Let It Ride: A Question and a Concern

[Zelbinian]

For ease of discussion, let me present a scenario that illustrates both my question and my concern.

A player needs to sneak past a guard to get to a room. He tests Stealthy (plus FoRKs, etc.). The guard rolls his applicable stat/skill, and something happens. Later - much later - the player is sneaking past a different guard to get to a different room. The player does not re-roll, as LiR is in effect, but the new guard does - he gets more successes on his roll than the old guard did, thus raising the difficulty of the test.

I'm pretty sure that, as far as Advancement is concerned, this would work like Fight! and at the end of the session you'd log one test for every situation that LiR applied to and it would be the most difficult one, without exception. Is this correct?

Let's say that, in the situation above, the first guard fails against the player, but the second guard succeeds. Because LiR is in effect (and because the dice from the original roll have long since been swept away), the player has no opportunity to pump hard-earned Artha into the roll to succeed against the second guard. This can potentially force a player to be stuck with a consequence s/he really doesn't want, or gamble and spend Artha on tests just in case a similar situation comes along that just happens to be harder than the one being rolled for now. Granted failing is actually really fun in BW, but that still strikes me as a little unfair and therefore may give good cause for being somewhat lenient in enforcing Let it Ride. Discuss.

[Paul B]

LiR is really intended to frame up a fictional situation into a simpler, big-picture challenge. If the challenge is "getting past the guards," then it's "the guards" who are rolling -- not one guard then another then another. The player's intent was to get past all of them. Making him take multiple tests undercuts his intent.

This is why you can only test something again if the situation significantly changes. Running into another guard? That's still "the guards." Having an alarm go up and suddenly the castle is flooded with guards who have been ordered to seek you out? New situation, new test.

This is a pretty discretionary bit of authority for the GM, who is expected to use it in good faith. What I'm saying is that it's on the GM to really understand what the player's intent is, and how it fits into the big picture of what's going on.

[Etsu Riot]

You can apply Let It Ride to the guards too.

[Zelbinian]

Forgive me, Paul, your commentary rocks (as usual) but... I'm not sure how it applies to what I was saying. :|

I mean, I feel I understand Let It Ride pretty well. As soon as I saw it stated on these forums as "same task, same intent, same test" I got it instantly, and duration of the LiR is at a GM's discretion. (When I become a n00b GM in a few days, I'm gonna rule that it lasts until the session ends or until we're all skipping over some lag time.)

That said, the things I talked about above aren't addressed in either the BWR nor the AdBu (that I've noticed) and I was seeking clarification. I suppose one *could* say that enough time had passed for LiR to dissolve in the 2nd scene, and that's fine, but I take some issue with your "getting passed all the guards" explanation. For one thing, though they are often disparaged, the examples in the text of the BWR on pages 35-36 don't really support that statement. The character sneaking into the castle isn't guaranteed to succeed or fail the entire exercise at the time Stealthy is rolled - rather it sets a firm obstacle for the GM for every NPC/situation the PC happens to come across. This firmly suggests that NPC's are allowed to roll separately against a PC in a LiR situation.

For another thing, it's clearly a different NPC and, as BW exists in a living, breathing world, it only makes sense that he get a chance to defeat the player and not be railroaded by a roll long since passed. To illustrate further, what if this were an adversarial campaign and you replace the two NPC's with PC's - we wouldn't shackle the 2nd PC that way.

The Artha thing I bring up... I guess that's simply a trade-off. I'd view it as an acceptable one. But how does LiR work with testing for advancement? I'm honestly confused about that.

[Paul B]

My understanding of the "take only the best in a series of tests for advancement" rule is that that only applies when you're locked into a scripting thing: DOW, Fight, R&C. I've never thought about hitching it to LiR, but it wouldn't be the first time I screwed something up!

[Zelbinian]

My understanding of the "take only the best in a series of tests for advancement" rule is that that only applies when you're locked into a scripting thing: DOW, Fight, R&C. I've never thought about hitching it to LiR, but it wouldn't be the first time I screwed something up!

