Doling out Deeds points

[Azral]

I think our group could use some help with that highest rung on the Artha ladder, the mighty Deeds point.

In about six full months of weekly BW with this group and campaign, I’ve only awarded one Deeds point.

My players are pretty good at hitting their BITs, embracing complication, and RP’ing in interesting and entertaining ways, so Fate and Persona points flow like rivers. So, I feel like there should be at least a few Deeds points in the mix after 6 full months, right?

From reading the brown book, and the few posts on the forum that relate to Deeds, my sense is that a player earns a Deeds point when they go outside/beyond their own Beliefs to help other PCs and/or NPCs achieve their goals. Usually at significant risk or cost to themselves.

So does our dearth of Deeds points mean that the players are not playing into each others’ beliefs enough? Or that their beliefs coincide too much, so every goal they accomplish earns them Persona rather than Deeds?

Maybe I, as GM have not given them challenges that fall outside of, or beyond, their BITs? Should I do more of this, at the risk of distracting from all the cool story that flows directly from their BITs?

Or have I gooned up the premise of Deeds points entirely?

[Liam]

I also need this advice. I haven't reached six months yet, but I'm looking ahead and wondering just what is deed worthy?

[Deliverator]

Word. Thanks for starting this thread, Azral.

Matt

[luke]

Have you played any story arcs to their conclusion, guys? Those climax moments are usually good cause for Deeds-worthy behavior.

[Azral]

Right, so in my previous BW games, where I was a player, the arcs didn't reach conclusion, or tragedy struck and the story ended up with an unhappy ending. Plus, we were learning the system and didn't give too much concern to Deeds points particularly.

In the game I'm currently GMing, the story has "sort of" arcs, but it's not so clearly delimited, and each stage of the story ends up organically pushing into another. With that said, we've had a couple of "arcs," namely:
1. Leading a large group of human refugees through hostile territory and across the mountains, to the safety of dwarven lands (before the winter snowed over the passes). This was a hell of an arduous journey for them, included a "side quest" to liberate a slave camp run by the invading orcs, plus a bunch of linkages to future story elements.
2. Getting the refugees settled into a quasi-permanent refuge in the dwarven lands, and improving their lives. This included establishing an orphanage, forming a labor union, and ultimately, negotiating a better labor contract (the dwarves allowed them to take refuge in exchange for the humans providing labor in the mines, but then extorted the humans for such wanton luxuries as, say, food).

Each of these arcs built to a climax, especially #2, which just came to a head as the PCs engaged in a smack-down, drag-em-out DoW with an autocratic dwarf king.

The thing is, what the PCs did was accomplish their beliefs. Most of them had beliefs like," I will find the refugees a permanent home," or, "I will secure the refugees a better labor contract." So they earned their Persona, and are now writing new Beliefs. The one player who did not have a belief about this particular climax definitely helped make it happen, but not at any real cost to himself (yet).

So they earned Persona points. Should I have given them Deeds?


Ironically, the one Deeds point I have given out was in the "side quest" to free the slaves, because our shaman/sorcerer risked a 50% chance of outright character death (due to Tax) in order to blast open the walls of a slave camp where orcs had imprisoned a mass of human refugees. Two of the other PCs had Beliefs about freeing the slaves, but the shaman did not; so he was totally laying down his life in the service of the other PCs' goals.

Since he put himself at great risk for a goal that was well outside of his own private goals, I gave him a Deeds point. (Plus, it was just so bad-ass, especially when he made a choice that made his Tax test considerably harder, in order to have a better chance at succeeding at his Sorcery test.) But that was the climax of a two-session "mini-arc," not even a full "chapter" of the story.


As I mentioned, my sense was that Deeds were meant to be given for doing things that benefit others rather than yourself, at great cost or risk. I took this to mean, making sacrifices to help others resolve their beliefs, even at the cost of your own beliefs. In a sense, sacrificing yourself in order to "make someone else's dreams come true."

So, for instance, if our dwarf prince PC had bankrupted himself, or given up his claim to the throne, in order to get our religious PC's orphanage built, I would have given him Deeds. But he did not do this, so our templar had to seek funding from the local mafia!

On the other hand, securing a favorable labor contract for the community of refugees was our dwarf prince's personal goal as stated in his beliefs, and also feeds into his larger political agenda. So even though he had to make an important sacrifice to make it happen, he got a Persona point rather than a Deeds.

