How hard do you twist?

[Evil_Lincoln]

@triumviratet

For me, it was a BIG realization when I grocked: “Wait, I don’t need to have them roll to climb again. They succeeded the climb at the cost of an eagle-attack!”. And I guess you can go your way (I hope I get you right here) and say: “Wait, the climb isn’t dramatic anymore now when the eagle is dealt with. The entire roll was not to see if they could do the climb, but if they could do the climb without getting noticed by the eagle. They don’t need to roll again!”. But it’s still the same cliff. It’s still tall and imposing and the PC:s could drop something or fall down and get Inured or Dead. I mean, the eagle-thing was something I made up because it sounded cool. How can we be sure they don’t need to roll again? And with my way, the answer is easy: because they already succeeded the climb!

It really depends on if you see the session as a puzzle or a storytelling medium.

If it’s a puzzle, then going up and down that cliff becomes a part of the puzzle. Its persistent interference is a facet of the puzzle-- a part of the challenge.

If it’s a story, then once the cliff’s story is told, it is forgotten about – at least until remembering it makes for a good story, like if the party needs to run away from something awful at the top of the cliff.

There are myriad rules in Torchbearer that support the story version, but actually it’s both. The way Cartography works, it actually allows the players to decide when they want to shift a challenge from an active puzzle element into a historic story element. If the GM wants to revive it, she can. But if it’s on the map, the GM only brings it back into the story if it’s relevant.

So in essence, we’re both right. We’re coming at it from different ends with different priorities, but the system accommodates us both.

@triumviratet

Well yeah, but sometimes i want the players to open the door AND face monsters. And “you open the door but monsters” seems like a nice way to get that.

It seems to me that we’re taking the same approach under different names.

I maintain that your “twist with intent achieved” is actually “trouble down the line” (the twist is that a later encounter is made tougher) followed by a Good Idea (the door opens with no remaining drama) and the next planned encounter (obstacle to obstacle).

Obviously yours is much simpler and amounts to the same thing. I am jumping through hoops here to preserve my conception of Intent for passed and failed rolls. Somehow I still feel like I’m in the right, parsimony be damned.

I wanted to raise another issue, and that is the actual text of the twist rules in Torchbearer. If Twistology is our aim in this thread, we’re going to have to pull this apart:

@"TB1

Twist or Condition
If you fail a test, you do not succeed. Instead, the GM introduces a twist or gives you a condition in exchange for getting what you want.

@"TB1

Failure
If a player fails an ability or skill test, one of two things can happen: either a twist is introduced or the character succeeds, but with a condition.

We must assume that “succeeds, but with a condition” still means the role is failed for purposes of advancement. At least, I hope so, because that’s what we’ve been doing. Come to think of it, I can’t find an explicit statement to that effect.

“Succeeds, but with a condition” refers to the player succeeding at their intent, no?

@"TB1

Twist
Twists are new challenges to overcome. They can be immediate obstacles—you’re ambushed!—or something that causes trouble further down the line. Twists can also be played so that the character appears to have succeeded at his task, but in truth he’s just waded deeper into trouble.

So here’s a new branch for our Twistological Taxonomy: immediate, delayed, and apparent success. Apparent success sure seems like Trium’s twist-with-achieved-intent. I’m despondent. How could I have been so wrong?

I will note that this version of the twist-with-achieved-intent seems to imply that the achievement is false or tainted somehow… that it looks like the intent was achieved, but really it wasn’t. The book example is a character searching for traps, failing – he finds no traps, but is ambushed by a manticore. This is a tough one to parse-- for me at least.

@"TB1

Condition
On the other hand, failing a roll can earn you a condition. In this case you get what you were after, but you also earn a condition: hungry and thirsty, angry, afraid, exhausted, injured, sick or even dead!

Pretty straightforward conditional success. I’ll note that the language (“in this case”) implies that a twist result does NOT grant what you were after.

I’d like to bring this language into the discussion… it seems like there’s evidence for both “sides” here!

