I’m running my third session of a Burning Harn game tonight, which is also my third session of BW. I love what the system represents, and have been itching to run it since buying it, but I have to admit I’m finding it hard to drop a lot of old habits that just don’t work for new BW GMs. I get the sense that a lot of new BW GMs give away too many tests, and I’m probably doing the same thing.
BW seems to be a game about player-driven narrative. The intent + task -> skill/stat + obstacle system seems to be driven by a player describing the action in game terms and the GM responding in kind. I’m having a hard time getting my players to state intent + task at the moment, but hopefully they’ll click soon. But there’s one thing I can’t quite get my head around: GM-solicited tests. How do they work within the intent + task system?
In other RPGs, you ask for spot hidden or notice or awareness or some similar skill to give the players a chance to see or hear something they might miss. For the first two sessions I tried in vain to find a skill like that in the BW skill list, and just ended up using Perception, until it dawned on me that this isnt’ that sort of game - those sorts of skill checks are either low stakes and failing is uninteresting, or high-stakes and failing disrupts the narrative, but in a very flat way - you simply don’t get information, which is just a dead-end. Totally against the spirit of BW.
So my question is:- in BW, is it “the done thing” to just give players the sort of info that in other game you’d make them check a “spot hidden” skill for?
There are other sorts of GM-solicited tests, though, and they do make an appearance in the BW rules/commentary, and that’s the sorts of tests to spot NPCs or characters sneaking - stealthy vs. observation, for example. I guess in this case the intent + task is the NPC’s intent + task, so the players roll the same way an NPC would for one of their stealthy intents. This sort of gm-solicited test has to happen or the system falls apart when you need NPC agency.
So my second question is:- given that there are very few ‘secrets’ in a BW game, that for example all beliefs are open to everyone, and that the rules-as-written stress the distinction between player and character knowledge, should NPC intent + task be announced to the players?
Actually, while I’m here - should villain/NPC beliefs be made known to players?
I’m not sure I understand. You say you missed the spot hidden skill in the text, but then you mention Observation in the OP. Observation is that skill. Did I misunderstand?
From its skill description:
“Observation is the skill used to spot the hidden—characters, traps, etc. Test this skill in versus tests against Inconspicuous, Stealth, Sleight of Hand or Trapper. Don’t use Observation tests for standard Perception tests—to spot a weakness in armor, to notice details of a flag or to look for an escape tunnel. Some traits allow Perception to act as Observation.”
I’d say not necessarily to the second one, though the spirit of BW certainly leads in that direction if you want play to go there.
Easy, “You see a big rock falling on your head. Assuming you want to get out the way, how about making an Ob 3 Agility test? Failure means that you’re able to dodge the rock, but you’re out of position to protect the princess when the troll attacks. Or you can trust in your armor and stand your ground, of course…”
In other RPGs, you ask for spot hidden or notice or awareness or some similar skill to give the players a chance to see or hear something they might miss. For the first two sessions I tried in vain to find a skill like that in the BW skill list, and just ended up using Perception, until it dawned on me that this isnt’ that sort of game - those sorts of skill checks are either low stakes and failing is uninteresting, or high-stakes and failing disrupts the narrative, but in a very flat way - you simply don’t get information, which is just a dead-end. Totally against the spirit of BW.
Observation skill noted above. But why do you presume that failure has to be uninteresting?
There are other sorts of GM-solicited tests, though, and they do make an appearance in the BW rules/commentary, and that’s the sorts of tests to spot NPCs or characters sneaking - stealthy vs. observation, for example. I guess in this case the intent + task is the NPC’s intent + task, so the players roll the same way an NPC would for one of their stealthy intents. This sort of gm-solicited test has to happen or the system falls apart when you need NPC agency.
Oh, I see the problem. The players state what they want to accomplish (Intent) and how they intend to do it (Task). But that’s required of players who want to do things. The GM is under no compunction to just wait around for them. GMs have agency in Burning Wheel. As long as your challenging their Beliefs in interesting ways, wail away.
So my second question is:- given that there are very few ‘secrets’ in a BW game, that for example all beliefs are open to everyone, and that the rules-as-written stress the distinction between player and character knowledge, should NPC intent + task be announced to the players?
Up to the GM, depending on the situation. But, usually, I would. It’s fun to tell players that the NPC is trying to drive them away from the princess as an intent and ask what they are doing about it.
Actually, while I’m here - should villain/NPC beliefs be made known to players?
Again, up to you. But, as a player I find it a lot of fun knowing how they’re screwing me over.
Thanks for your answers - you’ve cleared a lot up for me.
Let me try and explain the difference between ‘traditional’ spot hidden and BW Observation/Perception, the way I see it.
In ‘traditional’ games, there is a clue or trap or whatever hidden somewhere in the room, so the GM asks the players to roll some sort of skill to see things that are hidden in an inert way (ie just sitting there). Success means you find it, failure means it remains hidden.