Was that correct? Or should he have gotten a Deeds because he paid the price for the sake of "the big thing," even though it was in the service of his own goals?

[Kublai]

Here's a concrete example of when to award a Deed point.

All the PCs have Beliefs about taking down the evil wizard Maniacles. None of the PCs have a Belief about freeing the hundreds of slaves Maniacles keeps in order to dig his mines. Should, during the course of taking down the Maniacles, the PCs purposely free the slaves as it's "the right thing to do," they'll earn a Deed.

[luke]

Azral,

That's a great use of the Deeds reward! That's a deed to remember.

I think you're spot on, but let's look at in another way.

Look at the campaign as a whole. Did the players turn away from their original goals and devote themselves to a new agenda? Did this new agenda involve sacrifice? If so, then consider them for Deeds point when all is said and done.

Deeds aren't an obligatory reward at the end of a campaign, but be sure take the long view when doling them out.

[Azral]

Sorry if these long posts are hard on the eyes. I want to make sure I'm solid on this, because it's important to my players.

So, I think what you're saying is that, if a PC or PCs really changes their beliefs mid-stream in order to encapsulate the needs of others, and then make important sacrifices to see it through, then they should be considered for Deeds. Or, as in Kublai's example, they do something outside of their beliefs because "it's the right thing to do."


Just thinking out loud, now:

Our dwarf prince’s belief started as, “I will get into the humans’ good graces by risking my life for their safety.” He did so, earned a Persona point, and wrote a new belief, “I will get them safely to dwarven lands.”

He accomplished this as well, though at the cost of having to give up his claim to the throne and support his hated brother’s claim. But he got the humans to dwarven lands, where they would be safe from the marauding orcs. Unfortunately, it happened to be the realm of a rival king who hated the PCs family.

So, he wrote a new belief, “I will secure them a better work contract.” So the PCs renegotiated the contract, effectively buying off the king with their own resources (mostly in the form of personal favors). So he accomplished this belief, got the humans a new deal, but at the cost of having to provide his rival with location of a secret family heirloom.

At no point has he really changed his course mid-stream. He hasn’t really “turned away” from his previous goals in order to pursue a different, “higher” agenda. What he has done is accomplished one set of goals, then set bigger ones. And yes, these new and bigger goals have benefited others, or coincided with other PCs’ goals.

Yet behind it all, he’s doing it all for political gain, so that he can use the humans as a constituency in his own drive for power!

So I tend to regard these accomplishments as reputation-worthy, but not Deeds-worthy. Does that sound appropriate?


On the other hand, our templar warrior received a mystical vision of a child who would be of great importance in the coming struggle, and then she found him in the slave camp. She took him into her care, but he refused to go with her unless she promised to help him avenge the death of his mother.

She promptly wrote a new belief encapsulating this, ditching an earlier, different belief. So if/when she accomplishes this, if it requires some major sacrifice on her part, she should get a Deeds point, right?

[stormsweeper]

think your instincts have served you well so far. I've generally saved Deeds for really big stuff. Saving entire villages, etc. Generally things that will effect the game world in a major way, and not purely for the player's benefit.

[Azral]

Cool. So, going back to my original question, why are my players not doing Deeds-worthy things in our campaign?

Or, alternatively, how have opportunities for Deeds points come up in other people’s games?

From the clarifications on Deeds points above, it seems like it’s largely the GM’s responsibility to provide opportunities and challenges that fall outside of the players’ beliefs, and/or pull them in new directions. This assumes that the players are focused on driving their beliefs in the direction they’ve chosen, and are not actively trying to seek out opportunities to change that direction.

Thus it’s mostly up to the GM* to introduce story elements or situations that that give them the chance to sacrifice their previous agenda (even if only temporarily) for the sake of doing something bigger than themselves. And then it's up the the players to take the bait.

Of course, it probably goes without saying that if these situations come as direct challenges to the PCs’ beliefs, so much the better. If the players embrace a new goal that goes directly against their existing beliefs, they can earn “moldbreaker” artha in addition to getting a shot at a Deeds point. So it’s a 2-for-1 sale on awesome.

I'll have to re-think how I've been banging at my players' beliefs. Maybe I'm not providing enough opportunities for them to embrace new directions, or maybe I am but they're just not biting!





