Gathering Information - Go Fish ?

[Skeolan]

One suggestion: don't do open-ended rolls for gaining info. Instead, have the player state what they want to learn, such as "the creature that made this wound is much bigger than a normal wolf" or something like that. Something specific, that if they pass, that becomes true, and is what they learn. If they FAIL, then you come up with something they learn that... they don't want to be true. But it is.

vs


I think you're also overstepping the boundaries here as well and getting a little too hippie for BW. The player's job is to state Intent and Task. It's the GM's job to state the results.

The exception to this is -wises, of course. But this was clearly not a -wise situation.

Suggest two disparate positions on the use of skills to gather information. Should the player attempting to discover something (e.g. the extent of a wounded person's injuries or the information sought by interrogation) assert the FACTS they seek to ascertain ("his injuries are not too severe, but are strange in X Y and Z ways..."), or only declare an intent to ascertain the facts, which are then related by the GM according to the player's success or failure?

Is this a question of play style, or is one interpretation more correct per the rules-as-written and the intended style of play?

[luke]

Pete is correct. Nick's interpretation is technically only valid when a player is asserting a detail using a -wise skill. It is not the correct use of any other type of skill.

[Berandor]

Well, I guess Kublai's Pete, and DaGreatJL is Nick?

I know that I have used Perception tests that way (for Assess): make a test to see the guard is limping, or the wildling's armor is dented on his left arm, and so on, when I didn't have specifics in mind myself. Though now I wonder whether that shouldn't have been a Beginner's Luck test towards a fitting wise (still Perception)...

[Rafe]

DaGreatJL is Eeyore. So I'm not sure which one Luke is siding with, as I don't know Kublai's name, which could be Pete or Nick.

All that said, what's the link to the original thread in which the discussion took place? I'm curious to know what they were both speaking in reference to.

[Irminsul]

DaGreatJL is Eeyore. So I'm not sure which one Luke is siding with, as I don't know Kublai's name, which could be Pete or Nick.

All that said, what's the link to the original thread in which the discussion took place? I'm curious to know what they were both speaking in reference to.

Kublai is Pete.

Here is the original thread (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8379) this is split from (on page 2).

[Rafe]

Alrighty, found the original mention that prompted DaGreatJL's response:


While that went on, Father Moeller and Herr Emerich addressed the boy's father, trying to calm him and get him to remember as much as possible about what happened. I believe we rolled an open persuasion test to see how well they could get him to calm down and thus how many details they could get him to recall.
Based on that, I think DaGreatJL is right in how he answered in that thread, on page two: Use Soothing Platitudes, or Interrogation. Don't make it an open test. Use task and intent, as per usual BW.

Pete was responding to something different:

Would this same idea apply to the Interrogation/Persuasion attempt against the frightened father? "I sit him down and ask several pointed questions, learning that he was south of the big hill with the ruined watchpost and a few hundred yards from where the stream runs into the ravine on the edge of the Grauwald." In which case failure means - what exactly?
Pete said use intent and task, also, for this.

So... both Pete and Eeyore are right, aren't they, given the different contexts of their responses? And it is important to remember that both of them are responding to different posts, so the original question is not around an apples to apples comparison. Two different situations, with two different answers, both of which seem right to me.

[DaGreatJL]

The question that Pete and I were disagreeing on is whether in-game fiction can be created with skills other than Wises. Pete says that's what Wises are for, and Luke agrees with him. I think that adding to the fiction is too awesome to limit it to Wises, but then I'm apparantly more of a hippie gamer than Luke and Pete are.

[Rafe]

Ah, gotcha. I guess I fall in the middle in that it depends on the intent, task and the circumstances of the situation. I like that wises work the way they do, but I also agree that other skills can make those kinds of determinations, especially since many skills don't come with Obs or are left ambiguous, which I'd always assumed was on purpose for just that reason.

[Paul B]

What about taking an Assess action in Fight!, where you roll Observation/Perception to "spot" (sometimes create) useful fictional elements?

[zabieru]

I think Wises are too awesome to limit them by letting all other skills sub in for them this way.

Assess is a little bit special, Paul. I think you're right that in that case Observation can substitute for a weak "Things near this Fight!-wise."

[Rafe]

I think Wises are too awesome to limit them by letting all other skills sub in for them this way.

So you're saying a Streetwise test with the intent "I want to navigate to the pier without having to go through the dangerous slums and dockside districts and become a target," which is the purpose of the skill, should actually be a wise?

