I barely know this place

[Fuseboy]

I have a situation in Burning Ahimsa where I'm (after 23 sessions of adventuring around Lanka) finally returning home to my stomping grounds, Purdeen. What's slightly funny about this is that I'm missing tons of relevant wises it seems I ought to have - about my family, the city inhabitants and businesses, the gigantic palace where I was raised. Characters just don't have enough general points to blow them on a comprehensive set of these things. The same situation is brewing in my Beyond Grunweld game - we expect to spend most of the campaign .. well, beyond Grunweld, but if the characters ever return to it, they'll be in the slightly amusing position of knowing nearly nothing about their homeland.

Is this common? This emerges from the scarcity of skill points, which I generally feel is a good thing. Are other gaming groups more careful about making sure they spend a general point on some sort home region/culture wise?

How do you handle this? Are you more lenient with Saying Yes to wise-like intents that fall under the purview of the character's back story?

[ffilz]

I've noted that a bit, but then I get to thinking how when I first started playing Hero System with knowledge skills, we started to go crazy with them, and then they never really seemed applicable. I like how they have developed a clear use in Burning Wheel. They also give flavor in the various life paths that grant them. And spending general points to acquire a non-life path wise says something.

Much of the knowledge you would expect someone to know about the places they spent their life paths in probably should either be say yes, or Ob 1 (which shouldn't be too hard to succeed at with a beginner's luck wise roll).

Frank

[Alex_P]

Hmm... BL Wise tests. Having past familiarity with a specific thing lets you roll against the more specific Wise (for a lower Ob). Instead of City-wise Ob 6, you're rolling Purdeen-wise Ob 2. I think there's an example in AdBu.

[Rafe]

I think saying yes would be best in general situations. You can pick up a lot from just wandering through the streets of a place. If you want to create or see faction rivalries, class struggle discontent, etc., I'd go for wises.

Again, it comes back to whether there's anything meaty or at stake. If you're just looking to be filled in, roleplay out a few conversations Aditya has with some peasants/merchants. If there's anything you want to introduce or that you want to be true in the city that might be to your advantage (or that sets you or others up for Belief challenges), go with wises. Circles can be powerful here, as well.

[Odie]

How do you handle this? Are you more lenient with Saying Yes to wise-like intents that fall under the purview of the character's back story?

Actually, I am more lenient with allowing Beginner's Luck tests (often linked) for those wises. If I can think of any way to both tie the knowledge into the test and make failure interesting, even if it's a minor failure, I'll allow a requested BL -wise linked test. That way the characters can open the wises we reasonably expect them to have. It also has the nice effect of granting the players more control (or attempts to control, anyway) over background fiction related to their characters' backgrounds. And, of course, it's fun when a failure throws a twist in, and I get to tweak the fiction to suit my nefarious purposes.

(Normally I am more prone to Saying Yes to BL -wise tests for stuff that I don't see as having particularly fun or meaty failure consequences, or for stuff that seems interesting but doesn't have much real bearing on the test at hand. For what I'm talking about above, I try to look harder for ways to fit the tests in.)

-B

[Rafe]

See, I would consider that test-mongering, but coming from the GM. If the character is reasonably expected to have knowledge of a place or thing and there's nothing at stake or in conflict, that's what saying yes is for, even if you have a good consequence for failure in mind. It just seems pretty piddly to me to test for little things that any gutter sweeper could tell you just to have an excuse to open up a skill to justify any knowledge whatsoever about something.

[David Artman]

Say Yes is, of course, there for the "not a conflict" Wise stuff. No argument, there (that I see). Ditto for shifting a general Wise to a specific application, if justified.

But as someone who's not been to his home town in about 17 years, I can tell you... it ISN'T the same place, and I don't have any "Wises" other than (mostly) road layouts. I definitely have no more Circles of which to speak--my "old stomping grounds" are full of strangers, with different styles and tastes, even wholly different demographics. If I *had* to (say) find a reliable on-call cabbie or figure out where the skaters meet up these days... there's no damned way I could get a "say yes" out of it. I couldn't name a single Major Player in business or politics (and when I lived there, I routinely drank with them! My mom dated some of them...).

Sometimes you can't go home again. Even more so in a game setting where a generation is 15 years, not 25 or 30.

[Fuseboy]

Sometimes you can't go home again.

Excellent perspective, thanks.

[Odie]

See, I would consider that test-mongering, but coming from the GM. If the character is reasonably expected to have knowledge of a place or thing and there's nothing at stake or in conflict, that's what saying yes is for, even if you have a good consequence for failure in mind. It just seems pretty piddly to me to test for little things that any gutter sweeper could tell you just to have an excuse to open up a skill to justify any knowledge whatsoever about something.

