Yeah, certainly. But I feel like using the character’s background for determining that one PC doesn’t need a Steel test when another does for the same stimulus is a bit of a disservice. Especially when those backgrounds are already factored into Steel bonuses at character burning.
But it’s ultimately a matter of discretion. Really, we’re basically discussing taste at this point!
I meant none of the players take a Steel test because the Sorceress pulled off a good reaction.
Hence my clarifying. 
Yeah, I’m more inclined to agree with Quincy; as mentioned, the questions for Steel include stuff like military service, killing people, etc for exactly that reason. Perhaps the soldier fails because he’s a bit jumpier when he’s no longer with his comrades? Who knows.
Regardless, it’s been cool hearing about your campaign feel free to keep us posted!
-Moved long post to Actual Play where it belongs-
Players liked it, I liked it for now. No real questions this time.
Also, sent a similar synopsis out to them. I know it’s kinda long, but I figure they might find it useful to reread each week so they can remember what happened. Can’t hurt, at least.
Ah, sorry, didn’t see the Actual Play section for some reason! I’ll move future session posts there.
OK, so new development: apparently, a friend of one of my players is so enthralled by description of BW and synopsis of my game that they have gone and purchased a physical copy of the book in order to bribe me to let them into the game! 
I swear to whatever, I’m not making this up! I’m now going to have another player who’s spent money sight unseen JUST to have a chance to play in this game. They’re even doing this despite not liking one of the other players already in the game for unrelated personal reasons (both are fine with it and have agreed to strict cordiality; the newcomer independently suggested that the existing player be given preferential treatment).
So Burning Wheel might be able to heal wounds and bridge divides and crap. NO PRESSURE ON ME
Ended up not playing last Saturday due to work, sadly. Will be trying again this coming weekend.
I did get a question that I felt should use some clarification: my player has an instinct where “as soon as it’s dark, cast Wyrd Light”. They asked if they get a test for it, and I explained that while it does guarantee that they cast the spell after darkness falls - meaning they can reject ob penalties I try and give for darkness - they don’t get an actual test since they didn’t roll; it acts more as a failsafe they can rely on so they don’t need to worry about it.
Does this seem correct? Since it’s a spell that might encounter spell failure, would it be better to retroactively test it? I did tell them I’d ask for a clarification online when I got a chance, so they’re treating my explanation as a temporary ruling for now.
“Instincts cannot let you bypass a test” (p.56, BWG). So, the player must roll to cast the spell.
What the instinct does allow them to do is declare at the point that darkness makes a difference that they have already cast the spell: so, if they make the test, the spell is already cast before darkness makes a difference rather than them having to do all the obvious chanting and waving, and wait the casting time before they get the benefit.
The other thing the Instinct would let them do is earn fate by making their Stealth tests harder: they lurk through the shadows but have, for example, +2Ob because they have unconsciously cast a light spell.
Nah, man. Say Yes or Roll the Dice still applies. If there’s nothing at stake to casting the spell, then Say Yes to it. Spending a month of downtime – for instance – does not allow the player to log 30 Sorcery Tests just because they have an Instinct.
While Dave is right that the Instinct doesn’t get them around having to make the Test when something is at stake, it is not a daily Sorcery Advancement generator either.
Page 155 of the Codex discusses Saying Yes to “low grade, low risk” Sorcerous tests, and Page 369 of Gold Revised implores Saying Yes to Resources tests when the purchase is within the character’s means and nothing is at stake – despite Resources also having a built-in failure condition. Writing an Instinct to “Always buy food on Sunday,” is not a valid excuse for accumulating Resources tests each weak – unless the situation and action creates stakes for doing so.
So, no, the fact that the system has a built-in failure condition does not mean to never Say Yes to tests using it.
Instincts trigger on the event happening, so because DT doesn’t have 30 “it gets darks” there aren’t 30 trigger for that Instinct; of course, casting the spell every single time it gets dark could be part of the flavour for how a character is practicing Sorcery in DT.
It does expose a conflict in assumptions though: I’m used to BW sessions moving onto the next interesting bit with very little filler, so travel through the wilderness for 3 days to get from town to the Dark Forest would a single intent unless the area between the town and the Dark Forest contains something interesting; so, if the consequence of failure is “something happens on the journey” then the character gets a scene that might trigger the instinct but if the travel roll succeeds the characters jump straight from town to Dark Forest without any “gets darks” happening at the table.
Oh, of course the Say Yes is assumed for a situation that has no real stakes - if I were having them just walk from one house to another in the middle of the night, I wouldn’t care since it just bogs the game down for little reason.