Heh, and now you see why I'm asking! It seems to make sense to do it that way, but I honestly don't know how BWHQ intends for that to work. Seems like when the tracker hits the cobblestones and loses his quarry due to the Ob jumping up, he should at least get to upgrade the test. Then again, that's a lot of bookkeeping.

[Paul B]

No, see, what I'm saying in my first post is that LiR is, by definition, not a "series of tests." It is precisely the opposite of a series. It's anti-series sauce.

I feel like you're viewing the procedure through the wrong lenses. Running into a "better" guard is not a change in situation -- the original roll assumes that you're testing against the toughest possible Ob you're going to run into in the course of the situation.

[Paul B]

Okay, I've reread your OP and I see the error: the "different guard in a different room" thing is a red herring. There's really no way to know without context whether that is or is not a "significantly changed situation."

BW Intent + Task is an almost-infinitely scalable concept. Your intent can be to pick a single lock or win an entire battle. When you "get a job," your Intent carries through an entire lifestyle cycle! So in your example, who knows if different guard/different room fits into the original intent? Could be! It depends.

Does that make sense?

[Zelbinian]

LiR is, by definition, not a "series of tests." It is precisely the opposite of a series. It's anti-series sauce.

No, no, I understand that. This is all I'm saying: Character's got Exp 3 Tracking. Tracking through snow is Ob 1 and Routine. His quest leads him to the city streets on a dark, rainy night. Now the Ob jumps to 4. This is a Challenging test. Which one do I tell the player to log for advancement?


the original roll assumes that you're testing against the toughest possible Ob you're going to run into in the course of the situation.

How do you predict that in advance in an organic storytelling game like BW? And then how do you predict the difficulty of the test to be logged?

(I know I keep playing devil's advocate against you. I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm just legitimately confused and trying to understand this.)

[Tilde_See]

Well, I have to add that BWHQ admitted in the AdBu that they used crummy examples in the initial description of how LiR works, and I think it came from earlier ideas on what LiR was. AdBu tells us that "The success or failure rides until the situation significantly changes," and if things significantly change, there is a new roll. If a new guard is rolling, there is a new PC roll. Whether you consider that a series of tests in the end is up to you. I would. The waters get kind of muddy when LiR and Series Tests are involved with each other.

It may be a different NPC, or PC for that matter, but if it's not a different Situation (capital letter and all), they are still saddled with the same Intent riding over them. No, it's not fair, but I think that's the point. But then, I disagree that BW takes place in a living breathing world. In, say, "Apocalypse World," it is part of the agenda to make the world seem real, actively. In BW, the agenda is to present interesting situations that challenge the players and their characters. Now, if providing a living, breathing world helps you do that, cool. When it doesn't, i.e. when it dicks with Let it Ride, then I'd say screw the living breathing world and let the intent carry. The PC earned it; let them keep it.

And always remember: it is well known in these parts that the examples kinda suck. No offence to the folk who wrote 'em.

[Thor]

Paul is correct.

In addition, it's only a series test if you are rolling dice for the same thing multiple times in a series. So using Sword in a Fight! is a Series Test. Using Persuasion in a Duel of Wits is a Series Test. Passing helping dice to each of your friends individually during Lifestyle Maintenance is a Series Test. These all involve multiple rolls of the same ability for the same overall purpose. In these instances, you take the highest level test on offer, unless the lower one you receive during the series is the one you need to advance.

If it's not a Series Test, you should record the test when the dice are rolled. So take the example from page 35 of the Burning Wheel. My character is tracking a vampyr across snowy ground. I rolled four dice and the Obstacle was 1 (following fresh tracks on soft earth). I got two successes. Obstacle 1 with 4 dice is a Routine test, so I recorded a Routine. As I followed its trail, it entered a nearby village and began stalking its cobbled streets. Tracking fresh tracks on hard earth is Ob 3, so I lost the trail. I did not upgrade the test at that point, even though Ob 3 on 4 dice is Difficult. The test was already recorded and riding. Since I couldn't follow the vampyr in town, I went back to where I lost the tracks and followed them back to their origin, where I attempted to lay an ambush for the fiend...

