Burning Wheel Expectations ...?

[zarionofarabel]

Super useful distinction! And rather illustratively belies the false claim that this form of player agency necessarily disturbs "immersion."

I think the -wises way is perhaps one of the best ways for players to add to the lore of the world without breaking immersion. Ever since I first discovered Mouse Guard I have used the -wises way with respect to knowledge (and related) skills as presented in other systems.

 

[aramis erak]

@pemerton

You described in the thread (it's now approaching War and Peace status, I guess) that @zarionofarabel started, where you described your mage character (Thurgon's sidekick, IIRC, whose name I've forgotten--I am miserable with names; I consider it a win that I remember all the characters' names in two campaigns I'm DMing) determining, in a Burning Wheel game using the Greyhawk map, that Evard's tower was "around here somewhere." The exact mechanics may not be entirely necessary to discuss, but I have one main question, and a couple-few prefatory question (to make sure I'm understanding things)

Prefatory question 1: Because you had success on the check, you were able to narrate that the tower was where you wanted it to be, without consequence or complication?

Prefatory question 2: Had you failed, the GM would have been able to say "It's not around here" or "It's around here but it's cursed/in ruins/otherwise a mess"?

Main question: Would it have been fair (in this context, within expectations for the game) for the GM's response on a failure to say, "Yeah, it's around here. You practically walked past it on your way to town. Why didn't you stop?"

I'm asking because I'd kinda want to know that, even on a success (though I gather there'd be roughly no reason to ask).

Yes, that would be a viable situation. It's the "Create trouble for the players" element of BW.

The thing is, the GM is expected to say that before the roll. So the player knows when going to the dice whether or not they are going to have to answer.
I've even used that.

 

[prabe]

I think that canonical Burning Wheel uses version A. Off the top of my head I don't know a system that uses B - but maybe some PbtA systems could, as those systems used standard dice spreads and don't adjust the throw required to reflect the fictional positioning in the way that BW does.

My understanding of Fate is that it can work like your "B," even without spending Fate Points. When I was running in a mode that was ... trying to take some of the worldbuilding/scene-setting/setdressing off the GM's plate, it wasn't unusual to have something like (it's been a while so I'm drawing blanks on some specifics):

Player: I want to find out what's going on in this town. Like, social events.
GM: Sure. Give me a (suitable skill) check.
Player: I got (some measure of success)
GM: Excelllent! You found out about two things. What are they?
Player: (Two social events)

I gradually came to understand that I'm happier as a GM if the players' inputs on this sort of thing are more tightly constrained, because I have an easier time remembering what I decided/figured out than I do remembering what players add.

 

[pemerton]

Super useful distinction! And rather illustratively belies the false claim that this form of player agency necessarily disturbs "immersion."

That second bit is key for me. I like to play from the perspective of my PC, "inhabiting" him/her. Wises are completely compatible with that.

 

[pemerton]

My understanding of Fate is that it can work like your "B," even without spending Fate Points. When I was running in a mode that was ... trying to take some of the worldbuilding/scene-setting/setdressing off the GM's plate, it wasn't unusual to have something like (it's been a while so I'm drawing blanks on some specifics):

Player: I want to find out what's going on in this town. Like, social events.
GM: Sure. Give me a (suitable skill) check.
Player: I got (some measure of success)
GM: Excelllent! You found out about two things. What are they?
Player: (Two social events)

I gradually came to understand that I'm happier as a GM if the players' inputs on this sort of thing are more tightly constrained, because I have an easier time remembering what I decided/figured out than I do remembering what players add.

How did you set the difficulty of the check?

 

[prabe]

How did you set the difficulty of the check?

So, I don't know how well you know Fate, so I might end up explaining things you don't know. I apologize if so.

Also, it's been almost ten years since this campaign (I think) and my memories of it are vague, at best.

Fate has a ladder of results ranging from (I think) -4 to +8. If that's not correct, it's not super-relevant, here. What I remember doing is I asked for one thing going on in the town for every +1--I think the player rolled +2 and described two things going on (one of which was a wedding which the party crashed).

That's probably not by-the-book Fate, and my memories may not be entirely reliable.

 

[pemerton]

So, I don't know how well you know Fate, so I might end up explaining things you don't know. I apologize if so.

Also, it's been almost ten years since this campaign (I think) and my memories of it are vague, at best.

Fate has a ladder of results ranging from (I think) -4 to +8. If that's not correct, it's not super-relevant, here. What I remember doing is I asked for one thing going on in the town for every +1--I think the player rolled +2 and described two things going on (one of which was a wedding which the party crashed).

That's probably not by-the-book Fate, and my memories may not be entirely reliable.

I've never played Fate but have Fate Core and know about the "ladder". And can make sense of what you've described.

If you ever find yourself playing a game like this again, I'd recommend Version A instead.

 

[aramis erak]

Fate has a ladder of results ranging from (I think) -4 to +8. If that's not correct, it's not super-relevant, here. What I remember doing is I asked for one thing going on in the town for every +1--I think the player rolled +2 and described two things going on (one of which was a wedding which the party crashed).

That's probably not by-the-book Fate, and my memories may not be entirely reliable.

It's pretty by the book for several flavors... each point over the difficulty is referred to as spin, and it can be spent on varying things by skill. Normal PC range skills are -2 to +5, and roll results can be ±4 on that. In general, the labels are a problem; a half-dozen published flavors don't use them or use them only for setting difficulties in the GM's section.

Getting additional results for higher rolls is pretty common in many games.

 

[prabe]

It's pretty by the book for several flavors... each point over the difficulty is referred to as spin, and it can be spent on varying things by skill. Normal PC range skills are -2 to +5, and roll results can be ±4 on that. In general, the labels are a problem; a half-dozen published flavors don't use them or use them only for setting difficulties in the GM's section.

Getting additional results for higher rolls is pretty common in many games.

Thanks. I wasn't sure how far astray I'd gone, there. Part of the reason I was running the way I was, was because I didn't want to be the only one doing worldbuilding (and related things). Turned out, the people I game with aren't the best players to do that with, though they were and remain superb friends.

 

[aramis erak]

Thanks. I wasn't sure how far astray I'd gone, there. Part of the reason I was running the way I was, was because I didn't want to be the only one doing worldbuilding (and related things). Turned out, the people I game with aren't the best players to do that with, though they were and remain superb friends.

No prob. Some of my favorite people don't do well in Fate nor 2d20... while some people I really don't like to game with are devilishly good at certain storygames, and fun in that context, but not in trad contexts.