PDA

View Full Version : Player & GM responsibilities & power in BW...


kaomera
07-10-2005, 02:15 PM
Tobias, one of the players in the Burning Seasons PbP I've started running, has brought up an interesting question regarding player power & responsibility. I was mainly planning on “winging it”, especially since BW is one of the few games I've seen to really go out and address this issue. However, I thought it might be nice (especially since there was a question on the subject) to put forward some guidelines; and I figured I'd post them here in order to get some outside input.

This is all somewhat flavored by the fact that I'm running a PbP game; but I don't think it will really be all that different face to face. Note that the below is all post-Burning, and I'm not really diving too far into the mechanics. This is long enough as is...

* The GM sets the stage: He provides a basic description of the setting, provides NPCs for the players to interact with, and sparks that interaction with Bangs! He narrates all of the background details (like weather) that promote the theme.

* The Players build the set: They provide the details (by their characters' actions) of the setting described by the GM. They react to the Bangs! the GM throws out, and make the important choices about how the game will unfold.

* The Players make the important choices about how the game will unfold, and then deal with the consequences of those choices.

* The GM calls for Tests (including extended sequences like DoWs, RnC, or Fight!s) as required by the actions and choices of the Players. The GM says “This is an important point in the story; we need to see how (well) the character responds”.

* The Players create situations where the GM will call for Tests and also call for them themselves. The Players say “I want to see what happens if my character tries this”, rather than “I want my character to do this”.

* The Players provides Task and Intent for Tests. The Players must provide Intents that can move the story forward in the case of both a success or a failure at the Test. The GM must help this process along.

* The GM narrates minor actions; anything that isn't worth a Test.

*The Players narrate their successful Tests. The Players need to keep in mind the fun of the game, the boundaries of their Intents, and the “personal space” of the other Players' characters.

*The Players narrate their characters into the action by Helping. They also surrender (somewhat) their characters' to participating in the narration of the acting character's Player.

*The Players can also narrate their characters out of the present course of action by not Helping. This allows them to take action elsewhere.

*The GM weaves these threads back together; linking BITs and Relationships and other tools keep the story moving for everyone.

*The Players whose characters are not currently active sit back and watch the show.

*The GM narrates Test failures, making sure to keep in mind the fun of the game. The GM should pull apart failed Intents to get at the juicy bits: “Now how do you respond when this happens?”.

*The story moves along, and when it slows down the GM throws in more Bang!s...

Thor Olavsrud
07-10-2005, 05:10 PM
Hey kaomera!

These all look pretty solid. I think you're spot on. Only a few things to add/clarify, since you're giving me the opportunity :twisted::

* The GM sets the stage: He provides a basic description of the setting, provides NPCs for the players to interact with, and sparks that interaction with Bangs! He narrates all of the background details (like weather) that promote the theme.

Spot on. Important to note though that players can take GM's NPC power for themselves through the Circles mechanics. Also, certain Traits can give players some of these powers. For instance, Weather Sense gives a player the power to dictate the weather, although the GM may, if the weather plays an important role in a situation, dictate what the weather is.

* The GM calls for Tests (including extended sequences like DoWs, RnC, or Fight!s) as required by the actions and choices of the Players. The GM says “This is an important point in the story; we need to see how (well) the character responds”.

Absolutely. Although players can also ask for tests, with the GM as arbiter. It is perfectly fine for a player to say, "I think we've got a Duel of Wits."

There's one other instance that I think is important. Burning Wheel has two conflict 'scales.' You can either do the simple versus test/bloody versus test for simple conflicts that you don't want to put a lot of weight on -- "let's just do my Persuasion versus his Will" or "Let's just do my Sword skill versus his Hammer skill." Or you can expand into the full-bore versus mechanics: the Duel of Wits or Fight/RnC.

I think the GM is still the final arbiter of when to use which, but I also think players should have some input. Players should be able to say: "this conflict is really important to me, I think we should do a Duel of Wits." They should also be able to say, "I want to just get through this fight with the guards and get on to the confrontation with Baron Cadiffer! Let's do this as a Bloody Versus Test."

Anyway, good stuff! 8)

kaomera
07-10-2005, 11:59 PM
Hey kaomera!

These all look pretty solid. I think you're spot on. Only a few things to add/clarify, since you're giving me the opportunity :twisted::

Thanx for the input. I find this stuff kind of hard to put into words, and even more so without sounding like a complete doofus. Hats off to Luke and all the rest of you for doing it for us!

Spot on. Important to note though that players can take GM's NPC power for themselves through the Circles mechanics. Also, certain Traits can give players some of these powers. For instance, Weather Sense gives a player the power to dictate the weather, although the GM may, if the weather plays an important role in a situation, dictate what the weather is.

Right. Good to keep those exceptions in mind...

Absolutely. Although players can also ask for tests, with the GM as arbiter. It is perfectly fine for a player to say, "I think we've got a Duel of Wits."

I thought I had already brought up Players calling for Tests and such.

There's one other instance that I think is important. Burning Wheel has two conflict 'scales.' You can either do the simple versus test/bloody versus test for simple conflicts that you don't want to put a lot of weight on -- "let's just do my Persuasion versus his Will" or "Let's just do my Sword skill versus his Hammer skill." Or you can expand into the full-bore versus mechanics: the Duel of Wits or Fight/RnC.

I think the GM is still the final arbiter of when to use which, but I also think players should have some input. Players should be able to say: "this conflict is really important to me, I think we should do a Duel of Wits." They should also be able to say, "I want to just get through this fight with the guards and get on to the confrontation with Baron Cadiffer! Let's do this as a Bloody Versus Test."

Good point.

Anyway, good stuff! 8)

Thanx... (and “whew!”) =]

Tobias
07-12-2005, 01:49 AM
Work's been really busy. I hope to get around to this later today.

Tx for this thread and all the work so far!