Rich vs the Duel of Wits

[Fourth Horseman]

James nails it.

-L

In more ways than one. My fundamental problem with DoW has been the effect it has on good old fashioned roleplaying. Everything is now reduced to a mechanic. Roll dice, see outcome. Sometimes it does feel like you are playing monopoly instead of a roleplaying game. DoW is a great mechanic for leveling the playing field between people who are naturally tongue tied, or for introducing a social dynamic into a game manned by younger roleplayers who haven't seen much past hacking and slashing. But I've always been of the opinion that it robs something from a group of adults playing in character. Some of my most rewarding roleplaying moments have come from convincing other characters, or being convinced by other characters, to go along with something freeform. Ain't gonna happen again with DoW.

[luke]

Duel of Wits no way restricts roleplaying. It does not impact on freeform roleplaying. Players are free to roleplay to their heart's content.

But what the DoW does prevent is bullying and intimidation. By providing a recourse for players to resolve their real differences, I submit that the DoW mechanics provide more room for and encourage real freeform roleplay.

-L

[Kublai]

If the players are willing, there's no need to go to a DoW if they agree they want to hash it out without the mechanic. DoW is there for the occassions that the players cannot come to a consensus.

DoW is a two-edged sword. It allows non-verbal and non-social players a way to play verbal and social characters. But it also means that verbal and social players who play non-social characters are hampered.

However, DoW cuts down a 4-hour real-time argument to only a few minutes! Therefore, any loss in roleplaying is easily made up for tenfold!

[luke]

But it also means that verbal and social players who play non-social characters are hampered.

This is not true.

[The_Tim]

Convincing other players to go along with something because it's awesome is a time honored tradition in RPGs. It is convention with lots of gamers to have that convincing occur in character, and if the player to be convinced is the GM a roll is often required to avoid the "Joe always sells his ideas well, so NPCs do whatever he wants them to" crap.

Duel of Wits does not get rid of in or out of character suggestion of ideas with support for said ideas. Instead it sets up a system whereby courses of action can be wagered on the dice.

To say that DoW prevents the first is the same as saying that poker prevents people from asking for money.

[Kublai]

But it also means that verbal and social players who play non-social characters are hampered.

This is not true.

Uh-huh, it is!!! :P

Say there is a player who is excellent at getting other players to do what he wants them to do! Now stick him with a character that has no social skills at all and a very low Will - kind of like my guard character that I am playing now. Even if he gets the Advantage Die for fantastic elocution, there very little possibility that his unskilled character will win a Duel of Wits against a socially-adept character.

[luke]

Say there is a player who is excellent at getting other players to do what he wants them to do!

This is a person using manipulation or intimidation to get what he wants.


Now stick him with a character that has no social skills at all and a very low Will - kind of like my guard character that I am playing now. Even if he gets the Advantage Die for fantastic elocution, there very little possibility that his unskilled character will win a Duel of Wits against a socially-adept character.

This is a person playing the game.

-Luke

[Kublai]

You have in no countered my point! I WIN!!!

[Thor]

Pete, let me get this straight: you're arguing that losing an in-character argument because the dice go against you means that you're hampered in your "role-playing" (I'm going to use the term 'acting' from here on out)?

How exactly is that true?

Can you only act with passion and grit when you are winning?

[Kublai]

Not at all, Thor! :shock: My point is much simpler and I think it's the point Rich was getting at.

With BW, no matter how good a talker you are or how good you are at roleplaying, if your character ain't good at DoW, he ain't gonna be persuading nobody through a DoW.

So maybe while roleplaying isn't being technically hampered, it's definitely makes a lot less of an impact.

[stormsweeper]

As I used to try to impress on D&D players*, if you've put an 8 in Charisma, you ain't making the [i]Braveheart[i] speech.


* Likewise, we had to explain to someone who made a character with a .1 EMP score that he wasn't exactly a charming guy.

[Thor]

With BW, no matter how good a talker you are or how good you are at roleplaying, if your character ain't good at DoW, he ain't gonna be persuading nobody through a DoW.

So maybe while roleplaying isn't being technically hampered, it's definitely makes a lot less of an impact.

What Luke and I are trying to say is that this really has nothing to do with 'roleplaying' at all.

Your ability to be a good actor is unaffected by whether you are winning or losing arguments. You can be a good actor that plays out winning arguments and you can be a good actor that plays out losing arguments.

What you can't do as effectively with the Duel of Wits in place is bully, cajole, or otherwise manipulate your fellow players into going along with you.

I say "as effectively" because you can still bully, cajole and otherwise manipulate your fellow players into giving you helping dice.

[Fourth Horseman]

Let me just make two points:

(a) some argue there is just as much room to roleplay through an argument with DoW because the mechanic comes into play ONLY when there is an impasse. Theoretically that's spot on. But I think the EXISTENCE of DoW makes it an easy fallback to go to once there's the slightest whiff of disagreement. In practice I see this at the table. Player A makes a suggestion, player B disagrees, player A reiterates his point, player B reiterates his disagreement--GM steps in and says lets do a duel of wits--move to scripting and rolling. This is in sharp contrast to the traditional way of hashing out an in game argument where points are given and taken freeform, just like you would in any debate between friends. Is there bullying there, sometimes yeah. But there is a lot more give and take and a lot more CONVERSATION AND PERSONAL INTERACTION that is sorely missing from treating a debate as just another form of mechanical combat. This isn't empricial, just one man's anecdote, but I have seen a discernable decrease in the amount of in game conversation between characters with DoW.

(b) I see Pete's point and I see how it rubs Luke the wrong way. He was sick of smooth talking players coming in with characters that were slobs and acting like freakin' Abraham Lincoln, that isn't roleplaying. But let me offer a spin on Pete's comments. Whereas freeform debates at the table favor those naturally gifted with the gab, the DoW mechanics reward those naturally gifted at scripting. Neither one of those folks are gaining an advantage in a debate by roleplaying their characters, just by gaming a different element of the system or lack thereof.

I am just of the opinion that in the aggregate, the "old way" favors more interpersonal interaction and that that trickles down into a more immersive roleplaying experience. There are some real great positives to DoW--its now possible to convince an NPC to do something, reduces time speant arguing, etc.--but you would have to be blind to admit there is not a tradeoff.

[Fourth Horseman]

Not at all, Thor! :shock: My point is much simpler and I think it's the point Rich was getting at.

With BW, no matter how good a talker you are or how good you are at roleplaying, if your character ain't good at DoW, he ain't gonna be persuading nobody through a DoW.

So maybe while roleplaying isn't being technically hampered, it's definitely makes a lot less of an impact.

On the flip side of this I see alot of players coming in and making the barest of an effort--a few incoherent words mumbled--and then convincing a throng of people to agree with them, just because they have the forks and scripts. An advantage die here or disadvantage die there--almost never awarded--ain't gonna do much to ameliorate this. But forcing someone to work through a conversation in character might.

[luke]

Ok, in the interest of full disclosure I think some real world details are necessary.

Rich (Fourth Horseman) is a very good friend of mine. He's supported the game since its inception in 94.

Rich is also one of my regular players.

Rich is an excellent roleplayer. He's a skilled tactician and a tremendous performer.

My years of play with Rich are also one of the prime reasons why I designed the Duel of Wits. In game, Rich could simply outperform the other players. Sometimes literally beating them into submission by sheer tenacity. Exciting times, but I noticed that it wasn't fun for all parties involved.

These details may seem a bit underhanded -- I'm not directly addressing Rich's point and I'm offering personal details -- but it is very difficult for me to see clearly in this particular debate with this particular peanut gallery (Pete/Kublai is of similar status to Rich, just less tenacity and more sportsmanship.)

Anyway, Rich, it was the play style of you, Brian and another player from my youth (whom you don't know) that informed my decisions when creating the Duel of Wits. So you only have yourself to blame. :twisted:

I think the benefits of the Duel of Wits mechanics, far outweigh the costs. In fact, I think the DoW push Burning Wheel from being just another interesting fantasy rpg into the realm of being a good game.

-Luke

[Fourth Horseman]

Ok, in the interest of full disclosure I think some real world details are necessary.

Rich (Fourth Horseman) is a very good friend of mine. He's supported the game since its inception in 94.

Rich is also one of my regular players.

Rich is an excellent roleplayer. He's a skilled tactician and a tremendous performer.

My years of play with Rich are also one of the prime reasons why I designed the Duel of Wits. In game, Rich could simply outperform the other players. Sometimes literally beating them into submission by sheer tenacity. Exciting times, but I noticed that it wasn't fun for all parties involved.

These details may seem a bit underhanded -- I'm not directly addressing Rich's point and I'm offering personal details -- but it is very difficult for me to see clearly in this particular debate with this particular peanut gallery (Pete/Kublai is of similar status to Rich, just less tenacity and more sportsmanship.)

Anyway, Rich, it was the play style of you, Brian and another player from my youth (whom you don't know) that informed my decisions when creating the Duel of Wits. So you only have yourself to blame. :twisted:

I think the benefits of the Duel of Wits mechanics, far outweigh the costs. In fact, I think the DoW push Burning Wheel from being just another interesting fantasy rpg into the realm of being a good game.

