Circles: I go and find my boss

[Berandor]

Hey there,

I was just playing in a game (see here for the character: http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?p=86838 ), and we came upon a slight stumbling block.

Basically, my character is involved with a street gang, and wanted to find the leader of the gang. Now, I didn't buy a relationship for that character, so I would have to roll Circles, I guess. Where we hesitated was in determining the correct difficulty.

Would "leader of the gang" make this guy higher station, or would it rather be an uncommon profession? If I'm looking for this specific guy, would this indeed be a specific occupation, only with +1D on the Circles test for me knowing his name? Would it be both specific occupation *and* higher station? Maybe even higher difficulty for uncommon dispostion (considering he doesn't like my character)?

Basically, we thought it was kind of funny to have a very high Circles obstacle to find someone "soon" (i.e. within the session) when my characte regularly meets up with the guy at gang meetings.

I mean, it's possible to say I should buy a relationship if I want to always be able to find him, and normally the GM would just say yes (as he did here, too), so the high Obstacle would only come into play when the test was important.

I guess it's not even a real question I have, I just want to make sure. In this case, figuring out the obstacle as:

specific occupation (leader of a specific gang) +3
higher status +1

i.e. obstacle 5 would be correct?

[noclue]

Sounds like it really depends on the fiction. If you see the guy at regular meetings and can wait for the staff meeting, no circle needed. If you want him now and he hangs out at the gang headquarters where there's an open door policy for gang members, he's not a higher station, he's in your circle even though he leads the gang. You just want to find him in and if he's always in, then you may not need a roll. If he's a big high mucky muck who walks around with nobles and shit, and your an errand boy beneath his notice who sits in the bleachers during the meetings...well, then you might have a little higher ob.

So: sure

[luke]

The GM didn't have anything in mind for an NPC gangboss? If he did, why didn't he say yes?

Otherwise, yes, higher obstacle. You didn't spend the points on a relationship so now it seems that gang boss is likely to be your enemy. It's a nice complication. Lots of grist to play with.

[Berandor]

No, the GM said yes - It's just then we got to talking, "well, what would I have to roll if..."

and yes, I said, "no wonder he doesn't like me" if I can only "find" him via enemy clause :)

Thanks!

[noclue]

The GM didn't have anything in mind for an NPC gangboss? If he did, why didn't he say yes?

Otherwise, yes, higher obstacle. You didn't spend the points on a relationship so now it seems that gang boss is likely to be your enemy. It's a nice complication. Lots of grist to play with.

juicy!

[Tzelzix]

At that moment there really was no reason to force a circles role, so I said yes. What made the thought of circling your own gang boss a bit weird was the fact that he is part of a belief (and thereby already named). Also, we assumed this street gang to be rather small, around 30 youngsters maybe.

Using circles for something/someone previously undefined is rather clear, but circling up persons rather involved in the story still feels odd. I guess it all comes down to the "when it really matters" part. If you really have to find this one guy for something important and it can't wait, some interesting complications may arise. :)

[zabieru]

Leaving aside the question of whether to call a test at all (which others have ably addressed), a few comments on your obstacle:

Remember that the modifiers are all a) only applied if they matter, and b) applied relative to the character's own station and circles.

I don't think "gang leader" is really an uncommon occupation in a gang member's circles. I bet your gang member could locate (through friends of friends) several gang leaders. It certainly is higher station, though.

I'm not sure you're using the disposition modifier correctly. That modifier is not applied to describe a known subject's actual disposition. Instead, it is applied to describe the desired disposition of the subject. If you are looking for a barber-surgeon, and you need to find one who will come to your safehouse in the middle of the night, that's +1Ob. If you are looking for a particular barber-surgeon (let's say you've met him before but he's not a relationship), and it's business hours and you have lots of money to pay him so you don't care if he likes you, but it just so happens that this guy does like you? Don't apply the modifier.

This comes into focus with the time modifier: If you need to find someone NOW before your buddy bleeds out, apply the modifier. If you have all week, don't apply the modifier even if the GM decides to have him show up in the next hour.

[Thor]

100% agreement with Devin. Beyond that, be careful not to treat Circles as a social network simulator. Its real job is to determine whether characters are friends or enemies.

