Oh totally agreed!
But someone has to make that decision.
p.
What I’m saying with “the fiction demands it” is bascially Vincent’s Admonition: when there is a conflict in the fiction, you roll the dice. Otherwise, don’t. That’s how you avoid the slippery slope of testing for anything and everything. (That and Let it Ride.)
How does that relate to having the GM force rolls for colour?
Because even if the source of adversity in question has never been burned up (the chasm, the guards at a museum, the blazing hot desert sun, etc.), you still have to roll.
Why? I don’t know if I can explain it properly. I find it more satisfying.
And it’s still the call of the group, in BE, not JUST the GM. ANYONE can say, “That needs a roll”… the GM gets to set the difficulty, but anyone can demand the roll, and everyone jointly sets the success and failure results.
Wow! This thread took off while I was at work and putting the kids to bed. But I like where it’s gone … Paul, I think you did a better job communicating what I was trying to say than I did!
Now on the bit about “the fiction demands it” Dave isn’t saying that the stuff in the fiction is demanding rolls by itself. He’s saying that when the GM/group’s sense of the fiction identifies a real conflict among the characters, this “demands” a roll.
I think we’re all pretty much in agreement here, just disagreeing about terms now. Paul you said
As a GM, I blow off tests all the time. Am I avoiding conflict? YOU BET I AM. Because they’re conflicts nobody actually gives a shit about. Using that discretion is maybe my biggest GMing job.
I would say (and I think Dave would too) that there’s no such thing as a “conflict nobody gives a shit about”. If nobody gives a shit about it, it’s not a conflict. But we’re using the kind of big-C definition of a Conflict, as in “a conflict of interest between characters in the fiction”. I can see if you’re not using that definition, how you get the slippery slope. So I think we’re cool.
Aramis, I mostly agree about the group calling for rolls. There’s a part of me that maybe says, what’s happening in BE is that the player’s have enough authority to strongly suggest to the GM when they think a roll is needed. The GM could deny them but he’d have hard time doing so without breaking “don’t be a dick”. Honestly though, there’s not much difference between that and saying the players can call for rolls, so it probably isn’t worth debating.
All intents and failure counter-intents are set by the group. The GM sets the difficulty, but only if a versus test isn’t inherent in the intent and task.
If Fred opposes Joe’s action, the GM doesn’t get to say “No, Fred, you can’t”… he gets to approve the task Fred uses… but the GM is nerfed in BE in order to make it a versus game.
If the GM is setting a difficulty that isn’t another player’s opposition, then the GM is saying “I care about this, and don’t want you doing it,” “I think a failure here would be good for the story,” or “I am going to impose this obstacle because the story won’t make sense if I don’t.” I have done the latter a couple times… the task process forces the story to include what, how, and usually, why.
A side note I hope someone besides me will find relevant, otherwise, please ignore the babbling guy in the corner with his crazy rants:
One of the coolest things I’ve discovered about BW play and the whole general “say yes” concept is that it’s a killer, totally easy way to dial a game’s um…gameness up or down. I think it’s the leading edge in offering a game engine that allows, say, Dave to look at the chasm situation and say “Yup, it’s a chasm. You might not get out. Let’s roll and see what happens!” and for me to use the very same engine, run into the chasm situation and say “Meh…it’s a chasm, who cares? You get out eventually. Let’s get on with this other thing we all care about more.”
p.