In a fight, it’s Versus, likely Brawling, and possibly Bloody Versus. If you walk up behind someone drinking peacefully and stab them in the kidney, it’s not Versus. They’re opposed to getting stabbed, but they aren’t actually opposing you. The same can be true of social tests: sometimes you’re up against someone who wants something other than what you want, or you have a zero-sum situation (haggling, apportioning treasure) and that’s Versus. Other times they don’t really care about the outcome, and it’s a simple test. I think we agree here, actually. But I think there’s a difference between “I want this to happen” versus “I want that to happen,” which is a Versus test, and “I want this to happen” vs. “I don’t want this to happen,” which isn’t always. If the thing happening is pulling a lever, you might have a Brawl vs. Brawl test, or Power vs. Power if you’re both just pulling in different directions. If the thing is you wanting me to give you money vs. me having no active intention beyond a baseline “don’t lose money,” it’s a non-Versus test. There’s no action opposing the begging.
Forget being a dick. I think preventing GM-dickery is part of the thought behind BW, but it’s not essential to the point I’m trying to make. Nor is player agency, precisely.
You have a point about players of characters with high Will deserving to be rewarded for it, but I think the system already does so: higher roots for social skills, better DoW.
It’s the unexpected outcomes where I think we have our big point of disagreement. You want to emphasize randomness, and I want to emphasize player will. But player will is what BW runs on! “Fight for what you believe!” is the tagline, but I would call “What would you do for your beliefs?” another contender. The most important thing in BW is to engage BITs. Instincts are always a choice: the player decides whether the character acted on instinct or not, and gets Artha for choosing to follow an Instinct that causes problems versus not acting instinctually in an instance. Beliefs are the same: you get Artha for following beliefs. But I think it’s the player who has to make the choice, the choice leads to an intent and a task, and then the roll is made. You don’t substitute a roll for choice!
Example (why do I keep writing these?): Here’s a bit of Remy
- I will kill the evil Comte de Villefort and avenge my family’s death and dishonor.
- I will never stoop to the Comte’s level. No matter how low my new station in the world, I will not resort to theft or murder—I remain an honest and honorable gentleman."
- We may be rivals and have more than a few disagreements, but family is family, and Edouard is the only one I can still trust.
Relationship: Edouard, a cousin (hateful)
Edouard, a foe to both Remy and the Comte, tries to convince Remy that the Baron will be taking a carriage through the west gate tomorrow at noon with only a handful of guards—no trouble for the renowned swordsman Remy—and this is the perfect time to strike. Of course, Edouard’s hope is that Remy will assassinate the Comte and then be killed by his escort: two enemies removed at once.
I would say that the player hears Edouard’s story and makes the choice. Is this the right moment to strike? Is it worth sinking to base assassination to destroy the Comte? Is Edouard trustworthy? There is are some big decision points here: will Remy risk death for what he believes? Is his first or second belief more powerful? Is he, in the end, a coward?
You could reduce this to a Persuasion roll by Edouard. But if Edouard makes the roll, the player no longer has the option to choose not to act. (And if you’re a stickler for intent and task, both the Comte and Remy are dead; obviously the GM has to restrain the scope of intent). Without a player option, he’s no longer playing, just observing the outcome of character stats. More importantly, I wouldn’t give Artha for something that is not under the player’s control.
Players don’t get to Say No, but they do get to say no. That shouldn’t shut down the narrative, because the plot is the Beliefs and the choices made around them. You could argue that this isn’t a reasonable social roll against a PC, but what is, then? Now I want a concrete example. If it’s not engaging Beliefs, there’s not really a good reason for a roll. If it is, I see reason not to roll.
Maybe this stems from a different reading of Say Yes or Roll. My game flowchart looks something like this: player makes a decision, character does something, player rolls, outcome is based on success or failure, player uses outcome to make next decision. The GM never calls for rolls unless he is not Saying Yes. The narrative isn’t reactive, and events will blindside players or NPCs will accost them, but the mechanics are purely reactive. It’s not pure player vs. GM because there’s still randomization when the GM decides there is, but it has to be based on players doing something where the outcome is interesting with either success or failure. It should not be a point where the GM sees multiple interesting possibilities and wants to randomize which one occurs.
Again, I might just be missing how NPC rolling is appropriate. Please give a complete example!
It’s probably worth pointing out that I extend this to all GM rolls against PCs. It’s fair to call for a roll for something PCs don’t explicitly choose. The ledge can collapse and require a Speed test not to fall, or travel that suddenly became perilous as the weather turned for the worse can require Survival. But I would never have any situation roll against PCs unless it’s a Versus test and the player is rolling too or its one of the extended conflict systems, so the player will also be rolling and the intent/task/outcome are substantially predetermined. A PC can randomly knife a man in the bar. A man in a bar can’t roll Knives to wound a PC out of nowhere; the PC gets a roll, even though I’d let the reverse happen. It keeps the focus on PCs, their abilities, and their motives.
