Interpretations of Intent and Tasks

[eruditus]

So in this thread (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?p=55373#post55373) we are discussing what the Symbology skill can do for Xenomouse. We strayed from the discussion and started debating over more general storytelling techniques so I figured that I would come over here and discuss them.

So as I see it BW does not tell you how to run your games. There is not much on pacing, scene framing (other than content of scenes being story and BITs), HOW to narrate and interpret intent or how to play NPCs. These are all assumed in the roleplaying activity for Burning Wheel. Other BWHQ products take a brilliant stab at codifying those processes and make then part of the game play but when playing BW it's left up to the group how to play. How they do so is not "drifting" (using the rules but not as intended) or "hacking" (changing the rules or adding rules), it's just how the group plays.

BW does give us some fantastic guidelines to go by and no doubt just using the books as an example of play will get you gripping tales but there are other interesting and important techniques you can use to tell your stories that fall perfectly and soundly within the scope of the rules as written.

Lets talk about Task and Intent:

In Burning Wheel, tests revolve around the [/b]charactertrying to complete tasks. A task is a measurable, finite and quantifiable act performed by a [b]character: Attacking someone with a sword, learning a spell or recovering from an injury are all applicable tasks for abilities.

Inappropriate tasks are: "I kill him!" or "I convince him." After such pronouncements the first things any Burning Wheel player asks should be: How? By what means? The answer, "I stab him with my knife," is an appropriate task description for a murderous character. "I persuade him to take my side by explaining the affair with his wife" is appropriate in the second case.

Intent
You see, "I kill him" isn't a task, it's an intent. When declaring an action for a character, players must state both the task they are undertaking and the intent of the act.

When a player states "I kill him!" we know his intent. By describing how his character will undertake his intent, he defines the task. Clearly stating and linking the task and intent allows player and GM to quickly determine what ability needs to be tested.

The results, whether or not the target actually dies from the blows - as desired by the attacker - is determined by the results of a die roll. Roll well, and the character comes closer to accomplishing the stated intent.

Descriptions of the task are vital. Through them we know which mechanics to apply; acknowledging the intent allows the result of the application to be properly interpreted.

...and on Success.


This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete action in the manner described by the player.


Lets look at Symbology as an example:

Root: Perception
Symbology is the study of ancient & obscure symbols. A symbologist can recognize + interpret these marks + signs.
Obstacles: Common symbols, Ob 1. Common religious symbols, Ob 2. Common arcane symbols, Ob3. Obscure religious symbols, Ob 4. Foriegn pictograms, Ob 5. Obscure arcane symbols, Ob 6. unknown religious symbols, Ob 7. Unknown arcana symbols, Ob 8. Truly alien symbology, Ob 9.
FoRKs: Ancient and Obscure History, Doctrine, Sorcery
Skill Type: Academic

So this tells us a number of things. It's a perception skill and has to do with perceiving the runes. The symbologist can recognize and interpret symbols. It tells us what the obstacle is depending on the kind of symbols. It tells us other academic and sorerous skills it's related to and ultimately how one gains this knowledge since it is itself Academic . ie we know how long it takes and probably what sorts of tasks were required to learn it).

Now if the player says [intent] "my character notices and recognizes a series of symbols on the northern wall that indicates that there is a powerful staff in the chamber ahead. The symbols are written in an ancient code by the magical order that built this place." Then the player follows up with [task] "my character passes his fingers over the symbols trying to figure out what they say."

According to the rules this is a perfectly acceptable intent and task. By the skill rules the most appropriate skill is Symbology and even the ob is pretty much set, give or take some obstacle for age and clarity, right? If the player succeeds then that is what the symbols say.

Now the GM is in a odd position. Sure his notes may not indicate that the staff is in there but the fiction dictates that it at least WAS. It's moving the story forward and it's certainly going to motivate the PCs to persue the whereabouts of the staff (sorry, assuming the story has something to do with the staff). Now the GM could ignore the fiction and be like "yeah, the runes were wrong." What does that say to your players? It says "sit back and play because I am in charge and I am the only one that adds to this game." That's what it says. And it also means you're spending all your time as a GM writing out every detail (certainly we hope you were cool enough to think of adding the runes that will motivate the players half as much as the improv'd use of symbology).

These are solid GMing and play techniques. The rules don't say "you can't say that in intent" and a smart GM is going to give his players as much power as they need to get the story moving in directions they are interested in as long as it's in line with the vision the GM has for the game (see GM role on page 268).

It was indicated that this sort of game play was not the intended play style of BW and I suggest that BW doesn't dictate one way or the other which just makes this play style good old-fashioned storytelling.

Thoughts?
- Don

[jchokey]

Lets look at Symbology as an example:

Now if the player says [intent] "my character notices and recognizes a series of symbols on the northern wall that indicates that there is a powerful staff in the chamber ahead. The symbols are written in an ancient code by the magical order that built this place." Then the player follows up with [task] "my character passes his fingers over the symbols trying to figure out what they say."

According to the rules this is a perfectly acceptable intent and task. By the skill rules the most appropriate skill is Symbology and even the ob is pretty much set, give or take some obstacle for age and clarity, right?

Actually, I don't think that *is* right per a strict reading of the rules. I also don't think it's an accurate description of intent and task.

I think if we look at this closely, there are actually *four* distinct intents conflated together:

#1 Intent: "I want there to be a series of symbols carved on the northern wall."

#2 Intent: "I want my character to notice the symbols on the northern wall."

#3 Intent: "I want my character to identify those symbols and interpret their meaning correctly".

#4 Intent: "I, as a player, want to be able to define what the correct definition of those symbols is-- and I want it be [what you described]."

This raises a few important questions.

Are these all appropriate intents, per a strict (i.e. conservative) reading of the BW rules? And, if so, is testing Symbology by running one's hand along the wall to trace out the symbols an appropriate task for trying to accomplishment them-- and in particular, to test all of them at once?

On the first question-- I think a very strict reading of the rules would be say "No, these are not all appropriate intents for the task or the skill." In fact, I think it's arguable that, per the rules you've quoted, only Intent #3 ("I want my character to be able to identify and interpret the rules correctly.") is a strict by the book reading of what the Symbology is about. The very skill description you quote say it's about "identifying and interpreting" those symbols"-- not about giving the player the power to determining where such exist in the game world, not about noticing them where they do happen to exist, not about defining the meaning of those symbols. It's just 'identifying and interpreting" those symbols-- that's all.

That said, it may be that strictly adhering to the rules on this point is not as fun as it might to be stretch them a bit. And if you're in a group that's willing to stretch the rules a bit and to allow a successful symbology roll to enable to player to *define* the meaning of the symbols (so that you as player can assert what the correct meaning is rather than simply having your character correctly interpret a meaning definied by the GM), I think that it would be fine to bundle Intent #3 and Intent #4 together as intents for the same task and Symbology test, provided that all in the group are cool on that-- including the GM. (But, cool though that may be, I don't think that's necessary a strictly 'by the rules' interpretation of what Symbology does, or what is an appropriate intent for it.)

As for intents #1 and #2: I think these intents are really something different quite different that anything that Symbology itself is about, per the rules.

Intent #1 (I want there to be symbols on the wall) seems to me to be a feature of world-definition that is not at all within the scope of the symbology skill.

Now, from other recent threads, I am under the impression that many folks play BW in a way that allows the testing of character Wises in order to assert reality in this way (i.e. A successful test of a character's Secret-Doors-Wise will allow the player to define reality and say "There is a secret door in this room.") However, I'm not sure that's a 'by-the-rules' interpretation of 'wises' either. Per the description of "Wises" in the Character Burner, a test of wises allows a character to "call upon knowledge of various details of the game world-- a who's who and what's what". In other words, it's about saying whether a character knows a fact (or rumor)- not about whether a player can assert reality in the immediate environment through such knowledge (especially if such an assertion is contrary to other facts about the environment, as understood by the GM.)

Still, if you're in a group that interprets the rules that way, I would think that one could call upon a wise like "Inscriptions Wise" or "Ancient Epigraphy-Wise" or something like that to recall, "I recall once reading is the tome of Alimanthys the wise, which exists in a partially burned manuscript of the Guild of Arcane Lore , that a series of arcane symbols were etched in the northern wall of an underground room just like this one," and allowing a successful test to bring about the intent that this is *the* room. That's neat and fun-- and if the GM and other players want to roll with it, I think that's great. But I think, again, that's a separate intent and task and test from what you would use symbology for. (I think that would be a ready high Ob. wise roll, by the way!)

Finally, there's Intent #2: Noticing the symbols. Unless they're really faint, or unless there's something specifically hidden about them, I wouldn't even bother with this one, from a GM perspective. If there are symbols, whether there by my design or player assertion, I want them to be seen. I'd treat this one as just a 'Say yes'. But, if I *had* to test it (because, for whatever reason, they were really hard to see) I think it would probably be a Perception test or arguably even a Read test-- not Symbology itself. (Maybe it would be a Perception/Read test *linked* to the Symbology test, though.)

[Sempiternity]

I would think that Intents #s 1 & 2 would also be able to be handled under the purview of Perception, as well as a Wise - in either case you are rolling to "call something into being" within the fiction & mechanics. This does seem to be an intent that cannot quite be handled by the "regular" skills, on their own, however.

If the GM/group agrees, of course, then you should be able to skip right to the Symbology roll and be done with it. (But that "of course" would seem to be one of the sticking points from the previous thread, about just how "say yes or roll" enters the equation!)


Intent #4 might be the most important one of them for this issue - basically, is it OK for a player to try to create details within the fiction with a test?

I had thought that this was something fully embraced by the system as written... but now i'm not quite so sure...

