Let It Ride and Intent

[Paul B]

Paul, not necessarily. If I'm sneaking out of town, say... And so I'm all "I want to sneak out of town before the riots start" and my GM's all "Okay, roll Inconspicuous, I don't have stats for Angry Peasant With Torch but Ob 2 sounds about right" So I roll, and I make it, great.

Then my friend is all "Oh hellz no! That bastard owes me money! I want to find him before he leaves!" (Assume that this makes sense and that he'd have a way to know I left, or whatever.)

He rolls to look for me and gets a different number of successes. Now, the obstacle has changed, but the task is the same and the situation hasn't really changed.

Or, what if you've made some kind of roll to cross some mountains or something, right? Then there's a rush on and you need to take the short pass instead of the safe pass. Ob's higher but otherwise, same mountains, same season, same gear, same you.

I suppose it depends on what your take on "intent" is.

To me, sneaking past the angry peasants is a different intent than dodging a particular guy to whom I owe money. OTOH, if the intent is "escape town unnoticed by everyone," well, then everyone is EVERYONE, right? Dicking around with that, making special exceptions, undermines the point of having explicated your intent in the first place.

Crossing mountains: Taking the short, faster pass instead of the long, safer pass would totally be a different intent in my game. Something came up that prompted your character to change routes, right? "Something came up" is, at least in my game, the very definition of a change in intent.

p.

[David Artman]

Crossing mountains: Taking the short, faster pass instead of the long, safer pass would totally be a different intent in my game.Seems like it would be to me, too; consider:

*First time, the character may very well have Worked Carefully and taken extra time for extra dice.
*Now, being suddenly, surprisingly pressed, he or she must return and can't Work Carefully but must instead Rush, losing some dice.
(Forgive me; I don't have my book and can't recall exact terms now.)

Same Ob, different situations, different risk/reward considerations. Different roll.

[zabieru]

Paul, you're confusing intent and situation. Let It Ride doesn't care about intent. It only cares about situation.

EDIT: So, same intent, different situation? Re-roll.
Different intent, different situation? Re-roll.
Different intent, same situation? Keep the roll.

[stormsweeper]

As an example, in last night's game a character had to make an Observation test to notice a spider's noose-trap. That test rode for the rest of the night, letting him avoid all the other spider traps and keep an eye on the tricky tricky spider herself.

[Paul B]

Paul, you're confusing intent and situation. Let It Ride doesn't care about intent. It only cares about situation.

EDIT: So, same intent, different situation? Re-roll.
Different intent, different situation? Re-roll.
Different intent, same situation? Keep the roll.

Wait...so you're suggesting you can change your intent but keep a roll, just because the in-game fiction hasn't changed? WTF?

I'm already seeing a million different ways to break that.

If the BW formula is intent first, task second, how would changing your intent not trigger a new "say yes or roll the dice" decision point?

p.

[Esteban]

If the BW formula is intent first, task second, how would changing your intent not trigger a new "say yes or roll the dice" decision point?


It's all quite clear on p. 35 of the Brown book 3rd revision. It doesn't talk about intent at all, and mentions that the roll results should be used for all applicable tests. So any intent that would be resolved through the same task has the original results applied to it.

Put another way, fate has already been decided as to the performance of a character with a given task, and the only thing that will change the roll result is when circumstances or the situation changes drastically. This allows people to concentrate Artha, help and the like in one roll. Without having to worry that down the line, a small obstacle change or circumstance is going to require a re-roll. It prevents people from hoarding Artha, and I suppose would lead to more hanging on each roll while reducing the rolls overall.

But to answer your question, a new intent that requires to a new (unrolled) task to fulfill would trigger a new "say yes or roll the dice", but a different intent with the same task would not.

[Paul B]

Okay, just so I'm clear:

You're proposing that a player can change his intent, and as long as the situation hasn't changed, the GM cannot ask for a new roll.

That's what you're saying, yes?

p.

[Esteban]

You're proposing that a player can change his intent, and as long as the situation hasn't changed, the GM cannot ask for a new roll.


No. Sorry, if I didn't explain myself properly.

Like you say Intent comes first and from that we derive the task. Usually by the GM asking the player how he wants to make his intent a reality. However, we roll for the task, so Let it Ride applies to the task, not the intent.

The interesting bit is that different intents can share the same task. And that the same intent can be accomplished with different tasks. So there's no hard and fast rule that "a change in intent" = "a new roll". It will depend on what tasks that intent ends up being broken up into.

I'll use an example to better phrase my thoughts.

Intent: Find my brother who was kidnapped and is being held in a house in the dock district.
Task: Lockpick the houses to gain entry and find my brother.

I roll and I get 4 successes on my lockpicking. But let's say I end up barging into peoples' homes and it's starting to become a problem. So I try to change my approach, now I'm going to try and act like a health inspector to get people to let me into their houses. I'll make up a fake permit from the mayor/judge to search houses.

