One thing I’ve thought about when it comes to Burning Wheel is how certain rules change the philosophical interpretation of what a “roll”/“test” means. I don’t know if Luke would agree with me on this but I do think it’s an interesting point. This may sound like a non-sequitur but do stick with me.
When you roll a d20 in DnD (as an example), what that die roll (mostly) represents is how much of the character’s maximum performance was the character able to achieve? This is clear because when you fail you can typically retry and next time, all environmental conditions being the same, you might pass! The only change is whether or not your reached your maximum potential during a particular instance of the tested action.
Whereas the presence of Let It Ride in Burning Wheel changes the interpretation of the dice roll to “given all the unknown and unenumerated factors in the fiction, can the character do it?”. You cannot reroll in the same situation, so it isn’t representing the performance level of an individual act, what it is instead doing is accounting for all the things we don’t know about the situation. In some part, the complication narration from a failed roll expounds on the unenumerated factors.
Bringing it back to the topic at hand: when you roll in Burning Wheel we are testing to see if there is anything we don’t know about the situation that might hinder the player. The obscurity of the lock design, the adjacency of the guards, the freezing temperature damaging the mechanism. In many physical tests we’re relatively sure about most of the factors because we (or at least the GM) have a good idea about the physical world and how it works since it is much like our own. Mechanisms are predictable. Because of this these tests seem rightly easy when they’re easy and rightly hard when they’re hard.
When it comes to social tests though, the number of unenumerated complication factors is incredibly high, essentially infinite. It may seem easy to convince someone with “the boss wants you to come inside”, but what if they ask you who? What if they were told that they wouldn’t be needed inside. What if they were pranked before with the same trick. What if they just don’t like you, or are a loner? What if they think the boss can come out and get them personally? What if they think your word choice, accent, attire is suspicious?
And those are just the few out of infinite mental/emotional/personal complications. There are also the physical ones like: “did they hear you right?” too.
Despite this, we are quick to simplify people into mechanisms and assume that something that convinces us, or tricks us, probably will work on other people. Anyone actually engaging in debate or trickery has probably learnt the hard way that it is a skill that must be learned and it isn’t quite as easy as just saying the thing that would work on you. As such, real life social “tests” often seem unfairly difficult.
“I debated this person, laid out all the facts, debunked everything they said, and they still don’t believe me!”. Well, that’s your perception, were you really that logical and righteous? But even our perception of how the interaction went is part of the social interaction. So it is very hard to rate difficulty accurately, and anyway people are rarely convinced by reason.
So in addition to what people have mentioned here:
-
Social tests ARE hard, a common feat to brag about is talking yourself out of a ticket, and the average policeman is as good as an average person, will-wise.
-
To encourage many FoRKs, social interactions with many points of contact tend to be more convincing.
We have,
- The testing system of Burning Wheel is directly solving for the unenumerated factors that might actually exist in the fiction…and there are simply and incredibly large number of unenumerated factors in social interactions, making them inherently difficult.
I’d be curious to hear others thoughts on this.