Grinding gears - linked tests and Circles whiffs

[Sydney Freedberg]

My group had a whole bunch of problems mastering the mechanics -- in fact, we didn't and gave up (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?p=38155#post38155) -- but the underlying problem was a sense that when we rolled dice, there was a lot of counting on fingers and clattering on the table that, often as not, didn't add up to much. I'm trying to figure out what we were doing wrong.


1. Linked Test Troubles

One big specific example was linked tests. We all liked the idea of gaming these tests to give yourself advantages in the future -- I was a bit giddy over it -- but in practice +1D just didn't mean a lot, since with ForKs and Help we were consistently rolling 6-10 dice on anything we really cared about. Plus there was the nasty downside of +1 Ob if you screwed up, which made people cautious.

I was tempted to make it possible for a really successful roll to give more than +1D to the linked test, but instead I stuck strictly to the rules (as interpreted on the forum). I did make people say what Obstacle their initial test had beaten, and restricting them to linking the +1D only to a subsequent test with an equal or lower Obstacle -- which I understand is the rule -- but that didn't in practice create much differentiation among degrees of success in Linked Tests, either.


2. Circle = Zero?

Similarly, Circles tests were an idea we were all excited about -- "Room Service, please send up two minor characters with exponent 4 skills and a bad attitude about the Church!" -- but we couldn't extract the coolness in practice.

One big thing: I never actually invoked the Emnity Clause, in part because we never cared enough about the minor character we'd just invented (but not yet named or roleplayed) to enjoy fighting with him, but mainly because we did a bunch of tests where finding an enemy wasn't a failure, e.g. our biggest Circles test was finding a rival to frame for something.

The bigger problem wasn't unexciting failed Circles tests, though: It was unexciting successful Circles tests. Because the Obstacle penalties for getting a really skilled or powerful character are pretty high, at least compared to the Circles scores of our characters, the guys we successfully Circles'd up didn't actually do very much for us, mechanically -- maybe a +1D for Help, maybe a +1D circumstantial advantage.

As with linked tests, Circles seemed a lot of input for not much output, even for our characters with high Circles scores. By stark contrast, our characters with high Resources scores could buy equipment giving a +2D bonus pretty reliably. If we'd been more interested in tech, or more creative about describing social advantages as technology (Cleavage, +2D to Seduction, Resources Obstacle 5), that'd have been fun, but as Circles and Linked tests appealed to us more on a gut level, it just felt weird.

[eruditus]

For one, I can certainly see your point about Linked tests. The gamble is this - sure, during the manuever rolls we're rolling 6-10 dice. But what happens when my 7 exp characters are rolling 10s consistantly then the PCs are really falling behind the curve. And you get to do it in an otherwise less stressful situation.

Lot's of folk (not neccessarily you) complain about how the PCs have no weight influencing the manuever rolls directly through play. I think this is where that comes out the most (that and offing FoNs).

I am not looking at a book right now. Can I have more than one linked die? If so, doesn't that mean that a party of 5 can add +4 linked dice? That goes a long way in shaving dispo from your opponent.

[Mel White]

Can I have more than one linked die? If so, doesn't that mean that a party of 5 can add +4 linked dice? That goes a long way in shaving dispo from your opponent.

Yes, you can have multiple linked dice:
"...a series of linked tests can be used for a whole journey--Space Lane-wise, Navigation, Physics, and Helm, for example--which can be resolved within just a few minutes of play."
p. 300

However, I don't think you can add linked dice to the maneuver roll (in order to shave disposition). To help in a maneuver roll, the helping PC must have given the rolling PC a helping die, a linked die, or a connection in a scene during the maneuver _and_ the helping PC must have one of the skills or -wises listed for the phase.
p.430

Mel

[Mel White]

[QUOTE=Sydney Freedberg;38159]
1. Linked Test Troubles

One big specific example was linked tests. We all liked the idea of gaming these tests to give yourself advantages in the future -- I was a bit giddy over it -- but in practice +1D just didn't mean a lot, since with ForKs and Help we were consistently rolling 6-10 dice on anything we really cared about. [QUOTE]

Sydney, even in its aftermath your game and your experiences are going to be useful for the rest of us--thanks for starting this thread. I think one way to highlight the possibilities of linked tests is to identify for the players the obstacle for a long-term goal well in advance, and make the obstacle high enough that the PCs will only be able to achieve it with linked tests. I haven't done this yet, so I'm speculating, but such a situation will naturally lead to a series of building scenes which the players purposefully design to contribute to the long-term game. The key is that the players know the obstacle of the final test, so they understand the need for more help than just 'help'.
Mel

[Sydney Freedberg]

Good points. We did in fact stack multiple linked tests to give multi-die bonuses to later rolls -- never the maneuver roll, as per the rules -- and in fact a typical Building scene was linked test, linked test, Circles test with +2D bonus.

[Mel White]

1. Linked Test Troubles
I did make people say what Obstacle their initial test had beaten, and restricting them to linking the +1D only to a subsequent test with an equal or lower Obstacle -- which I understand is the rule -- but that didn't in practice create much differentiation among degrees of success in Linked Tests, either.


This seems counter-intuitive, and I don't see it in the rules--although I may just be overlooking it. I see linked tests as the building blocks for a much harder goal. If anything, the final test should have the highest obstacle--that's why the PCs need to link tests to achieve success. I have not been setting requirements on the obstacles for the linked tests. Granted, a PC might want to test a skill he is good at to gain a linked die for a skill he's not so good at--meaning even a lower obstacle in the subsequent test is 'more difficult', but I prefer linked tests to simulate building up to doing something hard.
Mel

[Z-Dog]

I hear you saying no one saw a mechanical advantage to doing Linked. I wonder if that was a reflection of where you guys were with the rules and where you were in the story?