Intent: Find my brother who was kidnapped and being held in a house in the dock district.
Task: Falsehood + Counterfeit

In this case, despite my intent being the same my task has changed and situation is different. I'm no longer picking locks. This approach works better in the end and I find my brother. So as we make our way out of the district I figure I'm already in trouble with the law, so maybe I can profit some. I'll pocket some valuables from some houses. So now I'm trying to pick some locks to steal what's inside.

Intent: Break into a home and steal valuables.
Task: Lockpick

In this case, Let it Ride applies, despite the intent being different, because the task is the same. It's the same situation: I'm breaking into houses in the dock district.

Hopefully, my thoughts are clearer now.

[zabieru]

Yes Paul, I am proposing that. Provided that the situation hasn't changed, and the component of task that interacts with that situation hasn't changed, and the skill hasn't changed, LIR does apply.

If you sneak in somewhere, then look around, then HOLY SHIT GET OUT BEFORE IT WAKES UP! you don't need to make another roll to sneak back out unless something's changed. New intent (sneak out, not sneak in) but similar-enough task in same situation based on same skill, so LIR.

[eruditus]

I see what you guys are saying but my sticking point is that if my intent/task is:


Intent: Find my brother who was kidnapped and is being held in a house in the dock district.
Task: Lockpick the houses to gain entry and find my brother.

My expectation is that once I roll then the player that succeeds says "after a few hours of going house to house I come upon a particularly difficult lock. In a few clicks the final tumbler drops and once inside I see my brother." I narrate the success of my intent as per the rules.

Please tell me if this should be another topic but my understanding is this:
Let it Ride is to avoid uneccessary rolls and to stop abuse. The quintisential example is "I sneak through town" and the GM has you make a number of stealth tests to choke a horse to increase the opportunity for you to fail. Similarly it stops players from gains obscene numbers of tests over and over again for important but repeated tasks.

Aren't you ignoring the spirit of the rule by defying intent in this example? By making the player have different obstacles in his way AFTER he's understood the circumstances, doesn't that do the same thing? Instead of saying "roll stealth 10 times" now upon failure the GM is saying "sure you succeeded but now you have these other 10 rolls to make to get your intent."

If the example was simplified or flawed in this regard then I apologize and we can move on but I think this is an important part of the discussion. I guess the key question here is "were the 10 rolls explicit in the player's intent/task?" When I say 10 rolls I am refering to the "okay, you succeeded at your lockpick but now your faced with people you have to convince." Hope that was clear.

Thanks,
- Don

[Esteban]

My expectation is that once I roll then the player that succeeds says "after a few hours of going house to house I come upon a particularly difficult lock. In a few clicks the final tumbler drops and once inside I see my brother." I narrate the success of my intent as per the rules.


Not necessarily, because actually processing success vs intent is the GM's primary responsibility, not the player's, at least as far as BW's rules go. (p. 33, last sentence) A player/character is only aware of the immediate circumstances in front of him, not of every single obstacle or eventuality that he may come across. Therefore, when the roll is made he's not necessarily aware the sum of all roadblocks on the path to his goal.

In my rather rushed example, the main hindrance to finding the brother wasn't that the character found an Ob 8 lock, it was finding inhabited households with angry residents. Faced with that opposition, I changed my character's tactics. After all, the main criteria for a successful test is that play move forward in the direction of my intent, it's not necessary that I gain it in one fell swoop.

In this case my approach was very broad: try each house, one by one, because I don't know the exact location. Hence, it's to be expected I might encounter other problems along the way. Had my example focused on the more particular situation of breaking into the one house, where I'm 100% certain the brother is being held, then sure I agree the example would have flowed more like yours. However, even then, I might find some guards inside the house, so I don't get to just evade them because of my previously successful roll and escape with my brother.

[Paul B]

A thought exercise:

Player says, "I want to find a passage through the mountains."

GM says, "Hm. Okay, roll mountains-wise. Ob 4."

Player rolls. Succeeds, let's say with a MOS of 3.

So now the player has succeeded in finding a passage through the mountains.

Now the player says, "I want to find a passage through the mountains that will lead me to an unguarded hoard of treasure."

What happens?

p.

[Esteban]

GM: "How are you going to find this passage?"

If player says: "I'm going to use my knowledge in mountains to find the passage." Let it ride. GM sets obstacle to what seems appropriate and compares versus the previous result.

If the player says: "I'm going to use this treasure map." then roll Navigation/Observation or whatever the GM deems appropriate.

[Paul B]

GM: "How are you going to find this passage?"

If player says: "I'm going to use my knowledge in mountains to find the passage." Let it ride. GM sets obstacle to what seems appropriate and compares versus the previous result.

And you're not seeing why this fundamentally breaks the BW machine?

I must have upped my dosage of crazy pills and not realized it.

p.

[Esteban]

And you're not seeing why this fundamentally breaks the BW machine?


No, but please illuminate me. I'm just going by what I interpret the book to say. I can see how a player might try and abuse the system, but I don't see any particular failing of the machine.