[triumviratet]

@Evil_Lincoln

It really depends on if you see the session as a puzzle or a storytelling medium.

If it’s a puzzle, then going up and down that cliff becomes a part of the puzzle. Its persistent interference is a facet of the puzzle-- a part of the challenge.

If it’s a story, then once the cliff’s story is told, it is forgotten about – at least until remembering it makes for a good story, like if the party needs to run away from something awful at the top of the cliff.

There are myriad rules in Torchbearer that support the story version, but actually it’s both. The way Cartography works, it actually allows the players to decide when they want to shift a challenge from an active puzzle element into a historic story element. If the GM wants to revive it, she can. But if it’s on the map, the GM only brings it back into the story if it’s relevant.

So in essence, we’re both right. We’re coming at it from different ends with different priorities, but the system accommodates us both.

I think this is our main difference. (Also, i think that cartographer is an excellent puzzle mechanic, the PC:s needs to choose when to create maps, which maps to keep etc. Lots of interesting choices!)

@Evil_Lincoln

It seems to me that we’re taking the same approach under different names.

I maintain that your “twist with intent achieved” is actually “trouble down the line” (the twist is that a later encounter is made tougher) followed by a Good Idea (the door opens with no remaining drama) and the next planned encounter (obstacle to obstacle).

Obviously yours is much simpler and amounts to the same thing. I am jumping through hoops here to preserve my conception of Intent for passed and failed rolls. Somehow I still feel like I’m in the right, parsimony be damned.

As out end result is the same, I think we both are doing something right.

@Evil_Lincoln

I wanted to raise another issue, and that is the actual text of the twist rules in Torchbearer. If Twistology is our aim in this thread, we’re going to have to pull this apart:

Good initiative!

@Evil_Lincoln

We must assume that “succeeds, but with a condition” still means the role is failed for purposes of advancement. At least, I hope so, because that’s what we’ve been doing. Come to think of it, I can’t find an explicit statement to that effect.

Never thought about that, but I would agree that the roll counts as a fail for advancement. That’s how I always played.

@Evil_Lincoln

“Succeeds, but with a condition” refers to the player succeeding at their intent, no?

Yes!

@Evil_Lincoln

So here’s a new branch for our Twistological Taxonomy: immediate, delayed, and apparent success. Apparent success sure seems like Trium’s twist-with-achieved-intent. I’m despondent. How could I have been so wrong?

I will note that this version of the twist-with-achieved-intent seems to imply that the achievement is false or tainted somehow… that it looks like the intent was achieved, but really it wasn’t. The book example is a character searching for traps, failing – he finds no traps, but is ambushed by a manticore. This is a tough one to parse-- for me at least.

I don’t like the “apparent success”, as I feel it incites the GM to deceive the players. And the manticore twists is wierd. Why roll Scout when there are no traps? But, if there where traps, it would have been a good Twist Conditional Success to find the traps AND the manticore (if the manticore had been established in the fiction). Success at a manticore cost. But, this is a problem with the rules. The Twist examples in the book feels a bit off to me. If we look at the twists for “Under the House of the Three Squires” or “Skogenby” (SPOILERS AHEAD), some of the twists are just bad IMO.
*We already discussed the “stuff breaks” twist and how it fits the “conditional success” label better then the “twist” label.
*Also: “A stray gust of wind extinguishes torches and candles”. If the players are in a non-threatening situation, this doesn’t do anything (they simple relight their stuff). And if they are under threat, they either relight their stuff or die. I never used this in a satisfying way.
*The “Elsa” twist. Here the twist REWARDS the players with information and free hands! WTF? Aren’t twists supposed to be bad? (Maybe “Elsa” is a “soft cost”, that increases the threat-level of the kobolds? But then the twist should say so!)
Skogenby suffers same same problem. The players try to find water. Twist: “Ooze drops, roll versus nature AND the water is undrinkable”. This just feels bad. We punish the players twice and we don’t give them any choices.

