How do people counter the urge to do ability check rolls that people carry over from other games? As I understand it, there shouldn’t really be constant perception rolls or dexterity checks. Everything should start with the fiction, be it from the player or the EIC, and trigger moves. So, how would you expect a player to detect a trap, such as security sensors? I would expect that the player would simply see the sensors if the player knows security systems (per the fiction) and no roll would be required. Evading the system would require a Defy Danger, of course.
In general, isn’t there more of a tendency for things to happen without rolls in WiP (pronounced ‘Whip’, of course), as compared to mechanics-heavy systems like D&D?
.
Remove the dice from the table and ask a lot “what do you do?”.
Players will start thinking and acting per character and not per abilities 🙂
Perception checks and traps have been discused earlier (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+OscarIglesias/posts/N5KjUyChEq8).
If fiction demands the player to have a chance talk to them that way “this place seems perfect for a trap” and if players do not investigate then make a hard move. If fiction do not demand any description then act accordingly.
It’s definitely a different way of thinking and playing a game. In games like D&D with ability checks and perception rolls and such it’s basically up to the player to always be on alert, checking for tracks and traps and whatnot, describing what they’re doing – and that way of playing has it’s own good points and bad points. With the *World engine though, I think there’s a lot more trust there and no “gotcha” moments.
Since the EIC has their own codified system of when to do stuff and how to describe the environment, the players also know that the EIC is going to be making soft moves continually, putting stuff in front of the PCs to react to. Because of this there aren’t really any “gotcha” moments and players are basically assured of their agency in the fiction and know they’ll get a fair shake (or a hard choice) at things with soft moves first. All they have to do is react and describe what their character does. It’s a bit more work for the EIC (especially in WiP) because they’ve got to take into account the PCs’ particular and special abilities, but I think it more than makes up for it with how well it ends up playing out and how great the stories end up being. That said, they really are just different ways of playing.
But yeah, to address it more on point – constant perception and dexterity checks and all that are basically factored in by the EIC when they relay the fiction to the PCs. The EIC sets up soft moves to challenge and force reactions and generate tension. The only time an ambush is pulled off is when there’s warning of it with a soft move first, or as a result of a 6- so there’s that flow and lead-in.
When a player has the skills necessary to take on the task at hand it either becomes a scenario where they either a) just do it, or b) something else is at risk. Sure they can disarm the system, but can they do it in time? Sure, you’re super fast so can just zip right through the beam without it registering you were even there, but how are you going to help you teammates get by?
Anyway, I’ve already written a ton (like I usually do), I’d love to hear what other people think about it and how they adjust as well. I think that with enough practice and once the players get used to the system, the conversation and the whole rhythm of it it’ll become a non-issue as their way of thinking changes to match the system, but there may be better ways to acclimatize players faster or maybe up front?
Kyle Simons So you are saying that the real decision as a GM is whether you want the PCs to deal with a situation no matter what (hard move) or if you want to give them a hint of some sort (soft move) and then see what they do?
Scott Hamilton Yeah – but hard moves only come as a result of the players either ignoring/not trying/being unable to resolve everything introduced in the fiction via soft moves. Soft moves always come first – you show signs of approaching threat rather than have them be ambushed. If they don’t react and look at you blankly, you make the hard move and they get ambushed. If they interpret the signals differently, or choose to do something else (which is often totally legitimate as you mind put them in a hard spot and they have to choose between two difficult things) then you make the hard move and they get ambushed. But before that, you still set the hard move up to go off. Which just makes sense right – you want the events in the fiction to be connected and to make sense, one event to flow to the next. When the players look back on that hard move they’re going “oh, ok. yeah, that makes sense!” not, “what the hell, where did that come from?!”
Note that I’m not saying that players can’t get hurt without you warning them about it first. Consequences of doing things in the fiction should totally be felt regardless. If I fly straight into Dr. Doom’s castle looking for a fight, who knows what kinds of traps are going to go off, right? I might even have prep on my paper that talks about the cool traps in Doom’s lair that could get sprung if they go in the front gate; in those cases I’m usually still pretty nice about it and say something to the effect of, “wow, really? that place is going to be dangerous, are you sure you want to charge right in there?” and that kinda thing. I don’t think that’s necessary though when it’s player-driven actions. Your goal there is to reflect the reality of the world and relay that to the players honestly.
What I’m talking about with ambushes though is when you set up challenges to have the PCs face – you need to take into account their abilities, and foreshadow/set-up stuff that’s going down. It’s tempting to get to the main event and have your sweet plans unfold and drag the heroes into the hell pits of Akrilla, but you gotta pre-heat the oven before you stick the turkey in. Without player agency you lose trust and make the game a whole lot less fun. That’s why reiterating what’s going on the fiction, and asking players if they’re seeing things the way I’m seeing it, and checking to make sure we’re all on the same page happens a lot at my table. When we talk about what we see in our head it’s no surprise that there is often a disconnect between brain and mouth, and intent and mechanics, so I think it’s a good habit to get into as an EIC.
I hope I didn’t just make things more confusing, but basically the TL;DR would be – player-facing agency can lead wherever – you just need to represent the world honestly as the players play in it. EIC-facing stuff that introduces new challenges and such? That stuff you need to hint at/foreshadow/telegraph as the case may be in advance with soft moves. (Unless they roll a 6-, or you’ve already made a soft move and it’s fair game).
Kyle Simons Your comments confirmed my thinking and helped clarify some things about how better to set a trap or ambush. Thanks!