Choices, choices: What to grey first?

[Yagathai]

If you fill the role of the party "tank" and you're given a choice between working towards greying Power and greying a weapons skill, knowing that it's going to be a good long time before you have the opportunity to acquire a grey weapon of any sort, which would you choose and why? I would personally take Power, but I'm curious if there are any good arguments for the other approach.

Also, I'm curious if anyone has really extensively used Artha investiture.

[Kublai]

Oh, that's a toughie. It depends on your style. With a Grey skill comes lots more successes, even when the chips are down and the Obstacles are up. But with Grey Power comes so many other bonuses: increased Mortal Wound; +2 to Mark damage (without grey weapons or Hands of Stone trait); plus the benefits of improved Pushes, Locks, and Natural Defenses. If I were to Min/Max, then I'd definitely go for the Power. But there's something so satisfying about a Grey skill. My character has a grey Tae Poong Do but Black Power and I am loving it!

As for Artha expenditure, this plays a REAL subtle role in our games. For example, I put 4 artha into a world map I found. 13 game years, several imprisonments, one crucifixion, and many fires later, he still has the map! This is more like a social contract between player and GM with no rules to back up either side. And so, it's been a LONG time since I've invested Artha because I saw no benefit. The way its described now is way too vague.

But, with Abzu's new idea for magic items, Artha is actually playing a mechanical role with investments. Wizards must spend a point of Fate to bond an item (like a sustainer) to himself. I am sure this can be applied to other things as well. Though this sounds a lot like the Karma black hole days of Shadowrun, it has proved ok so far, especially with how easy it is to earn Fate points.

[mike_ravenwood]

i running magic weapons as related to graying a skill. Instead of worrying about rules for enchanting that I don't have, all magic weapons are invested items that somebody grayed a stat with. For example, if a thousand years ago the famous swordsman Sir X used his trusty sword to slay thousands of orcs, trolls, and rescue that beautiful Lady Y (graying his Sword skill in the process) this lingers with the blade. It never left his side and some of him rubbed off on the blade. His consciousness imprinted on the blade. Now a thousand years latter player X picks up the sword. The blade knows how to behead orcs (gives a bonus to sword rolls), cleave Troll flesh ( even those who bodies are resistant to everything but fire), and woo women ( extra dice for seduction). These are hard rules I go by, but I reward players who hang on to their trusted equipment. Those who go jumping from sword, dwarven axe, even that Orc scimtar will work for now, won't get any bonus when the gray a stat or skill. No story I can recall included a sturing scene where the character clutch their trusty blades with price tags still dangling from the hilts.
Once the enchanting rules are finished I may modify this but I don't that I'll include magic weapons that provide any extreme bonus to skills dice that the players haven't gone throught the ringer with. This is not to say that I don't enjoy giving my players Vorpal +5 Adamanitum Sword... Just that Burning Wheel isn't that game for me.

[Trayer]

No story I can recall included a [stirring] scene where the character clutch their trusty blades with price tags still dangling from the hilts.


Hehehe I just had some vivid imagery with this little sentence. But seriously I think this idea has some merit, but perhaps it should be linked with the investiture of artha into said weapon. It doesn't do any good have a trusty sword that doesn't make it's way back to you.

Trayer

[Kaare Berg]

With the risk that my memory is failing me.


I would personally take Power, but I'm curious if there are any good arguments for the other approach.

Was it in a post or is it in the rules that striking someone using a Black weapon using Grey power results in the mundane weapon breaking under the strain?

This would be a good counter argument, if it is so.

[Lxndr]

Only if they try to do Gray damage, I thought?

[Kaare Berg]

Hey, got me. I am at work so no way to check it out.

[Lxndr]

Yeah, me too. But I just read that on Monday, and I think that's how it works...

[Yagathai]

You don't have to do grey damage if you have a grey power, but if you do there's a good chance your weapon will break. But even if you choose to do Black damage, you get +2 to your Mark result.

My reasoning is as follows: The majority of the antagonists that we've encountered thus far have been, by and large, trolls. If you get a large, beefy troll with his MW well into the grey, a grey weapon skill really won't do you all that good. I mean, sure, you stand a better chance of getting that coveted S damage result, but even with a B7 power and a Great Strike with a polearm the best my character can do is a G1. It'll take quite a few of those S results to wear the troll down, and meanwhile all the troll has to do is hit me once and I'm jelly.

