Ok, so you just search in every room, and there is no way to give a twist or condition unless there is indeed a door. There's no way to roll, use a turn, take a test if there's no door to find.
So the players get obsessed with secret doors. I handle it thusly: If they ask about secret doors, I ask how they are looking, "It's so dark you can't even see that far into the room. The dust you've been kicking up doesn't help either." If they want that secret door they have to head in and look around.
First case, there is a secret door but there is something guarding it: "Where are you looking? There are vases coming into the light along the walls, most of them are cracked or shattered. Look, there's a table in front of you." "Is it under the table?" "So you're looking under the table for this secret door?" "Yes... [gulp]." "Something drops from the ceiling on top of you."
Let's say there is nothing in the room to threaten their search for the secret door, with violence or otherwise. Like in Rym's case, secret doors will be trapped or otherwise you will have to pull some lever, do some furniture moving, move some heavy boulders or something to get at it. Then again maybe they just stumble into it and push it open. It's not trapped or anything, "Good Idea! you found the secret door."
Now for the hardest case, where there is no secret door. I would never say there is no secret door. I'd start from the top, describe the room, the smells, the sounds, ask them what they do and how they are doing it. Eventually they will bump into things in the room. If they want a secret door so bad they'll ignore those things and keep prodding. Eventually they've either bumped into the problem in the room and must react or they learn there is no secret door finally but, hey, there is a lot of weird shit in this room.
I used to go out in the woods and explore at night with friends. We'd carry flashlights. One time we happened upon this old abandoned farm house. We walked in looking for cool stuff. We looked for passages and ways into other parts of the house. It reeked. Eventually in our search for a way into this side room (we were going to have to shove aside this shopping cart filled with all kinds of junk), we discovered there were goats living in the house and they weren't happy that we were there.
That's the sort of thing that happens to you when you're searching for secret doors.
They were very curious. They just didn't do anything that bumped into the obstacles. They also did a bunch of things that were questionable whether or not they bumped into the obstacles, and I probably handled it poorly.
For example, I already talked about examining the tub. Does that count as bumping into the Ob 3 Theologian test to determine the purpose of the room?
I would say something like, "This tub seems like it has some significance here," then I'd wait for their response to that. If they don't care to learn about it then move on.
I situation in my saturday night game came up where the characters were crossing a hanging bridge. All they said was "We're looking ahead" and I called for a scout test. I'm sure this can be applied to examining other things. Just call for the test and see what happens. A problem there could be that they might want to argue for a minute and say "I didn't want to examine it that closely," then that's okay, drop the test and move on. Players who are risk averse might do that but as a player if I stumbled on something and wasn't asking the right questions I'd be happy for the GM to just call for a test.
They decided to enter into an abjuration conflict, which was cool, but weird. They lost, but got a minor compromise. What kind of minor compromise do you get from losing this kind of conflict? In the end we decided that Rym was released from being possessed, but the party was driven from the dungeon screaming. There were some other details in there like what weapons do you use in that kind of conflict?
I thought to look at page 179 ("Other Weapons") for this, but Banish, Abjure isn't listed there. It is known that in non-martial conflicts you can't be unarmed though.
They were very curious. They just didn't do anything that bumped into the obstacles. They also did a bunch of things that were questionable whether or not they bumped into the obstacles, and I probably handled it poorly.
For example, I already talked about examining the tub. Does that count as bumping into the Ob 3 Theologian test to determine the purpose of the room?
Did they say "I want to determine the purpose of this tub?" The tub's the most interesting feature of the room, so I'm fine with making that the Theologian test. If they don't ask about the purpose, why would they be consulting Theologian?
Another time Alex was examining the sarcophagus. He was not specifically looking for traps, he was looking for signs of it being recently opened. I made him bump into the test to detect traps on it anyway, and he saw the trap. Was that wrong?
Ask, "What exactly are you doing?" Is it just looking? Poking with a stick or sword? Lifting off the top? Just looking isn't going to set off the trap—it's clear they have to move the lid to set it off. If they're just examining the sarcophagus without touching it, just tell them if it's been disturbed recently, since that's what they asked. If they describe their characters searching for traps in a way that could conceivably work, it's time for a Scout test.
Also, they decided to check for tracks. They went all the way back to the opening of the dungeon (with their map) and did the test for tracks that was described in the document. Then they wanted to know where the tracks led inside the dungeon. There's no let it ride in Torchbearer, but it felt wrong to test again for the same thing. But then again, it would make sense that the tracks would go to the secret door. But I didn't want to give the secret door away by letting them effectively use the outdoor tracking test as an automatic way past the test to find the secret door. Maybe I should have just said the tracks lead into the sarcophagus room and then disappear.
