'Getting' BW, and Design Intent:

[Rob Alexander]

(I was going to post this in the rpg.net "Don't 'get' , but would like to" thread (here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=381406)), but thought I'd get a better response by asking here instead. I'm not the guy who posted about BW there.)

I ran my first session of BW two weeks ago, and will be running my second tomorrow night. I've had the books for months, and there's lots of things that I find really impressive, but I've always been put off by the sheer complexity and by various things that jibe badly with what I, as a GM, want to offer players.

I'm still not convinced that the crunch, the oddities and the weird nooks-and-crannies are worth it, but I'm willing to give it a try. I reached this point after a few things 'clicked' in my head about what the rules are meant to achieve.

So, here's "What I've 'got'", "What I Don't Get", and "My Concerns". If anything here sounds wrong - learn me!


What I've 'Got'

Intent/Task/Linked Tests
Just reading the book, I missed the significance of this part. It wasn't until I read (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5350) that I realised quite how radical it's meant to be.

So, the mandatory intent & task thing is mechanism for players to propose dramatic things and for the GM to have structure adjudicating them. It's part reminder (propose intent, break it down), and part an explicit mechanism (break it down into *tests*). It provides a simple mechanism for the GM to adjudicate ambitious players plans. It keeps the GM from messing up player plans through ineptitude and forgetfulness, which is a plus to me as a player or GM.

Downside: it flies in the face of what a lot of roleplayers want or expect, especially if handled clumsily or too briskly. See the recent comments by 'Higgins' in his "sell me on" thread.


Beliefs
Let the players say, quite precisely and in their own words, what they want the game to be about and get it right there on the character sheet. (I.e. they're very explicit flags).


Artha & BITs
(a) Let players choose (on the fly) which tests they really care about

(b) Reward players for playing interesting characters who are idiosyncratic, colourful and flawed (rather than ruthlessly efficient)

(c) *Compensate* players by giving them game power later in return for acting against their best interests.

I think that (c) is the big one.

(c) is a bit like Compells in FATE/SotC, but in BW it doesn't rely on the GM - he gets to rubber-stamp it, but the rules are pretty clear. In SotC so far, I've struggled to provide Compells - they're just one more thing to think about while GMing, on top of anything else. In BW the players should be able to look after themselves - if they don't claim their points, tough.

I think that the (Player Interests)->BITS->Artha->(PC Effectiveness) mechanism is slick as hell and the thing that's pushed me over the edge into finally trying BW. I've run TSOY before, but Keys always seemed so clumsy; BW is better because Beliefs and Instincts are free text. The fact that Keys gave XP (which could be spent immediately to improve skills etc) was also a bit wierd to me.

(Plus, getting a point of any Artha is a nice feeling, I suspect, because it can be spent right away. In TSOY you had to wait until you have 5, 10 or more XP before it was any use. Not having been a *player* in either game, this is guesswork, but consistent with my experience in other contexts. You *can* save up Artha, but you don't have to. And you can *stop* saving at any time if your immediate need seems great enough.)


Advancement by Use, and Failures Still Count
(a) Encourage players to be creative with their use of skills (e.g. there's an example on these boards where someone used Candlemaking over days or weeks to form a candle that could burn through the ropes binding them).

(b) If you fail a test, your plan doesn't work out but you most likely got a high-value (difficult or challenging) tick that takes you closer to improving your skills. (This I got later than the rest, after I'd run my first session)


Scripted Combat
Provide unpredictability and ample opportunity for real fuckups. (This is just here for completeness, I liked the idea from the get-go and so far it seems to work well in play).


Circles and Wises
Let the players create the world around them. Like the intent and task thing, it lets players have grand ambitions and carry them out (or fail to) very directly.


Strong Constraints on Lifepath Order
Creativity comes from constraints - force players to think in new ways. (I did a full burn for a couple of NPCs and the history it's implied is quite interesting. That said, this is one of the aspects of the game I'm least sold on - I want to play by the rules, but I don't want to tell a player that their excellent and highly suitable character background just isn't possible by the rules).


What I Don't Get
A Difficult test can't replace a Routine one. Why?

Lots of expensive traits let you "round up when X", meaning that for some characters they're really valuable and for others they have no effect. Why?

Similarly, how an extra point of Speed, Agility or Perception is sometimes immensely valuable, sometimes not (because it does or doesn't boost reflexes). Same with wound tolerances. I understand that avoiding this kind of thing is hard, but why?

The lifepaths make little attempt to balance character power. 4LP lets you choose a Field Slave or a Swordsinger. Why?

Above all, the the sheer mind-blowing detail and intricacy of the system compared to most games with the same Forge/Storygame values. Why? What's the point? What does it get you that "leather/padded armour gives +1 Ob on agility-based skills, excluding melee combat but including missile weapons"?