On the other hand, with a Grey power, I can do a W1 damage with my polearm. Granted, I can only do it once, which is why I would carry spare polearms. Alternatively, I pick up a big rock and use Brawl to hit a troll with it. I'm only doing a G8 or G9 mark instead of a W1, but I'd wager that even a really tough troll can't take more than one or two of those whacks before going down.

[Kublai]

In all my years of playing, I have yet to see White damage! The mere thought makes me cringe! :shock: :(

You realize if you up the ante like this, Trolls will become unchallenging and your GM might have to throw meaner things at you? Gah!

[Trayer]

Holy Frijoles! I didn't know you were up into the White possibilities. Now I know why you wanted a man at arms. (read polearm bearer!)

The phrase: "Sword BOY!" comes to mind. GOds now what movie was that from?


Trayer

[Kaare Berg]

which is why I would carry spare polearms

How? Just curious.

I guess if you are looking to deck a troll with a single blow the this would be your correct choice. (It is cool as hell to do this in the Return of the King video game, so I see why you want this).

But then you meet that grey swordsman who keeps parrying and dodging your one-hit-kill-blows, and he keeps chipping away at you until you can't hit the floor by falling on it. And then you whish you had chosen Grey skill.

[Yagathai]

How? Just curious.

Me: "I buy a spare polearm."
GM: "OK."


But then you meet that grey swordsman who keeps parrying and dodging your one-hit-kill-blows, and he keeps chipping away at you until you can't hit the floor by falling on it. And then you whish you had chosen Grey skill.

That is correct, and if humans were our main adversaries thus far, I might consider greying the skill before the stat. However, we've yet to meet a human that can give us a fight, whereas we've fought lots and lots of trolls.

Besides, I don't care if he IS a grey swordsman. With four Artha I'm rolling fourteen open-ended dice, and with four more I'm rerolling my failures. If I can't land at least an Incidental (G5) on him, I deserve to lose.

Now if he's got a Grey skill and Grey armor, I'm screwed. But that's way outside our current power level.

[Lxndr]

I thought the question being asked was "how exactly are you carrying around all these spare pole-arms?"

[Kublai]

I giggle when I imagine this brave and incredibly powerful knight travelling around with a cartload of halberds and a multitude of squires that will be necessary to hand them out, as well as to repair the broken ones! He would need a dozen just to get through one fight! :lol:

Tee hee!

[Yagathai]

If I end up needing more than three, it's not the kind of fight I should be having right now. ;)

[Kaare Berg]

If I end up needing more than three, it's not the kind of fight I should be having right now.

Lets hope your GM doesn't read this forum then :D

And if he does, I hope I didn't make your life harder by giving him any ideas.

[Lxndr]

But giving the GM ideas is half the fun. :twisted:

[eruditus]

Me: "I buy a spare polearm."
GM: "OK."



Now I have to intercede... when has any interaction gone this smoothly for you :twisted:

[eruditus]

Gray skill, by far. Why? It will happen in your lifetime. I am very stingy with stat checks and I decide when a check is important enough to warrant a raise or even a roll.

Chances are you end up getting lots of learned skills. I have instinuted a set of skills much like Observation training, where the stat can really only ever be used as the root or with a double obstacle penalty without said skills. Pretty much, Natural Defenses are the only way to really get stat checks. yeah, that changes things a bit but it avoids the unbalancing nature of raw Gray stats.

[Yagathai]

Gray skill, by far. Why? It will happen in your lifetime. I am very stingy with stat checks and I decide when a check is important enough to warrant a raise or even a roll.


Indeed? Well, we'll just see about that. Heh heh heh... *rubs hands together*

[eruditus]

...to the point that I am replacing stat rolls for most things with skill checks. If that skill has a root of power (such as if the check originally was power) then it would come with a double obstacle penalty and advancement and artha would be spent against learning the skill. Its much more likely that you would be able to gray brawling or lifting... heck, I may just take graying stats right out of the picture... but we'll see.

[Yagathai]

I don't like it. If you change the system much more, we won't be playing BW anymore.

In any case, a grey power is a grey power. I don't care if I don't get to use it for as many checks -- the bottom line is that my character will have heroic strength. Hercules, eat your heart out!

Also, apropos of nothing, we've been figuring my VA all wrong. It's actually one higher than we thought.

[eruditus]

I disagree. I think there are significant components of BW that we use very consistently. I do not consider changing minor points in advancement and Artha use "no longer playing BW."

