Steel test for Wounds and Hesitation question

[Astros]

In my first scenario of my new BW campaign alot of questions came up (mostly due to my inexperience with the rules). But this is one that bugged me a little.

I know that when a character loses a die due to wounds they must test Steel vs. Hesistation with the loss in die calculated in. But below that page in the book it says they "hesitate immedietly due to shock and pain".

My question is twofold. Must a character choose a new hesistation option "cry in pain" instead of one of the other available options "stand and drool, run away, etc."?

And.. if so is hesistation from wounds a single action in which they MUST hesistate due to shock and pain and then follow up any other test failures with any other valid option?

For example, lets say Swordsman takes a midi wound (-1D) and makes a Steel(B5 -1D = B4) test vs Hesistation (B5). Let's say he has 3 successes out of the 5 needed. Does he hesistate and cry in pain for the following 2 actions? Or just for one action, and then can choose his next hesistation action?

Also does Hesistation change when you lose a Die? Ie. in the example above does Swordsman's hesistation go from B5 to B6 because he lost 1D (since his Will would have went down from B5 to B6)?

Thanks.

[rafial]

My question is twofold. Must a character choose a new hesistation option "cry in pain" instead of one of the other available options "stand and drool, run away, etc."?

The shock and pain is the cause of the hesitation, the player gets to choose their reaction to it (stand and drool/run and scream/fall prone/swoon).

Although "cry in pain" doesn't sound like a bad option to add to the list ;)

So in your example, Swordsman would loose the next two actions to performing whichever hesitation option his player chose. (Or be out for two minutes if he swooned).

Ie. in the example above does Swordsman's hesistation go from B5 to B6 because he lost 1D

Very cruel! I wouldn't do it that way, since the wound is already a penalty on Steel, but if you wanted to be especially bloody, I suppose you could rule that way.

[Kaare Berg]

Didn't think that you modified steel. But then again I'm at work and the book is at home.

I'd say (but then I can be controversial) that the Cry In Pain is valid response, the idea is that the character is tied up for a number of actions, so by that reasoning Cry In Pain would just be a loud version of Stand and Drool.

One of my players abseloutly refuses to script Stand And Drool because he finds it demeaning to his character, instead he calls it Think. The effect is the same, it just sounds better.

you'll quickly find this to be the great charm of BW, the visualisation provided by the scripting system, e.g. a set great strike, great strike becoming: swing, dwarf.

Wound hesitation is nasty, and the downfall of many warriors, there is little need to make it worse by upping the hesitation, unless like Rafial says, you want to get bloody.

In that case I strongly urge you to use the alternative Artha rules, and particularly the Persona point to redeem a failure, by choosing a complication. as discusseded here:
http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=385

[luke]

Astros, I think you're looking too deeply into this one.

Rafial is correct in his interpretation. Shock and pain are the reasons for hesitation. Stand and Drool/Run Screaming/Fall Prone are the available choices for "action" while hesitating.



Kaare, your player who "refuses" to script Stand and Drool because he finds it demeaning.... First of all, the rule is designed to deprotagonize characters. It is an ugly glimpse into the face of "real" pain. It's not heroic, it's not pretty and everyone does it: Everyone loses their shit when confronted with pain. Even the most heroic, the most brutal of soldiers -- they all hesitated, they all flinched and they all surrendered. If your player doesn't want to flinch and drool when stabbed, then I advise him to Steel himself better for his altercations.

Seriously, as you are well aware, life and death struggles in BW are supposed to be unseemly -- they are definitely not supposed to "sound better."

:twisted:

-L

[Blackberry]

If we're going by movie reality, I'd say that "gaping in fear" is a lot more popular a hesitation action than "drooling".

[Kublai]

Also does Hesistation change when you lose a Die? Ie. in the example above does Swordsman's hesistation go from B5 to B6 because he lost 1D (since his Will would have went down from B5 to B6)?

Hesitation isn't effected by wounds. This also goes for Power in terms of calculating damage from weapons. Hesitation and weapon damage do not alter because of wounds.

[Astros]

Thanks.

I was wondering, not out of a pure rules consideration, but the effects of those rules in game. I neither wanted to cheat my players or cheat them.

For instance, I wanted to know if a character was forced to "cry in pain" due to hesistation tests failed for wounds and stand there and get coup de grace'd, or be able to run away in fear of their lives.

I believe your collective answers reinforce my original expectations.

