I'm currently playing in a game set in Harn using the Burning Wheel rules.  Our group had been using HarnMaster for a while, in various editions, but despite the jerk-like talk from some BW fanatics, we agreed to give Burning Wheel a try for this campaign.  

One of the features of BW is the "Let It Ride" rule, which basically forbids repetitive rolls on a given skill or stat.  If you made a roll in Stealth, you keep that result for any future uses.  So, why do I like this?  As I expressed in this post on the "Ridiculous armor-wearing" thread, I hate repetitive rolls.  

I don't give a shit if it's to my advantage or not, it's fucking boring.  So if the GM goes "Roll Perception" and then if we fail says "Weeeellll.... Roll Perception again" -- it's stupid!  Either give us the fucking clue that you want to, or get over it and move on.  

For similar reasons, I liked the "Take 10" and "Take 20" rules of D&D3.  They cut back on needless rolling.  In the first D&D3 campaign I played in, there was a point where we were going to search for secret doors and I just said "I take 20".  The GM was at first taken aback and then angry, as though I was cheating somehow.  He tried to emphasize that it would take a long time and that we shouldn't do that because it would be boring for our characters.  

(For reference -- this was inspired by Pundit's "What I've Read post where he quoted Malcolm Sheppard's criticism of BW and blindly endorsed it without having read BW.  Malcolm makes a point about how it doesn't really protect the players, and that thus they should really like making repetitive rolls.  Obviously, I disagree.  

There is vagueness in the Let It Ride rule about when the circumstances have changed enough to require a new roll.  I think it could be phrased better, but the thrust of the rule as a whole is still useful for my enjoyment.

You like what you like, John. That is good.

In unrelated news, you don't get it. It's task res vs. conflict res, is what this is about.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou like what you like, John. That is good.

In unrelated news, you don't get it. It's task res vs. conflict res, is what this is about.

OK, so you spouted some jargon at me.  Would you care to explain that in English?  

In particular, do you think there is a problem with the "Let It Ride" rule, as Malcolm and Pundit claim?

The whole problem with it boils down to the vagueness, which extends as well to identifying the "bad" practices that "Let it Ride" is supposed to correct.

If you're trying to infiltrate and then exfiltrate a fortress with sentries outside and guards in important locations, and your path happens to take you across something you didn't know was there...but you'd now like to investigate, making "Let it Ride" work properly ends up requiring essentially the same adjustments as a sensible use of a basic Sneak skill. I.e., for Sneak you only roll once per guard, or per discrete distance or time, but you also adjust for the guard's awareness. For Let it Ride, you increase the obstacle due to multiple opponents, and you roll again when your plan changes because otherwise you have no temptation:risk dynamic.

The difference mechanically is that BW's LiR gives you fewer rolls; is easier to make more "forgiving" of bigger challenges (iterative rolls with "failure = complete failure" is deadly even at 95% skill); is harder to interpret failure in a detailed fashion (where exactly in or out of the fortress are you, when you accidentally alert the guards?). And ultimately it seems about as likely to cause discomfort when the GM deems a situation to have changed and the player thinks otherwise.

In short I think both can work, but non-"let it roll" gets a bad rep due to abusive and handwavey GMing practices that came out of the desire to advance a plot instead of neutrally referee a situation.

As for the GM who balked at letting you "take 20", this is much the same thing, it shows someone who wasn't really prepared to think through the mechanics of the game and the logic of the game world. If I were running a dungeon and someone wanted to "take 20" all the time, that'd be fine, but I'd also be keeping careful track of time for the sake of wandering monster rolls, use of supplies, need for rest & sleep, and any deadlines or other time constraints the PCs were up against.

Quote from: jhkimOK, so you spouted some jargon at me.

You're the Forge regular, John, not me. If you're confused, ask the google.  

Meanwhile, you're a nice and knowledgeable guy, except that when you're dealing with Pundy you devolve into a petty little greengrocer. Why don't you just stay away from the guy and post about some gaming stuff unrelated to him?

I don't care for it myself. It strikes me as a naive bandaid/short cut for the intersection of irresponsible GMs and poorly codified skill rules. Further, it seems to me to nullify opportunities for player creativity.

The system that Luke seems to rant about in BE (sorry, I don't have BW to compare) is that "GMs are mean" and this is just going to keep them from being mean by deciding to force you to fail by invoking multiple rolls. AFAIAC, a better way around this is to clearly define what duration the roll applies for, or conditions that warrant a new roll. Combine that with the concept of GM economy (a concept that BE otehrwise executes well), and there really shouldn't be a problem.

The "player creativity" thing comes in, as I see it, when you fail the roll. When a roll is failed, the players are forced to deal with the consequences of such a roll. That could include applying other skills or coming up with a way that it is practical to retry the roll.

I just find "Let it Ride" ham-handed and impractical.

Let It Ride, much like Say Yes (Or Roll) are things I've taken as general advice but not rules. As rules, they're kind of a pain, but as advice, I get what they're saying and can implement.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAFAIAC, a better way around this is to clearly define what duration the roll applies for, or conditions that warrant a new roll. Combine that with the concept of GM economy (a concept that BE otehrwise executes well), and there really shouldn't be a problem.

Out of curiosity, how would you codify "clearly defin(ing) what duration the roll applies for, or conditions that warrant a new roll" in a set of rules?

