From D&D to BW : Hazards and perils

[Marune]

In D&D, there is several mechanics to represent the different dangers that can face a party of adventurers..

Traps, natural hazards (forest fire, cold, heat, moving sands, etc.), disease and even swarm of insects are an important part of the game.

However those kinds of perils don't make interesting BIT conflicts, meaning that they should be only narrated for color purpose I suppose?

I don't know exactly why, but I always liked the "man against nature theme". An expedition to the highest mountain, a long road trip trough many countries to reach that famous city or a perilous trek trough the dark tunnels of the "Underdark" always sounded interesting to my hears (that is certainly a LotR pastiche).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't sea how to make those thing works with BW, I don't say it works like I would like it in D&D either, but at least there is that boring task resolution. (Try to figure how many climb check are required to climb a high mountain!?!)

[TimP]

The key to making those conflicts interesting is to set stakes, Marune. Figure out what's at risk and what's to be gained first.

Imagine your JRR "Burninator" Tolkien leading a group through your great new campaign world: Middle Earth.. The Council of Elrond is over (With a great Duel of Wits) and now the part has got to get through the Misty Mountains.

GM: "Ok, you guys have got to pass through the Misty Mountains. They're steep, icy, and treacherous, and you'll be opposed by the sorcery of Saruman. Let's set the stakes"

PLayers: "Oh, alright. If we succeed we make it through the mountains without being hurt or losing any of our resources"

GM: "Ok, but if you fail, Saruman's going to attack you with his magic. There'll be storms, falling rocks, lightning. It won't be pretty and you'll have to turn back and find another route. Like the Mines of Moria"

Players: "Oooooh that sounds cool"

Then you'd use linked tests to handle it mechanically. Somebody needs to succeed at forest-wise, mountain-wise, speed tests, sorcery tests, or whatever.

That's how I'd handle an overland journey, anyway. Of course, you shouldn't even mess with it if no one thinks it's interesting.

Tim

[zabieru]

They CAN make interesting BIT conflicts, though. Gandalf has "I will lead the Fellowship to Mordor" followed after the fall of Gandalf by Aragorn's "I must lead the Fellowship to safety now that Gandalf is gone" and then after Lothlorien "Gondor will be the best base to launch an expedition into Mordor" and then Frodo's "I must take the Ring to Mount Doom, though I do not know the way" and Sam's "Master Frodo must not be alone and helpless. I will follow him." Sam also has the instinct "never leave home without rope," I'd imagine (he changed it from something about potatoes after he forgot his rope when leaving the Shire). Aragorn certainly has traits that support this kind of play (at the very least, "Strider," changed after the post-Rohan trait vote to "Wingfoot.")

I think a lot of people are burnt out on all of the impedimentia, so they set the stakes as the end result and do this stuff as color, because they've fought a thousand orcs and a hundred skeletons just to get to the necromancer and his elite guard, so this time they don't want to do that grind. But if your players buy into your man-against-nature story, that sounds like a lot of fun.

Tim is right on about how to handle the conflict, so once you've set up the BITs with players who care, just follow his advice.

[Marune]

Yeah, in fact I had already understood that conflicts about BITs can be created about LotR kind of journey, but that wasn't really the point I wished to talk about. (sorry!)

If we suppose that magical/mechanical traps are part of the setting, what would be their purpose in a BW game ?

In D&D, the goal of those is to reduce the characters ressources before the big final fight.

So, let's say "the party" wants to enter the Wizard tower (to confront him for his horrible crimes) that is protected by many of them. (Alarm ringing if room entered, magical burst if door is opened without a password, pit-trap in a corridor, etc.)

The answer would be a serie of linked-test with these results :
full of sucess : the party surprise the wizard in his chamber and were not affected by traps effect
sucess = ob : the party gets to the chamber, but the wizard knows it OR some bad effects are done to the party
failed by a few : the party gets to the chamber with bad effects AND the wizard knows it.
failed completly : the party fled the tower after some traps seriously affected them ?

The Intent here was to reach the wizard, but is that really a good conflict ? (The real conflict is to confront him not to reach him no?)