I'd think as the game goes on your characters might get more ambitious as they see what they can do with their rolls.

Also, some of the long-term stuff they would have to use Linked tests for might not have come up early in the campaign....i.e. building factories to pump out your newly designed Valyen proof (as if there was such a thing) Iron equipped death ray machines....whatever.

Just thinking that there are certain actions that are going to require you to link some tests together, not because it's mechanically advantageous, but because of the nature of the action.

-------
Regarding Circles: Your group had a problem with the help it generated (in terms of dice). What about the help it generated in terms of moving the story forward?

I Circles up your beloved daughter and hull her.

I Circles up the commander of the starport and kidnap him. Now we have the access codes to your ship, be-ach!

[Sydney Freedberg]

We saw the advantage to Links, it was just the +1D for the second roll felt like a letdown after we would blow away the initial roll with some massive run of successes.

And yeah, our must fun Circles test was one where the effects were pure story, not mechanical advantage, where the players found a good patsy for their frame-up job that was the manuever's major conflict. But even there, I felt like there should be some mechanical impact (besides "Okay, now you can go away with your frame-up), but couldn't figure out how to implement it.

[luke]

If bonus dice from linked tests weren't enticing enough, it's likely that the obstacles to the actual tests weren't high enough. If players aren't scrambling to muster dice, then you're not making the game difficult enough.

As for Circles, it's certainly not about just getting bonus helping dice. If you're not using Circles tests to find allies in your enemy's camp, patsies, cutouts, and spies you're missing out. Also, neglecting the Enmity Clause (especially for the GM's tests) is just a crime.

Neglecting Circles is also a flag that indicates the players feel like they have everything they need in their immediate grasp. That's a symptom of the world you've built.

-L

[Sydney Freedberg]

The player-characters had Circles scores of 2, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. But even the 4 -- our Psychologist-Courtesan, with 3D of Reputation and Affiliation she could apply to almost every roll -- found the Obstacles really high.

As for difficulties in general, I started out using your handy guideline and doing Ob 3 when in doubt, but players soon learned to slam 6-10 dice together from Help, FoRKs, and secondarily (a distant second) Links. Then I escalated difficulties to 4s and 5s, but I could never calibrate it quite right.


If players aren't scrambling to muster dice, then you're not making the game difficult enough.

Oh, they were certainly scrambling to muster dice; it was just that linked tests seemed a lot of effort for maybe +1D -- especially when any roll where it was hard enough to make you really want the extra die, the chance of failing was significant and presented you with an ugly +1 Ob, which is mathematically equal to taking two dice away.

[luke]

A nice Ob 3-4 test to link into a juicy Ob 5-6 test? I dunno.

Circles obstacles are incredibly flexible. It's quite easy to modify your conditions to hit Obs from 1 to 10. And the players are largely in control of this process. They can say what they want and what they're willing to risk.

-L

[Sydney Freedberg]

A nice Ob 3-4 test to link into a juicy Ob 5-6 test?

But didn't you rule somewhere that the Ob for the test-to-link should be the same as the test-linked-to?

[luke]

Well, according to the text in Burning Empires, the obstacle for a linked test is your discretion (as GM). My personal preference is to tie two obstacles together. But I'm pretty sure the rules text does not state this.

[Paul B]

Personally, I don't "get" just rolling something to get the +1D. That's now how I'm using linked tests in our game. Rather, we treat each roll as completely self-enclosed: If I'm Observing the town I'm about to invade I want something out of that Observe roll besides the +1D, for example. The +1D is nice and all, but the point is the Observe roll, not the bonus. Why am I Observing? What stakes do I set for success/failure of that roll?

I make sure I don't have players just rolling to roll. It's counter to the whole point of conflict-based resolution, IMO.

p.

[Paul B]

Oh, and failed Circles rolls should really always end up being an Enmity Clause. Write down the NPC in your little black book, even if he doesn't have a name. Use him in the future against the players. He's an asset for the other side now!

p.

[mtiru]

Paul B is wise! Failed circles rolls and linked tests should push the story forward. It's not just about getting dice or people to do stuff for you.

In our recent game:

Dro spent all his artha to prevent Luke from pushing the sexy Vaylen scientist on him as the result of a failed circles test (because he wanted an ally against her in future scenes).

Luke failed a circles test and ended up recruiting my 2iC Anvil Captain as his Forged Lord's right hand (he later, through his building scenes, bought off the enmity clause by making the Anvil Captain an Anvil Lord).

Thor helped us in the manuever by hacking the Vaylen scientist's computer database (after making a sexy time with her as the result of a DoW) - this was a linked test to help me with a journalism roll. And yes, he basically set himself up to be hulled in order to pull off this linked test.

In BE, the linked tests are very important not just to gain +1D, but to allow players to help each other even though their characters aren't sharing scenes together.

[Sydney Freedberg]

One thing I realized I was never clear on was how long a character brought into the game by Circles stayed in the game. The rules make it clear that if you like a character you Circle up, you give him or her a name and get +1D to future Circles rolls on that character, until you have rolled often enough that he/she becomes a Relationship. That implies that a character you Circle up goes away at some point and has to be "summoned" again.