...but if you, say, have your character murder someone else's character successfully, well, then that character is dead now, isn't it? And that wouldn't seem to be any different than interpreting a series of ancient runes to lead you to a hidden mage's staff... or whatever. It is just that result of the test & intent in action.

[jchokey]

Intent #4 might be the most important one of them for this issue - basically, is it OK for a player to try to create details within the fiction with a test?

Actually, I think Intent #1 raises the same issue, assuming that you're allowing the creation of such details as "There are symbols carved on the north wall of the room" to be established by a Wise (or a Perception test).



I had thought that this was something fully embraced by the system as written... but now i'm not quite so sure...

Clearly, there are elements in BW that, flirt with this more than a bit. Circles is (I think) the most obvious example. For example, a successful Circles test can allow a player to introduce a very specific type of NPC into the game-- and to define very specific details about how that NPC is introduced. For instance, the following Circles intent would explicitly permissable under the rules: "I want to find the daughter of a wealthy merchant who is looking to find an accomplish to assist her in robbing her father-- and I want to find her in my bedroom at midnight tonight!" You could even add that you want her to be beautiful and in love with you as well, by specifying multiple specific dispositions. (Of course, you're going to be talking a really, really high target obstacle for that... but you get my point.)

There are, of course, other parts in the rules that permit this. The Weather Sense trait, for instance, allows players to decide what the weather will be through a Perception test

So, the idea is definitely *in the system*, at least in some places. But, that's not the same thing as saying that the system, as a whole and as written, fully embraces the idea that *any* test allows the player to introduce and establish very specific details of the game world.

That's not to say that a group couldn't very well use it that way by taking those "reality-assertion' elements that are permitted by Circles and applying the same principle elsewhere. In fact, I think that could work, very, very well. But, I don't think that's an explicit part of the rules as written.

FWIW, I actually think that's one of the great beauties of BW as a system-- it does have this flexibility built into it.

[luke]

Mr Chokey has it.

[elmago79]

I just wanted to clarify something:



Now, from other recent threads, I am under the impression that many folks play BW in a way that allows the testing of character Wises in order to assert reality in this way (i.e. A successful test of a character's Secret-Doors-Wise will allow the player to define reality and say "There is a secret door in this room.") However, I'm not sure that's a 'by-the-rules' interpretation of 'wises' either.

I'm sure this is "by-the-rules". Monster Burner, p. 81:


The reverse is true as well. A player with Black Market-wise may want to make some illicit purchases, the GM hadn't planned for a black market in this particular city, but the player with such a skill can narrate the existence of one based on a successful roll.

Luke, could you elaborate on that last thing you said?

[luke]

Yeah, that's what wises are for. You make a suggestion to bring an appropriate element into the game, the GM sets an obstacle.

"We need poison."

"Hm, I have Black Market-wise. I'm going to track down a vendor of unsavory substances."

That's it.

[jchokey]

I'm sure this is "by-the-rules". Monster Burner, p. 81:


The reverse is true as well. A player with Black Market-wise may want to make some illicit purchases, the GM hadn't planned for a black market in this particular city, but the player with such a skill can narrate the existence of one based on a successful roll.

Well, I'll be darned.... there it is. I stand corrected. I wonder why that's only mentioned in the Monster Burner and not in either the main brown rulebook or in the character burner. *shrug*

[luke]

You're not corrected! You were dead on.

Why is this so hard to understand? Standard resolution is the same as freaking D&D, but you're explicit about what you want and how you're doing it up front. Wises and Circles are special mechanics that turn some narrative setting-making power over the players.

-L

[Drozdal]

I wonder why that's only mentioned in the Monster Burner and not in either the main brown rulebook or in the character burner. *shrug*It's simple - MonBu consists "more advanced" version of the rules :P

[jchokey]

Yeah, that's what wises are for. You make a suggestion to bring an appropriate element into the game, the GM sets an obstacle.

"We need poison."

"Hm, I have Black Market-wise. I'm going to track down a vendor of unsavory substances."

That's it.

Hmmm.... the situation you just described to me sounds more like a Circles test, wherein Circles would be used to find (and thus introduce) the NPC who sells illicit goods. It would make sense that Black Market Wise could be linked to that, per p. 114 of the brown book, but it seems the task of finding the vendor himself ought to be Circles, no?

Or am I missing something?

[jchokey]

You're not corrected! You were dead on.

Really? But I had said I *didn't* think that was a 'by the rules' interpretation of what Wises do-- but a stretching of them (a fun stretch perhaps, but a stretch none the less). The quote from the MoBu seemed to contradict that, as it suggests quite clearly that Wises *CAN* do this per the rules.


Why is this so hard to understand?

I actually think there's an answer to that. But before I give it-- Do you really want to know? Or are you just venting? :)

[luke]

Ugh.

[eruditus]

Guys. Answer me something as simply as you can. How is stating as intent "My character swings a (read: fictional) sword at the (fictional) orc to inflict a (fictional) sucking chest wound and otherwise ruin his (fictional) day" (assumably a legal intent with a legal task) different from "I find a (fictional) staff in the next (fictional) room by reading the (fictional) runes on the (fictional) wall and do so using the skill on my character's sheet called symbology that says I can read (fictional) runes?"

The classic example of intent is climbing a wall. You say "my character is going to climb a wall." The GM says okay roll to climb the wall. How does failure move the situation forward? It doesn't unless the GM know's intent. So then you ask the player what their intent is and the answer becomes "I want to climb the wall to help my friend before he gets run through." Okay then the player rolls climb with the implication that success means he gets there to help his friend's and engage the baddy about to stab him and failure says his friend dies a bloody death while sorting out his own entrails. THAT is not only one of the most rudimentary descriptions of intent there is but it's strictly by the BW book.

So is the symbology thing. Where in the rules I pain-stakingly wrote out for you kind and erudite people do you see any support that these are not by the strictest reading of the rules.

Luke, same as D&D? No. There is no intent and task mechanics in D&D. It's all task oriented. There is no intent. To add it is drifting the rules, especially if your working off the player's handbook specifically.

Secondly, even if it was there what I described is identical to D&D. That's my point. Intent is intent. Your game has no specifics for what is or isn't allowable via intent therefore anything the group and GM allows is by the strictest reading of the rules. At that point it's just fun storytelling techniques that work not drfit or any such craziness.

Where is your mechanical and written description of what you as a player cannot intend?

And my first question says "hey we're making this shit up." All of it. It doesn't exists. How do you justify any particular limitation (not supported by the rules) that feeds into the narrative in a way that you can say is different than how any other fiction feeds into the narrative. it's not like the orc or the sword or the chestwound actually exists in any meaningful fashion compared to the staff or the hall or the runes or the character that does it all. That's just silly talk.

Luke even establishes a solid ground for what is and isn't allowable in the fiction in a game (not just BW) by suggesting a rule in BE that says "hey, you have to show something your going to build in a scene as color before you build it." Just the existance of that rule implies that without it you could bring anything into a scene just with the appropriate roll.

BW has no such rules. What Xenomouse and I are suggesting is just plain good technique.

I beg you to find where it is written otherwise in the games rules.

Now, if just for a second we assume that it's not in the rules and a BW developer wants to go as far as to say "Official erratta: here are the limits to intent..." then I'd say "yep, what we do is drifting the intent rules and you should probably try the rules straight up because they totally work that way before you go and change things." But can we, in good conscience, say "your not following the rules" when I havn't seen any rules that suggest otherwise?

Thanks for the conversation and clarity,
- Don

[jchokey]

Guys. Answer me something as simply as you can. How is stating as intent "My character swings a (read: fictional) sword at the (fictional) orc to inflict a (fictional) sucking chest wound and otherwise ruin his (fictional) day" (assumably a legal intent with a legal task) different from "I find a (fictional) staff in the next (fictional) room by reading the (fictional) runes on the (fictional) wall and do so using the skill on my character's sheet called symbology that says I can read (fictional) runes?"

I'll try to do so as simply as I can.

In the example of the runes, you (as a player) are seeking to use the character's symbology skill not merely to achieve the intent that the character successfully interprets the meaning of some runes whose existence has already been established, but also to create the fact that the runes are there in the first place *and* to allow you, as a player, to decide what the true origin and meaning of the runes are.

An equivalent example with the sword and Orc would be saying that by making a successful Sword roll, your character can not merely achieve his intent of inflicting a sucking chest wound on an Orc, but rather establish the fact that there was an Orc in the room in the first place (when none had ever been previously introduced), *AND* to specify that the pain of the sucking chest will the Orc to tell you the location of his secretly buried stash of treasure, which includes a magical staff.


So is the symbology thing. Where in the rules I pain-stakingly wrote out for you kind and erudite people do you see any support that these are not by the strictest reading of the rules.

I refer the distinguished gentlemen to the answer previously given. (Others have, correctly, pointed out that the use of Wises to create reality *is* permitted by the rules in the MoBU-- but I don't think that changes the basic point I made about your initial post not accurately assessing the intents involved or that Symbology was appropriate to use for achieving all those intents).

[luke]

But can we, in good conscience, say "your not following the rules" when I havn't seen any rules that suggest otherwise?

On the surface, it makes sense. But upon scrutiny, I see the slipperiest of slopes. Looking at your argument as a whole, you're saying that anything that isn't explicitly stated in the rules is permissible in the game. That just isn't true. You know it; I know it.

Like it or not, all games have implicit rules. These aren't mechanics and they're not operational instructions. They're larger notions like sportsmanship, genre fidelity and even social contract.

Well, one of the implicit rules for Burning Wheel is that it acts like a traditional fantasy game unless otherwise stated. How is the user of this game to pick up the hints of this implication? Starting with the cover, "Fantasy Roleplaying System" then moving on to the first paragraph of the first chapter. The final reference is in the Gameography. Check out the first list of games.