[Kaare Berg]

I know astros all but closed this thread, but a peeve popped up and I had to throw a purse full of 2c into the ring.

Luke,

First of all, the rule is designed to deprotagonize characters

you never ever want to deprotagonise your players.

The thing I was trying to state to Astros was that it really dosen't matter what you call it, as long as the effect is the same.
Think is here the same as stand and drool except the saliva bit. Call it clear the cobwebs, call it cry in pain, it don't matter, the character is hurt and unable act because of shock and pain, or his baser instincts take over and he runs away screaming or falls and twists in pain.

like Liam (a character) did in my game when he got a B7 wound, and then he ran and got chopped down with another two B7 wounds.

There is an amazing degree of fleksibility ithin the framework of your rules, and this is the reason why I am in love with BW. It therefor seems wasteful to deprotagonise your players just to keep with the exact wording of the rules.

If you by deprotagonising mean that you limit their choice of actions to reflect shock and pain, then fair enough, bad use of the word. But with the fleksibility of your system, you can still achive the shock and pain effect without de-protagonising the players.

Letting Tengel (another character) Think when his steel fails, protagonises Tengel without violating the rules.

And thus kaare antagonises the creator again. :roll:

[luke]

you never ever want to deprotagonise your players.

Kaare,

This is may seem shocking -- and perhaps I'm misusing the word --- but that is exactly what this rule is intended to do. Designed precisely with that goal in mind from the start -- 10 years ago.

Steel test failure is a set, known consequence of a player's actions. It's very rare when I player takes a Steel test that he didn't initiate himself. The game is all about consequences.

I was finally confirmed in my belief in this rule when reading about the battle of Nicopolis and how valiantly the French fought. Even the turks were in awe of their stamina and ferocity.

But in the end, the most fearsome of them all surrender and begged for their lives.

I wanted -- no, NEEDED -- that possibility in the game. Pass your Steel test and you are a heroic and noble berzerker. Fail your Steel test and you went your pants, wail and cry for your mother.

:twisted:

-L

[Astros]

I agree with Luke...

All too often in games you have characters (and NPC's) that will fight to death over a bar fight, a chicken leg, a 50gp gem, or a random chance meeting. I find that mentality HIGHLY flawed. Not only do ppl RARELY lay down and die, they rarely are willing to even shed blood over many subjects.

The hesistation in BW gives the characters an opportunity to take prisoners (or slaughter them) or be taken prisoners. No longer does a campaign end "You see 50 well armed soldiers encircle you, their spears pointed at your head.... PC: Initiative? DM: Sigh.."

In BW, its more like "You see 50 well armed soldiers encircle you, their spears pointed at your head.... DM: Steel test with a +2 OB. PC: I fail by 3."

It's important to remember that games are NOT real life, and that for as much as we smart individuals would crate off our meddlesome PC's or finish them right there, NARRATIVE does not lend itself to main characters dying whenever the bad guys catch them. Because everything is about narrative consequences. If the bad guy catches the PCs and they escape, later the PC's will most likely capture the bad guy who then escapes. Its a wonderful cycle.

I am sure you all know this already, but I have to re-tell it to myself every once and a while to reiterate to myself that my bad guys are not cruel and heartless (at least not the the PC's) :)

[Manicrack]

I love the system of hesitation.
Common example of how a game went for me in other systems.

GM: You walk unsuspectingly around the corner, and see a horde of orcs.
PC: I quickly duck back behind the corner.
GM: No you don't.
PC: Yes. (rolls dice) see, i manage to duck behind the corner. I rolled so well, the orcs copuldn't have seen me.
GM: That is not the point. Please make a selfcontrol test.
PC: What? Self-control? What do I need that for? I never raised that.
GM: Oh, that means you can't meet the obstacle, becuiase that is pretty high. You hesitate, orcs see you. They seize you.
PC: but i past my agility/speed/dexterity test. I duck behind the wall.
GM: *sigh*

The hesitation enforces characters to actually act how a normal human being would act in their situation.
C'mon, if you were surprised by a shadowbeast, the first thing you would do is run and scream.

[Kaare Berg]

I am not critisisning hesitation. The rule works great. period, end of that discussion.

I stating however:
you never ever want to deprotagonise your players.

Why, because the players are there to play a game where they are the protagonists. I do not know one player that comes to the table to watch his character being run by others.