-Luke

Ahh. I had just written a post in response to one of Thor's right when you moved the thread. It was a good one too, complete with an analogy to the current war in Lebanon--oh well. On to better things.

Being the reason for a rule is always flattering. And I like a lot of what the rule makes possible. Namely the ability to convince NPCs is one of them. What Luke didn't mention in his disclosure is that I was only ever succesful in convincing other PCs of an argument. No such luck with one of Luke's NPCs. The NPC--if it was one of Luke's--could be some little punk in a clothing shop and it would be impossible to make them budge, even with torture.

Still don't you think DoW might be overcompensating just a wee bit? Haven't we merely switched the bias away from the overly social to the overly analytical types of individuals? Is there not a tradeoff?

[rafial]

My post also got misplaced by having the thread yoinked out from under it. Is was:

Random interjection -- I see several different, distinct meanings being attached to the world "roleplaying" in this thread. Some of them are:

roleplaying = portraying your characters speech and mannerisms in an actorly fashion

roleplaying = interaction between the players in the persona of their characters

...and possibly...

roleplaying = immersion into the mindset of your character

... and I'll go on to say in this repost that how you judge DoW may vary depending on your own personal defintion of role-playing

[Thor]

Hey rafial, that's why I was trying to substitute the word 'acting' for what these guys are talking about.

[Fourth Horseman]

My post also got misplaced by having the thread yoinked out from under it. Is was:

Random interjection -- I see several different, distinct meanings being attached to the world "roleplaying" in this thread. Some of them are:

roleplaying = portraying your characters speech and mannerisms in an actorly fashion

roleplaying = interaction between the players in the persona of their characters

...and possibly...

roleplaying = immersion into the mindset of your character

... and I'll go on to say in this repost that how you judge DoW may vary depending on your own personal defintion of role-playing

I would say its a combination of your second and third points. And no Thor its not acting, its playing through and interacting with other players according to the way your character would if given a certain situation.

Moreover, could either Thor or Luke address my point on switching bias? Have we not simply switched bias away from rewarding those players who game the system by rellying on their social skills in freeform, in favor of a system that favors those players who game the system with their analytical skills by building a player with uber forks and scripting "correctly" using the DoW mechanics? How does favoring the analytical player ultimately "promote" roleplaying? I really want to hear an explanation of this.

I've already laid out my thesis, that although freeform may lend itself to certain types of bullying--by making players talk to each other in character, over pantomiming a bunch of phrases that hit all the forks for a DoW script--it ultimately promotes roleplaying. I'm still waiting for a more nuanced analysis, beyond "it avoids bullying," to show how scripting a DoW is more immersive.

[Thor]

It is acting. Role-playing is creating characters, rolling dice or playing cards, using systems, scripting, acting, hanging out with your buddies, and everything else.

I don't agree with your contention about the bias. I don't think we've lost anything, but I think we've gained a lot. Players can now choose how they want to express narrative power though their characters. They can affect the game through fighting (Fight!), social activity (Duel of Wits), creating setting (Resources), and introducing characters (Circles). They have to make decisions when they create characters about which of these they wish to be powerful in and which they are willing to be weak in. I'm down with that.

I'm not saying the kind of hippy game you describe, where we talk everything out, is bad, but it's not really the type of game that I'm into. Nor do I think most hippy games work well in groups that don't shy away from dissension and internal conflict.

[luke]

In BW terms roleplaying is defined as "performance." Broken down, performance in Burning Wheel includes undertaking the role of a character, and mannerisms, speech and immersion into the mindset of your character (which then often leads to the interaction of players in the persona of their characters).

Performanace, however, is not the main facet of Burning Wheel. The "game" aspect takes precedence over performance for deciding crucial outcomes within the game.

Why did I arrive at this decision? It certainly wasn't my original impulse. Because the game aspect creates a level playing field on which all players can engage equally. The game has clearly defined rules which can be picked up by any player, read and then played through.

Performance, in Burning Wheel terms, is an ability that not all players possess. It cannot be easily taught and judging performance, as Rich pointed out, is subjective to the point of being untenable. While Rich might think his in-character interrogations and circumlocutions are brilliant and deserving of success, I might judge them (on my own internal logic)lacking and worthy of failure. Or I might just be in a bad mood or numerous other ungovernable reasons that have little to do with the game at hand.

Performance-based games do exist. Burning Wheel is not among them. Nor is BW among the legion of other traditional roleplaying games that ignore performance as a facet of play all together which then create the opportunity for bullying and manipulation.

-Luke

PS Fullest disclosure: I have never been shy in my admission that EVERY rule in BW is designed to curb my own bad behavior as a GM. I hate arbitrariness in roleplaying games, mine included.

[zabieru]

I find, personally, that I like the DoW because I lose. Normally I have such an advantage in verbal ability, combativeness, tenacity, and assertiveness that what I think goes (mostly this applies to five or six of the newer members of my gaming circle, rather than the veterans, which to my eye makes it worse), even when I'm only trying to offer a suggestion or an idea often it's taken as an assertion than that's the right way. With the DoW in place, there's more license in the social contract for another player to say "You want it that way? Roll it." and to disagree with me without having to, as a player, defend their ideas from a much more aggressive debater. That leads to a better game for both of us.

I find the idea that the DoW shifts the advantage in the game from those who are aggressive, stubborn, and verbally adept to those who are good at the game to be perfectly appropriate. If you have a problem with the idea that in a game, those who are good at playing the game will have an edge over those who are not as good, well, I am sorry.

To follow on with Luke, I like DoW because it curbs my bad behavior as a player. I have bullied GMs into having their NPCs back down, not by arguing with, threatening, wheedling, torturing, or enticing the NPC, but by addressing the GM and convincing him that the character's position was untenable because I, the player, was more stubborn than the GM. This did not make a good story except in the sense that "Devin getting what he wants" is a good story. I have belittled the ideas of newer players until we did things my way. The DoW stops me from doing that.

Incidentally, I'm being pretty harsh on myself, don't assume from that that I'm a bad person (I probably am, but for other reasons than these). These are rare, extreme examples, but they are examples of things that happen in weaker, nicer (but still undesirable) ways quite often.

[Suicide King]

However, Rich does have a point.

Instead of bullying other players through tenacity, stubbornness and good arguments, you could use the system instead.

I could bully a new player by beating him in a DoW through superior scripting, or I could do it by yelling at him until he cries. Either way, me might not have a good shot at "winning".

However, I think the compromise rules of DoW lessens this problem a lot. No matter how superior your scripting, you rarely win without losing anything at all, so you will have to compromise.
Further, as a GM, I would definitely jump down and help the "weaker" player with the system, making it more fair.

I agree that there is a slight shift in bias, but I think it's a good thing (that's a matter of taste) and I think it a shift to a position where it is easier to solve the problem by being adults and helping each other. It's easier for me as a GM to help a weaker player by helping him with the scripting, that it is for me to break into a personal discussion and take one party's side or the other. Also, it is a lot easier to learn the BW system than it is to learn to become tenacious, agressive and a good debatetionist. (sp?)

[stormsweeper]

I like DoW, but I think there has been a slight creep in the game Rich and I are in - the slightest whiff of a disagreement and we're bringing out the scripting sheets. If nothing else, 30-60 seconds of in character bickering can help solidify the stakes.

[luke]

If nothing else, 30-60 seconds of in character bickering can help solidify the stakes.

I strongly agree with this. In all of the demos I run, I push players to roleplay their interactions and disagreements in order to find their feet (and establish their positions) before they dive into the mechanics.

-Luke

[Burninator]

I've found that DoW actually has had the outcome of creating a more character-immersed experience. I love talky-talky games. LOVE them. I prefer to have games that more closely resemble the sort of social maneuverings and political finesse seen in books such as the Song of Ice and Fire Series.

The problem is, that the group I'm with also wants to play a game. Now, I've heard of groups who allegedly can go three or four sessions on RP only without rolling a single die, and to those groups I say more power to you. But in my overwhelming experience, even players who are really keen into the roleplaying aspect of gaming sort of zone out when the game aspects disappear altogether. If they wanted to do that, they'd be in improv theatre, not sitting around a table eating Cheetos on a Saturday night.

The DoW provides a nice way to have one's cake and eat it too. Players that in the past would have been hesitant to escalate in-character conflicts or arguments due it taking away from the game no longer have that fear--in fact, it ends up playing directly into the game. Suddenly, long periods of social interaction aren't seen as down-time from exciting gameplay, but rather situations that only serve to set up a conflict of the dice every bit as exciting as physical combat. It basically presents a game framework to support a style of play that doesn't always have the characters in combat all the time.

I'm sure it's really hard for players who create brutish grunts but roleplay them like silver-tongued devils to deal with the changes, but ultimately I think it's an improvement in the status quo, particularly seeing as it seems far easier to get the strategy of scripting than it does to suddenly become sociable.

[yeloson]

It's worth noting that Duel of Wits doesn't -preclude- people from simply verbally hashing it out- if we're using Duel of Wits and you make a really good point that convinces me, I can just give up and agree right there. So there's still room for player to player negotiation.

System is what you turn to when that agreement is not forthcoming, after all, why NOT use the same, "Let's argue and 'convince' each other" logic when it comes to sword fighting? "Well, I'd parry like this!" "But I've got a heavier sword, so you'd be delayed..." etc.