[TimP]

Hey Marune,

Well, it's all about the scale of the stakes you're setting. There's no rule that you have to go for the big stuff: you can break it down to whatever level your group finds to be fun.

You could set up a number of conflicts leading up to the 'important' conflict with the wizard.

Have one scene being gaining entry through the gatehouse, stakes could be something like if you succeed you surprise a small number of guards, and the players wipe the floor with them, because they're hesitating. If they fail, maybe they have to find an alternate route, or maybe someone wants to bring in a complication: we make it to the gatehouse, but now the alarms raised and we're fighting a full squad of orcs with a troll...

Repeat that formula with whatever you guys are interested in. Magical traps, giant snake guardians, the sorcerer's medusa lover, or whatever.

The basic point is, if you find that sort of stuff fun (I do!), then why not retain it in your games?

I'd leave out the paragraph after paragraph about 10' corridors and 30' diameter rooms centered on the passage you just left, though :-)

Tim

[Iskander]

Hey, Marune,

I think you've answered your own question: it can be part of testing whether the party catches the wizard with his pants down, or the party is hurt and in disarray when a fully buffed sorceror with a handful of minions come to put the hurt on them.

In brute mechanical terms, you can use a trap system in the same way as in D&D: the party has some of its (physical / mental / artha) resources used up, and probably gains a test or two (XP - the other component of d20 traps).

Here, it's a viable approach, provided the players are on board with the difficulty of assaulting the wizard in his tower. So long as you're not refusing, for example, to let them roll up a circles test to find the whore the wizard visits on the sly, and kill him in her arms, and you are letting them choose to take the disarm-the-traps-and-make-a-full-frontal-assault route.

Make sense?

[Marune]

The basic point is, if you find that sort of stuff fun (I do!), then why not retain it in your games?
Tim

Well, the problem I have with that sort of thing in D&D is that disabling one magical trap can be fun, but 10 of them is generaly not. Same for guards, the first guards room maybe interesting, but not the 5th one.

In D&D the problem is that, if the versimilitude requires 5 guard rooms and 15 traps to pass to get to the wizard, well, they must be all "challenged" with the full mechanical details. (Some may argue the opposite, but by rules as written it should be done that way).

At first I tought that Intent (vs Task) resolution was to resolve this, but at the same time, I read somewhere that conflicts exist only where BIT are related. So I'm a bit confused...

[zabieru]

Maybe better to say that BITs are the best guides to conflict. If your players seem to care, then it's a conflict. BITs are a way of saying strongly that you care, but there are others.

And yeah, use LIR. If they want to sneak past the guards, let them roll once, or one set of linked tests. Same with the traps.

Though remember that Fight! does not privilege players over NPCs as heavily as D&D combat does, so if they expect to fight past a lot of guards, that needs to be taken into account.

[TimP]

This stuff IS confusing, but I don't think Beliefs are quite as limiting as you're taking them to be.

For one thing you can be pretty granular in addressing a Belief. My group doesn't go around flying from one penultimate expression of the conflict inherit in a Belief to the next. We like things a bit more granular.

We usually structure our characters so that the BITRs are ALL inter-related and playing off of each other so that there are lots of interesting LITTLE conflicts (and Conflicts) that tie into the over-arching theme of the campaign.

To continue the example, your characters could all start out with variations on "The Sorcerer is a scourge upon my land, and I will defeat him or die trying". That's sort of a proto Belief. It could go through many iterations, and be constantly refined through play. If you get to the point that someone has the Belief "I will scale the sorcerer's tower and fling his bloody head to the ground to avenge the death of my brother", then the traps and guards and whatever: they're all addressing that Belief. Am I making sense?

I don't know if that's the official way to play, or not, but it works and seems to be in line with what you're looking for.

edit: stay focused on the BITRs, though. You don't want to go through a bunch of roleplaying of lackeys bearing messages from the important people, meeting with shopkeepers and stuff like that. Trust me, those sorts of things are going to seem PALE in comparison to scenes that are directly addressing the things the players have shown you they're interested in through their BITRs (and skills and stats, for that matter).


Tim

[Marune]

Maybe better to say that BITs are the best guides to conflict. If your players seem to care, then it's a conflict. BITs are a way of saying strongly that you care, but there are others.

