How often do you go nuclear?

[Dwight]

The Die of Fate. Not the one for ranged combat weapons but the one on page 262.

Ok, I don't have years and years of BW experience (more like year+some) but I've never used it. I'm curious how often this comes up for others?

Are the players just not pushing the envelope enough? Or am I just not a stickler? The example at the top of page 263 is rope in travelling gear. Umm, I can't imagine not saying "yeah" to that? In fact I'm having a hard time envisioning anything that I wouldn't say "Got an appropriate Wise? No? Guess this'll be an untrained test then. What a great opportunity to learn a new Skill!"

[ThoughtBubble]

So, we're in a monthly resource check game.

Two of my players have 0 resources. One is a scholar/sorcerer, another is a forester type. The first resource check they failed, I just narrated their hardship (they crashed at the doctor's place). On the second one, the DOF appeared. Each time the scholar did some writing, she had to roll the DOF, on a 1 or a 2, she's out of ink. Likewise, every time the ranger makes a speed test - DOF. If she gets a 1 or a 2, her boots finish falling apart and all further speed tests are at -1.

By the end of the session, they concocted beliefs about getting more cash.

[Dwight]

Did you talk to the players about this prior to pulling out the DoF? I don't mean talk to them about DoF but "Hey, your PCs are deadbeats. What do you think is going to happen if this keeps up?" If they didn't run with right away I'd escalate to openly encouraging them to drop an underperforming Belief and write a new one about their money problems.

Next stage of escalation is making a few suggestions to prime their creative pumps, like: "I'm in way over my head! If I don't pay off my debts there is sure to be a Tax Collector after me."

EDIT: And that all assuming they don't come up with an answer like "well we don't really think it'd be interesting to make the game about collecting wealth". "Then why do we have this really fast maintenance cycle?" Ahhhh, maybe we screwed up the setting!

Your specific example hasn't actually come up. Partially because I've never played with a maintenance cycle shorter than 6 months? But that's the type of thinking that kicks in when DoF enters my head. What's the problem, where is the disconnect? Why am I not seeing things the same as the players? Hey, maybe I'll ask them!

[Kublai]

Before wises and resources and circles and Say Yes, we relied heavily on the DoF. But now there's rarely a time it's used. One time, though, someone who wasn't a lunatic asked what the phase of the moon was - DoF time. That was an appropriate use, I think.

[Dwight]

Before wises and resources and circles and Say Yes, we relied heavily on the DoF. But now there's rarely a time it's used. One time, though, someone who wasn't a lunatic asked what the phase of the moon was - DoF time. That was an appropriate use, I think.
Ah, so it is more a vestige of BWC. That really helps explain the wording. The thing about having your traveling kit described to have rope...well it really didn't jive with what I took away from the rest of the book.

Nor something I ever care to do again. ;)

[Z-Dog]

hey! you know what we forgot for our custom dice order? ;)

[Dwight]

Use a '6' (wheel with flames) in place of the '1'. But yeah, I saw that thread and assumed you guys were going to keep another standard die around from ranged weapons.

P.S. I was considering putting in an order on that but I decided to keep with the original plan of making my own. When I find some time to get the first prototype done I'll probably post. For now I'm using my custom Shadowrun 4 dice.

[Z-Dog]

no, no, no, blakkie, we need to order THE Die of Fate

all blank except 1 side, and Luke has to wave his hand over it at least once at a Con

now, what to put on that one side?

;)

[Dwight]

no, no, no, blakkie, we need to order THE Die of Fate

all blank except 1 side, and Luke has to wave his hand over it at least once at a Con

now, what to put on that one side?

;)

Will "The Pole Gets His Way" fit? :D

[Z-Dog]

Will "The Pole Gets His Way" fit? :D

LOL!

[jchokey]

I use the die of fate a lot in our campaign. There's three main situations when I use it.

1) When there seems to be some disagreement among me and/or the players as to whether something is/was the case or not. For example, "Was NPC X present when we discussed assassinating the head of the rival cult?" If everyone (including me) seems to think it makes sense that s/he was, I'll just say "sure". But if there's some disagreement on that-- I'll just resolve with a DoF.

