'nother newbie, more questions

[4saken]

greetings, all, and well met.

i just got a hold of this game at dragonon '03 and i'm anxious to play. however i am a game designer myself, of sorts, and i have a few reservations about some things and some GM questions. i'll reserve the rule questions/ideas for another post (or add-on to previous ones) but i'll ask the play question(s) here.

i am not used to a scripted game. i had toyed with the idea before myself and i think it has advantages and disadvantages. for now, the disadvantages are weighing on me. mostly it is because i have few players (currently only one). this means that i often have to play NPC's. while i am fine with this generally the BW game mechanic adds a new problem: scripting.

1) how i do deal with scripting for NPC's? i can't rightly make the scripts for the NPC charcters *and* the bad guys, and i don't have a spare player to handle such things (which seems the best way to handle it). so how do i handle scripts for opposed characters? ideas?

2) i am used to a more free-flowing game style. when should i switch to scripting? for intance, if someone is moving through a dungeon and goes to turn a corner that i know has a baddie around it, at what point does the player start scripting? should i have him script for stuff, such as opeing doors, that end up having no danger, just to keep him "on his toes" for those times when there *is* a baddie there?

::sigh:: wish i had gotten in on the game at the con. i found it as it was ending....

- 4

[ronnieB]

well met, saken
i didn't understand what your first problum is- is it the sheer load of writing multiple scripts or is it the difficulty of choosing which character will the "bad guy" attack?

eager to help (in my limited way).

[4saken]

> i didn't understand what your first problum is- is it the sheer load of writing multiple scripts or is it the difficulty of choosing which character will the "bad guy" attack?

the problem is that opposing scripts need to be done by opposing players. much like a roll of the dice, scripting a tactical decision is a random factor of sorts. if you know the other script you can short-circuit it. take for instance if you *know* the foe is scripting a defensive maneuver rather than striking you can use that time to disengage without risk.

since i currently have one player playing one character and there are, say, three characters in the party, that means i play two of them as NPCs. as a GM i will know what the NPCs want and i know what the bad guys want. normally (in other rpgs) that's not a big problem. but if i script out the bad guys actions how can i script out the NPCs actions and still be fair about it? it would be like knowing the results of a to-hit roll beforehand and adjusting your actions to suit.

i suppose the "easy" way out is for the player to script out everything for all the people on his "side", but i think this is quite a task to ask of someone new to a game they have never played before.

see what i'm saying?

- 4

[Drozdal]

hey 4saken

for your scripting multiple characters with npc question - hmm i think that we have never encoutered this situation in our games - gee - hmm i thibnk that the best way is to skip scripting those characters who aren't runned by or against players and just assume what they would do in this situation (i'm talking bout NPC's nor villians - who should be scripted, but you probably create them so you shouldn't have difficulity in scriping their actions) - but this gives another what if? questions - what if player will want to interfere with non scripted npc actions - damn it's a tough one - i will think bout it more at home - and wait til Abzo gets back on monday - he probably has this one figured out.

as for when should i start sctipting questions - it's all up to you - some encounters do not have to be scripted, just do your usual what do you do next? routine :P , when it also is up to you - you have to assume current situation in wchich player's are in - are enemies close enough, and stuff like that, and do not script door opening actions :P, unless you've already started scripted encounter - but who would like to open doors when there are people dyung around? :P

That's all for now

more tommorow

Drozdal

[luke]

Hi 4saken,

So you want to play a little one-on-one BW action? No problem. Multiple NPCs on both sides of the screen? No problem.

The first question is about the game you are running: Who's the "star"? Is the PC just one of a group, or is he the leader? What happens if he should die or be knocked unconscious? Do the "NPCs" carry on? Or do they turn back?

If the game is all about the PC, then the NPCs actions aren't terribly important. This is the case for any game. Who wants to see the GM shadowboxing with himself when the only thing that matters is the PC's success?

In this case, we'll call it the "spotlight," let the PC and an NPC of your choosing script out their contest. Describe the ferocious combat between the rest of the characters, but let the PCs success dictate overall success.

If you need something a tiny bit more crunchy, script for the main PC and NPC, and use the Helping Out rules for the mass of other NPCs behind the screen. Have each side make a test of their "combat skill" with appropriate helping dice. Test for each exchange of combat. Describe the results: "your men are pushed back, you think one is wounded" but don't go into full detail until the PC himself takes the time to look. This allows for him/her to intervene at dramatic moments.

Lastly, you could use the full on simplified melee mechanics for the NPCs while the PC and the main NPC script away. http://www.burningwheel.org/pdf/gangwar_mook_mech.pdf
These rules just expand on the helping rules in BW and provide a wounding mechanic for skirmish level fights.

Alternately, you could play your game where there is no spotlight. I love this method. Basically, the player jumps into any character he feels appropriate for the moment and goes from there. In a fight, he controls everything on his side of the screen, the GM controls everything on his own side. This makes for some very gritty full-blown contests between personalties in-game and out of game.

And to paraphrase Musashi, "If you can script one man, you can script two; if you can script two men, you can script ten." It's really not hard once you get the hang of it. To keep things straight in early combats, until you get a feel for the system, you might use minis or tokens on a map to gauge distances and what not.