As an academic persuit here are the things I have altered for my campaign:

Some traits are not used or used in different ways (ex. Ratiquette and Birdie talk are simply the ability to purchase Animal Husbandry with a focus on that animal... most likely +1D call on traits.

I use the new wound penalties and a variation on the proposed armor as additional dice variations.

I use a light hit-location system instead of auto-torso.

The use of stats are limited. I focused much more on skills, with stats being used primarily for attribute figuring and natural defenses.

I changed the way you gray things. You collect Artha in a skill/stat by using Artha as per the normal rules. When you have applied 36 artha to that skill/stat then it goes gray. I have not approached white shading yet and I doubt I will in the next year of campaigning.

I have altered the natural defense system to be more choice driven and to give multiple attackers more of an advantage. Very basically your ND is the root of a stat (1/2 round down) and used as an Ob. If you use an action (scripted ot forfeit) you can instead roll the full stat.

I think that leaves some 400 other pages I have left untouched. Not BW...pshaw. :roll:

[Trayer]

Far be it from me to argue with the way the Gm wants to run his world. But If Buli wants to have heroic stregth, how does he go about doing it?

(sans travelling to the Seven Mountains and studying with the monks there?)


-CMC

[eruditus]

I will answer this in two perspectives...

The first is to say that it is more in line with the campaign to have gray skills that focus on aspects of strength instead of all power. One might get gray lifting, gray brawl or gray wrestling. I would even be willing to say that if you get so many gray skills then you can gray the appropriate stat.

Gray stats are the scope of djinn and monsters. Hercules' father was a god.

Aside from that, it cheapens the atmosphere when someone is wandering about with a dozen weapons like a f'in golf bag, shattering weapons left and right. It suits a campaign more when a single weapon is grayed or when someone works for something like Hands of Stone. Those are better approaches to gray damage than power.

The second perspective is one of the application of Artha. With my skill-centric way of handling advancement, really only leaving straight stat rolls to ND, then it means your spending Artha only for passive defensive rolls. That being the case, and due to the fact that they are more rare than most other tests, players are tempted to horde Artha until that first fated pwoer check and dump everything they have into it (which is what happened, on a similar note, to Glimm's Sorcery. He was dropping 16 Artha into Sorcery in what would normally be a unimportant roll (of course, only I knew how important it was since it was to learn the spell that allowed him to animate the statue at Mountainstaff and route the troll advance - so I didn't complain too much). Again, it cheapens the feel of why Artha is used. If I think a player is aiming to do this then I, as a GM become more cautious and watch very closely when I give the player access to stat checks. Some may say that ruins some of the fun of the GM having to carefully dole out tests. For many it would clog up their game.

So, if anyone were interested in graying any stat, power in particular, I would say that their going to find themselves never wanting for Artha as they will horde and horde and then get themselves all wound up for that one power roll that will not seem to come. And when it does, I may just say "ah, you succeed." No roll, no Artha expenditure. Can it hapen? yes, over time during important story elements such as Samson's fight with the Philastines and collapsing the temple in his last desperate act in the name of the Lord. In those situations then I would deem it appropriate to spend Artha and thus get closer to graying. Agility is even harder since there are SO many skills that then have access to easy graying (I have each skill be "relearned" in order to use them gray). However, I would think its more satisfying to ease up on those expectations and just spend Artha as the need arises.

The game is about to take a VERY social turn. The game has taken place in the northlands, a place of desolate rocky landscapes and trolls. Social interactions had little to no real weight to them. Now, as the group travels south away from the confrontation at hand they will find that their social interactions will mean life, death, and success on many levels. To ignore those situation will be folly and for those without social skills those varied Artha expenditures will mean staying out of the dungeons, stopping house wars in the south while the war against the trolls rages in the north.

Let me know what you all think.

[luke]

The second perspective is one of the application of Artha. With my skill-centric way of handling advancement, really only leaving straight stat rolls to ND, then it means your spending Artha only for passive defensive rolls. That being the case, and due to the fact that they are more rare than most other tests, players are tempted to horde Artha until that first fated pwoer check and dump everything they have into it (which is what happened, on a similar note, to Glimm's Sorcery. He was dropping 16 Artha into Sorcery in what would normally be a unimportant roll (of course, only I knew how important it was since it was to learn the spell that allowed him to animate the statue at Mountainstaff and route the troll advance - so I didn't complain too much). Again, it cheapens the feel of why Artha is used. If I think a player is aiming to do this then I, as a GM become more cautious and watch very closely when I give the player access to stat checks. Some may say that ruins some of the fun of the GM having to carefully dole out tests. For many it would clog up their game.