*Unless, of course, they play off each other’s big-time beliefs, making sacrifices to help other PCs achieve their lofty goals. As in my example of the sorcerer and the slave camp.

[eruditus]

Lets use our Taranis game as an example. We have a six session story arch that says the PCs want to build a Mage Guild under their control and stop teh Royalists from establishing one.

Now if the group turns around and says "You know what, no one should use Guild Magic. Even though it has a lot of cool bonuses it also hurts others (namely shape-shifters and elves). Lets start a new kind of Guild tat is not official and has a lot less support from the crown and other guilds."

If that was what they fought for by the end of the sixth session everyone would have a Deeds.

I understand how it seems like the GM initiates when you get Deeds but I think it really gets driven home by the players saying "We want to take charge of this storyline and take it in really selfless heroic directions at our own expense."

The question would be, however, who gets the Artha. If three or four of the characters are aiming for this because a Guild hurts them directly would the shift in the story generate Deeds for them - even if it is the "right thing to do?" ie. they would be doing it to serve their own purposes as well as common opinion, no?

Thanks,
- Don

[eruditus]

To be honest I try and make Deeds points pretty obvious and out in the open as well. Often I will start a campaign series with "Okay, if you accomplish X and Y in this arch then you gain a Deeds."

I don't see it as so intrinsically tied to Beliefs, rather as bigger picture goals for the entire group.

Does that help at all,
- Don

[zabieru]

Be a little careful about this. In some ways, awarding Deeds is a definition of heroism and morality, especially if you put it out there as a carrot like Don has done.

That's not bad, but it can be troublesome. You need to make sure that the definition you're using is relevant to the thematic issues the players are bringing forward with their characters.

I like what you've done, though, Don.

[Z-Dog]

C

From the clarifications on Deeds points above, it seems like it’s largely the GM’s responsibility to provide opportunities and challenges that fall outside of the players’ beliefs, and/or pull them in new directions.

Thus it’s mostly up to the GM* to introduce story elements or situations that that give them the chance to sacrifice their previous agenda (even if only temporarily) for the sake of doing something bigger than themselves. And then it's up the the players to take the bait.

Of course, it probably goes without saying that if these situations come as direct challenges to the PCs’ beliefs, so much the better.



Yep, yep, and yep. I loves me a GM who offers up Deeds bait like this. It's frustrating when he doesn't.

Sure, I wanna get my personal PC stuff done, but when that's tied to the fate o' the city...or I have to chose between the two....awesomeness!!!!

----

PS

Let me just say: if a GM isn't trying to poke me in the eye every session...well, I just don't respect 'em! Bring it on!

[Paka]

I've given one to each player in the Orcs over Skype game.

One for ambushing and killing a dragon with the help of three Dwarven Kings.

The other set was for maiming but not killing the Empress of the Eight-Legged Isles and making her islands and her people a vassal state to their up-and-coming orc empire.

Both of those things went above and beyond where I thought they'd go. Great stuff.

[Deliverator]

There are actually systematic ways of dangling Deeds points: Doom Sayer and Dwarven Runecasting.

Matt

[eruditus]

Be a little careful about this. In some ways, awarding Deeds is a definition of heroism and morality, especially if you put it out there as a carrot like Don has done.

That's not bad, but it can be troublesome. You need to make sure that the definition you're using is relevant to the thematic issues the players are bringing forward with their characters.

I like what you've done, though, Don.

I'm sorry, your right on. I mis-stated this. The group says "Okay, here are so many Deeds points to get X and Y done." It's not really me "awardig them" rather the group setting the expectation for what is Deeds worthy and maybe me distilling the themes into lofty Deeds generating goals. They should be crazy hard but by setting the bar you allow your players to aim for it. Then I may award Deeds for really hurting through the climax of a story (I mean really getting beat up) or for throwing away their safety and self for the big picture. It's hard to nail down this quality. But after a while you recognize it and can better react with awards. In the beginning, until your groups goes above and beyond the Deeds carrot will help them focus.

[eruditus]

There are actually systematic ways of dangling Deeds points: Doom Sayer and Dwarven Runecasting.

Matt

Yeah, I want to it on this in some game soon but just haven't found the right tenor or feel yet. After our eleven game I am focusing on a human game right now. I will have to consider suggesting these for one of them.

