Conflicts in Torchbearer

[Enoch]

Let's talk about Conflicts! Unless you've played Mouse Guard, Conflicts in Torchbearer likely work like nothing you've ever seen.

Basic Steps

• We get into a situation where it might be a Conflict (e.g., we come into contact with a group of goblins).
• We describe what we want to do (e.g., "We carefully prepare our weapons and charge, screaming warcries.")
• The GM determines what kind of Conflict (there are different kinds) we're in, based on our actions. If it's not clear, he'll ask us to clarify. For example:
  "OK, you come charging around the corner at them. What are you trying to do? Do you want to slaughter them all? Or are you just trying to drive them off?"
  "Well, we need to know more about the King-Under-the-Mountain. Maybe we could try to take them prisoner?"
  "Great, sounds like a Capture conflict to me."
• One guy is in charge. It's often clear who that is. E.g., Rusty describes his undead knight leading the charge into the room. By default he'll be the captain.
• Our captain rolls Disposition. This is basically like team hit points. Our goal is to get rid of their Disposition and keep as much of ours as possible. (First one out of Disposition loses.) Failing that, if we're unlikely to win we want to get rid of as much as theirs as possible before we lose, because we'll get some of what we want.
  Different types of Conflicts use different skills or stats to generate Disposition, so it does matter who our Captain is. If we're trying to banish a demon, it helps to have our Cleric in charge. In this case, a Capture conflict uses a Fighter or Hunter test, which gets added to the Captain's Will, so having a Death Knight as captain is probably a good idea.
• We pass out the Disposition to team members. It gets passed out evenly. When you run out of disposition, your character is out (but may be brought back in; see below).
• Both sides choose three actions. Conflicts are broken down into sets of three actions. Possible actions are Attack, Defend, Feint, and Maneuver. These are generic categories, but in a straight-up combat they're pretty straightforward.
• We choose what weapons we want to use in this set of actions. This matters mostly for people casting spells and people with multiple weapons--our Cleric will have a mace and shield, but can only use one at a time. Story-wise, you're using both, blocking strikes with your shield and returning them with your mace, but mechanically you have to choose one to focus on--if you're trying to defend your friends this action (you have the Defend action) you're probably going to want to use your shield.
• Each of those actions is assigned to ONE character. So, for example, we might have our Death Knight Attacking, our Dhampir Maneuvering, and our Cleric Defending. There's a skill test for each of those, and the actions interact in various ways (don't worry, we'll help with that, and it gets a lot easier with a little experience).

Conflict Types

Conflicts are any sort of thing where we're in an important action scene, generally against an opponent or opponents. There are several different types of Conflicts, and it covers everything from banishing demons to killing goblins to convincing a crowd not to riot. The types are:

• Banish or Abjure
• Capture
• Convince
• Convince Crowd
• Drive Off
• Kill
• Pursue or Flee (whether you are trying to get away or catch someone before they can; this is your chase scene)
• Trick or Riddle
• Other (the GM can make up a Conflict type on the spot)

Conflict types matter because they set the skill and stat used to set the initial disposition, as well as what skills are used for each of the actions.

Action Types

I mentioned above that there are four action types. In physical conflicts it's often clear what they mean, but they are general categories that mean slightly different narrative depending on the scene.

• Attack: this is a direct action aiming straight at your goal: attacking a goblin, making a strong point in an argument, etc. Successes directly damage the opponent's disposition (e.g., you smash a goblin in the chest with your mace, sending him tumbling).
• Defend: this is used to regenerate Disposition. As I mentioned above, even if you win it matters how much Disposition you end with. When we start losing Disposition it's useful to script a Defend to bring it back up. In our Capture conflict, this may be jumping in front of our witch and guarding her while she regains her feet. It may also be defending yourself against charges leveled at you in a court case. Success here adds points back onto our Disposition.
• Feint: Feints are sneak attacks. They're bluffs, and false attacks that open the opponent up to other attacks. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln managed to lead Douglas into a position where he had to take a stand on slavery that was going to either kill his chances at the presidential race or doom his local political career. That was a devastating Feint. Mechanically, it's great if your opponent has a Defend; horrible if they have Attack. It is a VERY risky maneuver, but devastating if successful. It's the move to use if you have a high degree of confidence that the opponent will be going on the defensive, and the narrative will hopefully provide clues to that.
• Maneuver: Maneuver is an attempt to gain an advantage. It might be springing up onto high ground in order to have a better shot with your crossbow, or setting up a flanking attack, or laying the groundwork for a devastating argument. Success here can grant you a bunch of different advantages, from making their next test harder, to making your next test stronger, or even to disarm them.

Weapons

Weapons!

Weapons are great. In a physical combat, we all know what a weapon is. Monsters generally have weapons for a variety of different conflicts; the GM may let us use different items as weapons depending on the Conflict. For example, if we're trying to drive off the demon Arglebargle, the Tablets of Fu-Leng, inscribed with Arglebargle's Truename, may be a weapon for Attack.

The important thing to know is that you choose ONE weapon to use for each set of three actions. They are chosen AFTER both sides have settled on their actions, so the GM can't say "hmm, the cleric is using his Shield. I'll bet they'll be scripting a Defend this round." Each weapon has certain things it's good at. Shields, as mentioned, are great at Defend; maces aren't better at any particular action but they absolutely shred metal armor. Chainmail doesn't defend against them, and plate is more likely to be damaged. Two-handed swords are great at Attacking and Maneuvering (since you don't want to come within reach of that thing, it's easy to use it to drive your opponents back). Polearms are great at Defending and Feinting.

Compromises

Once one side has won, there's a compromise. If the winning side lost no disposition, they get what they want, with no compromise. If we defeat those goblins with no loss of disposition on our side, the conflict ends with them under our control.