Way back in January, there was a discussion on Keith's blog where we talked a bit about "Alpha" players, folks who through a range of factors from natural force of personality all the way to bullying and manipulation managed to override other players' input in the game. You can check out that discussion here:

http://www.bobgoat.com/discussion/?p=39

Chris

[Fourth Horseman]

I'm not saying the kind of hippy game you describe, where we talk everything out, is bad, but it's not really the type of game that I'm into. Nor do I think most hippy games work well in groups that don't shy away from dissension and internal conflict.

I'm not saying the sort of monopolyesque, throw the dice to resolve everything, boardgame you've created with DoW is bad, but it's not really the type of game that I'm into.

Most people roleplay for the escapist entertainment it offers, to use a set of conventions to guide them in inhabitating a space, through a character they create, that they would or could not otherwise inhabit. Its fun to be somebody else for a while, and a game should be helping people to get inside their character. Nor do I think most monopolyesque throw the dice games work well with people who are really into exploring the depth of their characters and not just hacking and DoWing with a cliche puppet for the night.

And the depth of a character is something more then three beliefs and three instincts. So don't give me the party line on how BITs gives you all the roleplaying depth you want. Characters need room to grow by interacting with one another--by talking. As it stands now the game has distilled almost everything into a die roll. That removes a lot of opportunities for "acting," what others might call exploring your character.

[coffeestain]

I've never had a problem "getting into my character" during a DoW, nor do I find the constraints difficult to work with when applying my vision of my character.

Calling it a "monopolyesque, throw the dice to resolve everything, boardgame" is hyperbole of the worst sort.

DoW doesn't stop you from pretending to become someone else. It stops you from always winning or losing because of who you, personally, are when you're trying to pretend to be someone else. In that light, it seems to adhere to the goal of escapism better than the alternative.

Failure is interesting. A person doesn't have to succeed through their own social skills (positive or negative) in order to have an interesting game or to explore their character.

Regards,
Daniel

[Fourth Horseman]

It's worth noting that Duel of Wits doesn't -preclude- people from simply verbally hashing it out- if we're using Duel of Wits and you make a really good point that convinces me, I can just give up and agree right there. So there's still room for player to player negotiation.

System is what you turn to when that agreement is not forthcoming, after all, why NOT use the same, "Let's argue and 'convince' each other" logic when it comes to sword fighting? "Well, I'd parry like this!" "But I've got a heavier sword, so you'd be delayed..." etc.

Way back in January, there was a discussion on Keith's blog where we talked a bit about "Alpha" players, folks who through a range of factors from natural force of personality all the way to bullying and manipulation managed to override other players' input in the game. You can check out that discussion here:

http://www.bobgoat.com/discussion/?p=39

Chris

This is what is commonly called mixing apples and oranges. "Bullying" someone into accepting your prefferred outcome for a fight only reveals that you are a prick who can't take losing. "Bullying" or rather attempting to "bully" someone into accepting your plan, decision, or philisophical outlook is going to mutually reveal alot about who your character and the character you are interacting with. Its also going to go a long way to establishing a certain dynamic between those two character that scripting and throwing the dice will not.

[Fourth Horseman]

Calling it a "monopolyesque, throw the dice to resolve everything, boardgame" is hyperbole of the worst sort.


Calling talking and getting into character a "hippy game" is also hyperbole of the worst sort. I have a simple policy, when confronted with snarky bullshit, respond with snarky bullshit. Btw, Thor and I are good friends and this dust up is actually quite funny since I'm playing in a game he's running right now. I was simply giving what I got.

[coffeestain]

Calling talking and getting into character a "hippy game" is also hyperbole of the worst sort. I have a simple policy, when confronted with snarky bullshit, respond with snarky bullshit. Btw, Thor and I are good friends and this dust up is actually quite funny since I'm playing in a game he's running right now. I was simply giving what I got.

Whatever floats your boat. I didn't make the statement to jump to Thor's defense. It's just difficult to respond meaningfully to your ideas when they're presented that way, especially if it's hyperbole you're not actually buying into.

So I guess the question is: Do you actually see DoW at existing at that spectrum of the equation? Personally, I don't find that it hampers -acting- at all, though sometimes it constrains it. And constraints are a good thing. I also, personally, find it at worse irrelevant to and at best beneficial to the amount of actual roleplaying at a table.

Regards,
Daniel

[Fourth Horseman]

Calling talking and getting into character a "hippy game" is also hyperbole of the worst sort. I have a simple policy, when confronted with snarky bullshit, respond with snarky bullshit. Btw, Thor and I are good friends and this dust up is actually quite funny since I'm playing in a game he's running right now. I was simply giving what I got.

Whatever floats your boat. I didn't make the statement to jump to Thor's defense. It's just difficult to respond meaningfully to your ideas when they're presented that way, especially if it's hyperbole you're not actually buying into.

So I guess the question is: Do you actually see DoW at existing at that spectrum of the equation? Personally, I don't find that it hampers -acting- at all, though sometimes it constrains it. And constraints are a good thing. I also, personally, find it at worse irrelevant to and at best beneficial to the amount of actual roleplaying at a table.

Regards,
Daniel

Do I actually see DoW existing at that end of the spectrum? Yes. BW is veering toward the board/card gamey in having a mechanic, DoW, that discourages extended disussion. Read my earlier posts, I have directly observed a noticeable decrease in the amount of freeform discussion at the table. Technically you are only supposed to go to DoW if there is an impasse, in actuallity GMs and players are quick to go to the quick resolution and eschew conversation because the mechanic exists. A lot gets revealed in a character by the way he sticks to his beliefs whether he is trying to coerce another player or whether he is resisting coercion. That doesn't happen when you are trying to win a DoW and approaching your choice of words more as a tactical evolution then an expression of who you are. In freeform where you have no way of knowing whether its even possible to convince the other person, you are free to develop your ideas according to your beliefs. The cold hard possibility of victory, or at least compromise, in DoW means that the discussion becomes more geared toward gaming the rule then expressing your character.

I'll accept that constraining acting may be a good thing. If you define for me what is so horrible about acting the character that must be constrained in the first place. Aside from Luke decrying bullying, unrelated to acting, and Thor calling it a hippy commune thing, nobody has cared to tell me why "acting" your character is such a horrible thing in the first place. Like I said inhabiting a different person for a time is fun, its why most people roleplay with other live people. If I was looking for a game that removed all the arbitrary bullying, yadda, yadda, yadda completely--I would simply play a computer RPG with my buds, the computer is the ultimate, neutral die throwing GM. But how much immersion have you ever felt playing Neverwinter nights? The graphics beat BW hands down. But maybe the immersion has something to do with "acting"?

[coffeestain]

I still can't tell if you actually want to talk about this or if you're lashing out at all comers, but I'll try to read you favorably and respond in kind.

I haven't said (and I don't believe anyone has said) there's anything wrong with acting. What we're trying to get across is that acting is not roleplaying, or vice versa, though they're often ascribed to the same activity.

The DoW facilitates roleplaying. It does not necessarily facilitiate acting. For some folks, the balance of what they enjoy lies to one extreme or the other and that will cause some sense of like or dislike toward the DoW mechanic. That's perfectly understandable. But as long as you keep trying to conflate acting with roleplaying, you won't be able to discuss this. I applaud Thor for seeing that problem early on and trying to head it off at the pass.

I haven't noticed what you've noticed at my table. So it sounds like a social issue. If you're actually looking for a solution, maybe it lies in having a discussion with the players about when it's appropriate to engage in a DoW and when it's not.

Edit:

I'm not sure I've addressed these points clearly enough, so let me:


I'll accept that constraining acting may be a good thing. If you define for me what is so horrible about acting the character that must be constrained in the first place. Aside from Luke decrying bullying, unrelated to acting, and Thor calling it a hippy commune thing, nobody has cared to tell me why "acting" your character is such a horrible thing in the first place.

Creative constraints, not acting constraints. I'm not talking about mystical shackles of non-acting. C'mon.


Like I said inhabiting a different person for a time is fun, its why most people roleplay with other live people.

You don't need to be an actor in order to inhabit a different person for a time and have fun with it. Many people do that simply by making choices for their character.

Regards,
Daniel

[Fourth Horseman]

I still can't tell if you actually want to talk about this or if you're lashing out at all comers, but I'll try to read you favorably and respond in kind.

I haven't said (and I don't believe anyone has said) there's anything wrong with acting. What we're trying to get across is that acting is not roleplaying, or vice versa, though they're often ascribed to the same activity.

The DoW facilitates roleplaying. It does not necessarily facilitiate acting. For some folks, the balance of what they enjoy lies to one extreme or the other and that will cause some sense of like or dislike toward the DoW mechanic. That's perfectly understandable. But as long as you keep trying to conflate acting with roleplaying, you won't be able to discuss this. I applaud Thor for seeing that problem early on and trying to head it off at the pass.

I haven't noticed what you've noticed at my table. So it sounds like a social issue. If you're actually looking for a solution, maybe it lies in having a discussion with the players about when it's appropriate to engage in a DoW and when it's not.