[themadviolinist]

It seems that deeds point awards are skewed in favor of telling stories that involve heroism and self-sacrifice. How would one go about finding excuses to give deeds points to characters who aren't the heroic type?

My campaign is shaping up to be a real rogue's gallery that may not involve much heroism, since the players have expressed a desire to avoid "epic play" in this campaign. I'm fine with that, but it puzzles me how I find occasions to give deeds points.

[zabieru]

Deeds points are for going above and beyond. If your characters don't do that, they don't get Deeds. That's a choice they made. However, if their heroism is more subtle, it can still be Deeds-worthy.

It's hard for me to give much advice since all I have to go on is the word "epic" and even there you put it in quotes. Can you tell us a little more?

[Z-Dog]

It seems that deeds point awards are skewed in favor of telling stories that involve heroism and self-sacrifice.

It's a hard one for me to articulate. So let me go to a movie:

When Michael Corleone becomes the new Godfather? Deeds point!

---

Oooh...or when Keyser Söze walks outa that office in the Usual Suspects...deeds!


Heck, when Richard the III goes down in flames, screaming for his horse...deeds? (Here I'm thinking about how his very negative actions achieve a greater purpose: he's acting like an agent of Divine Will, bringing pain down on the House of _______ for their past misdeeds)

[Jaroslav]

Piling on...

When Han Solo comes back and blasts Darth Vader out of the trench so Luke can get a clear shot: Deeds point.

In an alternate universe where Han decides to go back to being a smuggler and pays off Jabba the Hutt, I don't think there are any Deeds points, are there?

I'm pretty sure Han had to rewrite his beliefs after the first movie, though.

[Azral]

There are actually systematic ways of dangling Deeds points: Doom Sayer and Dwarven Runecasting.


Yep! Our whole last story arc took place in the kingdom of a ruthless dwarf king who’s obsessed with the occult, so we couldn’t help but have some Rune Casting.

Our sorcerer was the target of the Rune Casting and is now fated to lead an uprising against the malevolent king. He changed his beliefs to reflect that, so he’s definitely in line for another Deeds.

And our dwarf prince has also totally bought into this, and has decided to try and overthrow the king as well. This, despite the fact that it’s EXACTLY what his nemesis, his brother, wants him to do! So he may also be up for a Deeds point, depending on how things go.

Not that these two characters are actually working together at this revolution stuff, mind you. Oh no, my friends. This may well shape up to be “competitive” usurpation!

And since our templar also has the opportunity to earn a Deeds, it looks like all of my players have obvious paths to the big time now. So they should be extra motivated for the next arc of the story.

[Azral]

Also, I'd be more conservative than Z-Dog and Jaroslav are suggesting with those movie moments. Deeds points require sacrifices.

What did Han Solo sacrifice in order to help Luke resolve his belief about the Death Star?

I don't recall the Godfather or Usual Suspects well enough to remember if those characters gave up enough, but if they didn't, no Deeds.

As I see it, Deeds don't have to be for heroism, nor do they have to be at the climax of a story. They often are, but this neither necessary nor sufficient.

The key is to make a sacrifice to accomplish something that goes beyond your personal agenda. It could be paying a heavy price to help your friend accomplish her goal of building an orphanage. Or an orc who sacrifices his rank in the legion, for the sake of murdering the Named on behalf of the Servants.

Or, you know, saving the village instead of stopping the bad guy, even though he's making off with your priceless family artifact.

[Episkopos]

It's a hard one for me to articulate. So let me go to a movie:

When Michael Corleone becomes the new Godfather? Deeds point!


You said the magic words, so I have to chime in.

I don't know that becoming Godfather is enough. I think when Michael didn't whack Fredo (at least initially!) when he knew that Fredo had conspired against him because that was good for the family and would break his mother's heart, that would be worth a Deeds, in my view.

I thought Tony Soprano showed a lot of growth when he got Johnny Sac's house for his sister and Bobby. I also liked his sickbed visit to Phil Leotardo. One or both of those might be worth Deeds.

Different system in BE, but look at the end of Faith Conquers. There is a short story. The trooper dumps his Iron in order to look after a small boy he was ordered to kill. That's a Deeds.

So, Deeds is doing something really cool that really hurts and probably doesn't do a lot to advance a personal agenda. Just thinking out loud.

