NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9086370" data-attributes="member: 42582">Different games have different rules and different procedures.In Burning Wheel, an action declaration consists of intent and task. If nothing that matters to the player is at stake, the GM says "yes" and the intent and task are both realised. Here's an example:The reason that nothing is at stake here is because Aramina has no Belief or other PC build element that makes opening trapdoors, exploring secret places, or Calling Iron a priority.If the GM does not say "yes", then the dice must be rolled. (This is called "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - the phrase was coined by Vincent Baker in Dogs in the Vineyard, and the Burning Wheel rulebook calls it "Vincent's Admonition".) The task and intent, taken together, establish what skill or ability will be tested. The GM is responsible for setting the difficulty, though there are a lot of example difficulties to guide this - in Burning Wheel, setting consistent obstacles over time is one important aspect of world building that the GM has to do.If the player succeeds on their test, then intent and task are both realised. If the player fails, then the GM is obliged to narrate something that negates the intent, and which may also but need not include failure at the task. Because we are only rolling if something that the player has prioritised is at stake, there is already some relationship between intent and stakes, and this will provide the cue and context for narrating a consequence. Sometimes it requires more imagination than other times. I was pretty pleased with the black arrows!I don't follow. I've just told you the rules. The black arrows are not in the rules. Gerda stealing the Elfstone is not in the rules. Gerda running through the Dreamwalker PC, apparently right through her heart, but the PC miraculously surviving and (among other things) being purged of her lust for the Elfstone is not in the rules.In the examples I've posted, you can see the moments of GM narration, because I call them out. Those are the things that the GM brings to the game.I don't know what you mean by "look up stuff". What stuff?As I've posted, it is the GM's job to make up the results of failure, and to provide the framing?I've given many, many examples. Some more, just from the actual play I've posted or linked to in this thread: a PC snags her oxygen cord on an outcrop of rock while approaching an enemy installation prior to assaulting it; Yan-C-Bin will see the PCs, but threatens to imprison the Sorcerer servant of Chan; the Djinn ask for their freedom to be secure; the evil spirit, sprung from the Dreamwalker's heart when she failed in casting a spell, carries the spellbook into the dreams of Megloss, her enemy, instead of into her own dreams; Gerda tries to kill the Dreamwalker rather than give up the Elfstone; Megloss reduces Gerda to cinders with a casting of Flames of the Shroud.What you will see is that, in all cases, these are either framing or narrations of consequences of failure.Burning Wheel doesn't really use the concept of "the adventure" in the same way that D&D does.Torchbearer can, although it doesn't need to. This is why some Torchbearer play involves me (as GM) knowing stuff that the players don't, but other Torchbearer play (such as my last session) does not.The OP of <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/torchbearer-2e-actual-play-of-this-awesome-system.691233/" target="_blank">this thread</a> explains how I wrote and played my first Torchbearer adventure, which was my third session (the first used an adventure that shipped with my rulebooks, and the second features a bit of that adventure followed by the PCs' travel to and time spent in town). You'll see that the "hook" into the adventure was an encounter with the horse of the Dreamwalker's friend, whom the PCs were on their way to try and rescue (following a failed Circles check in the previous session: the Dreamwalker had seen in a dream that her friend had been captured by Megloss).The key elements of the adventure - the abandoned hold of the dead Petty-Dwarf; the Elfstone; the explosives; the inscriptions - were all designed to speak to various elements of theses particular PCs.  The next dungeon was several sessions later - <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/torchbearer-2e-actual-play-of-this-awesome-system.691233/post-8833084" target="_blank">this post</a>, and some following, describe the action. It was not quite as "tailored" to the PCs, but was built around ideas that had been suggested to me by play, as well as some ideas I took from <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/revisiting-old-modules.691743/page-2#post-8789098" target="_blank">some old modules</a>.In Burning Wheel, I just start with a situation. (<a href="https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/burning-wheel-first-burning-wheel-session.736425/" target="_blank">Here's an example</a>: I post as thurgon on rpg.net.)You will see some varieties of response just above. If players in Burning Wheel wanted to play dragon hunters, we would probably start at 6 or even 7 Lifepaths, to get relatively meaty characters.You will see some responses to these questions above, in my discussion of Torchbearer dungeon building.In both Burning Wheel and Torchbearer, being ambushed by goblins would be the result of a failed check. Being attacked by goblins could be the result of a failed check, or could be a situation that is framed by the GM. In my last Torchbearer session, when the PCs opened the door to Gerda's apartment I declared that they had triggered a deadfall of rocks set up by her - this is analogous to an attack by goblins, in that case requiring a Health test to try and dodge. I would regard that as at the harder end of reasonable GMing, but not outrageous.In Burning Wheel, an ambush is harder than that as it triggers a Steel test, and hence the risk of hesitation and hence being unable to defend against attacks; while in Torchbearer it permits the GM to determine whether the conflict is Capture, Kill or Drive Off which in turn frames the possible stakes of losing.Here's an example from the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner (p 232):a group . . . needed to sneak into a well-guarded citadel tower. One player chimed in, "I have Architecture. I want to use my knowledge to find us a secret entrance."There's intent and task - if it succeeds, the PC finds the secret entrance they are looking for; if it fails, the the GM establishes a consequence.I gave an example of a trap as framing, just upthread. A different example would be where a trap or something similar is a consequence: for instance, when Thurgon was doing something-or-other in a ruined tower, and a stone fell on him and injured his shoulder (mechanically, I failed a test - I think Power, to try and open a sealed trapdoor or similar - and the consequence was a Midi injury and the door remained shut).Or the GM based on the cues provided by the players. I've posted various examples that illustrate different possibilities - Gerda attacked a PC; a PC attacked Megloss; the players decided that their PCs would try and Abjure one spirit, and Bind another.Random encounters aren't a thing in Burning Wheel. Torchbearer uses Camp and Town Event tables, which can on occasion trigger encounters. The rules direct the GM to embellish these as fits the situation in their game - so, for instance, when I rolled a funeral as the Town Event when the PCs returned to the Wizard's Tower, I decided that the dead personage was the alchemist to whom they had sold some stirges; when I rolled a fire at the Hedge Wizard's, of course it was caused by the Cinder Imp the PCs had driven out of Megloss's house; etc.There are multiple ways to resolve combat in Burning Wheel, and in Torchbearer. The GM rolls dice for NPCs/creatures, and if extended conflict resolution is being used scripts for the NPCs/creatures.Burning Wheel does not use random treasure. Torchbearer does.The canonical way of resolving an argument in Burning Wheel is via Duel of Wits, a type of extended conflict resolution; in Torchbearer there is a more generic conflict resolution framework that uses different skills depending on the nature of the conflict, although versus tests are also used for lower stakes things.The GM establishes what NPCs/creatures want from the PCs; if the players lose they are bound by the terms of the conflict. This is one reason the PCs in my Torchbearer game kept finding themselves having to do odd jobs for Megloss. The GM, in making decisions about what NPCs/creatures want, has regard to the same general considerations that govern framing in other contexts.</blockquote>

Verification