Edit:

I'm not sure I've addressed these points clearly enough, so let me:


I'll accept that constraining acting may be a good thing. If you define for me what is so horrible about acting the character that must be constrained in the first place. Aside from Luke decrying bullying, unrelated to acting, and Thor calling it a hippy commune thing, nobody has cared to tell me why "acting" your character is such a horrible thing in the first place.

Creative constraints, not acting constraints. I'm not talking about mystical shackles of non-acting. C'mon.


Like I said inhabiting a different person for a time is fun, its why most people roleplay with other live people.

You don't need to be an actor in order to inhabit a different person for a time and have fun with it. Many people do that simply by making choices for their character.

Regards,
Daniel

Then define for me what has to be creatively constrained and why. Because you still haven't. What is it, if its not acting, and why is it bad? Luke has said DoW restricts bullying and arbitrariness. Fair enough, but his point doesn't address for me the loss of getting into character you get from, what he has correctly called, performance. Thor derisively calls it acting and throws me into Barbarellaville, well than, what is it about performance (acting) that rubs all you folks the wrong way? I really, really want to know.

Moreover, how exactly does DoW promote roleplay as you claim? This is not a rhetorical question I do really want to know how you think roleplay is concretely enhanced.

I have submitted that the conversation a DoW promotes is one that is exclusively geared toward winning that DoW. I typically see players choosing multiple criteria to argue--two points--when they go into DoW just to have a single point to compromise around if they split the decision. I've seen outlandish references to astrology, ancient history, folklore, the size of goat's teats, etc., etc., that having absolutley nothing to do with the beliefs of a player as expressed in their argument, and that come into the DoW JUST so the player will get multiple forks on their roll. I see players scripting moves--like feints, or obfuscation--that destroy the narrative power of an argument they are forwarding, and rob that argument of any character-illuminating value, just to gain the upperhand under the DoW mechanics. And why, why do people do this? Because the DoW holds out the guaranteed possibility of a definitive outcome--win, lose, or draw. And a man confronted with the possibility of winning will always do the thing he is wired to do, try to win. It will trump character development every freakin' time. How the flying F does that promote roleplaying or character development? How is that a superior construction for character development than a good old fashioned sit down, where no outcome is guaranteed. Just you, your words and your beliefs. With no guranteed gains, and the only guaranteed loss your credibility--you are free to develop your character.

[luke]

Yes. BW is veering toward the board/card gamey in having a mechanic, DoW, that discourages extended disussion. Read my earlier posts, I have directly observed a noticeable decrease in the amount of freeform discussion at the table.

Your observations and experiences are neither facts nor universal. They are singular, colored and far from objective.

Quote me from the Burning Wheel rulebook where I discourage performance. Page 103 in the Duel of Wits chapter, I encourage players to keep it simple and to the point when using the resolution mechanic. That's a far cry from your implied proscription on performanced-based, in-character play. Page 66 in the Artha chapter outlines three rewards which are given solely based on the player's performance as his character. Sounds like the letter of the law actually encourages the type of behavior you seek.

There is nothing wrong with performance-based play. I never said their was. I said that the DoW resolves conflicts at the table in a way that is neutral and fair -- like a game should be.

And the Never Winter Nights thing is a complete and utter straw man. There are no rules for social interaction in that game. It is the quintessential old school RPG in this case. It has rules for fighting and spell casting, everything else is up to the players. Well, you know what? 20 years of tabletop rpgs have shown us that this is not a functional model for play. It is precarious at best. It does not necessarily create story, immersion or fun. If anything, those elements are brought into the game separately by the players -- they certainly aren't part and parcel with the rules of the game.

The board game/war game crack is a straw man, too. A game is a game, my friend. And a game needs to have functional instructions regarding the interaction of the players during the course of play. Any game that does not provide for this eventually breaks down. It either mutates into something that is not written in the rules (a house variant or something) or it becomes unplayable.

The Burning Wheel rules drive you to make story-based decisions about your character and provide a clean mechanic for resolving disputes which simply cannot be fairly resolved otherwise.

Idealize it all you want, but freeform "convincing" someone of something in a game environment subject to all manner of bad behavior. Your intentions are irrelevant. You might just be "playing your character" as a belligerent asshole, but your target/victim doesn't have any way of knowing this or coping with it without some recourse in the game.

Diplomacy encourages the bad behavior. As the author of BW, I want everyone to stay friends. Therefore I provided a method to resolve disputes that is fair and fun and keeps to the spirit of the core of the game -- roleplaying.

[donbaloo]

So does anyone ever use the option of having the players roleplay out their character's argument/discussion as you normally would in another game but then have the other players determine what your "scripted" maneuvers were? Its right there in the book, anyone use it?

I haven't and it seems like it would be pretty choppy to work out, but if it does run smoothly, what a perfect solution it is. You get your good ole' roleplayed debate, with a set of defined parameters that help to conclude which character actually got the upperhand.

[Fourth Horseman]

And the Never Winter Nights thing is a complete and utter straw man. There are no rules for social interaction in that game. It is the quintessential old school RPG in this case. It has rules for fighting and spell casting, everything else is up to the players. Well, you know what? 20 years of tabletop rpgs have shown us that this is not a functional model for play. It is precarious at best. It does not necessarily create story, immersion or fun. If anything, those elements are brought into the game separately by the players -- they certainly aren't part and parcel with the rules of the game.


Actually no. There are rules for social interaction in Never Winter Nights. You have basically four responses to choose from, and nothing else. Its hard coded. The cool thing about the hard coding is that no one ever gets into acrimonious disputes or has their feelings hurt. "The computer made me say it!" But in this brilliant use of a straw man argument while accusing me of a straw man argument--the true mark of a straw man master--you make my point completely, the ONLY way immersion can be brought to the table is through the players. Any rule that acts as an obstacle toward that immersion, and tries to mediate what would otherwise be freeform character development is destroying immersion. You are right about freeform games, that immersion, getting along, and all the rest is precarious at best. There's nothing that can be done about that. Either people will behave well together, or they will not. You are wrong to think that you can engineer a mechanic that will entail good behaviour around the table. In 20 years of roleplay I've seen plenty of "old school RPGs" tank because of lack of chemistry, infighting and bullying. I've also seen plenty of old school RPGs work like clockwork.

But guess what? I've also been in BW games that have flopped over PvP acrimony as well. In fact I've been in a campaign that basically tanked BECAUSE someone won a duel of wits that completely screwed another player's core belief (disclosure, my character was not directly involved in the duel thank you), and set things up for a major PvP killfest! In a freeform game both parties would have been steadfast in their positions and not have budged, instead of one being grudgingly forced to make a concession that basically emasculated his character. So we would have gotten the character development, actually more since with the DoW the players were allowed to mumble through their arguments, but not the game breaking development of the DoW in a freeform game. Than again both players might have killed each other right there and than--without the DoW. My point? There's not a set of rules on the planet that can mitigate this kind of thing. Either players are going to behave well together or they are not. If a player wants to screw another player or be a bully he is going to find a way. Indeed, I would venture to say the ONLY way sportsmanship can be engendered at the table is through the unwritten contract and conventions between the players. Any attempt to force this through a mechanic is like tilting at windmills.

Its my humble opinion, and only my opinion--I never said it was fact, and even prefaced my observation originally as purely anecdotal (so whose making the strawmen now?)--that DoW is an obstacle to immersion and character development i.e. roleplay.

[JamesDJIII]

Its my humble opinion, and only my opinion--I never said it was fact, and even prefaced my observation originally as purely anecdotal (so whose making the strawmen now?)--that DoW is an obstacle to immersion and character development i.e. roleplay.

Match meet gasoline. Gas, match.

[TimP]

I'll buy that DoW is an obstacle to immersion. You're going along having a conversation, reach an impasse, and bust out the scripting sheets and start consulting rules.

By the same light Fight! is an obstacle to immersion, as well. You're going along, telling a story, you reach an impasse, and swords are drawn.

So what? We don't dip into either sub-system unless there's critical stuff at stake. Using DoW keeps players from getting pissed off at each other (at least at our table). Assuming equal familiarity with the system, it's fair and reflects the priorities of the players during character generation. I think that benefit outweighs a little hiccup in the 'flow' of the game.

I don't believe it inhibits character development at ALL. We have yet to have a DoW not involve a significant compromise between the characters involved (due to reduction of body of argument), and not getting exactly what you want is a great promoter of character development. It's certainly what builds character in the real world...

I'm no great actor, and having to reason out my character's argument in detail to fit the mechanics of DoW really helps me to further refine and define that character.

Tim

[stormsweeper]

I'll buy that DoW is an obstacle to immersion. You're going along having a conversation, reach an impasse, and bust out the scripting sheets and start consulting rules.

By the same light Fight! is an obstacle to immersion, as well. You're going along, telling a story, you reach an impasse, and swords are drawn.

I'll quote myself from an earlier page:


I like DoW, but I think there has been a slight creep in the game Rich and I are in - the slightest whiff of a disagreement and we're bringing out the scripting sheets. If nothing else, 30-60 seconds of in character bickering can help solidify the stakes.

It has seemed that lately we've been going to DoW "prematurely" which has led to some muddled DoWs, in my opinion. I don't want to toss it out, but I think we need to make sure there really is an impasse or conflict before we go to it.

