Ah, got it. Yeah. Thanks!
I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. Of course no character really wants anything, they’re fictional. It’s a useful conceit to think about what the NPC’s motivations are. The Duke wants x, if he gets the opportunity what’s he going to try to do? Is a fine question to ask about an NPC. The GM just needs to make sure that the Duke’s motivations cut across the PC’s BITs in interesting ways and then let her fly.
I also see no problem with rolling falsehood to convince the PC to accompany him into the other room. I like rolling off against the GM for stuff like this. If I was playing and our GM said “he’s rolling falsehood to get you to trust him enough to go into the other room, do you have a dog in this hunt? Or is he just rolling against your will?” I’d be perfectly fine with that question. My first thought would be does it make sense that my character might buy the duke’s line of BS and go into the room with him? If the fiction we’d established made this a possibility, then the dukes intent seems valid to me. Next, I would consider if my character had an intent other than not going in the room. If I had an intent, then this is a versus test at least. It’s hard to see it happening with this hypothetical situation, but if a belief was on the line, then I’d be grabbing scripting sheets.
Which is NOT what post I was replying to was talking about.
Ah, I think I see the source of my confusion. Your point is the GM can’t determine by themself that the PC doesn’t have an active intent. He can’t just roll Falsehood and decide that your character now trusts the duke and follows him. Is that the gist of it? I agree with that.
Closer.
My opinion with Falsehood rolls by the GM in particular is laid out elsewhere, thorough out this thread.
My problem with GM rolling against the PC Will is that it should never happen. If you are coming to that conclusion that roll should be made you need to back up because there was a prior misstep somewhere. Be it not sussing out the player’s Intent, or your reason for the player going down that path, or communicating with the player, or some sort of BIT problem (player not being engaged in the PC BITs or your lack of understanding of what the BITs mean).
My problem with that statement is that our games include quite a fair smattering of GM rolls against our Wills, with no ill effects. In fact, this has occured in some of our most memorable games. So, based on empirical evidence, I can’t agree. We aren’t having BITs issues, GM and players are very clear on their individual goals, but the player’s response to the NPC’s intent is “fuck you. You’re gonna have to kiss me first.”
I’ve definitely been in the situation where I don’t have a particular intent from the NPC at the moment, other than to reject whatever they are after, but i would be able to incorporate a win by them into my roleplay without breaking the character. In that instance I tell the GM good luck beating my Will. If he does, cool. My dude just grew in an unexpected way. Success is interesting, failure is interesting. Intent is valid. Roll.
1 Like
That sounds a LOT like a version of “Why do we need rules? We’ve had great times without it.” 
Going back to Paul’s real play example and my initial question: What happens for the path not taken? Does the game blow up? Unlikely but the question still remains, what was the other path…and how could it have been as good as the player just marching right into danger?
Further what are you defining as “ill effects” and how would you know when you saw them? Because what I’m really talking about here is the difference between “good” and “more consistently good” (or sometimes “good” and “better”).
Bottom line is there simply is no logical reason to for the GM to roll against the PC Will without a prior misstep.
Ill effects would be we aren’t consistently leaving the game thinking it rocked. Are we violating a rule? I actually thought this was RAW. Page reference?
I’m not sure what Paul had planned if the lie succeeded, I wasn’t there. If it had been my call it would have involved the PCs getting pretty well jacked. Let it ride would apply, so things would need to change before that lie was cast in doubt. I would have told the player what the price of believing was before the roll was made, so everything was out there and the players would know the score. But that’s just me.
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree here. It’s cool.
Sure we can disagree.
But you have offered (EDIT:no) explanation otherwise. No actual example to work from.
EDIT: …and it is off topic from this thread. I’m done. Later.
Thread topic:
Before you go:
I agree with you to the extent that, if the GM is targeting a character’s BITs, more often than not, the PC is going to have a stake in the outcome and an active intent. Most of the time, the choice will be a versus or a DoW, because active characters are a good thing. I just make room for times when you want to say no to the NPC and don’t have something else you want from them. I don’t think it’s a failure in the game when it happens, it just a moment where we learn a bit more about the PC’s goals. I value the time spent prodding between player and GM, circling the PC, figuring out what makes the character tick and fleshing him/her out (I do think we’re still on topic by the way).