There's no let it ride, so they could potentially track some more, if they're anything there for them to find. If they've already stomped through the dungeon, I wouldn't necessarily let them track. It's too late for that.
In our game with Thor, I caused two of the Tomb Guardians to flee, they left tracks through the room with the ash, and the tracks ended in the sarcophagus room (no test for tracking them to that room).
As for twists, yeah, they are easy. But someone has to roll and fail for there to be a twist! The characters wandered all about the dungeon trying all sorts of things, but somehow never touching upon any of the actual obstacles. I did eventually make Rym get possessed by Haathor-Vash. I feel bad about it because it wasn't a twist. I just made it happen out of nowhere. I don't think that's quite right.
It does happen out of nowhere, a few turns after Haathor-Vash's aware of their presence. Just let it happen!
They decided to enter into an abjuration conflict, which was cool, but weird. They lost, but got a minor compromise. What kind of minor compromise do you get from losing this kind of conflict? In the end we decided that Rym was released from being possessed, but the party was driven from the dungeon screaming. There were some other details in there like what weapons do you use in that kind of conflict?
We tried this with Thor, but he made us do a versus Fighter test just to see if we could hold off the skeletons long enough to do a ritual. We failed, so we got in a (flee) conflict instead and never got to the ritual.
For us during the abjuration, there were no skeletons. It was just Rym getting possessed. I think they were in the room with the bowl of ashes. They never found the secret door. There wasn't any ritual they knew about.
Are you allowed to drop a test? I thought once you call out a test, there's no backing out.
Damn. That's right. You can't back out by letter the rules. But should calling for a test on cursory inspection (ie: without asking the right questions you give them the theologian, scholar, or lore master test) still give one pause? That's tough. I'd have to treat it on a case by case basis.
In play, there's a lot they're going to describe their characters doing, although it might take some prompting from you to get them used to playing this way. Not all of it triggers a test. I found that for the House of the Three Squires, I would unexpectedly surprise them with "That's test for skill they didn't think they were using". After a bunch of tests like that, they eventually figured out they need consult with each other about what they're doing, potentially getting a nod from their Leader, before they tell me what they're doing.
This is the fundamental issue. How strict are you in determining if the players have bumped into the test? If you only give the players the test when they have clearly done the right thing, it could easily devolve into a text adventure or a Shadowgate. You try to use every interaction on every object, but absolutely nothing happens at all until you get it right. That's boring as fuck.
But that never happened when we played the game at Burning Con.
But then again, at Burning Con, all the obstacles in our way were clear physical obstacles with a relatively clear linear way forward. Hallways with doors. Trenches to cross. Orcs to fight. Obvious artifacts in the room that tested you if you interacted with them in absolutely any way whatsoever.
In Skogenby there are a few rooms you can really walk around in and mess around with stuff to no effect whatsoever unless you ask exactly the right questions. It's also possible to completely ignore the rooms, except for the skeletons and being possessed. If the players never think to search for secret doors, they'll just be at a dead end and leave, no?
Also, there's the question of how to handle the possession itself. What do the players learn from the possession? Does Haathor-Vash, say anything, or does the possessed teammate just try to murder everyone? Can you force the players into a kill conflict like that? Don't the players choose the type of the conflict?
This is I think Torchbearer's greatest weakness. Players are never sure if they'll suddenly be tested, so they're hesitant to ask about ANYTHING they encounter.
Risk averse players don't do well with it at all. I'll give you that. I see something similar happen in BW games.
But it depends on the player. I try to keep the reward system in mind. I write beliefs that are cut-throat. I like to barrel in and earn check after check until I'm injured.
Someone said they examined the tub, should I have then had them make the roll?
That's what I would have done. They picked a defining feature of the room to examine, which is basically just them providing color for the "examine the room" action. That they picked out the tub specifically just gives you something additional to work into their results.
Imagine this as a description you give of a successful roll: "You search the room high and low, and it's not until you reach the tub that you find an inscription." The first clause is simply indicating a passage of time - the meat of the action centers around the tub. So if the player just says "I examine the tub," they're cutting out the fluff and getting to the meat.
Maybe I should have just said the tracks lead into the sarcophagus room and then disappear.
This is a pretty good answer. Get them most of the way there. It's still useful information (it pares down their options), but still presents them with a challenge.
This is I think Torchbearer's greatest weakness. Players are never sure if they'll suddenly be tested, so they're hesitant to ask about ANYTHING they encounter.
Seems like a bit of an issue with buy-in. Torchbearer is not Burning Wheel or Mouse Guard. This is a dungeon crawling game. Your characters have to explore in order for it to work. You need to mess with things even if you personally think it's unwise - because you have to be desperate and crazy just to be there in the first place.