[Tilde_See]

No, no, I understand that. This is all I'm saying: Character's got Exp 3 Tracking. Tracking through snow is Ob 1 and Routine. His quest leads him to the city streets on a dark, rainy night. Now the Ob jumps to 4. This is a Challenging test. Which one do I tell the player to log for advancement?)

You log the originally rolled Obstacle. The city streets is what he got for the success. Now he needs something other than his tracking ability.

I can already see this is kinda like the Positioning thread in tone. I think the solution is similar. Things just need to be parsed less finely.

[Paul B]

First off, 100% cool that you're playing Devil's Advocate with me. Dig back deep enough into my own posting history and you'll see some um...comparable approaches. :-)


No, no, I understand that. This is all I'm saying: Character's got Exp 3 Tracking. Tracking through snow is Ob 1 and Routine. His quest leads him to the city streets on a dark, rainy night. Now the Ob jumps to 4. This is a Challenging test. Which one do I tell the player to log for advancement?

What caused the Ob to jump? Obs don't just "jump" in this game. The ob is set when the Intent + Task is resolved.


How do you predict that in advance in an organic storytelling game like BW? And then how do you predict the difficulty of the test to be logged?

This is the wrong lens to view the situation through. It's on the GM to arbitrate in advance what the hardest Ob will be -- that's because it's his job to frame up the whole "situation."

I think what might help is talking a bit about what goes into a "situation." It's an incredibly interesting topic to work through because I think every experienced BW GM will give a (slightly) different answer. There's really no definitive answer.

For me, at least, a "situation" is a big(gish) picture thing, and it's also a fictional construct. It's, hopefully, a challenge to one or more Beliefs at the table. It is maybe a single-hardest-challenge decision -- example, you want to sneak into the evil Duke's room and slit his throat. How important is this? Sorta kinda? Is it a step toward fulfilling a larger Belief? You might break the whole thing down to "sneaking past the guards."

Or it might be several things to deal with, at which point you have a Linked test sequence: sneak past the guards, pick the lock, defeat the Duke's magical protections, slit his throat. That's four rolls, and the Ob ain't gonna change once the Intent + Task is established and each roll is done. Of course, a fuckup in the course of dealing with any given test might result in consequences that invalidate the rest of the test...

[Zelbinian]

I have to add that BWHQ admitted in the AdBu that they used crummy examples in the initial description of how LiR works

Yeah, I've read all there is to read about LiR in both the BWR and the AdBu, and I've read most of the forum posts about it, but I still don't know how it's meant to work with Advancement. The Ob may increase or decrease, but as long as your intent and task are the same (I'm sneaking by a guard to get into a room), the player does not re-roll. IIRC, both the AdBu and the BWR say that LiR is designed to hold for all similar situations in the scene or session. It is known that the Ob will vary across the session... but I ought not re-roll for the second guard - even if the guard is in a different building! - for a chance to change up the Ob on the player? That seems a bit contradictory. Is it that it's bad form to change the Ob with a die roll? Is that the gist of it? Like, the only reason guard 2 would have a better chance of seeing the player than guard 1 is that, say, he wasn't wearing a helmet and thus doesn't have the armor hindrance penalty to Perception or that the light in the room is brighter?


What caused the Ob to jump? Obs don't just "jump" in this game. The ob is set when the Intent + Task is resolved.

What? But Thor just said:


My character is tracking a vampyr across snowy ground. I rolled four dice and the Obstacle was 1 (following fresh tracks on soft earth). I got two successes. Obstacle 1 with 4 dice is a Routine test, so I recorded a Routine. As I followed its trail, it entered a nearby village and began stalking its cobbled streets. Tracking fresh tracks on hard earth is Ob 3, so I lost the trail.

