Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9657007" data-attributes="member: 42582">The vesselHuh? As I posted, play had shifted to detailed melee combat resolution: the assassin Halika was still in the room, and the PC Jobe was trying to tackle him.And what makes it interesting is that the other PC, Tru-leigh the shaman, needs the blood for his Dark Naga master - so if it can't be caught, then he will have failed in his mission. This is an illustration of what is at stake being a function of player-determined priorities for their PC.Burning Wheel PCs are more like people going about their ordinary lives, than "adventurers" decked out with adventuring gear.The rules of the game are: roll the dice or say "yes". Based on whether or not something is at stake.If the vessel had been part of the framing, then the roll would have been for something different - because the declared action, hence the task, would have been different.The armourI am a bit puzzled by your confident pronouncements about others' play that you weren't part of. I don't see why you think an argument about mending armour can't be interesting - I already explained how it spoke to Beliefs of both characters. I also don't know why you think it is pointless. And I don't know on what basis you are conjuring up imaginary smiths, on the frontier between Ulek and the Pomarj.There was no such argument. If we're going to do <this thing>, can we first do <this other preparatory thing> isn't preventing anyone from doing something unless they satisfy conditions.No it isn't. Telling someone if we're going to go to this place, let's first do <these preparatory things> isn't stopping them from going to that place. It's actually cooperating with them to go to that place.The attempted murderNo. In my Burning Wheel, game, the GM called for a Steel test because killing in cold blood is the sort of thing that the rules of the game identify as requiring a Steel test, if the other conditions for rolling the dice are met.Alicia didn't insist on any rolls. She is an imaginary person in a fantasy world; and BW is not a 4th-wall breaking game.Here is what actually happened:It was my friend in his capacity as GM, not as the player of Alicia, who insisted on the Steel test. Correctly.This would be analogous to the MC, in AW, calling for a player to roll to Act Under Fire if they have their PC try and do something contrary to what a successful manipulating PC has tried to get them to do.This is not making any sense to me.In AW, a character can be manipulated by another character, and as a result end up having to make a roll to act under fire to do a thing they want to do. On a 7 to 9 hit, this can result in faltering or hesitating. On a 6 or less, the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like.In Burning Wheel, certain actions - as set out in the rules for Steel - permit the GM to call for a Steel test, if the general conditions for rolling the dice are met. On a failed test, the player chooses a hesitation reaction, one of which is "stand and drool" - ie the PC falters or hesitates.The minutiae are different. The basic structure is not.No. The GM calls for a Steel test when the general rules of the game call for a roll, and when the task the character is attempting is the sort of task that triggers a Steel test. I've already posted the general rules four or five times in this thread; you can find them in the free download of Hubs and Spokes if you are interested.How long is four action, on the in-fiction clock in Burning Wheel?(Answer: 4 heart beats; 3 to 4 seconds. How long is Marie looking out her barred window, wishing it were an escape route? Long enough for Plover et al to shove a cooked-off grenade through her door. Probably 3 to 4 seconds.)What did it cost me in actual play? Nothing! (Other than that my attempt to have Aedhros murder the innkeeper was thwarted.) Aedhros was the centre of the action the whole time. It was Aedhros who carried the unconscious Alicia out of the room and down to the docks. General principlesYou can see how Beliefs work too, if you like, in the free download of Hub and Spokes. I've given multiple examples in this thread too.They're not useless. Just as one (among many) examples of their utility, they allow avoiding both the issues you've mentioned in this thread (the Changeling game and the Ravenloft game). as well as [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER]'s issue with KotB. Because they coordinate between players and GM as to what play is actually going to be about.The point of BW play is not to focus on things that the GM hopes will be interesting. It's for the GM to frame scenes that speak to the priorities that the players have established for their PCs. The game isn't confused about this - it comes out and states it in the opening pages of the rulebook.If you want to play a GM-driven game, where the GM introduces things with the hope that the players will find them interesting, and the player are expected to engage with that stuff with the thope that, down the track, it will connect to some aspiration they have for their PC, then BW is not the game for you!</blockquote>

Verification