I liken it to something I read in Polaris. In that game, you are the "Heart" of your character. Your job is to advocate in favor of your character accomplishing their goals whether or not you think their goals are good for them. It doesn't matter that exploring something is a dumb idea - you need to be willing to do that.
That's just it, though. The tub did not have an inscription on it. I don't feel like I can make things up on the fly. The dungeon is what the dungeon is.
That's just it, though. The tub did not have an inscription on it. I don't feel like I can make things up on the fly. The dungeon is what the dungeon is.
I haven't read Skogenby, but I cannot think of any situation in which you couldn't make up a literally inconsequential detail about the tub to get someone on the right track.
So maybe the results of the Theologians roll aren't related to the tub. That's fine. A player says, "I examine the tub." You say "Give me a Theologians roll." Then make up some contrivance that logically leads from the tub to whatever the subject of the roll should have been. "You notice grooves on the floor leading to [foo]. Following those, you realize [bar]."
The key with a pre-gen adventure is to make up shit that doesn't actually affect the adventure but still gets people on track. It's a lot more like being a director than most games - you need to prod the characters on the track in such a way that they think they're still making all their own decisions.
If it takes things in an interesting direction, I'm also fine with making things up on the fly. The sentients don't always have the same reaction every time new adventurers wander in... so who says the inanimates always have to be same-as-planned?
With areas and problems pre-planned, one can still reincorporate details that the players throw at them. Just be sure to roll on the random loot table for "unplanned encounters" to help balance the new, unplanned interests they take up. As long as it involves their beliefs and goals it will be satisfying play.
This is I think Torchbearer's greatest weakness. Players are never sure if they'll suddenly be tested, so they're hesitant to ask about ANYTHING they encounter.
Seems like a bit of an issue with buy-in. Torchbearer is not Burning Wheel or Mouse Guard. This is a dungeon crawling game. Your characters have to explore in order for it to work. You need to mess with things even if you personally think it's unwise - because you have to be desperate and crazy just to be there in the first place.
Ahh, but here's my specific issue: rolling the dice spends a turn, which is the most precious commodity in the game. More precious than anything I carry or do.
Getting stabbed, or hungry, or angry as a result of a roll is awesome. But never being sure if that turn is going to suddenly and without warning be expended? That turn that is part of a resource cycle the game HAMMERS into your head as requiring the most careful management.
That the game both requires extreme care in managing turns, and simultaneously punishes players for expressing ANY interest in ANYTHING in the dungeon with the possibility of suddenly expending one, creates a difficult contract for new players to grapple with.
Players (where the GM isn't experienced in running Torchbearer) are never sure of how to frame or even phrase their actions or intents. They're never sure what to ask the DM for. The tests that are handed out based on their actions will seem capricious and random without context from a deep seated understanding of the rules.
The contract between the players and the gamemaster is extremely difficult for new players to grasp. Without careful, constant guidance, the players are stuck in situations where they know what they want to accomplish, and they have a vague idea about HOW they want to accomplish it, but are nonetheless unable to express this in terms that actually matter to the rules.
Case in point: the "good idea" rule. Players can SKIP a test (and thus save themselves both a TURN and ANY consequences) if they come up with a good idea. Something like "We tie a rope to the statue, attach the other end to the door with our grappling hook, and then heave the statue off the balcony to safely open the stuck, trapped door from a distance."
The rules state that this "good idea" requires no test and just succeeds. It's awesome.
But now, the players are encouraged to describe in intricate detail their specific actions AHEAD OF any tests. Players start to get very interested in tying things to the end of ten foot poles and using that to interact in acontrolled fashion, hoping to save precious, precious turns. The detail level of the player input zooms in to the miniscule. There is no incentive to do anything SIMPLE. Good ideas are heavily rewarded, and bad ideas just result in normal checks (or, in nonthreatening rooms, nothing).
There are no good ideas after at test comes out. We then swing wildly into a realm of high abstraction. Players are required to know when to explain in intricate detail how they rig up the mirror to distract the magic eye while the halfling disables it from behind, and when to "Search for secret doors" and roll some abstract dice. Conflicts are further abstracted.
This constant flip between high and low detail of player input is extremely confusing to unguided players. Inexperienced TB GMs are patently unable to provide the guidance effectively without violating the contract of the rules themselves.
Curiously, I actually find that this is a problem that exists in lots of RPing groups outside of Torchbearer, depending on your GMs. When your GM is a more rational person rather than a fan of fantasy and the rules, they will often simply want things to work, and accept simple, rational ideas as successful. In a game like D&D, for instance, you can't just knock someone unconscious. You roll an attack, do damage, and then if they hit a certain point, they go unconscious. The logical player/GM will think that if you snuck up and hit them really hard in the back of the head with a mace, they will go unconscious. That isn't how D&D works, but a logical GM will allow that to work because they say it does. However, then when the player doesn't have a great idea, the GM falls back onto the rules and chance and rolls, and it's suddenly confusing, because what was previously players heavily roleplaying a great idea now turns into rules mongering and arguments.
