BW Combat, Realism, and Player Focus

[Thor Olavsrud]

There've been some threads here and elsewhere lately that talk about BW combat and 'realism' (whatever the hell that means), and it's got me ruminating.

It's funny, the feeling of realism in BW combat? It doesn't come from simulationism (i.e., my character does exactly this and then exactly that!) at all -- even though I suspect that's why many people think the system is 'realistic.' I'll tell you up front that neither Luke, nor any of the other guys that playtested Fight! or contributed to it have ever been in an actual fight with weapons where extreme bodily harm or death was a likely consequence. I'm not talking about sparring and martial arts training here. All we can go on is imagination and research. And while that WAS done, the aim of Fight! is not to be 'realistic' at all.

The reason it works is that it bypasses the concept of "character" entirely and works directly on the player. Every script is a 700-year-old knight saying, "Choose. But choose wisely..." And the effect is that the player's adrenaline starts pumping a little because he knows these choices are going to have serious consequences. And with the ritual of the reveal, the adrenaline starts pumping a little more, as you find out how you chose. And finally, you have that die roll, which culminates the experience.

In other words, Scripting in Fight! (or Range and Cover, or even Duel of Wits) is designed to act on the player, not the character. And that's the reason that it actually affects the player, puts him on the edge of his seat, makes him nervous about the consequences. It's real, actual drama!

This idea, this philosophy, carries over to the rest of Burning Wheel and our idea of what Burning Wheel play should be like. This is why Luke says in the book -- and many of us say here repeatedly -- focus on the player! Focus on the player's motivations, the player's desires, the player's sense of drama and the player's choices. Don't worry about the character, except as a filter through which to focus on the player.

If you, as a GM, focus ruthlessly on presenting players with difficult, thought-provoking choices and let them make them and send the story off in directions based on those choices, your players will spend sessions on the edge of their seats, full of adrenaline, and having a blast. And this will apply not only to their own characters, but to the choices that everyone else at the table is making as well. They will be mesmerized.

[/rant]

Let's talk about the above. What do you think? Agree? Disagree? No flat answers please. Back up your answers with Actual Play if possible, whether positive or negative (it doesn't have to be BW specific). Failing that, explain why you feel the way you feel. Questions or ideas about how to apply this philosophy in play are also welcome, of course.

[Redoid]

Duels of Wits are a way of adjucating social combat that can put off some players. Why? Because it adds mechanics over something that can be "only" roleplayed (this is not a very good wording...). But for others, it will help roleplay, because the guidelines of the tactic games will tell them how to act.

Fight, on the other hand, can't be roleplayed without the help of a game mechanics, and as such, can become boring for the player. Some games will be very fight-light to de-emphasize the importance of combat, others will attempt to add something to include the player in the game. From AD&D and its "ressource management approach" (deplete HP and spells, rest, rinse, repeat) to Exalted (OK, the players are bored to death, let them have bonus dice if they can add a flowery description to this boring event known as fight, plus they have tactical options), combat must have an element to keep the players interested.

Burning Wheel scripted combat tries to keep the players interested by forcing them to make potentially deadly choices several "rounds" in advance, compared to other games. For example, my second favourite RQ have players plot their actions 1 to 3 in advance (typically attack, parry, or attack, attack, or parry, parry with shield) and each player knows what the other will do before deciding. BW gains the upper hand by forcing the player to guess well in advance, and possibly selecting a totally wrong course of actions, forcing him into hesitation to focus on another task.

Though you dislike the "realistic" label, I will point out one area of combat were BW shines, and were it outshines any other combat mechanics I have seen so far: ambushes and unwieldy fight scenes. I have found that characters always know more than they should, being perfectly aware of their surroundings. A lot of games I have seen have an ambush mechanics like a free round of attack, or an initiative bonus, but once it's gone, it's gone. Players start instructing the characters to act as a perfectly organized machine of death, and even civilians will be acted with the efficiency of seasoned marines. In "real life", when there is an ambush, even professionnal soldiers run. regroup, assess the situation, and decide the best course of actions. Those who don't drop to cover when under fire usually end up dead. It's something I haven't seen emulated in other games, and I have been very impressed when my players, understanding they were into an ambush, were really excited to choose between spending actions to Assess for the enemy or simply Avoiding and running... BW combat may not be realistic, but it forces players to make uninformed choices, and they tend to become much more cautious this way.

