Torchbearer Expanded Conflict Example

Arduin · October 21, 2013, 12:23:58 PM

Quote from: Noclue;701657Games have to be superior to one another? There's a one true way?

Well, if they are inferior (you omitted 1/2 of my thought) to the main offerings, one often wonders why they should purchase... :rolleyes:

One Horse Town · October 21, 2013, 12:34:25 PM

Quote from: Noclue;701654It's not.

That makes it even more hilarious.

Where's the Logistical Lieutenant and Provisions Private?

Noclue · October 21, 2013, 12:41:24 PM

Quote from: One Horse Town;701665That makes it even more hilarious.

Where's the Logistical Lieutenant and Provisions Private?

I admit their games pale in comparison to the ones you create, but we can't all have such genius and wit.

I shouldn't mock as I haven't actually read your games, but that hardly seems to hold anyone back these days.

One Horse Town · October 21, 2013, 12:45:08 PM

Quote from: Noclue;701670I admit their games pale in comparison to the ones you create, but we can't all have such genius and wit.

I shouldn't mock as I haven't actually read your games, but that hardly seems to hold anyone back these days.

Weak, my friend.

Come on, that was some funny shit.

Noclue · October 21, 2013, 12:54:39 PM

Quote from: One Horse Town;701671Weak, my friend.

Come on, that was some funny shit.

Provisions Private was chuckleworthy, but you're going to have to do better than Logistical Lieutenant.

Archangel Fascist · October 21, 2013, 01:36:01 PM

Quote from: Noclue;701670I shouldn't mock as I haven't actually read your games

You hear that, unless you're a publisher, you best keep your mouth shut about why you don't like another game.

Ladybird · October 21, 2013, 01:42:15 PM

Quote from: Arduin;701660Well, if they are inferior (you omitted 1/2 of my thought) to the main offerings, one often wonders why they should purchase... :rolleyes:

First, prove that it is objectively inferior to other games, as opposed to something that just isn't for you.

Noclue · October 21, 2013, 01:58:19 PM

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;701685You hear that, unless you're a publisher, you best keep your mouth shut about why you don't like another game.

OHT didn't say why he didn't like the game, at least not in the post I quoted.

Arduin · October 21, 2013, 02:00:33 PM

Quote from: Ladybird;701689First, prove that it is objectively inferior to other games, as opposed to something that just isn't for you.

Mechanically more difficult for the same end result.

Of course, if one likes added complexity for no added benefit it wouldn't be inferior.

Noclue · October 21, 2013, 02:04:58 PM

Quote from: Arduin;701700Mechanically more difficult for the same end result.

Of course, if one likes added complexity for no added benefit it wouldn't be inferior.

It's not a light game, but it's no more difficult than some of the crunchier D&D editions. I'd say less crunchy than some, but that's not really an objective measure.

dragoner · October 21, 2013, 02:09:00 PM

Quote from: Ladybird;701653Many games would look like that, if you went into the full thought process for any mechanics decision... and for an example of the mehcanics of play, that's exactly the right way of doing it, by-the-book, straight-down-the-line. Examples of play should match up to the game rules, and not take shortcuts; anyone playing the game can learn their own shortcuts themselves.

If you (The designer) don't want your mechanics of play to look so complicated, cut out the rules that make an example look complicated. If you're not happy with your design, refine it. Iterate.

...Evidently, the Torchbearer folks are happy with the design of their system. And that's fine.

Yes that is fine. I know I might be out of step with the mainstream, but for me, I like a target number and a table; I can take it from there. Then again I just finished a project of doing an estimate on the expansion of a factory, of which out of 34 pages, it was 90% spreadsheets, tables and graphs. So my real life definitely is bleeding through.

Noclue · October 21, 2013, 02:21:58 PM

Quote from: dragoner;701705Yes that is fine. I know I might be out of step with the mainstream, but for me, I like a target number and a table; I can take it from there.

Nothing wrong with target numbers and tables. That seems in touch with the mainstream actually.

K Peterson · October 21, 2013, 02:28:45 PM

Quote from: Noclue;701703It's not a light game, but it's no more difficult than some of the crunchier D&D editions. I'd say less crunchy than some, but that's not really an objective measure.

That's what I find odd about Torchbearer. It's described (by the authors) as a love letter to Basic D&D. But the complexity and fiddlyness seems cranked up on the game. Such that I would consider it to be more of a love-letter to "crunchier D&D editions" with a focus on dungeon-crawling.

Torchbearer seems to strive for the feel of Basic D&D, but at the expense of the mechanical feel - which is part of its charm, IMO.

Ladybird · October 21, 2013, 02:32:46 PM

Quote from: dragoner;701705Yes that is fine. I know I might be out of step with the mainstream, but for me, I like a target number and a table; I can take it from there. Then again I just finished a project of doing an estimate on the expansion of a factory, of which out of 34 pages, it was 90% spreadsheets, tables and graphs. So my real life definitely is bleeding through.

Yeah, give me a target number and I'm happy. I don't like dice pools, but I can tolerate them.

This does not sound like a game I would like to play. So I won't.

dragoner · October 21, 2013, 02:41:13 PM

Quote from: Ladybird;701719Yeah, give me a target number and I'm happy. I don't like dice pools, but I can tolerate them.

This does not sound like a game I would like to play. So I won't.

I am of the same opinion, the mechanics do not interest me. I don't like dice pools much either.