Wait, I'm confused. Aren't you, by strictly limiting the availability of Stat checks and setting a raw artha expenditure total for epiphany, essentially encouraging players to horde artha until they can spend it on the rare check that they want to gray out? Isn't this horde/splatter philosophy in turn making you more cautious and encouraging you to reduce the number of tests available, which encourages hording, which encourages your circumspection, etc ad infinitum?

-L

[Kublai]

Hoarding Artha sucked, as a player. I wanted to help certain rolls but didn't because I was saving up for the Epiphany. The more I saved, the less the GM liked to give out. It was the vicious circle Abzu just mentioned.

The new Artha system destroys this cycle. I highly recommend it from both a player's and GM's point of view. I spend Artha freely and I give out Artha freely. I've stopped worrying about the "bomb" and learned to love it. There is no longer the Artha tension that exists with the old hoarding ways. There is a new relationship now. Players really try to work their BITs in order to earn Artha and I gladly reward them when they do. This makes for better play. It's no longer GM versus Player - we work together now. At least, that's how it feels. And the burden of hoarding is gone! No more guilt for spending artha! Every time we use artha - even Fate pts - we say, "Woohoo! One more point closer to an epiphany!" You see, this new system makes Epiphanies a future certainty and not a future gamble, as with the hoarding system.

Sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into a rant. I just wanted to share with you my opinion of the folly of the hoarding system.

[eruditus]

Kublai,

How does the new system differ from how I am handling epiphanies?

Abzu,

If I felt that players were spending Artha based on success, failure and story then I would not have to monitor such things. However, it is important to me the timing involved in their development. If it all happens too fast then my brain says "this damages my suspension of disbelief and thus damages my opinion of the game." Its important to me that things make logical sense and that one player does not outstrip another due to min/maxing. It is not my changes that "force" players to dump, rather the decision to focus on something like graying Power "unnaturally." If a player was being responsible for the story and the flow and timing of the campaign then they would understand that Power checks were going to be rare and it is SUPPOSED to take three to five times longer to gray such stats. Hording and dumping is a means to get around that and that does not make for a good game. That is as much the players responsibility as it is mine and I am inclined to hold back more and more the more I feel the player is trying to circumvent those realities.

Am I making sense?

[luke]

Am I making sense?

Yes. But the system you are using is encouraging behavior that you don't agree with or want at your table. System is what dictates behavior at the table. It doesn't matter what you as a GM wants or what your players are after. Change the system and the player's behavior will, per force, change.

Of course, you'll always have munchkins, but if you have a system that embraces munchkinism, then there is no problem, is there?

I'll field the question about the new artha system:
The three-tiered artha system prevents players from epiphanying without meeting certain GM-determined conditions. Beyond playing BITs and earning Fate and Persona, the GM controls the Deeds points. These are the "are you participating in the big picture?" points. In order to go gray, players and gm have to meet in the middle and drive toward the same goals. Players can spend Fate and Persona on their stats all day long, but if they ain't contributing to the bigger picture then they ain't going gray. Plain and simple. I urge you to reread Pete's post about the artha system. He fought with me and resisted this system tooth, nail and claw. He HATED the idea of it, now look what he's saying: "Every time we use artha - even Fate pts - we say, "Woohoo! One more point closer to an epiphany!" You see, this new system makes Epiphanies a future certainty". As a player, he feels empowered by it, not at odds.

-L

[Yagathai]

Eruditus, point by point:


If I felt that players were spending Artha based on success, failure and story then I would not have to monitor such things. However, it is important to me the timing involved in their development. If it all happens too fast then my brain says "this damages my suspension of disbelief and thus damages my opinion of the game."

I also feel that it's important to consider not just your opinion of the game, but also what the players feel. Of course, this is relates to the single biggest issue that I have with your GMing style, which is that very often your players are just characters in your story, rather than being characters in our (everyone's) story. It's not that you're necessarily doing anything wrong, mind you, but it is an element of your style that I don't particularly appreciate.


It is not my changes that "force" players to dump, rather the decision to focus on something like graying Power "unnaturally."

Unnaturally? Who determines that? Natural and unnatural is strictly a subjective opinion in a fantasy world, and in a collaborative storytelling setting like an RPG ought to be, it should be a group decision. Why such resistance to allowing your players final determination over how their characters develop, both stats- and plotwise?