Given, in the wonderful world of BW there will be times when a character will be forced to react on his baser instincts, either due to suprise, fear or pain (SFoP). In other words his player will roll the steel test and fail.

His options then are :
Stand and Drool (SaD)
Fall Prone (FaP)
Run Screaming (RuS)
Swoon (Sw)

Fine. We agree on this. My point is, if I have invested time and imagination in a noble knight, a paragon of virtue and a rescuer of fair maidens and then see him drool unseemingly because of the rules, it lessens my enjoyment of the game.
However I failed a steel test, the character despite his (and mine) noble intentions is unable to act in the manner I would like because of SFoP. There has to be a consequence or I wouldn't be playing BW.
So I script Stare in Shock, Cringe or Cry in Pain. Now my character do not drool unseemingly, the due is paid and I have not been de-protagonised.

Am I clearer?

Let me use an example:
The aformentioned Knight has come to the rescue of a fair maiden, as he is untying her a shadow falls over him, he turns and to his horror there stands the dragon, rearing and roaring.
the clatter of dice sound across the table, a groan and furious scribbling. I failed by three.
now compare these two script sheets for my B5 reflexes knight:
de-protagonistic:
volley 1/2/3
fall prone, stand (lie) drool/Stand (lie) and drool, get up/ get up
protagonistic:
volley 1/2/3
Stumble and drop, Stare/mutter profanity, get up/get up

The effect remains excactly the same, in the second example I've just changed the wording to fit my imaginary knight and retained control over my character despite having failed a steel test.

as for using Steel to force PC surrender:

In BW, its more like "You see 50 well armed soldiers encircle you, their spears pointed at your head.... DM: Steel test with a +2 OB. PC: I fail by 3."

in Bw it is also:

Me: there are about a hundred grey trolls on the ridge drawing their bows, and from the forest behind you the same number emerge, swords drawn.
Christian: "Protect Felcher", I draw my sword and charge the leader on the ridge.
Me:The sky darkens as the arrows blot out the sun. . .

Players will be players and you will never get them to surrender unless they want to. Even with heistation, which only lasts for seconds (unless you swoon off course), they will not surrender if they do not want to.

Forcing Christian to surrender Tengel in the above example because of a failed die roll would driven him from my table.

And I honestly do not belive that this is why you designed that rule, Luke.

[eruditus]

deprotagonize characters...

I think this is abzu's new favorite word :)

yeah, not to start a whole other topic but briefly I think this is a big social problem in gaming... folks so prioritize vain outlooks on their characters they fail to remain real and thus the players disassociate from their lives (or create those strange unnatural connection to their characters, like asking their friends to be referred to in public by character names...*shudder*).

As a GM I am firm about the characters losing their cool and making all sorts of mistakes. I never surrender to the "my character would never do such-and-such because he's such an expert at that." My answer is always "He made a mistake. Deal!" I also do not allow folk to go back once I have given them ample time to give me explicit instruction. I was running a D&D game recently (oh, the horror ;) ) and the veteren player says "I will cast Mage Armor" while her character was surrounded by thugs. "Okay. Go ahead. Anything else? Nope? Okay, they swipe at you while you cast the spell and its disrupted." "Oh," she retorts, "well, I would have stepped away from them."

This is one of the great things about BITs. If its not designated in the BITs you react as everyone else does.

Luke and I had talked about even having traits that dictated other optional hesitations. We think your player's PC should drool unless he has a BIT that says otherwise. :D

[eruditus]

Also does Hesistation change when you lose a Die? Ie. in the example above does Swordsman's hesistation go from B5 to B6 because he lost 1D (since his Will would have went down from B5 to B6)?

Hesitation isn't effected by wounds. This also goes for Power in terms of calculating damage from weapons. Hesitation and weapon damage do not alter because of wounds.

Hmm, I never really thought about that. Seems sorta inconsitent. Is there anything in the rules that declare this?

I would think that they would. Yeah, its harsh. But the fact is the more you get hit the worse off you are. I have had first-hand experience (just for abzu: "And I have been in a lot of fights" ;) ) of how blows can really take the steam out of your own hits. It really makes no sense that my arm or side is crippled and I can do just as much damage.

JM2C

[eruditus]

Am I clearer?



I hear what your saying.