Also, can we please not work Rich up into a lather before our game tonight? :twisted:

[TimP]

I like DoW, but I think there has been a slight creep in the game Rich and I are in - the slightest whiff of a disagreement and we're bringing out the scripting sheets. If nothing else, 30-60 seconds of in character bickering can help solidify the stakes.


Um...Don't do that? :wink: I'd guess our group is slow to go to DoW simply because we're still not used to having that option. And we're lazy. We also really took to heart the concept that you don't HAVE to enter into DoW. If the stakes are too high for you, then don't gamble.

[Durgil]

Wow, I'm gone one or two days from the forum and miss a great discussion on system mechanics! It has always made sense to me to have the DoW to determine the outcome of NPC interactions and help eliminate the possible arbitrariness of DMs, as well as a tool to help reduce the chance of arguments between PCs becoming deadly. Then the whole Artha system to stop the game from becoming to mechanical. I guess that it would be a natural progression for the DoWs to be used to help curve bullying within a group, but I hadn't thought of using it in that way before.

...I've also been in BW games that have flopped over PvP acrimony as well. In fact I've been in a campaign that basically tanked BECAUSE someone won a duel of wits that completely screwed another player's core belief (disclosure, my character was not directly involved in the duel thank you), and set things up for a major PvP killfest! In a freeform game both parties would have been steadfast in their positions and not have budged, instead of one being grudgingly forced to make a concession that basically emasculated his character. So we would have gotten the character development, actually more since with the DoW the players were allowed to mumble through their arguments, but not the game breaking development of the DoW in a freeform game. Than again both players might have killed each other right there and than--without the DoW...
In the above situation, Rich, shouldn't the emasculated player have chosen to either walk away or up the stakes and drawn his weapon?

I’m not taking anyone’s side here or trying to stir the pot; I’m just trying to get a better handle on the mechanic.

[stormsweeper]

If he's referring to the game he is thinking of, the person whose core belief was fucked was also not in the DoW. But now we're definitley veering off into the land of things that should be discussed at the table.

[Merritt Baggett]

Also, can we please not work Rich up into a lather before our game tonight? :twisted:

Hey Rich, yo mamma so phat, she thought DoW was a misspelled acronym of Donuts for the Win!

... yeah I got nothing :cry: Ya'll already made all the points I was going to make.

[luke]

Immersion is such utter bullshit. You wouldn't know replicable immersion if it smashed you in the head. All you can see is your own play-style preferences.

And conservative attitudes that the state of the art is fixed and cannot possibly advance or innovate are also bullshit. You're right, Rich. State of the art was MERP. Now that was a functional game. The art of game design has just rolled down hill since then.

Anyway, you've grandstanded enough. You're not listening to anyone else and you're not going to change your mind. So there's not really anything more to say on the matter.

Except this (and this is just flamebait): The beautiful irony of this thread is that I know you. And listening to your arguments is like listening to the school yard bully justify why he thrashes all the other kids: "They should learn to stand up for themselves!" and "Aw, I'm just having fun. Ain't doin' anything wrong." And my favorite, "He asked for it. You heard him mouthing off at me."

-L

[Yagathai]

I don't agree with a lot of what you say, Luke, but goddamn if it wasn't great to see you say it like that.

Vivat! Vivat!

[sanjwise]

[
I've already laid out my thesis, that although freeform may lend itself to certain types of bullying--by making players talk to each other in character, over pantomiming a bunch of phrases that hit all the forks for a DoW script--it ultimately promotes roleplaying. I'm still waiting for a more nuanced analysis, beyond "it avoids bullying," to show how scripting a DoW is more immersive.[/quote]

Hey everyone - hey Rich - I think I can answer your question.

When we play tested the DofW during our Loretta campaign two years ago I found DofW far superior to traditional means of hashing out in-game arguments/discussions/debates because it forced me to think in terms of tactics. I clearly remember that these tactics had to be supported by a reasonable display of 'acting skill'. At least at our table - with the likes, of Rich, Pete and Andy - a newbie player like myself couldn't help but back up my Dismiss by standing on my chair and pointing my finger down at the NPC (luke) for his misstep. It was fun!

the rules provided structure AND facilated my performance!

I used to have a friend who was the absolute worst at roleplaying social situations. He was playing a priest and was the leader of the party. At one in point in the campaign he had to enlist the aid of a bunch of frightened villagers to help take down a cultist enclave in some nearby hills. He was miserable, "the Evil is that way and it will get you. you have to help fight the Evil. The Lord Pelor will protect you." It was miserable and I was trying to play an NPC village headman and I just couldn't keep a straight face. I knew what he wanted to say but it wasn't coming out. In my old campaigns we didn't play with social skills - everything had to be acted - so in cases like this I would eitehr be very harsh and criticism the player by acting like an uncomprehending NPC or I would cheat and let the player succeed. This time however we were trying out D20 rules so he rolled his persuasion skill (or something I don't remember) once and that was that...he won so boring. One roll - no strategy and no great performance. The rest of the group were so dejected. You have players that were masters at acting giving all their efforts and falling flat cause of one roll and others without any skills winning cause of one roll.

I think Duel of Wits and the emphasis in Burning Wheel on Artha, and BITs is the best system I have ever played for bringing out the strategic elements in a debate and for encouraging players to get excited and ACT like their character would in such a situation.


sanj

[Fourth Horseman]

Immersion is such utter bullshit. You wouldn't know replicable immersion if it smashed you in the head. All you can see is your own play-style preferences.

And conservative attitudes that the state of the art is fixed and cannot possibly advance or innovate are also bullshit. You're right, Rich. State of the art was MERP. Now that was a functional game. The art of game design has just rolled down hill since then.

Anyway, you've grandstanded enough. You're not listening to anyone else and you're not going to change your mind. So there's not really anything more to say on the matter.

Except this (and this is just flamebait): The beautiful irony of this thread is that I know you. And listening to your arguments is like listening to the school yard bully justify why he thrashes all the other kids: "They should learn to stand up for themselves!" and "Aw, I'm just having fun. Ain't doin' anything wrong." And my favorite, "He asked for it. You heard him mouthing off at me."

-L

Wherein Luke derails the argument. :lol:

No, the beauty of this thread is that it shows, sum certain, that you absolutely, positively cannot brooke any criticism of your baby. I've actually agreed with some of the points on this thread on how the mechanic improves the game, e.g. GM fiat. But how do you respond to my points that are crticial of the game, that I had the termerity to support with reasoned inferences from my own concrete observations? Repetition and insult. My argument on bias and bullying being inverted, dropped. My point on immersion, ridiculed. You've pulled every smarmy trick in the book from putting words in my mouth which I did not utter, to straw men, to plain belligerence. In one ear out the other. The worst thing I've said in this thread is that this mechanic turns the game into Monopoly. Oh the humanity, in return (actually before I even uttered that) I get called a hippy, a bully, and instead of debating my godamn points you dredge up some outside the thread bullshit that happened ten years ago, which btw is colored by your own infinite bias, to inflame the whole fucking board against me. Enough, I can only take so much without responding in kind. Others have provided sound, reasoned arguments to support your mechanic. You have not. If this were high school debate I'd say I beat the crap out of you. But it is not, I'm trying to get some reasoned arguments out of you in a public forum for you to support your DoW mechanic. Instead I get the party line, denials and so much detritus thrown at me. You're like a Rovian politician staying on message. Here's a free hint Luke, grow the fuck up.

Go suck on your thumb and lock up the thread, you big fucking baby.

But be sure to publicly insult me and get in the good last word before you do so, we know you're just itching for it.

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, shit and moan. I hope your nanny has some extra baby powder to pat down your ass after she changes your diapers.

[luke]

Go suck on your thumb and lock up the thread, you big fucking baby.

What's the matter, did I cut too close to the bone with that last one? A little too close to the truth? Hm? How's that next post coming? Going to be a doozy? Going to use some swear words?

Rich, there was no debate and no argument in this thread. It was and is an excercise in you repeating your opinion over and over again.

Speaking of high school debate:

Then define for me what has to be creatively constrained and why. Because you still haven't.


So don't give me the party line on how BITs


If you define for me what is so horrible about acting

followed by


Its my humble opinion [snip] that DoW is an obstacle to immersion and character development

It's this nonsense that gets you the wisecracks from me. Because you're not listening or giving charitable reading. And certainly not responding to the points made. You're using high school debate tactics: Restating your point over and over and hand waving the input and rebuttals presented. Blah, blah, blah. High school debate is a matter of form and his little to do with meaningful discussion. So you won in high school. Good for you.


Rich, I couldn't give a fuck if you like DoW or not. I just think you are categorically wrong that DoW is an obstacle to immersion. And I think that you can't define what creates immersion. You can only state what you like in a game.

I think you are conflating two completely different phenomena: conflict resolution and performance/roleplay. The DoW is the former and is only tangentally related to the latter. I already cited material from the game text to support my point in this regard, but that doesn't fit into your talking points, does it O'Reilly?

Personally, I think the over all form of conversation in this thread is a excellent example of why social conflict resolution mechanics can be very useful in a game.
-Luke

[rafial]

BW Fun Activity Page

Go back through the this thread, and mark next to each paragraph which DoW maneuver Rich & Luke are scripting. For extra points, indicate which FoRKs they are including, and whether you think that FoRK is justified.

