carrying rolls and fighting disease

[eruditus]

So how do the current BW GMs handle carrying rolls over?

What are the circumstances you keep rolls and what are the circumstances you have players reroll? How much as to change?

example: The group handles a diseased cloth, passing it around among themselves. Obviously there are health tests involved and the obstacles for contracting the disease increases with prolonged exposure.

Thus the player rolls his character's health test with that ob in mind. Does the GM just carry that number on throughout the duration the PC carries the diseased cloth? Making it inevidable, as long as they car the rotten blacket about, that they WILL catch that disease... its only a matter of time? Personally I like this perspective.

On the otherhand there are folk who may be exposed and either through past exposure or instant interactions with antibodies (not like the orcs and dwarves are thinking in these terms) they are just immune to a disease and never contract it. Should you earn a immunity trait by avoiding the same contagion so many times?

hmmmm... let me know what you all think.

[spring_violet]

Why do I torture myself by reading your posts? Now I'm worried about the things we've touched in the Monday game... Lord only knows what the fumes in the pot actually were :shock:

[luke]

Ok, this sounds like it falls under the jurisdiction of the Let It Ride rule described on page 44. If a player makes a test those results stand until the conditions substantially change.

The "escalating obstacle" that you are describing essentially is an automatic failure mechanic -- largely the same thing as described in the book where the GM asks the player to reroll until he fails.

So if catching the disease is inevitable -- no roll needs to be made, the character simply contracts the disease via GM fiat.

Otherwise, make a Health test and let that count for situation -- the circumstance of catching the disease. Characters who pass don't contract it, characters who fail contract the disease how and when the GM says so.

-L

[Trayer]

The disease doesn't get frustrated and try harder to enter the victim's body, it maintains the same level of pathogenicity throughout it's attack. Plus if your body fights it off the first time it can not effect you in it's same form. (i.e. it must mutate to get a second try at entering the body. and it cannot mutate with out entering another host.) This all comes from my lovely fiance who has aced several courses on microbiology and diseases.

-CMC

-Eru, Trista's expertise overrides your wants to kill us off ;-)

[eruditus]

Ok, this sounds like it falls under the jurisdiction of the Let It Ride rule described on page 44.

Yes, this is the section I was referring to.



The "escalating obstacle" that you are describing essentially is an automatic failure mechanic -- largely the same thing as described in the book where the GM asks the player to reroll until he fails.

So if catching the disease is inevitable -- no roll needs to be made, the character simply contracts the disease via GM fiat.

Otherwise, make a Health test and let that count for situation -- the circumstance of catching the disease. Characters who pass don't contract it, characters who fail contract the disease how and when the GM says so.

-L

hmmmm...

well I have three things to say about this:

1) So further describe (aside from book examples... in fact real game examples) "situations changing" enough to call for a new roll. How long do you keep a PC's Perception check roll trying to spot someone or several someones sneaking about the house?

2) Since I seek a certain amount of realism I am looking at a situation where your continued relationship with a contagion would alter your chances of getting the disease. It is only through regular exposure (or some freak chilhood immunity) that a body might gain immunity to such a thing. so in this situation with the diseased cloth :twisted: the players pass it around, one later washes his face with it, one sleeps with it, one person binds a wound with it. Later the person that sleeps with it also binds a wound with it.

As time and situation goes on the possibility of catching the disease are going up. Obviously the possibility of catching something has contaext and not "roll 'til you fail."

2 As such based on the scenario and your response, are high obstacles something that you just assume as "inevitable?" Is there a concrete obstacle that you feel is the cieling for burning wheel?

3) If you were to Let it Ride with one roll when would you do the roll? Would you use the base obstacle?, the highest obstacle or average them both out?

[luke]

1) So further describe (aside from book examples... in fact real game examples) "situations changing" enough to call for a new roll. How long do you keep a PC's Perception check roll trying to spot someone or several someones sneaking about the house?

When the scene ends: The next day, after the night prowl is over and the characters are on to something else. Or if the character himself is spotted by someone previously unseen and is confronted within the scene -- forcing him to take another look around (someone fires an arrow at him -- "where the fuck did that come from?"). Or the player directly and actively changes what he is doing and how he is doing it, for example: Turning off the light, telling everyone to shut up, or moving to a better vantage point, is enough to warrant a test. "Fuck it, I'm sick of waiting around; I'm going in," is not a change of method and doesn't warrant another test.