This is I think Torchbearer's greatest weakness. Players are never sure if they'll suddenly be tested, so they're hesitant to ask about ANYTHING they encounter.
Seems like a bit of an issue with buy-in. Torchbearer is not Burning Wheel or Mouse Guard. This is a dungeon crawling game. Your characters have to explore in order for it to work. You need to mess with things even if you personally think it's unwise - because you have to be desperate and crazy just to be there in the first place.
words
It seems to me that you're analyzing this like you analyze a board game. You're basically saying that the game breaks down because the optimal move is to search for "good ideas," which are disproportionately more powerful than literally any other mechanism of play.
Stop doing that.
As a GM, if I saw a player tacitly avoiding rolls by hogging the spotlight to come up with good ideas and thus bypass the entire consequence mechanic, I'd railroad them into cutting that shit out. Literal "rocks fall and you die." Maybe not "you die," but the next time you do that, I would literally have the statue crumble and stop your idea dead in your tracks. Make a test because you fell. Now what, smartass?
That still represents a buy-in problem. You're still not actually into the character, setting, or game. You're sitting there, divorced from the game, trying to solve it like a puzzle. You're not immersed in the situation. You're being Rym, trying to figure out how to game the system to give you an advantage over everyone else.
Inexperienced players, by and large, will tend to look at their sheet and ask what they can do. Even the most inexperienced GM can figure that out. Your specific issue seems to be rooted in a problem that more experienced gamers can run into - the obsessive need to analyze situations in a meta-game fashion.
The sudden loss of a turn is an essential part of the game. It's the thing that provides the pressure of dungeoneering. The best laid plans of mice and men and all that jazz. The whole point is that you are supposed to be stopped without warning, contrary to all of your clever planning. Actively attempting to bypass that is you essentially saying "I don't want to play this game."
This is I think Torchbearer's greatest weakness. Players are never sure if they'll suddenly be tested, so they're hesitant to ask about ANYTHING they encounter.
This is why they need to figure out as a group what they're doing, arbitrated by their Leader. At least that way they'll get in trouble together in a way they can possibly anticipate.
This is the fundamental issue. How strict are you in determining if the players have bumped into the test? If you only give the players the test when they have clearly done the right thing, it could easily devolve into a text adventure or a Shadowgate. You try to use every interaction on every object, but absolutely nothing happens at all until you get it right. That's boring as fuck. In Skogenby there are a few rooms you can really walk around in and mess around with stuff to no effect whatsoever unless you ask exactly the right questions.
There is no right thing, really. (I mean, there might be in hindsight.) It's the players asking questions about their environment based on a leading description by the GM. It's the GM asking them what they're doing. How are they interacting with the environment? Is their action causing a test? If it's not a test, answer their question or tell them the reaction, if any. Like other games, you have to arbitrate what constitutes a test. Unlike other games, you can't direct them to the puzzle or problem of a given room or suggest an activity or solution.
It's also possible to completely ignore the rooms, except for the skeletons and being possessed. If the players never think to search for secret doors, they'll just be at a dead end and leave, no?
Skogenby's got plenty of tests that we never bothered with in our playthrough, because we were running out of light and didn't want to bother with potentially wasting a turn. There isn't the luxury of time to find everything.
If the players are stuck, do they have a relevant Belief, Goal, or Instinct? "Always search for secret doors" is fantastic. They could also say "Fuck this" and go back to town or camp to recover conditions if they have any.
Also, there's the question of how to handle the possession itself. What do the players learn from the possession? Does Haathor-Vash, say anything, or does the possessed teammate just try to murder everyone? Can you force the players into a kill conflict like that? Don't the players choose the type of the conflict?
In our game, that character got possessed right as the rest of us got knocked out by the gas trap. So that character helped the skeletons move us into the secret vault. Once were were dealing with Haathor-Vash, the character was back under the player control, I think, as far as we could tell. That might have been a speedup for convention purposes.
The players do not choose the type of conflict. They can describe their reaction, but the GM picks the conflict. "We try to get away." "Well, they try to capture you. This is a capture conflict."
Ahh, but here's my specific issue: rolling the dice spends a turn, which is the most precious commodity in the game. More precious than anything I carry or do.
I'd call into question if turns are in fact that precious. They are an important resource, yes, but I feel like treasure, advancement, and rewards are more precious, and you have to spend turns to earn those so as a player you should go for it, not hang back. That's what I'd explain if folks were racking their brains for Good Ideas. Am I wrong here? Somebody do a cost/benefit analysis stat!