(sorry if this is a repost, I was having problems with the first one posting)

[Paul B]

No, but please illuminate me. I'm just going by what I interpret the book to say. I can see how a player might try and abuse the system, but I don't see any particular failing of the machine.

(sorry if this is a repost, I was having problems with the first one posting)

"Find a passage through the mountain" is a different task than "find a passage through the mountain that will lead me to an unguarded hoard of treasure."

Different tasks require different rolls (if they require a roll at all; the GM can always Say Yes).

Here's what happens if you try to use LIR the way you're proposing:

Player: "I want to find a passage through the mountain. I'm going to use my Mountain-wise."

GM: "Hm. Yeah, okay. But these mountains are known to be home to some nasty trolls. If you fail, you'll stumble into a nest of trolls. Your Ob is 4."

Player rolls. Gets 7 successes, so a MOS of 3. "Sweet! I've found a passage through the mountain. But what I really want is a passage through the mountain that leads me to a hoard of unguarded treasure."

GM: "That's not what you asked for..."

Player: "But the situation hasn't changed! It's the same mountain. Also, I rolled really well. I got 7 successes. What's the Ob for finding that treasure hoard?"

GM: "Let's say Ob8."

Player: "But then I'll fail, and find those trolls instead. I don't want that. What can you give me for Ob7? Because I can succeed at that."

GM: "You're fucking joking."

Player: "C'mon! How about...a very small hoard?"

GM: "Ob8."

Player: "...a lightly guarded hoard?"

GM: "Ob8."

Player: "...okay, I got it! How about a treasure hoard but it's really hard to get to. Surrounded by lava and falling rocks! I'll have to make a Reflex roll or something just to get to it."

GM: "Ob10, dillhole."

Player: "!"

And so on and so forth.

Do you really want to turn BW into a deal-making game? Because the point of the LiR rule wasn't to hard-cast the game's reality, it was to reduce all interesting moments of play to a single roll and to keep the GM from forcing a statistical failure. You use LiR so you don't keep rerolling Stealthy rolls to get past the guards; you don't use LiR to commit the GM to a specific phase state in the game's fiction (esp. when the player has rolled really well and would have room to negotiate after the roll!).

Basically, I propose that you're misinterpreting what a "task" is. "Task" isn't you rolling the dice, "task" is your character accomplishing something inside the game's fiction -- something the GM has deemed interesting, and necessary to fulfilling one's intent.

p.

[Esteban]

Different tasks require different rolls (if they require a roll at all; the GM can always Say Yes).


If the GM deems that the new intent requires a different task, then by all means roll again!



Do you really want to turn BW into a deal-making game?


I don't see how the scenario you described can't happen prior to any roll. Just substitute the obtained result with any given probability of success the player is comfortable with.

Player: "That's nuts I only have a 20% chance of succeeding. What can I get for 5 Ob, I have a 60% of succeeding that."

etc...



Basically, I propose that you're misinterpreting what a "task" is. "Task" isn't you rolling the dice, "task" is your character accomplishing something inside the game's fiction -- something the GM has deemed interesting, and necessary to fulfilling one's intent.


Fair enough. I see what you mean now. However, I think you're being way too narrow in the description of task, while I've been faulty of being too broad. Where I've allowed "finding a passage through the mountains" to encompass both safe routes as well as specific routes, you've limited it to just one route, and any other route becomes a different task.

Yet I think I've come to middle ground position. In the treasure horde example, the problem is really one of establishing the existence of said treasure horde in the game fiction. It seems the conflict in the treasure intent isn't about navigating to it, it is about making the treasure a reality in the fiction. That is a different task. So the player can roll to see if said treasure horde does exists, if it does exist, then navigating through the mountain to that location is a LiR. Seem logical and balanced?

[Paul B]

Yes, that deal-making-before-the-roll phenomenon can happen in a BW game, and it sucks when it does. Players who are itchy about consequences (or, more likely, just itchy about "failure" in general) will haggle down a lesser intent in order to get lesser consequences, and in the end you end up with a really weak and uninteresting roll.

Different problem, and it's not solved by moving the negotiations to the other side of the roll. It's probably way worse on the other side of the roll, since all the tension is deflated from the moment: you know when you're going to fail, so you just haggle an outcome that matches your roll. Yuck.

The reason I'm not buying the whole "you can change intents but LiR can let you keep the roll" argument is that I can't come up with any instance in which changing intent might change the Ob but would not change the task. Not one. I need examples to get what you guys are getting at.

I think in Devin's example:


If you sneak in somewhere, then look around, then HOLY SHIT GET OUT BEFORE IT WAKES UP! you don't need to make another roll to sneak back out unless something's changed. New intent (sneak out, not sneak in) but similar-enough task in same situation based on same skill, so LIR.

...that's very much a matter of GM taste. To my taste, the intent "sneak into the cave unseen" is so situationally different than "sneak out of the cave without waking up the big nasty monster" that I'd require a new roll. One big reason would be, there would be different failure consequences!