[coffeestain]

Can we stat them out first?

I think Incite's been used a lot to great effect.

Regards,
Daniel

[Kublai]

There's also been a couple premature Dismisses!

[AndyAction]

Children! Do I have to separate you two?
Go to your rooms!

Don't you guys have jobs or something?
Honestly, this is better entertainment than the afternoon soaps...

I think I'll go through the debate and chart out the scripting - we could all learn a thing or two from peering into the minds of two master Orators using their DoW skills right here on the forums for all to see!

Thanks fellas!
-=AA

[Ozark Tim]

Yeah, but at the end of the debate the loser will bark "But Duel of Wits isn't mind control, you still suck!" and we the audience will say, "But you fought to sway the audience, who be am us, so aren't we mind controlled?"

[AndyAction]

wow, in the time it took my to write my response above, someone beat me to the same idea! have at it boys - I'm off to rehearsal.

[Yagathai]

I don't know what upsets me more: That this thread, which might well have been constructive at one point, has degenerated into namecalling, outright flamebaiting, swearing, insults and petty ad-hominem attacks...

... or that I had nothing to do with getting it to that point.

[stormsweeper]

Yeah, but at the end of the debate the loser will bark "But Duel of Wits isn't mind control, you still suck!" and we the audience will say, "But you fought to sway the audience, who be am us, so aren't we mind controlled?"

then it will escalate.

http://img486.imageshack.us/img486/5187/amoktimeru3.jpg

[Fourth Horseman]

Go suck on your thumb and lock up the thread, you big fucking baby.

What's the matter, did I cut too close to the bone with that last one? A little too close to the truth? Hm? How's that next post coming? Going to be a doozy? Going to use some swear words?

Rich, there was no debate and no argument in this thread. It was and is an excercise in you repeating your opinion over and over again.

Speaking of high school debate:

Then define for me what has to be creatively constrained and why. Because you still haven't.


So don't give me the party line on how BITs


If you define for me what is so horrible about acting

followed by


Its my humble opinion [snip] that DoW is an obstacle to immersion and character development

It's this nonsense that gets you the wisecracks from me. Because you're not listening or giving charitable reading. And certainly not responding to the points made. You're using high school debate tactics: Restating your point over and over and hand waving the input and rebuttals presented. Blah, blah, blah. High school debate is a matter of form and his little to do with meaningful discussion. So you won in high school. Good for you.


Rich, I couldn't give a fuck if you like DoW or not. I just think you are categorically wrong that DoW is an obstacle to immersion. And I think that you can't define what creates immersion. You can only state what you like in a game.

I think you are conflating two completely different phenomena: conflict resolution and performance/roleplay. The DoW is the former and is only tangentally related to the latter. I already cited material from the game text to support my point in this regard, but that doesn't fit into your talking points, does it O'Reilly?

Personally, I think the over all form of conversation in this thread is a excellent example of why social conflict resolution mechanics can be very useful in a game.
-Luke

Right dude. Its very easy to spot when a leftwinger has nothing illuminating left to say--they usually start comparing you to O'Reilly. What's next Luke are you going to start calling me a Fascist, compare me to Hitler? Charming, and please work on your Stuey, it kinda . . .sucked. And now that you've indulged in the time honored, line by line misquote--down to completely taking my High School debater line out of context--can I make a few observations in my defense? Perhaps I'm repeating some of my points, because (a) no one is directly adressing them, no, that's not true there have been some terrific posts here; perhaps I'm repeating myself because everytime you respond to my posts YOU are not adressing them, and when I've requested some input from you, instead I've gotten repettion and skirting on things lke my questions on things like bias shifting, and (b) this thread has turned into a cum on Rich's face bukakefest. I've been responding to multiple threads critical of my viewpoint, cause I'm the only one making my argument here--a little manuever room please. And why is that? Am I the only freak here who doesn't like what DoW does to the game? Or could it be that rather then adress my points from the get go, you had to drag out some tired ass "full disclosure" to color the whole damn discussion? Cool. I've got some embarassing pictures of you but I'm not going to post them on the boards to score some cheap points and incite the masses. When I ask for people to clarify their points, I'm not being a rhetorical smart ass, I'm being honest and asking for an actual explanation. And yeah you've quoted from the game to support your points. Which book of the bible is Burning Wheel in, and am I going to hell now for questioning the good word?

See now I am being a complete smart ass and not making any points cause that's the sort of discussion you indicated you wanted with "flame bait."

Well, I'm still waiting here for a reasoned analysis on how DoW doesn't simply shift the Out Of Character bias away from someone whose naturally gifted with social interaction and "acting" to someone who is naturally gifted at scoring all the forks and putting together a good scripting combo. Oh my god, that evil man is repeating himself again!!!!

While we're at it let me adress the only attempt you made with your oh so awesome comeback, at analysis. No I can't define immersion. It is like porn, "I know it when I see it." Yes, it is a subjective thing, which is why I think your attempts to impose an objective rule on a facet of the game which traditionally contrbutes to immersion is so misguided in the first place. I can tell you this though, I only get to a state where I am "feeling" my character in an argument when I am interacting with other characters, not when I'm trying to figure out how to fork in obsucre history into my obfuscate move. And furthermore I think the clearest fault lines of our characters are revealed in positions they will not budge from, and the dance that goes on around those fault lines reveals alot about who a character is. A mechanic which forces a person to (a) shy away from a conflict for fear of altering their beleifs, (b) forces a person to abandon a core belief if they end up on the short end of a stick, or (c) forces a violent confrontation that must be fought to the death t preserve a belief cannot be defended as one that leads to better roleplay while keeping everyone civil at the table. I've laid out in detail how sportsmanlike conduct at the table is completely a function of the civil society we build at the table as roleplayers--and has little or nothing to do with the rules. I've also brought up a concrete example of how BW and DoW were unable to prevent a PvP breakdown. Are you going to address that point or are you going to continue to incite me with flameposts?

[Fourth Horseman]

Yeah, but at the end of the debate the loser will bark "But Duel of Wits isn't mind control, you still suck!" and we the audience will say, "But you fought to sway the audience, who be am us, so aren't we mind controlled?"

then it will escalate.

http://img486.imageshack.us/img486/5187/amoktimeru3.jpg

OK, that rules. Game over.

[rafial]

...and Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) is fulfilled!

[Fuseboy]

Some of this is really interesting, but by the time I post anything, it will be three pages from the end!

There's a few points being mixed together, I think.

I'd like to underscore the earlier point about the difference between acting and determing how the story goes. An obvious point, but theatre actors, working from a script, have zero influence on where the story goes, yet strive for great acting regardless.

You can imagine a hypothetical game mechanic where the results of an argument are determined by a coin flip - it's not related to anything. This totally arbitrary mechanic would still allow some fine acting, and might be a useful tool for actors working on their improvisational skills.

Acting is likely to be a casualty of DoW if the players only bother to act because it influences the story. As you've said, Four Horsemen, if the players are so uninterested in acting that they mumble the bare minimum to support the action they've scripted.

So I don't buy that argument-resolution mechanics, in general, reduce acting or character development.

It's a plausible point, however, that the specific effects of the various DoW actions promote an argument structure that you can't act convincingly.

If that's the case, then you might prefer a Versus test before the arguments are made. No distracting structure; a version of the coin flip I mentioned earlier. "Hmm, looks like Vermil wins this argument.. act it out!"

I come from such a non-immersive gaming background that this is a rare occurrance in my gaming groups.

Recently, though, I did play alongisde someone (and this is anecdote, not argument) who wanted the game direction strongly tied to acting performance. It was a little alarming for me to see him critique the GM's NPC performances as (for example) being inconsistent with how they'd been played previously!

If you wanted a performance-based game without bullying, some sort of hidden voting might be in order to determine whose acting was superior.

[luke]

Right dude. Its very easy to spot when a leftwinger has nothing illuminating left to say--they usually start comparing you to O'Reilly.

LOL!!

This from the man who just called me a Rovian. You can always tell an ex-Washington insider when...


You're like a Rovian politician staying on message.

I was just giving what I got. Shall I quote you on that, too?


Godwin's law, I am your slave in the workcamp of The Interet.



Well, I'm still waiting here for a reasoned analysis on how DoW doesn't simply shift the Out Of Character bias away from someone whose naturally gifted with social interaction and "acting" to someone who is naturally gifted at scoring all the forks and putting together a good scripting combo. Oh my god, that evil man is repeating himself again!!!!

Rich, you're right, the DoW is part of the tactical game. Skilled players of the game will benefit from their skill more than unskilled players. This is the case for nearly every game ever. Typically, the mechanics of a game let two reasonably skilled players have a fair chance at defeating one another.

Natural talent, charisma and so forth are not part of this game. They cannot be controlled by the game and they cannot be apportioned equally to all players so as to create a level playing field. Therefore, since social interaction is vital to roleplaying games, I created an interface to simulate the process of debate to level the playing field.

Just like we created the Fight! mechanics because we have no talent for martial combat, in order create a level playing field for this type of conflict within the game. And this phenomenon not unique to fighting and talking -- it is the case for all game mechanics.

