That's not my experience of play. There are FoRKs, advantage dice (the instruction to GMs is to grant an advantage die if the player identifies the supporting fiction), Persona points, Fate points, etc. The last check I rolled as my knight was a success, and that as Faith 5 against Ob 5.
That's not correct. BW says "'say yes' or roll the dice". If nothing is at stake - as defined by Beliefs, Instincts, traits, relationships - then the GM says "yes". Otherwise an obstacle is set. The notion of "uncertainty" has no work to do.
Gold pp 13-14, 72 (which are in the free download):
You make tests during dramatic moments, when the outcome is uncertain. . . . Tests are the teeth of the gears of this game. Without tests, nothing catches and moves forward. In fact, in a situation involving conflict, a test is required. A player cannot affect another character without testing an ability to back it up. . . .
Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as a character wants something that he doesn’t have, needs to know something he doesn’t know, covets something that someone else has, roll the dice.
Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as a character wants something that he doesn’t have, needs to know something he doesn’t know, covets something that someone else has, roll the dice.
"When" in the clause "when the outcome is uncertain" doesn't mean "if". It is telling us that, in this game, in dramatic moments - defined by the notion of conflict or something being at stake - things are uncertain.
Page 72 also contains the following:
In his game, Dogs in the Vineyard, Vincent Baker articulates a convention of Burning Wheel so well that I’d rather use his words
than my own. He says:
than my own. He says:
Every moment of play, roll dice or say “yes.”
If nothing is at stake, say “yes” [to the player’s request], whatever they’re doing. Just go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to
them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.
Sooner or later - sooner, because [your game’s] pregnant with crisis - they’ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like.
Bang! Something’s at stake. Start the conflict and roll the dice.
Roll dice, or say “yes.”
If nothing is at stake, say “yes” [to the player’s request], whatever they’re doing. Just go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to
them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.
Sooner or later - sooner, because [your game’s] pregnant with crisis - they’ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like.
Bang! Something’s at stake. Start the conflict and roll the dice.
Roll dice, or say “yes.”
This underlies the whole dynamic of BW:
*Players establish theme/stake - by choosing Beliefs, Instinct, traits, relationships and similar character attributes that locate the character in the imagined world and orient them towards obstacles and goals (Gold p 9: "characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities);
*The GM frames scenes that put pressure on those priorities;
*The players declare actions for their PCs that respond to that pressure;
*The dice are rolled, and if successful the PC achieves intent and task, while if unsuccessful the GM narrates a consequence that defeats the intention (whether or not the task succeeds is a secondary concern - the GM can narrate this either way);
*Either way, the result is binding on the future fiction ("Let it Ride").
It's not possible to adapt this to 5e. Just for starters, 5e is replete with player-side abilities that don't require a check to be made.
Upthread I've suggested principles that I think are implicit in the 5e rules, and which - when made explicit - reveal what went wrong in @hawekeyefan's experience with Rustic Hospitality. But adhering to the principles I've suggested will not make 5e into Burning Wheel! It would remain a game in which the GM, not the players, is the "lead storyteller".
*The GM frames scenes that put pressure on those priorities;
*The players declare actions for their PCs that respond to that pressure;
*The dice are rolled, and if successful the PC achieves intent and task, while if unsuccessful the GM narrates a consequence that defeats the intention (whether or not the task succeeds is a secondary concern - the GM can narrate this either way);
*Either way, the result is binding on the future fiction ("Let it Ride").
It's not possible to adapt this to 5e. Just for starters, 5e is replete with player-side abilities that don't require a check to be made.
Upthread I've suggested principles that I think are implicit in the 5e rules, and which - when made explicit - reveal what went wrong in @hawekeyefan's experience with Rustic Hospitality. But adhering to the principles I've suggested will not make 5e into Burning Wheel! It would remain a game in which the GM, not the players, is the "lead storyteller".
