DOW: Caught in the middle?

[Paul B]

Okay, so another thing happened in our last turn that really set one of my players on edge has to do with my interpretation of the Duel of Wits and how to apply them.

The situation: An NPC has fallen in love with PC1. PC1 and PC2 are in the forest; PC1 has to go off and do something dangerous, leaving her NPC lover in the care of PC2.

The NPC is also a bodyguard for PC3. PC3, who was in the middle of escaping the forest to go do other stuff, feels compelled to go back and get NPC out.

PC2 wants NPC to stay in the forest. PC3 wants NPC to leave with him.

PC2 is a shit-hot Persuader (G5). PC3 is pretty good (B4) but also has Honor to tap into, lots of Artha, and I grant a 1D advantage die because NPC is actually his employee. There is no relationship between PC2 and NPC. PC3's player is quite certain he can't win a DOW with PC2 outright, and I suggest the reason to participate at all is to achieve a compromise result.

I rule that NPC's fate comes down to a DOW between PC2 and PC3. The metaphor I use is that NPC is like a football, and they're both wrestling for control over it. However, this totally doesn't work for PC3's player, who believes NPC should be the target of the DOW.

A few days since our session, I'm wondering if I screwed this up. I see this working in one of two ways:

1) PC2 and PC3 enter a DOW, with a passive NPC as the prize. This means the PCs are mechanically engaging with each other even though in the game they're both talking at NPC.

2) PC3 enters a DOW with NPC, and PC2 provides help dice to NPC (albeit 2 gray dice!). NPC is the active arguer, but PC2 doesn't get to actively participate.

When I tried to break down what the argument was "really" about, frankly I was kind of flummoxed at that moment in the game. PC3 wants to issue a command to his lovesick bodyguard and does not want to engage the notoriously smooth PC2 in a DOW. PC2 wants the opportunity to use his apex ability.

If PC3 simply declined to enter a DOW with PC2 (like I know he wanted to!) and goes straight to NPC with a Persuasion (FoRKing Intimidate and Command, probably), what the hell happens to NPC? And what happens to PC2's interests in all this?

Kind of a lengthy breakdown, but I hope someone out there can help shuffle through my options.

p.

[Kublai]

I firmly believe it's a DoW between the two PC's, with the NPC helping whomever he desires. (This could've beeen decided by a previous DoW between a PC and the NPC.) After all, the game should include the players at every chance. To sideline one in this case seems a weaker solution.

I think you did it right.

[luke]

I'm with Pete on this one, but option 2 is viable.

Presenting a strong NPC who will engage the PCs in a conflict can help galvanize the game. And, while you want to spotlight the players, sometimes a conflict is too hot. You need an external element, like an NPC, to dissipate that heat.

Burning Wheel is a tough game in this regard -- it's a fantasy roleplaying game, but players are fighting for what they believe. Inevitably, two players are going to make a stand on their Beliefs. There will be heat between the players. It's vital to balance that internal heat with external challenges. If we don't, we risk our games, quite literally, burning out as the players beat the crap out of each other.

So, in your case, since there seems to be a fair degree of tension in the game between the players, perhaps taking some of the heat onto your shoulders will help diffuse it and render the game ultimately more productive.

-L

[Paul B]

Thanks for the replies, guys, and it's reassuring that at least a couple of you think it was the right read. While I was working this out in-game I was also thinking about future implications (and unintended consequences) of the decision I rendered: What if two PCs are vying for the affections of an NPC princess? What if two PCs are vying for the support of an NPC Emperor?

I know that DOWs with NPCs are smooth sailing with these guys. There's absolutely no social contract problems with beating on the GM's assets. It's when they turn the system against each other that things get dicey.

p.

[Mel White]

I know that DOWs with NPCs are smooth sailing with these guys. There's absolutely no social contract problems with beating on the GM's assets. It's when they turn the system against each other that things get dicey.
p.

Situations like that are what I like best about BW, particularly the Duel of Wits. I play mostly con games or short arcs, so it's a lot easier to play games where the PCs have conflicting goals. I can see things getting tiresome if the PCs were unbalanced in a long-term campaign.
Still, for the situation in the forest, I would have preferred the same option as you--a DoW between PCs. Narratively, they're talking to the NPC and perhaps sometimes to each other, but ultimately each is trying to make the strongest argument in favor of a particular course of action. I suppose a third option could have been PC3 Persuades the NPC, then PC2 would have to DoW the NPC to change his mind...on the theory that DoW trumps Persuasion, which may not sit too well with everyone either. And a fourth option could have been having the NPC express a preference for a compromise up front and put it into effect...especially if something was needed to break up some player-v-player tension.
Mel

[Bearly Audible]

The more I think about it, the more I agree that the player v. player DOW was the correct call. The color in the game is that both PCs are speaking with the NPC, trying to convince him to their side. The mechanics of that are PC v. PC DOW.

