The scenario: the PCs were in the deep of the woods and came across a ritually mutilated deer. They lose their sense of time for a few hours and have a vision of the huntress spirit who performed the ceremony.
One of my players attempted to contact the spirit and offer to put himself in her service. I meant for the visions to be window into the past, essentially illusions. She wasn’t actually there at all. I told him that there was no response. He was disappointed that he didn’t get to roll. I was disappointed because I let one of my players down.
His assumption that the spirit was actually there was reasonable. I was trying to disorient the party. But the intent was impossible. This seems like a situation that could happen at any time, at any time: a player reaches a conclusion based on the information they have, but it doesn’t line up with the facts. So how do we handle this?
My instinct tells me that I’m at fault here. I didn’t want to offer my player a dead end, and I try to play by “say yes or roll the dice” as often as I can. This scenario didn’t seem to fit nicely into that mold, but it might have been because I was thinking about it wrong. My first thought was to give my player a clue, but he asked for a conversation, and of course players get exactly what they want on a success. The player in question told me after the game that his interpretation of the system is that he should have the chance to do whatever he wants, probably/possibility be damned, and it’s my job to set an obstacle. I see where he is coming from, but that also doesn’t seem right.
I don’t see anything wrong from your end. It sounds like the player wanted to do something that violated the situation you put them in. If I discover an unsent letter left by my deceased grandfather, I can’t have a conversation about it just because I want to; there is no functional difference between that situation and the one you presented. What you have is a miscommunication that the player (it seems to me) is being stubborn about.
The GM gets to set-up situations that players find themselves in (It Revolves on This; The Flow of the Game), interrogate players about the tasks they’re undertaking and ensuring the various intents and tasks align with the rules (Intent and Task; What Ability Do I Roll; Role of the Game Master), and having player hold off on testing at an inappropriate time or entirely (Soliciting Tests; Role of the Game Master). So while one can make the case that Intent and Task is a panacea that any goal to be persued in any situation by any course of action the player chooses, one has to erroneously (and, I think, toxically) ignore the GM’s place in, and contributions to, the game to do it.
As a player, I would have been fine with how you handled things.
I agree with @Gnosego that the GM doesn’t have to give any intent a chance of success—no matter how slender. The rules on Wises even specifically limit a player’s ability to define new facts about the setting, which tacitly means certain more practical intents are impossible to achieve (for example, if you can’t add dragons to the world, then attracting them using a tethered goat is impossible in that world too).
However, I think the way the impossibility is expressed can matter: Gnosego’s example of the letter shows that unexamined assumptions matter as everyone’s first thought is likely to be that of course you can’t ask a dead relative about a letter they wrote—but in a setting ruled by necromancer lords “I want to talk to my grandfather about the letter” would seem like an entirely possible intent.
So, where something is impossible because a player has had their character assume something incorrect, my first thought would be whether the character should know the right answer (whether necromantic conversations are or are not possible) and if not, whether the confusion drives things in an interesting direction or dead-ends things. If all the confusion does is dead-end something, then just tell the player that their character knows/realises they were mistaken without needing a test. If the confusion can make things interesting, then make the test about whether the character remembers/realises the truth and then let them lean into knowing the right answer or actively playing their character’s misinterpretation.
In your example it sounds like end intent is serve the spirit, not speak to the spirit now, so the confusion over whether the spirit is there could be interesting. Tables are different, but I might have called for Spirits-wise (or some other suitable skill) to determine how you contact spirits, and then if the character succeeded told them their character realises this was only an echo of the past and those don’t tend to last longer than X hours and if they fail, tell them it was only an echo of the past but their character believes the spirit was there but didn’t find them interesting. That way, if they pass they know the spirits direction and that if they don’t follow soon the trail might fade, which creates a question of whether the group leave their current plan to help their colleague seek service with the spirit; and if they fail, it creates a BITs-worthy desire for the character to become someone the spirit is interested in (while making the player aware that they will also need to find the spirit).
Hah! I knew this was coming! But here’s the thing. Intent is never enough. What Task do you undertake to accomplish your Intent? Even in the Necrocacy, if you’re not a Summoner (or maybe Death Artist with access to the body), you can’t call up the ghost to have a chat there and then on the spot. Beginner’s Luck can’t be attempted on Sorcerous skills until you have the first test, so whistling up a spirit isn’t a valid Task. So, just like in the example in play, the character has to do some leg work to make it happen.
Same deal if the letter comes from someone who’s alive but really far away. You can’t will them in front of you for a chat. Intent and Task is not Wish and Roll.
Back to (what I think is) the key part of the play report: The GM is a player who gets to make certain kinds of contributions to the game. Ignoring or buffaloing over that contribution is just rude.
Apologies for not being clear: I wasn’t trying to say that in a world where necromancers exist, anyone can try; I was trying to give an example of how player perception of the world can influence what seems to them a valid Intent.
I totally agree a game shouldn’t ignore the GM’s power to make certain decisions: I was striving to articulate that a good way of avoiding conflict when a GM denies an intent is to explain why it is impossible or even make overcoming that hard limitation a lead into new plot.
So, in the case of necromancers needing Death Arts, I’d tell the player the Intent of “have a conversation with grandfather” isn’t valid because their character doesn’t have Death Arts, or because their character recalls hearing a rumour that there are arcane rituals that must be performed, or whatever other explanation fits the table well.
No worries! I figured you and I were broadly on the same page, I just wanted to head off any confusion.
Well, and I wanted to point out that Task is not vestigial! There’s a tendency I’ve noticed in Burning Wheel play to cut Task out of the equation and go from Intent to Test. I think a lot of confusion could be remedied by giving Task its due place.
For instance!:
To my mind, the Intent is fine. The issue is that the player hasn’t described a Task that would suit the Intent. When pressed, if the player says something like, “I draw a circle and call the name of my father from across the veil between life and death,” then you can say, “Sorry, bud, but that Task won’t accomplish that Intent because you’re not a Summoner.” With that rule cleared up, the player can say something like, “Well, we’re in the Necrocacy, right? I’ll send a letter of my own to the family medium requesting a seance.” Now that Task is (presumably) suitable for the situation and the rules of the game, and the ability to be rolled is pretty clear.
Thank you both! This was incredibly helpful. I like the idea about including Spirits-wise and calling for it to help avoid confusion. I think another thing that threw me off was that the player did not have the Rituals skill, so I wasn’t sure how much information to give him for attempting one. I probably could have let him do Beginner’s Luck and find a clue that way. I’ll chalk this one up to being a newer GM to BW and not being as quick on my feet as I would have liked, but this discussion was invaluable for future occurrences as well.
For anyone who might find this in the future, I found p44 in BWGR to be very helpful. It mentions that players should not badger the GM for tests, and the GM has the right to hold a test until the proper time or not allow it at all.
You know, I really do love the rules of this game.