Last reply for tonight :wink:

The problem here in fact is that often the players are not interested to details the way they reach the Wizard, because all they want is to confront him. In my DM eyes, I see that as a way to make me under-estimate the difficulty associated to reaching him and I have the instinct to reply with more difficulties :evil:

In truth, they really don't care, as long as they can reach him with no "side effects". When these last one are suggested (alarm, disabling traps) they resign to play them in full details, thinking that they will succeed to avoid any bad effects.

However, I'm sure they wouldn't accept this "deal" : let's skip those details that don't interest you, but I as DM choose the situation of your characters at the Wizard's opened door.

[Bastoche]

I think the whole "tower" (or maze) should be broken down into key points. Like a mathematical demonstration, the algebra itself is quite boring. However, the substitution here and induction there are the key points.

So let's stick to the tower example:

The door certainly is a key point. Then the Golem guardian certainly is another. And breaking into his lab certainly is another. On top of that, doing all that unoticed is an underlying key point.

If there's some Instincts or traits related to the key point ("Always look for traps") and such example, going into details is relevant. But if the only "point" to the chase is the wizard himself, this look like a linked test to me.

But in the end it only matter on what the gaming group agreed beforehand. If they want dungeon crawl, then dungeon crawl it is. If they don't want to screw around with mazes, let it ride ;)

[Marune]

Thanks for all your inputs.

Another hazard example : In a typical D&D game, the characters enter a infested dungeon, after some time inside, DM says : everyone rolls a "Fort test against obstace X". (Those who fail are infected by a disease that will come in effect some hours/days later).

It seems to me that the same situation would feel strange in the conflict-based mindset of BW, no ?

[zabieru]

No, no, that's great. At least, it's a great beginning.

What do you do when you're sick? You go to a doctor, or you do something to get healthy. But it's not that easy here, is it? No, because you set up a conflict beforehand to hinge on this.

Whereas in D&D, this would have been an inconvenience or a depletion of resources, here I would use it to sow the seeds of a future conflict. If a PC has a belief about toughness, work it. If a PC has a relationship with a doctor, work it. You see how this goes, right?

Of course, to make this really pop, you want to force them to a choice. You want the doctor telling them it's fetid down there and if they go down, he'll have nothing to do with them. You want to tell them "Oh, yeah, it's pretty filthy in here, but you're tough enough to deal with it, right?" You want them to have to make a decision, then deal with the consequences.

[TimP]

You'd absolutely want to set some sort of stakes in this situation, and MAKE a conflict out of the chance of getting a disease. If I were playing in this game and you just sprung "Roll Forte or you're going to get sick" on me totally out of the blue, I'd be fairly pissed.

A good general guideline to follow is this: If you and the players can't think of an interesting conflict in a situation, throw it out. Skip it.

Tim

[Marune]

You'd absolutely want to set some sort of stakes in this situation, and MAKE a conflict out of the chance of getting a disease. If I were playing in this game and you just sprung "Roll Forte or you're going to get sick" on me totally out of the blue, I'd be fairly pissed.


I don't say it's something I like to do, but it's a fairly common thing in D&D adventures.

When you say out of the blue, you mean that the GM didn't say that the place look/smell bad (or something like it) ?



A good general guideline to follow is this: If you and the players can't think of an interesting conflict in a situation, throw it out. Skip it.


But can't the conflict comes after, like finding the healer ? Maybe in this case, no test should be made and just say they all got sick (except maybe if someone has a trait or a really high Fort ?)

[TimP]

I don't say it's something I like to do, but it's a fairly common thing in D&D adventures.

When you say out of the blue, you mean that the GM didn't say that the place look/smell bad (or something like it) ?

That's not a bad technique, but I'd prefer not to guess. I'd rather see a situation with stated Stakes, like this "Ok, you've descended into the bowels of the sunken temple. The entrance to the tomb of Alibaskabarifus, the ancient king of New Humidorea lies just across a fetid pool overgrown with algea and filled with the remains of swamp creatures that have fallen into it from the sinkhole above and drowned. If you come into contact with the pool you're going to have to make a Forte roll to resist the wasting disease that it contains, so this will be the stakes: However you choose to try and cross the pool, if you fail you have to roll vs. the disease. If you succeed you make it to the doorway unharmed."

