Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9749656" data-attributes="member: 42582">In Burning Wheel, on a successful roll the task is successful and the intent achieved. On a failed roll, the intent is not achieved - and the GM narrates what happens, which may or may not include the task succeeding.So there are three possibilities:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Task succeeds, and intent succeeds (requires a successful roll) - the stone hits the tree and the guard is distracted; </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Task succeeds, but intent fails (GM narration of a failed roll) - the stone hits the tree but the guard ignores it (because they are strong-willed; because they don't hear it; because it disturbs a beehive and the guard doesn't want to move closer to the angry bees; etc);</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Task fails and intent fails (alternative GM narration of a failed roll) - the stone misses the tree.</li> </ul>What is not possible, in BW, is that the task fails but the intent succeeds - eg it's not possible that the stone misses the tree but strikes a gong sitting behind the tree in the backyard, and the guard goes to investigate the gong. A lot of "event-based" scenarios rely on this sort of possibility though - eg the PCs fail their attempt at interrogation, and so find a clue on the corpse instead - and one well-known set of principles for running those sorts of scenarios (the three-clue rule and node-based design) are expressly intended to produce this sort of result.Sticking to failure in intent-based resolution requires a type of discipline that is not compatible with a certain, fairly typical, sort of scenario.I think they're not just different, but actually contraries, or close to."Say 'yes' or roll the dice" - in its DitV and BW formulation (and I don't really know of any other) - means that we first work out, by reference to player intent, whether or not there is anything at stake, and then on that basis decide whether or not the dice need to be rolled, and hence whether or not there is uncertainty.Whereas the 5e-style "roll where there's uncertainty" first calls upon the GM to make a determination about the fiction (which can include having regard to secret/unrevealed backstory and setting elements), before then deciding whether or not to make a roll. Thus it is primarily the GM who gets to decide what is at stake in the situation.To build on what I said above in this post, "roll where there's uncertainty" is quite consonant with techniques like the three clue rule. Whereas "say 'yes' or roll the dice" is not, because of the way that it generates finality on a failure.</blockquote>

Verification