If a player was being responsible for the story and the flow and timing of the campaign then they would understand that Power checks were going to be rare and it is SUPPOSED to take three to five times longer to gray such stats. Hording and dumping is a means to get around that and that does not make for a good game.

Point 1: If you don't want a player to grey Power, then tell them "I don't want you greying Power" when the player approaches you after a game and says "GM, I think that I'm going to want to grey my Power next." Dont tell them "OK, that sounds good" and then get frustrated about it later on a message forum. :P

Point 2: "get around" that? Get around what? If your new philosophy is that Power checks are going to be very rare, it also follows that the only reason you'd have a character make one is that it's very important. And if that's the case, doesn't it make sense to spend lots of Artha on it, especially if the character is a power-oriented one?


That is as much the players responsibility as it is mine and I am inclined to hold back more and more the more I feel the player is trying to circumvent those realities.

The more you push, the more your players are going to feel inclined to push back. Well, this player, anyway. :twisted:

[eruditus]

What I hear abzu saying in the first part of the message is that players have no responsibility in the game and they should do all they can to try to advance as they see fit.

I DO get the idea about Deeds points and that MAY meet the problem. I will have to look at it. However, the issue is not when they GET points, rather when they spend them.

I don't see how shifting to Fate/Persona/Deeds points will change that perspective. The players will just spend as they have until they DO get Deed points. Are you saying that I shouldn't then give deeds points until I WANT the player to gray power?

[spring_violet]

Just a tiny comment:


If your new philosophy is that Power checks are going to be very rare, it also follows that the only reason you'd have a character make one is that it's very important.

I don't think that by being rare, an action becomes more important. It just means you are doing something different. Buli was digging a hole, in that case a Power check was called for. How is digging a hole more important than beating on trolls about to tear limbs off the party members?

[luke]

I don't think this has anything to do with the Gray Power stat. I think Mike has crystalized the issue at hand in his post. Especially his first point. Remember, he's the actual player in the game. So we must pay careful attention to his observations.

As for the game and player responsibility -- the players are the game; there is no game without the players. If the game isn't about the players -- their goals, their desires and needs -- then what the hell is it about?

BW is designed to empower players -- they can shape their characters through play into unexpected shapes and sizes. Players are given many choices and options within the bounds of the system that are sacrosanct from tampering -- namely advancement and BITs. There are other systemic methods of GM-player interface, namely artha. Which is intended to be awarded as recognition for meaningful play -- players can get Deeds points for going along with the big picture or reshaping it entirely. What does it matter either way? The game is about them and how they affect the world.

-L

[Kublai]

Kublai, How does the new system differ from how I am handling epiphanies?

Well, the variation of Artha does give the GM a bit more control over the rate of Epiphanies. Deed points do indeed become the lynchpin. They are the rarest of Artha, and the GM can make them even more so. However, they're still going to be given out eventually, so your players can't accuse you of screwing them. "Stingy" perhaps; "Cockblocker" never.

As a GM, I believe I've set a nice Artha pace so far. I hand out Fate points all the time and my players use them frequently and not just on one skill, which is the best part. There is enough Artha flowing to make them feel secure enough to spread the love. This might actually slow the pace of Epiphanies, since they are not concentrating solely on one skill.

I am not fearing the Epiphany either, when it comes. I am going to make it a real celebration! After all, it's something that I, as a player, probably will never be able to achieve. I'm forced to live that dream through my players. :roll:

I think I lost my train of thought somewhere... :oops:

[eruditus]

yagathai wrote:

I also feel that it's important to consider not just your opinion of the game, but also what the players feel. Of course, this is relates to the single biggest issue that I have with your GMing style, which is that very often your players are just characters in your story, rather than being characters in our (everyone's) story. It's not that you're necessarily doing anything wrong, mind you, but it is an element of your style that I don't particularly appreciate.

Having said this in a public forum out of context I want to relate that for the most part Yagathai is the ONLY player that has this opinion. Yagathai is used to looser gamist games that do not focus on plot and character development of personality and relationship rather than numbers. I assume that most of those games there was more of a GM vs. players mentality.

That is not the type of game I run. In fact, by paying attention one would realize that this could not be farther from the truth. In fact my game has been about nothing BUT the players. No plot happens in the scope of the game that is not driven by the players and characters. That being said, maybe a little introspection on play style would be in order after discussing it with the other players.