Which in turn implies the very cool examples people have given aren't rules-legal. How is Luke "recruiting my 2iC Anvil Captain as his Forged Lord's right hand" as the result of one failed Circles roll invoking the Emnity clause -- wouldn't it take a whole bunch of rolls to make the character your "right hand" (i.e. a relationship)? Someone else suggested trying to Circle up someone to guard your house (who, on invoking Emnity, would actually be a Vaylen sleeper) -- again, how would you get a character to perform a long-term function based on one Circles roll?

[mtiru]

Part of it is "saying yes" instead of forcing someone to make a roll.

That doesn't mean making them a relationship, but allowing them to participate in a scene in a way that forwards a story or the agenda of the players or GM.

Luke didn't have the Anvil Captain as a relationship, in fact in one scene he said "I'm going to send the Captain to hunt down Bob's Kernn" and I said "Actually, he's not available right now." In a later sequence, however, he had the Forged Lord raiding one of Dro's domes, asked if the Captain was there, and I said "cool." We were both using the results of emnity clause to our own advantage (In my case, I got to participate in a DoW and fulfill one of the Captain's beliefs. Luke got help from the Anvil Captain, but faced the possibility that he would get his face blasted off if he escalated to violence vs. Dro).

To make the character a permanent relationship, and thus a reliable source of HELP (rather than potential hindrance), then you'd have to go through the full range of circles tests to earn the aptitude.

[Paul B]

You're not clear on it because the rules themselves don't address this question. Our group's answer is, "They stick around as long as they're needed." If you hire a guy to be your bodyguard (and do the Resources test to pay him), he's your bodyguard indefinitely or until you release him. If you hire a master counterfeiter, he's around 'til he's done producing the forged document(s), then he's on his way and you'll have to re-Circle him up later (+1D if you named him).

So, yeah, it's arbitrary and everyone has to kind of feel when it's right for a Circle to disappear and when it's okay for them to stick around. Personally, I'd probably require some level of loyalty be folded into the Ob if you're deliberately Circling up a long-term character.

p.

[Z-Dog]

I think that loose definition of who's available and who's not applies to how we deal with all our FoNs as well. We talk about what we're trying to get done, talk about who could help whom....and just let them get into the scene.

Unless it's really breaking narrative (three guys are in the valley in the middle of a firefight...you said you were in the city hulling people...how the hell you'd get here?) we stay pretty loose with who's where when how.

[eruditus]

Yeah, it's certainly better to have someone you've already introduced be the person in the action (and I think I recall reading that in the rules somewhere). Unless you want to introduce a new PC (maybe to avoid an emnity) there is no good reason why the same security officer you burned up in earlier scenes to interrogate a FON won't be the same one scanning for worms later on. Even un-named background characters add depth to the game when they show up again. I guess it's a familiarity thing. Soon enough characters will be having interstital scenes with these characters :)

[Sydney Freedberg]

You guys are giving good advice, but I don't want to do this by feel. We've got this lovely mechanic with precise procedures -- X Obstacle gives you Y type of contact, roll Z times to make him/her a Relationship -- and then there seems to be a "whatever feels right" handwave over how long the contact actually hangs around. That's rather like having beautifully detailed rules for hand-to-hand combat and then a one-line note in the GM advice that s/he should have the monsters run away whenever it feels "realistic" for them to do so (which is actually in at least one edition of D&D, I think): Why did we have all this sophisticated procedure if we're going to fudge something crucial about the final effect?

I'm a Forge-head, yes, but of a very particular kind. I know all about "say yes or roll dice," but I've been trained to think of a game in terms of an economy, in which you don't get something for nothing: at least, nothing that has mechanical impact should be introduced based on unstructured, intuitive decisionmaking. You see this very strongly with Tony Lower-Basch's Capes, but also with Universalis, Prime Time Adventures, and even with Vincent "say yes or roll dice" Baker's Dogs in the Vinyard, where the GM has a specific procedure to build the town (i.e. scenario) and, effectively, a budget to build his NPCs.

[cmoeller]

You guys are giving good advice, but I don't want to do this by feel.

I'm a card-carrying member of the "I haven't played this game society", but I've role-played a lot in my time, and I don't care how many mechanics you have going on, ultimately you're not doing much more than telling a story as a group. In Traveller, there were incredibly detailed combat mechanics, but everything between the firefights was basically winging it. BE has mechanics to deal with more of the in-between stuff (so it's mechanically more thorough than Traveller), but it can't cover everything. At some point you're going to have to let the mechanics go and do some old-fashioned storytelling.

fwiw

Chris

[Sydney Freedberg]

Heh. All four games I mentioned above have an enclosed economy -- anything that has mechanical significance comes from some rule or some earlier game-mechanical event, never from "well, the GM (or the players) think this should be a +1."

[Iskander]

Sydney - when your player make a Circles roll, they're stating an intent - which you also use to calculate the obstacle. The resultant contact stays around as long as that intent lasts. Your player can use another mechanic like the DoW to make them stay around for some other duration, but that will cost them a conflict scene. Otherwise, they have to Circle the guy up again in a later Builder.

Where's the handwave?

[Sydney Freedberg]

Errr, but there's nothing in the Circles chapter about increasing or decreasing the Obstacle depending on how long-term or short-term your intent is. Not in the table, not in the text. And remember, I don't want to wing it. I want a procedure I can follow that reliably produces good play. (And don't tell me there's no such thing; all rules are simply explicit procedure, and all "roleplaying skills" are simply implicit procedure).

The duration of Resources effects is very clear: you buy it, it stays around indefinitely (until someone destroys it or whatever). The duration of combat effects is very clear: you hit someone important enough to bother figuring out what happened to them after the fight, you go to Anatomy of Injury.