We usually just wait for someone to request a re-roll (GM or player), they present their case for significantly changed conditions, and we come to a consensus at the table as to whether or not a new roll is warranted. I can see how that method could be problematic, but it hasn't been with my group in about two years of playing BW.

QuoteThe "player creativity" thing comes in, as I see it, when you fail the roll. When a roll is failed, the players are forced to deal with the consequences of such a roll. That could include applying other skills or coming up with a way that it is practical to retry the roll.

This is spot on, in my experience.

I'm about options.  The "let it ride" approach is one I use for the perennial troublesome checking for traps, sneaking down a long hallway etc.  Here a few others.  These are all at the players choice.

(1) Let the player roll for every YxY space or Y feet of corridor to exercise the skill.  We rarely exercise this option as it is incredibly dull to all of us.  

(2) One roll for the whole, corridor, room etc.  I'll make clear what this applies to just let me know if you do it.

(3) Three rolls.  I will randomly determine which one I will apply to the area or location with an actual trap or something to sneak past/hearing roll of teh creature.  Or you arrange them in any order you like to represent the front-middle-back of the area.

To forstall too much metagame knowlege, yet give the character an inkling if they did good or bad...the player rolls one die and I roll one die in secret.
Since the system adds the roll of 2D10, roll under a target to succeed the character gets some knowledge of how they did but not absolute.

For example, when sneaking, the PC rolls a 1.  They know odds are they are likely to make it, they move with barely a wisper.  Conversely if the PC rolls a 10, they may have stepped on a twig.  They don't know if they blew it but this info may get them to rethink there tactics.

I'm all about you tell me how you want to do it.

I have better ways of indicating the passage of time and the down side of taking too much than forcing many rolls.  Like rolling for wandering monsters, even when there isn't any.  Nothing like when I say, OK that will take 4 hours and I get 4D6 out to do a wandering monster check.   I'll roll these in secret, just a very quick way to get across that soemtimes taking time is a bad idea, othertimes it si not.  How do players know?  Knowledge is power in my games so a bit of scouting and investigation can pay big dividends.  


Anyway, that's how I roll.

Quote from: TimOut of curiosity, how would you codify "clearly defin(ing) what duration the roll applies for, or conditions that warrant a new roll" in a set of rules?

I think that would really depend on the game and the designer's priorities. Some games might have some reasonable measure of time or some other conditional considerations if they wish to simulate reality. Other games might rely on some sort of GM economy, such as spending "harass the players points" to create risk.

Wow.  I've been using 'Let it ride' for years now.  Didn't know that somebody put it into a game.  Just seemed like common sense to me.  You failed to pick the lock, so until you do something to change the situation (use a different set of tools, come back a year later with more experience, etc) you don't get to reroll for it.  In situations where there is something that the players need to see to keep going I'll have them roll vs intell or something, the person who rolls best under (or if they all roll over then the one who got closest) is the one who spots it.

Plus the take 10 or 20 from D20 is also great.  Used the hell out of that when I played.  Just makes sense.

Quote from: peteramthorWow.  I've been using 'Let it ride' for years now.  Didn't know that somebody put it into a game.  Just seemed like common sense to me.  You failed to pick the lock, so until you do something to change the situation (use a different set of tools, come back a year later with more experience, etc) you don't get to reroll for it.

Well, it goes a bit beyond that, actually. Say you're trying to infiltrate the thieves guild headquarters...you'd make one Stealth roll at the beginning, and would Let it Ride through the entire scene. You'd have to apply that same roll to all challenges within that scene. Say you get four successes...that's great versus the run of the mill footpads milling about with their Observation skill of 3d, but not such a sure thing against the master of assassins with his Observation of 6d.

Of course that cuts both ways...the GM would hold to one roll for the underlings and one roll for the assassin guy.

Tim

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI think that would really depend on the game and the designer's priorities. Some games might have some reasonable measure of time or some other conditional considerations if they wish to simulate reality. Other games might rely on some sort of GM economy, such as spending "harass the players points" to create risk.

I guess my question was kind of useless without being tied to a specific game. Assuming you've read or played the game, how would you de-hammify Let it Ride in Burning Wheel?

Tim

P.S. That's not some sort of sideways slam saying "you can't understand the game because you've never played it." You seem to have a good grasp of Let it Ride, to me.

Quote from: TimI guess my question was kind of useless without being tied to a specific game. Assuming you've read or played the game, how would you de-hammify Let it Ride in Burning Wheel?

Again, only own BE, but judging from BE, it seems like the "scene economy" is a founding principle of the game and it has a sort of gamist bent than being concerned about modeling reality. So I think that some sort of GM resource that would dictate challenges could be mustered to be applied to the same or different skills, as is appropriate.

Since Luke Crane has apparently all but admitted that the rule is there to deprotagonize GMs, and since the Forgies out there tend to take pride in this fact, I don't see where the point for argument is, or on what basis someone could say that isn't the real intent of the rule.

Also, Eyebeamz statement on it just seems like common sense; not only does it deprotagonize the GM by taking away his right to decide when players should make a roll, it also doesn't do players any favours; all of which reveals a fundamental secret of RPG games that the Forgies consistently fail to understand:  that usually, the GM is the guy looking out for the players, and not trying to screw them over.

There may be some tyrannical GMs, but those are BAD GMs.  Meanwhile, trying to solve this problem by removing the powers of GMs (good and bad) and replace it with tyrannical rules made up by idiot game-designers is a piss-poor "solution".


RPGPundit