This is in regards to a post by Ron in a recent thread. Unfortunately I couldn't find the thread in question. The gist was players had opposing ideas so they resolved it with an opposed Will roll. The loser could still follow their course of action, but suffered penalty dice equal to the amount the other player won by. I was curious if this mechanic is covered anywhere in the Sorcerer books (I have the first three) or if this is a new use of the rules. It sounds a little like Contest of Wills in Burning Wheel and seems like a great way to avoid play getting bogged down when players argue over the correct course of action.

That would be Sorcerer Freaked Us Out in Actual Play.

Pretty sure that's standard rules. Just an unconventional application. At least, to a D&D addled mind. (Referring to myself.)

Hello,

It's standard Sorcerer rules, but in that way that Ralph Mazza likes to get all bent out of shape about.

1. Dice are always employed in conflict resolution ("That's what they're for"). Strong emphasis on always. Strong emphasis also on resolution, meaning, once you've rolled something, then proceed to next thing, period.

2. Currency always applies, and equals signs operate in both directions.

3. Player-character behavior (announced actions) is subject to full player authorship.

Put all these together and you get the concept that Roger just inquired about. You can't arrive at any other concept when using all the rules, so ipso facto, that's the rule.

As I say, Ralph hates this. It's unclear. It's not explicit. It's confusing. It demands too much. It's too much to ask. It's all sorts of this kind of thing.

I can live with that criticism.

Best,
Ron

In the “Sorceror Freaked Us Out …” thread, Wes is trying to turn Danny into a secret police informant. Let's assume Danny says “No.” They roll. Wes wins by 3 dice. Danny then goes to his boss and says, “Wes tried to turn me.”

What do I as GM do? In pure role-playing terms, there’s no conflict, therefore no dice roll to make and therefore no penalty.*

'Keeping his identity as a police informant secret' is one of the most meaningful things Wes would want out of his victory yet it seems unable to be penalised in the roll-over system.

Steve

* Maybe Danny could make a Will roll against his own Will – but that’s disobeying the principle that “Nothing at all can "make" a player-character do anything.”

Why wouldn't you have Danny Roll against Wes's Will. That's the conflict. Does Danny have the balls to stand up to Wes knowing that trouble will ensue and the easier way out, in the short run, is to just keep his mouth shut and hope it goes away. That's where Wes's victory comes in.

So what if Wes wins? Does that mean that the roll dictates Danny's behavior and he can't inform on Wes? No. It just means that he isn't believed and Danny is now on the outs with his boss...which may wind up meaning that Danny has no where to turn BUT to go to the police for protection.

BTW: Its not that I hate that the rules aren't clear and explicit. Its just that when the opportunity between reprints is there to make them clear and explicit there's no desire to do so that bothers me.

I'm glad to see this thread stretching out a bit. It (and the source thread) have raised some questions in my mind.

Hix wrote: 'Keeping his identity as a police informant secret' is one of the most meaningful things Wes would want out of his victory yet it seems unable to be penalised in the roll-over system.

Ron wrote: The roll-over only applies to the very next roll that's relevant.

Hello,

I'm going to focus on one little thing and see if it helps.

So -

Wes is trying to turn Danny into a secret police informant. Let's assume Danny says “No.” They roll. Wes wins by 3 dice. Danny then goes to his boss and says, “Wes tried to turn me.”

It feels clearer. Ron, you’re (literally) saying if there is no conflict then there is no dice roll. That comes out most clearly in Example 2.

But what about Ralph’s suggestion, which I would never have thought of: Another dice roll against Wes.

Making a roll like that could be me (the GM) wanting to create an informant-based conflict, to put Danny’s (and his player) undercover against the player’s will. IOW,

Ron wrote: the typical RPG experience in which the boss is a GM tool for turning the player around a corner toward a pre-planned (or even just-improvised) set-piece.

Hello,

Steve, as far as I could tell, Ralph's point has backed up to the first roll, whereas the main inquiry for this thread was assuming that Wes had won the first roll, and we were discussing the existence/nature of the second roll (the penalized one).

You're talking about some kind of second roll regarding Wes vs. Danny? If so, what? It would have to be a new conflict entirely.

Or better, don't answer that. Instead, look back over the two or more threads that we have going about this, get an idea of what's happening ...

... and then decide what to do as a GM for your real & actual game. Your goal is not to consider what your two players might or might do. Your goal is to consider where all the NPCs are coming from, and be ready for the conflicts that will arise for any (all) of them, depending on what the players actually do.

By "be ready," I do not mean "pre-program." I mean, be ready.

Oh yeah, and don't let your players chicken out - do play the next session. I'm still kind of glaring at the lot of you, about that.

Best,
Ron

No, actually I was suppossing a second roll and a second conflict.

Danny works for Da Boss. Wes works for the Police. Both are PCs. Wes wants (i.e. Wes's player, etc.) to turn Danny into an informant against Da Boss for the Police. That was the first conflict.

They Roll. Wes Wins with 3 successes. However, because Danny was a PC, the roll cannot force Danny's player to become an informant. If Danny's player decides to go ahead and become an informant for the police I'd use Wes's 3 successes to give Danny a +3 Bonus to Danny's first Informant Related conflict. In this case Danny's player decides not to become an informant, therefor he gets a -3 Penalty to his next Informant Related conflict.

Conflict #2 seems to me to occur when Danny decides to tell Da Boss about Wes. Da Boss is an NPC and therefore, within the range of what is believable for that character, it is acceptable to allow the dice to determine Da Boss's actions. Wes's earlier victory cannot force Danny to become a rat and can also not force Danny to not tell. But there still is that -3 Penalty hanging over Danny's head waiting to bite Danny in the kiester.

That would be where this second conflict comes in. Danny is telling Da Boss about Wes and the roll off is to determine whether Da Boss believes Danny and feels good that Danny came clean. Or whether Da Boss doesn't trust Danny and despite Danny's honesty hangs him out to dry.

The question then is what to have Danny roll against. In my quick response above I suggested Wes's Will because it is really the threat of Wes that is the conflict...although it could just as easily be Wes's Cover as a Cop or even Da Boss's Will or Cover depending on how the two encounters actually played out. Regardless, the roll would be Danny's Will (or again, perhaps an appropriate cover like "Trusted Henchman") and Danny would be staring down the barrel of a -3 Penalty...making it increasingly likely that Danny will very shortly be on the run from Da Boss.


That's how I see it anyway.

Ron wrote: I'm still kind of glaring at the lot of you, about that.

Ron:

That does help me. So the penalty is hanging over Danny, like a sword.

Ron wrote: .. to be exacted whenever he does anything that is opposed to Wes' nefarious ends.

Hello,

Ralph, I think using Wes' Will for the second roll is too abstract for Sorcerer. Da Boss and whoever else are indeed characters, "components" in Universalis terms, and they get to roll for themselves.

Best,
Ron

Hello,

Bill,

So if Danny tries to wring that eight-year old's neck, even though it's his next action, it's a different conflict; so the penalty wouldn't apply.