I just created the fiction that there are bad neighbourhoods around the pier (or wharf) I'm trying to get to, and that's well within the rights of any skill or ability. Otherwise, you'd have to roll People-wise before rolling Circles, no?

edit: What I'm getting at is that all rolls, and roleplaying itself, creates fiction. Wises do so in a very explicit way, but all ability tests made in BW (and in most RPGs) affect the game world and what it contains/is.

Am I straying too far with this? What is it specifically that a skill cannot do in a circumspect way that a wise does directly?

[Blackberry]

So you're saying a Streetwise test with the intent "I want to navigate to the pier without having to go through the dangerous slums and dockside districts and become a target," which is the purpose of the skill, should actually be a wise?

I just created the fiction that there are bad neighbourhoods around the pier (or wharf) I'm trying to get to, and that's well within the rights of any skill or ability. Otherwise, you'd have to roll People-wise before rolling Circles, no?

I think the difference is that, if you were in Fresno, no amount of successes on Streetwise would get you to the pier district, slums or no slums. In fact, successes would inform you that there is no waterfront at all.

What would successes on Pier-Wise mean? Might it cause there to be a reservoir outside of town (that just hadn't come up before) and some boat piers there?

[technomonkey]

I think the difference is that, if you were in Fresno, no amount of successes on Streetwise would get you to the pier district, slums or no slums. In fact, successes would inform you that there is no waterfront at all.

What would successes on Pier-Wise mean? Might it cause there to be a reservoir outside of town (that just hadn't come up before) and some boat piers there?

The task has to be a valid way of achieving the intent. By extension, you can't have an intent that is impossible - you can't go to the pier district if there is none.

Wises can't change already known information or secret GM-knowledge, so even Pier-Wise wouldn't help out if you or the GM knows that there is no pier. If it just hasn't come up that's different.

As for the general issue, whether non-wises can create fiction, it's obviously not rules as written. However, I don't know that there's anything wrong with it as long as everyone's onboard.

I have done similar stuff as a GM, using success or failure on player rolls to determine the fiction. The type of thing where if you fail your Orienteering roll then you get attacked by a pack of wolves, or you're searching for something in a room and if you fail it means it's not there (I think these are other peoples' examples, not mine). However, I believe this is allowed by the rules, as the GM gets full control on a failed roll.

[Daniel H.]

Blackberry and Technomonkey, there's some pertinent discussion in the thread Are the players always right? (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7201)

[Rafe]

As for the general issue, whether non-wises can create fiction, it's obviously not rules as written.

I agree it isn't expressly stated. After all, creating fiction is one of the explicit purposes of wises: to either create fiction, or to ask about something the GM already has in mind regarding the fiction and to thus become aware of it.

(this next part is general, and not directed at you, technomonkey!)

However -- and this is my point -- all ability rolls in BW create fiction. My example above is perfectly valid, given that it has been established that the hypothetical city is a port and therefore has piers or docks. The very act of providing a suitable intent creates fiction. Ironically, giving a weak or poorly fleshed-out intent does not, which is why intents need to be solid: The fiction has to flow from any and all rolls. If it doesn't, you hand-wave and move forward.

Is that not the premise of BW?

[Blackberry]

Blackberry and Technomonkey, there's some pertinent discussion in the thread Are the players always right? (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7201)

Thanks, that helps a lot.

[eruditus]

Player states intent and how he approaches said intent (task).
Both agree on a skill.
GM sets an ob and declares consequences.

I think the nay-saying is misplaced.

So then this is an issue of player and GM agreeing on Task, right?

If a player says "My character weaves his way through the streets avoiding the slums on the way to the pier. I learned of this path to the pier as a young scamp avoiding my adversaries on the way to my begging territories on the waterfront."

The Two might say Streetwise (which I consider a wise for, what I would think, are obvious reasons). The GM might say Orienteering, Perception to avoid danger, danger-wise, slum-wise, etc.

This sounds like a perfectly viable intent and task to me.

An aside: Now understand I think secret GM knowledge is bogus and bad gaming. The GMs job is to say yes or roll the dice. Not check his notes, say no, or yes, or roll the dice.

If it has come to the table by rolls, written and public maps, written and public character sheets, etc. Then the group can all say "nah we establish that was not the case. Why would it change?"

Now you could hack BW and agree as a group that the GM has secret facts and that might be cool. We have a system of revealing secrets in our game we've been testing out. But then everyone is agreeing to that.