-L

[jchokey]

I'm beginning to have visions of the Knights of the Dinner Table gamers playing Burning Wheel:

B.A.: OK, you enter the market of the city of Arafel. The market is bustling with activity. Merchants and vendors are selling goods of all sorts from throughout the kingdom. Hawkers are selling buns and sweetmeats, and...

Dave: I pull out my Hackmaster sword and waste the Orc behind the hawker with the sweetmeats!

Bob: Yeah, and I pull out my crossbow and fire a bolt of slaying into his chest.

B.A.: What are guys you talking about? There aren't any Orcs here. It's a peaceful market town-- and Orcs would be shot dead from the towers before coming in.

Dave: Hey, you're the one that said we were going to play this game where we had to specify our intents, well that's what I'm doing. I intend to waste an Orc, and I intend to waste him right now!

Bob: Yeah, and I'm following up with my bolt of orc-slaying. That's my intent.

B.A.: For cryin' out loud guys, there are no orcs here! I'm the GM. I know the setting, I know what this world is like--- and I'm the one who just described the setting to you-- and I'm telling you, there are no orcs around! And Bob-- you don't have a bolt orc-slaying! You never have. Where are you getting this from?

Brian: B.A., I'm not normally one to contradict the GM, but we're not playing Hackmaster anymore, and the rules are very specific on this: They say that you've got to say yes or roll the dice. Well, unless you say yes, they get to at least make a roll.

Dave: Yeah, monkey-boy, say yes, or let us roll to see if we hit that orc!

Sarah: Guys! I don't think that's what "Say yes or roll the dice" means. I play a lot of Indie games, and the idea is not to allow you do things that make no sense within an established context, but rather to...

Brian (interrupting): Some of those those indie games, as you know perfectly well, allow players to do a *lot* more than just roll dice and react like rats in a maze. They allow us to take control of the narrative and even share world-creation responsibilities with the GM. That's just what we're doing. In fact, guys, I think we should up the ante... I think we should state a much more specific intent. Let's have our intent be that if you hit the orc, you deliver a sucking chest would that causes him to tell us the location of his secret treasure horde, which contains a magical staff that will give +2 to all rolls when fighting dragons!"

Bob and Dave: Brian-- you rock. B.A. That's what we're doing... We're changing our intents to what Brian said.

B.A.: No, you're not! You can't strike at an orc that's not there!

Bob: Where does it say that it in the rules, dice jockey? Listen, we've made a clearly legitimate intent- to strike an orc, and get him to tell us about his magical treasure We've specified how we're going to do it-- the task. So, say yes-- or let us make our roll.

B.A.: But there's no freakin' orc in the marketplace!!! And you still don't have a crossbow of orc-slaying Bob.

Dave: C'mon B.A., if we hit him, he obviously *was* there--- and so is his hidden treasure.

Bob: Yeah, and if I hit him with my bolt of orc slaying, obviously I had the bolt of orc-slaying in the first place! Geez, B.A., aren't you thinking this through?

B.A.: [leaves while ripping out handfuls of hair from his head in frustration]

Sarah: Guys, this really is not the way the game's supposed to be played....


[I apologize if anyone's offended by this. Being rude and mocking others is not my intent. Eruditus' questions are perfectly legitimate and the issues he raises are important-- and that's why I took the time to respond seriously earlier. And I don't think he's a Bob or Dave style gamer in the least! However, this thread is just bringing up various KODT-type dialogues in my mind, and I simply couldn't restrain myself.]

[zabieru]

While we don't state our intents in in-game terms, ultimately they must be comprehensible in those terms.* You need to be able to imagine a conversation with your boss wherein you explain how you're going to use your task to make your intent happen. "Hey Boss, that Orc is driving away customers, so I'm going to write off one of those swords we have on aisle 35 and give him a sucking chest wound so he'll leave" makes sense. "Hey Boss, have you ever been in the building superintendent's office?" "No, why?" "Well, we need the as-built blueprints to do that rewiring you wanted. I'm really good at reading blueprints, so I'm going to go look at the walls in the superintendent's office until I have them." "Are you sure they're on the walls? I was gonna have Bill call the architect to get them." "No, I've never been in the office either, but I'm so good at reading blueprints that I'm sure they'll be on the walls..."

Well, you see how that is? Intent is an out-of-game representation of an in-game concept: What will come of this? There are skills and magical effects that have unusual descriptions that operate on a different level, but in the absence of anything in the skill description that says so, assume that the skill description must lead to the intent you have declared by a process that would be comprehensible to a character in that world.

*With rare exceptions like runecasting and some applications of wises.


(I think really what I'm saying here is that most of the skill descriptions are written in in-game terms, and that intents for those skills must be congruent with those descriptions. If the skill description is written in game mechanics instead, like astrology or runecasting, then you can do whatever the description says. This is what Luke's saying about implicit rules... It doesn't say anywhere that the skill descriptions are in-game, but the game breaks if you don't treat them that way and it works if you do. So feel free to do it either way, at your option, but when my game works and yours gets bogged down in Mage: the Ascension-style conversations about whether "I walk over to the other side of the ruin, where the map showing the nearby inn with the famous beer is painted on the wall" is a legitimate intent for Speed because of the walking, well, don't say I didn't warn you.)

EDIT: Make sure to reinforce that intent with your BITs though. "Never pass up a chance to drink well-known or renowned beer" is a good instinct.

EDIT EDIT: I have massive sleep debt right now so if none of this is funny to anyone else, don't mind me.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: You could use that instinct to force the other players to make Persuasion tests with an obstacle of the beer's reputation.

[luke]

Chockey FTW!

[xenomouse]

I sort of see what Don is getting at. While the example comparing the use of the sword skill to the symbology skill may be a little off, I think he's onto something: we are creating fiction and bringing narrative into play, and BW has provided skills for doing so.

Maybe we need a better example. Here's my thinking:
What is the difference between the sword skill and the symbology skill? The sword skill is martial and symbology is not.
What could symbology better be compared to? Well, symbology is a perception based skill that describes the knowledge of symbols and runes.
What other skills are based in perception that describe knowledge of a certain topic? Wises.

Is there a difference between symbology and symbol-wise? This is a genuine question, not rhetorical. To be honest, if I can use symbol-wise to read symbols and runes AND create narrative material regarding runes, why is the symbology skill even in the game? It seems like it's a less useful version of symbol-wise.

[Thor]

Symbology allows you to see '&' and translate it as 'and.' With the Symbology skill, you'd be able to read something making use of that symbol.

Symbol-wise would allow you to state that '&' is called an ampersand and is a ligature of the letters in the latin 'et.'

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Ampersand_Evolution.svghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Ampersand_Evolution.svg/300px-Ampersand_Evolution.svg.png

Symbology gives you the ability to interpret its meaning. Symbol-wise gives you the ability to determine facts about the symbol itself. Symbol-wise cannot be used to interpret symbols the way Symbology can.

[xenomouse]

Symbol-wise gives you the ability to determine facts about the symbol itself.
So, wises give you academic knowledge about the topic, but not practical knowledge. Is this correct?

--

The more I think about it, the more that division seems like splitting hairs. I've never heard of anyone who knew everything about a language but could not actually read it to some degree of accuracy.

[artellan]

Cool answer Thor, I was wondering about the difference between them too, but that definitely clears it up.

Getting back to the matter at hand, here's what I think. Having a skill means you're good at something:
If you have Symbology, it means you're good at interpreting symbols. It doesn't mean you're good at knowing the existence of ancient powerful staffs (staves?*) in the dungeon.
If you have Staff-Wise, you know about staffs. It is reasonable for your character to look at some clue and say "by the Gods! The Night-Darkened Staff of Elsam-Put may be here!"I think Devin was getting at this before, especially in the first thread, but really it's pretty simple. Your ability to perform your Task (your skill exponent) has to reasonably increase your chance of succeeding at the Task, and thus lead directly to achieving the Intent.

The reason Wises are special is because they are skills that tell you what your character knows, so your Task/Intent can be about creating a new detail in your character's head. It only affects the "game fiction" because it was in your character's head so it must be "real". (It follows from this that it would not be a legal intent/task to use Staff-Wise to say "there is a powerful staff in the other room, but my character doesn't know about it". )

I think this conversation is partially related to Thor's post (#5) in this thread about Consequence of Failure (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5136). I look at it like "how can being good or bad at Tracking affect whether the girl has been injured". Similarly here, how can being good or bad at interpreting symbols affect whether there is a staff in this dungeon?

* sorry, Canadian, Queen's English and all that. The word "staffs" is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

[Thor]

So, wises give you academic knowledge about the topic, but not practical knowledge. Is this correct?

--

The more I think about it, the more that division seems like splitting hairs. I've never heard of anyone who knew everything about a language but could not actually read it to some degree of accuracy.

I think "academic" does not provide quite the right connotation, but it will serve.

I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. For instance, I can tell you that the ampersand was invented by Marcus Tullius Tiro, Cicero's secretary. But I haven't got a clue as to what an ampersand means when I'm looking at a Perl string.

Or perhaps another example would make it more clear:

With Sword-wise, I can tell you that a particular sword is an Arming Sword of Oakeshott Type XII. You can tell because of the tapering blade and shortened fuller. The design improves its thrusting capabilities but maintains its ability to cut as well. I can't quite make out the name from the smith's mark, but its shape suggests it's German in origin.

Meanwhile, the Sword skill allows me to use that sword to kill.

[stormsweeper]

I think of Wises as "trivia skills" - you know random crap about things. It's not necessarily academic in nature. With a good Symbols-wise, you'd have no trouble with the Video Daily Double on Jeopardy. With a good Symbology, you'd be able to work out what all those little marks all over Stonehenge mean.

