Intent and changing one's mind

[Dwarinpt]

Like the title says: one of my players asked me if he is forced to roll if after stating his intention and, after learning what the consequence of failure is, he doesn't like what happens if he fails. I told him that "forced" is a bit strong, but yes, it was expected that he rolled. At this point, we were not talking about specific consequences that had happened or could happen. Only the hipothetical case should one not like the consequence of failure for a specific action.

Now, even if I tell him that failures should be interesting and take the story in a new direction, there's always a chance that the player refuses to roll if he does not like a particular failure. What happens then? Negotiate a new failure? Has this happened to anyone?

[Thor]

If the player wants to back out, that's OK (though jeering at them is also OK). But don't don't don't negotiate a new failure. If they're not willing to risk that consequence, they need to come up with something else to try.

[luke]

If a player is refusing to roll -- refusing to engage the system at all -- you have a problem that runs deeper than just BW.

If a player is just considering his options, that's fine. You can present a handful of options for him if you'd like: Text A, get B possible results; or Test C, and get D possible results.

But as Thor said, never negotiate!

[Dwarinpt]

So far none of the players have refused to roll, but the conversation came up out of play. My only problem is the players getting too careful in trying to use the "best" possible option for them or, in this case, the failure that is most suited to their sensibilities whatever they may be.

[Paul B]

The big dangerous slippery slope at the heart of BW is allowing players to advocate for their success outside of the mechanics. The mechanics exist to level the playing field between various competing fictions. There's a philosophical assumption that absent the mediation of rules that everyone agrees to, social skill/pressure exerted by influential players becomes the deciding factor of play.

I've identified this behavior among a couple of my super-regular players and it is VERY interesting to stop them in their tracks when they try it. Mostly these players don't even know they are leveraging their influence (or that they're even "influential"). If you ever get a player who declines to, say, engage in a DOW but continues to talk and talk even after intents are trial-ballooned? That's what's up.

Some folks think this philosophy punishes socially skilled players in an activity that is fundamentally social, and they might even be right about that. But the benefits of field-leveling are readily apparent when it gives tactically-minded players a more even footing to succeed at, well, anything. The influential players will still be influential (mostly via more "say yes" moments), so I don't feel much sadness for their reduced status. It's the Marxist in me I guess. ;-)

Probably the only "bad" part of BW's formalized procedure is that things can get kind of meta, as players poke at a situation with various tools just to see what consequences are attached to each attempt. At that point the GM needs to put his foot down at, like, maybe just two or three different approaches and then call for a roll of the dice.