Whatever. It's still skeevy.

What everyone seems to forget and i've pointed out several times during the Ice Age that this thread has been going is that Mr. Crane isn't the author of this game anyway.

Jeeves, his monkey butler wrote it and Luke is just playing editor and PR man, 'cos Jeeves sucks at it.

Quote from: jhkim;702057From context, he is clearly not saying that the two of them bullied Cicely into physically having sex with the player.

Duh.

We're wayyy ahead of you here, JHKim.

Luke still said a fucked up thing. And it was one of many.

We get it. You don't like Luke Crane. Can you shut the fuck up while we all make our own minds up now? For fucks sake.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;702133We get it. You don't like Luke Crane. Can you shut the fuck up while we all make our own minds up now? For fucks sake.

This. This times a bazillion.

I've played Torchbearer a couple of times now. Following Brad's lead, my five word review: silkier than an otter's pocket.

I'll have a trawl back through this thread to answer the genuine questions before Zak endeavoured to derail it with his crazy internet stalker guy vendetta: I recall Benoist asking about the playability of certain maps.

Quote from: Zak SNot an expert on the law or the situation, but Luke Wheel did accuse J Eric Holmes of helping someone sexual harass a fellow player.

That happened.

Quote from: jhkimHe never used the words "sexually harrass". He did say that they "bullied" the female player - who said that her character was a virgin - into agreeing that her character might have had sex. I disagreed that his reading was necessarily correct, but it's not insane and it's not descriptive of a felony.

Quote from: Zak SHe said "bullied her into accepting sexual advances"

Quote from: jhkimAnd the Naga having sex with the magic-user can accurately be described as a sexual advance.

Quote from: Zak SUm, dude, Luke accused the PLAYERS of doing that, not made up snake people. And "bullying" the player into accepting it.

Quote from: jhkim;702057From context, he is clearly not saying that the two of them bullied Cicely into physically having sex with the player.

Quote from: Zak S;702125Duh.

We're wayyy ahead of you here, JHKim.

So...

Who's ahead of who here? :-)

Yeah, yeah. I'm dragging out a completely off-topic side point. Fine.

I've only lightly browsed Torchbearer, but I played campaigns of Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard. They've got a bunch of points that annoy me, but they were interesting.

So my questions about Torchbearer for those who've played it - especially if you could compare to BW or MG...

1) How is the tactical balance of the different maneuvers? I felt like one of the failings of Duel of Wits was that the simple strategy of just Point-Point-Point was too often optimal or close to optimal.

2) In my experience, Mouse Guard tends for a swashbuckling style of different fights, where you vary which character is in the lead so each gets their spotlight conflict. Dungeon fantasy as established by D&D tends to be more all-together teamwork, even though there is a caller tradition. Is Torchbearer trying to make dungeon fantasy more swashbuckly with spotlight conflicts, do you think?

3) Did it keep traits from Mouse Guard? If so, does it still have taking voluntary penalties (checks) to get extra out of a trait?

Quote from: jhkim;702150A lot of stuff

If you think there's a significant difference between "sexual harassment" and "bullying someone into accepting sexual advances" then that's ok with me. I don't. And I don't especially feel there's a reason to have a conversation with you about whether there is or not.

Quote from: jhkim;702150In my experience, Mouse Guard tends for a swashbuckling style of different fights, where you vary which character is in the lead so each gets their spotlight conflict. Dungeon fantasy as established by D&D tends to be more all-together teamwork, even though there is a caller tradition. Is Torchbearer trying to make dungeon fantasy more swashbuckly with spotlight conflicts, do you think?

When I think of a group of players huddling together deciding who's going to be the Conflict Captain and then discussing with said Captain who are the three people actually rolling dice in the next pass of Conflict Resolution while the others, no matter what the characters are actually doing, simply add a die to help out the Spotlight character -- the term "Swashbuckly" doesn't leap to mind.

It's "Fight" from BW abstracted out to a group level instead of character level, with enforced switching of who rolls simply to avoid the 4e Skill Challenge problem of the same character being the deciding person most of the time.  

The spotlight switching, if anything, seems more like MHR, where players are planning intiative and combos ahead of time, but more tactically based on the Action Rock-Paper-Scissors minigame of TB then on narratively planning a combat like MHR.

So too much OOC tactical and not enough OOC narrative to be "Swashbuckly".  The spotlighting is for fairness and meta-planning (which is fitting with the focus of the game) more then anything genre-ish.

Quote from: LePete;702140I've played Torchbearer a couple of times now. Following Brad's lead, my five word review: silkier than an otter's pocket.