If somebody has lost disposition, there's a compromise. Either the winner doesn't get everything they want, or the other side gets some of what they want. How big a compromise is needed depends on how much disposition is lost. Maybe one of the goblins got away, and may go looking for help; or maybe the group doesn't know as much about the King-Under-the-Mountain as we had hoped.

Kill Conflicts

Oh, kill conflicts. Kill conflicts are deadly. Seriously.

Even if you win they're deadly. Short of complete and utter domination, it's likely that someone on the winning side will end up Injured, at least. With a moderate compromise, it could end with one of us dead. If we are in a Kill conflict and barely win, we may all end up dead.

Seriously, unless it's really important, give some serious consideration to one of the other objectives. Drive them off, capture them, whatever. But remember that a fight to the death is a fight to the death for both sides, and injuries aren't nearly as easy to shrug off in Torchbearer as they are in D&D.

Order of Might

Different creatures are just naturally more powerful than others. Even though we're all human (more or less), adventurers have a Might of 3, whereas villagers have a Might of 2. We're just hardier and better suited to conflict. Kobolds are Might 1. They're weak and easily defeated.

Dragons are Might 6.

Creatures higher on the Order of Might get an additional success when they succeed or tie on a test in a Kill, Capture or Drive off conflict. In other words, a dragon who successfully swipes at us will get an extra +3 successes, just for being a badass.

If you're going to fight a dragon, bring an army.

[Marullus]

We have some interesting difficulties without new PCs.

What conflict type would it be if the desired outcome is"Drink their blood?" Is there a type other than Kill?

We have an undead who can only live by eating the flesh of the dead. That also seems to push us into Kill actions. Is there a way to feed him other than Kills?

On the plus side, a Kill conflict feeds both of them at once. The GM needs to decide how many "rations" they can both pack away from each dead guy, which sets the rate at which we need Kill conflicts.

[Enoch]

I don't know if the rules specifically say for our Knight, but they're clear enough for how much blood I can get from a living being.

As far as I am concerned, a Capture conflict would probably be better for feeding. Our Knight may well come across dead bodies he doesn't have to make, also.

In addition, it not only informs the rate, but also gives is an interesting strategic choice of which conflicts we want to be kill conflicts. These guys look tough --can we risk fighting them, or would it be better to wait for something weaker? Can we afford to wait?

[Marullus]

True, Capture seems a good choice.

Thinking creatively, you also might Convince someone that allowing you to feed is their best course. Or Convince Crowd to give up only one of their number to save the rest.

Can Convince Crowd allow them to offer a sacrifice which results in a dead body we didn't Kill?

[Rusty Tincanne]

It also drives us to be careful with out actions vs when we make camp. Technically speaking, if we repeatedly camp after three turns, we might never have any conditions applied.

So best practice is to camp regularly, though it slows the game down slightly. At any rate, we ought to do that for the first couple cycles anyhow so we get the hang of camping without conditions.

[Enoch]

Torchbearer, like Burning Wheel, is explicitly designed with the expectation that players will game the system and balanced with that in mind.

In D&D, especially 4e, you can have a problem when characters blow all their big powers right up front and then camp. In Torchbearer you can't camp at all until at least one person has used a trait against themselves, and the utility of camping is directly related to how many times characters have done so. To keep up camping after every three tests players need to aggressively challenge their characters (since using a trait against yourself makes the test harder), and a condition is a likely consequence of failure. Camping every three tests is great but not game-breaking by any means.

[Marullus]

Traits

The thumbnail for newbies....
Traits describe what your character "is" - this is designed to both help them and also hurt them, spurring RP in both directions.

Level 2 Traits
Magda - Scarred 2
Isabelle - Thoughtful 2
Peitharian - Loner 2

These traits are more pronounced in your nature. They can be used in every action where they make sense. Every action is a Turn (mostly) and these traits can do two things:

• If you convincingly RP how your Trait helps with your action, you can take a +1D bonus (roll an extra die) for your action. Or...
• You can convincingly RP how your Trait harms this action, and take a -1D penalty to your roll (or give a +2D bonus to your opponent in a versus test, or break a tie in your opponents favor) and earn a Check.

Checks are a useful commodity that we need - therefore we must use traits against ourselves at some point. We must spend a check to enter the Camp phase (discussed above), and also spend a check for each test we wish to do in Camp Phase that isn't an instinct.

(Peitharian gets a free test to make poultices when we enter camp, for example, because of his example. But if someone wants to use that poultice to aid their Recovery Roll to remove Exhausted, Injured, Angry, Afraid, etc., that takes a Check. Everyone can eat food/drink without an issue, but if Isabelle is going to Cook to turn one ration into food for the whole party, that takes a Check.)

Level 1 Traits
Magda - Born of the Grave 1
Isabelle - Moonchild 1
Peitharian - Touched by the Gods 1
Swelan - Cadaverous 1
Swelan - Scarred 1

These operate the same way as above, except that they can only be used once per Session instead of on every test. (Faolan is going to specify how long a Session is in our online play, probably somewhere between 10-12 turns.)

[Faolan7]

I'm going to copy Steven and make each session 13 turns.

[Enoch]

Regarding using Traits strategically:

All of the Luke Crane games are written with the understanding that players will try to game the system, and generally encourage it, or at least contain systems that expect and work with it. That's why advancement requires both passing and failing, for instance. There's no point in trying to make every test as easy as possible, because you'll never advance.

Use a trait against yourself any time you know you are going to fail the test anyway (since it can't hurt) or when you expect you'll be able to make it even if the Ob is 1 higher. These checks really are important, especially once we start getting conditions. Unless you have a trait at level 2 or above, save using it to your advantage for a test that really matters, and one more die might tip the balance.