BW philosophy thread derail overflow

[kaomera]

I have had chases evolve (devolve?) to the point that I've had to deliberately cut them off to end a session, just because the players where digging it too much. But I think that's like the session-long "roleplay" negotiations; it's much more player-driven than character-driven and it's not what BW is about...
Why would you want to cut players off when they are really into a particular segment? Just wondering, since I'd be the type of GM to milk that segment for all its worth, as long as the players are into it. Would you worry about getting too bogged down in it?
I'm not trying to derail this into a philosophy of BW but I sort of had the same idea as MetalBard. BW, to me so far, seems to really focus on player driven scenes. Luke goes out of his way several times to remind readers that the characters are purely fictional personas and that their wants and desires are pretty irrelevant. Its the player's wants and desires being expressed through BITs and those are what should grease the wheels of the scenario. If my players were all into a chase scene I'd be hard pressed to rein it in as long as I was having fun too. Maybe the story progression has slowed down a bit but if everyone's loving it I'd have to go with it.

[kaomera]

Where to start, where to start...

<rant>
I am running a D&D game on Saturdays. To a certain extent this game exemplifies all that I have been doing “wrong” with my games for the last 27 years or so. And to a certain extent I'm going to exaggerate to prove my point. But, in any case, it's a fairly stupid game. Don't get me wrong ~ it's fun. I'm enjoying it, and all the players claim to be enjoying it; and while players are in general notorious liars, scoundrels, and the dirtiest form of life this side of customers (or possibly that's me I just described), I have found over the years that it's easy enough to tell if the players aren't having any fun because I quite simply stop enjoying the game myself.

I got my first set of D&D books on June 21st, 1978. I have been playing the game, in one form or another ever since, with only one significant gap around 83-84 when I was convinced for a while that AD&D was the worst thing that had ever happened to humanity and I instead focused solely on Fantasy Hero. Throughout that time I have played all sorts of other games, as well. At first I played all games as if they where D&D, then I began to bring elements and concepts from other games into how I played D&D, but I always felt I knew how to play the game. I knew how to roleplay, and that knowledge served me pretty much no matter what game I picked up. I never saw any real reason to change, but at the same time there where things I wanted from the games I played that I just didn't seem to get...

I would say that at least 90% of my role-playing experience has been as a GM. At first, I just wanted to be in the seat at the end of the table, then I got stuck there, then I found myself enjoying my time as a “mere” player less and less fulfilling. Specifically, because I had gotten into the habit of creating (and had developed a fondness for) Flawed characters. That's Flawed with a capital “F” ~ it's a Trait, in BW parlance. And Flawed characters have a tendency to not do so well in games that are about the characters doing things, or especially doing Big Things. They do better in games that are about the characters themselves; and I found that most players (& GMs) only care about what the PCs do. It's ok for an NPC to be interesting (as long as he's not more interesting than what the PCs are doing...) and yet not actually do anything much...

On top of this, I have an uncanny and rather annoying ability to come up with just exactly the perfect concept to ensure that my character will have absolutely no connection with the game, or any purpose within it. Go look at my write-up of Jaime; everyone at that game loved that character, but other than lugging around a useful skill (can you say “D&D Cleric”?) I never really got to do anything much with him, because the game was really all about hacking up zombies, orcs, orc zombies, and getting hacked up by the occasional vampire. All of which Jaime was spectacularly bad at. And this was all my own fault, mind you. Like any player worth that title I blew all my chances to change the character to fit the game (Luke mentions something about “letting go” in his Episode III review... Gah! Scary! Must hold tightly on to my concept of the character, even if it's making the game less fun!!!), and also failed to really give the GM any good options to work with to make the situation better.

So, the point of all this is: Burning Wheel has made me want to change the way I play (& GM). There is just so much stuff in here that I had always wanted, but never seemed to have the tools to reach. And all I have to do is let go (damnit!!!) of my preconceived notions of how a game should be run.