The point here is a point of disagreement, not misunderstanding. The two camps are:

1) While hesitating characters should be able to act "ineffectively" without giving up their demeanor. Drooling is undignified and would be dissatisfying to the player to have his uber-cool character break down like that.

or

2) Combat is ugly business and people react adversly to being stabbed, beaten and violated. The point here is not that the character is simply ineffectual but that they are demoralized and stupified as part of the consequence of getting into combat.

In the second camp the perception is that none of these options should be positive ones. if you want to run for the hills your screaming like a little girl. If your standing your ground its either in the fetal position or slack-jawed. There is no "I stand here calm and collected while you get free whacks" option. If its within his character, and that important to him then have the PC begin working on a trait to attain during play. I would say a 2 or 3 point trait that allows him to "stew" over his plight instead of the other options. Hesitation is the mind's inability to cope in a dignified fashion to the rigors of flesh and blood combat. I (being in camp two) do not think a GM should allow a player to opt out just to be cool. I think it defeats the purpose.

[Kaare Berg]

Two minor points here Eru,


part one:
Hesitation is the mind's inability to cope in a dignified fashion to the rigors of flesh and blood combat

By slashng this to

Hesitation is the mind's inability to cope.

We are in agreement.

Similarly by slashing Stand and Drool to simply Stand you achive the same effect. To me, on first read through, SaD was a humerous way of saying "you do nothing". It never occured to me that you actually meant this literarly.

Part two:
As a GM I am firm about the characters losing their cool and making all sorts of mistakes.

So am I, I purposly put my players under pressure, feed them information that I colour by their perctional awarness. In other words, if the character can not be sure, I make sure the player can't be either.
Something that has led to some amusing friendly-fire episodes (I am notorius for this in Cyberpunk and Aliens).

I am not making a case for über-cool PCs who never screw up.

I am making a case for using the inherent fleksibility of BW, especially the nature of scripting, to enhance player creativity and protagonism, not reducing it.

Fancy words, how?

You have four basic reactions:

Stand and Drool (SaD) - do nothing
Fall Prone (FaP) - drop to the ground
Run Screaming (RuS) - flee
Swoon (Sw) - faint

There is no need to change these, they cover the gamut of base reactions pretty well.

Nor is there any need to add to this list.

What you do is that instead of taking the literal meaning of SaD, you take the reaction implied by SaD, do nothing, and you script someting that fits to this, be it Thinking, Stare in Shock, Cry in Pain or similar permutations.

These are just words, but by allowing the players themselves to pick the words to describe their reaction to Suprise, Fear or Pain, not only do you enhance the narrative and colourise the drama of any scene, you more importantly let the player maintain control of his character.

By limiting yourself to the four options above, or to qoute:
if you want to run for the hills your screaming like a little girl. If your standing your ground its either in the fetal position or slack-jawed
you are mechanically forcing the players to give up their character control and thus their enjoyment suffers.

If avoiding this defeats the purpose of the rule, then there is a major design flaw in BW.

Or a difference in the interpretation of it.

Which brings us around to the two camps you proposed.

1)Hestiation occurs and limits the characters options, not the player's.

2)Hesitation occurs and the player is limited in his options.

which is my read of the two camps, and this is independent of the fact that
Combat is ugly business and people react adversly to being stabbed, beaten and violated.

Hesitation covers this, in both guises.

[eruditus]

Similarly by slashing Stand and Drool to simply Stand you achive the same effect. To me, on first read through, SaD was a humerous way of saying "you do nothing". It never occured to me that you actually meant this literarly.


I believe it was meant literaly (abzu?). On the other hand do not allow our opinions to dictate how you run your game. Your the GM and more than anything BW supports the authority of the GM and enjoyment for everyone in your game.

In my games, I figure that if the player/character finds it undignified and out of character to drool then he should either stay out of combat, make damn sure he doesn't get hit or chose another undignified option.

And yes, there are dozens of other options of what the characters could do in an adverse reaction to hesitation. because I run a game that incorporates mental instability often PCs have had traits that cause them to default to their various mental maladies when under pressure (ie hesitating). One PC (the infamous Dr. Willy) would cast faux spells even though he wasn't a sorcerer. A berserker would fly into a rage when hesitating, bludgeoning ALL around him, flailing and foaming at the mouth. One character would weep uncontrollably. Just how I have been doing things, as traits, and this is certainly the direction Luke has lead me in.

[Mad Hatter]

You have four basic reactions:

Stand and Drool (SaD) - do nothing
Fall Prone (FaP) - drop to the ground
Run Screaming (RuS) - flee
Swoon (Sw) - faint

There is no need to change these, they cover the gamut of base reactions pretty well.