Obviously this is working on a very micro task resolution level, but the whole point is (for me) to give the player a choice. Let him or her know what's up!



But can't the conflict comes after, like finding the healer ? Maybe in this case, no test should be made and just say they all got sick (except maybe if someone has a trait or a really high Fort ?)

Really this all comes down to the sort of social contract you have in your group. If that's the way your group wants to play, then go for it!

Just to relate my personal views on this sort of situation: taking away my choices as a player would make me not want to play in the game. Blindsiding me with some GM fiat event would definitely be a Bad Thing, in my book. Present me with a set of tough interesting choices and I'll send my guy through the fetid pool with glee. ;-) Even better, let me have some input into the stakes, I'll likely be MORE willing than the GM to put my guy in a tough situation.

Tim

[TimP]

By the way, we're still talking about playing Burning Wheel in a traditional D&D like way, right? That's the presumption I'm making with my answers.

If we're talking about playing BW as BW, then just listen to what Zabieru says ;-)

[Marune]

By the way, we're still talking about playing Burning Wheel in a traditional D&D like way, right? That's the presumption I'm making with my answers.

If we're talking about playing BW as BW, then just listen to what Zabieru says ;-)

Hmm, I would say no, what's the big difference in what you are saying and Zabieru ?

[TimP]

The difference is the scale of the Stakes, I think. The advice I'm giving is basically centered on task resolution, while Zabieru is focusing on conflict resolution (which is where BW REALLY excels, IMO).

Tim

[Marune]

The difference is the scale of the Stakes, I think. The advice I'm giving is basically centered on task resolution, while Zabieru is focusing on conflict resolution (which is where BW REALLY excels, IMO).

Tim

Hmm that's exactly what bugs me..

All over the place, I read : only test for conflicts, not for tasks. So, my first idea was : there should not be a Fort test to swim trough the infected pool and if the character doesn't have a BIT related to it, he's infected. The conflict may occur later, when they're looking for a cure. (Maybe there isn't even a conflict there, depending on the situation)

But, you answered that it would be very bad to infect them without a choice. (of course, there was a choice made to get into that dungeon first).

My goal here is to understand the BW way, not to replace d20 by d6.

[TimP]

Hmm that's exactly what bugs me..

All over the place, I read : only test for conflicts, not for tasks. So, my first idea was : there should not be a Fort test to swim trough the infected pool and if the character doesn't have a BIT related to it, he's infected. The conflict may occur later, when they're looking for a cure. (Maybe there isn't even a conflict there, depending on the situation)

But, you answered that it would be very bad to infect them without a choice. (of course, there was a choice made to get into that dungeon first).

My goal here is to understand the BW way, not to replace d20 by d6.

Alright then. The BW way, as I understand it, is to take the things that are on your players' character sheets...the Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, Relationships, Circles, Resources, Stats, and Skills and push and prod at them. Use all of that stuff as a road map to create an entertaining game. Every moment of the game should be spent challenging BITRs. I think that's the essence of BW.

I was going to link to a pretty detailed series of actual play posts from the campaign that my group just finished up, but it looks like the local RPG club's website is down for the moment. I think those posts would show you how WE play BW, and I think we're finally doing it 'right'. We had a HELL of a lot of fun, anyway. I'll come back and edit in the links when the site comes back up...

Tim

[luke]

Marune,

You're almost there. What turns it from conflict to task is the reason behind the test and what is at stake for this test. Why is the character swimming through the infected bile? What's on the other side? What are the consequences of failing the test? And does he have a choice -- he can swim through the trough or he can go another route.

If the target of one the character's Beliefs is on the other side, and you set the obstacle of the test and clearly delineate the consequences of failure (and the benefits of success) AND give the player a choice, then your players will swim through flaming shit because it will get them what they want!

It's late,
-Luke

[Marune]

And does he have a choice -- he can swim through the trough or he can go another route.