My question was solely focused on situations with stakes. For example: if they come across a dark cave with a hostile demon inside and, after a minute of searching and failing Observation tests that include darkness modifiers, that demon attacks them when their backs are turned. The sorcerous player then recalls their instinct and questions the Ob penalties on the Observation rolls.
What then? Do we need to roll the Sorcery test to see if they got it retroactively? Assuming yes and that they succeed, do we need to retcon events that happened previously, including downgrading all the Observation tests for all the players? I know we’d retcon if they accidentally summon a (second) Demon or Garbled their Transmission!
Interesting and fun possibilities to be sure, but I fear other players may get annoyed at interruptions like this and having their prior actions and time be wasted and rendered meaningless by something outside of their control, especially if it affected more time/actions then just a few minutes.
If I would have called for the test at the time, then I would call for it retroactively. So, if the player didn’t have an Instinct and simply declared, while looking into the darkness of the cave, “I cast Wyrd Light,” and I would have said “Test Sorcery,” then yes. I would have the player test now for then due to their Instinct.
Saying Yes is always within your power. Use it responsibly, but at your discretion. If you feel like testing for it now would bog the game down, even if you would have called for it before, you don’t have to make them roll the dice. Be wary of players kerning to your generosity and conveniently forgetting their Instincts until you’d let them get away with not testing.
I would, yeah. If we could remember how many successes they got, then I would just use that and refactoring the Obstacle to see if they succeeded, “You guys got, what? 3 Successes? Well the Ob is now 3, so congratulations, you are not surprised by the demon” If we can’t recall how many successes they got, then I might call for a new test at the new Obstacle; clear the old tests from the advancemnt log and move on.
As a GM, I would tell them, “I know it’s a pain, but it’s this player’s cool thing. You’d probably want the same treatment if it was your Instinct.”
As a player I would be shamelessly pressuring you to let us retcon having to make a Steel test for Surprise when getting mauled by a demon in the dark is on the line. “Jesus, Janine, let Francis save our lives already!”
There’s got to be a limit, for sure. I can’t really point you to where the line should be drawn, but a good practice is to survey the table when your instincts tell you that that retconning could be a pain. Give extra weight to the player whose Instinct it is. I probably wouldn’t let it undo more than a test or two.
Practice is how that would be handled, yeah.
But Instincts trigger when the conditions are meant. If you are going to say it doesn’t get dark (about) 30 times in a month, I’m gonna call you a liar. 
Admittedly, “conditions” is a bit vague, but if it’s not fictional conditions, I think aberrations occur. Not least among them, the GM claiming authority to dictate that the conditions didn’t happen and so the player doesn’t get their Instinct. Bit of a slippery slope that: It’s obvious in the fiction that the conditions are met; what is the value of pretending that they aren’t? Plugging the advancement hole? Saying Yes already does that without infringing on the player’s agency.
I think we might be viewing Say Yes in different ways: I see Say Yes as a response to a player wanting to do something, i.e. a player says they want to get a small bag and offers Resources as the test; the GM says Yes because they are in a large city and their isn’t any drama in shopping.
So, in the case of an Instinct, the player actively wants to have done the thing (after all one doesn’t have to use an Instinct) so - per rules - can’t avoid a test; however, at the point the player offers up a Skill, the GM can Say Yes. Reading back, I think the confusion might come from me being overly brief; by “the player must test” I meant, having an instinct doesn’t allow a player to do the thing without declaring intent and offering skill, not the the GM can’t decide to, for example, let it ride.
OK, so if I have it right, I’ll be able to determine if we can just Say Yes to it having happened or - if it’s important enough - have them roll a test and have the results affect everything retroactively then.
Just another thing:
In order to maintain the sanctity of the Test and Let It Ride, what I would probably do as the GM is to have said that there is Darkness Disadvantage on the Observation Test, and expect that that is the point a player declares their Instinct should have procced.
Once the Observation test is failed the consequence (on my table) is locked in; this Instinct can’t save you from a failed test, but it could obviate the penalties (and grant you a Sorc test beforehand to boot)
Alright, got a new one:
I just realized that, while one of my players bought the Artillerist skill, there aren’t any stats or guidelines for siege weapons in the book. And while one and done/situational siege weapons are easy to do (e.g. Fire the nearby catapult accurately to break down the city gate, fire another one to knock over a group of enemies), being players, they’re GOING to ask to shoot a Siege Crossbow at some poor shmuck bloodthirsty killer who wanders by charges right at them. It’s what I’d do, anyway.
How would this be handled using Range and Cover rules?