The self-test I'd use is, is the GM requiring extra rolls to force a statistical failure? In this case, no. The threat the first time is being seen entering the cave by whatever's outside watching it. The threat the second time is being detected by the big nasty inside. That's not a "roll again, now roll again, now roll again A HA YOU FAILED!" decision on the GM's part.

p.

[eruditus]

That is a different task. So the player can roll to see if said treasure horde does exists, if it does exist, then navigating through the mountain to that location is a LiR. Seem logical and balanced?

Yeah, I can get with that. The GM could call for a different skill and say "okay, so that's treasure-wise."

Esteban, I think this is a difference in play-style for me based on prior discussion so you're probably right on one level, that the way the system was intended is a little more conservative and GM oriented than I play the game.

There are little to no hidden corners. When I play everything is basically on the table. I know what I am fighting for ahead of time and I know when a GM is yanking my chain.

In our play style very little (if anything) is developed ahead of time.

That being said I think I was over-reading your example to assume the whole of the situation. Personally as a player if I didn't know that I was going to be forced to face NPCs in a social manner and it really has nothing to do with my BITs then I'd think the GM was just putting up raodblocks to thwart me, rather than to tell a compelling tale. If my Belief said "I will find my brother and no one will sway me from my purpose" then a horde of angry home-owners is appropriate. Or if my instincts say "when facing townsfolk Intimidate" then I'd expect to meet bunches of townsfolk. I think we agree on that stuff though.

As we discussed before I would be more agresive in my scene framing if the social obstacles weren't important to the story. And I would think a GM was just fucking with me if it was like "so you succeeded in that, now you have to deal with this. Okay, you succeeded with that and now you have to face this other ob." This deserves ye-ol'-cockpunch IMHO. Again, it's a playstyle thing so we can move on.

[eruditus]

Paul, as I mentioned in my last post I think you and I tend to approach these sorts of scenes differently. If I am not mistaken these examples tend to be "GM behind the screen" sort of situations where the player doesn't know what lies ahead. Correct me if I am wrong but I think you and I tend to play games were the GM says "okay, but you may need to be sneaky about unlocking the door lest there be someone inside you'd have to face." If I succeeded then there's my brother or after a few houses, theres my brother. If I fail then there is a further complication to my failure.

Since we're more intent heavy then the weight to our roll is all in intent. Anything else is basically color. Change in intent and change in consequences = new roll. For others you'r intent could be a little more situational and if the general situation doesn't change as a player alters his intent as he goes I can see how the roll could hold. What is dangerous, I think, is that some GMs could manipulate this (as you suggested) and create an obstacle that the GM knows is going to fail. It's iffy and one of those situations I think this play style would just seperate out good GMs from bad GMs - abuse from non-abuse.

- Don

[Paul B]

Yes. I think total transparency of the entire transaction is at the core of what makes the BW machine work. Anything that interferes with that transparency, at any point in the transaction, undermines the intent of the rules. All IMO of course.

p.

[Esteban]

The reason I'm not buying the whole "you can change intents but LiR can let you keep the roll" argument is that I can't come up with any instance in which changing intent might change the Ob but would not change the task. Not one. I need examples to get what you guys are getting at.


I'm going to bite, just because I've found this exchange quite interesting and educational, not trying to be argumentative or bash my ideas over any one's head. So I'd like to take a stab at this...

First, I think things get stickier the more you try to put into one roll. Say for example, an intent like: "I want to infiltrate the enemy camp, steal their secret plans and disable poison their security dogs." And then I just end up rolling Infiltration, well that one Infiltration roll isn't going to work for much in a LiR scenario. However, if you split it up into individual tasks:


Sneak into the base (stealthy)
Find the secret plans (observation/perception)
Poison the dogs (beast-wise/poisons/animal husbandry sub-type)


Then it becomes much easier to allow for LiR to apply to tasks. If you do stick to one roll per intent, then I'd have to agree with you Paul, that it's almost impossible.

Also when something is important it's most likely not going to be resolved in one roll. If the secret plans form part of Belief, then one roll is probably not going to suffice and the GM will want to put up some opposition. So maybe getting in will be a task, but getting out will be another task. LiR could apply if the player attempts to go in and out in the same manner (through the sewers, secret entrance or subterfuge).

But anyways, that aside, back to the examples.

Intent: Break into houses to steal valuables.
Intent: Break into houses to find my kidnapped brother.

I could break both of those down to: lockpick & observation rolls. Lockpicking to see if the character can break cleanly into the house. Observation to see if they find what they are looking for. In both instances I'd say LiR applies to the lockpicking aspect, assuming both take place in the same area, for example, even if the individual houses might have different Ob locks. While the observation would require distinct rolls as the task is different.

Of course, in the end circumstances in game will make most any example null or void. If the GM doesn't feel breaking into houses is a relevant part or something that would stop the player's attempt, then he might just say yes and make it a pure Observation roll.

