Generative resolution

[pemerton]

So I understand that Risk is the last thing you assess, and it determines if there's a roll.

Yes that's my point: risk has to be assessed, and if there is a risk then there are stakes, and a roll to see what happens. (The leverage step is analogous to the "credibility test" in some other systems.)

It's the opposite heuristic to BW. And I think assumes that risk will be worked out from fictional position. But in the context of relatively low myth play.

 

[zakael19]

Yes that's my point: risk has to be assessed, and if there is a risk then there are stakes, and a roll to see what happens. (The leverage step is analogous to the "credibility test" in some other systems.)

It's the opposite heuristic to BW. And I think assumes that risk will be worked out from fictional position. But in the context of relatively low myth play.

Is this just my general ignorance of BW's ideosyncracies here? I pulled out my copy of Mouse Guard, if we're talking about Obstacles/Tests, it looks like the procedure is for the GM to tell you there's an obstacle & what it is? And then the players decide how they overcome it, and roll? And then on a failed outcome the GM Twists or applies a Condition?

Is the inherent stake here just "do you overcome the obstacle?" eg pass/failure?

 

[Nytmare]

In my mind, "generative" has always meant that the narrative decision is informed by a chart or a table or a deck of cards. Something beyond simply "what makes sense."

It's definitely a grey area, but that phrasing has always meant to me that the initial spark of an idea starts with some random push that isn't only what's in the GM's or players' heads.

 

[Nytmare]

Is this just my general ignorance of BW's ideosyncracies here? I pulled out my copy of Mouse Guard, if we're talking about Obstacles/Tests, it looks like the procedure is for the GM to tell you there's an obstacle & what it is? And then the players decide how they overcome it, and roll? And then on a failed outcome the GM Twists or applies a Condition?

Is the inherent stake here just "do you overcome the obstacle?" eg pass/failure?

At least the way my table interprets the (Torchbearer end of the pool) rules, this is the mental calculus I normally run through:

• The players and GM have a back and forth conversation about the current narrative circumstances.
• At some point, either the player announces that they are taking an action by describing that action, or the GM asks them to reframe what was just being discussed as a description of an action.
• If more detail is necessary, the discussion continues, but that discussion is in pursuit of an action being taken.
• If the action is too simple, too boring, without risk, OR if the GM thinks that the player's approach to the problem was extra clever or entertaining, no roll is needed, the action just happens.
• If there's some doubt as to the outcome, and if the GM has at least one idea as to what could go wrong, they tell the player the skill they need to test, the Obstacle they need to meet or beat, and what skills the other party members need to have to be able to lend help. At this point, there's no backing out, the roll is going to happen one way or the other, and more often than not, the thing that might go wrong was a part of the discussion surrounding the action.
  • If the players succeed, they get what they were trying for
  • If they fail, the GM can either
    • Give them Success AND a Condition (basically a descriptive hit point)
    • Or introduce a narrative Twist which typically either gets in the way of their Success (you have to make this OTHER roll first) or changes the established narrative in some way (the constable marks you and your friends as unwelcome guests)
• If there's a lot of doubt, the scene is dramatically important enough, and it fits with the pacing of the evening, the GM can call for a Conflict instead, which is an intertwined mess of Tests married to a 4 choice game of Rock / Paper / Scissors.

Typically however, stakes are not specifically called out beforehand, the only real times that is supposed to/needs to happen is when death is on the line. If there's a chance that the character can die, it has to be mentioned before the roll, and the player (usually) has the option of changing course.

 

[pemerton]

Is this just my general ignorance of BW's ideosyncracies here? I pulled out my copy of Mouse Guard, if we're talking about Obstacles/Tests, it looks like the procedure is for the GM to tell you there's an obstacle & what it is? And then the players decide how they overcome it, and roll? And then on a failed outcome the GM Twists or applies a Condition?

