[Burning Wheel] Ill Met in Tarshish

[rafial]

The fourth session of our Tarshish campaign was possibly the most productive, as it brought Darius and "that damn Dwarf" Kvardo togther, and saw the beginning of Cpt Jessup's spy mission up the peninsula  to investigate the pirate incursions.

The plotline with Arlevatticus forcing Kvardo to steal for him, and trying to pass a stolen statue to Darius on the assumption that is was the lost statue from the Obol Heap came to a sticky end, as Amir, Prince of Thieves, an old acquaintance of Darius became cheesed off about amateurs playing on his turf and riling up the powerful.  Meanwhile as the Theban guard began its march north to Dila, Cpt Jessup gathered a crew of fools and madman for spy mission up the coast of the peninsula, mixed with an attempt to find the lost statue in the wreckage of Obol Heap.  That came to naught, but they did encounter an unnatural fog covering the passage of an enormous war galley off the coast, which they followed as long as they could. Darius managed to weasel out of military duty with a desperate appeal to the Governor himself, and managed to pick up a little money on the side when Kvardo hired him to look into the dealings of his no good cousin.

We continued with a fairly combat free game, the closest we got was some Steel tests to see who could react fast enough to bring down Arlevatticus when he realized that he was about to be turned over to Amir's tender mercies as the fall guy for the Khaldun estate robbery.

We did see Artha start to fly thick and and fast for the first time.  And here's one of the most interesting moments of "Actual Play" to come out of this session in my mind.

During Cpt. Jessup's detour to attempt salvage from the Obol Heap (featuring a cool diving rig involving a wooden helmet sealed with pitch and a breathing hose made of sheep's intestine), once he safely made it to the bottom of the sea, I called for a perception roll to see if he could find the actual wreckage amidst all the silt and muck.  Cpt. Jessup's player was really hoping to succeed, so he doubled dice, and made use of a Boon of Mina-Hama that had been granted him earlier.  Since perception dice are open ended anyway, I ruled that boon would cause successes to open end on a 5 or a 6.  So he's rolling 10 dice, open ended on a 5-6.

Two successes.

After stumbling around in the muck for twenty minutes as water poured through the leaky seams of his helmet, the desperate captain finally signaled to be pulled up, distraught and empty handed.  The player seemed really cool with the outcome, and from a character perspective, Cpt. Jessup seems to have accepted that his failure was the will of the Lady, and that the icon is well and truly lost.

He got a Persona point for that... :)

I think it was a telling system moment that both the character and the player gambled hugely and lost.  Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?  We've heard lots about characters striving for the impossible shot, pouring their all into it, and carrying the day.  We don't hear so much about characters striving for the merely difficult, putting their all into it, and blowing it big time.  But for a simulationist mode of play, to have the first, you must have the second.  Or so it seems to me.

[Matt Wilson]

When players tell of situations like the above, someone is bound to respond with an optional interpretation of failure. Is there anything in that dice roll that would allow for the possibility of a cool plot twist that acknowledges both the poor roll and the resources spent on it? Say Jessup finds the box the thing was in along with evidence that someone had been there before him and obtained it first.

Me, I love dice rolls that create complications. I think some systems can limit their application and instead encourage a straight-out yes/no (e.g. D&D's "to-hit"). How ambiguous can you make BW's perception rolls without too much effort?

[Luke]

I think Matt's interpretation is valid, but before we go into that, we really need to look into a mechanical question here: What was his obstacle?

And, a gameplay issue: Why not let him try again?

Personally, from my standpoint as a GM, if the player wanted it that badly, I would have at least given him clues or leads. Not what he was looking for, but something to chew on.

BTW, I admit that I laughed out loud at the two successes. Fate can be cruel. This is definitely a fact of life in Burning Wheel. And I laugh at other's tragedy. (Because I have a roiling magic cloud stuck in the middle of my campaign from a similar calamity!)

Lastly, you said Artha "flew thick", any other examples of it in play?

-L

[rafial]

How ambiguous can you make BW's perception rolls without too much effort?

I'm not sure I want to.