Personally, I only try to anticipate if my light is going to last long enough to know when to stop pushing. In my games a player will fight to be the one to make the next test because they really want to advance and earn rewards.
We had the 10' pole thing in our game, too. Players fixed a lantern to one so they could see down this tunnel. They thought it was such a good idea. Too bad that the fire from the lantern threatened the precious trees the bats were growing down there. The bats came out angry as hell in what would have otherwise been a mild situation.
They also tried to put out an oil fire on a collapsed bridge by spending water. I said "good idea" and let them have it. Luke later said on the BW forums that putting out an oil fire while hanging from a wrecked bridge is what we call a "bad idea."
The case with rigging up the statue, I'd call for a Dungeoneering test to make it all work properly, not attract attention, etc... I think I get what you're saying, but maybe that wasn't the best example.
As a GM, if I saw a player tacitly avoiding rolls by hogging the spotlight to come up with good ideas and thus bypass the entire consequence mechanic, I'd railroad them into cutting that shit out. Literal "rocks fall and you die." Maybe not "you die," but the next time you do that, I would literally have the statue crumble and stop your idea dead in your tracks. Make a test because you fell. Now what, smartass?
That there is the "move or I will hit you" mentality. I like it.
I always felt like, in an ideal roleplaying situation, the mix between rolling a check and having a good idea was what was best. Like, you are in a dungeon and want to figure out how to make it through this particular trap. Knowledge dungeoneering or disable device are obviously relevant, but you don't just roll it and win. If you can't explain how you accomplish it, you don't just get to bypass things with numbers.
It seems to me that you're analyzing this like you analyze a board game. You're basically saying that the game breaks down because the optimal move is to search for "good ideas," which are disproportionately more powerful than literally any other mechanism of play.
Stop doing that.
...
You're being Rym, trying to figure out how to game the system to give you an advantage over everyone else.
Inexperienced players, by and large, will tend to look at their sheet and ask what they can do. Even the most inexperienced GM can figure that out. Your specific issue seems to be rooted in a problem that more experienced gamers can run into - the obsessive need to analyze situations in a meta-game fashion.
I don't have this problem. People I watch playing the game have the problem. I'm describing what I see other players struggling with.
I love Torchbearer, and have not had any of these issues. I know what the game expects from me, and act accordingly.
The problem is that inexperienced players look at their character sheet, and are naturally inclined to state actions/intents that don't actually work or fit the game.
The game rewards and encourages that specific type of metagame thought, but it's ENTIRELY separate from the skills and abilities listed on the characters' sheets.
I cant imagine approaching a tabeltop RPG in such a rules forward way, RPG rules imo are always just kind of in the way and not the meat. I like how Torchbearer pushes them to the back for players, and I feel the task of carefully monitoring the "turn" as a resource is moreso the GMs job. Give your players plenty of rope by letting some more intricate action descriptions go by without a test, but sit back and let them hang themselves if they start abusing this grace.
I see how players jnowing the rules really well is a detriment to this, but personally I think it would be a lot of fun to fuck with the experienced players by not having a test when they obviously expect one from their description, and then springing one on them when they least expect it
Odd. I have never seen newbies engage in that degree of metagaming before. Perhaps you mean "seasoned players new to Torchbearer?" That is a degree of analysis I am unaccustomed to seeing in new players.
In any event, that is all the job of the GM. And yes, a novice GM can be blindsided by experienced players. A novice GM will drop the ball for new players too. Your job is to provide guidance and challenge. If they're making weird skill choices, you need to re-frame the situation or re-explain the skills. If someone is powergaming their way through, you need to leverage your infinite GM power and stop them.
This is a problem in all games with a GM/player duality.
That's what I'm saying. This game requires an experienced GM, or else new players (seasoned or not) will rapidly be frustrated by the apparent disconnect between what it says on their character sheet and what they can actually accomplish (and how they do so).
I've watched seasoned role players and newbs both have the exact same problems with Torchbearer. The game is the opposite of intuitive unless you've either learned ALL the rules or have a GM who is very skilled and knowledgeable.
I'm not saying "good idea" is overpowered. It's awesome. I'm also not saying that players are abusing it. They're not.
I'm saying that its existence creates a deep dissonance (for the players) between what their sheet says and what the game expects from them. The game has two very different "input modes" that have drastically different in-game effects.
BWHQ games in particular reward gamers that have read the rules and are willing to engage on its terms. Why go through all that trouble? Their games give me an interesting way to play (merging game and metagame), hard decisions, and the occasional fantastic unexpected outcome.
That's what I'm saying. This game requires an experienced GM, or else new players (seasoned or not) will rapidly be frustrated by the apparent disconnect between what it says on their character sheet and what they can actually accomplish (and how they do so).