In the case of your example -- one handling of the cloth in the situation (this can span many scenes) equals one Health test. Later on down the line -- say on their next adventure -- if the players encounter the disease again, a new Health test would be warranted.


2) Since I seek a certain amount of realism I am looking at a situation where your continued relationship with a contagion would alter your chances of getting the disease. It is only through regular exposure (or some freak chilhood immunity) that a body might gain immunity to such a thing. so in this situation with the diseased cloth :twisted: the players pass it around, one later washes his face with it, one sleeps with it, one person binds a wound with it. Later the person that sleeps with it also binds a wound with it.

You have the answer: Simply raise the obstacle. If one character merely touches it, then it's Ob 3 (for example). But if another character wears it as a kerchief, perhaps Ob 4. If another character ingests the diseased rag, perhaps Ob 6 (double Ob penalty).


As time and situation goes on the possibility of catching the disease are going up. Obviously the possibility of catching something has contaext and not "roll 'til you fail."

2 As such based on the scenario and your response, are high obstacles something that you just assume as "inevitable?" Is there a concrete obstacle that you feel is the cieling for burning wheel?

Let the dice decide this. The gestalt between the player's Health, the roll of the dice and the Obstacle of the test determine all the variables that frankly you and I have no clue about -- degree of immunity, contagion factor, wind speed, barometric pressure, or phase of the moon.


3) If you were to Let it Ride with one roll when would you do the roll? Would you use the base obstacle?, the highest obstacle or average them both out?

High obstacles are not inevitable failure. No. No. No. Never. I'm surprised at you for even asking this. What exactly do you expect your players to do with all that Artha that you give them?

A high obstacle definitely sends a message -- this is challenging, a normal person would fail this test. But we're not playing normal people. We're playing the protagonists of a story who have boatloads of Artha to pass Health tests and sweat out diseases that would lay you and I flat.

(of course, as with any game, it is possible for the GM to punish the players by setting ridiculously high obstacles, but we'd never do that here, right?)

Ob 10 is usually considered the "miraculous" obstacle. Page 18 of the BW gives a good scale of these.

Burning Wheel really does attempt to arm the players with ample knowledge and ability to use it. Setting an obstacle sends a message, but it also empowers the player -- he knows what he's up against. This knowledge lets him take the roll as he sees fit -- taking his time, spending artha, or just sucking it up. It's a choice.

Why not tell your players what their characters are up against and let them sweat the rolls? This doesn't mean the characters know at all, and now everyone is in on bad situation they're in.


-L

[eruditus]

Let the dice decide this. The gestalt between the player's Health, the roll of the dice and the Obstacle of the test determine all the variables that frankly you and I have no clue about -- degree of immunity, contagion factor, wind speed, barometric pressure, or phase of the moon.

However, a varied approach allows the players some choice, both to exploit and to feel the consequences. I feel that if you do not give them those choices (hmmm, how should I handle this old cloth or should I avoid that patch of kudzu) AND have those choices matter than games get stale fast.



3) If you were to Let it Ride with one roll when would you do the roll? Would you use the base obstacle?, the highest obstacle or average them both out?

High obstacles are not inevitable failure. No. No. No. Never. I'm surprised at you for even asking this. What exactly do you expect your players to do with all that Artha that you give them?

Those were your words, not mine...



The "escalating obstacle" that you are describing essentially is an automatic failure mechanic -- largely the same thing as described in the book where the GM asks the player to reroll until he fails.

So if catching the disease is inevitable -- no roll needs to be made, the character simply contracts the disease via GM fiat.

Since I said nothing about "roll 'til they fail" rather a system where the disease gets easier to contract the more you come in contact with it, then the only logical place the obstacle can escalate to is "high." So I read, from your assumption above, that escalating obstacles (ie eventually higher) would be inevitable failure.


A high obstacle definitely sends a message -- this is challenging, a normal person would fail this test. But we're not playing normal people. We're playing the protagonists of a story who have boatloads of Artha to pass Health tests and sweat out diseases that would lay you and I flat.

So why would you even mention GM fiat as an option on the forum?


Why not tell your players what their characters are up against and let them sweat the rolls? This doesn't mean the characters know at all, and now everyone is in on bad situation they're in.


Why WOULDN'T I? And what on earth does this have to do with the question?

Could someone maybe answer the question at hand?