2) In seeing whether something or not is the case about the immediate environment that isn't a given of the setting, or which I haven't really thought about. For example: Does our innkeeper have a daughter? Are there any animals in the temple yard? It's not like the PCs are going out and *looking for* an innkeeper's daughter or animals to purchase-- so it's not like a Circles or wise makes sense. They just want to know if there happen to be any around, where they are now. DoF works great for that.

3) In figuring out 'what happens' for situations the PCs are concerned with, but not directly involved in. For example: A few sessions ago, the PCs helped a viscious monster that was being paraded around the town market to break out of its cage. (They didn't do this physically, but rather used Faith to pray for a minor miracle-- and suceeded.) The monster then began to go on a rampage, attacking people in the market square. The PCs chose *not* to get involved in that, but there were still some questions we wanted to know the answers to: How many people does the monster kill? And does it get killed by the town guards-- or does it escape? Rather than trying to run some detailed Fight! with the monster and guards-- or doing a bunch of monster vs. NPC rolls that the PCs were not really involved in, I just used a DOF to determine the answers to those questions.

[jchokey]

Whoops. I double-posted. Sorry about that.

[Berandor]

The first die I ever rolled as Burning GM was a DoF. The dwarven player wanted to know whether he would find a crossbow among the wreckage of an orc attack. I rolled a 1, and the dwarf found a crossbow.

[Kublai]

That DoF would now be replaced in our games by a Loot-wise!

[Thor]

We use the DoF all the time to determine if a toolkit has been used up, as per the rules for Skill Toolkits on page 168 of the Character Burner. We also use them all the time for damage for missile weapons and spells.

We use them much less frequently for random stuff in the game, but it does happen from time to time.

[Z-Dog]

GM workshop 153: Advanced Procedures in Narrative Description.
Task: Use only the DoF for Task Resolution...how many interesting plot complications can you introduce before the game falls apart and you go mad?
Warning! Not do not attempt if this is your first time GMing!

:)

[Dwight]

We use the DoF all the time to determine if a toolkit has been used up, as per the rules for Skill Toolkits on page 168 of the Character Burner. We also use them all the time for damage for missile weapons and spells.
Oh right, I forgot to mention the page 168 use. But still not the page 262 one.

[Dwight]

For example: Does our innkeeper have a daughter?
People == Circles! You don't need to talk to them, just existance or determining where they are works for me. *shrug* This actually came up last session, though we didn't even have to determine because I asked "Why?" (Intent!) The player said "going to lie to the harbour master that his daughter is onboard that ship with the wild party that we want him to bond". "[PC's name] is going to lie to him?" *Spock eyebrow raise* "Umm, nevermind." Very much out of the character concept he was trying to build. But otherwise I probably would have said yes, to give him the rope to hang himself with. ;)



How many people does the monster kill? And does it get killed by the town guards-- or does it escape? Rather than trying to run some detailed Fight! with the monster and guards-- or doing a bunch of monster vs. NPC rolls that the PCs were not really involved in, I just used a DOF to determine the answers to those questions.
You missed determining the Intent before he rolled! His PC is praying for a miracle? Why? Otherwise the PC made the roll he gets to colour it if he wants.

[jchokey]

People == Circles! You don't need to talk to them, just existance or determining where they are works for me. *shrug*

My understanding of Circles is that it is primarily about "Do I know- or can I find such a person" and that it is an *abstract* representation of that issue, and not primarily a mechanism for determining the reality of the game world on an *immediate* situation-based scale.

To stick with the example:

My understanding is that Circles would be what one would use for the following kinds of intents:

--I want to find a daughter of any innkeeper (doesn't matter which one).
--I want to find a daughter of *this* innkeeper.
--I want to find someone who can tell me whether the innkeeper has a daughter.
-- I want to find a daughter of this innkeeper, who wants to sleep with me (specifying disposition).
-- I want to find a daughter of this innkeeper, who wants to sleep with me (disposition), and I want to find her in my bed tonight (place/time).
etc.

But it seems to me, that, at least as written and presented, Circles is not primarily intended to determine an answer to an abstract questions like:

--Does this innkeeper have a daughter?

To me, that seems more like just a 'what are the circumstances in the game world' question-- much like, "Are there any animals in the temple yard?" Or, "Is there a lock on the door", for which GM decision (or, if the setting or the GM don't hav ean answer, a DOF) would normally be used.