END SPOILERS

@Evil_Lincoln

Pretty straightforward conditional success. I’ll note that the language (“in this case”) implies that a twist result does NOT grant what you were after.

I’d like to bring this language into the discussion… it seems like there’s evidence for both “sides” here!

I think the rules are unclear here. The only talk about giving out conditions, but as stated above, the “stuff breaks” twists from UtHotTS reads like “They get what they want but stuff breaks” to me, which fits the “Conditional Success”-label very well. And from there, it seams reasonable to me to add other things with the same formula (“you get what you were after, but X”) to the Conditional Success category.

[HR][/HR]

I think the main problem is that a lot of the things a GM does (and that the rules suggest the GM does) as reactions to failed rolls neither fits the “Conditional Success” or the “Twist” as stated in the rules. Lets say the players activates a pit trap. The roll Health to jump to safety but fail:

• “You barely manage to save yourself, hanging from your fingertips. You live, but take Afraid” - This is a Conditional Success, no problem.
• “You try to jump to safety, but slip on the edge of the abyss. You fall down the pit, and hit the ground in some unknown chamber deep beneath.” - This is a Twist.
• “You barely manage to save yourself, hanging from your fingertips. What do you carry in your hands? Yeah, you drop that down the abyss.” - Doesn’t fit either
• “You barely manage to save yourself, hanging from your fingertips. Then you hear drums from the darkness. The trap must have alerted the goblins!” - Doesn’t fit either
  It seems that the rules first defines a Twist very narrowly. But later in the examples, everything thats not a “Success but take a condition” gets put in the Twist-bin.

[Evil_Lincoln]

@triumviratet

I think this is our main difference. (Also, i think that cartographer is an excellent puzzle mechanic, the PC:s needs to choose when to create maps, which maps to keep etc. Lots of interesting choices!)

I like it, but it could be better in some key ways. I might make another thread on that.

I don’t like the “apparent success”, as I feel it incites the GM to deceive the players. And the manticore twists is weird. Why roll Scout when there are no traps?

Well, I certainly have no problem with deceiving the players to some extent. But yes, that example raises a lot of questions.

*We already discussed the “stuff breaks” twist and how it fits the “conditional success” label better then the “twist” label.

Well, I’ve maintained it can be either – and my definitions do resolve several of your issues. I say it’s like a condition if it doesn’t thwart the intent, and it’s like a twist if it calls for another roll (or the sacrifice of the equipment if the roll is waived). In light of that, on to the other examples:

*Also: “A stray gust of wind extinguishes torches and candles”. If the players are in a non-threatening situation, this doesn’t do anything (they simple relight their stuff). And if they are under threat, they either relight their stuff or die. I never used this in a satisfying way.

There are a few things off about this. First, relighting in the dark is going to take a Survivalist test, as it meets the adverse conditions criterion. Lighting at the entrance to a dungeon, even in moonlight, shouldn’t take a test. Lighting in the dark should.

Second, the party won’t necessarily die in the dark. Familiarize yourself with the actual prohibitions of darkness in the game. You can do a LOT without light. It’s a bitch to GM such scenes, but I’ve read The Tombs of Atuan twice, so I try to muddle through.

In light of this (badumcha) you can go ahead and call the torch out a twist. It leads to another test on the Grind, which is really my guiding star for what’s “twist worthy”. If lost gear doesn’t at least severely tempt the players with a grindroll to get the thing back, it wasn’t twisted hard enough. Hey, that’s the thread topic!

I’m skipping the Elsa twist because I’m not researched on it, and it honestly mystifies me as well.

Skogenby suffers same same problem. The players try to find water. Twist: “Ooze drops, roll versus nature AND the water is undrinkable”. This just feels bad. We punish the players twice and we don’t give them any choices.

I’m fine with this, and it frankly seems to support my method over yours. Huzzah, I’m back on top!