I just realized that the case where I'm really bugged is when the character doesn't have the choice, they must do some task. (They previously had the choice of doing it or not)

Simple example : A character got many choices to proof himself, he chose one of them (according to his BIT) : pass a night in some dirty sewers. Once in the sewers, he doesn't have many choices, but if he does it, he'll probably get a disease.

In D&D, that's a simple task, you pass the night in the sewer, ok, make a Fort save.

You understand my problem now ?

[luke]

Nope, you're still a step ahead of yourself. Why is there no choice? Why did the player choose to do this to his character? Is this the result of a failed test? Then what was the choice surrounding that test?

There's no rules for disease, illness, cold, fire, or stuff like that in BW. Why? Because they can be handled with a simple test against an obstacle. They are color surrounding other conflicts.

When we played tonight we were dying to make Rigging and Navigation tests. Why were we so enthusiastic make such mundane rolls? Because in the situation that we had built up around our characters, pass or fail those tests were important.

-L

[TimP]

There is no sewer, except as it might relate to a character's Beliefs. It has no objective importance. A sewer is not a conflict, in and of itself. It would never come up (except as color) unless you and the players wanted to make it part of a larger conflict.

You might have a character with a Belief like "I must infiltrate the Black Hand Thieves Guildhouse to recover the Orb of Whatzit". Maybe the character has the skill Sewer-wise, for some reason. Doing your prep for Friday's session, you look at that character's sheet, connect the dots, a lightbulb goes off, and you think to yourself "Ah ha! The secret entrance to the guildhouse is through the sewers!"

Perfect. That Friday you're at the table with Bob, the guy whose playing our hero who wants to recover the Orb. He's just succeeded at a Street-wise skill check to find out a secret entrance to the guildhouse (probably risking the chance of having the guild find out about his queries if he fails). You spring it on him "Yes, the secret entrance is through the stinking fetid ancient sewers underneath the streets. Fazhd the Beggar just told you how to get there. If you choose to take this route you're going to be subjected to a nasty disease, unless you make your Sewer-wise against Ob4 to avoid the really nasty stuff. You'll get the Orb, though. Are you willing to take that risk, Bob? Are you?"

I can think of about a hundred more interesting ways to handle breaking into a Thieves Guild, but maybe this little example helps clear up the thought process in setting up conflicts? You're basically testing the player to see if he's willing to risk his character to fulfill the Belief that's on his sheet. How far will he go to get what he wants?

Tim

[Marune]

Nope, you're still a step ahead of yourself. Why is there no choice? Why did the player choose to do this to his character? Is this the result of a failed test? Then what was the choice surrounding that test?

There's no rules for disease, illness, cold, fire, or stuff like that in BW. Why? Because they can be handled with a simple test against an obstacle. They are color surrounding other conflicts.



Again, thanks for all this help.

Hmm, ok let's say it was an initiation ritual, the character had to choose between stealing some stuff in the market or pass a night in the fetid sewers. He chose the second one, because his BIT says "stealing is bad".

Now, what does this change to my previous situation ?

[zabieru]

Yes, but a real (mean) GM would give two choices that challenge different BITs, or the same one in different ways. So if your player has an instinct to protect children, and a belief that stealing is bad, you'd give him the option of stealing the vase from the market, or kidnapping the rival's daughter.

The sewer itself needs to be important for some reason if it's really gonna matter. Your example is basically "Did you remember that you believed that?" while we want to push towards "which of these is really important to you? Which will you give up?" I can't come up with a good sewer-related BIT, but that doesn't mean anything.

-Devin.

[Marune]

Ok I think I finally pin-pointed my problem..

From my D&D background, I'm used to dangerous, but not "conflicting" tasks !

I know that those can often be included into larger conflict, but does it work in all cases? I would like to say yes, but...

[TimP]

Conflict is not necessarily physically dangerous. The danger of not getting what you want is what it REALLY boils down to. This could be getting ran through the gut by a spear or being turned down by the beautiful miller's daughter your character wants to marry.

Do you have a group, Marune? Sit down with them and make up some characters. Come back and tell us about them. It's damned hard to talk about (and understand) this stuff in the abstract.

Tim

[Marune]

We will begin our first BW tests sessions in august. I'm trying to grasp the system as much as possible before.