Despite all the philosophical debate, Thor's answer resolves the issue in my mind. Don't know why his rephrasing of the book suddenly made it "pop" just not, but it did. If the player bitches about not being able to log a more difficult test or not being able to load up the new situation with Artha, then it's up to the player to find another way around. Definitely BW philosophy through-and-through.

[Paul B]

IIRC, both the AdBu and the BWR say that LiR is designed to hold for all similar situations in the scene or session.

Oh. No, that's not how LiR works. You let a result ride until the situation significantly changes. Which is why you need to define what "the situation" is.

Thor's thing is interesting, but maybe we're talking about different things. I want to wait and hear his clarification.

[Zelbinian]

My thinking is directly influence from Thor's past posts. Here's a LiR discussion from 2006 (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?2832-Let-it-Ride) wherein Thor states:


In Burning Empires, we have clarified and simplified Let It Ride. In BE, Let It Ride is in effect for one Maneuver, which is to say either 1/2 a session if you're playing a 2 maneuver per session game, or 1 session if you're playing a 1 maneuver per session game.

So if you want a hard and fast rule, Let It Ride stays in effect for a full session.


You let a result ride until the situation significantly changes.

My understanding is that a change in Ob is not grounds for a significant change. Pretty much every example provided in canon both in the books and on this forum seem to support this interpretation. "Same task, same intent, same roll." That's it. Is your understanding different? Why, or why not? And please cite the things that have influenced your interpretation, Paul, it'll help me understand your thinking significantly.

[Paul B]

Deconstruct my arrival at my understanding of a BW thing based on five years of discussion and literally thousands of posts? Uh...that's a lot of homework.

Like I said, I'm holding off 'til I hear Thor's take.

[luke]

You do not roll the dice for tests that are "waived" by Let It Ride. Therefore, you do not log advancement tests for those instances.

One of Let It Ride's stealth properties is that it acts as a pressure valve on advancement. Dice are rolled once. You get to be awesome for the rest of the situation and not roll again. You log the test that you actually rolled for, not for a theoretical subsequent test.

[Thor]

hor's thing is interesting, but maybe we're talking about different things. I want to wait and hear his clarification.

I think Zelbinian is most of the way there. Tests must be distilled down to as few rolls as possible that ride for an entire situation, scene or session until the situation legitimately and drastically changes.

So let's talk about why you wouldn't test for another guard in another building: It's because it is essentially the same as having the character test his Stealthy every few feet as he passes another guard. It's just you rolling instead of the player. It's no different than having them roll until they fail.

In Mouse Guard, we boiled this down to its essence: Fun Once, Let's Not Do It Again. In other words, you've challenged them with this obstacle. Now it's time to find something new and interesting to challenge them with.

Once they've passed that Stealthy test, it's no longer very interesting to keep hammering on that area. Instead, start focusing on other areas that can generate interest. Perhaps a Perception test or run straight into a guard patrol, servant or some lover on an assignation. Let discovery by the guards become a consequence of failure for some other test. There are lots of other potentially interesting obstacles to challenge them with: Architecture or Castle-wise to find their way around, Disguise, Inconspicuous and Acting to get through crowded halls and functions, Lockpick or Climbing to enter off-limits areas, Falsehood to bluff through a situation, etc.

[Zelbinian]

One of Let It Ride's stealth properties is that it acts as a pressure valve on advancement.

That also makes a lot of sense, Luke. I actually quite like that.

Could you comment on a few of the other contentious examples presented? Does the 2nd guard roll? Does the change in Ob mean the situation has changed? Inquiring minds must know!

[luke]

No, the second guard doesn't roll. Paul and Thor are 100% right that the Stealthy check rides and you don't make any more Stealthy vs Observation checks in this situation.

Obstacle numbers do not equal situation!