Circling up someone you already know and who is established in the story is perfectly valid. Afterall, they're already known and established the second or third time you make a Circles roll to bring them in.

In your case, if and when you do decide to ask for a Circles test to meet with the gang boss, what the test will actually be doing is determining how the boss feels about the character. Does he consider him a son? A friend? A valued lieutenant? A dangerous upstart who will soon outgrow his usefulness? Does he think the character is a snitch? Has he simply decided to sacrifice the character like a pawn in pursuit of some goal?

A Circles roll will determine whether it goes one way or the other, and then you'll decide what that means, maybe using one of the examples above or something completely different.

[Berandor]

Or, I guess, that the gang boss can't be approached at the moment, if said moment is critical.

[Paul B]

Or, I guess, that the gang boss can't be approached at the moment, if said moment is critical.

And if it is, you'd definitely be using one of the time-sensitive modifiers.

I'd have probably gone:

* Specific role
* Specific disposition (if I wanted to ensure he showed up happy and ready to help, i.e. my DOW skills sucked worse than my Circles)
* The Here and Now modifiers

p.

[Daniel H.]

Its real job is to determine whether characters are friends or enemies.
Along with the rest of Thor's post, this seems very important.

[gooderguy]

it might help to take the question of intent to the next level. not just, 'does this guy like my character' but 'will this boss like my plan to encroach on rival territory'. if you get more specific with the intent of why you want to talk to the target of the circles test, it usually helps guide both the fiction and the obstacle.

if you've had previous interaction with the target (the boss in this case) and it's been relatively amiable, but you want to make a circles test either to build a relationship, or get his help, etc. the GM saying yes too often hurts your chances of building that relationship. a more subtle way to play it might come to the surface if you specifiy WHAT you want the target for. then, the GM can color the targets reaction based on your specific intent, rather than the bland ole' "he gives you the cold shoulder." i find this really helps in keeping failed circles test from getting redundant or boring.

[Fuseboy]

Be careful not to treat Circles as a social network simulator.

Can you explain this? It sounds interesting but I'm not sure what you mean.

[Thor]

I mean it's not just about determining whether you know someone or not. It does do that, but it's more about creating allies and adversaries in the game.

[Dwight]

I mean it's not just about determining whether you know someone or not. It does do that, but it's more about creating allies and adversaries in the game.

... and their availability at a given location and within a given time frame.

Your point I believe is an important reminder for frequent, almost default use of the Emnity Clause?

[cathexis]

... and their availability at a given location and within a given time frame.

Your point I believe is an important reminder for frequent, almost default use of the Emnity Clause?

Like the rest of the success/failure mechanics in Burning Wheel, invocation of the Enmity Clause is almost always more interesting than not finding the guy. Though in Devin's case of the late night Barber-Surgeon, not finding someone could be just as interesting an outcome as him turning out to be a police informant.

[Paul B]

... and their availability at a given location and within a given time frame.

Your point I believe is an important reminder for frequent, almost default use of the Emnity Clause?

Well...the more urgently and conveniently you need someone, the more likely it is to lead to complications.

Paired with the "GM matches task to intent" rule (to put a stop to douchebaggery like Circling up your worst enemy alone, naked and unarmed under your blade), I make Enmity Clause mandatory.

[Judd]

There are other options other than just emnity. In the MoBu City game I was GMing with Pete, he tried to circle up the kids who were his little apprentice thieves/message runners and when he failed to circle them up, I decided they had been killed after he had been put in prison. Those deaths drove the game really well, really hammering on one of his beliefs on revenge.

If a gang leader can't be circled up, maybe it is because he is in lock-up for the night or was captured by a rival gang. I think there are other interesting failure consequences than just the Lando Calrissian Gambit.

[Paul B]

Judd, I guess I'd call those both Enmity Clause outcomes in my game. My own internal use of EC goes beyond the Lando Calrissian Gambit. But that's just quibbling over semantics.

I guess the only Circles result I don't like, or ever use, is "mmmnope, nobody." Like, no context, no nothing, just a cockblock.

IIRC Circles and Resources are the only two rules with possible "nothing happens" results as well as explicit decide-consequences-after-rolling rules. I mean, I guess it's useful in some edge cases for the GM to be able to Just Say No, but I don't think it's ever come up in our game.