Let me address your A, B, Cs: The Duel of Wits does not and cannot force a player to change or abandon his Beliefs. It is simply not in the mechanics. Only a player may decide when to change his Beliefs in Burning Wheel. A Duel of Wits can end in a violent confrontation. This seemed like a natural part of the high intensity fiction that we like.

Sportsmanlike behavior at the table is laid out by the social contract of the group of players (at the table at the time of the game). If you want argue about how that is governed by a larger social contract, go for it, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion.

I could bring up more examples of where obstinate players and immersion-based "I was just playing my character" have broken games. But note, this particular line of argument doesn't have anything to do with the Duel of Wits. This has to do with the higher functions of BWR: addressing player priorities and social contract and encouraging more player input in the narrative has in turn allowed us to play more games, with more satisfying outcomes in a much shorter amount of time.

Duel of Wits addresses social conflict resolution in the game and moves the story forward by giving power to fairly negotiate in-game arguments. The game text, world burning process and explicit Beliefs point up to the social contract (which then points back down to immersion).

BTW, I outed you in this thread because any discussion of social contract and immersion has to involve frank discussion of both your play preferences and actual play styles. It is not enough to talk about your opinion of a social mechanic and declare it broken.
-Luke

[AndyAction]

Wow, I gotta say that I'm loving this.

Rich, I was bummed that we couldn't play tonight but in hindsight I'm relieved - you woulda had a bee in your bonnet!

I'm envisioning this:

Finnick (1/2 Goblin Trader played by Andy):"Carfindel, I don't think that seeing these blue Lizard-folk to safelty fits into the big-picture agenda, unless of course you want to act as translator so I can set them up to do business with my kinsmen back in Frisia...."

Carfindel (Elven Ranger Rich): "We must escort them to their homeland - it's the honourable thing to do..."

Thor (GM): Fellas, should we resolve this in a :::gulp::: Duel Of Wits...?

Yikes!

Oh, and Lukifer & Petey...


I could bring up more examples of where obstinate players and immersion-based "I was just playing my character" have broken games.


...cut to Simplex pissing the name "Kubai Park" in the snow..!

[The_Tim]

I'm going to wade in, because I love wallowing in Internet shit flinging contests.

I'll start with an example of when I'd have loved a Duel of Wits style mechanic. My high school gaming group played a lot of WW games, often in an immersive mode with detached tactical sections thrown in. We knew it wasn't great for making stories, but was great for constructing in character situations (often hilarious) to bridge between crunchier game parts.

In one Sabbat game two players that often argued a great deal out of character were investigating a church where a whole other pack of vampires vanished. One player (Derek) had a smooth, observant character. The other (Dave) had a killing machine with excellent tracking skills. A good combination for covering all possibilities, and a powder keg scene sure to keep the interest of the players not involved.

When shit got spooky Derek's character wanted to retreat for back-up. Dave's character thought that was cowardice and insubordination — a capital offense. Greatly amusing character interaction followed. After the ten golden minutes, however, Derek and Dave whipped themselves into a frenzy. One (I can't remember which) slipped in an out of character argument and it degenerated into a contest of wills between the players.

Lacking any resolution system to deal with the issue at that moment, Derek had his character retreat via Dave's character's car. Dave responded by having his character attack. We had to retcon back when both realized this was insane. It had shifted from an interesting demonstration of character to a dysfunctional situation because once the conversation shifted away from free-form hashing out/squabbling over the course of actions there were no fair mechanics to handle the situation.

It is because of these situations that I believe Duel of Wits enhances play on all levels. Players not involved in discussion scenes are more interested, because after the fluff there may come a story shifting DoW. Players are more willing to engage in character bickering, because there's a stop gap against it degenerating into player bickering. Players can invest safely in social characters, having a powerful system tool at their disposal, without dominating play (woo for escalation).

To keep with my WW generated experiences DoW removes the "You should be convinced!" "Well I'm not!" bickering that has nothing to do with anything but penis waving in the same way that Fight! removes "I shot you!" "No you didn't!"

As a postscript, Derek was a fine debater. However, my group of friends never had a problem with him controlling the course of play. We were too damn contrary to listen to him.

[Bastoche]

Well, I'm still waiting here for a reasoned analysis on how DoW doesn't simply shift the Out Of Character bias away from someone whose naturally gifted with social interaction and "acting" to someone who is naturally gifted at scoring all the forks and putting together a good scripting combo. Oh my god, that evil man is repeating himself again!!!!


The problem here IMO is that you fail to understand that "immersion", "roleplaying" and "acting" are NOT objective concepts. And I also think Luke failed to point that out by simply giving his own version of the aforementionned concepts.

Most people are used to good ole White wolf-like games or heavily drifted or house ruled old Skool DnD. They often think that roleplay = (social) improvisation, usually according to some vague notion of "character concept". You know that "my guy would do" syndorme?

In BW, with the DoW mechanics, the "acting" takes place like a real actor would do. There is a script. However, the script is not written beforehand. The scripting and dice rolling write the scenario that has to be "acted out" by the players. It's different from freeform roleplaying (what I would call "bullshitting" and what Luke calls bullying). But it's roleplaying nonetheless.

So in order to convince you that "DoW doesn't simply shift the Out Of Character bias away from someone whose naturally gifted with social interaction and "acting" to someone who is naturally gifted at scoring all the forks and putting together a good scripting combo." I'd say THAT WHAT WE ARE SAYING! However, the acting still takes place. With a scenario instead of "making stuff as you go". What's the difference betweem OoC bias in the form of game mechanics vs OoC bias from personnal social aptitudes??? There's a shift (bias) without the (DoW) mechanic!!!!!!

The thing that Luke is adressing is that it's a "better" way to play! Why? Because it allow socially inept people to play socially capable characters without being overshadowed by socially capable people playing socially inept characters! Now if you disagree with this, it's fine. And that's why Luke call you a bully ;) It's is assumed in the game that EVERYONE can learn the mechanics equally well and that not everyone can learn social aptitudes.

With the DoW, you have an acting mechanics that allow better immersion for socially inept people (it's more believable to have a social character being good at social things irregardless of the player's social ability). And arguably does not diminish the immersion for socially adept people. It relegate the good ole 'my guy" syndorme to the artefacts of antic poor game design and notalgic high school gaming to make way for a functionnal (i.e. fair) game mechanic.

In roleplaying, are you playing a "role" (defined by a script half made up by the player and half determined by the dices) or are making stuff up as you go? What bias do you prefer? A mechanic-based one or a personnal one? What about giving bonus dice to people who took some form of martial arts class in their life for the fight mechanics? How about giving bonus dices to players who goes bow hunting? How about giving a free sprinting training skill to players who used to win gold medals running? Etc.

[Fourth Horseman]

One last point and then I'm done since I'm not going to convince anybody here. There is a reason I have dragged out this thread and obstinately replied to most of the arguments raised here--to demonstrate a point.

Did this debate end with a compromise?

No.

Did this debate end with a victory, DoW style?

Well, I think Luke has done a good job of convincing his targeted audience of his argument but he hasn't gotten a concession out of me, so I'd say no.

Was there a clear loser here? For the same reasons as above I'd say no.

It very much ended with both sides staying entrenched in their respective viewpoints. That's the way most RL debates end, and its the way most freeform roleplaying debates end.

Moreover, Luke has already said that the extended nature of this debate is illustrative of why a DoW mechanic is necessary. I guess if it was conducted through a DoW mechanic it would be a lot shorter and less acrimonius. And there would have been a definite resolution of the debate with winners and losers.

BUT I would say alot was revealed about the respective "characters" and preferences of myself and everyone who put an extended post into this freeform debate.

How much of that "character" would have been revealed if we conducted this debate with the DoW mechanic?

Does anyone feel me on this point--which is the basic crux of my argument?

[donbaloo]

Felt ya from the beginning, still feeling ya.

I think DoW certainly has the potential to change the outcome of an in game debate from what it would have been without a ruling mechanic. Even when there's not any bullying or real life social skills driving an outcome.

[Kublai]

Oh, I feel your point, Rich! But, I can sacrifice a part of it to avoid such debates and the behavior they bring out.

[Bastoche]

Well, I think Luke has done a good job of convincing his targeted audience of his argument but he hasn't gotten a concession out of me, so I'd say no.


That's exactly the point of the DoW. The audience sides with the winner of the DoW but the loser still stick to his guns. That's the whole point of DoW.


Even when there's not any bullying or real life social skills driving an outcome.

I don't think such a thing exists. But that might be just me.



How much of that "character" would have been revealed if we conducted this debate with the DoW mechanic?

Which "character"'s? The character's or the player's?

Characters (without the " ") are extension of players and we pretend player a "role" (i.e. someone different from a point to another from yourself). Which role are you playing? Your character's or yours? Does your character have the same "character" as you? I return to my example of giving bonuses to player's FoRKs to their characters.

Luke's definition of 'bullying" IMO (if I get his meaning) is: if a person argue that freeform social roleplay is better because it's more representative of real-life social interaction (pretended reason) when actually he holds his point because he's good at social things and get a disadvantage by not being able to use those skills to make his character "better" or because he sucks more at the mechanics than at social things (real reason).

