Campaign & character advancement

[Burnt]

How does one limit character advancement to keep challenges exciting w/o always escalating the number or power of the adversary? I find that to be a rather simplistic approach to deal with character advancement. Do the fight & duel of wit mechanics in BW give even lesser opponents a chance? I must admit, I tire very quickly at the thought of character parties constantly charging into situations because they have no fear of losing. Where's the challenge in that? I want my players to feel that in all situations there is at least a chance of failure. I want them to get a feel for measuring opponents and situations without always feeling like direct conflict is the way to go. Any ideas?

[Mickeroo]

Even a weak opponent can deliver a b6 wound, which hurts. There are a few things you can try though.

1) Make challenges deceptively easy. A single bandit is not problem, until he calls on his friends watching from the shadows. A weak looking man may not be trouble, unless he knows a few sorcerous spells.

2) Make time an issue. It may be easy to dispose of a few bad guys, but can the heroes do it quick enough to catch the runaway carriage with the queen aboard?

[luke]

Creating viable challenges is a skill in any game. Burning Wheel is no exception. Given the choice and consequences nature of the conflict system, you'll find that even "lesser beings" will be able to put a dent in your characters.

However, you'll also find that a well organized group of players is a tough nut to crack. The single Mr Big Bad Villain Guy is going to get punked by the knight-sorcerer-archer-and everybody else combination. He needs a retinue, too. He needs viable countermeasures and he needs to fight smart -- whether physically or socially. Isolating characters is good tactics, but it also can create problematic play at the table. Ambushes are FUN. Social ambushes? Even better.

"Oh look, the that's the Baron's entourage crashing through the crowd toward you. Everyone make Steel tests. If you hesitate, you're out of the initial exchange for the Duel of Wits he's about to engage you in. He's going to show the townsfolk what cowardly traitors you are!"



Practial advice: Start off matching your players, character for character, lifepath for lifepath (not mirror images, but just similar numbers). A one-on-one in BW is hard enough. 5 one-on-ones happening at the same time is beautiful fucking chaos.

Then you can tweak this to taste. You can add LPs to your fellahs and reduce their numbers, you can reduce LPs and increase their numbers. This will still create conflicts that the players have a 50/50 chance of winning! Which is not good odds.

Once you get a feel for that stuff, then you can start adding monsters and weirdness or using your goblins and street urchins to create trouble for the characters without having it be a life and death situation. As Mike said, a single wound can be problematic. And a single lost Duel of Wits can kick the whole game in another direction.

-L

[tauman]

One of the things I've always hated in so many campaigns of other games I've played (I've been guilty of this, too) is the lack of consequences for characters killing NPCs. Nearly everyone has friends and/or family who will want to know what happened and who did it. A mob of angry villagers will be a threat to any party--even pruning bills and clubs are dangerous. And if they killed someone important enough that the lord of the land gets involved...

Even more interesting is Luke's suggestion of the Duel of Wits. Or how about the politically powerful enemy (a-la Cardinal Richelieu of the Three Musketeers). The party has almost no possibility of even getting into a situation where they could kill him (kill a Cardinal :shock: definitely a good way to end a character's career). Instead, everything will involve foiling his plans, defeating his minions, and coming out the better (or at least surviving without making a horrible faux pas) social interaction with him and other (unknowing) powerful personae...

tauman

[Kaare Berg]

How does one limit character advancement to keep challenges exciting w/o always escalating the number or power of the adversary?

Now why on Earth would you do this?


Where's the challenge in that? I want my players to feel that in all situations there is at least a chance of failure. I want them to get a feel for measuring opponents and situations without always feeling like direct conflict is the way to go. Any ideas?

You are thinking about this all wrong. If I read you right you are looking for a way to "scare" the players from going for direct conflict without creating über monsters that can't be defeated by normal means. (Which is D20 thinking. IMO)

Tauman mentions the most powerful tool in any GM's toolbox: Consequence. Consequence means that if they do A, then B is sure to happen. The most normal consequence in BW is: you enter combat, you you get hurt. But if you look outside the box there are other consequences. Like: You enter combat, You become a wanted criminal. Meaning you have to buy everything at the black market (shoddy goods double price), never enter a town at day and when you are in town you have to skulk about at night, no one wants to talk to you, and even when you kill that old horrible dragon its still not good enough because everyone knows you did it for the treasure and the King wil hang rather than reward you. And so on.

Pluss . . .

You already have the players BITS as a statement of interest. Now if Direct Conflict will have Consequences preying on the characters BITS then suddenly you have stories with WOW potential. Where the way the players choose to enter conflict says tons about their characters.

The trick is to state the consequences in advance.

Player: Damn that Cardinal, I'll confront him at the ball and embarass him infront of his peers.

Gm: Its a Duel of Wits here, but you are merely a bondsman. If you speak out against the Cardinal the court will see you as a crass upstart. You'll be speaking out of place and they remember such things. It will make life difficult down the line.

Player: Wait. There has to be some other way to get at the son of a bitch. Hmmm.

result: Player challenged.

Hope I didn't preach too much.

- K

[Burnt]

Characters always progress upwards in skill and ability the more they adventure. I don't have a problem with that.

What I'm concerned with is challenging them w/o always having to raise the stakes. Different challenges can work but I don't want to do that at the expense of the character concept. If a scenario is too simple they're bored but if things just keep getting harder the players get a sense of futility.

At the beginning of the campaign should the players and GM agree on a ceiling for advancement and/or character retirement or should I let the players decide themselves to retire a character when there is nothing left to push them? Maybe a semi-retirement where the character(s) can be called back with a new group in times of great need?

What do you think? :?:

[stormsweeper]

What do your players think? We're just peopel on the internet, they're the oens you have to deal with. :P

If your characters are ascending to be the best in the world, they should have other problems and/or they may choose a new path in life. What did Inigo do after defeating Rugen?

[Burnt]

The answer to your last question depends on whether your referring to the book or movie. In the movie he becomes the new Dread Pirate Roberts. In the book (w/o alternate ending) his belly wound ends up reopening as they gallop away. :lol:

I see your point though. As one character completed his goals and retired (happily ever after), another character went on to other things. Basically, let the players decide when the character hangs it up. After such game altering decisions maybe take a break to decide where the players go from there. It allows for infusion of new characters and a different direction of the game. Also, some additional drama could be created if one of the older character's tries to draw the character out of retirement in times of need.

Thanks! :D