Skills, Checks, and Wounds...Oh My!

[donbaloo]

Okay, guess I'm a real tard because I managed to delete the entire original post in which you guys answered some of my questions. That was just after I managed a quadruple post too. I don't know what happened. Anyway, if you can remember what we were discussing....

Okay, thanks for the clarification on extortion. That should cover the other instances of similarly used skills that I was curious about as well. And I keep forgetting that its the players job to declare their skill use, not mine as GM...that should help. Redoid-Yeah I stink at rememberings skills too and I just foresaw doom ahead when I realized the degree of specificity the skills list exhibited.

Abzu, you cleared the cobwebs from my understanding of Scavenge and like traits. Thor, I understood that the skill could be used without any skill points but the problematic aspect of it was that I just simply didn't understand the need for such a skill. In a typical game of mine if someone wanted to sneak into town and find some sacks then it was my job to determine if the sacks would be there and if I thought so, we'd do a brief roleplay and the sacks would be gathered. All on my judgement. Abzu cleared that notion up with the idea of player authorship. Now I don't have to decide anything, the PC does it all. This is the most unfamiliar aspect of gaming that Burning Wheel has offered to me and its been very difficult to come to grips with. I'm excited about seeing it in action though, and a little scared if truth be told. Its just something completely foreign to us.

Thor, went back and reread the success and intent sections, as well as failures like you said. It did help, especially while keeping in mind the notion of player authorship. However it brought forward another question about success, failure, and let it ride that I'd like to ask. I'll use the example from the book. So the character's lockpicking skill is being tested with the intent of opening a door before the guards get there. Failure. Now the book drills home the idea of alternate forms of failure, one being that the guards show before the lock is popped. Lets say that the guards are disposed of in some way though. Now, the player still wants to get through that door. Under Let it Ride the task was failed but in narrating the failure in the way we did, it seems to indicate that the character may still have a chance at opening the lock. How do you handle this? Alternately, suppose the character succeeded in opening the door to begin with. Once inside, they need to open a chest to retrieve certain documents that they are after. Does the initial success for the door count as successful lockpicking for the scene and so the chest is opened as well. My apologies for coming across as so dense but I just want to make sure that when I'm playing that I'm allowing the system to function in the way you guys have created it.

Steel. I've read the section twice and now skimmed it for a third time. I guess my initial impression was that the majority of obstacles are simply your Hesitation (your base) and that typically there wouldn't be very much modification. I guess through a combination of the situational conditions as tests and the list of modifiers that over time sufficient tests can be logged. It still appears though that the greatest number of tests are going to be simply against your hesitation with a -1D for a wound in battle. Of course, that could just be my D&D/combat mind not opening up enough.

Thanks for the help once again you guys and if you get a chance to address my let it ride and scene success issue above I'd appreciate it. Anything from the previous post that I didn't mention here was cleared up by a combination of all of your posts. This system has been very eye opening to me and though I must appear as quite the dolt through my questioning, flowers of enlightenment truly are beginning to bloom in the garden of my mind. I hope to have the time to post my thoughts soon on how Burning Wheel has begun to shatter my belief that I've ever truly role-played at any significant level in all my years of gaming. Take care...

[Redoid]

Okay, guess I'm a real tard because I managed to delete the entire original post in which you guys answered some of my questions. That was just after I managed a quadruple post too. I don't know what happened. Anyway, if you can remember what we were discussing....

Don't worry, the forum are behaving strangely...


Abzu cleared that notion up with the idea of player authorship. Now I don't have to decide anything, the PC does it all. This is the most unfamiliar aspect of gaming that Burning Wheel has offered to me and its been very difficult to come to grips with. I'm excited about seeing it in action though, and a little scared if truth be told. Its just something completely foreign to us.


The more you empower players in the story, the more they'll like it (since they are responsible, they can't put all the blame on the GM). To quote abzu, this is not some kind of hippie commune... If a player states his intent to scavenge a full plate armour, out of a small hamlet, you can set an ob of 10... But requests leading to story improvement should be considered. Same mechanism as the circle mechanism: the players create their NPCs, so that allviate te burden on you, and they'll generally be better at providing realistic reason they might know someone useful than you would: it's their character, they should know him well. Give it a try, and you'll find if you like it...


Lets say that the guards are disposed of in some way though. Now, the player still wants to get through that door. Under Let it Ride the task was failed but in narrating the failure in the way we did, it seems to indicate that the character may still have a chance at opening the lock.


The basis of "let it ride" is to protect against artificially increasing difficulty. Let's take the example of a percentile system. You skill is 50%. If you must test once, you'll succeed half the time. If to pick the lock, you must in fact test twice, and the GM is artificially increasing the difficulty: your chances of success are one in four. But when you undertook the test, you didn't know that you would have to test several times.

In your example, I would simply rule that the characters can take their time after defeating the guards, and get an advantage dice. Or simply states that with 1. a score of dead bodies lying in the office, 2. enough noise caused by the fight to wake up the whole neighbourhood, they can simply bash down the door, all pretense at discretion lost... I don't think that the intent of the let it ride rule is to prevent all chance of victory.


How do you handle this? Alternately, suppose the character succeeded in opening the door to begin with. Once inside, they need to open a chest to retrieve certain documents that they are after. Does the initial success for the door count as successful lockpicking for the scene and so the chest is opened as well. My apologies for coming across as so dense but I just want to make sure that when I'm playing that I'm allowing the system to function in the way you guys have created it.


Mmmm, that's more difficult: it's more akin to the stealth example given in the rules (or was it in classic, I don't have them with me). First a test to open the door of the house, then a test to open the door of the office, then a test to open the chast, then a test to open the tiny little sealed box inside... In this case, I would use the let it ride rules... Unless having picked the lock of the room in the first place had given the player a meaningful advantage or created a story development.

If it's only "a test for test's sake", then let it ride. If there is a significant difference storywise between opening the door and the chest, ask for another test. But that's just how I do it as a GM, don't take my word for it.


Steel. I've read the section twice and now skimmed it for a third time. I guess my initial impression was that the majority of obstacles are simply your Hesitation (your base) and that typically there wouldn't be very much modification. I guess through a combination of the situational conditions as tests and the list of modifiers that over time sufficient tests can be logged. It still appears though that the greatest number of tests are going to be simply against your hesitation with a -1D for a wound in battle. Of course, that could just be my D&D/combat mind not opening up enough.


Isn't there somewhere in the rule a list of Steel obstacles suggested for out-of-combat situations, like "seeing the walking dead, ob 6" or something like that? During combat, you basically test against your hesitation, when wounded, yes (or with a penalty because some spells like Horror force you to test your Steel), but there are several opportunity for testing steel. You are hidden behind a curtain and the killer is in the room, make an ob 1 Steel test for being still and not panicking (ok, I may be a little harsh...) In a more modern setting, take a steel test not to shoot wildly with your automatic weapon until you're out of ammo (a real problem with early full auto weapons).