[Z-Dog]

I'm beginning to have visions of the Knights of the Dinner Table gamers playing Burning Wheel:


jchokey, that's so dead on I'm dying here....*wipes tears*

[xenomouse]

I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. For instance, I can tell you that the ampersand was invented by Marcus Tullius Tiro, Cicero's secretary. But I haven't got a clue as to what an ampersand means when I'm looking at a Perl string.
This clicks with me. I get it now. I also get why you would use wises to bring new narrative into the game. Any other questions I have will be in a "wises" thread.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. On with the intent discussion! :rolleyes:

[Rob Alexander]

Luke,


Why is this so hard to understand?

I am ever-suspicous of explanations in general, but these come to mind:


1) The way people categorise things: lots of storygames have contests for general narration rights, BW is seen as an storygame (because it uses explicit stakes, expects the GM to follow the rules, repeatedly emphasises that the story is emergent and all about the PCs, etc). It's therefore easy to assume that BW has narration rights.

(Plus, people who are interested in explicit stakes are often interested in other nontraditional things, like contests for narration rights. So they import them into other games, then talk on about this on fora and cause others to believe that they're in the rules for game X.)

There isn't much you can do about this - your readership is always going to understand your game less well than you do, and will always blur the distinction between your unique game and other similar games.

(I saw a thread somewhere a while back where someone was trying to cram BW into an implicit category system that had boxes corresponding to "D&D", "RuneQuest/Traveller/Harn etc" and "weird diceless games". Needless to say they couldn't get their head around why BW was interesting. I just tried to find the thread again, but failed.)


2) "Say yes or roll the dice" comes from a game built on narration rights (Dogs in the Vineyard). Like "conflict resolution", it has a very clear meaning there --- if someone narrates events or facts, you have to either accept them or push dice forward to negate them. This is true even for the GM, who has limited dice to work with (although I believe there are some caveats e.g. about facts established in the GM's prep - I haven't really followed the discussion of this). In BW... well, I don't know what it means.

It's clear (from other parts of the rules) that the BW GM has ample authority to just "say no", for example on grounds of real-world plausibility. In DitV, no-one has that authority (as such... there's a kind of "group veto" idea as well), so "Say yes..." is a hard rule. In BW, the hard rule has become a guideline (something like "Generally, don't just roadblock, give the player a chance to use Tests to achieve what they want, even if the Obs are high and failure is nasty"). It's necessarily more vague.

(Luke, you're not the only one doing this - "Say yes..." is given as advice all over the internet for just about every game. In most of those cases, it's just as unclear.)


3) Circles is clear from the brown book. I tried to look up Wises the other day, however, and found nothing in either book about using it to narrate things. (Possibly it's hidden under skill descriptions for individual wises - I didn't read all of those). So to understand this use of Wises you have to come to the forum or the wiki, and it's not always clear what's "official" here and what's not.


4) The demo scenarios encourage the the GM to accept player narration, even if grandiose. E.g. The Sword example of "The Flametongue of Balthazar", and the dwarven scene framing in The Gift.

(On reflection, this last one is probably the biggest offender. My group started with The Sword and this coloured our assumptions about how the game was meant to be played. Given the very positive player response to that style of play, we may yet change the rules to accomodate it.)


Regarding your comment that "one of the implicit rules for Burning Wheel is that it acts like a traditional fantasy game unless otherwise stated"... that's not much use to me. I want game rules that are self-contained. (I actually think BW isn't bad in this regard.)

One thing that might have helped was a page in the brown book that drew out this point, explicitly contrasting Circles, Wises, and normal abilities. It could then make the point that "some skills (e.g. Runecasting) break this rule, in specific ways that are detailed in their individual skill descriptions" (Given that Wises don't get a proper section in the rules anyway, some official errata here would be good)


In summary:

Luke, I think that the text as written is consistent with the description you've given here. (Except that from the brown and orange books alone, Wises are weaker than you mean them to be.)

Don, I don't think your argument holds water *as a reading of the main text alone*. It was clear to me from reading the intent/task bit that the GM is empowered and advised (required?) to restrict tasks to things that the character could chose to do i.e. the in-game actions that Devin described. Your position makes sense, however, given the secondary stuff like the demo scenarios.



rob

[zabieru]

Is there a difference between symbology and symbol-wise? This is a genuine question, not rhetorical. To be honest, if I can use symbol-wise to read symbols and runes AND create narrative material regarding runes, why is the symbology skill even in the game? It seems like it's a less useful version of symbol-wise.

Yes, there is a difference. Symbology is incapable of the narrative control Don wants. Symbol-wise has limited capabilities in that regard, but is otherwise less capable.

You can't use symbol-wise to read runes. You can use it to identify origin, language, period, maybe even inscriber or intent, but not to read them. It gives you information Symbology doesn't, but not most of the information that it does.

Symbol-wise is "Oh, that's Arabic, an artistic representation of the profession of faith, probably Turkish, from the 12th century. That's an alchemical cipher there, from the lab of so and so. That's German, dated between 1952 and 1992, from a government source.

It doesn't let you read symbols. It's like handwriting analysis rather than reading, like archeological knowledge of medieval weaponry rather than physical knowledge of swordsmanship.

[Z-Dog]

2) "Say yes or roll the dice" comes from a game built on narration rights (Dogs in the Vineyard). Like "conflict resolution", it has a very clear meaning there --- if someone narrates events or facts, you have to either accept them or push dice forward to negate them. This is true even for the GM, who has limited dice to work with (although I believe there are some caveats e.g. about facts established in the GM's prep - I haven't really followed the discussion of this). In BW... well, I don't know what it means.

It's clear (from other parts of the rules) that the BW GM has ample authority to just "say no", for example on grounds of real-world plausibility. In DitV, no-one has that authority (as such... there's a kind of "group veto" idea as well), so "Say yes..." is a hard rule. In BW, the hard rule has become a guideline (something like "Generally, don't just roadblock, give the player a chance to use Tests to achieve what they want, even if the Obs are high and failure is nasty"). It's necessarily more vague.

(Luke, you're not the only one doing this - "Say yes..." is given as advice all over the internet for just about every game. In most of those cases, it's just as unclear.)

rob

I always thought Vincent's admonition in BW was to:

1. Help ID conflict
2. Minimize rolls
3. Keep the advancement system in check (too much rolling...too fast advance).
4. Keep each roll significant, important, full of tension...to ID to everyone, "this means something...pay attention"


re: this thread

I see the GM simply setting the bar:

1. Say Yes
2. Set an Ob (and an appropriate failure)
3. Say "that's impossible"

the "impossible" thing really doesn't always have to rest on the shoulders of the GM...I think most groups police themselves...but it ultimately rests on his shoulders.

[xenomouse]

I agree with Rob. There is a level of confusion regarding wises arising from the lack of information in the books and mixed messages received from secondary sources. I second his opinion that wises should have a section of its own (at least a paragraph) in the errata. The lack of such information led me to believe that this topic - creating new narrative items with wises and skills - was open for discussion.

I know I would appreciate the information. I think I'll enjoy the game a lot more if I'm playing it the way Luke originally meant.

[eruditus]

Intent is an out-of-game representation of an in-game concept:

I like how this is written but that is YOUR definition, not BW's definition. Read the BW section below again you should see that this is in no way implied.

I understand where you're trying to come from, Luke, but that is not an implicit rule and it's bogus, I think, to say it is. That basically creates a sense of "okay, so any rule that doesn't make the game play like we play is covered in pointing out games that play like we play." However, in most situations that play style is actually not playing by the rules at all. When these "traditions" you speak of were developed (and quite honestly before we really started actually describing game play with any real detail) many times we're playing by our own rules and just telling stories where no mechanics lead us. In the book you make a attempt to understand what's really going on - what's important is what the player really wants from this roll.


... comprehensible to a character in that world.

A world that does not exist. A world that is really only in one persons mind, maybe. If the GM hasn't even thought of a detail in the game why can't the detail be fleshed out (in context) by a player through intent? Devin, your attempt at the boss analogy doesn't really work because your assuming a space that exists. This one does not.

Now why couldn't I bring an orc into the scene? because there are rules for pulling NPCs into the game-space - circles. As a GM I would say fine but before you stab him you would have to circle him up. Knowing that the player doesn't really care about failure I might even just "say yes" and describe the orcs entrance and pull something from the rogue's gallery.


(I think really what I'm saying here is that most of the skill descriptions are written in in-game terms, and that intents for those skills must be congruent with those descriptions.

Again a really excellent try (not meant to be patronizing in any way) but your reading into the rules. That is maybe how YOU play and/or some other people play games but there is nothing implicit or explicit that exists that reinforces this concept. Intent is intent. Social contract dictates that my intentions have a limit based on what the people at the table are willing to push. If a GM is okay with my intent being "I recognize that these runes say there is a magic item in the next room" then that's the intent BY THE RULES, implicit or otherwise, of BURNING WHEEL.

You say that to do otherwise would break it but that's a fallacy - probably hundreds of people out of the 6000 or so that bought BW are playing this way and having a blast. More importantly, if this is how they are setting intent then they are playing by the rules as written and implied.

Now is that how the rules were meant to be? Did the developers write this game with pushing player intent and strong scene framing in mind? No, probably not, but that hardly means it's the wrong way to play or is somehow not canon. Again it's simply a way to play any game with intent.

Folks, this is a social contract issue, nothing more. My initial post was speaking to social contract on how to make this sort of intent sing. How to tell solid and exciting stories by doing the most important thing a GM can do - what the players think is the most engaging.