Say yes or roll the dice works for important gaming reasons. It is sacrocant and not to be trifled with in my opinion. The GM has so many other tools at thief disposal to say no to a PC. If a GM has an idea of a fact in the game then make it consequence and bring it into the fiction.

My 2 cents,
-Don

[Blackberry]

Player states intent and how he approaches said intent (task).
Both agree on a skill.
GM sets an ob and declares consequences.

I think the nay-saying is misplaced.

So then this is an issue of player and GM agreeing on Task, right?

If a player says "My character weaves his way through the streets avoiding the slums on the way to the pier. I learned of this path to the pier as a young scamp avoiding my adversaries on the way to my begging territories on the waterfront."

The Two might say Streetwise (which I consider a wise for, what I would think, are obvious reasons). The GM might say Orienteering, Perception to avoid danger, danger-wise, slum-wise, etc.

This sounds like a perfectly viable intent and task to me.

I think the difference here is that it sounds to me like the player stating an outcome, not just an intent. The character intends to weave through and find his way to the pier: whether or not the actually does will be determined by the GM and the dice. From what I understand, including a literal outcome in the intent is normally only permitted for -wises.

So, given that the character intends to weave through the back alleys on his way to the pier, if there's no pier, he can be fully successful at weaving through the back alleys, but his intent to reach the pier is invalid even before rolling, by the GM just Saying Yes before it even comes to that: "You weave like a pro. Nobody spots you. But there are no piers for miles in all directions."

[Paul B]

Don't know if this is being alluded to or not, since frankly I'm having some trouble following the threads of disagreement, but IMO it's a dick move to preload your intent with as-yet-unestablished fiction.

So like "I'm going to use Streetwise to go down to the pier and find the local thieves' guild hangout" is uncool on two levels: there might not be a pier, and there might not be a hangout. Obviously the player's actual intent is to establish those facts. If fact-establishing is the players actual intent, then that's a -wise roll (with the tiny exceptions described above).

[Rafe]

So like "I'm going to use Streetwise to go down to the pier and find the local thieves' guild hangout" is uncool on two levels: there might not be a pier, and there might not be a hangout. Obviously the player's actual intent is to establish those facts. If fact-establishing is the players actual intent, then that's a -wise roll (with the tiny exceptions described above).
I think this misses the point, because you're assuming that the roll is being made in a vacuum -- a kind of in media res roll -- and when is that ever the case?

How it would actually work: You know you're in a port city, and a bunch of thieves recently jumped you near the docks. Hmmmm... Obviously, you aren't creating it out of nothing, as you could, potentially, do with a wise. However, such a roll still establishes fiction for the game.

It's more like establishing common sense. Let's say that. Wises establish new fiction and skills establish things that are vague but relegated to the domain of common sense:

I'm in a port town. Stands to reason there are docks. Dock districts might be dangerous. It might be a good idea to avoid them. Knowing my way around a city is Streetwise. So, because this interests me (and perhaps it's tied to BITs), I will roll Streetwise to make my way to the pier without wandering through the slums of the docks where I might be attacked.

[Dwight]

Obviously the player's actual intent is to establish those facts. If fact-establishing is the players actual intent, then that's a -wise roll (with the tiny exceptions described above).

I thought Streetwise was a "Wise". Just that it was a special wise because it's the only one listed explicitly in the Skill list? EDIT: IIRC it's actually used in the book as the example of how to establish fiction. Or maybe that was on this board somewhere?

That aside, as a GM I don't have a problem with not-established fiction in Intent because I immediately split establishing the fiction out as a separate Task if I don't agree with it. I think it saves time because I find I don't have to ask as many questions of "why?" for fiction establishment. *shrug*

[Daniel H.]

Streetwise isn't a wise (see its skill description); it has a different province than Street-wise. In theory, however, a character could have Streetwise-wise.

[technomonkey]

Stupid internets ate my post...



An aside: Now understand I think secret GM knowledge is bogus and bad gaming. The GMs job is to say yes or roll the dice. Not check his notes, say no, or yes, or roll the dice.


I think BW does support secret GM knowledge. The GM can say no, like if a player tries to buy a chainsaw. See also luke's post in this thread (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?p=71470) (thanks for the link upthread wanderer):


No, player's can't introduce information that contravenes preexisting or established facts, can't trump a GM's planned introduction of a character or fact, and, for johnstone, can't break genre.