In BW, the skill Observationa nd stat Perception seem to work in a subtly different way as written. Observation seems to function as a “defence” against being stolen from, trapped or snuck past. There’s another actor in the conflict who is deliberately opposing you. I can see a world in which a graduated test was rolled to establish an obstacle for spotting a clue/trap later on, but there’s still a conflict going on between two agents at the time of the roll.
Perception seems player-directed, given the examples from the Observation skill listing: “to spot a weakness in armor, to notice details of a flag or to look for an escape tunnel” all sound to me like the player has asked a question/stated an intent + task.
These observations were what was leading me to become confused.
I think this might be tripping you up. BW is character-driven, which is like saying that the game is about finding out what happens to these characters - what choices they make, what they become, etc. (Contrast with an “old school” dungeon crawl or a Paizo adventure path, where characters can ‘fail at the story’, dying or failing to achieve important plot milestones.)
This isn’t the same thing as saying that players do all the driving. You can run a player-driven game, but having an external threat that’s both a big deal and time-sensitive is really valuable for focusing the game. (Without this, you’d probably need a very strong OOC communication to agree on what the players are going to try to do together.)
At a micro level, no skill is uniquely player initiated. The GM is free to call for tests.
Yes, I do. This is especially important when you need players to buy in to achieve a result. For example, an NPC trying to pressure a PC to agree to something. The player is going to have to direct his character accordingly, if the NPC wins, so having the intent known to the player gives them time to warm up to this.
The other thing is that you sometimes don’t know what to test until you know everyone’s intent (assuming there’s time for them to form one). The decision of how to resolve a conflict is always front and center in BW. For example:
GM: Suddenly, Bartle levels his crossbow at you, shouting, “But I still serve the King, you traitor!” Roll Speed against his Crossbow!
PC: Wow. Fine. No - let that fucker shoot me. I’m not going to give him the satisfaction - my death will let the troops know I’m not afraid to die for our cause. He’s not planting any seeds today.
GM: Awesome! Well, I guess in that case … let’s make it his Oratory vs. your Steel. Are you brave enough to stand there, unflinchingly?
When I’m on my game, I try to do it through their actions. There are abilities like Aura Reading (skill) traits like Manhunter, Second Sight and Celestial Sight which make it clear that perceiving beliefs directly is something special. It takes a certain kind of player to gleefully trust an NPC they know is deliberately ingratiating himself to betray and kill their character, once the seastone is recovered.
Quoting Fuseboy for emphasis. ^^ I’d also like to add as a reminder: in Burning Wheel, the GM is a player too. You control all the NPCs and the environment, and it is through these agencies that you direct the story. The players also have the ability to direct the story through their characters’ actions, either proactively through their characters’ free will, or reactively in response to the free will exerted by the NPCs / environment. As the GM, it is your duty to notice when the PCs are enjoying too much free will, for this means your NPCs are not. Give them a challenge!
It is perfectly fine for the GM to call for tests. In certain cases, the GM has to solicit tests, as the players will not ask for them. For example, the GM might call for a Ride test to be made when traveling between two locations, with the consequence of failure being a bandit attack. Players won’t ask for that test unless they’re really itching to advance Ride – they’d usually rather arrive at their destination without any problems, right?
However, in many other cases, BW does seem to work better when the GM requires the players to ask for their own tests. And this does apply to the kind of skills that GMs would normally solicit tests for in traditional RPGs. How to do this? It’s as easy as changing the way you describe things.
Say you want to have a monster sneak up on the PC. A simple Observation roll for the PC versus the monster’s Stealthy. You could just solicit the roll if you wanted, no harm in that. But there’s also no harm in allowing the player to declare their Intent to roll Observation, if the outcome is the same, right? So, instead of calling for the test, just describe the situation, and let the player call for the test according to an Intent and Task that they determine.
GM: “There’s someone – or something – that is about to sneak up on you. You haven’t noticed it yet.” Player: “Oh! I’m keeping watch, so I’ll roll Observation to try and notice him before he gets the drop on me.”
But that was just a vanilla player response. Often, you’ll get players trying to describe elaborate Tasks, trying to FoRK this, get an Advantage die from that, checking to see if anybody can offer Help, etc. When they do this, listen. Does the way they are describing their Task sound like multiple actions that should take place sequentially over a period of time, instead of just a bunch of things that happen simultaneously? If so, then it should be a Linked Test. Example:
GM: “There’s someone – or something – that is about to sneak up on you. You haven’t noticed it yet.” Player: “Oh! I’m keeping watch, so I’ll roll Observation to try and notice him before he gets the drop on me. Also, I think my Guard-wise is relevant for a FoRK here, as I would have chosen the most advantageous position possible to post my watch at.” GM: “That sounds like a linked test, as you would have had to find this advantageous position earlier tonight. Roll Guard-wise first to declare your position is wisely chosen, and it links into your Observation test.”