[Z-Dog]

Or an orc who sacrifices his rank in the legion, for the sake of murdering the Named on behalf of the Servants.

Yes, I couldn't articulate it, but that's it.

Easy to think of heroic sacrifices on the part of good people.

Little harder to do it with bad people (who are operating for selfish reasons).

But there's the core: you give something up for something greater (that may not be in your self-interest).

I still like the Godfather example, though. He wasn't trying to be the godfather, he was basically a good man who chose family over morality, I think. Sacrificed his soul for his family?

[Z-Dog]

Different system in BE, but look at the end of Faith Conquers. There is a short story. The trooper dumps his Iron in order to look after a small boy he was ordered to kill. That's a Deeds.

So, Deeds is doing something really cool that really hurts and probably doesn't do a lot to advance a personal agenda.

Yes! Great story!

So I'd vote for: life-changing event that really twists/pushes the story in an unexpected direction, puts the character under pressure, and accomplishes something significant.


And, actually, I kinda like the whole Deeds reward thing to be a little vague and up for interpretation....

[eruditus]

I believe that Deeds should be cool and significant in respect to the story. That end-scene in Usual Suspects? Definately! I think that self-sacrifice is important but I tend to be okay with awarding Deeds for end-of story archs as well. Look, Deeds are a resource to be spent and factor into shade changes and the like. I think they are an important part of the game and need to be gotten. Don't be too stingy. If they never see them your players think they are too illusive to concern themselves with. Remember that we're tell stories - success or failure. If your not playing a heroic game, that's fine. Nor epic is okay too. Just make certain they have a concrete idea how they CAN earn Deeds. Being vague is okay for extra Deeds throughout the campaign (wow, his scene really pushed the story forward and man did he lose everything for it) but I think discernable goals are a good way to get everyone on the same page (aside from beliefs).

[Azral]

I think that self-sacrifice is important but I tend to be okay with awarding Deeds for end-of story archs as well. Look, Deeds are a resource to be spent and factor into shade changes and the like. I think they are an important part of the game and need to be gotten. Don't be too stingy.

I hear where you’re coming from, Don. I happen to disagree, though.

I think I like Deeds exactly as written: rare and precious, going beyond your personal agenda, and earned only at great sacrifice.

But, of course, each group is different. I could see the merit in a house rule that made the criteria a little less stringent, but it definitely should be something decided by consensus. I am fairly sure that my group would object to making Deeds points any easier to get. The key is to make sure they are clear on how to get them.


If they never see them your players think they are too illusive to concern themselves with. Remember that we're tell stories - success or failure. If your not playing a heroic game, that's fine. Nor epic is okay too. Just make certain they have a concrete idea how they CAN earn Deeds.

Agreed, 100%. For our group, even though we’ve only had one awarded in our campaign thus far, Deeds points have remained on the players’ radar screens. And because they’re so rare, they provide a very powerful incentive, something to strive for but hard to achieve.

Now that I’m clearer in my mind about how they should work, I’ll be able to clarify things for my players, which I’m sure will lead to more Deeds-worthy action and cool tension!

And, just incidentally, their scarcity has not led to our sole Deeds recipient “hording” his Deeds point. I wondered about that at first, but he's been ready and willing to spend that one precious Deeds on big stuff that really matters to the story.

I should also mention that if Deeds had been easier to earn in our campaign, our holy warrior would have already greyed out her Faith by now! Which, on balance, I think would not be appropriate for our story to this point.

[Jaroslav]

Also, I'd be more conservative than Z-Dog and Jaroslav are suggesting with those movie moments. Deeds points require sacrifices.

What did Han Solo sacrifice in order to help Luke resolve his belief about the Death Star?



That's a good point, and one I considered when making that post, but, I think, if you look at the whole movie and the nature of the character, the act represents a major sacrifice for Han. Up until that point he constantly professes that all of his actions are taken merely for his own personal material gain. Anything "heroic" that he does can be justified by self interest.

When Han comes back to help at the Death Star, the act is symbolic of his realignment with the rebels. He essentially sacrifices his entire way of life. When we see him next on Hoth, if I remember correctly, he is "General Solo." Isn't this a sacrifice for a character whose entire identity is wrapped up in his rugged individualism?