That’s thwarted intent if ever I’ve seen it. This is a textbook twist, as far as I’m concerned. You could take the fouled water out, call it an interruption twist, and say the intent is temporarily thwarted by advancing the grind a turn in conflict. But at its heart, thwarting player intent is very much in the spirit of the rule as it’s written.

Giving them choices happens before the roll, when they describe-to-live. They had to describe insufficiently, or take some risk, to get to rolling to begin with.

In the context of describe to live, we must grant GMs the leeway to say “THIS, RESPOND TO THIS OR DIE” – which sometimes means “roll this now.” Honestly, I think most GMs will at least entertain alternative rolls if the player seems really convinced they have a great idea. You’re right though, it really is best to give the players a choice.

Once the railroading is finished, and nature was rolled, it’s back to Obstacle-to-Obstacle, though-- and the next thing should be a choice, right?

I think the rules are unclear here. The only talk about giving out conditions, but as stated above, the “stuff breaks” twists from UtHotTS reads like “They get what they want but stuff breaks” to me, which fits the “Conditional Success”-label very well. And from there, it seams reasonable to me to add other things with the same formula (“you get what you were after, but X”) to the Conditional Success category.

We are extrapolating quite a bit. Broken stuff does seem to meet the written Twist definition of “trouble on down the line.” You’re right, though, they seem to be granting the intent – but that’s also in that definition: “appears to have succeeded at the task, but has just waded deeper into trouble.”

You should be beating me over the head with that last phrase, since it’s the strongest case you have for a twist with successful intent.

I am retreating ever deeper into my convictions. As far as concerns me, intent delineates twists from conditional successes. It is thwarted by the former, although the GM is given broad powers to define thwarting-- up to and including players thinking they succeeded.

Once again, there’s more difference in how we define it than how we actually play it, I’m certain.

[Evil_Lincoln]

Oh yeah, and I still have some issues grokking how Twist or Condition works with traps.

Luke has said specifically that traps do not exempt the normal twist or condition rules, even when they grant a condition.

I know I’m still missing something crucial there. There are lots of modules that express things as “Players must succeed at Ob x health test or suffer X condition” – does that mean they succeed or fail? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[triumviratet]

@Evil_Lincoln

I like it, but it could be better in some key ways. I might make another thread on that.

I’m interested!

@Evil_Lincoln

Well, I certainly have no problem with deceiving the players to some extent. But yes, that example raises a lot of questions.

I don’t like to lie to the players. I rather say stuff like: “You follow the map and it seems to lead you straight, but in reality, it is flawed and you are hopelessly lost” and then I trust my players to not meta-game to much. But preferences, everyone is different.

@Evil_Lincoln

Well, I’ve maintained it can be either – and my definitions do resolve several of your issues. I say it’s like a condition if it doesn’t thwart the intent, and it’s like a twist if it calls for another roll (or the sacrifice of the equipment if the roll is waived).

2"

But what if it doesn’t thwart their intent AND requires another roll? (I have a heard time thinking about an item twist that does this, but it’s possible. But it’s true for all Twists as well.) These “twists” are/should be common (wandering monster is the typical example).

@Evil_Lincoln

There are a few things off about this. First, relighting in the dark is going to take a Survivalist test, as it meets the adverse conditions criterion. Lighting at the entrance to a dungeon, even in moonlight, shouldn’t take a test. Lighting in the dark should.

Second, the party won’t necessarily die in the dark. Familiarize yourself with the actual prohibitions of darkness in the game. You can do a LOT without light. It’s a bitch to GM such scenes, but I’ve read The Tombs of Atuan twice, so I try to muddle through.

In light of this (badumcha) you can go ahead and call the torch out a twist. It leads to another test on the Grind, which is really my guiding star for what’s “twist worthy”. If lost gear doesn’t at least severely tempt the players with a grindroll to get the thing back, it wasn’t twisted hard enough. Hey, that’s the thread topic!

I think I have to try some torch-extinguishing next adventure then. You are right that i haven’t looked into it enough, and light should be important! Thanks for the inspiration

@Evil_Lincoln

I’m fine with this, and it frankly seems to support my method over yours. Huzzah, I’m back on top!