First of all, my interpretation of BW as writ is that the core system is all about answering the question, "can I do x, yes or no".  i.e., its task resolution all the way baby, not conflict resolution.  In the situation as it occurred, the questions that got asked were "can the crew find the approximate location where the Obol Heap went down" (Navigation Test), "can Cpt Jessup keep his wits about him as he plummets to the bottom of the sea in a barely functioning bronze age diving apparatus" (Steel Test), "once he's there, can Cpt Jessup spot any actual wreckage amidst the muck and silt" (Perception Test).

I think Matt's interpretation is valid, but before we go into that, we really need to look into a mechanical question here: What was his obstacle?

This is a good question.  It's become more and more clear to me as I play that in order to play in the mode I'm trying for, Obstacles need to be stated up front.  I'm still working on that, and I think I flubbed it on the Perception test.  I set an up front Ob4 for the navigation test (passed by cooperation and lots of forking), and of course the Steel test was against Hesitation, but I didn't state an up front Obstacle for the Perception test.  In retrospect, It probably was an Ob4 as well.

And, a gameplay issue: Why not let him try again?

Well, we were going by the "let it ride" philosophy.  The perception test was made, and Cpt. Jessup was just not able to spot anything unless the situation changed.

I did suggest repositioning the boat and trying another dive, but the player chose to have the character react differently to the failure, interpreting it as a divine mandate to "get on with your life!"  So I think some story happened, just not in the way that anybody initially expected.

I'd love to hear Johnzo's (Cpt Jessup's player) side though.

Lastly, you said Artha "flew thick", any other examples of it in play?

Nothing that stuck in my head as much.  I do recall Darius used a fate point on a failed roll at one point and rerolled his only six to turn things into a success, but I can't remember what he was doing :)  I just noticed that players were actually using it this time around, where as in previous sessions it had sort of gotten ignored.  This also reminded me to actually make an effort to award it as well.

[taepoong]

I just noticed that players were actually using it this time around, where as in previous sessions it had sort of gotten ignored.  This also reminded me to actually make an effort to award it as well.

How true, how true!

I didn't realize it until recently, but if you want your players to start using Artha, you have to convince them that they will get more Artha later on. Otherwise, they hoard like greedy Gollums. This convincing is most easily done by giving it out regularly and for the same reasons. Your players will soon trust you and routinely will use it up. As a player, this was true for me. As a GM, I had a hard time giving it out to begin with, but now I don't think too much about it - I just react. "You did something right? Well here, ya go! Have a Fate point!" The looks on players faces is quite rewarding! ;o)

[Matt Wilson]

its task resolution all the way baby, not conflict resolution.

So is how loosely you interpret the die roll what makes a system task resolution or conflict resolution? I had understood it differently.

[Luke]

its task resolution all the way baby, not conflict resolution.

So is how loosely you interpret the die roll what makes a system task resolution or conflict resolution? I had understood it differently.

Personally, I would take the ugly stance of "You're both right." I don't see why a game/system has to completely paint itself into a corner. And I think BW is flexible enough to use shades of both philosophies.

It seems like Raf did the "right thing" as the GM in narrating the result of the failure. He stated the failure and offered possible solutions. The player took it in stride and moved on. The results of the die roll shaped the story.

But I think Matt has something more to say on the matter. Care to enlighten us, sir? (I am actually dying to hear your thoughts on this matter.)

-Luke

[johnzo]

Jessup's player here.  Sorry it took me so long to post--been kinda busy lately.  

I created the dive scene for two reasons: one, it was a nice character thing for Jessup to revisit the wreck with the possibility of a good salvage haul, and two, I hadn't done much of a job of connecting Jessup to the other two characters.  Salvaging the statue would've put Jessup in some good graces and some crosshairs and would've touched off some things.  

(Raf's been very hands-off about putting the characters together.  Jessup's only met another PC once, and when he did, he was very evasive and standoffish.  Darius approached him as the captain of the Obol Heap, and Jessup is very touchy about that subject.  My narrativist self felt kind of bad about that first encounter, because it did nothing to kick off a relationship between D. and J.  I guess BW's simulationism is infecting my play style.)