That's my justification anyway, I could see a GM ruling the other way, I suppose. The brown book states that GMs can be as tight or loose with Artha as they want, depending on the style of game they want to have.

As for Michael Corleone, I haven't seen The Godfather quite as many times as Star Wars, but, if I remember correctly, Michael was always trying to stay out of the family's business, so assuming that mantle is certainly a sacrifice, no? Or had he already given up on the notion that he could stay out? I can't remember. Maybe his real Deeds moment is when he shoots that guy in the restaurant and then has to leave all of his loved ones and go live in Italy.

-John

[Azral]

I think it's important to keep a solid distinction between "moldbreaker" Persona points and Deeds points.

When you "change your stripes," you get a Persona point. That's Han coming back to help in Star Wars, Michael deciding to take up the mantle in Godfather. Going against a belief or flat-out breaking that belief, cool, that's moldbreaker. Have a Persona point.

I can't remember all the run-up to Michael Corleone shooting up the restaurant, but if he did it for the sake of someone else and then had to flee the country, I'd definitely call it Deeds-worthy.

The best Deeds moment in the Star Wars saga? Darth Vader taking down the Emperor to save Luke!

[elmago79]

I agree on the "moldbreaker" definition, but both moments mentioned here should deserve a Deeds Artha. They're not just changing stripe, they're going above and beyond and paying a price for it. That's Deeds.

Han has his life figured out. He finally can pay back Jabba and go on with his merry life. But he decides to turn back to back up the rebellion and aid Luke. The rebellion is bigger than his own goals, and he is sacrificing nothing else but his life. Return of the Jedi begins the way it does because the moment he turned his ship to aid Luke, he was condemning himself to be pursued forever by Jabba's bounty hunters. That's a Deeds point.

In Michael's case, he's a war hero, a straight and humble man. When he takes the mantle of the Godfather, he's doing it for a lot more than just personal benefit: he's choosing blood, honor and tradition over his personal interest. The price, as you get to see, is his soul. He sacrifices his own family, his morality and his future. That's also a Deeds point.

In contrast, the Darth Vader moment is a persona point. He's doing it for personal reasons (Luke is his son) and out of his hatred to the Emperor. He's not going above and beyond, taking down the Emperor is well within his abilities, a calculated risk.

[themadviolinist]

The best Deeds moment in the Star Wars saga? Darth Vader taking down the Emperor to save Luke![/QUOTE]

And again, we see here that a poor villain doesn't get a shot at deeds points, even if he is the protagonist. I'm trying to find a way to award deeds points for characters who have no intention of saving the city or starting the revolution, but who do things that cause large effects that run counter to their self-interest, but are not the heroic sort of thing.

I agree that there is a subtle trap in confusing deeds with moldbreaker points. I think the Michael Corleone example probably comes close, though wouldn't it depend upon how one constructed his self-interest and how one wrote his beliefs? If he has a strong belief about family loyalty before deciding to take on the mantle, or in fact before shooting the guy in the restaurant, then perhaps he is simply embodying beliefs and gets a persona point.

All the examples in the book are tailored to events that a typical literary hero might perform toward the climax of one of the thirteen novels in his trilogy. But what about a protagonist/anti-hero like Thomas Covenant? Surely, his player gets deeds points at the ends of book III and book VI, but what about when his actions lead directly to the death of his woman and the sundering of the law? Would I burn in hell for thinking that a deeds point could be awarded in a situation where the character's actions have a profound on the world or setting that runs counter to the character's self-interest, whether the outcome is positive or profoundly negative?

[Azral]

Just to close the loop on this goofy but useful exercise in turning movie characters into Burning Wheel characters:

Good point about the bounty. I had forgotten that by returning to help Luke, Han Solo basically condemned himself to the life of a fugitive with a price on his head. So I might buy into that, although I still prefer my sacrifices to be more immediate and tangible. Being a fugitive in a great big galaxy is still a pretty wishy-washy sacrifice, if you ask me, unless more tangible effects were attached to it.

(And I don’t consider getting frozen in carbonite at the end of ESB be germane to whether or not he deserves a Deeds point at the end of SW, thought it could be an indicator of the potential consequences of being a fugitive. Only potential consequences, though.)

I’m still not buying the Corleone stuff. A character “sells his soul?” What, you mean he sells out everything he ever cared about, everything he ever believed in? Awesome, looks like player has to write new beliefs! I still call that Moldbreaker.

