the creature escape from us back up the hole. We could have then engaged it in another manner, this time with it being very angry, afraid or at the very least untrusting (I don't mean give it conditions, just how it is behaving). As a Twist the Conflict options would have been limited to what the creature has available so we could have been forced into an interesting Social conflict.&nbsp; Now every good creature should have desires and motivations and these can come out in the way it communicates and behaves. They are good cues for roleplay and even fashioning encounters, or Twists; however that doesn't mean because a creature has the Instinct "Grab all the shinies!" it gets to steal your gold if you fail to capture it in a Capture Conflict. If you succeeded in capturing it but the creature earned a compromise, it could take your gold. If you failed it would escape, and then it could plot it's revenge including how it will loot your corpse for all your shinies.&nbsp; The temptation to doubly punish players is something I have struggled with a lot, particularly with early games of Mouse Guard and even TB. I have left a lot of dead characters in my wake. Looking back I am certain many of those games could have been better had I not done so. To me it all goes back to TB being completely in the players perspective. As GM it feels natural to dole out physical punishment for the players failing, but in TB often the punishment is simply the players not getting what they wanted.&nbsp;

<a href="mailto:mistrlittlejeans@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">mistrlittlejeans@gmail.com</a> said: If you succeeded in capturing it but the creature earned a compromise, it could take your gold. This... mayyybee isn't the best example.

TED said: Obstacle 0 Tests, P.104 An obstacle 0 test does not count toward advancement. That means in a conflict you want to track versus tests for advancement, not so much independent tests—like an independent Attack or Feint. The real question is, if a factor is increasing the obstacle, does it then count toward advancement? Dim light or exhaustion could then actually be a cash cow in conflicts. I doubt it would make that much difference in practice since you're only getting two advancements in a typical conflict at most (say, Health and Fighter for example) since only the first check for each counts and you won't be picking up additional conditions or other modifiers within the conflict. &nbsp;I suppose every check counts, but it's not really like it's a purposely farmable source of experience.

TED said: <a href="mailto:mistrlittlejeans@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">mistrlittlejeans@gmail.com</a> said: If you succeeded in capturing it but the creature earned a compromise, it could take your gold. This... mayyybee isn't the best example. You are right. I was thinking the captured creature could threaten to throw your gold over a cliff or threaten to break a prized possession (magic wand or something), but technically if it is captured it would be at your mercy.&nbsp; Better example would be giving out a Condition based on the severity of the compromise: hungry/thirsty, angry, exhausted (very minor, minor, moderate);or maybe breaking a piece of equipment like rope, a pole, spear, sack, etc. &nbsp; However, what if the creature was one the group wanted alive and it stole the purse of gold and swallowed it? That could be pretty good.&nbsp; Anyways, Happy New Year everybody.&nbsp;

My theory on conflicts is that, it follows the same principles, exactly like a test. The players are testing the following statement "can we capture this creature". Dices are rolled and bla bla. The answer of the GM should fall into one of the four categories. Yes: players win without compromise. Yes but: players win with compromise (they are hurt in some way). No but: player losses with compromise (they hurt the opposition in some way). No: players losses without compromise. (A normal test in TB cannot result in the last category) There is some guidelines page 79 on applying condition as part of compromise.

Page 79 is referring to what compromises the loser of the conflict can impose. The subject of this discussion is on page 72: GM Wins If the GM wins, consult the table below for suggestions. Enterprising GMs should feel free to add to this list. The results are by no means exhaustive. Very vague.&nbsp;Jared replied to my post in the G+ community and said I acted appropriately. Conditions and twists are both in the GM's toolbox when he wins a conflict. Another member also made a good point: higher order conditions may be rough, but since they have a clear path to recovery they can also be a lot more forgiving than some twists. Like, say, trying to run out into the cavern and falling off a ledge into a bottomless chasm.