That’s thwarted intent if ever I’ve seen it. This is a textbook twist, as far as I’m concerned. You could take the fouled water out, call it an interruption twist, and say the intent is temporarily thwarted by advancing the grind a turn in conflict. But at its heart, thwarting player intent is very much in the spirit of the rule as it’s written.

Giving them choices happens before the roll, when they describe-to-live. They had to describe insufficiently, or take some risk, to get to rolling to begin with.

In the context of describe to live, we must grant GMs the leeway to say “THIS, RESPOND TO THIS OR DIE” – which sometimes means “roll this now.” Honestly, I think most GMs will at least entertain alternative rolls if the player seems really convinced they have a great idea. You’re right though, it really is best to give the players a choice.

Once the railroading is finished, and nature was rolled, it’s back to Obstacle-to-Obstacle, though-- and the next thing should be a choice, right?

I agree that this supports you, but I don’t like it. Why do we punish the players twice? I mean, an Ooze is a formidable opponent and if it gets the drop someone might die. And this brings back to the reason I started this thread, how hard should a twist be? Can i twist “Ooze and undrinkable water AND loose your shoes”? How do I decide between “Ooze and undrinkable water” and “Ooze but drinkable water”. I feel that my method limits how evil th GM gets to be, and also gives the players something for each roll. Because as a player, it feels really bad to try something and get: “You fail (undrinkable water) and also you get punished (ooze)”. I think this is counter to “Enough rope to hang themselves”. Failing and getting punished for it incentivizes doing nothing. If you know that you might get some water even if you botch the roll, you might be more tempted to try.

@Evil_Lincoln

We are extrapolating quite a bit. Broken stuff does seem to meet the written Twist definition of “trouble on down the line.” You’re right, though, they seem to be granting the intent – but that’s also in that definition: “appears to have succeeded at the task, but has just waded deeper into trouble.”

You should be beating me over the head with that last phrase, since it’s the strongest case you have for a twist with successful intent.

I am retreating ever deeper into my convictions. As far as concerns me, intent delineates twists from conditional successes. It is thwarted by the former, although the GM is given broad powers to define thwarting-- up to and including players thinking they succeeded.

Once again, there’s more difference in how we define it than how we actually play it, I’m certain.

Well, the rules simply states that:

Damaged gear. Some important bit of gear—rope, a grappling hook, a lantern, a backpack—is broken, ripped or otherwise damaged as a result of the failed test

So maybe I interpret them in my favor. But are they supposed to get or not get their intent here? But, you must agree that if the players try to jump an abyss, and I say “You manage the jump but drop you ax down the chasm.”, then they have suffered Conditional Success. (If this should ever be done is another question.

@Evil_Lincoln

Oh yeah, and I still have some issues grokking how Twist or Condition works with traps.

Luke has said specifically that traps do not exempt the normal twist or condition rules, even when they grant a condition.

I know I’m still missing something crucial there. There are lots of modules that express things as “Players must succeed at Ob x health test or suffer X condition” – does that mean they succeed or fail? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Has Luke said that traps gives a condition IN ADDITION to the reaction to the failure? This changes everything! I’ll go off searching for sources now! I never played that way, but it might be interesting, and traps should have some bite. My main problem is that a single trap can kill a healthy PC in theory (the trap gives injured or sick, the GM gives dead). But of course that’s a dick move from the GM and should never be done IRL. But, I dislike the lack of choice presented with some traps (as said earlier, I do my traps as “Click! What do you do?” and scew my roll to the PC:s reaction. If they stand on a pit trap that activates but they have a ring of levitation, there might be no need to roll Health).