I've watched seasoned role players and newbs both have the exact same problems with Torchbearer. The game is the opposite of intuitive unless you've either learned ALL the rules or have a GM who is very skilled and knowledgeable.
Well, again, I don't see that as being particularly different than literally any other roleplaying game with a complex ruleset. Lots of Burning Wheel is unintuitive until you see how it all works together. That takes time. And sometimes it just sort of falls apart anyhow.
I'll have to try the game out, though. Still haven't played it yet. I'm quite certain it all boils down to framing the situation and tying things together in such a way that players see outcomes from their actions.
I'm not saying "good idea" is overpowered. It's awesome. I'm also not saying that players are abusing it. They're not.
I'm saying that its existence creates a deep dissonance (for the players) between what their sheet says and what the game expects from them. The game has two very different "input modes" that have drastically different in-game effects.
I actually find it kind of interesting that "Good Idea" bypasses the test. I mean, tests are how you advance. The reason you don't "Say Yes" to things in Burning Wheel is because you need tests, and "Say Yes" bypasses that. You'd think that you'd want to reward particularly clever playing, but it seems to be more of a hindrance than a help.
I wonder if "Good Idea" is actually a way to limit the impact of an extremely clever player, the way that Duel of Wits can serve to stop one particularly charismatic player from out-roleplaying the group. "Great idea! Now move on to something else."
Comments
First case, there is a secret door but there is something guarding it:
"Where are you looking? There are vases coming into the light along the walls, most of them are cracked or shattered. Look, there's a table in front of you."
"Is it under the table?"
"So you're looking under the table for this secret door?"
"Yes... [gulp]."
"Something drops from the ceiling on top of you."
Let's say there is nothing in the room to threaten their search for the secret door, with violence or otherwise. Like in Rym's case, secret doors will be trapped or otherwise you will have to pull some lever, do some furniture moving, move some heavy boulders or something to get at it. Then again maybe they just stumble into it and push it open. It's not trapped or anything, "Good Idea! you found the secret door."
Now for the hardest case, where there is no secret door. I would never say there is no secret door. I'd start from the top, describe the room, the smells, the sounds, ask them what they do and how they are doing it. Eventually they will bump into things in the room. If they want a secret door so bad they'll ignore those things and keep prodding. Eventually they've either bumped into the problem in the room and must react or they learn there is no secret door finally but, hey, there is a lot of weird shit in this room.
I used to go out in the woods and explore at night with friends. We'd carry flashlights. One time we happened upon this old abandoned farm house. We walked in looking for cool stuff. We looked for passages and ways into other parts of the house. It reeked. Eventually in our search for a way into this side room (we were going to have to shove aside this shopping cart filled with all kinds of junk), we discovered there were goats living in the house and they weren't happy that we were there.
That's the sort of thing that happens to you when you're searching for secret doors. I would say something like, "This tub seems like it has some significance here," then I'd wait for their response to that. If they don't care to learn about it then move on.
I situation in my saturday night game came up where the characters were crossing a hanging bridge. All they said was "We're looking ahead" and I called for a scout test. I'm sure this can be applied to examining other things. Just call for the test and see what happens. A problem there could be that they might want to argue for a minute and say "I didn't want to examine it that closely," then that's okay, drop the test and move on. Players who are risk averse might do that but as a player if I stumbled on something and wasn't asking the right questions I'd be happy for the GM to just call for a test.
In our game with Thor, I caused two of the Tomb Guardians to flee, they left tracks through the room with the ash, and the tracks ended in the sarcophagus room (no test for tracking them to that room). It does happen out of nowhere, a few turns after Haathor-Vash's aware of their presence. Just let it happen! We tried this with Thor, but he made us do a versus Fighter test just to see if we could hold off the skeletons long enough to do a ritual. We failed, so we got in a (flee) conflict instead and never got to the ritual.
But that never happened when we played the game at Burning Con.
But then again, at Burning Con, all the obstacles in our way were clear physical obstacles with a relatively clear linear way forward. Hallways with doors. Trenches to cross. Orcs to fight. Obvious artifacts in the room that tested you if you interacted with them in absolutely any way whatsoever.
In Skogenby there are a few rooms you can really walk around in and mess around with stuff to no effect whatsoever unless you ask exactly the right questions. It's also possible to completely ignore the rooms, except for the skeletons and being possessed. If the players never think to search for secret doors, they'll just be at a dead end and leave, no?
Also, there's the question of how to handle the possession itself. What do the players learn from the possession? Does Haathor-Vash, say anything, or does the possessed teammate just try to murder everyone? Can you force the players into a kill conflict like that? Don't the players choose the type of the conflict?