My Concerns

1) My impression, from reading these boards, is that the type of insights described here are crucial for getting BW to work. In the absence of such insights, you'll get fuckups, and groups who abandon the system after a session or two. Especially if you come from a traditional rpg background, a lot of the intent isn't obvious.

2) Following on from the last one, really: the stuff that makes BW stand out from traditional rpgs doesn't leap out on first reading. Given the intricacy of the system, some stuff that's unique needs to be massively emphasised if people like me are going to "get it". When I first read it, BITs, Artha and Intent/Task just faded into the background compared to combat, damage and sorcery, which are cool in their way but nowhere near as powerful or revolutionary as the other stuff.

[Paul B]

I think you've pretty much got it figured out. The places you don't get, and the downsides you've identified, may be dealbreakers for you or your group. I'm just a guy trying to find my perfect game, but I feel like I've got a pretty good perspective on what all this stuff is trying to achieve.

Intent downside: I think you've nailed this one. I have one player who really doesn't like being rushed into the mechanics, and I feel it happening when I don't want it to. I'm a huge believer in setting up context before resorting to the mechanics, and for reasons I haven't yet identified I find myself bypassing context a lot. This is a general story-game-style gripe of mine so I suspect it has to do with the authorial head you have to be in to identify intent.

Difficult tests can't replace routine ones: This is to force the player to seek out help, get creative with FoRKSs, and spend Artha. It's sort of hard to get routine tests, esp. with some GMs (I'm one of them -- "Say Yes" results in me skipping over rolls that don't feel interesting, i.e. are routine). I don't think it "models" anything specific, rather it's there to generate more interaction in play.

Expensive traits that round up: That's to let you spread around your points differently early on. I think they're overpriced, but I suspect you could really squeeze a lot of mechanical benefit out of certain synergistic combinations.

Extra points that sometimes don't do anything: Again, I think this is to reward very, very clever character building. It probably matters more when you ahve more LPs. IMO this puts the wrong kind of emphasis on character burning, but a lot of players really like that part of the game.

Unbalanced LPs: Your definition of "power" is probably not in sync with the game's. This is not a criticism! Most of my players would rather have the sure thing of a high combat skill versus the unsure thing of, say, interesting lifepaths for circles tests and funky traits that might show up in surprising ways.

Intricacy of Fight!: Probably nothing to "get" here. It strongly rewards high player skill, and it's a pretty kickass little minigame inside the BW experience. It was too much for my group, and we're now doing lots of BV tests instead.

Your concerns: I agree with your assessment on both issues.

The big deal-breaker for my hardcore trad players was the headspace-shift of treating the GM as a collaborator rather than as a personal adversary. Being explicit about Intent means having to show your cards. This is in stark contrast to the Gygaxian (rest his soul) model of challenging players to "beat" the GM's creations. I'm still trying to decompress a couple of my players from decades of this mindset.

You might consider treating everything as a Versus test and see how your group likes it. We're doing all-versus as well as ditching all the advancement bookkeeping and things are moving along way, way faster.

p.

[Thor Olavsrud]

Hi Rob, I'll do what I can to help. First though, I want to say that the thing about Burning Wheel that may be the hardest to get is that the GM is not expected to be the sole keeper of the rules.

Our recommendation (as per Make Characters and Play Now, p.77 of the brown book) is that you start playing with the first 77 pages of the rules (i.e., The Hub and The Spokes). That's material that the GM can communicate to the players fairly easily. After that, as you introduce material from the rest of the book (The Rim), we expect the players to help pick up the slack, learn the rules and help everyone apply them.

Now, I realize that doesn't suit every group, but it works much better than putting all rules responsibility on the GM. If you're a player and your character is wearing armor that gives +1 Ob to Speed tests, we expect the player, not the GM, to remember that and apply it.

Anyway, on to your questions:

What I Don't Get
A Difficult test can't replace a Routine one. Why?

We want players to attempt a range of different tests in play. If you need Routine tests, then you need to seek out opportunities to test your skill against a low Obstacle, or you need to get Help from your allies. The latter is especially important, and really helps people get into the groove of helping.

The mechanics of helping from both sides (i.e., receiving help and giving help) are extremely important. By accepting help you can get a test into the range that you need in order to advance. Giving help can get you Difficult and Challenging tests.

Lots of expensive traits let you "round up when X", meaning that for some characters they're really valuable and for others they have no effect. Why?

The mechanics of pricing traits are explained in the Monster Burner. But the long and short of it is: Buy a trait if it helps you make the character you want and it helps you. Don't buy it if it doesn't help you make the character you want or it doesn't help you.

Keep in mind though that buying the Tough trait may not help you right out of the gate if you have Power B4 and Forte B4, but it will certainly come into play the moment you advance your Power or Forte. Just because a trait doesn't help you immediately, doesn't mean it won't in the future.