Unnaturally? Who determines that? Natural and unnatural is strictly a subjective opinion in a fantasy world, and in a collaborative storytelling setting like an RPG ought to be, it should be a group decision. Why such resistance to allowing your players final determination over how their characters develop, both stats- and plotwise?

Because as the GM that IS my job. I am the world at large. I am the arbitrator of all that is random and levy consequence upon the players for their actions. I understand that many old school gamers are used to worlds where the physics don't make sense and cultures of the game are mere trappings, convenient backdrop for the PCs to kill things. That is not the case in my games. If someone grays a skill or stat in a month then that makes we wonder "why does every 100th person not have a gray stat?" I am the deciding factor in the heroic level of the game. It has nothing to do with resitance, in fact I often give the players anything they desire. It just has to do with context within the setting and should match the themes and moods of the game. Just because one player wishes to alter those benchmarks does not mean the GM should bow to his or her whim. The system is never the balancing factor in a game, its always up to the GM to determine the flow and pace of things.


Point 1: If you don't want a player to grey Power, then tell them "I don't want you greying Power" when the player approaches you after a game and says "GM, I think that I'm going to want to grey my Power next." Dont tell them "OK, that sounds good" and then get frustrated about it later on a message forum.

I think someone was not listening. I have not said "you can't gray power, not have I been in the least frustrated. What I said was, expect it to be slower that you want it to be.


Point 2: "get around" that? Get around what? If your new philosophy is that Power checks are going to be very rare, it also follows that the only reason you'd have a character make one is that it's very important. And if that's the case, doesn't it make sense to spend lots of Artha on it, especially if the character is a power-oriented one?

I thing Spring answered this appropriately. Important to the campaign is different than important to the player. This is circular logic at best.


The more you push, the more your players are going to feel inclined to push back. Well, this player, anyway.

This is the point. I am not pushing. All I have said, in response your "what should I gray" was the opinion that skill checks would be most advantageous and that if I don't think its in the best interest of the campaign - meaning the other people involved in this game as well as you - not JUST you - then I will do what BW is designed to do.

[eruditus]

I don't think this has anything to do with the Gray Power stat. I think Mike has crystalized the issue at hand in his post. Especially his first point. Remember, he's the actual player in the game. So we must pay careful attention to his observations.

I'd like to note that listening to one players observations is folly. I have four other players on this list, three of which post pretty regularly (and whom I'd like to have chime in here 8) ). This IS about graying power and yagathai's intention to do so in order to test the balance. In every game yagathai is in this sort of theme comes up. He himself has even admitted that he often is a game breaker.


As for the game and player responsibility -- the players are the game; there is no game without the players. If the game isn't about the players -- their goals, their desires and needs -- then what the hell is it about?

I couldn't agree more and everyone else will attest to this in my games.

[Yagathai]

Having said this in a public forum out of context I want to relate that for the most part Yagathai is the ONLY player that has this opinion. Yagathai is used to looser gamist games that do not focus on plot and character development of personality and relationship rather than numbers. I assume that most of those games there was more of a GM vs. players mentality.

Er... wrong. I mean, that's just out-and-out incorrect. Sure, I have played in those games -- who hasn't? And certainly I prefer a more game-ist style. But your assertion is way off the mark.

Also, have you asked your other players? Not just the one in the Monday group, but in general? Hell, you like exercise so much control over the storyline that you prefer to create people's characters for them.

That is, I might add, your right as a GM, and certainly nobody is forcing your players to play in your game at gunpoint. I play in the monday night group because I enjoy it. But that doesn't mean what I say is any less true.



Because as the GM that IS my job. I am the world at large. I am the arbitrator of all that is random and levy consequence upon the players for their actions. I understand that many old school gamers are used to worlds where the physics don't make sense and cultures of the game are mere trappings, convenient backdrop for the PCs to kill things. That is not the case in my games.

D&D 1st ed forever! ;)


If someone grays a skill or stat in a month then that makes we wonder "why does every 100th person not have a gray stat?"

Because we're playing heroic characters that aren't run-of-the-mill or average? Because if you're not an exceptional person, you don't get any Artha? Because you can say "they just don't" by GM fiat and nobody will even bat an eye?