A better example might be:

An assassin tries to sneak into an enemy castle (stealthy). Once in there he has several things he wants to do. As he travels through the castle he finds the room leading to the family vault (observation/orienteering), which he tries to open (lockpicking). If when he does find the room with the secret plans and those happen to be in a safe as well, then LiR would apply.

Same if he meets different groups of guards with different exponents, each group would test against his original stealthy roll. Then all exp 4 guards would have their results stand for the rest of his foray in the castle.

Of course, once again, perhaps the castle is insignificant. The plans are just an errand to gain some prestige in the Assassin's guild. But perhaps this is the arch-villains castle to whom the character has a relationship and BITs relating to him, and this is the assassin's time to shine and you'll want to give him a chance to apply his various skills to the task. Both for his advancement and also for the player to feel involved.

[dsellars]

errrm interesting conversation.

We discussed somthgi liek this at the table the other day. The situation was that the player has the watch after him. in a previous session he had been trying to get to the public baths and then to the library with out being seen by the watch, fair enough.

Last session he was again out abroad and (competes with fresh sleeping potion in is pocked) was going out to confront/kill/kidnap someone. I made him role a vs again and he questioned whether it should be under let it ride and he just make it.

I said 'No', my reasoning was that the first time he was trying to get to the library via the public baths unseen (intent). This time he was trying to get from the library to kidnap someone a few days later (different intent) and he has since escaped from then when they called at his house and avoided them when they called at his place of work, so they are a little more intent on finding him now.

In this situation I see let it ride as saying not to keep rolling for every street/district! not that he never has to worry about the watch finding him on the street for this particular crime.

Did I do the right thing? or should I have let him off? thoughts?

[Esteban]

Did I do the right thing? or should I have let him off? thoughts?

Intent aside, I think you've met the one condition we can all agree on: the situation changed. Your player went form a regular joe to someone that's being looked for by the authorities. Going from citizen to wanted criminal is a pretty drastic change in my books. ;)

[dsellars]

Sorry I wasn't clear, he had the watch after him on the first test too (that was the morning after he robbed a watchman...) the second test was a day or wo later whne he has still being avoiding/running from them.

[Paul B]

Esteban, I think you've done a great job describing how I also see this stuff.

I think Thor mentioned something about looking for the word "and" in Intent discussions: everything after an "and" should be a separate task (or just Say Yes to it).

Interestingly, Say Yes doesn't have a Let it Ride element to it. There was no die roll, nobody gambled anything and won/lost. So, as a GM, if you want to hold out for a future complication, just Say Yes and leave that task unresolved.

dsellars: It really depends on your individual game. LiR has an interesting effect on drawing sharp focus on game events -- every time something new happens, you have to consider it in light of what has taken place in the prior game fiction. If establishing a permanent secret route through the public baths is "important" for whatever reason (like, it's a strong statement about the character and his connectedness to the city, perhaps), then LiR would protect that secret route (if the GM approved the intent). If being on the run is what's important, then maybe the secret route isn't really what's important any more...unless the player had set up that secret route with the intent to use it again in the future, to cover for various crimes he may want to commit.

EDIT: Based on how you've described the scene, I think I'd have applied Let it Ride to the secret bathhouse-library route. Then jumped his ass the second he leaves the bathhouse! :-D

p.

[Maedhros]

Jumping in late to the discussion...please forgive me.

Two questions:

1. Regarding the LIR for "lockpicking the houses to find my brother."

When you say that angry residents are encountered, which requires another roll to soothe them, isn't this a case of the GM not properly/explicitly setting the stakes? Shouldn't the stakes have been set thus:

"Roll Lockpicking at OB 4 - but if you fail, you are going to run into angry residents..."

Otherwise, the character's success is being monkeywrenched by the angry residents who did not exist until after the roll.

2. Regarding changing Intents:

No rule book handy, but isn't a Task defined as an Intent + Action? Thus the Task "I want to find my brother (Intent) by breaking into houses (Action)" is different from the Task "I want to steal stuff (Intent) by breaking into houses (Action)"?

LIR for one would not then apply to the other...

[Esteban]

1. Regarding the LIR for "lockpicking the houses to find my brother."

When you say that angry residents are encountered, which requires another roll to soothe them, isn't this a case of the GM not properly/explicitly setting the stakes? Shouldn't the stakes have been set thus:

Otherwise, the character's success is being monkeywrenched by the angry residents who did not exist until after the roll.


Finding angry residents or not wasn't included in the original statement of purpose of either party. In either case, the player wouldn't have control over what was actually happening in the house he was getting into. His intent after all, was finding the brother. If he'd added "when there is no one watching" or something to that effect, then maybe the GM would have been monkey-wrenching things.

Additionally, the intent even if successful does not imply there are no negative repercussions for someone's actions. If my intent is to steal something it doesn't mean I won't become a wanted thief or that people will not try to capture me for what I stole. Quite the contrary, success means I'll have all those things happen to me. The success of the stealing intent does not negate the normal flow of cause and effect in the world from applying.

