[Burning Wheel] I failed? No, _I_ failed.

[Eric Provost]

Hmmm...

Ok, I guess I'm not seeing the stall here.  Once the bomb fails to explode, I continue to describe what's happening in the universe around the PCs.  If the players are unable to figure out what to do, then maybe they need a sharp stick to the behind.  *noggin scratching*  I mean... I know all the players in the past I've had would have suddenly scrambled to come up with a secondary plan if they didn't have one already.  Could you illustrate the failure better for me?  I guess I'm just not seeing it.

I suppose, if I had players who continually sat with their thumbs up their rumps after a failure... which is what you seem to be describing... then you could put the Sharp Stick of Get On With It right into the result of the failure.  What if the bomb failure resulted in the bomb being -too- powerful?  How about saying that the roll indicated not a failure in making the bomb, but in placing it.  Instead of killing the intended target, someone or something else is killed.  How about if it goes off just enough to let everyone know that there was a bomb, and now there's evidence enough to find & punish the PCs?  Am I still off base here?

Now, as for the "inevitable" negative response from a player who just dosen't get to witness the mechanics... *shiver*  That kinda frightens me.  I make 'hidden' rolls for my PCs all the time.  I like to run heavy on the Simulationist/IC flavor.  I suppose, being that my players like the Sim/IC bit too, they understand and appreciate the hidden rolls.  So, when I tell them that they've been ambushed, they all have faith in me as a GM that I've taken their skills & abilites for noticing an ambush into account.   The same would hold true for my players and I in the bomb situation.  I haven't had the "You screwed me!" response from a player since High School.

Hmmm....

Perhaps, after the first stall, you could have paused the game to discuss the nature & reason for the stall.  For example, if my players had given me the blank stares of failure after my bomb description, I would have given everyone the "Time Out" sign and asked them, "Hey, you knew there was a possibility that you might fail.  You failed to set the bomb, big deal.  That doesn't mean that you've completely failed the mission.  Start considering what your characters would do, faced with this failure."  An OOC Sharp Stick, if you will.

I can't really directly respond to your proposition, as I know that my players wouldn't enjoy it.  They tend to react to OOC gaming encouragement like a lab bunny reacts to a fresh can of hairspray.

Anyway, I think I still stand by the core of my previous post.  You failed to prepare for the PCs failure.  I guess I really don't know what you could have done for your players tho', as your players seem quite different than mine.

-Eric

[Zak Arntson]

Complication, yes. I hated the example given to me originally: the assassin doesn't miss. Instead of hitting his intended target, he shoots another target of opportunity instead (that the GM magically created in order not to have to say the words, "Uh, you missed.") Bleh.

I can see why this example falls flat, since it isn't really a complication. It's a flavorful failure. What if the assassin kills the target's daughter instead? (I'm assuming the immediate and long-term ramifications of that would be much greater than skewering a manservant or a random noble).

It's a mix of Hitchcockian tension -- he often showed the audience what was going on behind the scenes, but the characters never knew -- and a little bit of rpg scene framing; suddenly the players know that in the next scene, the bomb won't go off. What will they do?

Combining player- and character-knowledge can be very problematic. I whole-heartedly believe that the more knowledge given to players, the better for making interesting and appropriate choices. I don't know the Burning Wheel, but if there is a way to reward the "follow through" of character-ignorance, do it.

[Lxndr]

My quick-idea of "rewarding character ignorance" would be Artha.  A GM-decided "are you playing the character correctly?"  Fate, probably, although Persona could fit in a pinch.

[Kaare Berg]

I think I am finally getting what you are getting at.

Actually, there is a graded failure mechanic. (pp 41-43 of BW.)

blast, damn, frick. . . . should teach me not to post from work.

What if the players fail the roll and they know they've failed, however they've stated their intent and must still carry forward as if everything was ok.

I thought this was the way BW worked. It is the way we've been doing it and it works. Example:
The mage in my group cast TAB, and got no successes to carry over on the defense aspect of the spell. When they susequently went out to find the assasin that prompted the spell, the player was very nervous.

This ties into the one roll mechanic that my group loves.

So if you are to avoid this "problem" in future editions of BW, just emphasis this aspect of the "let it stand rule" and word yourself differently.