The duration of Circles effects is not clear: Once I've Circle'd someone up, but before I've made him/her a Relationship, does each Circles roll get me help on one roll from that character? Help for one scene? Help for one session? If my intent can change that duration, what's the baseline, and how do I scale the Obstacle up or down from that accordingly?

[Paul B]

I agree with you, Syd: This is also my instinctive position when it comes to rules. But seriously, you can look at the whole underlying theme of the rules and suss out what's happening when the die roll is made.

A Circles test is a conflict resolution roll just like everything else in the game. The stakes aren't the dude, it's what that dude will accomplish for you (or what problems that dude will cause for you in the future). Some tasks take more narrative time than others to accomplish, and some tasks don't have a designated conclusion.

IMO if you want the Ob to reflect the duration of the Circled character's presence, I think the rules' intention is to fold Loyalty into the stakes you're rolling for. And/or require a Resources pre-test, particularly if you're Circling from outside your lifepaths.

But yeah, I agree: This is all as fuzzy as the dice in my El Camino. For grins, let's not forget the total lack of discussion on the difference between Circling up a lone gunman and Circling up a whole company of mercenaries (or Sodalis or Anvil or whatever).

p.

[Sydney Freedberg]

The stakes aren't the dude, it's what that dude will accomplish for you (or what problems that dude will cause for you in the future). Some tasks take more narrative time than others to accomplish, and some tasks don't have a designated conclusion.

Okay, that formulation makes a lot of sense. I still want my Obstacle guidelines, though!

It's actually not too bad Circling up a military unit, though: As I understand from the rulebook and the forums, you Circle up the commander, who comes with the appropriate equipment and minions. The difference betwen Circling up one grunt and Circling up a general is a bunch of Obstacle increases reflecting higher status and rarer occupation. So that's actually in the rules, if you squint a little.

[Iskander]

Errr, but there's nothing in the Circles chapter about increasing or decreasing the Obstacle depending on how long-term or short-term your intent is.

Why should there be? You find someone, persuade them to do what you need, and they go away again. Done. All the necessary obstacles are built into the table on p.348. Again, what, specifically, is not covered by that table?

Can you give us an example of a Circles test in your game that caused you this lingering anxiety?

[Paul B]

It's actually not too bad Circling up a military unit, though: As I understand from the rulebook and the forums, you Circle up the commander, who comes with the appropriate equipment and minions. The difference betwen Circling up one grunt and Circling up a general is a bunch of Obstacle increases reflecting higher status and rarer occupation. So that's actually in the rules, if you squint a little.

So...you're okay adjudicating what's "appropriate" in terms of a merc squad's firepower but you're not okay adjudicating what's "appropriate" for their duration of service?

In my group, the question of equipment is what we're (still!) stumbling on. Mostly the players are cool with assuming troops are armed with non-surprising baseline gear within their tech index, but God help me the day I try to cash in on the Anvil Lord's "smattering of Iron" (or however it's worded). :rolleyes:

p.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Oh, I'd love to have hard guidelines for "appropriate equipment" as well, but having immersed myself in the military tech-fetishist aspects of the game (just poke around the "Tech Burner" or "General Questions" fora), I feel pretty confident on that.

Specific Circles rolls that we made:

Lord-Pirate Sebastian (Eric) Circled up a fellow piratical Hammer Lord to help him track down the Vaylen smugglers. He succeeded, barely -- but because he hadn't set his Obstacle that high (for good reason), the minor character he got had only exponent 3 skills. So the Circles roll ended up netting him a whopping +1D from the minor character's Helping Die; in hindsight, I should've awarded the +1D advantage die for having another Hammer Lord's ships along, but even so that would only have been +2D total.

Anvil Lord Roland (Tony) tried to get a Propagandist (i.e. someone with actual propaganda skill) with a Building roll and failed.
Psychologist-Courtesan Freya (Jen) tried to Circle up some servants who had gossip about someone she was investigating and failed.
In both these cases, I decided not to invoke the Emnity Clause because nobody saw much point: The players wanted specific mechanical boosts from the characters they were Circling and had no interest in spending more Building Scene rolls, let alone a Conflict Scene, beating someone into cooperation. In hindsight I should have used these failures to introduce minor characters who would say "no!" in an entertaining way, even if the players didn't want to pursue it further, to take the sting of whiffing away.
I'm not sure about having those minor characters come back to bite the protagonists later, though, because that moves into the realm of punishing people for Circles failures in a way that'd make them reluctant to try in the first place, in the same way that the +1 Ob for failed Linked Tests is a big disincentive for trying those.

Deck Chief Iduna (Kate), law enforcement officer/smuggler, found a rival to frame for an embarassing Vaylen-led attack on her hanger bay. (No one wanted to let the secret slip that the worms were on the planet, so they had to find a patsy). This Circles roll was a big part of the players' plan for the Maneuver, with lots of Helping Dice and Linked Tests tossed around, and when Iduna succeeded, I roleplaying a little interlude between her and the rival that made him so thoroughly obnoxious that everyone was rooting for him to get framed and fired/executed/tortured.
I'm not sure what I would've done if they'd failed this roll. Enmity Clause doesn't make much sense when you're [i]trying[/i[] to find an enemy; probably I'd have invoked it anyway and interpreted it as him actually taking a swing/shot at her (one-roll ICASHITF combat), but either way I'd have let the frame-up proceed, which seems to make the roll merely about the price of success rather than about whether you succeed or fail.