Sure, a character can attempt to break into houses in an effort to find his brother, but he's going to pay the price by being too forward and violating other people's rights. There are drawbacks to his actions, and these are not necessarily caused by a failed roll.

Granted, the GM might warn the player "you'll have to barge into several houses before finding the one, you might run into trouble doing that."

In my gaming group, having to deal with the consequences of our actions is an important thing. For your group this might be something that's irrelevant, and that's cool. After all, this is quite valid. You see this a lot in movies, where you see massive car chases, gun fights, illegal activities by the dozen, and in the end the main characters just walk away from it all.



No rule book handy, but isn't a Task defined as an Intent + Action? Thus the Task "I want to find my brother (Intent) by breaking into houses (Action)" is different from the Task "I want to steal stuff (Intent) by breaking into houses (Action)"?


That's really the whole point of the discussion. An intent is divided into actions, that is tasks. If you want X, you must do A and B. But I think you're reducing the intent by taking away the part of breaking into people's houses from it. From my point of view, "by breaking in" also defines what the character wants. He doesn't want to just happen upon it, he doesn't want it given to him. He doesn't want to win it in poker match. He wants to go in there and steal it physically from the house. That's his intent.

By highlighting only the breaking in as the action you're also putting more emphasis in what is really secondary. The character wouldn't break in unless he was motivated by the final goal (loot/brother) yet you've reduced the action to breaking in. To me, the breaking in would be a linked test to actually finding the brother (observation/perception), which is really the core of it. Can the character find him?

Breaking in is just used to overcome the physical barrier of entry to the places where he would need to be to find the goal: loot/brother.

Put another way, if the intent had been: "Win the maiden's attention by being glamorous at the ball." Would the action just be being glamorous? Would the intent still be complete if he won the attention in some other manner? It seems to me the player was explicit in that he wanted to be recognized by virtue of being glamorous. If he gains the maiden's attention because he's a dunce and failed in his attempt at being glamorous that would hardly fulfill his intent.

The intent is as stated, you don't take away from it. You might need to divide it if it's overreaching or you can't break it up into small enough tasks. But in the end whatever is agreed to as the intent should be taken as a whole I believe.

[Z-Dog]

Yes. I think total transparency of the entire transaction is at the core of what makes the BW machine work. Anything that interferes with that transparency, at any point in the transaction, undermines the intent of the rules. All IMO of course.

p.

Yes, that's exactly how I see it as well. No cheating, no hedging, everything up front. Also: your comments about Thor's comments regarding the word "and" in a statement of intent are dead on and useful, thanks!

one more thought regarding transparency:

pacing--the rules explicitly say state the consequences of failure before you roll, but it's been commented in the forums by Luke that holding back on describing the failure until much later is another tool in the GM box

Personally, I'd like to play through a few campaigns with people with the consequences up front and stated before we roll, so they can get a sense of how easy/harsh I am as a GM...in other words, we kinda develop a group consensus of what a good or appropriate level of failure means in our group...and then start holding back on the consequences as a pacing tool once everyone's happy...

May I state again what I love most about BW? No cheatin'! (unless you're an elf)

[Maedhros]

Finding angry residents or not wasn't included in the original statement of purpose of either party. In either case, the player wouldn't have control over what was actually happening in the house he was getting into. His intent after all, was finding the brother. If he'd added "when there is no one watching" or something to that effect, then maybe the GM would have been monkey-wrenching things.

Would this have been better handled with a Linked Test? e.g. Lockpicking to break in, Stealthy to avoid notice, Observation to find brother? Point of failure then informs result:

Failed Lockpicking: There are some houses you can't break into, and therefore you can't search them.

Failed Stealthy: You break into a bunch of houses, but then you get caught.

Failed Observation: You sneak into a bunch of houses, but none seem to contain your brother.


Additionally, the intent even if successful does not imply there are no negative repercussions for someone's actions. If my intent is to steal something it doesn't mean I won't become a wanted thief or that people will not try to capture me for what I stole. Quite the contrary, success means I'll have all those things happen to me. The success of the stealing intent does not negate the normal flow of cause and effect in the world from applying.

The discrepancy as I see it is not the presence of repercussions (I agree that those should exist) but that only the Lockpicking is adjudicated, the repercussions are pronounced by fiat. In some games, this isn't a problem, but in BW there is a specific rule that states "no GM fiat."


Sure, a character can attempt to break into houses in an effort to find his brother, but he's going to pay the price by being too forward and violating other people's rights. There are drawbacks to his actions, and these are not necessarily caused by a failed roll.

See previous paragraph. The player must be made aware of the consequences and the avoidance/nonavoidance of them must be adjudicated by a Test.

[Esteban]

Would this have been better handled with a Linked Test? e.g. Lockpicking to break in, Stealthy to avoid notice, Observation to find brother?

That's exactly the point. You can break up an intent into tasks, be those separate or linked tests. In the end a linked test is still a roll with a result attached to it. Unless you don't consider linked tests to be subject to LiR.