TED said: Page 79 is referring to what compromises the loser of the conflict can impose. The subject of this discussion is on page 72: GM Wins If the GM wins, consult the table below for suggestions. Enterprising GMs should feel free to add to this list. The results are by no means exhaustive. Very vague.&nbsp;Jared replied to my post in the G+ community and said I acted appropriately. Conditions and twists are both in the GM's toolbox when he wins a conflict. Another member also made a good point: higher order conditions may be rough, but since they have a clear path to recovery they can also be a lot more forgiving than some twists. Like, say, trying to run out into the cavern and falling off a ledge into a bottomless chasm. That table is very interesting, because in the GM Wins column giving Conditions is not listed anywhere. &nbsp;On the following page under the table it says if you lose a conflict you don't get your goal "as stated". I suppose it is implied that the goal as stated means without incurring a Condition. By that logic the GM could let you have your goal, or something akin to it, and give you a Condition(s). On the other hand, we should have just tried to Drive Off the bats if we were going to get Injured for losing. &nbsp;I think we probably tried to Flee to avoid something like that. Those bats are bitches. Nyx has a new enemy now.

<a href="mailto:mistrlittlejeans@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">mistrlittlejeans@gmail.com</a> said: On the other hand, we should have just tried to Drive Off the bats if we were going to get Injured for losing. &nbsp;I think we probably tried to Flee to avoid something like that. Those bats are bitches. Nyx has a new enemy now. *koff* well, you know, maybe if you had taken advantage of those 2 orders of might you had over the bats, yeah, things might have ended differently... But really, it was the failings of your companions that brought this upon you. Too long have you lived in their shadow, allowed yourself to be their pawn. Ever since I've known you, you have been seeking a life of great significance, far more than any mere grave robber. I can feel your anger. It give you focus... makes you stronger. Embrace your feelings, Nyxaelfen. Give in to the darkness!

Funny. I just watched Return of the Jedi today.&nbsp;

TED said: Page 79 is referring to what compromises the loser of the conflict can impose. The subject of this discussion is on page 72: GM Wins If the GM wins, consult the table below for suggestions. Enterprising GMs should feel free to add to this list. The results are by no means exhaustive. Very vague.&nbsp;Jared replied to my post in the G+ community and said I acted appropriately. Conditions and twists are both in the GM's toolbox when he wins a conflict. Another member also made a good point: higher order conditions may be rough, but since they have a clear path to recovery they can also be a lot more forgiving than some twists. Like, say, trying to run out into the cavern and falling off a ledge into a bottomless chasm. I posed the question on the Burning Wheel Forums, and here is Thor's response: It's hard to judge at a distance. I can tell you that if it were me, I would have had the bats cut off your escape and then begin swarming you, forcing you into either killing them or driving them off, since flight is no longer an option. The minor compromise would have been allowing you to spot a bit of treasure hidden in the cave, a hole in the ceiling the bats are using to get in and out, or maybe just saddling one of them with a condition. Generally, conditions are only given to the party as part of a compromise when they win conflicts (barring kill conflicts, in which losing results in the Dead condition for some or all of the losers). I think the last part is key. &nbsp;If the GM can give out Conditions when they win, then there really is no difference between losing and gaining a compromise and winning and gaining a compromise. &nbsp;That doesn't make any sense given the spirit of the rules.&nbsp;

Thor is also a fan of cascading conflicts, which we are not. I made a judgement call on putting you in a situation that got you out of an immediate follow-up conflict and fell within an area of the rules where Luke & Thor basically said, "GM can come up with pretty much whatever makes sense." Thor seemed rather careful to not disagree with what was done, and instead offered what his choice would have been in the situation: forcing a second conflict. His answer was pretty evasive, frankly, which is a bit annoying. I don't think he wanted to tread on the very broad wording he used on page 72. Maybe it makes more sense if I say it this way: mechanically conflicts are like bigger tests, but with a notable difference: winning and losing is not cut-and-dry, there are shades to it. If you lose, you lose in much the same way that you would lose a test, albeit the stakes are often higher. If you lose with a compromise, the other side also loses, but to a much lesser degree. Since both sides are losing in different degrees, both of them suffer proportionate consequences to their loss. This is the foundation of conflict resolution, the part that is set in stone. Now for the bats. Sometimes, my monsters are just going to want to leave you roughed up when they win, and the PCs should have the same option open to them. In this case, I set the scenario up like a higher-stakes version of a test: you failed, but got a minor compromise. I allowed you to bump that minor compromise up quite a bit to essentially achieving your goal, and let you walk away bloodied rather than imposing a twist from the conflict. I can understand that you didn't expect me to do it this way, as this was not explicitly outlined in the rules. However, I know that we have all in the past discussed a desire to avoid playing back-to-back conflicts. I appreciate your desire to debate the subject, but the question really boils down to this: do you guys wish to play the game with conflicts leading into conflicts, or do you want slower pacing where the GM uses the tools at his disposal to avoid pushing you from one into the next? This is really a question of what we as players want to shape our play experience and what we find enjoyable. From my perspective as a player, not a GM, I really prefer not to protract fights because conflicts are not my favorite part of the game. The question doesn't even have to be black and white: when you fail conflicts in the future, perhaps there could be the option to escalate the situation or take some nasty consequences and catch your breath. Which is more fun to each of you?