[Dwight]

I think the difference is mostly semantics. What do I mean by "semantics", you ask? ;)....

I have foggy recollections of someone from BWHQ (Luke?) giving some sort of Lando Calrissian Gambit as example of a potential for the 'Emnity Clause'.

I think that kind of complication has been described before and sort of shuffled under the Emnity Clause heading because that's the special name for complications with Circles. Where +Ob and + Opponent Disposition come in, isn't clear, which I think muddies the waters and makes it a dubious use of the term. I like to think of saying it is Emnity Clause as a sort of slang.

EDIT: Wait, is Lando Calrissian Gambit the one where the target of your Circles is being watched, and thus it's a TRAP! Or is it refering to being screwed over by a friend? Because the instance I was thinking of was where a suggestion for an Emnity Clause was that the target, unbeknownst to the target, was being trailed by some sort of spy. That contacting the target put the PC in harms way through no willful act of the target themselves.

[Dwight]

Oh, and I'm definitely down with this:


I guess the only Circles result I don't like, or ever use, is "mmmnope, nobody." Like, no context, no nothing, just a cockblock.

I can't recall ever not using a complication rather than an outright "doesn't exist". If I had it would have been the result of a complete creative block that I would consider a failure on my part. It happens but in a perfect world it wouldn't.

[Berandor]

Judd, I guess I'd call those both Enmity Clause outcomes in my game. My own internal use of EC goes beyond the Lando Calrissian Gambit. But that's just quibbling over semantics.


I think that kind of complication has been described before and sort of shuffled under the Emnity Clause heading because that's the special name for complications with Circles. Where +Ob and + Opponent Disposition come in, isn't clear, which I think muddies the waters and makes it a dubious use of the term. I like to think of saying it is Emnity Clause as a sort of slang.


But Enmity Clause has a specific rules effect to it. A complication doesn't necessarily mean the NPC in question is an enemy (with all that entails).

I mean, okay, it's semantics, but still.

[Thor]

Hi Patrick,

Just to be clear, when a GM invokes the Enmity Clause, that enmity doesn't have to be with the person (or sort of person) that the player was attempting to reach with Circles. The GM has broad latitude.

If you're circling up your gang boss to gain support for some initiative, you might find him and he may like the idea. But then his boss comes down like a ton of bricks. He shuts the plan down and now he's got his eye on you (and your boss) in an unfriendly way.

Or you go to Circle up your gang boss and surprise an assassin just as he's making a move on the boss. Maybe it leads to a fight right then and there, and maybe the assassin melts away, only now he's going to gun for you too because you've seen his face. If he's still alive, your boss will be grateful, but you've now got bigger problems.

Or maybe you go to see the boss and someone who's staking out the joint (whether from the constabulary or a rival organization) now know that you're a lieutenant and will start keeping tabs on you as well. It may be several sessions of play before there's a confrontation.

[Fuseboy]

Just to be clear, when a GM invokes the Enmity Clause, that enmity doesn't have to be with the person (or sort of person) that the player was attempting to reach with Circles. The GM has broad latitude.

Wow, this never occurred to me, thanks for mentioning this.

[Berandor]

Yes, thank you!

[Judd]

The Slow Burn emninity clause can be really solid, where you invoke the enmity clause and then have the NPC act really friendly can be unnerving and a really neat way to create tension for the betrayal to come.

[Dwight]

Wow, this never occurred to me, thanks for mentioning this.

Not surprising. IMO the text of the Enmity Clause doesn't really hint at that sort of use at all.

[luke]

Neither does the text say it must be the same person you were searching for.

[Dwight]

Neither does the text say it must be the same person you were searching for.

It implies an exclusivity of finding a friendly character who you are looking for or finding the enemy by the phrase "rather than". That's the mental barrier. I was surprised this wasn't updated in BE.

[Paul B]

The Slow Burn emninity clause can be really solid, where you invoke the enmity clause and then have the NPC act really friendly can be unnerving and a really neat way to create tension for the betrayal to come.

This is one of our very favoritest ways to use the EC in our games. It's maddening as hell! In a good way!