Yet the intent did not include being stealthy or not being seen. You're changing the intent to avoid being detected, and that's fine and all, but that wasn't part of the original intent. You're also making a point of the angry residents being a problem that somehow affects the finding of the brother. If the player succeeds in the roll, they're just color if you will. There will be reports of breaking and entering, people might give a description of the character. In the end, the repercussions aren't stone walling the advancement in the direction of the intent, which is finding the brother or stealing the valuables.



The discrepancy as I see it is not the presence of repercussions (I agree that those should exist) but that only the Lockpicking is adjudicated, the repercussions are pronounced by fiat. In some games, this isn't a problem, but in BW there is a specific rule that states "no GM fiat."

See previous paragraph. The player must be made aware of the consequences and the avoidance/nonavoidance of them must be adjudicated by a Test.

Honestly, I'm not quite sure I understand both of those paragraphs, in particular that the repercussions are pronounced by fiat. There is no more fiat in it than the GM deciding you will fall if you jump off a cliff. Or that there is damage to be incurred if you're hit by a fast moving object.

Breaking and entering is a crime, and has been in a crime for centuries. It should be well accepted that it's a crime, and that if the intent does not include something relating to mitigating/avoiding that crime, then the repercussions aren't some form of fiat. The GM didn't just create the "no breaking & entering" law, it's part of the established world. If there's no concept of property in the game, then I'm sure the player would and should have been aware of this in the first place.

I guess I don't feel inclined to warn players at every moment of all possible repercussions for their actions. If they want to jump off a cliff, they can count on falling and taking damage, whether I remind them or not of the existence of gravity.

Seriously, an intent of the form: "I want to find my brother by breaking into houses." does not in any way shape or form imply stealth or subtlety unless like you mentioned stealth becomes part of the tasks. If the player forgets to be stealthy or just wants to smash windows and break open doors, they'll have to deal with that. I don't see it as the GM's duty to think for the players, but to provide opposition.

I could as GM quite easily warn them of every single obstacle I've put or thought of putting, but then every obstacle would be reduced to a successful/failed roll. None of the obstacles would be the result of faulty tactics/strategy on the part of the players, because they've been informed of every possible outcome prior. I know for one my players enjoy crafting plans and having their thoughtfulness rewarded. They enjoy having traps sprung upon them, because that's part of the learning experience. If I just straight-up tell them: "Look, there's bodyguards guarding the kidnapped brother. And there are people in the houses" what's the point of doing reconnaissance first? Why scouting the area? Why bother obtaining information before rushing in first, when the GM will just tell us everything?

What BW provides is that it doesn't allow me as a GM to prevent them from getting what they stated in their intent. So if their intent was "to find the brother" they WILL find him, regardless of the bodyguards. After a successful roll, they WILL know where the brother is. Getting past the bodyguards will be another matter altogether. And if they're later recognized by someone for breaking and entering that will be another matter altogether.

As described the intent is not being impeded or obstacles thrown in its path that were not stated prior.

If the intent had been "rescue my brother", then sure, if I had allowed that as a roll, then yes, throwing in opposition in the middle of it, would have gone against the intent. But the intent was to find the brother. You have to know where someone is in order to rescue them, no? And even then, if the intent does not include being stealthy it's really up to the GM if they might have been spotted. In any case, any attempt at spotting them requires a Stealthy roll as per the rules, so the players get every chance to refute the observation.

In the end, I don't understand what you find so underhanded.

[Maedhros]

Yet the intent did not include being stealthy or not being seen. You're changing the intent to avoid being detected, and that's fine and all, but that wasn't part of the original intent. You're also making a point of the angry residents being a problem that somehow affects the finding of the brother. If the player succeeds in the roll, they're just color if you will. There will be reports of breaking and entering, people might give a description of the character. In the end, the repercussions aren't stone walling the advancement in the direction of the intent, which is finding the brother or stealing the valuables.

That seems like splitting hairs with respect to Intent. If one is breaking into houses by picking locks (as opposed to kicking in doors), there is an implicit intent to do so without being seen or heard. Punishing the player by declaring "Ha Ha! You didn't intend to be Stealthy, so you're caught!", and then demanding Persuasion or Speed tests to deal with it, is just a sneaky way to circumvent Let It Ride.

In my opinion, the GM is just as responsible (maybe more so) as the player in framing the Intent and Action of the Test(s). Clearly a single Lockpicking Test would not suffice to resolve the Intent and Action stated by the player. A linked test was needed. Because the GM failed to properly frame the test and set stakes, I'd say it's bad form to jump into the middle of the Lockpicking and start demanding more Tests.


Honestly, I'm not quite sure I understand both of those paragraphs, in particular that the repercussions are pronounced by fiat. There is no more fiat in it than the GM deciding you will fall if you jump off a cliff. Or that there is damage to be incurred if you're hit by a fast moving object.

It's about setting stakes:

Player: I want to find my brother [Intent] by breaking into houses along the waterfront [Action].

