Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9226989" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't understand this post.For instance, what do you mean by &quot;game state&quot;? What do you mean by an intention being &quot;legitimated&quot; by the game state?Here's an example from BW Gold (pp 30-31):Pete announces,“I want to poison the wizard.” The GM arches his eyebrow, “How so?” Pete’s got a plan: “I’ll sneak into the kitchen disguised as a Hound Sergeant, then I’ ll Intimidate one of his slaves to take him poisoned tea in the guise of herbal medicine.” The GM considers for a moment, “That’s pretty good. You’ ll need to make a linked test with: Disguise, Inconspicuous and Intimidation, plus Hound-wise, I think.” Pete nods and gets ready to burn some artha. If his rolls are successful, the wizard will be poisoned even though he didn’t drop the poison directly in his mouth. Why? Because Pete stated his intent, described his task and the dice came up in his favor.That would be an outrageous action declaration in most approaches to D&amp;D. But is &quot;legitimate&quot; in Burning Wheel.If the game &quot;legitimate&quot; I want to look in the safe to see what's there, then at least at that moment of play we are looking at task resolution, serving the purpose of revealing more of the GM's (hitherto) hidden fiction to the players.Notice how DitV expressly rules this out, via Drive play towards conflict (which includes &quot;Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes&quot;) and its concomitant, Actively reveal the town in play. Whereas an approach in which the GM does not just &quot;say 'yes'&quot; to revealing the contents of the safe, but makes the players roll, is neither driving towards conflict nor actively revealing the context and possible stakes for conflict. This is classic task resolution.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9226989, member: 42582"] I don't understand this post. For instance, what do you mean by "game state"? What do you mean by an intention being "legitimated" by the game state? Here's an example from BW Gold (pp 30-31): [indent]Pete announces,“I want to poison the wizard.” The GM arches his eyebrow, “How so?” Pete’s got a plan: “I’ll sneak into the kitchen disguised as a Hound Sergeant, then I’ ll Intimidate one of his slaves to take him poisoned tea in the guise of herbal medicine.” The GM considers for a moment, “That’s pretty good. You’ ll need to make a linked test with: Disguise, Inconspicuous and Intimidation, plus Hound-wise, I think.” Pete nods and gets ready to burn some artha. If his rolls are successful, the wizard will be poisoned even though he didn’t drop the poison directly in his mouth. Why? Because Pete stated his intent, described his task and the dice came up in his favor.[/indent] That would be an outrageous action declaration in most approaches to D&D. But is "legitimate" in Burning Wheel. If the game "legitimate" [I]I want to look in the safe to see what's there[/I], then at least at that moment of play we are looking at task resolution, serving the purpose of revealing more of the GM's (hitherto) hidden fiction to the players. Notice how DitV expressly rules this out, via [I]Drive play towards conflict[/I] (which includes "Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes") and its concomitant, [I]Actively reveal the town in play[/I]. Whereas an approach in which the GM does not just "say 'yes'" to revealing the contents of the safe, but makes the players roll, is neither driving towards conflict nor actively revealing the context and possible stakes for conflict. This is classic task resolution. [/QUOTE]

Verification