But forget about the traps then. The point of what I tried to say was that many things GM:s do as reactions to failed rolls fits the rulebooks definition of “Conditional Success” or “Twist” badly, and it seems to me that these things just get thrown into “Twist” by default. But perhaps we are just discussing terminology right now. Still, I think it would be useful to have a better classification, as I believe it would make improvising easier. And i think that my: “Conditional Success” = “You get what you want but X (where X = condition/loss of equipment/monsters)” and “Twist” = “Circumstances change, what you want is now impossible” is a nicer way to think about it then the rules: “Conditional Success” = “You succeed but gain a condition”, “Twist” = “New challenges (no idea what happens to the old one), and also everything else is implied to be here” (and I am being a bit harsh to get my point across here, but still).

[triumviratet]

@Evil_Lincoln

I like it, but it could be better in some key ways. I might make another thread on that.

I’m interested!

@Evil_Lincoln

Well, I certainly have no problem with deceiving the players to some extent. But yes, that example raises a lot of questions.

I don’t like to lie to the players. I rather say stuff like: “You follow the map and it seems to lead you straight, but in reality, it is flawed and you are hopelessly lost” and then I trust my players to not meta-game too much. But thats just preferences.

@Evil_Lincoln

Well, I’ve maintained it can be either – and my definitions do resolve several of your issues. I say it’s like a condition if it doesn’t thwart the intent, and it’s like a twist if it calls for another roll (or the sacrifice of the equipment if the roll is waived). In light of that, on to the other examples:

But what if it doesn’t thwart their intent AND requires another roll? (I have a hard time thinking about an item twist that does this, but it’s possible. But it’s true for all Twists as well.) These “twists” are/should be common (wandering monster is the typical example).

@Evil_Lincoln

There are a few things off about this. First, relighting in the dark is going to take a Survivalist test, as it meets the adverse conditions criterion. Lighting at the entrance to a dungeon, even in moonlight, shouldn’t take a test. Lighting in the dark should.

Second, the party won’t necessarily die in the dark. Familiarize yourself with the actual prohibitions of darkness in the game. You can do a LOT without light. It’s a bitch to GM such scenes, but I’ve read The Tombs of Atuan twice, so I try to muddle through.

In light of this (badumcha) you can go ahead and call the torch out a twist. It leads to another test on the Grind, which is really my guiding star for what’s “twist worthy”. If lost gear doesn’t at least severely tempt the players with a grindroll to get the thing back, it wasn’t twisted hard enough. Hey, that’s the thread topic!

I think I have to try some torch-extinguishing next adventure then. You are right that i haven’t looked into it enough, and light should be important! Thanks for the inspiration!

@Evil_Lincoln

I’m fine with this, and it frankly seems to support my method over yours. Huzzah, I’m back on top!

That’s thwarted intent if ever I’ve seen it. This is a textbook twist, as far as I’m concerned. You could take the fouled water out, call it an interruption twist, and say the intent is temporarily thwarted by advancing the grind a turn in conflict. But at its heart, thwarting player intent is very much in the spirit of the rule as it’s written.

Giving them choices happens before the roll, when they describe-to-live. They had to describe insufficiently, or take some risk, to get to rolling to begin with.

In the context of describe to live, we must grant GMs the leeway to say “THIS, RESPOND TO THIS OR DIE” – which sometimes means “roll this now.” Honestly, I think most GMs will at least entertain alternative rolls if the player seems really convinced they have a great idea. You’re right though, it really is best to give the players a choice.

Once the railroading is finished, and nature was rolled, it’s back to Obstacle-to-Obstacle, though-- and the next thing should be a choice, right?

I agree that this supports you, but I don’t like it. Why do we punish the players twice? I mean, an Ooze is a formidable opponent and if it gets the drop someone might die. And this brings back to the reason I started this thread, how hard should a twist be? Can I twist “Ooze and undrinkable water AND loose your shoes”? How do I decide between “Ooze and undrinkable water” and “Ooze but drinkable water”? I feel that my method limits how evil the GM gets to be, and also gives the players something for each roll. Because as a player, it feels really bad to try something and get: “You fail (undrinkable water) and also you get punished (ooze)”. Especially when you already get punished by the grind! I think this is counter to “Enough rope to hang themselves”. Failing and getting punished for it incentivizes doing nothing. If you know that you might get some water even if you botch the roll, you might be more tempted to try.

