Game Dialog at the Table (Part Two)

[Rahvin]

* Please read and reply to part one first; thanks.


Okay, so same general questions but this time regarding "Let It Ride". One of my players is a psychic with an ability to sense auras in a room and determine past events by touching objects. Game mechanically, I figured Burning Wheel gives us a good mechanic for this in the "open" skills, much like an Elven Song, we'll call "Past Sight".

Okay, so there's a murder investigation. A little boy burned to death under dubious curcumstances. The psychic player uses his Past Sight skill. Here's how I'm imagining that will go:

Player: I will use Past Sight. I want to find out why the boy died.
GM: Be a little bit more specific on what you're reading.
Player: I'm reading the room. I want to see what happened to this boy in this room the night of his death.
GM: Okay, that's obstacle 3. Normally, it would be 2, but this being an investigation-adventurer, a relavent detail like that it a little harder and takes more skill.
Player: Okay, I've got skill 4. If I succeed, I'll see how the boy died.
GM: Okay, if you succeed, you'll get a vital clue about how the boy died. But if you fail, then the Let It Ride rules apply and you won't be able to get any more successes toward searching this room for clues.
Player: Okay, let's see what kind of FoRKs I have.....
(and so on...)

My question is thus. What happens if he fails?

What if this happens twice? Can this house/room no longer be searched by anyone in the party, regardless of skills/abilities?

It seems like whether there's success or failure, it would only take a couple rolls to kill an investigation. In a d20 system, or any other system, there would still be a host of skills that other players could use or they might call for a sequence of checks to find a sequence of small clues, so a failure on the first roll but a success on the next two would be a partial success?

I don't know. How would you guys run this scene. Make up an example of Player and GM dialog. It would REALLY help me to think outside my little box. Thanks a lot, you guys.

Fun system. Really want my first session to go well.

[Fuseboy]

My gut reaction is that the focus here is too much on tasks, rather than conflict. I'd be tempted to just let him find the clue.

What happens otherwise? The story stalls, and he has to find another way?

Consider introducing a character who doesn't want him to find the answer, to mislead him, etc.

[johnstone]

One of my players is a psychic with an ability to sense auras in a room and determine past events by touching objects. Game mechanically, I figured Burning Wheel gives us a good mechanic for this in the "open" skills, much like an Elven Song, we'll call "Past Sight".

Character Burner page 288, "Touch of Ages".

If you as the GM have information to hand out, just do it. Otherwise, they will inevitably fail some roll somewhere, and you'll be stuck with hella cool campaign details that you have to keep to yourself (unless it's a matter of WHEN and not IF the PCs discover the information - then you can introduce rolls to see if they discover stuff "before it's too late!").

If the player wants to add information (ie influence the narrative), then have them roll against an Ob number. If they fail, either the narration introduced by the player is wrong (but all the characters believe it), or some other situation arises from whatever stakes were set before the roll.

[Ozark Tim]

During the last installment of my Wednesday game, something clicked. The PCs were tracking a villain through some wastelands, none had the tracking skill. They had to find him, that was the point. I decided to set stakes that weren't about finding the villain, but rather about how efficiently he is found.

"You make a successful Tracking check, you find him without problem. You fail, you wind up wandering around in the desert and don't find him till near dark. You'll each have to make a health check at an Ob determined by the amount you miss the Tracking roll by."

They failed their tracking check, and then all made health tests. One player failed by one, I gave him the option of ditching his shield or losing a die from all rolls for the duration of the confrontation. He kept his shield.



I thought this an elegant solution to the 'useless roll' roll. If they players HAVE to have something, they'll get it for story purposes. But as nothing is for free, they might have to lose something en route.

In your case, I'd've done something similiar. Made the psychic forfeit a die from their psychic skills for a few days if they fail, but still get the info. Or treat it like a Failed Casting, and introduce complications - nightmares, hallucinations, visions. Hell, those might be the practical distractions that cause the psychic to lose a die.

[JamesDJIII]

I like what Ozark1 said - even if you fail, the game still moves forward.

No matter what, the player could "see" what had happened. It's just a matter of framing the outcome like Ozark1 suggested.

There is also the larger problem of using the outcome of that one task as the basis for the evening's entertainment. You may be falling into the routine of relying on an outcome of a given conflict for a "good game."

From my experience BW suggests that it's conflict itself, not the outcome, that is it's strongest motor. I would even go so far as to chuck any strong inclinations you might have against guarding the secrets of murder. I would dump them as quickly onto the players, no matter what they roll and how badly they fail at each task.

Is it possible to take a step back and reframe the investigation to the focus is on everything else, and not just identifying the culprit? Think about the crime as a stone dropped into a pool of water. The act of murder is the start, and now the effects are travelling out. Everybody is going to be affected, and conflicts will come up. Sure, cracking the murder is one important part, but there's a lot left for the players to get their hands dirty with.

Let us know how this turns out.

[Bastoche]

Another possibility:

If you succeedm you find the clue. If you fail, you find the clue but ruin it in the process.

Like was pointed out above, success = moving foward like the PC intented and failure = moving foward like the GM intend (before any dice were rolled)

[Rahvin]

"You make a successful Tracking check, you find him without problem. You fail, you wind up wandering around in the desert and don't find him till near dark. You'll each have to make a health check at an Ob determined by the amount you miss the Tracking roll by."

I've been a little slow on the uptake, but I think I'm starting to get the hang of this now. Most of the tough 'gray areas' that I was having problem switching over from one style to another could be dealt with using the method suggested above as kind of a middle ground. I like it. I think the players will to.

Thanks a lot for your help everyone. Now that I've got a lot of the central concepts together and started thinking about how to build campaign arcs and character beliefs, I've starting introducing these ideas to my players and in our last d20 session, I pointed out several parts where I said, "If we were playing Burning Wheel, here's one way we could handle this..."

I suggest anyone converting from any other system to do this. It allows for great detailed discussion afterward and keeps everyone on the same page.

Once again, thanks everyone. I'll have more questions and comments soon..... : )

[Bastoche]

You don't have to tell you players but you could handle d20 that way too ;) (failure = mitigated success and success = what the player described)

[zipht]

I've starting introducing these ideas to my players and in our last d20 session, I pointed out several parts where I said, "If we were playing Burning Wheel, here's one way we could handle this..."

I suggest anyone converting from any other system to do this. It allows for great detailed discussion afterward and keeps everyone on the same page.


Ahh, but beware that the BW way is more then just conflict resolution. It's the small BIT's that will really change your game. :D

Also my experience with long time D&D players, is that some imminently love BW's conflict resolution mechanics, some get this confused look.. :roll: and resist any change.