Nor is there any need to add to this list.

I agree with the above statement, and these are the basic reactions. I allowed players in my game some variation on these, and they often took them, but they never chose a flattering option for their character. I really don't think you can justify it. Characters suffering hesitation have been overcome by either pain or terror. No one looks their best when this happens.

A character in my game suffered hesitation based on The Fear, and he chose not to run away. Instead, he stood gaping in terror at the magician who performed the spell. Basically "Stand and Drool," and still none too flattering.

I would allow "Cry in Pain" as a variant on the "Stand and Drool," but what that means in game is that the character is staring at his blood flowing from his wound and screaming.

Although I agree with your instinct not to deprotagonize the character, I just don't think you can change Hesitation in a way that is not humiliating to some degree. When you are knocked upside the head with a mace, you don't just "Think," you stumble around stupidly and try to regain your wits.

[luke]

you are mechanically forcing the players to give up their character control and thus their enjoyment suffers.

If avoiding this defeats the purpose of the rule, then there is a major design flaw in BW.

Kaare, baby, ya killin' me over here!

The rule works exactly as I designed it. Therefore, there is no design flaw. It nettles me a bit that you would so quickly point a finger like that.

However, you obviously disagree with the design philosophy (but not the application). That's cool. I don't have a problem with that.

So I said that Steel is meant to deprotagonize characters. I really meant it. See that Sacred Cow standing over there in that pasture? Let me show you what this TOW missile system does to it.

Boom.

Fetishistic, macho, posturing violence is a staple of fantasy rpgs: Brave hero stands up to all comers and easily lays his enemies low with his axe. It's tough job, but he had to do it.

Glossing over the terror, uncertainty and pain of violent conflict really fucking bugs me. Not only does it anaesthetize us from the truth, but it's boring to play out.

Sick as it may be, one of the things that is so fun about BW combat is the inherent desperation -- it's never a sure thing. That's what keeps players on the edge of their seats.

Steel comes into play as a reflection of the very real feelings that people experience when confronted with pain and fear.

Steel is NOT an opportunity for GMs to railroad players as intimated above.

I set a rule -- and all characters abide by it, GM or PC -- that at some point, due to fear and pain, a player may momentarily lose control of his character. Why? Because the character loses control of himself. He loses the capacity for noble actions and rational thought. He is overwhelmed, albiet momentarily.

The original rules for Steel involved the character shitting or pissing his pants. Though that's more realistic, even I thought that that was a bit much for a fantasy rpg. And if I am not mistaken, the rules explicitly state that the character must scream and must drool if certain choices are made. I really wasn't kidding.

When you, as player, enter into one of these situations you acknowledge and agree to the Steel rules. If you do not want to take on the risk of losing control of your character, think of another solution. Perhaps violent conflict isn't for you. Or perhaps you're allowing your opponents an opportunity to retaliate, when you should be more cold hearted.

That brings me to my next point: Choices.
The Steel rules, as written, STILL allow a large degree of player control. They never state, "You're captured". If you don't want to be captured, you run. If you don't want to run, you stand. If you don't want to stand, you fall.

I have a player with a knight character who absolutely refuses to Run Screaming. At peril of his life, he always Stands and Drools when hesitating. It's a choice he made for the same reasons I think your player made his. Running away is not an option for that knight, just like drooling isn't an option for your friend's.

And the rules accomodate him, so long as he is willing to agree that his knight does hesitate. The choice of how this is done is his, within the scope of the rules.

Taking a step back from the moment of the Steel test, there are a lot of decisions players can make in a life and death situation in Burning Wheel. First off, to enter the fray, of course. If you don't want to fight, this system supports you finding another way around. Hell if you don't know how, you can learn it! Second, your Reflexes Script -- how you plan out your actions -- very much determines how you take and give Steel tests. Finally, there is always the chance that the player passes the Steel test. Artha can be spent as insurance toward that end as well.

So even though the rules momentarily deprotagonize players, they still provide ample options to ensure that a player gets what he wants from the situation. It's a compromise, and I think it is fair and actually quite fun.

Lastly, you know as well I do that Burning Wheel is a very pliable system. You're not breaking anything if you drift the Steel rules to say, "Stand nobly and grit teeth." All you're doing is changing the tenor of the game. That's fine. I have a particular tenor that I like, you have yours.

