I’m going to quote across to the other thread (I hope that’s okay / the best way of doing things). Thanks to Gnosego and others, this is really interesting and helpful to me.
I definitely consider dice pool before calling for a roll, or in a slightly more appropriate sense, I consider previous rolls of skills, and let them ride. I find myself calling for lots of smaller rolls at the start of a campaign, then letting things ride longer term later in the campaign.
This is something that I’m slowly learning, BW runs well calling for less tests. Which ties in to not letting the game drag, and not getting bogged down in obstacles which aren’t related to BITs.
This reminds me of a joke about BW being a game where you can end up spending 20 sessions getting ready to set out on your quest if PCs keep writing beliefs about preparations (and then about the consequences of pursuing those beliefs). I don’t know if this is deviating too much again from the start of the thread, but does anyone have any thoughts on simple ways to prevent this? I tend to remind my players ‘if you write a belief about something simple, I have to make it more complicated’, which they find helpful (and keeps things moving).
Again something I’m slowly learning. If I’m unsure at all ask the player about an intent (and then maybe negotiate intent and task if it’s not appropriate), also when pass/fail outcomes aren’t clear, then state them for the players. I think breaking down obstacles is very helpful to players for this, a base obstacle, plus modifiers either from the intent or task. I’m maybe lucky in having players who are happy to negotiate with me as the DM, but happy to move on once things are set. Which is somewhat related to the ‘no weasels’ and ‘but weasels’ rules (sorry don’t have a page number handy). I try to give players the option to clarify an intent and task, and lobby for advantage, but don’t let them change their intent entirely (/ only change task when I feel like as a DM the PCs were lacking some critical info).
To borrow from my old boardgame group, we have this concept of ‘the spirit of the deal’, where finding my lawyer type opening in a deal is still considered a betrayal. With you example, I’d say the intent is to stop the npc interfering with the ritual, and the task is brawling/power (honestly I’d probably let the player pick). If as a DM I’m uncertain about any other condition (eg stop him shouting out) then I’ll ask the player and these might become +Ob, or conversly +D advantage (the player puts their character in harms way). Although if a successful roll means to player gets their intent in the manner they describe, then I think it’s best to stick to that, you tackle them to the ground, and the ritual can be complete.
I’ve been on the flip side of this, where a player takes the challenging test, but the failure condition is more severe than they thought. Definitely a good time to stop and be like okay are we sure / hopefully as a DM get in with the failure condition before the roll.
Hell yeah, thank you all for your inputs, I’m always floored by how passionate people are about this game.
I would be tempted by this, it’s one thing to pin someone to the ground for a few moments, another to then try to tie them up. Or, if the players wanted to execute them, then the cultist is almost certainly going to have something to say about it.
I think I’d decided based on beliefs, if this is all a big deal, and the ritual isn’t the narrative end of the scene, then I’d just say yes to the players. If the ritual is just the start, and there are other beliefs at play, then it might be time for another test.
Dunno how new I am, but I’m definitely learning.
I’d shy away from ‘he breaks free’, however some other test if it’s appropriate. Though best case would be clarifying ‘do you only care about subduing him while the ritual is ongoing’.
Yeah when this happens I tend to stop and think ‘okay who’s losing/gaining more from this’, if it’s not that important / game changing I’ll let the player have their understanding of the situation, if it’s game changing I might rule against the player and call for another test (or in a really extreme situation go back to the original test and redo it).