Don't get me wrong-- I realize that to some degree, Circles *does* determine reality, but again, I think the reality it is intended to determine is "Do *I* know such a person" or "Can *I* find such a person", rather than "Does such a person exist."

[Kublai]

The only time a character asks that kind of question is when they want to use that person to somehow effect the story. I've never had a different experience as a player or GM.

The GM should always ask why the players asks if there is a so-and-so. "Why do you care such person exists?" Once you know why, you'll typically figure out that a Circles roll would be most appropriate, as opposed to a DoF.

[jchokey]

You missed determining the Intent before he rolled! His PC is praying for a miracle? Why? Otherwise the PC made the roll he gets to colour it if he wants.

As it came out, the intent specified really was just. "The creature will break free of its cage". You are right, though, that I probably should have suggested that the player be more specific in saying what his PC wanted to happen beyond that. Or, I really like the idea of placing the task of narrating what happened afterwards in his hands-- that's a really great idea! )

That said, I do have to say that the DoF, at least in this case, led to great excitement at the table-- especially when I said there was only a 1 in 6 chance that it would get away from the city unscathed.... and when the '1' came up, there was a great cheer at the table. So, I don't think that the Die of Fate should necessarily be scorned as a resolution tool.

[jchokey]

The only time a character asks that kind of question is when they want to use that person to somehow effect the story.


For a character, that may be the case. But, a player is a different bird. Sometimes players ask those sorts of questions just because they just want to know, because they find knowing those kinds of minor details, which may not be key to the plot or their plans, adds an element of immersive believability and detail that makes them enjoy the game more.


I've never had a different experience as a player or GM.

Our experiences are obviously different.



The GM should always ask why the players asks if there is a so-and-so. "Why do you care such person exists?" Once you know why, you'll typically figure out that a Circles roll would be most appropriate, as opposed to a DoF.

That's a good way to approach this...but, I have to ask.

And what if the player's answer is, "Just curious" or "I just wanted to know". Would you agree that a DoF seems more appropriate than an intentless Circles roll-- or responding to the player, "Well, too bad, I'm not going to answer that since you don't have a reason for wanting to know?" :)

[Kublai]

If it's a truly, honestly, never-will-use-the-information-to-my-benefit question, then perhaps a DoF is ok. But again, I've never seen that happen.

[themadviolinist]

I wonder if a small perspective shift would get this point across. If the question "Why do you want to know," doesn't elicit a useful reply, how about the question, "How do you wish to find out?"

[Dwight]

But it seems to me, that, at least as written and presented, Circles is not primarily intended to determine an answer to an abstract questions like:

--Does this innkeeper have a daughter?

You put it in the list:

--I want to find a daughter of *this* innkeeper.

If it has not already been determined whether on not he has one this use implicitly asks that question. If you fail the answer could be he doesn't have one. The funny thing is that the players in my example could have tried to Circle up the daughter onto the boat in question so he didn't need to lie. I wonder if that occured to him, it didn't to me at the time (EDIT: I wasn't really trying to solve his problem for him, I was letting him be), or if he realizes he could have tried to do that? I'll probably make a point of asking him next session. Of course that's a tough thing to do, he doesn't have much in the way of Circles.

[jchokey]

I wonder if a small perspective shift would get this point across. If the question "Why do you want to know," doesn't elicit a useful reply, how about the question, "How do you wish to find out?"

That's fair enough. But let's say the player's response is: "Well, let's see, we've been in the inn for 10 days. I think: Gee, in the past ten days, has my PC seen a girl or young woman who looks like she might be his daughter? Has the innnkeeper mentioned having a daughter? Has anyone else mentioned him having a daughter? If not, I go up to him and ask him, ''m curious, do you have any children.' What does he say?"

I suppose that could all be be treated as a retroactive Circles roll to represent all of that activity-- to be honest, if the point is not that the character wishes to *find* the daughter (or to find her in some particular time, place, or disposition). but that the player is just trying to ascertain a certain fact about the reality of the setting that his PC is in and that the PC probably could observe, a Circles test just seems a bit silly to me.

If I may follow through with the idea of the perspective shift on this (and I'm beginning to think the "Does the innkeeper have a daughter" was a bad example, since conceivably the innkeeper might have bastard daughter, or a runaway daughter, or a married daughter who might not be physically present and observable.)