@Evil_Lincoln

We are extrapolating quite a bit. Broken stuff does seem to meet the written Twist definition of “trouble on down the line.” You’re right, though, they seem to be granting the intent – but that’s also in that definition: “appears to have succeeded at the task, but has just waded deeper into trouble.”

You should be beating me over the head with that last phrase, since it’s the strongest case you have for a twist with successful intent.

I am retreating ever deeper into my convictions. As far as concerns me, intent delineates twists from conditional successes. It is thwarted by the former, although the GM is given broad powers to define thwarting-- up to and including players thinking they succeeded.

Once again, there’s more difference in how we define it than how we actually play it, I’m certain.

Well, the rules simply states that:

Damaged gear. Some important bit of gear—rope, a grappling hook, a lantern, a backpack—is broken, ripped or otherwise damaged as a result of the failed test

So maybe I interpret them in my favor. But are they supposed to get or not get their intent here? But, you must agree that if the players try to jump an abyss, and I say “You manage the jump but drop you ax down the chasm.”, then they have suffered Conditional Success. (If this should ever be done is another question.

[triumviratet]

@Evil_Lincoln

Oh yeah, and I still have some issues grokking how Twist or Condition works with traps.

Luke has said specifically that traps do not exempt the normal twist or condition rules, even when they grant a condition.

I know I’m still missing something crucial there. There are lots of modules that express things as “Players must succeed at Ob x health test or suffer X condition” – does that mean they succeed or fail? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Has Luke said that traps gives a condition IN ADDITION to the reaction to the failure? This changes everything! I’ll go off searching for sources now! I never played that way, but it might be interesting, and traps should have some bite. My main problem is that a single trap can kill a healthy PC in theory (the trap gives injured or sick, the GM gives dead). But of course that’s a dick move from the GM and should never be done IRL. But, I dislike the lack of choice presented with some traps (as said earlier, I do my traps as “Click! What do you do?” and scew my roll to the PC:s reaction. If they stand on a pit trap that activates but they have a ring of levitation, there might be no need to roll Health).

But forget about the traps then. The point of what I tried to say was that many things GM:s do as reactions to failed rolls fits the rulebooks definition of “Conditional Success” or “Twist” badly, and it seems to me that these things just get thrown into “Twist” by default. But perhaps we are just discussing terminology right now. Still, I think it would be useful to have a better classification, as I believe it would make improvising easier. And i think that my: “Conditional Success” = “You get what you want but X (where X = condition/loss of equipment/monsters)” and “Twist” = “Circumstances change, what you want is now impossible” is a nicer way to think about it then the rules: “Conditional Success” = “You succeed but gain a condition”, “Twist” = “New challenges (no idea what happens to the old one), and also everything else is implied to be here” (and I am being a bit harsh to get my point across here, but still).

[Evil_Lincoln]

I’m not confident that I understood Luke’s point when he made it, so let us not jump to conclusions.
Here is a link to the specific exchange.

[triumviratet]

@Evil_Lincoln

I’m not confident that I understood Luke’s point when he made it, so let us not jump to conclusions.
Here is a link to the specific exchange.

That seems a bit ambiguous. I think I’ll keep to my old ways then. Maybe give traps a bit more bite if I feel the need. It’s easy to just combine traps to make give the same effect as discussed. Like a spear trap followed by a pit trap.

[Evil_Lincoln]

Well, it’s on-topic as hell. I just don’t know what to make of it.

It’s funny, I don’t think either of us has changed our methods much, but I suspect we both feel we’ve learned something here.

[triumviratet]

@Evil_Lincoln

Well, it’s on-topic as hell. I just don’t know what to make of it.

It’s funny, I don’t think either of us has changed our methods much, but I suspect we both feel we’ve learned something here.

Very much so. Thanks for the discussion.