+1 Ob for bad roleplaying? Something feels wrong about that to me. Advantages and disadvantages are supposed to represent things that make a task easier or harder, not some vague metagame reward intended to encourage players to “correct” play according to the GM’s whims. Burning Wheel tends to try to put those “reward good play” bonuses in everyone’s hands, not just the GM (trait and artha votes).
I think in cases where one side’s position aligns with the other’s Beliefs that well, why the heck would you have a DoW in the first place? There’s no disagreement, right?
Hm. But I thought stat can Help stat, right? So if the primary orator is rolling his Will for Beginner’s Luck, can’t the other players Help that?
Or is DoW closed to them for now? That seems like a real shame, doesn’t it? And the players won’t be encouraged to “earn” any tests in the necessary skills outside of DoW. Much better to have them at least have a shot, right? Then they can pour their artha into it if it’s something they really want to succeed.
Stat can help stat, but I remember reading that beginners luck precludes help dice.
Still, beginners luck and good scripting can win a DOW… my players did so last session. (and J’s character made it to Persuasion 2 and is 1 test away from Rhetoric 2. And has upped his Will…
This is where Court-wise, Dirty Secrets-wise, and all those other Wises come into play! Alternatively, a good time to Circle up some gossiping servants who like to spill tales about everyone. Unless you’re a complete stranger to the court, someone will probably tell you a bit about the people you’ll be encountering, and some idea of how to navigate them.
Potential Linked Tests before going in:
Wises
Etiquette (one roll to generally see how well you navigate THIS particular court’s traditions)
Conspicuous (Dignified, regal step, etc.)
Lists:
Affiliations & Reputations (naturally)
Finery - do you have it? (+2 Ob if not, +1Ob if it’s out of style or provincial)
Who’s got the most impressive display of wealth and retinue? (+1D-2D) (This may differ culturally. best elephants, best jewelry, most fresh elven heads on pikes, etc.)
Who’s more closely related to the highest ranking noble of the court? (+1D)
Who’s got bad rumors about recently? (+1 Ob)
Have you used Ugly Truth publicly, recently? (+1 Ob)
Because the alignment, or the potential for such, was not apparent [to anyone at the table] when the DoW started. You don’t ever see huge shifts in perspective during a DoW? I find those the beauty and hallmark of the DoW mechanics, those “o-o-o-okay” moments where everyone at the table realizes the entire tone and direction of the campaign has noticeably changed even before the DoW ends.
P.S. What I’m talking about is probably better described as baiting. Keep in mind I tend to have a ‘good for the goose, good for the gander’ attitude, when GMing I’m happy to see players baiting me on NPC BITs.
I do not believe the suggestion is “Gottfried isn’t following the plot, so +1OB”.
I think it’s more like this. “Wayne Simmonds, did you use a derogatory slur against Sean Avery?” Wayne: “I don’t remember, and even if I did, come on, it’s Sean Avery.” GM: Okay… roll your persuasion, +1OB.
That is still dragging an out of game issue into the game. In no way would I handle said situation that way. Stop the game, deal with the issue without resorting to the paternal schtick of using BW and the GM punishment stick, get back to playing the game.
If you’re replying to me, I was presenting a specific example of an unconvincing argument from the recent news. I didn’t mean the players would be swearing at each other, but rather there was a player who was presented with the situation where he has to make a Falsehood check and he comes up with a completely bogus response. If the player can’t come up with a convincing argument, why not penalize the character on their social skill rolls?
I dunno, that sounds to me like you jumped into a DoW too soon. I feel like DoW is for those situations when two people hit an issue that neither of them want to budge on. If you can resolve it by talking through it, then it wasn’t charged enough for a DoW.
That’s just me though. If what you’re doing works for you, I don’t want to tell you not to do it.
What recent news? I’ve never heard of either of those people, so I found the example pretty nonsensical.
If the character is attempting a difficult tactic (Falsehood to convince someone that they are actually a robot) adding an Ob penalty isn’t penalizing bad roleplaying it’s reflecting the difficulty of the task. If they are attempting a reasonable argument, but the player stumbles over his lines or something, adding an Ob penalty is in bad form.
How about the following for one use during the DoW:
[ul]
[li]Evidence (+1D): A letter; a glove; a poisoned arrow.
[/li][li]Good evidence (+2D): A signed letter bearing a seal; a monogrammed glove.
[/li][li]A witness: dice as per helping.
[/li][li]Another witness: As above, only of use if the witness can shed new light on the argument.
[/li][/ul]
Or the following can give bonuses throughout the DoW as long as they remain applicable and are role-played:
[ul]
[li]An applicable Rep: (+1-3D) can be used for or against the owner.
[/li][li]Traits or objects that give authority (+1D): Being a Bishop in an ecclesiastic court; holding a letter from the king.
[/li][/ul]
Having PCs work for their bonuses is fine by me. If they take their time, build a case and prepare - they deserve something extra. Persuading a witness to testify might be the result of a previous DoW. Such things can be the bread and butter of intrigue campaigns.
2 questions:
[ul]
[li]are dis/advantages applicable to the body of argument, a dueling skill, or multiple tests in a duel?
[/li][li]same question for linked tests: would it apply to body of argument or your first duel test?
[/li][/ul]
If he wants to add to his body of argument, then the bonus should support his WIL. If he were a bishop in his own court and wanted to bolster his body of argument by saying, “No one tells me what to do in my own court,” then I’d allow it.
If the same player wanted to use a piece of evidence to harden his resolve, then I’d be less inclined to allow it. Evidence I’d see as presented in context and used once to support an argument and once used would likely loose its impact.
As a point of note, ‘Evidence’ is not a big part of medieval law. Often the most important factor against an accused is the good standing of the accuser.