Think of the NPC in this situation like an alternator gauge in a car (-10 to +10) with the needle at 0. The more "points" one player wins, the more the needle moves to their side - until one eventually wins the DOW.

That is what I had in my head during this DOW and it made perfect sense that my PC was convincing the NPC to decide to follow my direction.

Don't know if this helps. Just thought I'd throw in my $.02 worth.

[gooderguy]

one thing that i've found helps in a DoW is to take 'decide who the audience is' as the first step, before anything else is declared. who's mind will be changed by this argument? who is being 'convinced?' while you came to the right conclusion in the end, this question might have perhaps alleviated the stress and cut down on game-time.

pc3 orders NPC to come with him, pc2 pleads for NPC to stay for her safety. NPC is obviously the one to be convinced. she is attached to pc3, so unless pc2 comes out with some great arguments, npc helps pc3 for most arguments.

it's all about who will be convinced. it's usually either
a. a player's character,
b. a single target NPC,
c. a group of NPCs
d. the players as audience (a metagame agreement for the direction the narrative should take depending on which side wins)

if you can frame the argument around the target audience, it might alleviate any inter-player issues. and remember, they can always say no to a DoW.

[Paul B]

Hm! So in your game you'd rule that NPC was the target of the DOW because it's the audience?

p.

[gooderguy]

yeah, the NPC's mind in your situation was the one that would be affected, thus making the NPC the target audience. the players stakes should be directed towards that NPC. pc3 - she comes with me. pc2 could be more dynamic than just 'she stays'. it could be, 'she no longer works for you,' thus leading into a whole new series of conflicts. the idea is to raise/lower the stakes of the argument until all players at the table are happy. it is easiest to do this, IMO, when the audience for the Duel is specified first.

[Paul B]

Right, that was the line of thought I went through when I came up with my two approaches. Obviously, based on this thread, there's room for reasonable disagreement. It's one of the most interesting/vexing things about this system that there are often several "correct" procedures for any given conflict, all of which move around the camera and rejigger the math.

So let me ask you: What about a scenario in which two merchants simultaneously approach the King to negotiate a trade deal? Assume only the merchants are PCs. Assume only the King is a PC. Assume one of the merchants and the King is a PC. Assume everyone is a PC.

What about a scenario in which a merchant approaches the King to negotiate a trade deal, but there's already a second merchant "in the scene" with an existing relationship with the King? Same breakdown of who's actually being run by a player and who is run by the GM.

What about two suitors simultaneously working for the affections of a princess? Same breakdown as above.

What if the princess has no relationship with either suitor and is neutrally considering all offers? And is that different than if the princess is already in love with suiter A, and suitor B is trying to win her away from him?

I think it has to come down to what the DOW "is." Is it the literal and actual argument between an arguer and his audience, or is it an abstraction to resolve a conflict between interested parties? Because the interested parties may not always be the audience.

p.

[Fuseboy]

I can relate to the approach you're taking with these questions. I can't find the thread now, but somewhere back I was amazed that a third party might be 'bound' to be swayed by an argument between two others - it seemed very "powerful".

Now I see it more in terms of just sticking the mechanic in to serve narrative ends, so considering who the PCs are (and their BITs) is very relevant.

Two PC merchants competing for the favours of an NPC king, and the king's will isn't especially important to the story, then have a DoW between the PCs with the king as a puppet.

If only the King is a PC, then I'm assuming the merchants are only competing because it forces the king to choose between two of his beliefs. (e.g. one merchant is from a province where the king hopes to win more supporters, while another is his loyal cousin.) In that case, there may not be any need for a DoW at all; let the king choose and suffer accordingly.

The other two scenarios it depends a lot on the specifics. In the king + PC merchant + NPC merchant scenario, why is the NPC merchant there? Perhaps he's there to make the king's choice of the PC's contract look arbitrary or nepotistic in front of his court, and so perhaps use a DoW between merchants with the King helping.

With three PCs, it depends on the setup. Does the king care? If not, then let the merchants duke it out. If he does, then let him help (as above).