So, as a GM, for one score and seven years I have been bullshitting my way through innumerable sessions of all sorts of games. Screw the rules, I haven't read half of them, and they're only really meant to keep the players from doing anything too monumentally stupid or irrational, anyway; they don't really need to apply to me as a GM. And screw the dice, they never come up the way I want, and why am I trusting the fate of my game to chance anyway; the only time I would call dice “traitors” is if they had somehow defected to my side and done something to improve or progress the story for once, and I would always suspect them of being double-agents in any case. The only thing that matters is that I have fun. And if the players aren't having fun, I'm not having fun. Yes, there have been cases where a player has so overwhelmingly bugged me that I have just plain done my worst to see to it that his character ends up in an unredeemable nasty and unfun situation, but I've never enjoyed it and it's always made the game as a whole that much worse. What players want, what they define as “fun”, is for their characters to succeed.

So I give them success.

The secret to my GMing style is that the PCs cannot possibly fail in the end. Don't get me wrong, I do everything in my power to present the illusion of challenge, but really they can't help but win in the end. In some games (CoC, Cyberpunk), I will even let characters die occasionally. Most of this I accomplish by never writing anything down unless I absolutely have to. You'd be amazed at what you can get away with when you rifle through a few pages of notes, and then add-lib something to justify the actions the players just announced for their characters. Or maybe you wouldn't...

So, yeah, to get slightly less long-winded and pointless for a second, to me GM == BS. I also write heavy-handed overarching plots (which, admittedly, I will gladly scuttle the second a player shows the slightest signs of real life ~ another benefit of not keeping proper notes), and I'm sure I'm guilty of quite a few other equally nasty GMing habits. But it works; it's fun. It's just not as much fun as I think it could be...
</rant>

So, to actually answer the questions put to me by MetalBard and donbaloo, the only reason that I don't think I'll ever see the kind of chase-scene I described in BW is that it only existed in my other games because I, as GM, put it there. If the players want to start a chase, great. If they start coming up with flimsy excuses as to how the NPC they are chasing stays ahead of them, fine. If they want to fudge dice so that they don't catch the guy until the absolute last minute before we have to pack up and go home, ok. But I'm going to try my hardest not to backslide and do any of that “for them”. And by “for them”, I of course mean “because it amuses me”. And I'm going to try and stick to the idea that it's ok if they don't catch this guy, and it's ok if they do. Neither one is a door closing, they're both doors opening...

We'll see how it goes. Honestly I'm a bit scared. In a good way, mind you... I think...

To a great extent it's just extending my whole “it doesn't go into the notebook until the players force me kicking and screaming to put it there” to my headspace. No deciding what's going to happen in session three or at the end of the first arc, or anything. And that's kinda hard for me. It's what's been plaguing me with BITs; I can come up with a complete, finished character in about thirty seconds flat. Most games I've run, that's a good thing. In BW it's not, I don't think. BW is about characters growing and changing. Character development (which to most gamers seems to equate to “how many XPs did we get?”). Which kind of makes a complete, finished character pretty useless. Jaime was a completed character, what I had to do to get good BITs out of him was to un-complete him. (“Bob”-damn, but I hope I'm on the right track here, too... If BW twists my head inside-out one more time I may not be fit for anything but a lifetime of work in foodservice... Oh, wait... Nevermind, it's all good then.)

Oh, hey... I never actually brought up the Saturday D&D game, did I? :P And this is all very, very much IMHO. Some of it I probably don't even believe anymore, and I could go back and rewrite it forever; I hope at least some of it makes at least some kind of sense. This is why I'll run a million games, but I'll never write a novel; the players tend to start throwing stuff the fifth or sixth time you try to re-play the same scene a different way.
</rant>

[Paka]

I'm not really sure what you want out of this thread.

Do you think there could be a good story in your player's failure, or a major set-back?

I found that when I trusted a system, the dice helped us tell the story and we could trust the system to help us along. Failure can be a great part of that, as can tragedy. But the table has to commit to the system first.