Me personally still don't see it as a rule problem. More of a GM issue, but I concede that the wording of the rules can aid the GM to think in the above pattern.

[firstagainstthewall]

What if the players fail the roll and they know they've failed, however they've stated their intent and must still carry forward as if everything was ok.

We regularly do this in the games I play in.  There's something almost liberating about knowing that you will fail in the next thing you do and there's nothing you can do about it.  Maybe it's simply our own masochistic tendencies, but we do quite enjoy the sense of impending doom.

I have to agree with Technocrat in that failing rolls should not cause a stall.  There's a million and one reasons why any roll should fail, and a lot of the fun comes from dealing with your own failures.  Often a failure can propel a story forward, as you have to deal with a whole new set of problems just to cover yourself.

Another solution to the problem if you really can not afford for them to fail is just to wave your hands, ignore the dice roll, and tell them they succeeded.  This should generally be avoided, but if the roll is, for instance, to see if a character can just grab hold of that branch to stop themselves from falling several hundred metres to certain death, then it may be appropiate.

- Nick

[Luke]

Nick,

I absolutely agree with your observation that there can be something thrilling about knowing you're going to have to fail and deal with it.

However, I think you go into dangerous territory with your next statement:

Another solution to the problem if you really can not afford for them to fail is just to wave your hands, ignore the dice roll, and tell them they succeeded.

This isn't a solution, this is an abdication of the game. If you're ignoring the dice, then you're not playing Burning Wheel (or most RPGs in fact). BW does not now and will never advocate ignoring the results of a die roll. Once you roll those dice, you agree to abide by the results.

And failure is a necessary result -- can't have light without dark, as they say. What I am interested in is sculpting rules text in order to mitigate disaster at the table, and to keep everyone involved in the thrill of the moment, whether it be success or failure.

I have to agree with Technocrat in that failing rolls should not cause a stall.

Lastly, I just wanted note that I have an equally hard time digesting that failures at your table don't cause your games to stall -- the players don't gasp, cry out, and howl, "we're doomed!"? I am really looking at the reality of the table -- imagine a string of unlucky rolls -- how do you keep that from "ruining" the game. You've got to be a pretty agile or railroading GM to keep something like that under control.

All I want to do is give players and GMs a better tool for rolling with success and failure. This thread has given me a number of ideas. Thanks all.

-Luke

[rafial]

...just to wave your hands, ignore the dice roll...

Better to say I think "...just wave your hands, and don't roll the dice..."

I think a companion to the BW "one roll" philosophy is the question "is this roll necessary?"  If you reach the point where you are ready to turn the story over to the dice, you need to be willing to bounce whichever way they point.  If you aren't, don't roll them.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Words to live by, Rafial.

Best,
Ron

[Lxndr]

I've seen that referenced in a number of places as "the Rule of Jared."

i.e. - Don't roll unless the roll is important and/or necessary

It's a rule I do my best to live by (I used to hand-wave away results, to my chagrin; I'm resolved not to do it anymore).

[Luke]

...just to wave your hands, ignore the dice roll...

Better to say I think "...just wave your hands, and don't roll the dice..."

I think a companion to the BW "one roll" philosophy is the question "is this roll necessary?"  If you reach the point where you are ready to turn the story over to the dice, you need to be willing to bounce whichever way they point.  If you aren't, don't roll them.

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

To quote my own work, regarding Orcs' Brutal Life and the Die of Fate:

"Rolling the Die of Fate is no joke. Before you take another path ask yourself this question: Can I live without this lifepath? Can I live without this limb?"

You're correct in applying this grave philosophy to rolls in general in BW. (And no, I don't think this mitigates the point of this thread.)

-Luke

[Howmandu]

I have played Roleplaying games  for 25 years, and if there is one thing I have learned is that you will fail your rolls sometimes, and that this can majorly suck, but its all part of the game.
One thing that can be done to make these times less difficult is to  encourage contigency plans. You can also allow rolls to  assess what went wrong, and see if it something can be repaired. Try to avoid getting into a situation where one failed roll will ruin the night.  At times none of this will apply, and one roll will need to define all the characters actions and preferations... and a failure is disheartening...but just think of it this way.... it could be much worse. The players could actually be the characters, and need to deal with the failure in a much more personal way :-)