Generative resolution

[Fenris-77]

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?

I didn't say that, I just said it needed to be unpacked. I think there's a lot of nuance there.

 

[zakael19]

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.

Oh ok, I figured since TB was based off it there was commonality!

I'm assuming packed into "say yes or roll the dice" is an inclusion of also "but if the fictional position would make it impossible say no?"

Edit: having read all the TB2 posts above I'm once again confused at how any of this differs from Bastionland, apart from teh reference to beliefs and all that.

Player states an action.
GM ensures they understand intent.
They make sure it makes sense within the fiction to do it.
They ask if there's an inherent cost (a deviation, in that MB does what a lot of newer games do and says "yes you can do this, but there's an inherent cost you cannot bypass")
And then they see if the situation is such that there's a chance of failure and additional risk involved; if so - roll the dice.

If there's no chance of failure or doubt in the outcome? Pay the cost (if we got that far), move on. If there's no cost? Let's move on. If there's a chance of failure / risk? Roll the dice.

So maybe different then BW, but basically the same as TB?

 

[pemerton]

Oh ok, I figured since TB was based off it there was commonality!

Torchbearer uses, as its version of "say 'yes'", "Good Idea" - which is mostly GM control over pacing/focus. Because of its turn/grind structure, Torchbearer establishes stakes for tests that are independent of player-authored PC priorities. When something is a good idea, no test is required, and no turn is marked. So the GM gets to decide what moments of play will carry heft - ie mark a turn, but also give a test which is central to advancement. Torchbearer also assumes a significant degree of GM prep, which affects these decisions about pacing/focus.

Torchbearer is more GM-driven than Burning Wheel.

I'm assuming packed into "say yes or roll the dice" is an inclusion of also "but if the fictional position would make it impossible say no?"

I don't think Torchbearer discusses this in the context of action declaration, or at least no in terms of saying "no". It's discussed in terms of the players needing to describe what their PCs are doing.

In Burning Wheel, it's discussed separately from "say 'yes'" - and is presented as a simple credibility test, via a couple of examples: at one point, the GM says to the player "It's a dragon - I don't think there are going to be any Routine tests"; and at another point the rulebook tells the reader that there is no roll to find beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet.

The Adventure Burner discusses saying "no" in the context of Wises, where a player's intent might clash with GM secret backstory. It's a bit awkward, because there's no clear rule or procedure here. It's a weak point in the rules.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

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.

It's been ages since I've played, but, looking at it now, I don't see "say 'yes' or roll the dice" or TB's Good Idea. Granted, I never bought MG2e, so I don't know what changes might have been made to the text.

 

[zakael19]

It's been ages since I've played, but, looking at it now, I don't see "say 'yes' or roll the dice" or TB's Good Idea. Granted, I never bought MG2e, so I don't know what changes might have been made to the text.

I think this is because of its mission based structure? You embark on the patrol/mission with a Goal, and the GM puts obstacles in front of you on their turn. It reminds me of the structure of a Score. So things are either "not related to an obstacle and just proceed" or "an obstacle is in front of you and you must deal with it." Which sounds like the part that TB took, but with a changed play structure due to the more open ended dungeon construct?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I think this is because of its mission based structure? You embark on the patrol/mission with a Goal, and the GM puts obstacles in front of you on their turn. It reminds me of the structure of a Score. So things are either "not related to an obstacle and just proceed" or "an obstacle is in front of you and you must deal with it." Which sounds like the part that TB took, but with a changed play structure due to the more open ended dungeon construct?

Yeah, there's no equivalent press-your-luck decision making -- the mission's over when it's over or when a break is appropriate (for longer missions, after 2-3 obstacles), and we move to the Players' Turn. It's not like the guardsmice can hang out in the mission zone before heading back to town to get more treasure or clear out trash mobs or whatever. It's not that type of game (though I am amused at the idea of an extraction shooter with mice now).

 

[zakael19]

(though I am amused at the idea of an extraction shooter with mice now).

Mausritter? (I haven't the slightest idea what that game's actual play loop is)

Some day I'll return to my Mouse Guard / Redwall / Stonetop mashup Forged in the Dark game and get it playable...