I’m running my first campaign of Burning Wheel right now, and it’s my first outing GMing for anything that’s not D20 based. So far, we’ve had 3 sessions total (of about 4 hours each) in a campaign I’m hoping will last for 12-16 sessions. I’m seeing a potential red flag ahead though, which is that none of my players have advanced any skills yet, and I’m concerned that I’m not offering them enough tests.
As an example, one of my more passive players has logged a total of about 14 tests so far, including tests for Steel and Grief. I’ve been fairly rigorous about applying the Say Yes principle, but a few players are starting to despair of ever getting the routine tests they need to advance, since I only ask for dice if there’s a) a dramatic consequence for failure, and b) the task is non-trivial. Since I’m new, I don’t really have a good basis for comparison–am I giving my players enough tests, or being too stingy?
I’m running my first campaign of Burning Wheel right now, and it’s my first outing GMing for anything that’s not D20 based. So far, we’ve had 3 sessions total (of about 4 hours each) in a campaign I’m hoping will last for 12-16 sessions. I’m seeing a potential red flag ahead though, which is that none of my players have advanced any skills yet, and I’m concerned that I’m not offering them enough tests.
As an example, one of my more passive players has logged a total of about 14 tests so far, including tests for Steel and Grief. I’ve been fairly rigorous about applying the Say Yes principle, but a few players are starting to despair of ever getting the routine tests they need to advance, since I only ask for dice if there’s a) a dramatic consequence for failure, and b) the task is non-trivial. Since I’m new, I don’t really have a good basis for comparison–am I giving my players enough tests, or being too stingy?
If there aren’t any Ob 1 and Ob 2 tests happening, yes, you’re withholding. This is a pretty common mistake – I’ve done it myself. Simply because a test has a low Ob does not make it irrelevant, insignificant, undramatic or lacking in a great failure clause.
Routine tests are necessary for the system to function.
This, exactly. I did it myself in the beginning. It’s that word - Routine - which sort of fools you; a Routine check couldn’t be dramatic, now could it? But it should be held up to the same scrutiny, and if there would be interesting consequences of failure the roll should be made.
Advancements usually kick in after about three or four sessions. So it sounds like you’re on track if your quietest player has logged 14 tests.
As for Routine tests:
Don’t fear assigning Ob 1-2 tests. They can help keep the game moving along. Non-trivial doesn’t always mean hard or easy.
It’s also up to the players to play the game. They should help one another, use FoRKs and lobby for advantage to turn otherwise difficult and challenging tests to routines.
I can’t find it at the moment, but I worked out stats for the first Grunweld campaign, and it was something like each player recording a test for advancement every 20 minutes of game play. At a guess, that might mean I was offering a test every 10-15 minutes or so.
You say you’re looking for dramatic consequences - is it possible that you have the bar set too high?
If you build your vocabulary of failure options, you might find more ways to give tests that are still meaningful.
One especially useful one from Mouse Guard is, “If you fail, you get what you originally wanted after facing a new problem.” Another one is, “You get what you want but something comes back to haunt you later.” (That’s good for social tests. Sure, you talked your way past the guard, but your father in law hears about your escapades and confronts you with some other thing.)
“Okay, yeah, there’s tons of beggars around here who’d be happy to do that for a couple of coins. You can hardly throw a rock without hitting them in this part of town. So that’s an Ob 1 Circles. But if you botch it, the guy you talk to decides to go for your throat with a knife, instead!”
Keep an eye out for situations like that, I guess.
You shouldn’t need to give many Ob 1 tests although doing so makes it easier on players. A FoRK die and a die of help added to your B1 whatever makes an Ob 2 routine. Ob 2-3 are in the sweet spot of hard but doable and they should both be coming up all the time. Keep in mind that almost one in five attempts at Ob 2 with 5D will fail. It’s not toothless, especially when your characters lack expertise!
My first instinct when players want to do something and I can think of consequences—not always earthshaking ones, just something better than a plot wall or a wag of a finger—is to decide easy or not, and then assign Ob 2 or Ob 3. I’ll occasionally decide it’s so easy it’s Ob 1, but not all that often. There are more Ob 4+ rolls than Ob 1s, actually, but not many of those either. Most off the cuff rolls are against 2 or 3 unless I’ve got a party that’s larger than life and doing heroic deeds, in which case I might ramp up to mostly Ob 3 with some Ob 4.
Wow, there’s a lot of great information here all of a sudden. Thanks everyone for getting back to me so quickly–I’m glad to see my campaign hasn’t been running too far off-center.
Say Yes is really there to cut the non-essential parts of the game out and keep you moving from conflict to conflict. The amount of times you resort to this rule should drop a lot during the action sequences. It’s during these heightened moments of tension that routine tests have great potential to add drama to the game.