[Circle of Hads] Roll Wits to Ascend?

[Moreno R.]

Hi Ron!

I have some problem in understanding exactly WHEN and HOW a wits roll is used to find someone and then to Ascend someone...

The first source of confusion comes from page 83:

Fortunately, a lot of things are perceived without Wits rolls, simply through social rank and profession. If there's a village in the mountains and everyone has iron heads on their spears, then you don't need to use Wits to find the smith, or to find that he's a couple of villages away. The GM does well to throw tons of this kind of information at the players so they can feel secure that their characters soak up a lot of information simply through their own life-experience and membership in the culture.

I like this, not having to make the PC rolls to find the smith, or a midwife, or a priest. It's the way I usually GM in most games that could require rolls or not for things like these. But then, on the same page:

These rolls are also good for helping shape ascensions of NPCs. Use a Wits roll to find "someone who's good at midwifery," or "an old person," or what ever, even just the guy who makes wagon-wheels and knows how to fix or make shields ... all of those are key to seeing lots more named NPCs appear who are not standoffish toward your character, and the Wits rolls pave the way.

This part is confusing me: there is something different from "find a smith" in "find a old person"? Why should make the players roll in a case and not the other? And what is the connection between the roll and ascending the NPC? (I thought that the ascending depended on what the PC did AFTER finding the NPC: asking his/her name, casting certain spells, and in general making him/her a character and not an extra)

The second source of confusion (but maybe it's still caused by my confusion about the first) is from page 85 of the Circle of Hands manual (I will underscore the confusing parts):

Unnamed people can be ascended to named status during play through several means, usually prompted by players' attention to them. One good indicator is when a player-character asks someone in a crowd or otherwise known only in terms of group membership, "What's your name?" When this happens, grab a name from the list in Chapter 3.
Other slightly subtler bits of play always do it too:
○ ○ A Circle knight might seek an individual implied by previous activity: "I go find that guy we talked to earlier," or similarly, the GM might do the same: "It's the same guy you talked to earlier." Doing this requires a Wits vs. 12 roll.
○ ○ A Circle knight seek an individual previously unknown, but reasonably inferred to be in a current group: "Send me your toughest man!" or "I look for one of the scholars who seems like he knows what he's doing," or "Which guy looks like he might be in charge?" Doing this requires a Wits vs. 12 roll.

About the first underscored part: I am assuming that if the GMs is the one who ascend the NPC, there is no roll involved. Am I right?
But even if the PC is the one who is searching a specific guy...  if the guy is specific enough to be searched for specifically, does this not mean that he is already ascended, even if he is not in the scene?  (the GM should assign to him a name and stats, in absentia), and the wits roll be only to find him this time?
A failure in the wits roll mean that the PC don't find the guy, or that the guy doesn't ascend, too?

About the second underscored part... why "send me your toughest man" require a Wits roll? The people of the village know who is the toughest, and the PC has simply asked them to call that guy. If the people of the village reply with "Ah, the toughest one is Kurt, he lives in that hut over there" does this not ascend Kurt regardless of any wits roll? And why saying to call Kurt require a wits roll?

I can see how ""Which guy looks like he might be in charge?" would require a wits roll, but even in this case: a success would lead the PC to the guy in charge, and would not be the interaction to say if he ascend or not?
And even in case of a failure, what happen? it's not clear from the rules (or at least from my recalling of them) if the GM should point the wrong guy (the players obviously would know that he is the wrong guy, but the character would not) or if the players should simply play their characters as confused and not sure about who is in charge, but in both cases, if the PC go talks to someone believing that he is in charge... would not this ascend him anyway, even with a failed wits roll?

[Ron Edwards]

The first passage from p. 83 concerns the daily life and general social activity of the characters while in this location. The second passage concerns a specific, played, interactive situation, in which things are being said and done, and a number of unnamed characters are present.

The Wits rolls are carried out in situations which otherwise would put the characters in conflict with a group. These are tactics to avoid that problem. I think that solves most of your stated problems.