Thing is a typical gaming session last 4 hours and characters might actually argue for days (or at least more than 4 hours). If the players not involved in the debate wants to eventually PLAY, it has to stop somewhere.

Another point is that players takes the game seriously enough to think that in-game issues become real life issues (i.e. clashing player priorities of play or story "dragging"). These makes debates go longer.

An example I experienced:

We are bad guys and stumble upon a bundle of smuggled things. My character is a greedy bastard and the others are just plain bad guys. The level of risk for stealing these highly valuable stuff is quite high but my character can't let the opportunity slip. Result: 3 hours of debate and 15 minutes of play. I'm quite a social adept person et either the others got tired of arguing or they got won over and we went as I planned. I took control of the game myself for (real life) petty reasons because in character it was a BIG DEAL. DoW would've made that RL 3 hours debate a 15 minutes scripting thing and the dice would've decided who was "righter" than the other (the loser is still right).

Make sense?

[coffeestain]

Interestingly, Rich has further sold me on DoW after this thread. Apart from the fact that I do feel there's a pretty clear victor here in a DoW sense, I'd never tolerate this kind of shit around my table for 7 pages worth of my time.

If DoW keeps this away from my table, it's worth its weight in gold.

Regards,
Daniel

[The_Tim]

I think that's the thing that Rich is missing entirely. DoW is a tool. It cannot force you to stop having illuminating character interactions, including cases where players decide to have their characters clash. Instead, it provides a way to move on once things move past the point where they entertain everyone at the table.

Suggesting that players engage in a Duel of Wits is a way of saying, "Right now this is interesting, either do something with it or drop it. Either way it stays interesting."

[Merritt Baggett]

Did this debate end with a compromise?

The winner had to give up respect from the hardcore Immersionist community when a failed obfuscate opened the way for a little BoA damage laying bare the winner's true feelings to the shocked but otherwise firmly swayed audience.

:wink:

[donbaloo]

Even when there's not any bullying or real life social skills driving an outcome.

I don't think such a thing exists. But that might be just me.

See, that's weird to me. I can tell just from reading this thread that my group is a unique case though. When I first read BWR and I read the DoW, I certainly liked the notion of a social mechanic. But I just couldn't relate or understand Luke's comments about it solving hours and hours of arguing. In all my years I've never seen the game stop for more than 15 minutes due to any sort of dispute. Everything always seemed to shake out and we arrived at decent conclusions according to what had been established in the game thus far. I see now that we were freaks that way though.

[Bastoche]

Even when there's not any bullying or real life social skills driving an outcome.

I don't think such a thing exists. But that might be just me.

See, that's weird to me. I can tell just from reading this thread that my group is a unique case though. When I first read BWR and I read the DoW, I certainly liked the notion of a social mechanic. But I just couldn't relate or understand Luke's comments about it solving hours and hours of arguing. In all my years I've never seen the game stop for more than 15 minutes due to any sort of dispute. Everything always seemed to shake out and we arrived at decent conclusions according to what had been established in the game thus far. I see now that we were freaks that way though.

Is it because the points of dispute aren't that important or is it because most players 'back down'? Honest question here. Is it always the same guy (or same few guys) who's conclusions are adhered to? If not, I applaud your maturity! If yes, there you have it ;)

[donbaloo]

Is it because the points of dispute aren't that important or is it because most players 'back down'? Honest question here. Is it always the same guy (or same few guys) who's conclusions are adhered to? If not, I applaud your maturity! If yes, there you have it ;)

Even the important points manage to get haggled out. And we've got a very socially skilled player in the group, who can actually be a bit of a bully too. He got his way just like everyone else, when it made the most sense for the game. If anything ever went too long, or bullying was becoming obvious, it became the GMs call. We never had any extended hard feelings over it.

[Kublai]

Freaks.

[donbaloo]

Seriously, right? You guys scare me. I'm gonna stay hidden in my little RPG hole and stick to playing with my same 'ole players forever. Sounds scary out there. I'm cancelling my plans to visit MACE now....

[TimP]

Yankees just like to argue, Donbaloo. No point in trying to figure it out.

That should probably be a character trait in Stormsweeper's Burning Tumbleweeds.

Tim

[stormsweeper]

You're all just getting a glimpse at the typical day at BWHQ. :twisted:

And I believe at least two of that crew are from the South, or at least south of the Mason-Dixon.

[Fuseboy]

In all my years I've never seen the game stop for more than 15 minutes due to any sort of dispute.

I've seen this happen a couple of times, once when two characters (separated from the rest of us) couldn't agree on whether to return to the rest of the party or not. One guy was stubbornly determined to go north, while the other wanted to go south, towards us. The northbound player wasn't even interested in discussing it, while the southbound player kept pestering him with rationale.

Eventually, Mr. South proposed they resolve it with rock, paper, scissors. I guess he didn't negotiate stakes clearly enough, because after the 1-2-3 count, Mr. North flipped him the bird. I laughed my ass off about that later - at the time, it was a little painful.

The other time was more of a crossroads for us. We were playing a totally linear module (from a magazine, guaranteeing that it was wholly unrelated to our characters).

We had just suffered through forty minutes of agonizing "free ourselves from the trap we sprung" play (imagine watching wounded ants crawl in circles), and capped that off by a PC being insta-killed by an ambushing monster in the next room.

We pulled through that, only to discover that - rather than getting the treasure - we were being diverted into a sub-quest to placate some deceased spirit whose help was our only way forward. (This is d20, can you tell?)

The whole group was so totally demoralized, and so bereft of purpose, that it took us nearly an hour to decide whether or not to simply walk away from the entire adventure, or whether to persist.

Aware of BW's mechanics, I proposed that we just make an opposed Charisma roll; I lost, and we were out of there in less than five minutes.

[luke]

Is Poland south of the Mason Dixon line?

[stormsweeper]

Is Poland south of the Mason Dixon line?

I'm pretty sure Poland is actually on Pluto. Have you ever been to this "Poland" Drozdal speaks of?

[donbaloo]

Yankees just like to argue, Donbaloo. No point in trying to figure it out.
Yeah, guess you're right Tim. :) I suppose if I ever get up that way to game with any of these folks I'll need to take some classes in belligerence so that I can fit in and keep them from feeling like they need to coddle me.

By the way, slightly back on topic...I posted earlier about using the option from the book where you carry out your arguments naturally and the players at the table determine what you scripted. Does anyone use that and if so does it help to alleviate any of these problems that Rich is pointing out?

[CRK]

There is no game mechanic that exists that will fix "bad playing" behavior.

A silver-tongued devil in real life who is supposed to be playing a lunkheaded thug, but manipulates the other characters like Machiavelli is simply being a bad roleplayer. You as a GM can either tell him to play in character, penalizing him in some way if he doesn't, or you can eliminate the problem by going to the dice.

We simulate physical skills and knowledge skills through dice mechanics so there's no reason we shouldn't simulate social skills, right? Of course since social interactions generally are the point of gathering together with other human beings to do something, having it all rest on the toss of a die kind of takes the fun out of everything.

So, how to make the social die rolls as interesting and as varied as the combat system is?... you create something like DoW.

What it boils down to though is, this is a compromise, what should be happening is an attempt by the GM or the group to disincentivize such bad behavior. But, lets forget trying to make the silver-tongued devil for a minute actually play his lunkheaded character and lets use a system like DoW.

Now, however, you have taken what is traditionally been in the realm of "roleplaying", and placed it into the realm of game mechanics. You open yourself up to the exact same level of bad behavior, only from a different source now (which is the most valid point Four Horseman has made). Instead of not playing their character and using their own personality to gain advantage, people can "game the system" to gain advantage. Bad roleplaying behavior is replaced with bad non-roleplaying behavior. Different diseases with the same unfortunate result... the death of immersion.

Personally, I disagree with the thesis of the "new narrative movement" that contends that the game itself must somehow through its rules bring roleplaying to the table. The players must bring role-playing to the table. Unfortunately, D20 is raising an entire generation of players who bring nothing but a bag of dice and a "character build". I don't really see game designers being able to change that through coming up with die mechanics for role-playing, no matter how brilliantly designed. I may however, be wrong and this new "Post-D20" reactionary movement in game design may help people re-discover roleplaying. If so, that's wonderful. I only hope that they then realize they never really needed those mechanics in the first place and they can take off the "training wheels".

To answer Fourhorseman directly, I can see the DoW system facilitating roleplaying in that it gives players a means to be something other then they are. Players who in real life are tongue-tied can become silver-tongued devils in the game in a way that is more fun for everyone then "make an opposed skill check". Which is why, when my BW campaign starts, I will be using the mechanic.

In any case, the GM must not allow bad behavior to ruin his game...period. If people are role-playing badly, help them to roleplay properly by example. If people are gaming the system in a way that hurts role-playing, call them on it.

There is nothing inherently good or bad about the DoW system as I see it, it's all in the application. If players are DoWing at the drop of a hat, roleplaying and immersion are probably being lessened. If it's being used properly, and might I add as written , it's a very interesting and thought-provoking mechanic at the very least.

[luke]

CRK, thanks for your thoughts and welcome to the boards.

If anyone else responds to this you'll find a severed horse head in your bed tomorrow morning.

Let it die, people!
-L