I think what the actual problem here is that you (and some others) think there is only one way to play D&D.
Well, one actual problem is that people keep telling me what I think, rather than reading what I post, and/or asking me what I think.
Where have I posted that there is only one way to play D&D? I mean, I've posted in this very thread about at least three different approaches: classic Gygaxian dungon-crawling; DL/AP-esque "storytelling" play; and 4e scene-framed play.
In the D&D game I'm in, we rarely have combat--maybe once every 4-8 sessions. The rest of the time is mostly RP, and a lot of that is "very low stake." We had an session that took place almost entirely at a bardic performance--and that was player choice, since it was the player who sought the performance out. Likewise, in my Level Up game, one player, who was new to the city the game has thus far taken place in, decided she wanted to get an apartment. And thus she and another player or two--and I, the GM--went apartment-hunting.
Heck, I once ran a heavily-modified Curse of Strahd (I didn't like the actual presented adventure) and we spent the better part of a session once having tea. There was an attack by ghouls later on, but the session itself? Tea time.
Yes, I'm aware that some people use D&D PCs and (some parts of the) D&D rules to support this sort of play.
I'm sure that there are going to be chunks of violence or higher-stakes events in BW--that "The Sword" scenario proves that. (And, of course, that entire scenario is GM-driven, since the PCs are plunked down right in front of a quest object).
Well, then you're wrong about the violence. In the campaign where I play Thurgon - a knight of a holy military order - there have been (from memory) two fights. Thurgon fought some Orcs; and he fought a demon.
As I think I posted, one of the more intense moments was his attempt to persuade Aramina - his travelling companion - to mend his armour. And of course his reunions with his brother Rufus and mother Xanthippe, about which I have posted in this thread.
Burning Wheel is about conflict - rising action, climax, resolution - not particularly about violence.
Now, I'm assuming that when you mean "pre-authored fiction" re: determining if an action fails or succeed, you mean things like target numbers, because that's literally the only thing I can think of.
No. I mean things like
this guard can't be bribed or
there are no secret entrances into this building or
the attack on the town will happen on <insert date here>. The sorts of things that are written in GM's notes.
I had been expecting something like "the PC chooses either failure or success with major consequence,"
This is anathema to Burning Wheel. You seem to be thinking of Fate, or similar RPGs that allow players to engage in a high degree of curation of character arcs.
You write "The GM does not need to decide if an action's success is uncertain - rather, the rules dictate that it is uncertain *if something that matters to the PC as authored by the player is at stake;"
I mean, that's literally how most games work, including D&D--again, the DMG even addresses this; some GMs have players roll for everything, some have them only roll during dramatic occasions like combat and leave everything else up to the players to RP out, and most GMs do something in the middle. It's just that D&D presents it as a choice for the GM to make, not as the game's rule.
See how, in your second paragraph, you say "some GMs have players roll . . ." That's already a difference from BW.
And there is nothing in any 5e D&D rulebook I'm aware of that identifies
player-determined stakes as the trigger for rendering something uncertain. The rules in D&D Beyond, that I already quoted upthread, treat
uncertainty as an input into the question of whether or not to roll, not an output of that decision (which must therefore be made on other grounds):
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.
This is the exact opposite of Burning Wheel, not "literally how [it] works".
The game even seems to goes so far as to have the GM decide what the PC should be thinking. While doing a search for how to do tests in BW, I came across
this question on the Burning Wheel forum:
From what I can tell, with a failed Steel check, the PC simply stops what they're doing--they may run away or stand their being horrified or whatever, but they're not going to continue their murder attempt. OK, sure, lots of games have fright checks or sanity checks, but those are nearly always done because of something supernatural (except in horror games, where merely
seeing horrible yet mundane things can call for one). But with BW, it certainly seems as though the GM can arbitrarily decide that that emotionally,
this NPC is harder for me to kill than
that one.
The decision to call for a Steel test is not
arbitrary. The rules state when the GM may call for a Steel test, including the starting point of "say 'yes' or roll the dice".
I may call for a fright or sanity check (depending on game), but only after doing the deed.
OK? I'm not sure what this tells me about Burning Wheel, other than that you haven't arrived at a similar set of procedures in your play of other RPGs.
I guess its because I've been familiar with player-facing morale checks in Classic Traveller (1977) since I first read the game in the late 1970s that I don't find Steel checks particularly shocking as a mechanics.
Here an example, in play, of a Steel test:
With the morning mist rolling in, it was time to clean out the innkeeper's cash box. We agreed that the day's takings would be 2D of cash. With successful checks, Alicia cast Cat's Eye so she could see in the dark; I succeeded at a straightforward Scavenging check so that Aedhros could find a burning brand (he can see in dim light or by starlight, but not in dark when the stars are obscured by mist). Alicia went first, in the dark but able to see, but failed an untrained Stealthy check despite a penalty to the innkeeper's Perception check for being asleep. So as she opened the door to the room where was sleeping on his feather-and-wool-stuffed mattress, he woke and stood up, moving his strongbox behind him. Alicia, being determined - as per one of her Beliefs - to meet any wrong to her with double in return, decided to tackle him physically. Of course she is trained in Martial Arts, as that's a favourite of her player! I proposed and he agreed that we resolve this via Bloody Versus (ie simple opposed checks) rather than fully scripting in Fight! I set the innkeeper's Brawling at 3, but he had significant penalties due to darkness, and so Alica - with 4 dice + 1 bonus die for superior Reflexes - won the fight easily. The injury inflicted was only superficial, but (as per the rules for Bloody Versus) Alicia had the innkeeper at her mercy - as we narrated it, thrown to the ground and held in a lock.
Aedhros entered the room at this point, with Heart-seeker drawn and ready for it to live up to its name. But Alicia thought that killing the innkeeper was a bit much. So first, she used her advantageous position to render the innkeeper unconscious (no check required, given the outcome of the Bloody Versus). Then her player, wearing the GM hat, insisted that I make a Steel check to commit cold-blooded murder. This failed, and so I hesitated for 4 actions. Handily, that is the casting time for Persuasion, and so Alicia "told" Aedhros not to kill the innkeeper. The casting check succeeded, but the Tax check was one success against an obstacle of 4. With only 1 Forte left, that was 3 Tax which would be 2 overtax, or an 8-point wound, which would be Traumatic for Alicia. But! - the Tax check also was the final check needed for her Forte 3 to step up to Forte 4 (wizard's get lots of juicy Forte checks because of all their Tax - in this case from the three spells cast), which made the overtax only 1, or a 4-point wound which was merely Superficial. Still, she collapsed unconscious.
Aedhros opened the strongbox and took the cash. We agreed that no check was required; and given his Belief that he can tolerate Alicia's company only because she's broken and poor, and given that it aggravates his Spite to suffer her incompetence in fainting, he kept all the money for himself. He then carried out the unconscious Alicia (again, no check required). He also took the innkeeper's boots, being sick of going about barefoot. But he will continue to wear his tattered clothes.
The framework for Steel tests establishes a premise for the game: violence and murder are not undemanding things for a person to engage in or witness.
In the same way that, in classic versions of D&D,
dungeon doors are not trivial to go through, requiring a roll to open doors; so, in BW,
murderous violence is not trivial to go through - the GM can call for a Steel test to see if the character hesitates.