You have sex with otters? Or at least pick their pockets?

Quote from: Zak S;702151If you think there's a significant difference between "sexual harassment" and "bullying someone into accepting sexual advances" then that's ok with me. /QUOTE]

From a fictional character in behalf of a fictional character. Jesus fuck, dude. Do you think that GMs who do a tpk should be seng to the hague as well?

This witch hunt of yours is looking pretty desperate.

Quote from: Zak S;702151If you think there's a significant difference between "sexual harassment" and "bullying someone into accepting sexual advances" then that's ok with me.

From a fictional character on behalf of a fictional character. Jesus fuck, dude. Do you think that GMs who do a TPK should be sent to the Hague as well?

This witch hunt of yours is looking pretty desperate.

The herd of frustrated neckbeards attacks. Oh yes, apropos of nothing I figured out why fatbeards - fat must be really hard to shave!

It's a glorious day for science.

Quote from: soviet;702176

Quote from: Zak S;702151If you think there's a significant difference between "sexual harassment" and "bullying someone into accepting sexual advances" then that's ok with me. /QUOTE]

From a fictional character on behalf of a fictional character. Jesus fuck, dude. Do you think that GMs who do a tpk should be sent to the hague as well?

This witch hunt of yours is looking pretty desperate.

(APOLOGIZING TO EVERYONE NOT AS CONFUSED AS SOVIET IN ADVANCE, JUST SCROLL PAST THIS, I HAVE A FACT-CHECK TO DO)






Wait wait wait--Soviet you seem to think I think someone in this situation "bullied someone into accepting sexual advances".

I don't.

Luke Crane does.

Here's the thread:

http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/360306

Luke reads this, written by Holmes:

Quote"My Naga is a virgin, of course," said one player.
"Now wait a minute," said one of the males, "remember my magic-user has been trying to seduce her for the past three games. I think there's a good chance he may have done it."
There was a minute pause. Everyone knew that the same tension existed between the young couple at the table that now made itself felt between the two imaginary personages in the magical garden.
"Do you think that's possible, Cicely?" I asked.
"I think she'd refuse."
"What do you think the chances are that she got talked into it?" I asked.
"Fifty percent," said the young suitor.
"Twenty-five," said Cicely.
...
"Twenty-five percent it is," I said, exercising my prejudice in favor of females. "Roll the dice."

...and Luke said the GM and player "bullied" Cicely.

I think that's very silly. There's no evidence of "bullying". (It coulda been there, but it's not in evidence from anything in the written piece.)

The snarky pissed-offness at his overreaction to what happened at a game table you are expressing, Soviet?

That is EXACTLY what I thought. You're agreeing with me.

Luke reads an ambiguous AP report, goes "I read two guys" (player and GM) "bullying a young woman to accept sexual advances."

I said, exactly what you just said Soviet: "you are overreacting, Luke. This is a witch hunt."

Then I go, here, "Luke Crane accused Holmes of being an accessory to sexual harassment." Which is pretty clearly what he does in that thread. Luke's "2 guys" can only refer to the player and to Holmes, the GM.

Then JH Kim is trying to somehow say Lukedidn't accuse Holmes of sexual harassment, Luke just accused Holmes of "bullying a young woman into accepting sexual advancement". As if there's some big difference and this gets Luke off the hook.

Which, I think, either way is Luke making an outraged moral claim against Holmes which is unwarranted. (If you keep reading, you'll notice he rest of Story Games helpfully piles on to that outraged moral claim in outraged moralizing terms. Because as everyone on Story Games knows: any time someone's GMing anything that doesn't end in "World", they're probably bullying everyone nonstop.)

Again: if you doubt me, read the actual thread, the link's posted.

Quote from: Zak S;702151If you think there's a significant difference between "sexual harassment" and "bullying someone into accepting sexual advances" then that's ok with me. I don't. And I don't especially feel there's a reason to have a conversation with you about whether there is or not.

Doesn't matter as neither one happened.

Quote from: Arduin;702228...neither one happened.

I agree.

Do you grasp that I agree?

An accusation of sexual harassment and bullying was made (by Luke). And, as you just said, that accusation was bullshit. I am merely saying the same thing as you.

Well, this has been one of the more ridiculous threads in recent memory, and i think it's outlived it's usefulness.

There's another thread down-page if you want to continue to talk about Torchbearer - or if you want to start another one talking about another aspect of the game not included in that other thread, as always feel free, but this one is being put out of its misery.