Mis-Stakes?

[Berandor]

From here: http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?4087-BE-s-(and-BW-s)-Relation-to-Other-Indie-Games&p=38925#post38925


With intent, the consequences are intended to be a logical outcome of the test being made. So if you are attempting to pop the lock on the door before the guards find you, the consequences are about the guards finding you or not being able to pick the lock.

The intent of the passage quoted above is to make sure that everyone is on the same wavelength about the connection between the intent and the potential ramifications. In this case, the GM could tell you whether you'll open the door but the guards will see you, or whether you'll realize that the lock is too tough and you won't be able to get it open before the guards approach.

Stakes could mean that. But in many games, but not all, it has been more broadly interpreted to allow consequences that are not directly related to the test at hand. In some games, like Primetime Adventures, this might be appropriate. But it's not suitable for Burning Wheel or Sorcerer, for instance.

I assume that's still true? If so, then I had a wrong idea of intent and consequences, as I approached it much too broadly. I thought consequences could bring about any kind of "failure", even if disconnected from the intent. E.g.

Intent: I want to pick the lock before the guards come
Consequence: you pick the lock, but the safe has already been cleaned out by another thief.

[stormsweeper]

Technically that can work if you and the player are on the same page, but failures should really be toed to the action in scene. I can think of some great ways to spin that kind of result, but it's really dependent on the context of the game.

[Irminsul]

Luke had some really great wisdom concerning this recently in this thread (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?8840-Negotiating-Stating-Failures-Before-the-Roll&p=88115#post88115).

I've actually had issues with producing Consequences because some people seem to state broad Intents and I don't know how to set the Consequences then.

An example could be:
PLAYER: I want to pick the lock.
GM: if you fail... um, you don't pick the lock?

Weak.

Bad example, but I can't think of a specific instance at the moment. Sometimes there is an implied Intent that I can go on, sometimes not though.

Is this just a case of needing to ask "why" until the player gives up the Intent?

[Berandor]

Maybe it's a case of a bad intent, yeah. Maybe the intent should be: "I want to get my hands on the incriminating papers" by picking the lock before the guards come.

[Rafe]

An example could be:
PLAYER: I want to pick the lock.
GM: if you fail... um, you don't pick the lock?

1) Weak.

Bad example, but I can't think of a specific instance at the moment. Sometimes there is an implied Intent that I can go on, sometimes not though.

2) Is this just a case of needing to ask "why" until the player gives up the Intent?

1) Yeah, that's not an intent. That's stating the task (ability being used), but what does he want out of it? Why is he picking the lock?

2) And yup, I generally say "Okay, you want to Climb the tree. Why? What are you trying to accomplish here?" "Oh, I want to be up there to hide from those guys approaching from the road." "Cool. That's Stealthy vs. their Observation." (The tree is irrelevant, really - it's just nice colour - unless you feel a Climbing + Stealthy linked test is appropriate. I'd probably leave the choice up to the player as to whether they want a single versus, or a linked versus.)