GM: “Sounds pretty difficult to me! There are a few lamps in the courtyard. If any of the guards happen to glance in that direction, they’ll spot you. Plus, I don’t think you can make it across in one quick dash. Limited effect. You’ll make it halfway across, then we’ll see what happens.”
I am finally making my way through the rules and this thing here stood out to me. The example stops there but let’s say the player goes for it, makes a full success and is now in the middle of the yard. They need to roll a second time to get to where they want. When they roll the second time and get a failure their first roll was for not in a lot of ways.
The only real cool thing I can imagine here is the player fully making the first roll and then only a partial success in her second roll. So she makes it across but now they are on her trail and she needs to run from guard while still. Ring where she wants to be. Still…
My Burning Wheel brain just screams because of let it ride and this feeling like I am fishing for the players failure.
Will continue to read and see if this gets explained better. Maybe this just is a thing in this game and I need to live with it but it seems off to me.
Its all about how you plot the scores and how the players approach them. Sure they can dash across the courtyard and set themselves up in what looks to be a pretty bad position, but if their Finesse is 3 points and their Prowl is zero, it might be a better option than trying to sneak around the sides. If their Survey is 2 maybe a better option would be to look for the right opportunity and then dash all the way across. Its all about how the players approach the challenge you’ve put in front of them. In this case the GM designed a big, well lit, manned courtyard.
.
.
I had the exact same reaction initially, but I’m coming around. I think it’s a tool for negociating the scale of stakes when something is out of scope or a big deal. If the player accepts the limited effect, fine, otherwise they can take a different tack.
In BW terms, think linked tests, DoW, fight, range and cover, and a bunch of the magic systems; they all break down big or important actions into smaller, limited effects.
Yep, Michael Atlin has it. In Blades, sneaking around is more like fighting in BW. Sometimes it’s more like a bloody versus test, sometimes it’s like fight! or range and cover.
In BW, you can’t simply ‘let it ride’ in a fight, and expect your first attack roll to apply for the rest of the battle. Think of infiltration the same way.
It’s not really “roll until you fail” though, because there’s a known scope to the action. You know how much you need to do to overcome the obstacle.
In the example above, for instance, another player might say, “Hey, if I create a distraction as a setup action, that will give you +1 effect and then you can get across in one go.”
So how do I decide when stuff will take more effect. In theory this now is a 2 segment countdown clock right?
You do it with intent and task, assessed against the circumstances, same as BW.
“Let’s sneak across the coutryard.”
“Okay, cool. Sounds like you’re prowling. Let’s roll and see how that goes.”
“Let’s sneak across the coutryard.”
“Okay, but, when I say ‘courtyard’ I mean this big sprawling space with hedges and two fountains and guards with lanterns patrolling around. I think you can make it halfway across, over by the black rose bushes, with a risky roll. Yeah?”
That example shows how it’s an effect factor assessment. The scale of the courtyard is essentially a negative factor, so the GM reduces the PC’s effect.
It doesn’t have to be explicit like “Take -1 effect from scale”. It’s incorporated into the description and the scope of the roll. The effect stuff is happening without calling attention to it.