I don't know that I was ever part of the no back-to-back conflict discussion. Personally I would like to try it once in a while to see how it goes. I think the Tuesday group is experienced enough to do it without spending the entire session on it. What do the rest of you think?

If we embellish each actions with good description maybe conflicts would be more enjoyable. I know I need to improve on that.

Felt like browsing the TB forum and picked some Interesting Rules Stuff: 1. Testing Resources in the Market: <a href="https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php?15682-Town-Market-abuse-or-what-s-to-be-expected" rel="nofollow">https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php?15682-Town-Market-abuse-or-what-s-to-be-expected</a> Earn One Test per Ability or Skill Occasionally in play, we have situations in which you test the same ability over and over again—Fighter in a conflict or Resources in the market, for example. Any time you test an ability multiple times to determine the outcome, only one test is earned toward advancement. The guideline is: one test for advancement per conflict per skill or ability. Hello, innocuous clause on page 104 that completely changes how visiting the market works. Good job, Thor. Good job. 2. Never Volunteer: <a href="https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php?15479-Never-Volunteer-rule-and-Adventure-Leader" rel="nofollow">https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php?15479-Never-Volunteer-rule-and-Adventure-Leader</a> Interesting discussion of what level of planning is acceptable when a test is coming up. I'm inclined to agree with the forbidding of mathing a test, both for the purposes of pace and preventing characters from crowding out others. If you snatch every opportunity to Scout and the others never get a chance to advance it at all, there's going to be trouble for them when your character is dead or you don't show up. I think I need to clamp down on this a bit more. 3. Tinderboxes and Light going out: <a href="https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php?15541-N00bie-Q-Lighting-torches-candles-etc" rel="nofollow">https://www.burningwheel.com/forum/showthread.php?15541-N00bie-Q-Lighting-torches-candles-etc</a> In unpressured situations you can simply use your dying light to start your new one without a test. If you're standing in darkness, a tinderbox is needed to accomplish the same. 4. Nature Taxed to 0, Page 133: If the current Nature rating drops to 0 due to tax, one of the character’s traits is immediately changed to a trait like Outcast, Odd, Faded or something else appropriate to the test that taxed him. The group should make something up on the spot! The player chooses which trait is replaced. After earning the trait, reduce the maximum Nature rating by one and erase any tax. If this reduces the maximum Nature to 0 see “Nature Depleted to 0” below. Totally forgot about this, as it had never come up until the Brewhouse. Will discuss with relevant characters. 5. Conditions and Factors: Backpacks are a Factor in Fighter and Dungeoneer tests. Dim light or darkness is a Factor. Exhaustion is a Factor. Sickness prevents advancement. Hungry/Thirsty reduces disposition, etc, etc. Remember these things and when they are relevant to your character.

Packs definitely get forgotten most of the time. &nbsp;Hamis' merrymaking should be replaced, that's one I descriptor I never use... I spent it trying to drag the party through that submerged tunnel (and failed the test) so maybe something related to watery-death?

This is important: did Hamis' Nature go down from being taxed to zero while testing/tapping Nature, or did you choose to deplete it yourself? This penalty does not apply to depleting Nature. Edit: in my notes I marked that you had done a Dungeoneer test there by mistake, rather than Nature, which was why I was confused on whose Nature had been taxed down. Furthermore, it's a Trait that gets replaced, not a Nature descriptor (perhaps he'll start using that merrymaking to some grim end, though). So maybe his Hidden Depths has just become a Hollow Void in His Heart. Narratively I'm pretty sure that one happened a while ago. On the plus side, once Hamis clears that Sick he'll only need to use Beginner's Luck twice to learn skills! You could learn everything in no time!