I liked the KoDT scenario. I totally see those guys doing that. I would have broken those guys because I would give them everything they wanted and just let them jerk off :) Either that or I would have found a new gaming group - LOL okay...yeah, that's really more likely. :)

[artellan]

Social contract dictates that my intentions have a limit based on what the people at the table are willing to push. If a GM is okay with my intent being "I recognize that these runes say there is a magic item in the next room" then that's the intent BY THE RULES, implicit or otherwise, of BURNING WHEEL.
Hey Don, I don't think anyone is saying that intent is completely invalid in all cases, just that the Intent-Task pair being described doesn't make sense.

The reason I have a problem with it is that someone with Symbology 8 is going to have a much better chance of succeeding at that Task than someone with Symbology 2. But why should your character's ability to interpret runes have any bearing on whether there is a magic item in the next room? Or even whether there exist runes that say so? Don I'm really curious to hear your opinion on this.

Wises can do so because they govern what your character knows. A character with Staff-Wise 8 is more likely to be able to truthfully state "aha! a staff is in the next room" than one with Staff-Wise 2. (Assuming the GM hasn't already written down "no staffs in this dungeon" in his notes, of course. In that case the intent-task wouldn't be valid.)

[eruditus]

Okay, so my comments here have nothing to do with wises specifically and symbology is merely an example.

Here is what's really going on in a game:
The GM has not established where the staff IS to the players.
The staff is an important story point to everyone involved.
We're in a dugeon setting that supports the context that there would be encoded runes and that they would instruct the reader where to find this staff.
Either the GM knows where the staff is OR he hasn't written it into the dungeon.

The player says "hmm, we need some clues as to where the staff is. I think that it's incredibly plausible considering what we know of this magic group that they would instruct us at least about where they would put it. Do I have any skills that might help my character start down the path of gaining some clues? Sure I do. Symbology."

Then the player describes what his character is doing:
"The sorcerer runs his fingers along the wall to read the faded runes and discovers that they reveal that the staff is behind the golden door."
GM thinks about it, decides that that's a good as place as any to continue the trail or bring the staff into the game. He sees what the ob would be according to the skill in the book, adds one for it being faded and the player rolls. He might even say that if he fails an undead horror is awakened by the magical runes and will ambush the characters around the next bend.

Solid awesome story. Period.

Now let see how this would be described as you all are suggesting.
The GM describes the corridor and suggests, "You notice some symbols on the wall."
The sorcerer "ooo, oooo, I have symbology! What does it say?"
After a successful roll the GM says "the ancient order that built this place points beyond the golden door as the resting place of the staff."

Either one accomplishes the VERY same thing. I thing some of you think that it is somehow different but it isn't. The same goals are attained. The same fiction is written. The story moves forward. The only difference is that in the first scenario the player is being proactive, thoughtful and focused on the tasks at hand. The second scenario assumes that the GM is the only one that can think of cool stuff for the players to do in such a situation. in the first you are harnessing the creative power of all the players. It's just up to the GM to make certain that his vision is followed and context and story stays solid.

Now another scenario says the players are looking at one another and thinking to themselves "gee, this has been kinda dragging, when are we gonna find the staff." the GM is thinking to himself "I can't wait to have that undead guy spring out at them around the bend." A little disatisfied the players communicate and say "hey, I really would like to find that staff this session. is this going to happen?" The GM thinks about it and says "sure, I hadn't thought about it but it makes perfect sense in a place like this. Anyone have any ideas where you can start getting clues about the staff's whereabouts?" The players look at their character sheets and think and the sorcerers player says "this is the dungeon of my long dead peeps. maybe they left us obscure encoded instructions?" Oh, that's a great idea, the GM pipes up. Okay so lets say they are on this wall over here. How do you want to read them?" The player grins "well, with my Symbology skill, of course!"

Again, this has nothing to do with the rules. They are just opening communicating what they want and how their needs as players and realize it doesn't collide with the needs of the GM. But there is all that outside banter. There is so much time and energy being poured into the communal effort outside the context of the game.

Wouldn't it be cooler if players could interact with the GM and tell him what they wanted out of the game and what skills probably best color the sequence in one fell swoop? Oh, right he can! With intent. This IS the sheer definition of intent. Telling the GM what you want in this game. Period. The GM, according to the rules, can say "nah, not yet, the staff isn't part of this dungeon. We're focusing on the necromantic rituals that will get you closer to the main villain." The player likes that too "oh, okay, that's totally cool. So can I have some runes that talk about that?" "Absolutely!" The game moves on. Everyone is happy, informed about the extant story and cool things are happening with mutliple people involved. SCORE!

Please forgive me for really being bewildered how this doesn't make perfect sense to folks.

Thanks,
- Don

[eruditus]

The reason I have a problem with it is that someone with Symbology 8 is going to have a much better chance of succeeding at that Task than someone with Symbology 2. But why should your character's ability to interpret runes have any bearing on whether there is a magic item in the next room? Or even whether there exist runes that say so? Don I'm really curious to hear your opinion on this.


For the same reason that it has any bearing on what the fictional symbols on the wall say. Symbology is just a lense that the player looks through in the game to get fiction created on way or the other. Whether the GM hands it to the player by describing it or the player makes it part of his intent, it's still getting thought up by the group and described at the table to develop the story. If the GM had said there were runes there for the player to read the player would still be using Symbology. There is no added value to the fiction by the GM developing the information. Fiction is fiction. As long as it's part of how the GM sees the game and the setting progressing and it's telling a good story then it's as good as coming from his lips.

More importantly it's hitting on skills the characters want to explore explicitly and it allows the GM to gain a level of discovery as well, to be exploring the story with the players instead of just regurgitating his or her own ideas at the players. I would agree they didn't make sense if the player was like "I read runes on the wall to find out theres a staff in the next room and I want to use my sword skill to do it." That would be a bad pairing of intent and task. The intent here is a clue to the where about of the staff and the task is reading it's whereabouts on a wall.

Sure, the play group has to be careful they are not just saying "Okay, so my intent in the first scene is to kill the bad guy." If a group is doing that then I suspect you didn't make a very intriguing villain. But why pussy-foot around what we're all trying to get at? get to it. Be a proactive player and be part of the game with the tools that the game gave you to accomplish the task - intent.

Does that help at all or am I just rambling?
- Don

[artellan]

Hey Don, thanks that does help me understand. I really wish we could talk face-to-face on this because I feel we're almost on the same page, and plus your ideas sound really cool. In fact that third example you had (in your 2nd-last post, the long one), where the players and GM hashed things out by suggestion, fits what happens at our table all the time!

Really it seems like the main difference, at least by the examples, is that you're allowing any skill to do what everyone else only lets Wises do.

I may have more to say on this later, but need to get to bed now. Here's a preview though, some ideas as to where I feel our thinking differs (yours on left, mine on right):
"fiction is fiction" vs. "players can only affect fiction through their characters"
"players being proactive to advance story" vs. "players playing hard to push characters toward goals"
"Intent is player's intent" vs. "Intent is both player's and character's intent"

[luke]

Don,

Me and a few other folks have chimed in to point to canon Burning Wheel. You're insisting we're incorrect, which is your right. Aside from that, please forgive me if I ask what exactly you want out of this thread? Your last post was scattershot and incorporated a number of different game design concepts that are not necessarily related. Before I respond, I'd like to know if you're satisfied having disagreed and said your piece or if there's something else you're driving at.

Please every body hold off on your responses until Don responds.

-L

[eruditus]

Luke, I am frustrated because I am more than willing to concede the point (and have on many occasions on other topics) but haven't heard anything convincing.

I am okay drifting the rules one way or the other if I REALLY think that it will improve my play experience but I also think that rules are important to follow. It's an important design element to me and an important play option.

So the first question becomes: Is the definition of intent clearly stated in the rules and if so, where?

The second question is, if not how does someone reading the game infer that it "should" b played a certain way?

artellan, the intent for the player and the character kinda comes close to what I am looking for although, again, I see that as a preference, not as something stated or implied in the text. Aside from that one could argue that the character doesn't exists so they really can't have intent. You're correct though, as long as a player describes his character's actions in a way that is meaningful to the story and frames it in such a way to imply a skill then that's totally cool. That's why characters have skills because that's how the player wants their characters to shine. If a player had chosen another skill, say History, then it would be totally cool to have the same intent with "I recall that the most famous of the magi would keep the icon of their magical power held tight in the grasp of a golden statue of their predecessors."

Why annoy the player by saying "well use this other skill?"

Thanks,
- Don

[luke]

There is no definition of the word intent in the rules.

[ghashsnaga]

Don,


Just to clarify are you asking about Task and Intent or narrative control? (or both?)

Ara

[jchokey]

So the first question becomes: Is the definition of intent clearly stated in the rules and if so, where?

The second question is, if not how does someone reading the game infer that it "should" b played a certain way?

Luke has already answered the first question by saying that there's no explicit definition of 'intent' in the rules.

If I may be so presumptuous, I'd like to take a stab at the second question: the "how does someone infer..."

One answer to that would be to look at the examples that are given in the text of the rules. There actually are quite a few of those, including ones that you yourself have quoted (e.g. "I want to kill him is not a task; it's an intent.")

Now, we can quibble till the cows come home-- and even until the get milked and go out to pasture again-- whether those examples are intended to illustrate how the game "should" be played, or merely whether they're just indicative of one way in which the game "can" be played. But, I do think they at least provide some guidelines as to how the game designers *envisioned* that the rules would be used in practice, and therefore, they can serve as a model of the play approach that the system was intended to support.

This doesn't, of course, rule out the possiblity of people using the rules to great effect in other ways. Nor does it meant that those who do so are doing something wrong/evil/terrible. All it means is that they may be using the system in away quite different than what was imagined for it. Is that problem? No, of course not. But-- conversely, I don't think there's any problem either in them being reminded that they are using it in a somewhat different way than was initially envisioned.

[themadviolinist]

Comparisons to other games are sometimes instructive. Spirit of the Century makes it crystal clear that the sort of narrative control Don is talking about is to be given to the player who makes an appropriate skill check, and by crystal clear, I mean there is an entire section of the rule book devoted to it with examples.

