Versus test Obstacles

[Angaros]

This might seem like a stupid question but I had to ask: is the advancement level from versus tests determined by the opponent's number of successes or do you base it on some sort of base Ob? I'm mostly thinking about combat, where the base Ob to hit someone is 1. The defender's successes are described as "knocking off" successes from the attacker's roll. I've used the foe's # of successes as Ob for the players so far (for the purpose of determining what kind of advancement tests they qualify for) but suddenly became unsure about how to handle it.

Btw, are tests where the stats or skills of two characters compete always considered versus tests? There are both in the rules and I'm not always confident which of them are considered versus tests. I'm thinking of Disarm and Persuade as examples. Disarm is described as having an exponent as Obstacle, but for Persuade (and other tests described) it isn't clear, but I get the impression Persuade is a versus test.

[luke]

In general:
•If the GM or another player sets the obstacle verbally, it's a standard test.
•If the GM or another player rolls dice to thwart your action, their successes set your obstacle. Thus their successes count as the obstacle for advancement vs the number of dice you rolled.

does that help?
-L

[Angaros]

In general:
•If the GM or another player sets the obstacle verbally, it's a standard test.
•If the GM or another player rolls dice to thwart your action, their successes set your obstacle. Thus their successes count as the obstacle for advancement vs the number of dice you rolled.

does that help?
In a way, but I was also looking for advice (as a GM) on when to roll the dice to thwart the players' actions and when to use the listed stat/skill/attribute exponent as an obstacle. I'm not confident I've assessed advancement test ob:s correctly at least.

[luke]

Oh my. You're going to love the Revision. I talk about this at length.

The short of it: If you have two characters actively acting against one and other, make a Versus test. If you have one character acting against another passive character object/make a standard test against a fixed obstacle.

Also, if you have an instance where one character is acting against another, and you, the GM, feel it's a very difficult task, set the obstacle equal to a stat or skill.

does that help?
-Luke

[Kublai]

Is the advancement level from versus tests determined by the opponent's number of successes or do you base it on some sort of base Ob?

The Obstacle for the versus test would be equal to the opponent's successes. For instance, if I block with 3 successes then your Obstacle to hit me is 4 when determining advancement tests. If I am haggling with a merchant and he gets 3 successes, then my Obstacle is 3.


Disarm is described as having an exponent as Obstacle, but for Persuade (and other tests described) it isn't clear, but I get the impression Persuade is a versus test.

Disarm and Persuade are two examples of the same idea. Both are fixed Obstacles. Disarm is a fixed obstacle based on your opponent's skill exponent. Persuade is a fixed obstacle based on your opponent's Will exponent. If you get meet your obstacle, there is nothing your opponent can do to stop you. So to this effect, such skills are not versus tests as the opponent doesn't roll any dice against you.

[Angaros]

Luke: that makes sense. I would interpret Persuasion as a test vs. active resistance and make it a versus test. Hand out extra dice for strong cases or "fortified" positions. Unless the situation is serious enough to warrant a Duel of Wits of course. :) Making a persuasion test verus the Will exponent of the target seems like making it unnecessarily difficult for the player.

[luke]

Luke: that makes sense. I would interpret Persuasion as a test vs. active resistance and make it a versus test. Hand out extra dice for strong cases or "fortified" positions. Unless the situation is serious enough to warrant a Duel of Wits of course. :) Making a persuasion test verus the Will exponent of the target seems like making it unnecessarily difficult for the player.

Must be very easy to convince people in Norrkoping. I've always found that motivating people was pretty tough. Hence the fixed obstacle.

-L

[Angaros]

I think our scales have different origins. Do you really have to be a skilled (professionally so) salesman to convince someone to buy a product? It seems the rules assume the target is hostile and diametrically opposed to the character's plans. No neutral ground avaliable. With B4 you only make your case in 6.4% of all attempts vs. your average target (B4 Will). That seems harsh. And with a B4, you won't ever persuade someone with a B5 Will unless you get him drunk or gain bonus dice some other way.

[luke]

I think our scales have different origins. Do you really have to be a skilled (professionally so) salesman to convince someone to buy a product? It seems the rules assume the target is hostile and diametrically opposed to the character's plans. No neutral ground avaliable. With B4 you only make your case in 6.4% of all attempts vs. your average target (B4 Will). That seems harsh. And with a B4, you won't ever persuade someone with a B5 Will unless you get him drunk or gain bonus dice some other way.

Seems to match my sales figures. :shock:

An provides an insight into how personal experience colors game design.

However, another thing to consider is that "mechanically" convincing a character of something in an RPG is a very significant act. Second only to killing or removing the character from play.

-L

[Michael S. Miller]

However, another thing to consider is that "mechanically" convincing a character of something in an RPG is a very significant act. Second only to killing or removing the character from play.

Successful social interaction roles allow you to essentially "take over" the target's actions? Very nice.

I assume this is made explicit in the revision? It's a relatively recent thing in game design to give such firm power to a "soft" skill like persuasion--I couldn't find any precedent when working up FVLMINATA's social interaction rules in 2000.

Yet another selling point of BW

[Thor]

I assume this is made explicit in the revision? It's a relatively recent thing in game design to give such firm power to a "soft" skill like persuasion--I couldn't find any precedent when working up FVLMINATA's social interaction rules in 2000.


Hi Michael! Whenver you undertake something in Burning Wheel now, you have to state your Intent and the Task you are undertaking to fulfill that Intent. If the Persuasion scene is not very important, you state your Intent and your Task (how you're using your Persuasion skill to fulfill your Intent), and then roll. If you win, you get what you want.

However, if it's an important scene, either side can call for the Duel of Wits. Once both sides have agreed to resolve using the Duel of Wits, each of you state your goal. Results can range from a full on win or loss, to a compromise, which is by far the most common result.

Check out the mechanics with this download (http://www.burningwheel.org/pdf/dow_95_108.pdf).