Are you prepared to read and trust a rules system?

Indie RPG's changed the way I read RPG's. I used to skim and throw away what I didn't like but with systems I can trust (Burning Wheel, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Riddle of Steel, and a few others that escape me) the dice aren't there to limit but to moderate, to push the story into a great new direction.

Hope that helps and good luck with your changes.

[kaomera]

I'm not really sure what you want out of this thread.

I've had this bouncing around inside my head for a while now. Actually, now that I look back at it I'm not really sure what I want out of this thread either.

I'm kinda nervous. I think the only thing I really want at this point (other than to get the waiting over) is to make sure I really do understand the core concepts here, so I can explain them to the players in a useful manner. I really want them to buy into all this neat potential I see in the BW system, and I'm not sure I really know how much of it is old news to them and how much they might not be cool with...

Hope that helps and good luck with your changes.

Thanx.

[luke]

I here ya!

I'm a GM of the worst kind, the foulest order. I'm a railroading, plot-packing, "this is my game, you fucks" sonofabitch.

Which kind of makes a complete, finished character pretty useless. Jaime was a completed character, what I had to do to get good BITs out of him was to un-complete him.

But here you've said it yourself. Stop just short of the threshold. Don't execute that final command. I'm not saying, "Don't think about all the cool endings this could have." I'm saying, "Think about all the cool endings! And then take two steps back, until the neatly tied knot of endings unravels into a mess of possibility strings." Add PCs. Shake. Stir. Serve hot.

And game!
-L

[Kaare Berg]

Hi Kam, dell them on this:

Kaare's Lesson One in character design is simply: complete and self-contained characters are boring because they have no inherent drama and no hooks to hang them with.

Clinton R. Nixon, in The Shadow of Yesterday asks how amny authors gives you a complete picture of the main character one page one, chapter one. None, they let you get to know the character as the story unfolds. Think in this manner when it comes to your character.

You got his lifepaths, you got is traits and beliefs. You know his Instincts and skills, but you really don't know him and you have only a vague idea where you want to takes him.

Here is where the entire "trust the system not to screw you bit" comes in. D&D will fuck you if your character isn't optimised or complete. Burning Wheel (and numerous good Indie Rpgs) wont. They will reward you with fun. You, not the character, you!.

This here is the core idea (as I see it) behind the whole "indie revolution". To create games that are fun to play. Where the rules back you up, not beat you down.

I used to do like you, create exciting stories where the players might have felt like death was imminent but in reality were in no danger. Burning Wheel changed that.

Since the rules are not out to screw you, but to support you (and make you face the consequences of you choices, where bad choices= bad outcomes) failure dosen't become so bad. It actually becomes just a twist in the tail. Particulary with the revised outlook.

Hope it helps.

[donbaloo]

I connected with your post in so many ways man. I've pretty much been the sole GM of our D&D group (regardless of what group it was) since the beginning many years ago. And its been year after year of me creating plot to challenge the players with and interesting stories in which they would participate. Unlike you, I always had to have a lot of stuff written down. If not written down then I had to spend a ton of time thinking of different ways the plot could unfold, within my pretty concrete GM created boundaries of course, and at least sketch that out. This required maps, creature stats, primary plots, secondary plots, etc. etc. And the group always seems to love it. They were satisfied with the bits of illusion that I used to cover up concrete barriers, and being plopped down in my plot to figure it out. But that gets old and contrived for me as a GM. I don't want to have to fudge the thief's open locks role so that he can successfully open the door that I placed in the dungeon (specifically for him to pick of course) so that the party could proceed to the climax that I wanted them in. I've grown tired of this and knew there had to be something more that gaming had to offer. Enter Burning Wheel.