Let's change the question to this: Does the innkeeper have a beard? This isn't about wanting to specifically seek out an inn, where the owner has a beard because you have an instinct, "Never sleep in an inn run by beardless man." It's not about wanting to find the bastard beard of the innkeeper so that you can blackmail him. It's not about doing your research in advance to make sure that your lie to the innkeeper that his beard is actually at a wild party on a ship somewhere will be believable. It's just asking a question about something environmental which might or might not be the case: "Does he have a beard or not."

I suppose the GM could ask the player, "Why do you care whether he has a beard.... " and I suppose the the GM could then ask the player, "OK, well how do you want to find out he has a beard..." and could make him try to test his Circles (or Beard-Wise) or Perception something--- but really, it just seems to me that a DOF is a fine way to handle a basic "what is the environment' questions like that, for which the GM doesn't have a pre-conceived answer.

[Dwight]

That's fair enough. But let's say the player's response is: "Well, let's see, we've been in the inn for 10 days. I think: Gee, in the past ten days, has my PC seen a girl or young woman who looks like she might be his daughter? Has the innnkeeper mentioned having a daughter? Has anyone else mentioned him having a daughter? If not, I go up to him and ask him, ''m curious, do you have any children.' What does he say?"
Why does he ask? Why does he care?


I suppose that could all be be treated as a retroactive Circles roll to represent all of that activity-- to be honest, if the point is not that the character wishes to *find* the daughter (or to find her in some particular time, place, or disposition). but that the player is just trying to ascertain a certain fact about the reality of the setting that his PC is in and that the PC probably could observe, a Circles test just seems a bit silly to me.
If he doesn't know why he cares (very odd) and doesn't want to roll (passing up a chance for an advancement test, also odd?) you pick it. There is no need for a DoF.


Let's change the question to this: Does the innkeeper have a beard?
People==Circles. Beards!=Circles, although excess successes I believe allow the player to give details like that. Or maybe that's just me, I'd have to double check that. I actually let the player burn the NPC if they get 2 or more extra successes...mostly because I like other people doing paperwork I might otherwise have to do. ;)

It's just asking a question about something environmental which might or might not be the case: "Does he have a beard or not."
Once again if the player can't give a reason, if they don't have any stake in it one way or another or don't want to influence it, YOU describe it however you like. You already have to have a preference otherwise how do you choose whether it is beard or beardless that comes up on the '1'. ;)

The page 262 DoF rule is for resolving difference of opinions between players/GM. If the player has no opinion then you aren't dealing with the DoF rule. You are dealing with your own indecision. :D EDIT: So, do you just do a high/low then? Or do you actually make a choice that you'd rather he have a beard, or rather he not have a beard?

....

And BTW I thank j and everyone else for your feedback. I hope you don't feel like I'm jumping all over you, I apologize if you do. :(

[jchokey]

If he doesn't know why he cares (very odd) and doesn't want to roll (passing up a chance for an advancement test, also odd?) you pick it. There is no need for a DoF.

Well, the fact is that *I* don't really care either. I suppose I could make a decision arbitrarily--- but if it's not something that *I* care about, why not just roll?


People==Circles. Beards!=Circles

I would say, rather, "Looking for people-- or determining whether you already happen to know people = Circles" and "Specifically looking for someone who has a beard = Circles". But I think, "Does Character X, who has already been introduced, and whose beardedness or beardlessness hasn't yet been established?" ≠Circles. I think it's just a detail of reality-- an embellishment of color-- an environmental consideration-- or whatever you what to call it-- and that it is something different than what Circles is (at least primarily) intended to represent.

To put it another way: If a player said, "I want my PC to look around the neighborhood for a building with no windows." To me, that would seem to call for a test of some skill-- City-Wise, Building-Wise, or perhaps even Perception (in the absence of a more appropriate wise). But, if a player said, "Does the room I happen to be in have any windows," I think that's something a bit different-- and it's not a skill test, but rather a question about previously unspecified details of a specific environment.

To me, the "Does the innkeeper have a beard?" question is analogous to the latter situation, not the former.


Once again if the player can't give a reason, if they don't have any stake in it one way or another or don't want to influence it, YOU describe it however you like.

Absolutely true. But... if I choose to describe it based on the roll of a DoF, rather than some arbitrary decision of my own (because I don't really care-- or because I think random results can be fun), what's the harm?