Anyway, Jessup had all his ducks in a row -- he had a boat, a crew, a diving helmet, a loose morning, and a powerful blessing from the Consort--and he still didn't find the wreckage.   Somewhere within our local interpretation of BW, I understood there to be a "you only get one perception roll per scene."  Since we seem to have a committment to playing tight to the rules, I figured I'd just roll with it.  It's a good result from a character exploration standpoint--it solidified Jessup's fatalism in my eyes.  It's also a terrific result from a worldbuilding standpoint, because I never pictured Jessup as someone whom the Consort would want to bless.  (He will probably be tithing straight to the Bull next time.)  Hell, it's even a good result from a story standpoint, because the loss here will make any later victory feel more meaningful.

But I'm still somewhat confounded as to how to pull Jessup into  the other characters' stories in a satisfying fashion, though--although maybe that's not necessary.  Everyone's being patient with the way raf's dealing out spotlight time, and everyone seems to be grooving on the game.  It does have a different feel than most of the other kinds of games I've played lately, where the spotlight is firmly on the PC's.   There's a good sense that we inhabit a world, not a stage.  If that's how the Wheel's intended to feel, then raf is running it exactly right.

zo.

[rafial]

So is how loosely you interpret the die roll what makes a system task resolution or conflict resolution? I had understood it differently.

No, I agree, its not loose or tight that makes the difference.  It's what is at stake.  In the example we are discussing, in the task resolution mode, what's at stake is "can Jessup spot some wreckage".  The "tight" interpretation of a failure might be "Jessup is blind as a bat" I suppose, a looser interpretation might be "there's too much silt in the water due to the recent storm" or "the suns at the wrong angle" or "the sheep's membrane over the eye slit isn't letting enough light through".

In conflict resolution, what's at stake is "Does Jessup find the icon?"  A tight interpretation of a failure might be "no he doesn't" a loose interpretation might be "it is almost within his grasp when it is gulped down by a magically controlled shark that swims away".

Interestingly it seems to me in a TR system, you can keep beating on a problem from different angles if you really care to, but in a CR system (at least in my understanding) a failure in this situation would really truly be saying "no, you don't get the icon at this time, move along to something different".

P.S. to Johnzo: I'm really grooving on how you've been exploring the religious angle of Tarshish through Jessup.

[taepoong]

Somewhere within our local interpretation of BW, I understood there to be a "you only get one perception roll per scene."

I suppose this understanding might come from the "Let it Ride" theory that Luke often talks about. But I don't agree that it is a firm rule, not at all. The wonderful thing about BW is that you can try to do something as many times as you want, it just takes times. This goes against Shadowrun (where the TN's were raised every time) or even D+D (where you were only allowed to try something once and that was it). When we played these systems, we HATED such limitations. No one could answer "Why can't I try again?" It leads to much frustration and unfun sessions.

I might've read your situation as "You can't seem to locate the ship - conditions are just too bad" or even allowed him to find a piece of the ship but not the cargo hold, but I certainly would've allowed him to try again the next day with a new roll.

However, the way it did go for you is great too! It's all good!

[Valamir]

That's interesting Tae.  I have quite the opposite reaction as you to rules about only trying once.  To me the annoying frustrating part is when (picking a lock say) I am able to keep trying until I make the roll.  At which point since success becomes certain given enough time to make the rolls, why bother forcing me to roll at all.  Just give anyone with a pittance of skill and unlimited time automatic success and skip the dice altogether.

[taepoong]

Well, with a little exaggeration, when given unlimited time, most people can do most anything. If I want to pick a lock and I have the luxury of infinity, then one of those times I will definitely succeed. You are correct in this. And in such cases, I never would ask for a roll because of that certainty.

However, most PCs do not have the luxury of time when attempting most actions. Using the lockpick example, perhaps there is a guard patrol that the thief timed so he'd have a chance to pick the lock without being seen. But if he failed that lock, would he have enough time to try again? And so, as a GM, I'd remind them of this risk when told another attempt will be made. This creates a nice quandary which allows the player to make the decision. This fits my GM-style of "Yes, but..." instead of a straight "No."