You have said that by the end of this game you fully expect the characters to be heroic, or maybe even supernatural. I distinctly remember you saying something about "challenging the gods". Well, I'm just helping you down that road. =)


I am the deciding factor in the heroic level of the game. It has nothing to do with resitance, in fact I often give the players anything they desire. It just has to do with context within the setting and should match the themes and moods of the game. Just because one player wishes to alter those benchmarks does not mean the GM should bow to his or her whim.

Of course not, and nobody is saying that you should bow to the whims of a player.

On the other hand, listening to what your players say about a rules change that affects their enjoyment of the game -- well, that's not exactly a whim, now is it? :)


I think someone was not listening. I have not said "you can't gray power, not have I been in the least frustrated. What I said was, expect it to be slower that you want it to be.

I hear you barkin', dawg.


I thing Spring answered this appropriately. Important to the campaign is different than important to the player. This is circular logic at best.

I disagree. If it's important to the game, then it ought to be important to the player. I had assumed that you made me make a power check to dig a freakin' hole for an important reason, and so I dropped some Artha into it. Especially if you're going to make checks rarer and rarer, it just stands to reason that they're only going to be for more and more vital things. Unless you're making them rare and random, of course, in which case that alters the dynamic considerably. ;)


If I don't think its in the best interest of the campaign - meaning the other people involved in this game as well as you - not JUST you - then I will do what BW is designed to do.

That's fair, though I don't see how me graying a stat is going to be against the 'best interests' of the other players. Hey, I've got an idea! Let's ask them.


I'd like to note that listening to one players observations is folly.

I'd agree with that, at least as far as listening to one GM's observations is equally imbecilic.


This IS about graying power and yagathai's intention to do so in order to test the balance. In every game yagathai is in this sort of theme comes up.

Um, no. Again, this is simply untrue.


He himself has even admitted that he often is a game breaker.

Well I can't deny that, though the quote is being taken way out of context. It's true that I like to make bad GMs cry by turning their own rules against them, but despite his faults, Eruditus isn't a bad GM (and besides, it isn't a pretty thing when he cries) . ;)

What I enjoy doing is exploring the limits of a system, and seeing how accurately the system simulates that which it's intended to represent. I want to grey power because I want to see how it works. It's the same reason that I wanted to grey Will with my last PC, or the reason I wanted to take a hooked polearm, or the reason why I'm going to be nagging you to let me use the Mount Burner to create the mule that my character is going to try to buy.

[eruditus]

yagathai wrote:


.... Sure, I have played in those games -- who hasn't? And certainly I prefer a more game-ist style.


Your response to this is what I am asserting. It creates your bias.



Also, have you asked your other players? Not just the one in the Monday group, but in general?


Every game I run in nearly every session. There have been several players who have had the complaint that I ask TOO often that they do not know how to give any further input than they already have. I get constant feedback from everyone. This is why we usually end the evening with at least an hour conversation about these very topics. The kind of GM you seem to be describing wouldn't ask.


Hell, you like exercise so much control over the storyline that you prefer to create people's characters for them.


I do that for four very important reasons in many of my campaigns:
1) level playing field. I make certain that I create characters that are not neccessarily balanced but so that one player does not have a distinct mechanical advantage over another. Players approach the game on different levels of involvement and expertise. By one person making the characters at the start then I know that players are not taking advantage of certain aspects of a system, nor are others missing aspects that would be interesting to their characters. Not everyone wants to pour over the books they bought. And that is usually just the first character. I would remind you that YOU made Buli, your second character.

2) solid plot insertion. By making the characters (almost always with player interaction) I can tailor plot and each other. I may choose complimentary traits to play off of or other BITs that are designed to increase character interaction. Since in the beginning the players do not know that otehr characters it would be hard to do that. This way the characters fit as a group and in the world (which was brand new and no one had experienced it before).

3) Balance skill sets. Its often advantageous for the group if some skills overlap and others specialize in certain areas. This avoids, at best, a group that makes characters with too similar skill sets and at worst others that make their characters in a social vacuum... I take 5 lifepaths of Ratcatcher and put 6 points in animal husbanry with no other skills... simply becasue he either doesn't know any better or he is uninspired. Yeah, having a character creation session facilitates some of this but not as efficiently and this way we get playing. I almost always allow further characters to be developed by the players.

4) Some people do not want to make their characters. The PC generation process is not interesting to them. What should I do, say "oh, well I guess your not playing." ? This way, when we start there is a minimium amount of fuss and bother. here is a complete character that we discussed that uses the rules to their best ability while inserting the character into a breating world.