The page 262 DoF rule is for resolving difference of opinions between players/GM......f the player has no opinion then you aren't dealing with the DoF rule. You are dealing with your own indecision. :D

You are correct that p.262 does say that. However, I also note that on page 263 the DF rules (in the "Details and Embellishment" section) talk about using a DoF for bringing in previously unintroduced details into a scene. Which is what I've been trying to talk about here (although perhaps not as successfully as I could have).

As for me being indecisive... actually, I think that's true. If a player asks me a question like, "Does the innkeeper have a beard?" or "Is there a musician playing in the inn?" Or "Does the inn have a garderobe?" and neither the conflcts I plan to focus on in the session campaign, nor my understanding of the setting, lead me to any particular answer, I often turn to a random die roll to come up with an answer, rather than just making something up arbitrarily. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.



EDIT: So, do you just do a high/low then? Or do you actually make a choice that you'd rather he have a beard, or rather he not have a beard?

Look-- let's be honest. The whole 'beard' question is a silly example. :) I just chose it because I thought it would help illustrate the idea that there's a difference between saying, "I want to find a person who has quality X" and asking "Does Bob Frobnob, whom we know and have been interacting with for several days, have quality X?" To me, it seems obvious that a Circles roll is the right response to the former. But, the latter isn't really about the character's connections or information-ferreting ability-- it's a question about, "Is X a feature of the environment?" (and I consider NPC characters to be part of the environment). Again: To me, that seem much more akin to the 'details/embellishment' rules for DOF than it does to the "Who Do You Know?" rules for Circles.


And BTW I thanks j and everyone else for your feedback. I hope you don't feel like I'm jumping all over you. :(

Oh lordy, no, not at all. My skin is thick, but it doesn't even need to be. I think this has been a very healthy and vigorous discussion and I've learned some very useful things from it. In particular, I think the comments about my needing to do more to get my players to make clear their intent is absolutely dead-one right. And it's given me some very practical, usable, concrete tips for doing so that I'm eager to try out in the next few sessions.

At the same time, I *still* think there's a difference between "knowing/finding an NPC" (which = Circles) and "establishing unspecified details about an already introduced NPC" (which does not).:) I don't know that I'll keep posting on it again and again, because I think I've made my understanding of it clear-- but I am sincerely interested in reading further clarifications/suggestions that might encourage me see things differently.

[Dwight]

As for me being indecisive... actually, I think that's true. If a player asks me a question like, "Does the innkeeper have a beard?" or "Is there a musician playing in the inn?" Or "Does the inn have a garderobe?" and neither the conflcts I plan to focus on in the session campaign, nor my understanding of the setting, lead me to any particular answer, I often turn to a random die roll to come up with an answer, rather than just making something up arbitrarily. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
I think it is. It's a bad habit. In the moment of indecision you pick up dice and that path leads to rolling without thinking about the consequences of the two outcomes. About deciding which YOU want, which one you think is cooler, which one is best for the tone/theme of the setting you are portraying. It's a sign your head isn't in the setting and/or the setting isn't in your head. DON'T CRUTCH ON THE DICE!

I should know, I used to do this. A lot. Then I realized what I was doing. I'm in a 12-step now (and this post is Step 12). ;)


At the same time, I *still* think there's a difference between "knowing/finding an NPC" (which = Circles) and "establishing unspecified details about an already introduced NPC" (which does not).
About the NPC, thus my comment about Beards!=Circles. (that's DOES NOT EQUAL for you non-programmers). But as soon as you want another NPC to exist you are talking about a new NPC which requires Circles. And you are asking for something very specific about that NPC, a Relationship with the other NPC. Thus that's likely going to be a very high Ob. Circles Ob are high for a reason, introducing new NPCs is very powerful because they give the player a LOT of leverage.

[Dwight]

To put it another way: For the father NPC to have Relationship the daughter NPC must exist. So you use Circles to create the daughter NPC, with the specified Relationship. You get the reciprocal Relationship for the father NPC thrown in on the deal.

Free stuff? Unsold! :)

[jchokey]

About the NPC, thus my comment about Beards!=Circles. (that's DOES NOT EQUAL for you non-programmers).

Oh, I misunderstood that. I thought the "!" was just a typo or emphasis or something. It seems that we actually were agreeing with each other there! :)