So the BW combat works because it provides an interesting "tactical game" to keep the players into action, but it also guide the player and make him "roleplay" the character better, as a human being caring for his life and not as a 13th level warrior currently having spent 28% of its fighting power (HP). That's why I made the parallel with DoW in the first paragraph: both mechanics help the player get into his character better.

But as you know, I am guilty of liking character immersion :)

[luke]

But as you know, I am guilty of liking character immersion :)

but the immersion you described above is, for lack of a better term, the right kind.

the kind that involves the players making meaningful decisions regarding the shared imagined space.

-L

[Kaare Berg]

Its worm time. Thor you have really opened a can here. I am having this discussion by mail with one of my regulars and we are up to five A4 pages so far.

Because it adds mechanics over something that can be "only" roleplayed (this is not a very good wording...).

This here is misconception one. In my group we have always thought this. Social skills have never come to their full. Then we have the one player who whenever he opens his (speaking as the character) the rest dive for cover.

Duel of Wits (when it finally worked) finally opens up this part of the game which so far have been ruled by the following premise: The GM likes your argument he is convinced.
This makes a Will 2 fighter like moron as persuasive as a G6 dwarven prince. Where's the "realism" in that?

So back to the Rant of of Thor. BW revised, both in combat and in the DOW forces the player to make descisions about what is thematically interesting for him. It empowers the player. It can only lead to more fun.

Realism in roleplaying games are a ghost from back in the days of Total Immersjonism and more horribly the Suspension of Disbelief. Where the player was to forget the fact he was a player that played a character in a game.
This led to us geekoid complaining about the HP system of DnD because it messed with the two points above and we subsequently searched for something else. I lost faith and stoped playing for a while.
Then came The Riddle of Steel and it eventually led me to the Burning Wheel. But it wasn't combat, although thats what opened the door. It was the focus it let me set on the players that had me for the long run. TROS had its Spiritual Attributes, and Burning Wheel had its BITS.

I will be the first to admit this wasn't an overnight change, my actual play posts should testify to that. But as my Forgite-understanding grew, so did thankfully BW Revised. Actually, if I may dare say with similar speed.

And here is where I so agree with Thor. BWR is about empowering the players to tell high drama stories, and with lots of excitement for the player.
That me and Luke argue about holy cows like player Protagonism, well thats to be expected.

So to answer the final Thorite question, how to apply this to actual play:
As a the GM we need to dare let go. Our job is no longer to hold the reins, but to stay on top of the bucking bronco that the is the Players grabbing the juicy bits we throw to the ground in front of them.. Like Ron Edwards said. Take that control and fuck it in the ear.

Or more simply put: Player Motivation + Thematic Conflict = A Good Story. Where Player Motivation is dictated by their expressed whishes (BITS) and Thematic Conflict is what challenges these whishes. A good Story has no set outcome, but grows organically from the sparks of the two others meeting and is pr. definition FUN.

Got to de-rant a bit.

Later

[yeloson]

Hi,

The feeling of "realism" in combat comes from 3 things:

1) You can get hurt. And stay hurt.

Most rpgs you can take hits upon hits, and it can be healed in a magic pass of a wand, or spending a few points. When you play BW, you can get really messed up, for months at a time. It makes you really think if you want to get into a fight or not.

2) Chaos

Scripting may not completely "realistic" but it certainly creates a realistic sense of chaos of a fight. People bumrush each other and run into the guy's knife, and they both go toppling into the street to get hit by a car... There is no clean initiative, everything happens at once and its messy and ugly.

3) Strategic options

There's always more than one way to win. Most rpgs boil their strategies down to fight or run, and not much else. Here you definitely have to take into account your weapon, your foe's weapon, and what sort of strengths and weaknesses each of you possess. This isn't much different than boxers...

Chris