Your point about characters doing versus being interesting was right on. We always want to play interesting characters, we always sit around trying to come up with something that makes this human wizard unique from the twenty other magic-missle slinging, fireball heaving wizards we had played in the past. But that uniqueness never really has a chance to affect the story much. It becomes a quirky backdrop to the role that character is needed to fill. But Burning Wheel has given us a system that makes bringing out the interesting parts of the character important...no, necessary. The characters are still needed to do stuff but now they are their own sources of challenge and plot. In the past we have been using characters to solve pregenerated conflict and unravel plot...now they will be the sources of conflict and the creators of plot! That truly excites me.

I am nervous about trying to run games in this manner too though. You're spot on with having concerns about the long term effects of Burning Wheel turning your head inside out again. This revolution of gaming style that is taking place inside of my head is like a reverse lobotomy. Its tough going from two decades of nothing but D&D to Burning Wheel. Sometimes I feel like I'm an alien here with all my damn questions and that other indie gamers might not understand the gaps I'm trying to bridge. But its fun as all get out and has my gaming spirit rejuvenated (a hundred and thirty some odd posts in a month should be evident of that :shock: ).

Here's to hoping that we can keep our hands out of the plot for long enough to get the player's rolling the dice!

[Fourth Horseman]

I here ya!

I'm a GM of the worst kind, the foulest order. I'm a railroading, plot-packing, "this is my game, you fucks" sonofabitch.

Capra: "Why we fight . . ."

You may have broken Bob, but . . .

[kaomera]

Thanx again for all the support. I actually have a ton of worthwhile questions, too (honest!), but I can't really ask them until I get more info from my players... Which means, of course, that I will be asking them after the character-burning session in which I would have needed the answers...

But I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I've got a pretty good group, and my only real fear is that they'll back me up too much; that they'll see potential conflict coming and move to deflect it for me. I'm not sure I want that ~ in game it means less chance to see what those BITs really mean to the character (& player); out of game I'm at the point where I really want them to smack me upside my head if I'm messing up something rules-wise. This isn't just another "oh, I can run that" game, and I want to get it right the first time. ( :roll: actually, I want to get it perfect :oops: )

[Kaare Berg]

This isn't just another "oh, I can run that" game, and I want to get it right the first time. ( actually, I want to get it perfect )

You can't.

Heck close to two years now and I still mess up. It is art not sience.

Just keep in mind the golden rule that the rules are there to support you and you'll do fine.

And keep asking those questions, we burning wheel elders love nothing more than to wast company time answering them.

K

[Thor Olavsrud]

I've got a pretty good group, and my only real fear is that they'll back me up too much; that they'll see potential conflict coming and move to deflect it for me.

Hey man, what do you mean here exactly? Do you mean they'll try to defelct conflict in game? :?

[MetalBard]

I've seen that happen once or twice in other games where most of the players will want to deflect the conflict. They do this because they want to be more "productive" with the time and advance the plot, kill bigger monsters... that sort of thing.

This is exactly why I got and am excited to try out Burning Wheel; it's all about playing the spur of the moment conflict and the rules support it as the primary plot device. Now take spur of the moment with a grain of salt. It all extends from the character's previously determined BITRs, but it's developed between the players and the GM right there.

I think that introducing the system to people and really relying heavily on the BITRs early on will break a lot of players from the "let's be productive with this session" mindset and create their own productivity... if that even makes sense... well I'm sure all of you will understand the spirit of what I've said.

[kaomera]

You can't.

Heck close to two years now and I still mess up. It is art not sience.

Can't get it right the first time, or can't get it perfect? I can see it either way. I definitely know that I won't get it perfect, hence the smilies... But that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to get it perfect, if I could.

Hey man, what do you mean here exactly? Do you mean they'll try to defelct conflict in game? :?

Yes, as MetalBard pointed out. I am mostly concerned that they won't want to push the envelope on PC / PC conflict. I'm not running Poisonous Ambition, so that's mostly OK. However, I don't want to waste chances to have the PCs interact with one-another in a meaningful way, either...

[luke]

Don't worry so much about PvP stuff to start. Begin with what your group is comfortable with. Expand the depth of the conflicts as needed.

-L