-L

[Paul B]

You know, honestly I've never applied LiR across a whole "scene or session". It's "situation" every time, all the time, for me. I think that's because I've already got a built-in GMing aversion to hammering at the same skill checks over and over, and tend to frame up situations so that they're not "about" the same tests. So I arrived at the same conclusion but via technique, not formalized procedure.

Re. the MG reference: This aspect of LiR (scene or session) almost sounds like "you can't repeat a challenge type back-to-back" as well.

[Thor]

You know, honestly I've never applied LiR across a whole "scene or session". It's "situation" every time, all the time, for me. I think that's because I've already got a built-in GMing aversion to hammering at the same skill checks over and over, and tend to frame up situations so that they're not "about" the same tests. So I arrived at the same conclusion but via technique, not formalized procedure.

Just as an example: During our Tales of Ya-Gahn game, we would quite frequently sail from one island in the archipelago to another. At the beginning of a session, we might set sail and make (or more likely fail) our Navigation and Pilot tests. We might spend the rest of the session at sea facing all sorts of situations and adventures, but that test would ride until we reached our intended destination or made landfall in some strange and unexpected place.

[Paul B]

Just as an example: During our Tales of Ya-Gahn game, we would quite frequently sail from one island in the archipelago to another. At the beginning of a session, we might set sail and make (or more likely fail) our Navigation and Pilot tests. We might spend the rest of the session at sea facing all sorts of situations and adventures, but that test would ride until we reached our intended destination or made landfall in some strange and unexpected place.

Yeah, sure, this is totally my understanding as well. Situations can overlap and can take up an entire session, at least in my head. I think we're on the same page! :-)

[Zelbinian]

All of you have been very patient with me, and I appreciate it. I've never run a game before, so I don't have a lot of experience with adjudicating rules for *any* system.

Every time I think I get it... something someone else says throws me off again. I seem to have failed my Burning Wheel-wise roll this morning and it's been riding through three pages of twisting commentary. ;) Let me try to identify what's confusing me as best I can.

Ok, Thor, you state:


Just as an example: During our Tales of Ya-Gahn game, we would quite frequently sail from one island in the archipelago to another. At the beginning of a session, we might set sail and make (or more likely fail) our Navigation and Pilot tests. We might spend the rest of the session at sea facing all sorts of situations and adventures, but that test would ride until we reached our intended destination or made landfall in some strange and unexpected place.

LiR applies for everything happening between island one and island two, but it dissolves when travelling from island two to island three. Why? The intent/task seem to be identical to me. Is it because sufficient time is passed? In the parlance of BE, a "Maneuver" is over?


No, the second guard doesn't roll. Paul and Thor are 100% right that the Stealthy check rides and you don't make any more Stealthy vs Observation checks in this situation.

I guess I keep trying to square this with the (notorious) example from page 35-36 of BWR. Using said example as a model, if I understand what everyone is saying correctly, the player tests Stealthy once and then the GM tests perception/Observation ONCE for the entire 2 day stint of sneaking into the castle. If the GM has an idea that there are different groups of enemies that would be more difficult to sneak past than others - maybe there's a Big Bad in there - you roll all opposing things at once, right off the bat, give the player the opportunity to spend Artha to improve his odds, dole out the advancement marker, and then narrate the results. If there are to be further complications inside the castle, you have to hit the player with something else, because LiR holds true for the GM as well. Do I finally have it?

[Thor]

Ok, Thor, you state:

LiR applies for everything happening between island one and island two, but it dissolves when travelling from island two to island three. Why? The intent/task seem to be identical to me. Is it because sufficient time is passed? In the parlance of BE, a "Maneuver" is over?

I think the clearest way to say it is that the Intent of the test, to sail from island one to island two, has been resolved. Once the intent is resolved, we're talking about a new situation. Sailing from island two to island three is a new and different intent.

[luke]

No, you're making this way harder on yourself than it actually is.

Let's go back to one.
Fill in the blanks:
The player states his intent.
__________

The GM asks how he's accomplishing that.

The player states his task.
_____________

The GM sets the obstacle.
The result stands for the duration of the situation -- situation being (character+intent+problem).