Looking back across these rolls, it's clear what I failed to do for the ones that bombed, succeed or fail, was roleplay it out and come up with a fun little character sketch for the minor character. But we were trying to deal with our slow pace by making Building Scenes run fast, as a rule, and the Circles rolls we didn't roleplay through were always the middle roll of a Building Scene, intended to serve some greater purpose; roleplaying around with them a lot might've felt like a detour or even a derailment of play. The Circles roll that we really played up, by contrast, was the final roll of a Builder and the result of a lot of planning, so it seemed worthwhile to make something of them.

[Paul B]

Any interest in discussing some alternative ways to play out these whiffed rolls? Some ideas pop to mind immediately.

p.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Paul, absolutely, fire away with suggestions.

[Thor]

Anvil Lord Roland (Tony) tried to get a Propagandist (i.e. someone with actual propaganda skill) with a Building roll and failed.

I would have provided a seemingly pliable and very competent propagandist to work for them, befriend them and become extremely useful. Did I mention he's Vaylen?


Psychologist-Courtesan Freya (Jen) tried to Circle up some servants who had gossip about someone she was investigating and failed.

I would have provided servants who were sympathetic to Freya but were being blackmailed by the person she's investigating. They feel for Freya, but they'll feed her misinformation rather than stick their necks out for her.


In both these cases, I decided not to invoke the Emnity Clause because nobody saw much point: The players wanted specific mechanical boosts from the characters they were Circling and had no interest in spending more Building Scene rolls, let alone a Conflict Scene, beating someone into cooperation. In hindsight I should have used these failures to introduce minor characters who would say "no!" in an entertaining way, even if the players didn't want to pursue it further, to take the sting of whiffing away.
I'm not sure about having those minor characters come back to bite the protagonists later, though, because that moves into the realm of punishing people for Circles failures in a way that'd make them reluctant to try in the first place, in the same way that the +1 Ob for failed Linked Tests is a big disincentive for trying those.

Failed Circles tests are not punishment! They are consequences. They are conflict that drives story forward! Look, the players know they made the roll and failed. And they know that these people are inimical to them somehow. But they don't know how. The players know something their characters don't. It creates dramatic tension.

[Sydney Freedberg]

These are useful ideas. Keep 'em coming.


I would have provided a seemingly pliable and very competent propagandist to work for them, befriend them and become extremely useful. Did I mention he's Vaylen?

Hrrm. But the question is, can they use the Propagandist's high-exponent propaganda skill for a roll or not?

[Paul B]

Okay, cool. I don't want to be presumptuous. Also, I totally get that it's a million times easier to armchair-quarterback outside the urgency of real-time play.


Lord-Pirate Sebastian (Eric) Circled up a fellow piratical Hammer Lord to help him track down the Vaylen smugglers. He succeeded, barely -- but because he hadn't set his Obstacle that high (for good reason), the minor character he got had only exponent 3 skills. So the Circles roll ended up netting him a whopping +1D from the minor character's Helping Die; in hindsight, I should've awarded the +1D advantage die for having another Hammer Lord's ships along, but even so that would only have been +2D total.

This one sounds okay. I guess this is getting back to the issues we already discussed up in your "that didn't work" thread: Circled characters are more than mechanical advantages. Sounds like that's all the player wanted, though, so I don't know how else you could have improved on this one.


Anvil Lord Roland (Tony) tried to get a Propagandist (i.e. someone with actual propaganda skill) with a Building roll and failed.

I think it has a lot to do with what Roland's intention behind the propagadist's job is. Some failed roll ideas:

You get a badass propagandist but, naturally, (s)he's a Vaylen. She does the job but, in the course of receiving her job orders, also learns all kinds of useful stuff about Roland's plans.
You get an incompetent propagandist. He struggles through the job, creating a trail of chaos as he works. He's not working "for the enemy" but he sure as shit causes endless trouble. At least one big controversy comes out in the media shortly after the propaganda campaign ends.
You get the propagandist you were rolling for, who then does the job according to spec. Later, after Roland doesn't give her appropriate accolades for a job well done, she goes out of her way to propagandize against him. Possibly in a future scene; in this case, I'd keep the character in my pocket as a future asset I could Circle up with a GMFoN.
Psychologist-Courtesan Freya (Jen) tried to Circle up some servants who had gossip about someone she was investigating and failed.


Servant delivers completely wrong gossip. Or, whatever gossip Jen was shopping for turns out to be precisely incorrect...making it forever "untrue" in narrative terms.
Servant delivers correct gossip, then reports this to her Vaylen masters.
Servant delivers correct gossip, then reveals his complicity to the media.
In both these cases, I decided not to invoke the Emnity Clause because nobody saw much point: The players wanted specific mechanical boosts from the characters they were Circling and had no interest in spending more Building Scene rolls, let alone a Conflict Scene, beating someone into cooperation. In hindsight I should have used these failures to introduce minor characters who would say "no!" in an entertaining way, even if the players didn't want to pursue it further, to take the sting of whiffing away.

I'm not sure about having those minor characters come back to bite the protagonists later, though, because that moves into the realm of punishing people for Circles failures in a way that'd make them reluctant to try in the first place, in the same way that the +1 Ob for failed Linked Tests is a big disincentive for trying those.

Two thoughts:

1) My favorite Enmity Clause NPCs actually say yes now, and then muck things up later. Which relates to ...

2) I think your players' a-ha moment may come when they see their failure generate more awesome, rather than their failure generate, you know, a sense of failure.