So like "I'm going to use Streetwise to go down to the pier and find the local thieves' guild hangout" is uncool on two levels: there might not be a pier, and there might not be a hangout. Obviously the player's actual intent is to establish those facts. If fact-establishing is the players actual intent, then that's a -wise roll (with the tiny exceptions described above).

I think the only problem is that they're trying to say they're using Streetwise. Setting the Intent as "I'm going to go down to the pier and find the local thieves' guild hangout" is fine, as long as we use the right tests. If the hangout isn't preestablished then a Wise of some kind needs to be used (after, the searching can commence). However, the GM is also free to Say Yes to the test.

Wait, do you say yes to intent or task? If it's intent then I guess you should break up the intent.

[zabieru]

Wait, do you say yes to intent or task? If it's intent then I guess you should break up the intent.

You 'Say Yes' to the test, which comprises both intent and task. If you're inclined to say yes to one but not the other, probably you need to reframe the test because either the stated intent isn't the real intent, or the intent is good but it needs a different task (or a different part of the intent needs to be the focus).

[noclue]

Say "Yes or Roll the Dice" is about one thing only...is the test something that would make for interesting dice rolling goodness? If not give the success to the players.

This does not mean that the GM is forced to say Yes to a Wise test that breaks their world. In that case, it's not a question of whether the test is an interesting conflict or not. Its just not appropriate.

[Dave Lucas]

You roll the dice if there is a conflict. You say yes when there isn't.

[noclue]

Yes, but the reasoning behind that is "you don't have to waste time on things that you and your friends don't care about. It's okay to make the game about the interesting stuff and skip over boring irrelevant shit." It's a rule about increasing everyone's fun, not disenfranchising the GM.

[John Anderson]

I must say, I've tried 'playing around' with the wises rule in just this situation. I shall be using the RAW from now on. It doesn't give me headaches like when you try to tweak a ruleset that is so entangled as BW.
John

[cathexis]

Yes, but the reasoning behind that is "you don't have to waste time on things that you and your friends don't care about. It's okay to make the game about the interesting stuff and skip over boring irrelevant shit." It's a rule about increasing everyone's fun, not disenfranchising the GM.

It's both really: it's about disenfranchising the GM down to something sane as opposed to a towering monster of opposition and no (which happens to not be fun). The GM is still allowed to be a jerk and make everyone test everything but that is totally lame. The actual rules part of SYoRtD states that the GM CANNOT say no, unless a player is attempting to contradict something previously established as fact, which is most emphatically a disenfranchisement of the traditional GM role.

[Paul B]

"Disenfranchisement" is such a loaded word.

I like "reframe." BW's rules reframe the GM's role. Different, not smaller.

[cathexis]

Just going with the language as used, plus I find super politically charged language funny when in the context of roleplaying games.

[Dwight]

How about "the GMs are sent to camp for reeducation"? Or if you prefer, it is tutoring of the GM. (http://www.paulgraham.ca/albums/Random-Pictures-ALBUM-2/far_side.gif) This is serious business!

On a slightly less silly note Paul, do you really expect to sell "reframing" to people with the mentality and expectation that the GM is above gods, the rule book, and everything and everyone else? Where they are literally the bouncers (yes, they are explicitly tasked in D&D 3e with ejecting people from the premises) and effectively the parents in charge of the kids.

[cathexis]

Something in this vein that I find really interesting as well is the overall GM attitudes that are attracted (or repelled) by the limitations placed on the BW GM. It seems like the GM types that tend to dislike GMing Burning Wheel are the "I create worlds, I create stories" types, whereas the people who really love the roll of the BW GM are those people who run a game every four years because they hate being on the hook for much more than the here-and-now.

[Rafe]

Something in this vein that I find really interesting as well is the overall GM attitudes that are attracted (or repelled) by the limitations placed on the BW GM. It seems like the GM types that tend to dislike GMing Burning Wheel are the "I create worlds, I create stories" types, whereas the people who really love the roll of the BW GM are those people who run a game every four years because they hate being on the hook for much more than the here-and-now.
I agree. Very hands-on, "this is MY ball!" GMs would probably have a hard time with BW's more laisser-faire attitude towards the GM's role. As a "facilitator" type GM, I freakin' love it. I like the fact that neither side has a real dictatorial stance.

It's kinda like collective bargaining. :)

[Aramis]

BW is too hands-on for me. Which is why I prefer to run BE. :P