Hope that helps!
-L

[Wayfarer]

(Scooped by Luke, who also has brevity on his side, but maybe this is all worth saying.)

The problem we're hitting is probably "I want to sneak past the guard at the gate using Stealthy" versus "I want to sneak past the castle guards using Stealthy." With the latter, the intent obviously covers LiR: the Ob is the detection abilities of the guards in the castle, or everyone in the castle, and if you make your Ob, you succeed. If you fail your Ob, I'd be very tempted to make the consequence sneaking through the gate and getting caught by the elite guard somewhere very suspicious. The former intent doesn't cover anything but the gate, but the intention behind the intent probably does. You're sneaking past guards; Let it Ride. If there are elite guards further in, well, you're sneaking past them too. And they don't all get separate rolls, because that's a violation of LiR for the guards. Generally, players get one roll to do what they're trying to do, and the opposition also gets one roll. Make it for the most trying part of the obstacle.

You can say the circumstances have changed when there's a single doorway with animated but immobile guardian statues flanking it. If there's no way around and no conceivable way to get through short of invisibility, you'll need another test. But that's an iffy case; if the intent is to sneak into someone's chambers, or the treasure vault, or whatever, and they make the Ob you set, you've allowed them to get what they intended. If they've said they're sneaking past a single guard and don't know what they're looking for, maybe then you can require something after the Stealthy to get to their goal. If there's something in between the task and the intent, either take it out so they can get their intent or hammer out what they'll actually get: into the castle, past the guards, and to the point where Stealthy is no longer what will get them through.

Good tasks and intents are key, and some of that means figuring out what the players are really after and what makes the story cool. Rolling Stealthy against increasingly difficult odds until you fail is the opposite of Letting it Ride. Even two rolls is a violation. If it's a Versus test, it's one roll of the dice for each side.

If your thief manages to use Stealthy to get to the vault and loots the solid gold Chains of Cacophonous Clanking, which sets off magical alarms, it might be time for a different Stealthy check. Things have changed; now he's not just sneaking, he's sneaking with horrendous clanking while all the guards are on high alert and the bloodhellhounds are sniffing out his trail. Still, it's a good rule of thumb to put something else in between so you're sure you're not just retesting.

It's also worth noting that the needs of the story determine the tests. If the story is about binding the Great Silent Beast and the Chains of Cacophonous Clanking are a minor thing picked up on the way, maybe a single Stealthy roll is all you need. The castle is ruled by an inconsequential person, getting the things is necessary but not really interesting and important, and no beliefs are really on the line. Fine, roll. In this case, even though the Chains are harder to sneak out with, use that first roll. It's fine, and getting the Chains is more interesting than holding up the story with more test. Maybe make some linked test, but don't draw it out when nobody really cares. If the campaign is about thieves trying to make their big score and the CoCC are what will finally make them rich, call for lots of tests. Stealthy to get past the guards, Persuasion to borrow laundry from the maid, Disguise (with an advantage die) to use the laundry to look like more servants, Etiquette to fit in while pretending to serve at the banquet so you can get close enough to the Lord Treasurer to nab his keys, and so on and so forth. It's zoomed in, and at that zoom level there might be another Stealthy test later when the guards are alert, the Chains are clanking, and the banquet hall is on fire.

If your thieves succeed at sneaking in, find out that the princess is in another castle, sneak back out, and sneak into the Mountain Fastness of Brooding Alertness, there might be another Stealthy test. It's a totally different thing they're doing, with a new intent and everything! There's also something wrong if nothing of important happens in the middle, though, because then that first test had nothing to do with your story and you might as well Say Yes and let them know that there was no point in going into the first castle. Or just nod and make that castle important to the story since they decided they wanted to poke around in it.

[Zelbinian]

Y'know, I can understand the intricacies of the Fight! rules more-or-less no problem, but LiR frells with my head something fierce.