I don't worry much about technical rules details, more about directly opposed design principles from D&D, because that's all my group (myself include) really knows about (in terms of actual play at least).

[TimP]

We will begin our first BW tests sessions in august. I'm trying to grasp the system as much as possible before.

I don't worry much about technical rules details, more about directly opposed design principles from D&D, because that's all my group (myself include) really knows about (in terms of actual play at least).

Here (http://www.nwarpg.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=634) is a link to the actual play posts for the campaign my group just finished up. Maybe it will answer some of your questions...

Tim

[Rahvin]

This topic really interests me. Every post on this intrigued me, 'cause I'm in the same situation and trying to see how it all works and, true to my nature, trying to find ways to make it (my campaign) better.

Haven't started a Burning Wheel campaign yet.

In an example above, a choice if given to a player based on a belief and the setting at hand. The player, whose belief says he must find the Orb of Whatzit, finds the sewer entrance to the secret guild hideout of the Orb and is presented with a choice. He must roll a successful sewer-wise to get the orb, but failure resutls in a desease.

Two problems so far:
1) Don't like using a Wise for this example. It just doesn't seem appropriate. What if he doesn't have that skill? Would I have used another one? How obviously subjectively convinient. Sewer-wise should definitely be a FoRk though. Also, the more "general" I make the required skill, the more likely his friends can help him out (with help dice).
2) As previously mentioned, this is a priority and not really a choice. Most players will still make the check, because "it's what the GM obviously wants him to do", given no other alternative.

MY objection/question is this: I realize we want as much drama and conflict and general IMPORTANCE on as many rolls as we can get, but are we really going to "find the orb" with a simple roll of a die? In a D&D session, we would be grudging through for multiple sessions trying to get that damn orb, fighting everything from stupid orc slaves, to a filthy deseases, to giant rolling balls, to spell-tossing angry wizards. Each one of those encounters is about an hour of game time (or so) in D&D.

In Burning Wheel, it seems not only can all of these be treated a single die roll each, but the whole dang dungeon itself could be a single roll. Find the Orb of Whatzit? No problem? Hand over the dice.

Am I wrong?

It seems kind of rediculous for every die task to relate to BITs, but on the other hand having die rolls for each "obstacle" or source of resistance doesn't seem to have a BW feel, and as the original poster pointed out, BW doesn't seem well-suited to it.

Am I wrong?

Thoughts/comments, please. I've found your replies to be very engaging and helpful.

[Rahvin]

One other thought:

It seems to me that the original poster was comparing a D&D-style desease obstacle. That it so say, the desease isn't the only possible thing (nor even the most deadly thing) stopping the character from getting the Orb, so it does make much sense to resolve this as, "You get the Orb or get a desease."

--

Although one idea I just had might be to setup an encounter, where a character might want to expose himself to something harmful (for whatever reason) to get a +1 D advantage in a (somewhat) unrelated obstacle at the risk of potentially getting a desease in exchange. That might be better. Minor effect for minor effect? So I guess you could take all your "D&D style" obstacles and come up with some kind of trade for them.

That does sound a little against the spirit of the Make It Ride rules though, since you're essentially exposing him to multiple sources of danger, hoping he'll fail and wind up in more peril. But I like it. That way a player doesn't have to worry about the minor D&D stuff if he doesn't have to. A player could find a short-cut around the monster, but realize the monster has enough sense to avoid the trap-infested corridor (resolved with a single roll, not per corridor, I suppose, but per choice).

[ChrisG]

In Burning Wheel, it seems not only can all of these be treated a single die roll each, but the whole dang dungeon itself could be a single roll. Find the Orb of Whatzit? No problem? Hand over the dice. Am I wrong?

It seems like you're asking a lot of different questions, so I'm only going to try to answer this one. I don't think you're wrong. You could have the entire dungeon be a Dungeon-wise roll. Or you could have a series of linked tests as described previously. You could also just say "after a long dungeon-crawl, you get the Orb". It depends on your group and what kind of game you want.

On the other hand, if you decided you wanted to play out a dungeon-crawl, then you'd want to play it all out. You'd make up a dungeon based on their BITRs and go for it.