Jaroslav
03-21-2008, 01:23 PM
In post #44 of this topic:
http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5695
i.e., on this page:
http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5695&page=5
Xenomouse brought up an example where he as a player wanted something different than what the character wanted.
I jumped in several posts later and Luke suggested that, since we had veered so far off topic, we should start a new thread, if we still wanted to discuss is. Maybe it's all done, but, I'll put it up here in case there's more to say.
I said:
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?
Then Xenomouse said:
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.
Then "Mr. Paka" said:
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaroslav
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.
So then I said:
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:
Quote:
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/showth...3003#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.
At this point, I was posting while Luke had already suggested we take it to a different thread. Then Judd - sorry, Mr. Paka - seconded that. So, if anyone still wants to talk about this, here it is.
-John
http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5695
i.e., on this page:
http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5695&page=5
Xenomouse brought up an example where he as a player wanted something different than what the character wanted.
I jumped in several posts later and Luke suggested that, since we had veered so far off topic, we should start a new thread, if we still wanted to discuss is. Maybe it's all done, but, I'll put it up here in case there's more to say.
I said:
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?
Then Xenomouse said:
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.
Then "Mr. Paka" said:
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaroslav
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.
So then I said:
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:
Quote:
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/showth...3003#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.
At this point, I was posting while Luke had already suggested we take it to a different thread. Then Judd - sorry, Mr. Paka - seconded that. So, if anyone still wants to talk about this, here it is.
-John