3) If you were to Let it Ride with one roll when would you do the roll? Would you use the base obstacle?, the highest obstacle or average them both out?

[Kublai]

I think the role the disease plays in your campaign will determine the role of the dice. If it's a necessary part of your plot for one of the players to get the disease, then I think escalating Health tests over time are justified. However, if it's not essential for a PC to be inflicted, then I think a one-time roll of the Health is fine - if they fail they get sick, if not they move on. Who cares about realism if it's gonna ruin with your storyline?

[luke]

how virulent is the disease? how long is the exposure? Set a few base obstacles: Brief exposure is Ob X, prolonged exposure is Ob Y. Set a contagion window and a vector. If the disease is highly contagious, first contact is going to determine if the disease jumps on board or not. So a simple Health test at the outset should take care of that -- like when you shake someone's hand. If the disease is only mildly contagious, or its vector is based on conditions -- ingestion of bodily fluids or some such -- and the character meets those conditions, perhaps a slightly higher obstacle Health test is in order.

But the vector and contagion factor are separate from the virulence of the pathogen. We're exposed to numerous highly contagious agents every day, but our body fights them off without us even being aware. Every so often, we fail a Health test and get nicked by the flu or a cold.

Some diseases are difficult to contract, but once they enter the body -- the contraction conditions are met -- the person is infected almost regardless of respective Health. HIV comes to mind.

So let's talk about your disease. How is it contracted? How virulent is it? What are its effects?

-L

[Kaare Berg]

Just some cold quick 2 cents.

You let their roll ride, fine they all pass the base Ob. But at the same time they roll a number of sucesses. Keep this in mind. Situations might change, like thus the Ob might change, like Luke suggested:


If one character merely touches it, then it's Ob 3 (for example). But if another character wears it as a kerchief, perhaps Ob 4. If another character ingests the diseased rag, perhaps Ob 6 (double Ob penalty).

The original roll still stands. Thus the dwarf who rolled 6 sucesses could safely eat the cloth, while the pancy elf might who rolled 3 sucesses could safely handle it, but god forbid he snuggle up on it at night.

My point:
You just need one roll, but let the difficulty vary according to how they handle it. Thus you keep the number of rolls down, maintain realism and more importantly you let the players actions have consequences.

[eruditus]

Thank you for coming to the point about the rolls :D

This is probably how I would generally handle such situations... Letting the Rolls Ride and keep track, applying various modifiers (good or bad) along the way. I sort of like that because the players gets the felling of rolling and the roll have meaning, yet I already can plan for the outcome...

ie. the player makes a Observation roll for a scene chacing a bad-guy. With so many successes the PC sees the BG and chases him but when the BG applies his skills he may hide beyond the perceptiveness of the character.

Would people generally lower obstacles for equipment and/or would you allow the player a new roll. ie. the player is looking about the horizon for signs of the enemy, a stealthy roll of 4 successes becomes his Ob and he rolls with 2 successes, failing to see the enemy. however a friend comes by and hands him a spyglass. Would you lower the ob by 2? would you have the player roll again or let the roll ride and apply the ob mod, thus he succeeds?

Again, I will be specific. I am not looking for how the details of spyglasses would work in BW, I am looking for a general approach that GMs take in Letting Rolls Ride along the lines of these examples.

[luke]

Sounds like the "spyglass" would qualify for the new condition prerequisite for getting another shot at a new roll/retest.

And what you described above is how the Let It Ride rules work: Players take their characters out for a night prowl, searching for their prey. All roll Perception/Observation. Three sucesses for one player, five for another. Later they pass by an NPC under an Inconspicuous roll of four successes—one player's character notices, the other doesn't. This state of perception (in this case) continues for the "whole night" (which is the amount of time the players chose to delineate the scene). So when they pass an Chameleoned assassin with 8 successes on his own Stealth roll, neither character notices a thing.

i love this rule.
-L

ps We should start another thread talking about equipment and bonus dice. That's another matter entirely.

[eruditus]

Just to play devil's advocate...

why wouldn't the above stealthy/observation test be considered as a "new condition?" The conditions are changing with the insertion of an entirely new person. Would it be because the personas for whom the roll was made did not make any new actions?

thanks for the input, BTW

[luke]

Just to play devil's advocate...

why wouldn't the above stealthy/observation test be considered as a "new condition?" The conditions are changing with the insertion of an entirely new person. Would it be because the personas for whom the roll was made did not make any new actions?

thanks for the input, BTW

because the PLAYER's/character's behavior hasn't changed.