If you pay attention, you should be able to call for linked tests at least a couple times per session. It’s always great when you can do it. Remember, the more times the dice are rolled, the more chances you get to declare consequences of failure, and the higher the chance of a failure actually occurring. And what is great about Burning Wheel is how failure is such an interesting facet of the story, what drives the story forward in many cases. Also, don’t forget that if the first part of a linked test is failed, the primary test gets a +1 Ob penalty.
And of course, as Fuseboy said, the player might surprise you by declaring some kind of weird Intent you’d never even imagined. Maybe he decides his PC wasn’t paying attention at all, but was instead seducing some girl he has a Belief written about. Great, he gets a seduction test instead and the monster gets the drop on both of them. Win-win!
(Note that the above is just how I play my game. No promises it’s the right way, although I think it is.)
Specifically regarding the “perception test to spot a clue,” I avoid this even in D&D now. If you want to inject a clue, just do it. There’s nothing more annoying as the GM than making a clue the players don’t find, and players don’t like it when they don’t have enough info to solve the mystery. In fact, I’m trying to break the habit of presenting mysteries at all. Just my humble opinion and all that.
Perception tests to notice traps are fun, though, and have consequences.
Player: I open the box…
GM: Ah, well, there’s a nasty trap on the box. Roll Perception at Ob 5 to notice it before you open the box. If you fail, you’ll be shot with a poisonous crossbow bolt.
Player: …with my ten foot pole?
But, mysteries can be fun! I think it depends on whether the consequence of not solving the mystery is interesting or not. In most cases, it just ends up stalling the story and is not fun for the players. A wise GM would try and craft mysteries that do have interesting consequence of failure, however, in which case it’s really just a different sort of challenge. I’d recommend being up front about it:* GM:“There’s a murder mystery here, and if you fail to solve it by the end of the day, the killer will strike again – but this time the victim will be someone you love. So, how do you go about the investigation?”
If a GM wants to craft a short mystery, something to be played out in a single session, I really like the way these sorts of mysteries are handled in Dogs in the Vineyard. Basically, you want to keep your mysteries simple, the clues very obvious and handed freely to the players. The challenge here is not to solve the mystery, but in how to deal with the outcome of the solution. GM:“Your investigation leads you to discover that the murderer is actually your own lover. What do you do?”
A more interesting way to handle it might be to simply give the crucial clue to the PCs, but have the mystery’s solution depend on a die roll. Say the PCs find the butler’s journal… GM:“This is the crucial piece of evidence you have been looking for. The killer’s identity is disclosed within.” Player:“I read it!” GM:“Roll Read then. If you pass, you get to declare who the killer is.” Player:“Awesome. My intent is to discover that the butler did it. His confession is in writing.” GM:“Ob 5, consequence of failure is that your lover is the killer. The butler knew about it, but was covering up for her because the two of them were having an affair. Roll!”
Rambling a bit there, but I hope I showed how the standard “find a clue” scenarios can be made interesting with non-standard framing, even through GM solicitation of tests.
If the player had already declared his intent to open the box with his hands, no ten foot pole for you Mr. Gamer.
Here’s what works better than “Roll to spot a clue” for tests.
Indication of what would stand out to the character
“The Turks are look very dour, but you’re not sure if that’s just how they are in this city or if something is about to go down.”
A test that produces knowledge from the casual glance
“Give me a (Turk-wise/Thug-wise/Intimidation/City-wise) roll to see if you can get a quick handle on what’s going on with them”
Success = further info/Failure = player can choose to investigate further OR go deal with more pressing matters
The other trick to this is that this can’t be the ONLY thing going on- otherwise you fall back into clue-trail games which means the players know that the only time you ask for rolls is because there’s some “story” they’re supposed to follow.
Often what I’ll do is instead focus a lot of my calls for tests for mundane activities, with low stakes failures like this, not to give pointless dice rolls, but to help me, as a GM, figure out what kind of character this is and how to better frame scenes for them.
“We want to get an inn, get some food and rest, and get some more supplies in the morning”
“Ok, give me a Damascus-wise test of Ob2 to get the good inns at reasonable rates, otherwise you have to choose between the drafty shithouse inns or the overpriced traveler’s inns.”
These things may not be big aspects to the situation, but it changes the tone of the scenes and players start looking at those mundane skills for the bennies they give.
When I do ask for tests based on danger, it’s always with the player’s understanding that their character is already in a dangerous situation (“In the middle of a battle”, “Walked into Mordor”, “Being chased by an assassin”). This avoids it either being a “gotcha” or railroady action.
To give a parallel, one of the problems in some D&D games is that if you have traps, the only way players can be safe is to search for traps every 10 feet. This is just not fun. In the same sense, you don’t want players to spend every moment of play, playing a hyper-paranoid character mongering for Linked Tests and Advantage dice to avoid getting murked by some random falling rock out of the sky.
Oh, I’ve had a few too many of those games. Also on both sides of the screen. I still like to see a good mystery done right though, but it’s often easier said than done.
I think mysteries are best used for pacing of the story. Keep the PCs in the shadows for a bit, then hand them the clues so they can piece the solution together by the end of the session. In this sense, the clues are plot elements, not mechanical.