The lack of such a section in BW might lead one to suspect that the designer did not intend this sort of play. That said, I really like it, and as I intend to bring BW concepts into other games, I think I'll bring this SotC concept into this one judiciously.

[ghashsnaga]

Just for a point of reference: BW FRP 1st printing revised (so your page numbers may be different)

pg. 12, 2nd paragraph
"Burning Wheel is an heir to a long legacy of fantasy roleplaying games..."

In order to sort out what that means on pg 303 there is a list of rpgs that influenced BW. In the first set listed all authorship falls on the GM. So player created fiction like the staff being there is not assumed to be valid.

However if you don't like assumptions...

To further this point:
pg. 12, 3rd paragraph
"Manipulating these numbers and priorities within situations presented by the GM is what the game is all about."
GM narrative

pg. 13, The Flow of the Game
"The GM guides the action and pacing of the events of the story at hand; he arbitrates rules calls and interpretations so that play progresses smoothly.'
GM narrative

So a player wanting a staff to be there and tries to use Task/Intent to create it might be violating the GM narrative control.



*This is where I post what I would do so feel free to ignore it.*

I would ask the player what is the real intent here. Is it to get a staff or do something with it that is tied into BITs. The player might want to a staff to defeat the arch enemy, save his children, lead her people to revolution, etc.. In which case I would make the finding/getting staff a Belief and start a whole quest around that. That is assuming the other players are up for it.

Or simply say no and refer the kind player to the Task/Intent part of the book. ;) Or suggest the staff might be elsewhere or the player needs to Circle up someone who knows where the staff might be.

Ara

[xenomouse]

"Intent is player's intent" vs. "Intent is both player's and character's intent"


... are you asking about Task and Intent or narrative control? (or both?)

I think artellan and ghashsnaga are hitting on what this conversation is really about. The "wises versus skills" debate is just a symptom of the real issue at hand.

Initially, coming from a gamist background (D&D, specifically), I believed that all my rolls were for what the character really wanted and not for what I believed should really happen. However, how do we approach situations in which the character and the player are not of the same mind? This issue comes up with open secrets or knowledge that a player has but a character does not.

As an example, in the current arc in our campaign, there are two groups (PCs versus NPCs) looking to set up mage guilds. The NPCs are pursuing a mage guild that promotes safety and control (but is "secretly" fascistic), and the PCs are pursuing a mage guild that promotes freedom and healing.

For this part of the story, I wanted my character to support the NPC mage guild, but I also want him to fail in the end. When I have my PC debate the other PCs in front of the locals, part of the outcome for which I push (my Intent if you will) is that I make a passionate speech and the NPCs recognize that but the crowd is ultimately hostile to my character's cause. If I fail my roll, then I'm just a voice in the crowd of rallying supporters of the fascistic NPC guild.

What I risk in these rolls is that I have a secondary goal (shared with my character) to create a relationship with one of the antagonists. When I win my rolls, the NPC is drawn to my PC, and when I fail, the NPC sees me as a sycophantic pawn or lackey who needs to be exploited more.

Am I overstepping my bounds by narrating my character's failure on my successful rolls? Should my successes only ever be narrated as PC successes?

[Thor]

For this part of the story, I wanted my character to support the NPC mage guild, but I also want him to fail in the end. When I have my PC debate the other PCs in front of the locals, part of the outcome for which I push (my Intent if you will) is that I make a passionate speech and the NPCs recognize that but the crowd is ultimately hostile to my character's cause. If I fail my roll, then I'm just a voice in the crowd of rallying supporters of the fascistic NPC guild.

What I risk in these rolls is that I have a secondary goal (shared with my character) to create a relationship with one of the antagonists. When I win my rolls, the NPC is drawn to my PC, and when I fail, the NPC sees me as a sycophantic pawn or lackey who needs to be exploited more.

Am I overstepping my bounds by narrating my character's failure on my successful rolls? Should my successes only ever be narrated as PC successes?

This could possibly get really esoteric. If so, I apologize in advance. Feel free to ask for clarification on any point if you think it will facilitate greater understanding.

Burning Wheel is not a game that is well suited to players working against the interests of their characters at the level of Intent and Task. There are games, like Prime Time Adventures, that can do that well.

Burning Wheel expects you to play as an advocate for your character.

NOW, that's not to say that you have to like your character, or want him to achieve his agenda. But you should press hard for him to achieve that agenda. You can, of course, encourage your fellow players to turn him from that agenda. The arc is then about your character pushing hard in one direction, struggling with the implications of his Belief, (possibly) breaking with the belief as the result of play (and earning a Moldbreaker point), and then shooting off in a new direction.

If that's what you're shooting for, that's great. It sounds like a terrific arc. But don't "play before you play!" You're cheating yourself if you have an outcome that you've predetermined. You're actually short-circuiting the Belief system by not allowing it to be challenged organically in play.

Effectively, what you're saying is: This isn't really this character's Belief. I'm going to change it to the real Belief later. In the meantime, I'm going to prevent the GM from putting me into difficult and consequential situations based on this fake Belief.

When you say, "I'm going to make this really impassioned speech about what I believe in (but don't really) but it's going to turn the crowd hostile toward me," what you're really doing is co-opting the GM's ability to apply consequences to your roll. Further, you are also stating your failure conditions (which you shouldn't do) so that a failed roll simply means you aren't noticed instead of anything bad happening.

I think your character would have a much more satisfying arc if he pushed hard for the NPC guild. If he fails, then the NPC guild won't get off the ground but he'll have been one of its champions, and there will be consequences to that which can play out over a campaign.

Even better, if he succeeds, then he'll get to experience the consequences of his success. And maybe that will lead to a cathartic moment when he questions his Beliefs and the role he's played and shoots for genuine change. And it'll be awesome when it happens.

Does that make sense? Did I muddy the issue further?

[xenomouse]

When you say, "I'm going to make this really impassioned speech about what I believe in (but don't really) but it's going to turn the crowd hostile toward me," what you're really doing is co-opting the GM's ability to apply consequences to your roll. Further, you are also stating your failure conditions (which you shouldn't do) so that a failed roll simply means you aren't noticed instead of anything bad happening.


What I risk in these rolls is that I have a secondary goal (shared with my character) to create a relationship with one of the antagonists. When I win my rolls, the NPC is drawn to my PC, and when I fail, the NPC sees me as a sycophantic pawn or lackey who needs to be exploited more.

The beliefs I have regarding the guild are:

I believe a Mage Guild run by the Crown will make Taranis safer. Get the Duke to support the state-run Mage Guild.
New Belisama seems to be getting more dangerous. Convince more of my friends to support the royalists, starting with Karmi [one of the PCs, whose significant other is heading up the PC mage guild].
The nobility have the power to change things for the better in the colony. I will endear myself to Caspa [one of the antagonist NPCs] and create a relationship with her by any means necessary.


I actually am working to complete all 3 of those beliefs in a straightforward way - I want my character to succeed at each of these. Whether the antagonists' guild is ultimately successful or not is where I diverge from my character, and you'll notice that none of the beliefs involve that. So whenever I roll, I am risking not completing something that I do want to complete. The conflict comes in that I am often working directly against the other PCs.

[artellan]

Thor's post makes a lot of sense and I think it's directly relevant to Don's questions. Quoting:

Burning Wheel is not a game that is well suited to players working against the interests of their characters at the level of Intent and Task. ...

Burning Wheel expects you to play as an advocate for your character.

NOW, that's not to say that you have to like your character, or want him to achieve his agenda. But you should press hard for him to achieve that agenda.

So here's the thing. If players have the possibility for narrative control with every test, combining that with the above philosophy could be problematic. Say I'm playing Inigo and my Belief is "I will find the six-fingered man and avenge my father". If the rules allow me to use my Read skill with the intent "I read a letter telling me exactly where the six-fingered man is and how to sneak into his house", then as an advocate for my character I should be doing so.

Of course, an intent like that would be lame, and breaks the "don't be a dick" rule, but if it's available then as a player it's hard to know where to draw the line. Hard to keep up the advocate stance when you're forced to limit yourself.

Why isn't this a problem with Wises and Circles? I think it's because they're designed to allow these kind of intents. They have specific guidance for setting obstacles based on the obscurity of the knowledge or specificity of the person. They're limited in scope, and the GM / group can veto what is proposed. Plus the failure consequences are strong so you're always risking putting your character further from his goal.

[Mel White]

For this part of the story, I wanted my character to support the NPC mage guild, but I also want him to fail in the end. When I have my PC debate the other PCs in front of the locals, part of the outcome for which I push (my Intent if you will) is that I make a passionate speech and the NPCs recognize that but the crowd is ultimately hostile to my character's cause. If I fail my roll, then I'm just a voice in the crowd of rallying supporters of the fascistic NPC guild.

What I risk in these rolls is that I have a secondary goal (shared with my character) to create a relationship with one of the antagonists. When I win my rolls, the NPC is drawn to my PC, and when I fail, the NPC sees me as a sycophantic pawn or lackey who needs to be exploited more.

Am I overstepping my bounds by narrating my character's failure on my successful rolls? Should my successes only ever be narrated as PC successes?

I'm a little late to this party so I will try not to tread on previous ground. My short answer to this question is 'yes'. But it's certainly ok for a player to suggest consequences of failure, recognizing that the GM narrates the result. And I think it's kind of fun for the 'stakes' to be explicit for both success and failure before the roll, even though BW really doesn't have provisions for stakes. BW is about Task and Intent--as this thread's name implies!