In Burning Wheel, the rule is "say 'yes' or roll the dice" in combination with the GM's job being to frame scenes that put pressure on the players by putting pressure on their PC priorities - predominantly Beliefs, but also Instincts, Relationships, Affiliations etc.

So if there is an action declared in which the possible outcomes don't matter when considered through the lens of those priorities, then the GM says "yes". Otherwise the GM calls for a roll. The fictional position then determines the obstacle for the test. So the first step is to determine that something is at stake, and that determines whether or not there is any risk.

This is why, in an example in the Adventure Burner, Luke gives as an example of "saying 'yes'" when a player narrates his Elven PC running along the balustrade of a bridge high above a ravine. It's just a colour action declaration, not connected to any PC priority, and so nothing that we care about is at stake, and so no roll is cared for. Even though, in some "objective" sense, that is a risky thing to do.

@Nytmare just upthread, talking about Torchbearer, says that the GM needs to have an idea as to what can go wrong. The Burning Wheel GM, when framing a scene that implicates PC priorities, is required to have some idea as to what might go wrong. Otherwise they're not doing their job properly, because they're not applying pressure where they are meant to do so.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think that for RPGs generally that there's a whole lot to unpack in terms of 'objective risk' as an idea.

 

[pemerton]

I was just rereading Vincent Baker on character sheets and currency: anyway: Things on Character Sheets (2)

In the constable example, there is a currency relationship between position and effectiveness: when you make a Resources test (which is about your character's effectiveness at acquiring stuff in town), you put (what we could call) your town position at stake.

It's mediated by the GM, who does have the power, on a failure, to give you what you want but at the cost of a condition (which, when it comes to Resources, can include a direct hit on effectiveness by taxing Resources). But equally the GM can give a twist - a complicating or worsening of your town position.

This is why I keep coming back to the idea of the implicit.

Consider this example, from Harper:

She stares at you coldly. 'Leave me alone,' she says. What do you do? . . .

'Don't come back here again.' She slams the door in your face and you hear the locks click home.​

Implicit in a cold stare, and a request to be left alone, is the slamming of a door in one's fact.

Similarly, implicit in permitting a cinder imp to escape and burn down the Hedge Witch's place, is being hassled by the town authorities. The fictional causation in this second example is different - it's not internal to a person who's already in the scene. But it is internal to a social structure - a town - that is already in the scene (and towns in Torchbearer do have an orientation towards the PCs, namely, of suspicion tending towards hostility).

@thefutilist, what am I missing here?

 

[zakael19]

So if there is an action declared in which the possible outcomes don't matter when considered through the lens of those priorities, then the GM says "yes". Otherwise the GM calls for a roll. The fictional position then determines the obstacle for the test. So the first step is to determine that something is at stake, and that determines whether or not there is any risk.

So I just have Mouse Guard, but here's how I'm understanding it frames risk:

"Place obstacles before the Mice that will stop them from achieving their Goals, while setting up situations where they must pick between a course of action and what their Beliefs and Instincts demand."

And then it further says that the GM tells you what the Obstacle is and "sets" its difficulty.

Is that accurate at its base?

(god each time I look at anything by Crane I'm reminded at how much I need to design my own Mouse Guard game based on FITD)

 

[pemerton]

I think that for RPGs generally that there's a whole lot to unpack in terms of 'objective risk' as an idea.

OK. But if we don't regard risk as inhering in fictional position, then an instruction to the GM like "only call for a roll when there is risk involved" will be pretty hopeless, won't it?

 

[pemerton]

So I just have Mouse Guard, but here's how I'm understanding it frames risk:

"Place obstacles before the Mice that will stop them from achieving their Goals, while setting up situations where they must pick between a course of action and what their Beliefs and Instincts demand."

And then it further says that the GM tells you what the Obstacle is and "sets" its difficulty.

Is that accurate at its base?

I don't have Mouse Guard, and have never played it. I have a memory of being told it doesn't have "say 'yes' or roll the dice". And so is different from Burning Wheel.