Similarly, how an extra point of Speed, Agility or Perception is sometimes immensely valuable, sometimes not (because it does or doesn't boost reflexes). Same with wound tolerances. I understand that avoiding this kind of thing is hard, but why?

Those are the breaks. All of those Stats are immensely valuable on their own, even without worrying about Reflexes anyway -- especially Speed and Perception, which are rolled all the time.

Remember that Burning Wheel is designed for long term play. When you advance your Speed and your Reflexes increase, or you advance your Power and your Mortal Wound goes up, it's a rare and pleasing thing!

The lifepaths make little attempt to balance character power. 4LP lets you choose a Field Slave or a Swordsinger. Why?

The lifepaths make zero attempt to balance power. You get to make the character that you want to play, within the restrictions placed on you by the group (i.e., stat caps, lifepath limits, etc.). We trust that a group can decide a Swordsinger isn't appropriate for their Field Slave game.

And even if you do get a Swordsinger and a Field Slave in the same game, their BITs and the various traits they picked up through character burning will ensure that each character is unique and interesting, regardless of power level.

Above all, the the sheer mind-blowing detail and intricacy of the system compared to most games with the same Forge/Storygame values. Why? What's the point? What does it get you that "leather/padded armour gives +1 Ob on agility-based skills, excluding melee combat but including missile weapons"?

These are the core of many interesting choices in the game. When I've got my character attempting an ambush and my character is wearing armor that gives me +1 Ob to Stealthy, I have to decide whether it's more important for me to succeed in surprising my enemy or to be protected afterward. Do I take off my armor or not? If I really believe in the importance of what I'm doing, I may very well put my character at greater risk in order to achieve it.

It always comes back to choices and consequences.


My Concerns

1) My impression, from reading these boards, is that the type of insights described here are crucial for getting BW to work. In the absence of such insights, you'll get fuckups, and groups who abandon the system after a session or two. Especially if you come from a traditional rpg background, a lot of the intent isn't obvious.

2) Following on from the last one, really: the stuff that makes BW stand out from traditional rpgs doesn't leap out on first reading. Given the intricacy of the system, some stuff that's unique needs to be massively emphasised if people like me are going to "get it". When I first read it, BITs, Artha and Intent/Task just faded into the background compared to combat, damage and sorcery, which are cool in their way but nowhere near as powerful or revolutionary as the other stuff.[/quote]

[Thor Olavsrud]

Unbalanced LPs: Your definition of "power" is probably not in sync with the game's. This is not a criticism! Most of my players would rather have the sure thing of a high combat skill versus the unsure thing of, say, interesting lifepaths for circles tests and funky traits that might show up in surprising ways.

See, personally, unless it's essential to my character concept that I have a high weapon skill, my instinct is to spend 1 skill point to open the skill and that's it. Afterall, I know we get into Fight! fairly regularly in my games, so I'm going to test that skill ALL the time. It will go up quickly! It's much more efficient (and usually interesting) to spend those skill points in other areas.

[Z-Dog]

everything Paul B. said (he is wise and learned) and to this:

"The lifepaths make little attempt to balance character power. 4LP lets you choose a Field Slave or a Swordsinger. Why?"

to enable people to play super powerful kick ass Elves and lowly, broken slaves...and to simulate the kind of difference in ability, resources, etc. that those 2 would get

yeah, it's a tricky thing....most people assume, going into a game, that PCs are balanced

---

oh, and Thor stepped in. Z-Dog stands and admires his post. :)

[luke]

ditching all the advancement bookkeeping

Such heresy. I'm dispatching the inquisitors.

[Dwight]

Strong Constraints on Lifepath Order
Creativity comes from constraints - force players to think in new ways. (I did a full burn for a couple of NPCs and the history it's implied is quite interesting. That said, this is one of the aspects of the game I'm least sold on - I want to play by the rules, but I don't want to tell a player that their excellent and highly suitable character background just isn't possible by the rules).

Burn a new Lifepath if you/the player feel you can't fit the intended character into the existing LP. Put the LP up in the Spark forum if you are worried about balance when you are creating new ones. EDIT: That's assuming there isn't the particular one you want already there, or in the Wiki. But for the first time out, it's a lot simpler if you just use the standard ones.


Another thing that's comes up in your thread a lot. In BW there is a lot balance in the LPs but it is NOT the kind of balancing you probably think of. Or more to the point it is balancing something different than what you expect. It underlies the reason that Traits like being Blind cost points, instead of being negative points like in most RPGs with point/buy. The balance is primarily in how much the game is going to centre around that particular character.

P.S. Burning Wheel has a lot of finicky bits. But you can actually just skip whole subsystems if they don't fit what you are trying to do. There are some that play entire campaigns without using Fight! for example.