And this gets me to what I really want to address. In the example of the speech to the crowd, the question for the GM and player is how do Task and Intent relate to Skills? If reaction of the crowd doesn't matter--then it is just color. It has nothing to do with the Intent. If the Intent is to attract the sympathies of the NPCs through an impassioned speech (the Task) then the correct skill test is something like Conspicuous. The actual speech to the crowd is color, but it could be a linked test using Oratory or whatever.

If the speech is not color--that is, if you actually want the crowd to be hostile to the guild idea but you want the character's speech to be _for_ the Guild, then a successful Oratory roll has that result (the speech is unconvincing or patronizing or too high-falutin!). The obvious objection here is that of a player who says, 'how can my Oratory B6 character fail to convince the crowd to want the guild?' The reply--then don't make the roll!

A failed Oratory roll doesn't turn the crowd into Guild supporters; instead, a consequence could be that the public associates the guild and the character so that the two are linked in public opinion--or a myriad of other options.

Mel

[xenomouse]

If the speech is not color--that is, if you actually want the crowd to be hostile to the guild idea but you want the character's speech to be _for_ the Guild, then a successful Oratory roll has that result (the speech is unconvincing or patronizing or too high-falutin!).

A failed Oratory roll doesn't turn the crowd into Guild supporters; instead, a consequence could be that the public associates the guild and the character so that the two are linked in public opinion--or a myriad of other options.

That's what I was getting at (I think). If I want my character to succeed at something specific but fail at something more general, I don't see why that couldn't be the intent.

[Mel White]

That's what I was getting at (I think). If I want my character to succeed at something specific but fail at something more general, I don't see why that couldn't be the intent.

And my approach to this as a GM would be to 'say yes' to the failure--considering it color--and require the dice roll only for the Task whose success allows you to achieve your Intent.

Note, too, that the 'failure' to convince the crowd to support the guild would have no mechanical impact in the game--if there's no dice roll.

Mel

[xenomouse]

If I wanted it to have a mechanical effect, would you just suggest to have it part of the roll of the original task (the speech in this case)?

[luke]

Phil,
You can't have failure in your intent. Failure is the province of the GM. As a player, you state your intent to succeed, that's it. Your intent can be to anger the crowd or to win them over, but it can't be to win the crowd over now and make you look bad in the long term (for example). That combination of concepts is too much for a single roll in Burning Wheel.

You've got to play out the situation, blow by blow. You don't know how it will end. You may have goals as a player, but because of the nature of the game, their outcome is uncertain. We play to see which goals win out and which ones fall by the wayside. It's a beautiful thing!

[Mel White]

If I wanted it to have a mechanical effect, would you just suggest to have it part of the roll of the original task (the speech in this case).

Right. If you want the crowd's opposition to the guild to have a mechanical effect, then there has to be a skill roll for the speech. 'Success' is, in fact, the mechanical effect you want. This is despite the fact that the speech is going to be all about supporting the guild. So the Oratory roll has to be 'successful'. What does this look like in the game reality? How does a great speaker fail to convince the crowd?

I'm happy to let the player explain why his character failed to convince the crowd. Maybe he speaks in a foreign dialect...maybe his face was dirty...maybe the crowd was distracted by the attractive fruit vendor...maybe the character's justification for the guild awoke concern for the very features that make the guild unattractive to the player: fear of an all-powerful, autocratic, tax-hungry bureaucracy controlled by exotic and esoteric foreigners.

Then, gaining the attention of the NPCs depends on how Conspicuous the speaker was in making the speech. And, notably, Deceit and other subterfuge are not choices in these skills because the character is acting with honest intent.

Mel

[xenomouse]

You can't have failure in your intent. Failure is the province of the GM.

So I try to do my thing and let the GM screw me over?

I can live with that.

[Thor]

Right. If you want the crowd's opposition to the guild to have a mechanical effect, then there has to be a skill roll for the speech. 'Success' is, in fact, the mechanical effect you want. This is despite the fact that the speech is going to be all about supporting the guild. So the Oratory roll has to be 'successful'. What does this look like in the game reality? How does a great speaker fail to convince the crowd?

No. Really.

As Luke said, if you want your speech to turn the crowd against the Guild, then you have to make a speech about turning the crowd against the Guild.

[Mel White]

No. Really.

As Luke said, if you want your speech to turn the crowd against the Guild, then you have to make a speech about turning the crowd against the Guild.

Well, we'll just have to disagree. It's perfectly fine with me in a game I'm running for 'success' to be defined in negative terms. But I'll leave it at that.
Mel

[luke]

So I try to do my thing and let the GM screw me over?

I can live with that.

That's the intent of the mechanics. It really takes the pressure off. You don't have to run the whole show, you just have to gun for your Beliefs. The mechanics* will take care of the rest.

*Mechanics= other players playing their assigned roles, too.

-L

[Thor]

Well, we'll just have to disagree. It's perfectly fine with me in a game I'm running for 'success' to be defined in negative terms. But I'll leave it at that.
Mel


You are of course welcome to drift the game in that way. I think it's intensely problematic in Burning Wheel, as I explained in post #45.

It IS perfectly acceptable for a character to make a speech in which the subtext is intended to make the crowd hostile. But that should be what the character is attempting to accomplish.

[xenomouse]

Is "drift" a dirty word in these parts?

[luke]

Well, we'll just have to disagree. It's perfectly fine with me in a game I'm running for 'success' to be defined in negative terms. But I'll leave it at that.
Mel

Mel, I'm perfectly fine with a player stating a "negative success" intent -- "I want to rile the crowd so they hate me."

What's unacceptable is straddling the fence and having both success and failure as part of the intent of one roll.

[artellan]

No. Really.

As Luke said, if you want your speech to turn the crowd against the Guild, then you have to make a speech about turning the crowd against the Guild.
I don't understand this now.

Are xenomouse and Mel talking about an Oratory test where the character's words (at face value) are about how great the Guild is, but he wants the speech to make the crowd hate the Guild? I could see that being a valid Task with Intent "make the crowd hate the Guild but keep the illusion that I still support it". Especially if you forked in Falsehood or something. (Or maybe it would better as a Falsehood test forking in Oratory.) You wouldn't be gunning for failure, you'd be defining success as "to the casual observer it looks like I failed".

Or are we really talking about an intent of "I want my character to try this, but fail". That just seems weird.

EDIT: cross-posted, Thor's post #58 clears up what he and Luke were thinking, although I'm still not 100% sure which of the above two xeno and Mel meant.

[Thor]

Mike,

As I see it, this is what Phil and Mel are advocating:

1. Character wants Guild to succeed
2. Player wants Guild to fail

So far, so good.

3. Player says that he wants to turn the crowd hostile to the Guild. (Intent)
4. Character makes speech to crowd about the wonders and virtues of Guild and believes in what he says. (Task)

Steps 3 and 4 are problematic. Individually, they are both perfectly valid. It is in conjunction that they are problematic, because the Task is not valid to the Intent.

Here is an example of a valid task:

4. Character makes speech to crowd about the wonders and virtues of the Guild, but he intentionally inserts a subtext about the horror and repression they represent.

[xenomouse]

1. Character wants Guild to succeed
2. Player wants Guild to fail

So far, so good.
If the above situation is okay, how would you play it out? Would you put yourself in situations where your Obs are too high to hit?

[artellan]

If the above situation is okay, how would you play it out? Would you put yourself in situations where your Obs are too high to hit?
Hey Phil,
My gut instinct is that you would still play your character to try and make the Guild succeed -- cf. Thor's post about being an advocate for your character. Do your best to make the Guild succeed, even if you as a player don't want it to. Don't hamstring yourself with purposely high Ob situations - do what seems right and let the GM set Obs.

BUT, tell the other players & GM that you think it would be cool if the Guild failed. The GM can present a strong opposition to your character's goal, and your group can leave it up to the dice and what happens at the table to tell the story.

Cheers,
Mike

[xenomouse]

Thanks for the advice, Mike! I think my initial desire to have the "intent to fail" was because I wanted more control over how the failure is described. I have to learn to be a little less controlling. ;)

[Thor]

If the above situation is okay, how would you play it out? Would you put yourself in situations where your Obs are too high to hit?

Totally, if it made sense. For instance, instead of making a speech to a small group of people at the local tavern and trying to win the people over piecemeal, make your speech before the entire city. The Ob will be much higher. The consequences of failure will be higher. And, perhaps most interesting of all, maybe you'll succeed after all.

Here's the thing, and what I really find interesting about a situation like this:

1. The character you've created believes in and supports the Guild.
2. You, as the player, find the Guild abhorrent, or at least distasteful.

Assuming we're playing together, this character creates all sorts of interesting questions about Phil's and Thor's values in regard to integrity and ethics and whether they still apply in a social construct that is very different from our own, real world. Which is not to say that what occurs in play is necessarily going to mirror our personal stances on authoritarianism (for instance), but it allows us to explore the idea.

So I would suggest that you not approach your character with the question: "HOW can I make him see the light with regard to the Guild?" Instead, I suggest that your play should be about asking the question "CAN I make this character see the light with regard to the Guild?"

The answer--the organic outcome of play--might be "no." But it might also be "yes."

The fun part is throwing your character into the situation (i.e., the Guild is bad but the character can't or won't see it) and letting the vicissitudes of play guide you to the answer in an unexpected fashion.

If the character believes in and supports the Guild, let him try with all his heart to get the Guild accepted. Let the consequences of his actions, and the actions of the other players (including the GM), shape where he goes from there.

I'll leave you with a brief example:

I was playing in a game with Kublai, Drozdal, and phredd. Kublai was the GM. My character was Nestore, one of the scions of the Magaldi family and its House Wizard (and representative in the Council of Wizards). The setting was similar to medieval Florence, with rival noble families vying for supremacy.

My character had a belief that essentially came down to "It is better to be feared than loved."