Deck Chief Iduna (Kate), law enforcement officer/smuggler, found a rival to frame for an embarassing Vaylen-led attack on her hanger bay. (No one wanted to let the secret slip that the worms were on the planet, so they had to find a patsy). This Circles roll was a big part of the players' plan for the Maneuver, with lots of Helping Dice and Linked Tests tossed around, and when Iduna succeeded, I roleplaying a little interlude between her and the rival that made him so thoroughly obnoxious that everyone was rooting for him to get framed and fired/executed/tortured.
I'm not sure what I would've done if they'd failed this roll. Enmity Clause doesn't make much sense when you're [i]trying[/i[] to find an enemy; probably I'd have invoked it anyway and interpreted it as him actually taking a swing/shot at her (one-roll ICASHITF combat), but either way I'd have let the frame-up proceed, which seems to make the roll merely about the price of success rather than about whether you succeed or fail.

Enmity Clause when you're trying to find an enemy: I gotta run now, but I have a couple ideas.

p.

[Thor]

These are useful ideas. Keep 'em coming.



Hrrm. But the question is, can they use the Propagandist's high-exponent propaganda skill for a roll or not?

If you say yes, of course they can. That doesn't prevent him from making footage of their creation of said propaganda to set up unrest about the mind control coming from the government. Or using his inside position to learn their plans and counter them.

This is also your answer to the question of how long a Circled character stays around. Once the players Circle up a character, he stays around for the stated intent. That's up to what they stated as the Intent.

But once he or she comes into existence, that character is the GM's to play. The GM can bring him in or usher him out at will (so long as the Intent has been fulfilled in the case of a successful Circles roll), whenever he wants. If the players want the character again, you have the option of saying "Yes." Or you can require them to roll. Your call. And you may bring the character back whenever you want, even if the players don't ask for him.

Circles always creates a character for the GM to play. The result of the Circles roll determines the character's disposition. Consider it a creative constraint on how you use the character. The more constraint the players place upon you, the harder the Obstacle of the roll. The less constraint, the lower the Obstacle. In the case of a failed roll, the power reverts to the GM with full force. The only constraint in that case is that the character must be working against the PC's interests in some way.

[luke]

In our Lisgren game, the Anvil Lord failed a very easy Circles test during the first maneuver. He was trying to Circle up some stormtroopers to kidnap some families of an opposing faction. Cool. Except he failed. Did I cock block him and say, "No stormtroopers available right now, Lord. I'm sorry, but we can't go commit this descpicable act."? Hell no! I gave him the stormtroopers all right. Fucking company of Vaylen stormtroopers. They ended up being one of the scariest things in the game. They kidnapped those families and brought them in for interrogation, just as ordered. They tortured and interrogated them, as ordered. They were even prepared to execute the hostages at one point. But in the end, they didn't. Instead, I capped the whole exercise off -- which took place across many maneuvers -- by hulling the hostages during a color scene.

And then, in the last maneuver, the FON Vaylen child convinced the Hammer Lord's son to run away from his tyrranical mother. And the young scion ran right into the arms of the Vaylen stormtroopers. You should have seen the look on Jonathan and Matt's faces! Shock, horror and elation all at once. Those simple stormtroopers were villains.

Failed Circles rolls build drama. They entangle the two sides.

In another instance, I failed a Circles roll to find a freaking contractor. A contractor! Matt and Jon clamoured for the Enmity Clause. So the freaking contractor sold me out! He ended up contacting them and giving them the plans for the bugs I was going to install at their space port comm hub. Bastard!

From your examples:
Piratical Hammer Lord to help: Why not just use the Knowledge condition and track down a Hammer Lord who knows where the smugglers are? What was so important about finding them that you had to make two rolls to do it: a Circles test and then presumably some other test? One roll could have taken care of it, and then exponent would have been irrelevant.

Anvil Lord to Circle up Propagandist: GAHHH! A golden opportunity gone. Why WOULDN'T YOU put a Vaylen in Tony's camp? A Vaylen Propagandist even?! It doesn't get much better than that. He'll work with the Anvil Lord as ordered, but start feeding his side all the counter propaganda or limitless other cool options!!

Psychologist to Circle up a rumor-monger: Again, why not have a character appear and feed her misinformation or misdirection? Or have word of her maneuverings reach the ears of her real enemies? Your characters do have enemies they are fighting against, right?

Deck Chief Looking for Vaylen: If she failed that in my game... She would have found someone who threatened to out her as a filthy worm lover! Let the blackmail commense!

Those are not punishments or roadblocks. Those are the types of twists and turns necessary for the game to work! Who are you going to betray if you don't have a shifting skein of alliances and enemies to work with?!

-L

[Z-Dog]

OMG, the above examples from Thor, Paul, and Luke are priceless. Thanks guys! I'm really going to used those failed Circles rolls to great effect now! ;)

[Paul B]

Because this is all sounding so familiar (are you sure you weren't in my first game, Syd?), I'm going to say all the issues in your thread come down to your players' attitude toward the broader concept of "failure." I think they're going to fall into one of two camps:

Players who will do everything in their power to succeed; and

Players who are okay with failing so long as the failure is fun and interesting.

I think you can successfully move them from the first camp into the second camp, but it's a trust thing. The players have to trust that failure isn't punishment, it's just the story going a different direction. In a perfect world, the new story direction means they get their BITs challenged all over again, which earns them more Artha, yadda yadda.

Players in camp one (probably highly tactical players) would rather end up with a void -- no harm, no foul -- in the event of a failure. They tried something, it didn't work out, no consequences. They're so afraid of GM's abusing the failure that they'd rather nothing at all happens, even if that means never taking any chances.

p.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Actually, the three players I've gamed with before are all fairly keen on the concept of cool failures, and the new member is throwing herself into appalling situations with commendable eagerness: She took a connection die from a GM FoN -- the new Inquisitor, no less -- in her first scene, for example. That said, I think the fact that there is a strategic win-lose binary at the Infection level threw them, at least at first, and made them more cautious.