In my view, BW characters don’t have souls. Since Artha awards are player awards, I would view Deeds-worthy sacrifices in the same way. It’s really the player who has to make the sacrifice; it just comes in the form of character effects.

Now, maybe you could argue that destroying the goals that the player had set for the character, such as Corleone’s personal virtue, might be considered a sacrifice on the part of that player. This might be solid fodder for a separate debate, and opinions on this will probably vary from group to group.

My biggest problem with "beliefs as sacrifice" is that it's not permanent unless it has a tangible effect on the character. Players are free to write and rewrite beliefs at will.

Maybe Michael sacrificed something more tangibly valuable to him. I can't remember, because it's been 15 years since I last saw the movie. If he did, I'd consider it for Deeds, depending on who he actually did it for.


Lastly: You’ll find it very hard to convince me that Darth Vader doesn’t deserve a Deeds point. If I were to write BITs for him, “I must protect my son” would not be one of them.

However, “My son will join us or die” definitely would be! I’d also probably have one about obeying the Emperor and another about ruling the Galaxy. So, when Darth turns on his Master and saves the life of his son, knowing full well that he himself will die, I consider it the very definition of an accomplishment that is beyond (and actually contrary to) your own beliefs, and at great cost to yourself. Not to mention playing a key role in saving the Galaxy and all that rot.

I’ll call this the “Darth Vader Rule-of-thumb”: any sacrifice that will redeem your own soul is probably worth a Deeds point!

What have we learned? That you and I have different rubrics for granting Deeds points, and that my tolerance for unpacking movie analogies only lasts three “volleys”!

[elmago79]

Since no one won in our DoW (that was a nice rebuttal, BTW) it's time to offer concessions:

From our interchange, I can see that Deeds are a powerful tool for shaping the story. Deciding what is Deed worthy will mold play in different way. There's also the issue of how hard is it to get a Deeds point. In that, we also have a different rubric. I like my Deeds less scarce, one every five sessions seems about right (and five sessions is usually story arc length for me).

Also, this seems to raise the issue that, if you want to get more Deed points, you need to go for selfish BITs. That way, when you save the city, since it's not a part of your BITs, way above them and sacrificing something, you'll get Deeds instead of Persona. I think that taking this stance is problematic, since you're punishing certain BITs for "being too righteous".

I think that the key here is that Belief is not equal to self interest. "I will sacrifice myself to the Dark God in order to save my country" is a Belief that goes completely against self-interest. As you say, the BI part is the most malleable part of a character, so maybe focusing on it to decide Deed-worthiness is not the best approach on some occasions.

What does this mean for the OP?

When Wormtail brings Voldemort back to life? Deeds.
When the Emperor transforms Anakin into Darth Vader? Deeds.
When the Dark Elf seduces the Elven King into Spite? Deeds.
When the Servants of the Dark bring forth an Avatar of their God? Deeds.

Sure, you need to sacrifice something, but if it has been a good story, sacrifice should be somewhere along the way already.

[zabieru]

I think Deeds needs to be about heroism. If you start handing it out for being hella evil or just for doing something big that doesn't net you a percentage, I'm offboard. But what heroism means can really be up to your group, and will certainly vary by story.

The "climactic book 13" stuff certainly works for Men, Elves, and Dwarves (for some of them, some of the time) but let's look at Orcs. I don't think it makes sense to hold up as a carrot some nonsense about saving the world. But at the same time I don't think it makes sense to hand out Deeds for slaying the Greatest and Blackest, taking his throne, and riding his wolf at the head of your tribe to plunder. Yes, that's EEVIL! Yes, it's an accomplishment, and you should have earned several Persona for it. But I think you need to be making a statement about what heroism is to earn Deeds. For an orc, who has been brutalized since birth, continuing the cycle isn't heroic (even though it is epic). Destroying it might be. Rejecting life and the world might be. Rising above the spite and brutality of orcish life certainly would be, if portrayed convincingly, but this is not the only possible course! I would consider it just as valid a statement if the player decided that portraying her character destroying everything he had ever known or touched was the only meaningful act of heroism that could come out of his life.