I pushed it hard too. I used my Magesense and Aura Reading to terrify people with the things I said. I used The Fear often, though judiciously. The other PCs (my character's brothers) and I together engineered and executed a plan to take our House from a lowly and fallen position to the heights of power through intimidation, coercion and violence. I think it's fair to say that my character became one of the most feared people in the city.

Meanwhile, there was an ongoing subplot concerning my character and his apprentice, Lia, a girl from a rival House. In the back story, my character had been her father's apprentice. And he had plucked my character's eye out during the apprenticeship when he discovered that Nestore and Lia were carrying out an illicit love affair. At that point, my character went into self-imposed exile and traveled far away to learn illicit and forbidden sorceries (spirit binding). The game opened as my character returned from his exile, ready to return his house from its fallen state and to find vengeance upon his master.

But while all that was playing out, Nestore was also seeking to renew his relationship with Lia. At first, playing hard upon his belief about being feared rather than loved, the pursuit of Lia was all about finding a way to discredit and destroy her father.

But somewhere in the course of play, my bitter, power-hungry, evil wizard found his soul. He realized that he was still in love with Lia. He lost his belief about being feared rather than loved and replaced it with a belief about winning her love at all costs.

At the climax, she attempted to assassinate him, having thoroughly learned the lesson he taught her: It is better to be feared than loved.

It was a poignant and terrible scene!

But the important take away is that the outcome was a complete surprise to me! I thought Nestore was a vile, soulless monster, but he surprised me because of the outcome of play.

[xenomouse]

It's amusing that you mentioned that because in the most recent session, my character came within a hair's width of being convinced by another PC that the antagonist mage guild was all but outright evil. Shortly afterwards, my PC witnessed one of the antagonists attacking a friend of his after losing a DoW and escalating, and that is the biggest taboo for my dude. At this point, my PC is desperately hoping to find a hint of redemption in at least of the antagonists.

[Iskander]

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

Intent: to rile the populus of Rome up against Cassius and Brutus, under cover of a speech praising them ("For Brutus is an honourable man").
Task: make a funerary oration.
Test: Oratory, FoRKs: Deception, Res Publica-Wise
Result: Success!
Possible failure condition: the people think Brutus is an honourable man, and make him Caesar.

Note that there's no mixed message there: Marc Antony's intent is to use his oratory to create a mood in a crowd under the rhetorical cover of a different occasion - a valid use of G6 Oratory (with an Arestaia, of course). He's not setting out to fail to give a funeral speech praising Brutus.

Interestingly, the oratorical use of repetition is highly effective in this speech, and a familiar rhetorical device, but penalized in the duel of wits... of course, in this case, it's not much of a duel. Brutus already failed the Steel test from "Et tu, Brutus?"

[eruditus]

Okay, so it's clear that BWHQ did not write BW with players pushing Intent and Task. I'm okay with that and if asked I will just be certain to tow the party line with "well, that's not part of the rules but that how we play it." I'd agree that the examples in the book are a good indication that player authoring wasn't on their mind.

It certainly isn't problematic for BW. There is nothing that will cause any issues what-so-ever as long as the group either a) knows what they are doing and b) willing to look back and say "gee, that wasn't handled quite the right way next time we should have done X." That's learning and it rocks when everyone is learning how to make their games better!

As for Xenomouse's example, sure, according to Luke this is drift but it works just fine.

We're not really looking for success of the Task. We're looking for success in Intent. It's Intent that get narrated by the player. Failure is narrated by the GM, as per standard BW rules. If Phil says "My Intent is that in my character's fiction I'd like him to be talking to the crowd and much to his dismay everyone is upset with him and poopoos the Guild" then he rolls whatever Task is associated with how he describes the fiction ie "My character is orating." If he succeeds then he gets his intent. If he fails then the GM describes failure "no, Phil, Devon does an excellent job and now this crowd is supporting the Guild's efforts (and whatever mechanical effect that might have).

I think that for some people that is the sticking point here. There is no character, really. There is only us. Phil is not trying to set up his own failure. He's setting up his fictional character's failure. Sure this can be abused (and naysayers have only brought up examples of abuse, not examples of solid storytelling). Anything can be abused. What's the credo lately? Don't be a dick? Look at my first post. What was it talking about? It was giving advice on how a GM could handle such a situation if a player were to push his intent further. It suggests that "sure, you could ignore this but why do it when it's probably going to make your game sing for everyone."

Just as a point of contention with some of the positions here pointing to book references against my point: It was suggested that this has to do with narrative control. It doesn't. It has to do with Intent. It has to do with, as artellan susynctly pointed out, a connection of Intent with the character's Task. I suggest that the line is less clear that what has been suggested here. I think Intent must be related to task in order to narrow down what dice are rolled but the reality is that what dice are rolled is not really important. What is important is that the players feel like they are being challenged and that they are both moving the story forward and getting to do the things that they designed their character to do. This method serves that perfectly. The rules clearly state that if successful then the player gets to narrate his intent.

I normally would have complained about the examples being a bad direction for an arguement also. Namely because if the authors didn't know or understand that there were better ways to handle Intent then they would have not known to put in examples that include strong player intent. If they did know then why didn't they write definitions for intent instead of leaving it up to the play group.

But hey, I trust Luke's intent so if he says "It was meant to be a traditional game" that's enough for me! :)

[Jaroslav]

So, let me see if I'm getting this. You roll the character's Oratory skill and, if the roll meets the obstacle, you, as a player, succeed, and, therefore, narrate what happens. You narrate the character failing to do what he would have intended because that was your intent as a player. Am I right so far? This already seems wrong to me, but, in the light of advancement it seems even stranger...

As this happens more and more and in more challenging situations, the character gets tests to improve his Oratory as the game goes on. With the higher Oratory, you are more likely to succeed (and, thus, narrate failure for the character) at a given obstacle. So, the more the character improves, the less likely he is to achieve what he wants?

How does this not break the game? Did I totally misunderstand what's going on?

[xenomouse]

If you're viewing the game where the rolls are linked to task instead of intent, then - yes - it does break the game. Ultimately, we're all just trying to figure out a way of telling a story that's interesting to us, and sometimes that means we want our characters to face some adversity of our own creation.

[Judd]

I am playing my proud court wizard at the great convocation. The arch-wizard stands up and announces that all practitioners of magic should go into hiding because of the church's inquisition. My character doesn't think so.

I want to roll my Oratory and rebuke this idea. My intent is to gather the wizards who disagree to my side.

I role-playing, give a little speech because I want to and because speechifying as a proud wizard who doesnt' want to go into hiding but wants to live proudly in the finest courts of the world is why I game. The GM sets an obstacle and I roll.

It isn't so much that I get to say what happens when I succeed as I state my intent before I roll.

The following makes no sense to me:




As this happens more and more and in more challenging situations, the character gets tests to improve his Oratory as the game goes on. With the higher Oratory, you are more likely to succeed (and, thus, narrate failure for the character) at a given obstacle. So, the more the character improves, the less likely he is to achieve what he wants?

How does this not break the game? Did I totally misunderstand what's going on?

I don't understand what it means. It feels to me that you are misunderstanding.

[luke]

I think we've veered faaaaar off-topic. If anyone else has questions about how the intent and task rules work in Burning Wheel, please start a new topic with new questions.

[Jaroslav]

EDIT: Oops, sorry Luke, I was already writing this when you posted.


I don't understand what it means. It feels to me that you are misunderstanding.

Judd (if I can be so familiar, I'm a big SoK fan),

I probably muddied the issue by talking about narration too much. My question was not so much about narration as it was about the player and the character having opposite goals. Your example makes perfect sense to me. If your role succeeds, your character gets what he wants, based on the intent that you stated.

Translating your example into the kind of situation Xenomouse is describing (unless, again, I am misunderstanding, but his response leads me to believe that I'm not) would go like this:


I am playing my proud court wizard at the great convocation. The arch-wizard stands up and announces that all practitioners of magic should go into hiding because of the church's inquisition. My character doesn't think so.

So far so good. But you, as a player, agree with the arch-wizard and, therefore, want your character to fail. Thus, you state the intent that, if you succeed in your oratory roll, your character gives his impassioned speech so well that the audience distrusts his slick smarminess and decides that the arch-wizard is right.

That, I believe, is what is being discussed here. As I see it, the skill belongs to the character, not the player. So, a success at a task using that skill shouldn't result in failed intent for the character. Furthermore, if that skill advances, the character would be even less likely to get what he wants. And this, to me, is what doesn't work about the player having intents that are the opposite of the character's. Way back in post #45, Thor said:


Burning Wheel expects you to play as an advocate for your character.

He then talks about how you don't have to, in real life, agree with, or even like, your character. Having never resorted to violence to solve a conflict in my life, but having played a fair amount of D&D, I can understand this perfectly. Even outside of real "real life," in the sort-of "real life" world of meta-game, I can see how you could think if it was cool if your character failed at something. I can even see how you could make poor decisions in the straight-up role playing parts of the game, or in situations that lead up to tests, to help facilitate this. You could even choose dumb tests or write bad scripts (Luke already struck me down in another thread when I said that I thought you should always script a fight as well as you can and let your character's statistics represent your weaknesses, see here: http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?p=53003#post53003 ) but, once you roll the dice, I feel (and I'm new to this in several ways, and there are tons of people on this forum who know the system way better than I do, but it helps me learn to weigh in) like success has to mean that the character succeeds at doing something that the character intended, whether or not the player actually wanted that result.

-John

[Judd]

John,

If you want to talk about this further, how's about starting a new thread.

I've never had an issue where I was rooting for my character to loose. I often run into situations where I think it would be just as cool and interesting, win or lose, but I generally am rooting for my PC.

But let's let this thread die.

Judd
(That is MISTER Paka to you! /sarcasm)