[Kaare Berg]

because the PLAYER's/character's behavior hasn't changed.

Aiii, here be dragons.
If one stipulates that the player/character just need to change his behavior to be warranted a reroll one will end up with some bizarre changes of behaviour:

GM: oh you only rolled one success on your stealth roll well the tower looms dark over you as you approach it . . .

Player: I stop and make some padding for my feet with moss and then I only step on loam and I do . . .

GM: *groan*

What I am trying to say is that the let it ride rule means just that (and this has a charm with a certain perversity to it). So the rule of thumb is as long as it suits your story, let it ride. If the players are to be granted a reroll then it is because you see a plot point to be made or that your story reaches a point where new conditions arises. (IMO you should never create a reroll to break your players as this is contrary to the thought behind the rule)

Back to the "sneak up the tower" example where my heroes snuck from room to room, finishing any opposition before it had a chance to raise the alarm. (Somehow doing all this on a one success stealth roll.)
It was not until they had killed a guard on the roof, and knocked him from it, that the situation warranted a new roll (unfortunatly this roll was redundant since they chose to hack their way down the sentral stairwell instead of sneaking down the outside, players what can I say).

What I did nummerically was that the sentries, with B3 or B4 perception and no observation training, rolled to hear/spot the heroes approach but all my rolls were miserable. Thus they all got quick and messy deaths.

Did I help answer your question or just muddle the issue?

[luke]

Aiii, here be dragons.
If one stipulates that the player/character just need to change his behavior to be warranted a reroll one will end up with some bizarre changes of behaviour:

GM: oh you only rolled one success on your stealth roll well the tower looms dark over you as you approach it . . .

Player: I stop and make some padding for my feet with moss and then I only step on loam and I do . . .

GM: *groan*

I really don't see why this is so bad? Suddenly the player has put a little thought into what he is doing. That's wrong?

Continuing from your example

GM: Ok, you spend some time with the moss, and then take extra special care to tread only on loam. Reroll. Ok, 3 successes. It's morning by the time you get there, and the bandits are gone. You do find evidence of...

Why did the player not make it to the bandit camp in time? Because he failed his initial roll, whose intent was to reach the bandit camp tonight, quietly. So he failed, rerolled, and succeeded. Doesn't necessarily mean that every condition is met by the reroll. That, my friends, is what artha is for.

Also, in the Let it Ride rules, players have to abide by what they rolled, good or bad. The point is that the character doesn't know how he did until given some in-game stimulus or response to the matter. (That's the point of dah rule.)

In Don's example:

Mike: I can't see him. Damn it! He's going to get away!

Joanna: Here, take this spyglass, maybe it'll help. (I forgot I had it...)

GM: Ok, I think that warrants a reroll. Let'im have it.

Mike: ::groans:: 1 success. That's worse than my previous roll!

GM: ::sighs and grins:: That's the way it goes. After searching for about a half hour, you don't spot him. He must be away by now.


A reroll doesn't equal automatic success. But on the same token, you're absolutely right, Kaare: The reroll conditions must be generated in the game, between the players.

-L

[Kaare Berg]

This is not a rant:

Also, in the Let it Ride rules, players have to abide by what they rolled, good or bad. The point is that the character doesn't know how he did until given some in-game stimulus or response to the matter. (That's the point of dah rule.)

We are in agreement on the nature of the rule, the difference lies in how we approach it. I for one let the roll stand, and then let the resulting complication of the failure create new dramatic possibilities. The characters are worse off, not the players.

Why I do this is to avoid the classical :

Gm: you set camp for the night and Bob you have first watch, roll perception!

Bob: Ahh, I sit back relaxed and light my pipe and dang frick blast, I roll no successes.

Gm: darkness falls over the campsite and...

Bob: I draw my crossbow of slaying +8 and hide behind the rocks.

you've all been there, ask the players to roll their Perception, and suddenly they all draw steel.

IMO letting the players change their responses to the known failure of a let it ride roll, defeats the purpose of the roll. It becomes like GM inventing new tests to provoke player failure, except in reverse.

[Kublai]

I believe it's up to good players to role-play out their results, good or bad. In this case of failed die rolls, using the player's knowledge of the die result to change character's actions to counter the failure is just plain bad gaming. It's up to the GM to coax his players against such munchkinism.