The problem, I think, was that my players are fine with failure that's interesting, but I hadn't mastered the system well enough to come up with interesting failures. The "poison pill" suggestions you all have made in this thread give me a much better idea of how to use the Emnity Clause.

But, darn it, I'm still fuzzy on duration. Luke, for your company of very scary Vaylen stormtroopers, how many Circles rolls were involved to bring them into play? I get the impression that it just took one failed Circles roll, after which you invoked the Emnity Clause, and then every subsequent scene those stormtroopers showed up, it was either you introducing them as GM characters or you "saying yes" to a player who wanted to use stormtroopers?
If the former, what did the Emnity Clause give you that your own ability to introduce characters didn't? [EDIT: I think you'd have had to make a successful Circles roll of your own to introduce a bunch of Vaylen stormtroopers in the player-character's camp, and at fairly high obstacle penalties too, so maybe I get this one...]
If the latter, why didn't the player just Circle up some different stormtroopers?

[Z-Dog]

And you may bring the character back whenever you want, even if the players don't ask for him....Circles always creates a character for the GM to play....In the case of a failed roll, the power reverts to the GM with full force. The only constraint in that case is that the character must be working against the PC's interests in some way.

Wow, Thor, that really clarifies some of my thinking on this issue. Now I can imagine people really groaning and moaning when they fail some of those critical/high ob Circles tests. They went looking for some help and they found a whole lotta trouble. Cool!

[Paul B]

You've already gotten the answer several times: the duration is wedded to the intent. You never Circle someone up without an intent, right? Or is the problem that you were Circling up NPCs just to have them, without actually giving them something specific to do?

In our current game, I had a player who wanted to Circle up a merc squad. I asked him, "Okay, what are your plans for this bunch of guys?" He just wanted them because he wanted them; he didn't have a specific application for them right this minute. Of course, the question of duration can't be answered when the INTENT isn't explicit.

p.

[luke]

One Circles roll.

They couldn't Circles up other stormtroopers who had the captured families hostage. They had dispatched these troopers on a mission, they had accomplished the mission and held the results. If they wanted the results, they had to deal with the Vaylen stormtroopers. That's what made them so potent -- not the mere fact that they were Vaylen.

Also, Syd, I don't know where the disconnect happened, but I don't think this particular snarl had to do with rules mastery.

-L

[Sydney Freedberg]

Luke, I think I got it now: One Circles roll with Emnity was all it took to establish that these stormtroopers were not only in the good guys' camp, but in control of the hostages. If the Circles roll had succeeded, for you as GM to say "Hey, those stormtroopers with the hostages? I actually control them!" would have been possible, but you'd have had to make a Circles roll of your own at ghastly Obstacles (+2 Ob uncommon occupation = stormtrooper, probably +1 Ob for lower rank, +3 Ob specific outlook = turncoat, +2 Ob specific knowledge = I know where the hostages are, 'cause Him holding them). The player's failed roll gave you those guys for free.


the duration is wedded to the intent. You never Circle someone up without an intent, right? Or is the problem that you were Circling up NPCs just to have them, without actually giving them something specific to do?

Paul, I see your point, but you can make Resources rolls with no more intent besides "I want this thing so I can have it," and the default duration is forever. In our game, for what it's worth, most of the Circles rolls were for a specific intent -- but if there's no cost for saying, "I want these guys to help me forever and ever," surely that'd be the sensible intent every time?

It also seems that a successful Resources roll gets a lot more mechanical bang for the buck than a successful Circles roll, if you include Character Burning in the equation:

Resources Obstacle 5 gets you +2D to the skill of your choosing indefinitely, for multiple conflicts, and both the PCs and I had at least one character with resources in the 12+ range, nearly guaranteed to make that roll every time.

Circles Obstacle 4 gets you a character with expert skill who's favorably inclined towards you, which is +2D helping dice, but it's not clear how many conflicts that applies towards (my duration pet peeve again), and a Circles score of 8+ seemed fairly hard to get in our game.

Trying a straight, fast path:
Lifepaths: 1. Born to Rule (+1 Circles), 2. Bastard (+1 Circles), 3. Cotar (+2 Circles), 4. Dregus (+2 C), 5. Archcotare (+2 C), 6. Cotar Antistes (+2 Circles), 7. Cotar Arderes (+2 C). Total Circles points = 12, divide by three -- assuming you spend only NO points on relationships or affiliations or reputations -- gets you +4 to base circles; assume Will is 6, the maximum for a starting character, dividing by 2 gets you three... a Circles score of 7. Which is still quite not enough to make that Ob 4 Circles roll a slam-dunk, and you're talking about the damn Space Pope here!

Of course the Space Pope would have a bunch of relevant free affiliations most of the time, but it still seems hard to stack up a Circles monster compared to a Resources monster. The standard Born to Rule > Anvil Lord paths rack up those Resources points a lot faster than they do Circles points: 1. Born to Rule (+2 Resources, +1 Circles), 2. Coeptir (+1 R, +0 C), 3. Armiger (+1 R, +0 C), 4. Lord-Pilot Anvil (+1 R, +1 C), 5. Anvil Lord (+3 R, +1 C), 6. Forged Lord (+3 R, +2 C), 7. Anvil Captain (+2 R, +2 C) -- yes, I'm assuming the guy has a noble rank trait to make this set of paths work -- gets you a starting Resources of 13, let's say 12 after you pay for Iron, but only 7 Circles points, which if you spend as much as you can on upping your Circles score and have a 6 Will, still gets you Circles of 5.