I hope that helps, but this is really a question about what kind of a game do you want to play. All of the above options are doable and quite fun.
Enjoy!
-abzu

[eruditus]

In my short time doing this I have found prescripting baddies is helpful. First-off, the PCs very rarely see my scripts. I run a very GM-centric game. So I run my own scripts very loose. If its an important battle against the big baddie then I might put a bit more meat into the combat, otherwise I script a set of "what if" scropts and go from there. Thus thugs generally act a certain way, trolls another.

I have recently been looking into using the wheel for a gritty version of an old traditional dungeon delve. I could be wrong but in this sort of setting I suspect it to be a very short game :)

"You turn the corner and take a crossbow to the chest."

[luke]

2) i am used to a more free-flowing game style. when should i switch to scripting? for intance, if someone is moving through a dungeon and goes to turn a corner that i know has a baddie around it, at what point does the player start scripting? should i have him script for stuff, such as opeing doors, that end up having no danger, just to keep him "on his toes" for those times when there *is* a baddie there?

No! Scripting is only undertaken when two opponents lock eyes and engage. For dungeon crawling, you should be testing Perception/Observation and Stealthy a lot. If there is a creature waiting with a readied strike, have the PC roll Perception to spot. If they fail, then they get clobbered and THEN scripting begins.

If you like to run gritty games like I do, you'll get your player(s) to describe how and why they are doing what they are doing. Where's the torch? Which side do you open the door on? Where's your shield? Do you sheath your sword to do that? I like that level of detail, and it tends t make players tense because they are worried about why i'm asking all those questions.

In order to cut down on rolling, use the Let it Stand rules. Have the PCs roll Perception ONCE for the "encounter". So if they roll 2 success, they can spot creatures who got 1 success on their Stealthy or Incon rolls. Or traps that are Ob 1 or 2 to spot. That way you don't have to have them roll everytime something is about to happen and say, "You don't notice anything!"

-abzu

[4saken]

> Lastly, you could use the full on simplified melee mechanics for the NPCs while the PC and the main NPC script away. http://www.burningwheel.org/pdf/gangwar_mook_mech.pdf
These rules just expand on the helping rules in BW and provide a wounding mechanic for skirmish level fights.

that's alot to look at but i see you have it pretty worked out. i'll have to look it over, it might do the trick. the idea of "jumping into character" someone said (sorry, can't scroll back from here) sounds neat, too, but i'm not too fond of more than one person running a character (in this case, me or the player). however i think the concept deserves a better look and i don't recall having it been brought up in other games.

my current campaign is 3rd Ed D&D (for now), involving what is now a 4 character group with my player playing 2 of the characters and i the other 2 (which are at the same level of detail as he is). i've had more players before and the characters themselves have came and gone (read as: died!) but now this group of four has done so much i hate to lose them over the fact of having just one player. hell, it's even enough motovation for me to keep running 3rd Ed! heh.

but as time progresses we become more weary of a system that encourages things contrary to reality (e.g. selecting skills when you level up at max rank that you never once used or learned in play, etc) and as the power of the characters increases so does their boredom and the suspension of disbeleif at finding powerful enough adversaries for them to fight (since, in D&D, what else is there to do, really?)

i'm currently letting my player "get it out of his system" so eventually he'll be up for something a little more mature and less acquisition motivated as the D&D concept that has been copied to death in game after game. i also have a preference myself for more "grittier" games and BW looks like it provides. my player is actually pretty gung-ho to start once he played around with making a character in the Char Burner. it's a far cry from "some guy you met in a tavern"! the lifepaths of the characters speak volumes and add a sense of depth and mood *rarely* acheived in most rpgs (not to mention *books*).

there's a far cry, when facing a orc or other horrible baddie for the first time, between, "well, what the hell, i can always roll up another character" and "i've spent four years of hell tortured as a prisoner of war and by my own will escaped. i'm not about to be killed by the likes of YOU!"

heh.

burn on baby.

- 4

[luke]

rock and roll.

wow. you just made me smile. big.

Just tonight we came upon this problem in our own game. Too many characters, not enough players. We actually had a good-sized group, 4 players plus me, but there were so many cool characters that 3 players wanted to play more than one. One player took on three characters!

And one player said he liked very much playing more than one character, because it allowed him to stay active in the game in scenarios where his "main" character wouldn't apply--he was playing a gyspy and an archer. The gypsy is a fantastic social and herbalist, but not too keen on combat. The archer is an aspiring ladies' man, but really a terrible social, yet he's fine in a dust up. Both characters have two very distinct personalities and it was blast to watch him jump back and forth.

The other player took on the role of two young squires and a shaman. He focussed on the shaman (by far the more interesting character), but had the squires performing their duties and ready for combat!

As the GM, i'd occasionally nudge a pc that wasn't being played at the time (like having the squires take care of harness and arms), but I was playing a former bandit leader and his cohort of 6 excorcheurs, plus a full knight (and best friend of one of the main pcs).

With just a few players, we had quite a lively group and an incredibly formidable force of men! (3 knights in the group, plus all the men-at-arms, squires and gyspies!) I personally like this style of play and find, though it takes some getting used to, allows for a very rich game indeed.

-abzu

[eruditus]

I am very fond of Troupe tsyle play, just not all at once (although I realize sometimes it becomes a necessity).

My Illusion of Peace campaign (which I can finally update) is one such that the PCs hopefully gather contacts and followers and they play their followers doing the more physically oriented stuff in hopes to save them time to persue other goals.