So many great questions on the forum nowadays, and so many great answers.
Here’s an issue that we have been facing in our games. My campaign have been running for 8-10 sessions. One of my players never tried BW before this. She says she finds the system of keeping track of checks disruptive. She feels it forces her to make certain choices in a situation based on which skills she wants to improve, instead of immersing herself in the role.
I like the system a lot. It gives a sense of evolvement even when rolling failures. And it helps create unique characters, instead of being limited by pre-defined levels and skill-sets.
But I do see her point. What typically happens is that if they are riding a short distance they might try to do something acrobatic or silly just to get a ride check, even though neither I or they think the trip itself is particulary interesting.
I suggested to her that maybe it’s because right now their characters are inexperienced. They started with 3 lifepaths. Maybe the focus on becoming better will be less dominating when they have 4-5 dots in most skills. But she did not seem convinced.
Another example: By reading the book I see that I have not been giving enough steel checks. They should be thougher by now. It is undeniably easier in a traditional system where neither the GM nor the players need to be focused on the overall advancement while in ‘game mode’.
Is there a good way to handle this? Should I let some time pass so their characters can train? Give them some checks without the rolling when I think they deserve it? (“You have been riding to the village many times this past month. Two routine checks.”) Or should I try to come up with interesting consequences and story twists for failure every time the only thing they aim for is the check?
If they want to do something silly and acrobatic, with no intent, that’s test-mongering and you should just Say Yes.
If they’re spending all their time riding around but not rolling (because they don’t want to get from A to B fast enough for there to be an intent and task around?) then I’d hand out practice tests.
But even if the action itself is silly, the intent behind it is serious and - I feel - valid: Being a better rider will help them achieve other goals, like becoming knights, participating in tournaments, hunting dragons. Since they are responisble for developing their skills, they need to look for opportunities to do so. I would rather help them become better than discard it as test-mongering.
Tell her it’s okay to make choices based on immersing herself in her role. The game isn’t forcing anything, but it is about making hard choices. As a player and as a character.
But I do see her point. What typically happens is that if they are riding a short distance they might try to do something acrobatic or silly just to get a ride check, even though neither I or they think the trip itself is particulary interesting.
They’ll stop that silliness if you remember that the failure condition is all you. Make failure matter or say Yes.
But she did not seem convinced.
She’s right. It has nothing to do with the power level of the characters. She’s choosing to do things she doesn’t enjoy in order to gain a material advantage. That is a pretty good definition of work. She’s giving herself a job. But it’s all her. The game isn’t saying make a silly acrobatic check, so you can get better at riding. Just like right now I’m sitting drinking coffee. I’m not juggling to improve my hand eye coordination.
Another example: By reading the book I see that I have not been giving enough steel checks. They should be thougher by now. It is undeniably easier in a traditional system where neither the GM nor the players need to be focused on the overall advancement while in ‘game mode’.
We don’t have all that many steel checks in our games. But you can fix it retroactively. Before the next session just say “everyone mark a difficult steel check for that thing you did last time.”
Is there a good way to handle this? Should I let some time pass so their characters can train? Give them some checks without the rolling when I think they deserve it? (“You have been riding to the village many times this past month. Two routine checks.”)
Sure.
Or should I try to come up with interesting consequences and story twists for failure every time the only thing they aim for is the check?
One point about BW is that unlike other games you don’t get to plot your character’s development minutely. You shouldn’t try. Instead, your character develops based on what you do, organically. You may find that your knight is actually a diplomat, or a cook, and that’s fine! If you do want to be a mighty knight, you’re going to have Beliefs that force knightliness, make your knightly checks, and improve at your knighting. You don’t need to focus on advancing anything in particular because you advance whatever you do as you do it. Focusing will lead to specialization; not focusing will lead to broad competence. Both are fine.
In daily life and daily riding there aren’t consequences for failure. That’s not to say you can’t make them, but you shouldn’t; it’s not interesting and doesn’t advance a story. Say Yes. The hard tests will come when the riding matters. And as said, if there’s a lot of daily life happening you give practice time. It can be spent on riding, or they can read by the campfire and practice something else. There’s some room for directed growth, usually of low skills.
Also look over the rules for helping and advancement. Having everyone help everyone else is a great way to get more checks in!
Be sure to ratchet up your situations. If they have time and energy to faff about, they’re not under threat enough—their relationships aren’t in jeopardy. Trust me, I know this because I watch my group faff about as soon as the tension lets up. BW is an intense game. Don’t let up the pressure for five or six sessions. Then come back and give us an update!
In regards to Luke’s point above about not being under threat, I thought “what if they were riding to try and reach a place before the enemy? What if there really was a threat they were trying to avoid/prevent/defeat with that ride?” Well, that makes some easy failure consequences–either say “sure, you can do a handstand on horseback (though it’s going to be devilishly difficult), but if you fail, you fall off and are injured, and you won’t make it to the McGuffin before the BBEG’s minions.”
Most of the time in BW, when you test you want to get both the mechanical test for advancement as well as achieve or advance some story goal. If you’re setting the failure consequences right a test for test’s sake really isn’t worth it.
More to the point, if they’re riding to reach somewhere to deal with something urgent then you can give them a Ride test. The failure consequence is obvious: you’re too late. There’s no need for handstands and other test-demanding tricks.
Even so, thinking about it more riding about in a leisurely way still might eventually call for checks. Ob 1 happens sometime, right? Ride or Animal Husbandry, say, to avoid laming your horses or other expensive possibilities. Dangerous, too, if it happens in between distant destinations.
She is definitely test mongering. I would, as suggested, let them count it as practice if it’s not relevant to the story. That might seem like a punishment to them, but its not. Tests are for things that drive the story. Practice allows your character to choose what happens in between the moments of action.
As to the disruptive nature of checks, I would just scribble some notes down and hand them out once there is a break in the tension.
Checks really aren’t disruptive. Just don’t bother looking up the difficulty immediately if you don’t know it and aren’t counting on it to raise the skill immediately. Write down the stat tested and how many dice were used, then look it up in the tables later.
I can see why they seem disruptive. I know some players can tell you off the top of their head what the difficulty of a check is, but what works for me as a player is to write down how many dice I rolled and the Ob (something like 4/3) and when the play moves away from me and I have a free moment I’ll look up whatever tests I have listed.
Any Ob over the amount of dice rolled is challenging.
For Obs equal to (or nearly equal to) the dice rolled, it will be difficult. If you’re rolling 4-6 dice, the Ob can be one less than the number if dice rolled and still count as challenging (4 dice rolled versus Ob 3 is still difficult). For Obs 7+, it can be two less than the number of dice rolled and still be difficult (ie, 7 dice rolled against Ob 5 is difficult).
In my games, when the player characters take a few days’ journey from Point A to Point B, I just give them a day or two of practice towards Riding. I don’t require them to tell me about all the goofy stunts they’re doing. I do it for other “background” skills, too, whenever there’s nothing at stake and it’s just color between scenes. It cuts down on test-mongering, and it’s neat when after months (both in-game and out) of playing a campaign, someone goes “Hey, I advanced Riding to B3! Guess all those weeks on the trail taught me something!”