That is, I might add, your right as a GM, and certainly nobody is forcing your players to play in your game at gunpoint. I play in the monday night group because I enjoy it. But that doesn't mean what I say is any less true.


But you saying certain does not make it true either.



Because we're playing heroic characters that aren't run-of-the-mill or average? Because if you're not an exceptional person, you don't get any Artha? Because you can say "they just don't" by GM fiat and nobody will even bat an eye?


This is a lame excuse for poor GMing. The best games are ones with depth, and well thought out causality. Some GMs do this well off the cuff and others must plan it out. After gaming longer than you have been living, yagathai, I know do this well. And I know this because I am very responive to my player's needs.



You have said that by the end of this game you fully expect the characters to be heroic, or maybe even supernatural. I distinctly remember you saying something about "challenging the gods". Well, I'm just helping you down that road. =)


Yes, over the course of a three year campaign. It hasn't even been 6 months in burning wheel. Just so all know what's going on here, all due respect to yagathai, just to put this into perspective, this is how he operates. He basically agrues to ad nauseum in hoeps to confuse the points at hand... sorta like a good defense attorney.



Of course not, and nobody is saying that you should bow to the whims of a player.


You have hinted as such by assuming that because you do not get everything you ask for in the time frame you ask for it I am not being responsive to my players. You may not think your saying it, but you are.



On the other hand, listening to what your players say about a rules change that affects their enjoyment of the game -- well, that's not exactly a whim, now is it?


You are confusing acting on suggestions with listening. Just because I do not implant every rule you suggest does not mean I am not listening. It just means I do not agree.



I disagree. If it's important to the game, then it ought to be important to the player. I had assumed that you made me make a power check to dig a freakin' hole for an important reason, and so I dropped some Artha into it. Especially if you're going to make checks rarer and rarer, it just stands to reason that they're only going to be for more and more vital things. Unless you're making them rare and random, of course, in which case that alters the dynamic considerably.


No, I had you make a power check to dig a hole to determine the outcome of a long term action. Your roll determined how long it was going to take and if anyone got hurt in the process. Additioanlly, this is in the infancy of my ideas of focusing skills. If this roll were to be made today it would a Laborer skill test.



That's fair, though I don't see how me graying a stat is going to be against the 'best interests' of the other players. Hey, I've got an idea! Let's ask them.


*Listening to other complaints...* (note: spring tried to make a comment but apparently her post was eaten. She will probaly do so tomorrow.)



I'd agree with that, at least as far as listening to one GM's observations is equally imbecilic.


Correct... in a game where we are making a generalization about what the GMS think AND there are more than one GM, all should be consulted before making blanket statements that refer to the group of GMs. Since, however, there is only one GM we are talking about... well, I already know what all my players think in this matter... including yagathai.... because I have asked on a number of occassions.



What I enjoy doing is exploring the limits of a system, and seeing how accurately the system simulates that which it's intended to represent.


I love to give a system a spin as well, but not at the expense of the campaign. And in a game where all the players put a lot of thought and effort into every aspect, I can't allow one player to ruin that IF it doesn't work. I would be in far worse shape if I let this happen at will and then had to take things away. I was in a similar situation as yagathai - I knew a certain combination of abilities and spells was broken and I used them until the GM said otherwise. I even warned him on three seperate occasions and he assured me he could handle it. Then the other players sat back as I single handedly took out party sized encounters BY MYSELF. The GM had to come to me down the road and say "we have to change something here." I know better.



I want to grey power because I want to see how it works. It's the same reason that I wanted to grey Will with my last PC, or the reason I wanted to take a hooked polearm, or the reason why I'm going to be nagging you to let me use the Mount Burner to create the mule that my character is going to try to buy.


Thats all well and good but it will happen in due time. Not on your expectation but at a time when I am comfortable that the setting and the other players will not be dwarfed by it. Now go in your corner and play with your hooked-bill that I let you have. :lol:



D&D 1st ed forever!


'nuff said

I do not think it is any longer appropriate to continue this conversation on the forum. If we want to have it we can continue it offline.

[Kublai]

awwwww... I was enjoying this! :)

[luke]

Hello All,

As moderator I am closing this thread permanently. Do not respond further. I think it's served its purpose and has moved into the realm of the personal.

As a note to all who do post here, while we love and need criticism, personal attacks of any kind are not acceptable. Please make sure to keep your posts polite and on-topic.

thanks!
-Luke