If believing the lie means nothing interesting happens or the tension doesn’t increase, we don’t roll. It’s pretty simple! Sometimes my players will even go along with the lie, with something like “Well…I have no reason to doubt the dude, so sure. I’m in!”
For this specific instance, I could see the game going several interesting directions if the NPC succeeds Falsehood and the PC believes him. It depends on the player.
So the NPC is lying about collaborating with these so called “dark powers,” right? So I roll Falsehood for the NPC and beat all the PCs’ Wills. At that exact moment, yes, everyone is supposed to go along with that. “Ah, I see! You are very cunning, dear Baron.” And everyone’s pals. But the player knows otherwise! An appreciation of dramatic irony is absolutely essential to making successful Falsehood rolls fun and tense and interesting.
Maybe in the next scene, they hear about additional werewolf attacks in the countryside. The Falsehood result is in place and nothing has changed, so we’re Letting it Ride. The players know for sure, absolutely, that this asshole Baron is behind all their problems. But tough nuggets, Let it Ride. The players now start scraping and scrabbling for ways to substantially change the situation, and that’s a great creative prompt. Now the game is about the players maneuvering their characters into a situation where they can finally uncover the Baron’s shenanigans, all the while having to stand aside and watch the situation escalate (werewolves eat the villagers, then the Fair Folk kidnap all the kids in the castle, then a major curse destroys all the crops, and then and then and then…). The tension is delicious! And that’s with a successful Falsehood test.
NB this obviously isn’t what happened: the characters saw through the Baron’s bullshit so now the decision tree has branched off into how to get the Baron dislodged from his manse, his house guards, and the implied protection of the Fair Folk. Both branches are awesome!
EDIT: The tl/dr; version is, “When the bad guys succeed at Falsehood, it’s time to rub the players’ noses in it until they can’t stand the smell.”
Thank you Paul! I very much appreciate your example and it clears up some doubts I’ve been having.
Paul, why didn’t the players have Intent. Thus a roll to make?
EDIT: I have comments about the rest but I’ll keep it simple.
I have no idea why you’re asking this, Dwight, and it seems weirdly confrontational to be honest.
Sometimes the intent comes from a GM’s character, and the GM makes the roll and the players react.
EDIT: If you’re asking “why did you frame up X situation this way instead of that way” (why a Falsehood and not a DOW?), well…because who knows? It all happens kind of organically at the table and in the moment. This was a month ago, maybe longer. I think at the time the player was still feeling around for his intent, so he started poking at the Baron’s story and that prompted the Falsehood test. We don’t need to go to a Duel of Wits or even a versus Persuasion test yet because we’re still talking through the scene.
Rushing to the system is a very common problem in BW.
I find it weirdly defensive that you take issue with the question. 
Sometimes the intent comes from a GM’s character, and the GM makes the roll and the players react.
I find that weirdly at odds with BW. 
Not Burning Empires mind you, but Burning Wheel. EDIT: Maybe that’s what was happening? You were blurring BW into BE?
EDIT: If you’re asking “why did you frame up X situation this way instead of that way” (why a Falsehood and not a DOW?)
No.
Rushing to the system is a very common problem in BW.
Ironically I get the impression that that is what happened, instead of pressing on to find the player’s Intent…anyway, moving on: I’ll post my comments about the rest of it tomorrow (hopefully).
Please do! I’m not sure why you’re being coy and I’m terrible at being psychic.
Why even bother telling the PC that the NPC is lying anyway? How often is the tension focused right on that moment? To me, if the GM just comes out says yeah, they’re lying, the tension is actually immediately defused. No matter what action the player takes, they KNOW they are in the right. Seems to me that NPCs should just say (without the GM divulging that its a lie) what they’re going to say and its completely up to the player as to whether they believe it or not. Just like in real life. No roll necessary. When a GM divulges the lie in that moment, it feels like they are trying to force the action prematurely.
Now the player can proceed as appropriate. If they are suspicious of the liar they can act immediately and without evidence to back them (which is exciting) or set out to find evidence to back their suspicions (also exciting). And if they believe the statement then that makes for a better moment on down the road.