BUT. But. I think you guys have finally righted my ship. If I'm correct, what Luke, Wayfarer, Paul, et. al. have been saying is this: Dude has to sneak into a castle and you want to emphasize how hard it is to sneak past a whole castle full of guards? Make the initial test harder, idiot.

And if I get what Thor and Paul are saying correctly, distiled down into some simple axioms it'd go something like this:


Same test, same intent? Let it ride.
Different test, same intent? Let 'em roll.
Same test, different intent (even if identical or similar to a previous intent)? Let 'em roll.


*whew* Am I ready to GM yet? lol

[Paul B]

You had me at "frell". :-)

Sounds like you're ready to rock.

[Wayfarer]

Different test, same intent? Something funny happened. If they pass the test, they get the intent. There shouldn't be any more testing.

Same test, different intent? It's possible, but it should very, very rarely happen back to back. An exception is test, lots of roleplaying minus dice, some in-game time passes, another test. Still, be careful about rolling the same things. If nothing else, people want to test other skills.

[zabieru]

Different test, same intent? Something funny happened. If they pass the test, they get the intent. There shouldn't be any more testing.

Same test, different intent? It's possible, but it should very, very rarely happen back to back. An exception is test, lots of roleplaying minus dice, some in-game time passes, another test. Still, be careful about rolling the same things. If nothing else, people want to test other skills.

No, both of those are totally possible. Swimming over the river to steal a boat, then bringing the boat back, for instance: the intent both times is "get to the other side" but one time it's Speed, the other time it's Piloting or something. Or Persuasion to talk your way into the city, then Persuasion to convince your uncle to give you a job.

[Odie]

Y'know, I can understand the intricacies of the Fight! rules more-or-less no problem, but LiR frells with my head something fierce.

BUT. But. I think you guys have finally righted my ship. If I'm correct, what Luke, Wayfarer, Paul, et. al. have been saying is this: Dude has to sneak into a castle and you want to emphasize how hard it is to sneak past a whole castle full of guards? Make the initial test harder, idiot.

I don't know that I'd say "make the initial test harder" so much as "make sure the initial test accurately represents everything it's supposed to." Player wants to sneak past the guard at the gate? Stealthy vs. his Observation. Player wants to sneak into and then out of the castle as intent? Test Stealthy vs. average guard's Observation, plus a bunch of helping dice - lotta guards in that castle, chief. Going back to your initial example, rather than have guard #2 test vs. the riding Stealthy result, his dice should've been folded into the original test (as Help), since he was part of the original obstacle. And don't forget, when the player fails a roll, the GM has the entire breadth of the task to pick a failure point from. Sometimes the GM will want to place the failure at the beginning, and sometimes just shy of the end/goal - whatever creates the most tension and highlights the Beliefs at stake.

-B

[Wayfarer]

No, both of those are totally possible. Swimming over the river to steal a boat, then bringing the boat back, for instance: the intent both times is "get to the other side" but one time it's Speed, the other time it's Piloting or something. Or Persuasion to talk your way into the city, then Persuasion to convince your uncle to give you a job.
I'd say both of those are covered by what I said. "Swim to the other side" may be how you phrase the intent both ways, but the intent isn't the same. For one thing, you're talking about opposite sides! For another, "swim over to the boat" and "bring the boat back" are perfectly good rephrasings that aren't the same. Intention is about the spirit of what players are trying to accomplish, not the letter.

Two Persuasions are possible. I'd say you want some in-game time, but it's possible your uncle lives on the other side of the gate and it really is just minutes between tests. Still, I try to avoid these to avoid overloading or even just front-loading one test type.

[zabieru]

I'd say both of those are covered by what I said. "Swim to the other side" may be how you phrase the intent both ways, but the intent isn't the same. For one thing, you're talking about opposite sides! For another, "swim over to the boat" and "bring the boat back" are perfectly good rephrasings that aren't the same. Intention is about the spirit of what players are trying to accomplish, not the letter.