Sorry, I should've been clearer. I don't ask the players to test. But my players really like using Wises to link into other tests. (Actually, they try to FoRK a lot, but they want to have their cake and eat it too - they make a -wise declaration as their justification for a FoRK, which leads to me saying "Nice try, but I'm not Saying Yes to the fact you just stated. You can do a Linked Test, though!") And a lot of the time, I say "I can see how it'd work into the test, but I don't think there's enough conflict there," because usually...there isn't.

But when we're dealing with stuff from their hometowns, stuff the characters should know (but don't have -wises for), I take a renewed interest. Suddenly instead of Saying Yes, I can greenlight the tests (that they alllllways ask for) and on a failure, I get to challenge that "should know." I can change details near and dear to the characters' pasts, twist things or introduce new complications so their "should know" becomes "didn't know." It can really throw a lot of details previously taken for granted into a new light, or reframe them altogether. So I try to give more consideration to those -wise tests, to see if there really is some way it'd work as a test. Then we both win: the player gets to open the -wise the character "should have" had based on their background, and I get to challenge assumptions about that background and about what it means for the situation we're currently in. It's more meaningful because of the close, personal ties to the characters.

Does that explain what I mean a bit better?

Edit: It basically leads, through play and through tests, to the effect David is talking about, that "you can't go home again" vibe or "wow, how things have changed" or even "...and all these years, you didn't tell me?!"

-B

[Rafe]

But as someone who's not been to his home town in about 17 years, I can tell you... it ISN'T the same place, and I don't have any "Wises" other than (mostly) road layouts. I definitely have no more Circles of which to speak--my "old stomping grounds" are full of strangers, with different styles and tastes, even wholly different demographics. If I *had* to (say) find a reliable on-call cabbie or figure out where the skaters meet up these days... there's no damned way I could get a "say yes" out of it. I couldn't name a single Major Player in business or politics (and when I lived there, I routinely drank with them! My mom dated some of them...).

Yeah, but in your examples something is at stake. You don't care who's who... unless you need to find someone (Circles). That's tested, obviously. If you needed to find out where skaters meet up these days, you could again Circle up a skater and ask, or use Streetwise to navigate the city like a local (using "unfamiliar city" perhaps as the Ob).

Those skills exist for the reasons you're talking about. What I'm saying is that if you're just looking to get general info (nothing at stake/no conflict/BITs not in play), you don't roll. It doesn't matter if it's Purdeen or a new place he's never been. It's not hard to get a feel for a city or find out what's happening, generally.

Again, your examples use BW intent/task. There are no special rules in the general case Michael's talking about. If he has a specific intent and the situation matters, the GM sets the Ob and task and off you go. If there isn't, it's say yes.

Anyway, I guess we disagree, but I find Michael's concern to be the very definition of roll the dice or say yes, with say yes trumping rolling wises since there's no "intent/task so roll the dice" issue.

[Rafe]

Just saw Brodie's message, and I think we're all agreeing here. The reason it's not coming through as concensus is because Michael hasn't given us any specifics. We're assuming various things he might want to know/people he might want to find.

So yeah... I think we're actually agreeing. We're just doing it really strangely. :)

[Fuseboy]

I didn't specify, but in my case I wanted the wises when something was at stake - we're grappling with how to overthrow the usurper of my homeland, so every tactical advantage (e.g. wises for linked tests or FoRKs) are very useful.

Anyways, thanks for the replies. I like the idea of these BL wise failures emphasizing how things have changed.

[Rafe]

I like the idea of these BL wise failures emphasizing how things have changed.

For sure, and not in your favour. :)

Looking forward to reading about more of your adventures! It's crazy to think you guys have had 23 sessions -- that's awesome!

[The_Tim]

Yeah, it largely seems at this point that the area of knowledge is really History, or rather what you would have known and had access to via -Wises has largely been wiped out in the 3 years.

I think the thing is, by not investing in the relevant -wises, you made it so there was no obligation for things to be relatively the same or for you to have a plausible means of keeping up to speed/getting back up to speed when you went back. If you had a bunch of those -wises, you'd have been pouring over every word of rumor out of Purdeen while on the road and would both know the current situation and where to look for those who survived from the previous situation.

[Nihilium]

You can get voted a trait that perhaps can get you lower Ob. in test pertaining to whatever background.

I'm also thinking this could get voted in when it's talk about going "back home".

I also agree you can't always go home, and that's a great "failiure option". I really liked the "all these years and you didn't tell me?" :P

[stormsweeper]

As the general thrust has said - Say Yes. If a test is called for, you could grant advantage to the test.

[noclue]

Not having wises doesn't mean you don't know about the subject, it means that you're not going to make much use in the fiction with the knowledge you have. So, you know the house you grew up in just fine, but do you use that knowledge to put others at a particular disadvantage?