So, this isn’t quite a Spark, but it isn’t not a Spark. It’s a way of doing things I’m planning to adopt, but as I’ll be allowing it as default it will end up a rule.
Simply put:
When using the Get a Job rules for recovering taxed Resources, PCs can up the ante on their roll by performing their job dishonestly. This must step the penalties for failure up, but makes the PC qualify for advantage.
The guideline comes about after a few less than awesome resource cycles. Here’s been my issue: Failure has felt slightly dull, but appropriate. By dull, I mean that it has been boring only because it didn’t have the sharp claws of dicely retribution.
Example:
A baker renewing resources by baking. Failure? Doesn’t happen. Customers upset and go elsewhere. Their children threaten to not take up the family business.
Instead, the baker chooses to put his thumb on the scales as much as possible. Use illegally gained meat to make the flour. That type of thing. Awesome: +1D, and you have out a lot more on the line. You might get caught, your family might fall deathly ill because of the bones used. A nobleman might bite into your bread, procured by his servant, just to find his missing wife’s ring inside.
I could go on. I realise that it may be more BW to just give prior failure more teeth, but I’m interested in trying this out.
Honestly, it sounds the same intent as a Linked Test. I don’t think it’s different enough to warrant this rule. Those failure examples? They’re legitimate results as the rules stand now, depending on how sinister your GM is.
I would think the dishonest jobs would step up the rewards while increasing the risks for failure.
Normal Baking for a month to recover 2D lost resources is an obstacle 3 that assumes he is doing everything above board and honest. If he wanted to improve his odds by being dishonest, say by thumbing the scales, he could FoRK his Sleight of Hand and Falsehood skills into his Baking skill to cheat his customers.
Normally, if he fails he isn’t any worse for trying and his resources are still taxed (by 2D in this example). If he uses the dishonest tricks of the trade, he may well succeed in recouping his losses as he is now rolling 6 B6 dice as opposed to his honest 4 B6 that he has in Baking alone, but even if he succeeds in recovering all of his taxed dice this way (4 successes), there would still be a chance that he could be discovered. Perhaps a DoF roll equal to the number of dishonest skills put into play.
However, extra successes not used to replenish taxed resources could be used to lower the chance of discovery.
So in this example the dishonest baker used two skills to cheat his customers, on a DoF result of 1-2 he is caught cheating and faces consequences from his actions (infamy, legal fees, prison, ect).
If our wayward baker wanted to play it safe, he could spend three of his four successes to recover one resource die and the other to minimize his chance at getting caught (adding +1 to the DoF roll) or he could go for broke, trusting in fate to not get caught while recouping all of his taxed dice now.
My problem with limiting to a linked test or FoRKs is that I feel that often doing a job honestly is a variant of doing said job, not a separate skill.
In some jobs, forking Bribe-wise or such will have effects.
As for base chance of being caught: I’d say that implicit in the test is the intent of getting away with it.
Sure, you could have the bakers storyline be about him getting away with it, or even all about getting a job in the first place, dealing with the competition and so forth. The Get a Job rules simply let you bypass the less exciting stuff to get on with the characters adventure.
If the “job” is worth telling, it’s worth playing it through. If it’s just a footnote in down time, the Get a Job rules work out just fine.
I viewed the intent was to recoup taxed resources while the task was to do so by baking. Adding the dishonest application of skills FoRKed into baking increased the chance of success, but also increased the risk of getting caught (DoF), and thus, the consequences for cheating.
(Not RaW, but this IS in Sparks)
Of course you could always make the storyline be about earning the gold to pay the next tax/maintenance cycle, in which case you are writing your BITs to be relevant to that game.
The adventurer who must lay down his sword and don his apron to help save his family’s bakery from ruin has suddenly found a different focus then the ones he had in the kings militia!
This is one of the truely great things about BWG.
You only play out what’s important to your character, but You get to decide what that is and how much play it requires. (Anything from a simple test to a full-blown campaign).