The moment a resolution mechanic exists, especially one that models human decision-making, conflict, or consequence, it is standing in for something. It is a representational model. And like any model, it is a simplification and doesn't capture the full extent of what it represents.
This claim is not true. The Burning Wheel resolution system is not a model of anything, nor a simulation of anything.
In this respect it resembles (say) making a throw in Classic Traveller, or tracking hit points in most versions of D&D; and differs from (say) the system for skill improvement in RuneQuest, or the skill rules and combat manoeuvre rules in 3E D&D.
To be more specific, here is the general model for resolution in Burning Wheel (there are some instances, especially extended conflict resolution, which don't fully conform to, and/or elaborate on, this general model; I use the word "attribute" to cover the full range of skills, abilities etc that can be used to resolve a declared action):
*The player says what their PC is doing. That requires describing the task their PC is attempting, and also the intent with which the task is being performed. This step can involve some back and forth with the GM, to get clear on how the player's conception of their PC's action fits into the situation that the GM is describing to the player.
*The GM states what attribute*s) the player has to test on. This follows from the task being attempted. The player is free to make suggestions here, and there can be back-and-forth. In practice, this step and the preceding step may often be undertaken together, as establishing the relevant attribute(s) and properly specifying the task are closely related.
*The GM states the obstacle. This is determined by consulting the (many) obstacle descriptors, both general ones and ones found under each attribute's explanation in the rules. This may require extrapolation from the given descriptors to cover the current fictional situation. It is important to note that, at this point, the player is committed. In the fiction, the PC is beginning their attempt.
*If it is not already clear because implicit in the fiction, the GM also tells the player what will happen if the test fails (see further below).
*The player builds their dice pool. I won't go through this whole process, but at this stage the player may be able to bring non-attribute features of their PC to bear so as to increase their pool (all relevant attributes have already been factored in with the specification of the task).
*The player rolls the dice and counts their success (the default is 4+). This is compared to the obstacle. If the successes meet or beat the obstacle, the PC succeeds at their task and realises their intent. Otherwise the intent is not realised, and the GM narrates what occurs (it is the GM's decision, as part of this process of establishing consequences of failure, whether the task succeeds or fails; the only mandated component of the consequence is failure of the intent).
There is no model here. Attributes aren't models; they're descriptors with numerical ratings. Obstacles aren't models; they're numerical ratings, which are intended to convey in
mechanical terms the degree of challenge/difficulty/threat/etc that the PC is confronting in the fiction. So, for instance, Ob 4 is a higher difficulty than Ob 2, and this corresponds to a greater difficulty in the fiction. But the
probability of a given player being able to succeed vs Ob 2, or Ob 4, by testing on a particular attribute - while important for the play experience - is not representative of anything in the fiction.
The rolling of the dice itself doesn't model or simulate anything. It is an event in the "metagame", which determines what happens next. And the consequences of success or failure aren't arrived at by a modelling process - they are candidate fictions, and the function of the dice roll is to determine which candidate fiction becomes "actual" in the sense of being a component of the shared fiction.
This particular branch of the discussion came up because
@mamba posted that "No set of rules will prescribe every outcome to every action under every condition", and I replied by posting that the Burning Wheel rules show how "a resolution system can be designed so as to dissolve the concern that underlies your post". And I've just shown how the BW rules dissolve that concern: because they do not operate by prescribing outcomes. They operate by setting out a process which can be followed to generate (i) an obstacle, (ii) a dice pool, and (ii) an outcome/result/consequence, for (iv) any intent and task that a player might declare for their PC, that is consistent with the basic setting and genre conceits of the game.
no I haven’t, will take a look, but I doubt it can do what I described, namely provide one explicit answer as to what the outcome is for any given action in any given situation where all the GM has to do is look it up.
It doesn't. As I posted, it dissolves your concern, by showing that there is an alternative way of resolving actions to the one that your question presupposes (that is, an alternative to actually specifying every possible fictional outcome).
Was your ‘how many enemy wizards are after the party’ a BW scenario?
No. It was Rolemaster. That's the whole point - RM has nothing useful to say about handling this; BW does.
Here is the post in question:
I posted an example oF what I want to avoid in the current "GM mistakes" thread: when GMing Rolemaster, the PCs had a powerful faction acting against them. I, as GM, had to decide how much effort the faction devoted to thwarting the PCs, and how seriously the resources dedicated to that effort were deployed. The rules of the game gave me measures for things like how many and how potent spells can a NPC cast, but nothing more. So all the rest was simply up to me to decide, with the upshot of my decision being the full gamut from the PCs experience little threat to the PCs are utterly hosed.
RM has no inherent devices for handling or mitigating this, because it's mechanics are basically more elaborate and simulationist versions of classic D&D mechanics (with a few exceptions - eg it has rudimentary but still workable social mechanics); but it assumes a completely different framing context from the very artificial environment of the classic D&D dungeon (which constrains and channels possible threats so the PCs don't get automatically hosed by the forces arrayed against them).
This experience is one reason why I prefer systems that - like classic D&D - provide a framework for the introduction and prosecution of adversity, but - unlike classic D&D - have a framework that will work in the more verisimilitudinous/naturalistic contexts that I prefer.
To give a concrete illustration of what I mean: in the most recent session of my Torchbearer 2e game, two PCs escaped from a prison in Wintershiven (the capital of the Theocracy of the Pale), abetted by a third PC. So there are now agents of the Pale who are hostile to them. But I don't, as GM, need to make any decisions in advance about who those agents are, how effective they are, etc - the sorts of decisions that I had to make in the RM game. Rather, the resolution system tells me (through various of its devices, like the rules for failed tests, the rules for events, etc) when I need to introduce "unanticipated" adversity, and there are also clear frameworks for establishing its difficulty, and there are clear frameworks for resolving conflicts (including clear rules for when PC death is on the line).
There is all the verisimilitude and vibrancy of my old RM game - I'm even using my same beloved 1980 Greyhawk Folio maps (though I think I actually got my copy in 1983 or perhaps early '84). But the game system improves the playability, by establishing clear procedures for the presentation and unfolding of PC-threatening adversity.