A lot of this comes down to how you frame it. If the character does his same destruction-party but he does it because he is so angry and his axe is so big and it is on fire, no Deeds. If Palpatine remakes Anakin because he is EEVIIIIL, no Deeds. But if Palpatine remakes Anakin as an act of creation, stealing back a passionate, feeling human from the sterility of the Jedi order and enlisting that newly-ensouled man in his cause, to restore glory and value to the Republic in place of the soulless bureaucracy of the greatest good for the greatest number that has gripped it under the Jedi hand... Well, it's not in my opinion a correct action. But in a certain light it's a heroic one.

The Burning Wheel is about what you believe, and about what you'll do for what you believe. Persona artha is awarded for acting up to your beliefs. Deeds is for acting beyond your beliefs. Deeds-worthy actions are* those which say what you believe in better than anything else, better then any manifesto or creed.

*Well, might be. I just formulated this tonight. I think it expresses my thinking pretty well but ask me again in a week to see if I'm still sure. Also, this is all my opinion, obviously, not my interpretation of rules text (except in the loosest sense).

[eruditus]

hmmm, does Deeds have to be about heroism?

Good question. Does Deeds need to be part of a game? What do you lose? Shading, definately. Maybe some spectacular successes you have no right succeeding at.

If your players are willing to sacrifice those things maybe the answer is that you can just move Deeds from the equation and if they really do some over-the-top self sacrifice for the good of the many then it's a special step in the character's development out of the whole he's in (morally).

If not then make it a goal to attain - if you do X or Y then you gain Deeds. maybe instead of "greater good" it's sacrifice for or against the story would be enough, no?

- Don

[Fuseboy]

Good question. Does Deeds need to be part of a game? What do you lose?

Also, spending Deeds can help you get those higher-point traits in the trait vote.

[zabieru]

I should add that I don't think heroism needs to be epic.

In fact, in the right game I could see rejection of epic adventure to be heroic, if you're doing it for something that you want to argue is more important to a real hero, like, say, family.

I'm still not sure what "epic" means in terms of the original question, though. If the players intend for the game to be low-key and totally self-serving, no Deeds seems fine to me. But it sounds like maybe it's meant to be low key but without rejecting the opportunity for low-key heroism (though without heroics, if that distinction makes any sense). In that case, sure, Deeds.

[eruditus]

You're absolutely right. Epic is not required (when I think epic I think large sweeping events than effect communities and worlds). BTB Deeds is given out "solely for accomplishing goals larger than a character's personal agenda" and "must come come with some cost or sacrifice." It says that earning Deeds can happen if you help someone else accomplish their own goals while distracting from your own.

I think in a non-heroic campaign that's pretty easy to do. And it can easily planned for. Let's use Burning taranis as an example. We have the Royalists that came to the colony to start a Mage Guild. This jump starts our Sorcerer's plans to start his own Mage Guild and the competition begins. One character can have a belief that says "I am going to help the Royalists." Even if the player knows that he wants to change his mind and help his friends at the last minute. Thus in the last two sessions if that character comes on board after some teeth nashing and being ostracized by the Roylaists then he would gain a Deeds.

Currently, in the game traditional Guild magic is bad for everyone - it just happens to be very powerful. If the group turns and decided to start their own secret society and not have an official Mage Guild then they would gain Deeds.

Keep in mind that campaigns often happen in six to twelve sessions. Certainly story-archs do (which is kinda the model we're using). So when discussing what is "rare" - once in a story-arch or a few times in a campaign meets those requirements.

Some of my earlier comments, BTW are a warning against giving the players Deeds that they will never use. Giving them Deeds for defeating the big bad at the end of the campaign is hardly worth didly if there are no more rolls to be had. :)

[tarjmov]

Yes, that is correct. Deeds points are awarded to characters who perform a heroic deed at a significant cost.

"Heroic deed" means a deed that is:
a) Has an significant effect on the campaign
b) Is not done with selfish intent

"Significant cost" means a cost that matters to the character as opposed to the player. We try to avoid second-guessing players.

[luke]

Tarjmov,
Welcome to the BW Forums. We have just a few rules around here. One of them is "No Thread Necromancy." Please do check the date on a thread before replying. If the thread has been idle for more than a month, please do not post in it. Please create a new thread with a new topic.

Thank you,
-Luke

[tarjmov]

Sorry, my mistake. I have made a new thread (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?p=65502#post65502) for the topic.
Thank you,
Tarjmov