Interesting, I could have sworn there was a mechanic for Nature descriptors changing... oh well! &nbsp;We can double check my skills, but I'm fairly certain I don't have Dungeoneering so I must have double-tapped Nature. &nbsp;Related followup: is it even possible to take tests with a zero in the Attribute? I'm just wondering if it's at all possible to recover from zero Nature within an adventure, before you lose control of the character.

Technically... however: the wording (p.133) is, "If maximum Nature rating drops to 0 [...]&nbsp;the character retires from the life at&nbsp;the end of this adventure," so the rules only care about whether at any point it hits zero. Not testing is probably in-line with the passages about skills being reduced to 0 from injury/sickness (p.26 "Beginners Roll Half"). Skills at zero use attributes, attributes at zero have no fallback, and you can't test using a zero rating. There are ways to get marked tests for skills (mentor, wise, winter, missing a session), but only one of these says you may mark for attributes: missing a session. Don't. Though not explicitly outlined in the rules, I'm fairly certain zero Will and Health also mean you're toast. Your character goes mad or simply succumbs.&nbsp; Will and Health are much harder to sink to zero, since there are 3 alternatives to sucking it up, but Nature only gets forced to test when you're afraid and don't have the skill. It's very difficult to die if you're just a bit cautious with how you do things.

Aye, I mean I'm not concerned about Hamis' survival, more curious about how that functions in play. &nbsp;I think your interpretation is correct anyway, Nature being an attribute is nigh impossible to recover from a zero value of so is effectively the end of the character either way.

I know I may be entirely alone on this one, but I continue to be uncomfortable with this idea of the Factor from Exhausted changing whether a test is earned on independent actions in conflicts, and want to get it off my chest for my own peace of mind. I've given players the benefit of the doubt so far because I was uncertain on my position, but after thinking about why I was uncomfortable with it I've come to a conclusion. First, outside of combat, actions that are inconsequential are essentially Ob 0 - things that you succeed on with no need of rolling dice because they lack an element of risk. Even when universal Factors such as Exhausted or Dim Light come into play, these things still continue to lack an element of risk to them unless some other factor comes into the picture (total Darkness is a whole other story, of course). For this reason we do not test on these things while Exhausted because there continues to be no element of risk in failure. This concept of only testing when there is risk or consequence to failure versus succeeding is the core basis of dice rolling in Torchbearer. This leads me to my next point of carrying this concept over to conflicts. Independent tests are also explicitly Ob 0 because, despite the risks inherent to the conflict, the Factors impose no additional element of risk or consequence to failing the action. Getting zero successes on your independent Maneuver action has the same consequence whether you are Exhausted or not: your action simply gains your team no advantage to follow up on. Attack against Attack? You're still getting just as stabbed for charging headlong at your enemy, how well you stab them back isn't going to change that one. The whole point of these script combinations is that your action has no direct bearing on what is happening to you, so there is no risk to overcome or mitigate. Just like in non-conflict situations, the GM is essentially saying, "yes, you do the thing," with the added caveat of, "let's roll dice to see how well you do the thing." Both sides get what they're after, so there is no winner or loser.&nbsp;Versus actions are precisely the opposite: only the winner gets what they want, while a consequence is imposed on the loser for not succeeding. Based on this line of reasoning I feel that awarding a pass or failure in these situations would essentially be giving the players something for nothing, which is entirely inconsistent with Torchbearer. I know everyone appreciates a freebie every once in a while, but I think this is the even-handed way of dealing with this one. I fully understand that those occasional freebies need to be coming from my end, however. I'm... working on it. Meanwhile, nobody try erasing tests off your sheet. Those are still yours.

I guess we need to start seeing exhaustion as -1s instead of +1Ob.

How frequently does this come up? It is only relevant to Conflicts and then only when the actions call for Independent tests. The character also has to have the Exhausted condition and they can only get one test for advancement per skill or ability anyways. It doesn't seem like it would occur that often, but from you post TED I am guessing it has. Maybe I am missing something. What is the rule again? No advancement for Ob 0 tests or specifically for Independent tests? That said, Thor did recently say that -1s is a more accurate reflection of Exhausted in a Vs. test than +1 ob. Maybe as Simon suggested it should be thought of that way for Independent tests too.&nbsp;