GM: Okay. You will need to make a Lockpicking Test, failure of which means you won't find your brother. [Stakes]

Player. Okay. I made my Lockpicking Test.

GM: Oh - but by breaking into a bunch of houses, you may arouse the inhabitants. Make a Stealthy Test, failure of which means you get caught. [New Stakes]

The proper way to approach this is to have the GM state "You will need a Lockpicking Test to break in, and a Stealthy Test to avoid getting caught. If you fail the Lockpicking Test you stay locked out, and if you fail the Stealthy Test you will be beset by angry residents."

The player committed to a Lockpicking Test with no explicit Stakes. It's not fair to then make success dependent on a Stealthy Test with additional stakes.


Breaking and entering is a crime, and has been in a crime for centuries. It should be well accepted that it's a crime, and that if the intent does not include something relating to mitigating/avoiding that crime, then the repercussions aren't some form of fiat. The GM didn't just create the "no breaking & entering" law, it's part of the established world. If there's no concept of property in the game, then I'm sure the player would and should have been aware of this in the first place.

The "fiat" is the sudden appearance of undiscussed consequences requiring additional Tests to avoid.


I guess I don't feel inclined to warn players at every moment of all possible repercussions for their actions. If they want to jump off a cliff, they can count on falling and taking damage, whether I remind them or not of the existence of gravity.

I can see your point, but BW adopts a "transparency" motif that does. It's a system thing.


Seriously, an intent of the form: "I want to find my brother by breaking into houses." does not in any way shape or form imply stealth or subtlety unless like you mentioned stealth becomes part of the tasks.

As I wrote above, I think that it does. Also, it's the GM's job to set up the Tasks. If you state that a Lockpicking Test will accomplish the player's Intent, then it will. If he makes his Lockpicking Test, he will find his brother. Other things might also happen, but the character succeeded at his Task.

[Esteban]

The player committed to a Lockpicking Test with no explicit Stakes. It's not fair to then make success dependent on a Stealthy Test with additional stakes.

You keep missing my point, so I'm just going to try to rephrase it once more. If this were an actual play example, and actual players were involved I might be bothered to care further. But seeing as it was just an example, and you've been intent on drawing focus on something that wasn't the main point of the discussion, I'll leave it at this:

Success in finding the brother is not dependent on the Stealthy Test. That's another test altogether, for another set of stakes. The stakes of which the player might or might not care about. There are no new stakes and there is no changing the results of the original intent.


If he makes his Lockpicking Test, he will find his brother. Other things might also happen, but the character succeeded at his Task.

Thats is exactly what happens. He finds his brother, but can they get out without being discovered? That's another set of stakes. The brother has been found, there's no taking that away from the player.

[Maedhros]

I grok what you are getting at - it's just that the method you prescribe is, as far as I can tell, not consistent with the BW rules. Maybe we're just talking past one another.

I think we can both agree that the original Task as described ("I intend to find my brother by using my Lockpicking skill to case residences down by the docks") is broken - clearly, the use of Lockpicking skill by itself is insufficient to achieve the intended result. Stealthy, Observation, Fast Talk, etc. are also necessary.

Were this issue to arise in actual play, I would handle it thusly:

Intent: Find Brother
Action: Break into houses one-by-one until Brother is found

The Task would be achieved by an Extended Linked Test: Lockpicking (LP), Stealthy(ST) and Observation(OB). This Task would require three nights of activity - there are a lot of houses, and busting in and searching each is time consuming. Set obstacles based on setting specifics (types of locks in use, security measures in place, where Brother is being held, etc.). Roll Test, determine parameters of success or failure which Ride through to completion. During the days, the character does other stuff; each night he returns to the Task at hand.

Some outcomes:

LP: Succeed
ST: Succeed
OB: Succeed

*"Midway through the second night, you enter one of the seedier houses and quietly search every nook and cranny. Under the rug in the storage room you find a trap door to the cellar. Your brother is there, chained to the wall."

LP: Fail
ST: Succeed
OB: Succeed

* "You spend three nights skulking around the docks, but many of the locks are just too complex for you to manage. You didn't find your brother in any of the houses that you did manage to break into..."

LP: Succeed
ST: Fail
OB: Succeed

* "You're having an ale, pondering yesterday evening's efforts. The first night went well - you managed to search all the houses along the warehouse district. Your brother isn't there. However, you were definitely spotted exiting one of the more affluent houses - by the same guys who just burst into the tavern, by the way. They look angry, and their coming your way..."

-OR-

*"You're in. After a quick perusal of the main floor, upstairs and cellar you are certain that your brother isn't here. However, the constables are - they must have seen you fiddling with the lock. There are three of them, with lanterns and cudgels. And they're blocking your exit..."

LP: Succeed
ST: Succeed
OB: Fail

*"After three nights, you've seen the inside of every house in the district. None of them appeared to have been holding your brother...but that doesn't mean he's not there. Maybe there was a trapdoor to a cellar you didn't find?"