Two Persuasions are possible. I'd say you want some in-game time, but it's possible your uncle lives on the other side of the gate and it really is just minutes between tests. Still, I try to avoid these to avoid overloading or even just front-loading one test type.

Well, if you're committed to the idea of avoiding repeated intents, you can absolutely rephrase to avoid that, sure. But you'll agree that although you can make the intents different if you want, it's also not inaccurate to say they're the same, right? If I was swimming over to steal a key, then swimming back, I can't imagine you'd make me test twice: in that circumstance it'd be just one test, for just one intent repeated twice.

And yeah, totally agree that you don't want to make it "Test Persuasion Ob 2, then again at Ob 3." You need to put a conversation with the uncle, or maybe a description of your childhood home, or something in between. But LIR doesn't care how much description is in between.

[Paul B]

Mostly you just have to train yourself to listen for unambiguous intents from your players, and you have to train your players to be thinking about the "why" when they say they want to do something. As a GM, if you're not crystal-clear about why a player is doing a thing, stop the game until you are.

I have found a common-ish behavior amongst experienced non-BW players to play close to the vest: to do things to set events in motion in the fiction as a way to outmaneuver/outsmart an adversarial GM. But this sort of thing is pure poison to BW. I'm just offering that as something to watch out for, esp. since this sounds like it'll be your first time running anything.

[noclue]

No, both of those are totally possible. Swimming over the river to steal a boat, then bringing the boat back, for instance: the intent both times is "get to the other side" but one time it's Speed, the other time it's Piloting or something. Or Persuasion to talk your way into the city, then Persuasion to convince your uncle to give you a job.

Swimming across and boating across are not the same intents. Not in any way that's meaningful.

[Thor]

Swimming across and boating across are not the same intents. Not in any way that's meaningful.

Crossing the river is an intent. Swimming or boating is a task.

[Deliverator]

If it's a different guard with the same stats, LiR.

If it's, say, the lord of the manor or whatever "boss"/named NPC, LiR no longer applies. But I'd try really hard to avoid making the PC re-roll the *same* skill again within the same scenario, because as others have noted, it mucks with advancement.

Matt

[stormsweeper]

If it's a different guard with the same stats, LiR.

If it's, say, the lord of the manor or whatever "boss"/named NPC, LiR no longer applies.

BO-RING.

Just like the player needs to change tack, the GM should also change tack (within reason).

You ninja past the guards, but up ahead you see the lord walking out of the vault, putting the whatsit into his pocket.

(This thread is also starting to show why it's tough to talk about LiR, among other BW rules, outside of actual play events)

[Deliverator]

Right—see the rest of my post, Stormie. :-)

Matt

[CLO]

If it's not a Series Test, you should record the test when the dice are rolled. So take the example from page 35 of the Burning Wheel. My character is tracking a vampyr across snowy ground. I rolled four dice and the Obstacle was 1 (following fresh tracks on soft earth). I got two successes. Obstacle 1 with 4 dice is a Routine test, so I recorded a Routine. As I followed its trail, it entered a nearby village and began stalking its cobbled streets. Tracking fresh tracks on hard earth is Ob 3, so I lost the trail. I did not upgrade the test at that point, even though Ob 3 on 4 dice is Difficult. The test was already recorded and riding. Since I couldn't follow the vampyr in town, I went back to where I lost the tracks and followed them back to their origin, where I attempted to lay an ambush for the fiend...

What was the intent behind the tracking test in this example?

-Chris

[Zelbinian]

To track the Vampyr to his whereabouts.

[CLO]

The tracker had succeeded his intent, isn't changing the obstacle and changing the success to a failure the kind of arbitrary GM behavior that Let It Ride is designed to curtail?

[Thor]

That game was about 7 years ago, so I don't remember the exact intent, but Dustin's is probably pretty close. It was probably something along the lines of tracking it to its lair. As I recall it, I was able to successfully track the vampyr to its lair. What I was not able to do was follow the vampyr as it stalked its new prey.