[Z-Dog]

It also seems that a successful Resources roll gets a lot more mechanical bang for the buck than a successful Circles roll

From a pure mechanical standpoint, maybe. But people that sacrifice their Circles for Resources are going to be constantly running into trouble trying to find information, build allies, etc. I mean, who needs enemy FoN when your group is constantly failing Circles rolls and invoking the enmity cause?


-- but if there's no cost for saying, "I want these guys to help me forever and ever," surely that'd be the sensible intent every time?

"How are you going to find someone who is going to help you forever?" I'd ask my players, "Are you Circling up a slave?"

I think they'd be a big difference between intending to find someone to make you a single, incredible high-tech rifle and someone to make thousands of those rifles. The more help they're expected to give, the higher the obstacle.

[luke]

Resources can't tell you where the smugglers are hiding or produce a Vaylen patsy to go down for you. Circles obstacles are almost always lower than Resources obstacles. Circles don't deplete like Resources. A bad Circles roll can be turned using social skills. A bad Resources roll has to be turned using technical skills. Resources and Circles both have their uses, but Resources is not just simply better or more economical than Circles.

And I don't know about you, but my Primarch has 9 Circles (3 Base, 3 Rep, 3 Aff) dice plus Imperious Demeanor (c/o Circles) to get what ever the hell he wants, whenever the hell he wants. Your players spent the premium to up the base Circles? 'Cause that's a major trade off. You trade super high dice for broader applicability.

And you know what's common to my Primarch's Circles? All of the people under him save, maybe, the Metropolitans. That's the other cool thing about Circles. They're relative. A soldier could have exactly the same number of dice as his captain and not get the same benefit from them. A captain can call up other captains in a snap. A soldier is stuck with other soldiers.

Who cares about 2 helping dice. An Ob 3 Circles test will buy me an informant who can tell me precisely where your daughter will be tomorrow so I can kidnap her. Or hell, Ob 3 will get me someone who's overheard your traitorous, slanderous talk so I can begin blackmailing you. Etc, and so on.

-L

[Paul B]

Paul, I see your point, but you can make Resources rolls with no more intent besides "I want this thing so I can have it," and the default duration is forever. In our game, for what it's worth, most of the Circles rolls were for a specific intent -- but if there's no cost for saying, "I want these guys to help me forever and ever," surely that'd be the sensible intent every time?

Resources tests are the glitch in the overarching conflict resolution scheme of the game. I was thinking about that when I was writing up my last post. They're the one time, ever, that you actually end up with an explicit thing that's going to be variably useful throughout the life of the game.

I would absolutely allow a player to Circle up someone who would help him forever and ever but it'd cost them either a higher Circle Ob due to increased Loyalty, or a Resources test to pay them for their services (as I've said a couple other times upthread). Sure! Why not?

There are also hopefully obvious in-game differences between technology and characters:

Characters can go off and do things independent of the PCs
Characters can oppose the PCs' goals
Characters can know things
Characters can, mechanically speaking, give you easier access to a package of skills than a Resources test can provide to you (skill automation + dice = a potentially very high Resources Ob, and that's just for one skill).
Characters can generate in-game effects that equipment cannot. Shot opportunities, for example, in the case of a squad of mercs. (Although I s'pose you can use the Tech Burner to produce any effect at all if the GM is feeling generous.)
Characters can fall into the hands of the enemy, resulting in far different consequences than when equipment falls into the hands of the enemy.
Characters can have in-game relationships with Figures of Note that are far more important than the FON's piece of tech.So, yeah, I'd definitely grill players who are trying to create in-game effects on whether they're better off with gear or an NPC. Gear doesn't need to have an intent attached to it and obviously it'll last 'til it's destroyed or stolen, but it's also both narratively and mechanically different.

p.

[Mel White]

I would absolutely allow a player to Circle up someone who would help him forever and ever but it'd cost them either a higher Circle Ob due to increased Loyalty, or a Resources test to pay them for their services (as I've said a couple other times upthread). Sure! Why not?

In Burning Nautilus Prima, one of the PCs has circled up a character who basically amounts to a 'friend'. This friend is Fleet Captain Carlos Assisi, the commander of the government's space fleet. Jason, the player, wanted his character to have someone he could rely on in the slave revolt or civil war he sees coming. Jason also wanted to pre-empt a situation where the fleet would be his enemy. So for this first circles test we played out the scene of Janus and Assisi getting together--they're old friends. Jason is prepared to conduct future Circles tests in order to establish a relationship with Assisi. But in addition, to reflect Assisi's intent to honor his friendship with Janus, we made a Persuasion test for Janus, the results of which will serve as the obstacle for Assisi to take an action he knows will be harmful to his friend, Janus. So, we have circled up an NPC that could help Janus--or at least not hinder him--'forever'.
As an aside, the best part for me is that since Jason has signaled an interest--perhaps even fear--in the fleet's role, I now know I should bring the fleet much more into play as a threat or a foil. Having created Fleet Captain Assisi as a friend, I want to make sure Jason gets his money's worth!
Mel

[luke]

And to riff off of Mel's example: Jason can't simply call on Assisi whenever he wants. Sometimes his friend's duties will call him away and he'll be unable to help. Hence, the Circles test. And Jason framed the initial test neatly -- obviating the need for Enmity Clause later on down the line.