(Hell, in my demos you'll often hear me describe hesitation as, "he clutches his chest, gasping for air, trying to catch his breath. Spittle flecks his lips." Or something like that. No comical "stand and drool" reaction)

As you know, these rules support some very dramatic play. I expect that every group will drift them to suit their needs. I'm glad I could create something so versatile and fun that can be used in so many different ways.

hope that helps,
-L

PS To all our new members, please don't be offended if I come off a little harsh. I'm a little too zealous sometimes, but I mean no harm.

PPS Kaare, you're still the man in my eyes.

[Blackberry]

I think what's being asked is the same question I have -- why are those (stand and drool, run screaming, fall prone) the only three possible things that can be done while Hesitating? What about "Stand and Gape", for instance, or "Swoon"? Those give the player more options for what their character would do but still makes them hesitate just the same.

As I said, in many horror movies, the Hesitation reaction is Stand and Gape, not Stand and Drool. So what could possibly be wrong with it such that including it in the Hesitation options would damage the BW system and undermine the GM's position?

[luke]

I think what's being asked is the same question I have -- why are those (stand and drool, run screaming, fall prone) the only three possible things that can be done while Hesitating?

This is going to sound really bad, but...

those three reactions were carefully chosen to ensure humiliating circumstance. I did not want any other possible interpretation. The character has lost his cool, and it is not pretty.

However, see my comments about drift above.
-L

[Blackberry]

This is going to sound really bad, but...

those three reactions were carefully chosen to ensure humiliating circumstance. I did not want any other possible interpretation. The character has lost his cool, and it is not pretty.

However, see my comments about drift above.
-L

No, I have no problem with that, but I'm just trying to understand why you chose those three and chose to limit it to just those three.

[luke]

No, I have no problem with that, but I'm just trying to understand why you chose those three and chose to limit it to just those three.

It's an attempt to at once cover a broad range of options and keep it simple.

BW may appear to be a crunchy system, but it's not. It's a simple, straight-forward system hiding in crunchy skin.

Whenever possible, I try to keep detail to a bare minimum. Weapons are another example of this.

hope that helps,
-L

[Kaare Berg]

I Wrote this:

If avoiding this defeats the purpose of the rule, then there is a major design flaw in BW.

to rattle your cage and raise the temprature a bit.

Let's be clear

Hesitation is ugly. You fail steel, it is bound to get ugly. Think isn't nobly pondering the meaning of life while the goblin bashes your head in.
It is mace to the head: what the hell happened there?
Think Capt. Miller in Saving Private Ryan on Omaha beach when he is shell shocked.

This isn't important to my point.

This however is
Steel is NOT an opportunity for GMs to railroad players as intimated above.

and my knee-jerk response comes from this type of quote:
Steel is meant to deprotagonize characters

so. . . wipes pieces of cow of himself. . . how to get out of this.

You wrote:
at some point, due to fear and pain, a player may momentarily lose control of his character

If we change that to this:

Hesitation means that at some point, due to fear and pain, a character may momentarily lose control of himself.

See the subtle diffrence?

Combat in BW is already dangerous and scary. My players fear it, not because their characters may salivate all over themselves, but because they may loose their characters.

If they feared it because of slobber, now that would be a design flaw.

So whats the point?

Well you've said it yourself:
Burning Wheel is a very pliable system.

BW is great, and I am just suggesting ways to facilitate this pliability, while maintaining player control over characters and maintaining the gritty, despair, pain and fear of BW combat.

[luke]

Hesitation means that at some point, due to fear and pain, a character may momentarily lose control of himself.

But Kaare... this isn't true. And changing that definition isn't going to change what really happens: A player really does lose control of the character. It's kind of like you point him in a direction and then let go of the steering wheel for a few seconds.

Why is this such a bad thing? I feel I've proven that the destruction of this sacred cow can actually facilitate a type of play.

You're scaring me on this one. You're talking like you haven't read the game or played with the Steel rules. But you have. And I know you and I agree to their efficacy. Is there something else you're looking for, beyond the justification for this mechanic?

-L

[Blackberry]

Abzu, I get what you're saying now. I just had to relate it to something I'm more familiar with in gaming -- Call of Cthulhu's temporary insanity.

When you lose enough SAN at once, your character does something -- but the GM chooses (or rolls). The character is temporarily out of the hands of the player.