But it depends on the player. I try to keep the reward system in mind. I write beliefs that are cut-throat. I like to barrel in and earn check after check until I'm injured.
Imagine this as a description you give of a successful roll: "You search the room high and low, and it's not until you reach the tub that you find an inscription." The first clause is simply indicating a passage of time - the meat of the action centers around the tub. So if the player just says "I examine the tub," they're cutting out the fluff and getting to the meat. This is a pretty good answer. Get them most of the way there. It's still useful information (it pares down their options), but still presents them with a challenge. Seems like a bit of an issue with buy-in. Torchbearer is not Burning Wheel or Mouse Guard. This is a dungeon crawling game. Your characters have to explore in order for it to work. You need to mess with things even if you personally think it's unwise - because you have to be desperate and crazy just to be there in the first place.
I liken it to something I read in Polaris. In that game, you are the "Heart" of your character. Your job is to advocate in favor of your character accomplishing their goals whether or not you think their goals are good for them. It doesn't matter that exploring something is a dumb idea - you need to be willing to do that.
It is not a place for the risk-averse.
So maybe the results of the Theologians roll aren't related to the tub. That's fine. A player says, "I examine the tub." You say "Give me a Theologians roll." Then make up some contrivance that logically leads from the tub to whatever the subject of the roll should have been. "You notice grooves on the floor leading to [foo]. Following those, you realize [bar]."
The key with a pre-gen adventure is to make up shit that doesn't actually affect the adventure but still gets people on track. It's a lot more like being a director than most games - you need to prod the characters on the track in such a way that they think they're still making all their own decisions.
Or in other words: yes, you can make it up.
With areas and problems pre-planned, one can still reincorporate details that the players throw at them. Just be sure to roll on the random loot table for "unplanned encounters" to help balance the new, unplanned interests they take up. As long as it involves their beliefs and goals it will be satisfying play.
Getting stabbed, or hungry, or angry as a result of a roll is awesome. But never being sure if that turn is going to suddenly and without warning be expended? That turn that is part of a resource cycle the game HAMMERS into your head as requiring the most careful management.
That the game both requires extreme care in managing turns, and simultaneously punishes players for expressing ANY interest in ANYTHING in the dungeon with the possibility of suddenly expending one, creates a difficult contract for new players to grapple with.
Players (where the GM isn't experienced in running Torchbearer) are never sure of how to frame or even phrase their actions or intents. They're never sure what to ask the DM for. The tests that are handed out based on their actions will seem capricious and random without context from a deep seated understanding of the rules.
The contract between the players and the gamemaster is extremely difficult for new players to grasp. Without careful, constant guidance, the players are stuck in situations where they know what they want to accomplish, and they have a vague idea about HOW they want to accomplish it, but are nonetheless unable to express this in terms that actually matter to the rules.
Case in point: the "good idea" rule. Players can SKIP a test (and thus save themselves both a TURN and ANY consequences) if they come up with a good idea. Something like "We tie a rope to the statue, attach the other end to the door with our grappling hook, and then heave the statue off the balcony to safely open the stuck, trapped door from a distance."
The rules state that this "good idea" requires no test and just succeeds. It's awesome.
But now, the players are encouraged to describe in intricate detail their specific actions AHEAD OF any tests. Players start to get very interested in tying things to the end of ten foot poles and using that to interact in acontrolled fashion, hoping to save precious, precious turns. The detail level of the player input zooms in to the miniscule. There is no incentive to do anything SIMPLE. Good ideas are heavily rewarded, and bad ideas just result in normal checks (or, in nonthreatening rooms, nothing).
There are no good ideas after at test comes out. We then swing wildly into a realm of high abstraction. Players are required to know when to explain in intricate detail how they rig up the mirror to distract the magic eye while the halfling disables it from behind, and when to "Search for secret doors" and roll some abstract dice. Conflicts are further abstracted.
This constant flip between high and low detail of player input is extremely confusing to unguided players. Inexperienced TB GMs are patently unable to provide the guidance effectively without violating the contract of the rules themselves.
When your GM is a more rational person rather than a fan of fantasy and the rules, they will often simply want things to work, and accept simple, rational ideas as successful. In a game like D&D, for instance, you can't just knock someone unconscious. You roll an attack, do damage, and then if they hit a certain point, they go unconscious. The logical player/GM will think that if you snuck up and hit them really hard in the back of the head with a mace, they will go unconscious. That isn't how D&D works, but a logical GM will allow that to work because they say it does. However, then when the player doesn't have a great idea, the GM falls back onto the rules and chance and rolls, and it's suddenly confusing, because what was previously players heavily roleplaying a great idea now turns into rules mongering and arguments.
Stop doing that.
As a GM, if I saw a player tacitly avoiding rolls by hogging the spotlight to come up with good ideas and thus bypass the entire consequence mechanic, I'd railroad them into cutting that shit out. Literal "rocks fall and you die." Maybe not "you die," but the next time you do that, I would literally have the statue crumble and stop your idea dead in your tracks. Make a test because you fell. Now what, smartass?
That still represents a buy-in problem. You're still not actually into the character, setting, or game. You're sitting there, divorced from the game, trying to solve it like a puzzle. You're not immersed in the situation. You're being Rym, trying to figure out how to game the system to give you an advantage over everyone else.
Inexperienced players, by and large, will tend to look at their sheet and ask what they can do. Even the most inexperienced GM can figure that out. Your specific issue seems to be rooted in a problem that more experienced gamers can run into - the obsessive need to analyze situations in a meta-game fashion.
The sudden loss of a turn is an essential part of the game. It's the thing that provides the pressure of dungeoneering. The best laid plans of mice and men and all that jazz. The whole point is that you are supposed to be stopped without warning, contrary to all of your clever planning. Actively attempting to bypass that is you essentially saying "I don't want to play this game."
If the players are stuck, do they have a relevant Belief, Goal, or Instinct? "Always search for secret doors" is fantastic. They could also say "Fuck this" and go back to town or camp to recover conditions if they have any. In our game, that character got possessed right as the rest of us got knocked out by the gas trap. So that character helped the skeletons move us into the secret vault. Once were were dealing with Haathor-Vash, the character was back under the player control, I think, as far as we could tell. That might have been a speedup for convention purposes.
The players do not choose the type of conflict. They can describe their reaction, but the GM picks the conflict. "We try to get away." "Well, they try to capture you. This is a capture conflict."
Personally, I only try to anticipate if my light is going to last long enough to know when to stop pushing. In my games a player will fight to be the one to make the next test because they really want to advance and earn rewards.
We had the 10' pole thing in our game, too. Players fixed a lantern to one so they could see down this tunnel. They thought it was such a good idea. Too bad that the fire from the lantern threatened the precious trees the bats were growing down there. The bats came out angry as hell in what would have otherwise been a mild situation.
They also tried to put out an oil fire on a collapsed bridge by spending water. I said "good idea" and let them have it. Luke later said on the BW forums that putting out an oil fire while hanging from a wrecked bridge is what we call a "bad idea."
The case with rigging up the statue, I'd call for a Dungeoneering test to make it all work properly, not attract attention, etc... I think I get what you're saying, but maybe that wasn't the best example. That there is the "move or I will hit you" mentality. I like it.
Hint: water does not stop oil fires, and in fact only makes them spread farther and faster.
You missed a very legitimate opportunity to light one of your players on fire.
"Fuck this, I turn around and go home, retiring to a life of peace and quiet."
"GOOD IDEA!"
I love Torchbearer, and have not had any of these issues. I know what the game expects from me, and act accordingly.
The problem is that inexperienced players look at their character sheet, and are naturally inclined to state actions/intents that don't actually work or fit the game.
The game rewards and encourages that specific type of metagame thought, but it's ENTIRELY separate from the skills and abilities listed on the characters' sheets.
Rym, as a player, has zero of these problems.
I see how players jnowing the rules really well is a detriment to this, but personally I think it would be a lot of fun to fuck with the experienced players by not having a test when they obviously expect one from their description, and then springing one on them when they least expect it
In any event, that is all the job of the GM. And yes, a novice GM can be blindsided by experienced players. A novice GM will drop the ball for new players too. Your job is to provide guidance and challenge. If they're making weird skill choices, you need to re-frame the situation or re-explain the skills. If someone is powergaming their way through, you need to leverage your infinite GM power and stop them.
This is a problem in all games with a GM/player duality.
I've watched seasoned role players and newbs both have the exact same problems with Torchbearer. The game is the opposite of intuitive unless you've either learned ALL the rules or have a GM who is very skilled and knowledgeable.
I'm saying that its existence creates a deep dissonance (for the players) between what their sheet says and what the game expects from them. The game has two very different "input modes" that have drastically different in-game effects.
I'll have to try the game out, though. Still haven't played it yet. I'm quite certain it all boils down to framing the situation and tying things together in such a way that players see outcomes from their actions. I actually find it kind of interesting that "Good Idea" bypasses the test. I mean, tests are how you advance. The reason you don't "Say Yes" to things in Burning Wheel is because you need tests, and "Say Yes" bypasses that. You'd think that you'd want to reward particularly clever playing, but it seems to be more of a hindrance than a help.
I wonder if "Good Idea" is actually a way to limit the impact of an extremely clever player, the way that Duel of Wits can serve to stop one particularly charismatic player from out-roleplaying the group. "Great idea! Now move on to something else."