[luke]

Abzu, I get what you're saying now. I just had to relate it to something I'm more familiar with in gaming -- Call of Cthulhu's temporary insanity.

When you lose enough SAN at once, your character does something -- but the GM chooses (or rolls). The character is temporarily out of the hands of the player.

Yes, but remember: The PLAYER chooses what his character does in this case, not the GM. However, both agree that once the choice is made, the character is out of control (on that path) for a few moments.

Choosing Steel results actually becomes something of a strategy once you get used to it. Knowing when to flee and when to stand is very important in Burning Wheel!

-L

[Kaare Berg]

I've got to be very brief:

My issue is with the cow, and "inviolate nature" of Steel as proposed by you and Eruditius.

this is however just (like eru said) a matter of tenor, colour if you so like. And for all intents and purposes we might yet again be discussing red or blue.

the reason why I am so hung up on this is tied in with the reason why my group plays:

escapism.

They invest a lot of time and energy into characters in my game, and me (As in the rules) taking controll of their characters and demeaning them reduces their enjoyment.

This has nothing to do with macho posturing, this is simply letting my players choose instead of saying these are literally the four choices you have.

Me for one love the narrative potential in your combat system, and improvise around it all the time, e.g. set greatstrike, greatstrike becoming swing, dwarf.

Not doing so becomes too boardgamy for me.

I know its a cow, but to me it is sacred, and there are others like me out there. Now I love your game, but some of these might never want to buy it just because of the subtle issue posted above. And I hate to see you loose sales over this.

Thats all. Hope I make more sense now

[eruditus]

First let me say that I certainly think we're at an intellectual impass here. I certainly think all parties understand the point of the other's arguements and now its really just a matter of opinion.

I and certainly Luke respect your soveriegnty as a GM of your own game using the books he so lovingly crafted. Its important to meet your players expectations to a point. I am very happy we are going over these aspects for their important parts of the game and I think have a lot of merit not only in BW but in game design in general. I and a friend had this very same conversaion (inspired by this thread) and came to the very same impass. The question is, is there more to say?


this is however just (like eru said) a matter of tenor, colour if you so like. And for all intents and purposes we might yet again be discussing red or blue.

I'd also like to mention that there is some wording that should be avoided. This IS an opinion issue. As such ideas put forth such as "this is a design flaw" really has no place in further discussions. Not that the Wheel is perfect but ,all posturing by Luke aside, the game is well playtested and I feel stands on its own as a great game. A player/GM's opinion (notably one as hashed out as this) does not constitute an innate problem with the system.

escapism.

This is certainly a reasonable perspective. Fact is most game systems we run have rules for failing and its the job of the GM (and the players) to set the tone for how closely you stick to the rules FOR YOUR OWN STYLE OF PLAY. Some people will use these rules to the letter, some will use very little and focus on the bare essentials and others will change rules and make more rules. Its up to you. We support that. We were asked about the spirit of the RULES and why they were written. Now its up to the people who own the book to determine where they take that :D

Lots of people have said to Luke and I, "damn this is such a crunchy system with such a hi learning curve." And we say, "there is a LOT to like, give it a try, use what you like and make it your own. if you have any questions we're here to help."

Thanks for your input!!! :D

[Yagathai]

Abzu, in the context of your previous statements re: deprotagonanistolizing PCs and humiliating them, please explain what the hell you were thinking with the Louis Wu trait. ;)

Love,

- Yagathai

[eruditus]

Abzu, in the context of your previous statements re: deprotagonanistolizing PCs and humiliating them, please explain what the hell you were thinking with the Louis Wu trait. ;)


Good point, Yagathai. I say that because Louis Wu is a perfect example of developing reactions outside the norm. I think it would be safe to assume that you could make any non-combat-ready reaction other than the three for the same two-point trait.

True Grit 2 point call-on trait
You are tough as nails and in no way will you ever show weakness to your opponent. When you hesitate you may Stand and Scowl.

Mad Dog 4 point call-on trait
When your loopy from pain you instinctively take on an aggresive posture. You snarl and growl and look wild-eyed at your opponent. You make a Intimidation check that becomes the obstacle of a Will test anyone needs to exceed to attack you.

Wounded Animal 5 point call-on trait
Your body responds to danger in threatening ways. In any Volley you are attacked you may make one strike against a random target in range. You use whatever is in your hand as an attack. The attack is made at a +2 ob.