How to render the DoW less meta

[themadviolinist]

Recent threads on the Duel of Wits have left me feeling a little unsatisfied with this mechanic. I accept that my understanding of how it really plays out that may be at fault, but I would like to discuss.

The thing that is leaving me feeling this would cause players I know to lose momentum is the seeming meta-nature of the mechanic. The assertion is made here that there are no characters, only players. I have tried to get comfortable with that statement for quite a while, and while I agree with the literal truth of the statement, I think it ignores some truth that may trump reality. We wouldn't invest time, energy and creative force into these characters if we didn't in some sense care what happens to them. At least in the games I have enjoyed most, the characters to take on aa "truth" that can often surprise their players, much like the trope about writers being surprised by their characters' actions.

Let me differentiate between caring what happens and wanting to win at all costs. I completely agree that many of the best stories include adversity, loss and other failure-induced drama. But I want my character's actions to be believable within the framework of history and my expressed desires for the character, which BW allows me to highlight with BITs.

Ok, I'm getting to my point now. The Duel of Wits seems to be the mechanic that takes the no-characters stance to its most radical extent. The player agrees to stakes that might well force his character to violate verisimilitude for the sake of a mechanic for resolving intra-player differences. This can be well and good if the results lead to an opportunity to change BITs and create a turning point in the character's development. But I can see places where this wouldn't happen, or where the bones of compromise are worked out without reference to one or more competing character's world view. I'm thinking for instance of the example of the looters vs priest. If I'm playing a character for whom looting is more important than the spiritual guidance of my priest, than the DoW doesn't help me find a way to make a loss of a DoW (which I may not even be directly participating in) work with my character. Since there isn't any mechanical linkage between compromise negotiation and BITs or other parts of character concept, and since there isn't (I believe) a mechanism to clearly determine what compromises should be, unless by GM fiat, it seems that I could easily be left in a situation where there is no acceptable compromise that remains faithful to character (which may or may not exist, but which is a central reality in my gaming experience) or having to accept a dictated settlement by consensus, or by GM ruling, or whatever rules folk use to resolve compromise negotiations that aren't going anywhere.

So, how does one mitigate the meta-nature of the Duel of Wits. I don't want to throw it out; it is a neat social conflict resolution mechanic, but there is something about the negotiation elements that doesn't sit well with me. As you can see by the preceding ramble, I don't have it nailed down, but hopefully there is some grist for the comment mill.

[Saphim]

I don't think I fully get your problem.

To say it in one sentence:

You are unhappy with the way compromises work, because they might compromise (ha!) the character concept when the conflict is not properly tied to bits.

Is that right?

[Berandor]

So what you're saying is, basically, "my character wouldn't do that" trumps the mechanics?

Fact of the matter is people do strange things all the time, they act contrary to what they'd themselves think they'd do all the time. They rationalize it, they get manipulated into it, or they didn't know themselves well enough beforehand.

So the verisimilitude of character actions is an illusion in at of itself. Just like alignments in D&D were (are?) often regarded as too much of a straightjacket for the character, thinking the little amount of play you got and the beliefs you put down can totally project how your character, were he real, would ac is not "realistic", either. That doesn't matter most of the time unless you argue with realism against a mechanic.

If you really want versimilitude in the face of a seemingly contradictory DoW, don't change the mechanics. Think of a reason why your character might go along with it in spite of the contradiction. "I'm doing this to keep peace." // "That reminds me of a situation my father often complained about, and for his sake I'll go along." // "I'll do this – now. Next time, I won't even ask." // "I've grown up in a clan where the priest was highly regarded as authority, and as much as I'd like to, I simply wasn't raised to thwart the word of a priest." // "The priest once saw me playing with dolls and didn't tell on me. I owe him." Or whatever.

(Sorry if I went on a tangent because I misunderstood your point. That *is* kind of a pet peeve of mine stemming from a problem player in my group)

[luke]

Hey man,

I think you're worrying too much. It just doesn't happen like that in play. The Duel of Wits allows players to become very passionate advocates of their characters.

Meta-game talk is one facet of Burning Wheel, it sits proudly next to the performance aspect as integral to a good gaming experience.

Sure, we can have bad meta-game talk, but that can happen with a player who protects himself with "that's what my character would do" as well.

In other words, it's not flawless, but it works damn well.

[quixoteles]

Losers set compromises right? That's what I always imagined. You go back and forth pake points set offer's make rebuttals counter offer, working your way down from something outlandishly extreme to something you want, then get less than what you hoped for. Duel of Wit's is actually about managing failure, you already know what you want before you go in, you gotta think about fallout when you do one of these thing. Gambits, if your not giving at the start of the duel of wit's you just may not want to have it. If you don't want to bend roll vs. Will and use artha. Or just avoid the guy if you know you can't win, hide from them. Then you can have an interrogation later with the priest which is a much more manageable argument to have, and more realistic. Can anyone really take, in real life the amount of drama burning wheel can provide, this game tears peoples guts out. You can't really get into every available duel of wit's the same you can't get into every available fight.

[elmago79]

If you're not willing to compromise, you don't accept the DoW. You walk away or escalate to physical violence.

In the looters example, there are a lot of verosimile ways that character may compromise. "I won't take away their gold but I'll I'll take their swords in memory of my fallen camarades", thing like that happen all the time if fiction.

If it is an all or nothing deal, a simple versus roll or even a Fight! might be in order. We're talking about a character that's a bit unbeliebable already, one that's not willing to compromise at all, regardless of the circumstances. But there's already a place for doing that, it's just that DoW is not tat place, just like in real life.

[jchokey]

Interestingly, this very point has come up in some recent discussions among the players in my group.

In our discussions, one of the players had written the following:

Between players (including the GM), we can always
come to agreements and hold each other to the results, but this is
just not realistic *in the game*.

Here was my response:

It's totally realistic if you believe that your characters are, like all people, capable of having their intents, beliefs, or actions influenced-- at least for a while-- by conversation, information, persuasion, emotions, social pressures, etc.

What seems to me unrealistic would be to imagine that your characters are never influenced by anything anyone around them ever says, incapable of being persuaded to do-- or not to do-- something by reasoned argument, impassioned appeals, social pressure, or anything external to themselves. (Well, maybe if you were playing individuals with extremely severe autism, incapable of any significant social interaction, that might be "realistic" but that's not the case for any of you.)

To take the assassin example [this is the example of the sole assassin sneaking in to kill someone and being talked out of it by his intended victim] again: How would it be unrealistic, from a character perspective, to imagine that his intended victim might possibly tell him something that gives him pause? That makes him think about his situation in a way that will inspire him to spare the fellow. There are lots of realistic, plausible explanations for such in a game world: "I'll pay you triple what they're paying you." "You're making a terrible mistake-- as soon as I'm dead, they'll kill you". "You've got the wrong man-- this is a set-up for both of us." "You can kill me, but I come from a powerful family, who will find you out and take terrible vengeance." "Luke, I'm your father!" Whatever...

And again, keep in mind that a DOW requires that the players *agree* to it before it happens. So, if a player really felt that the stakes being offered by his opponent-- i.e. the actions required-- were "unrealistic" in the game world (i.e. it would be completely implausible/unrealistic that his character could *ever* be persuaded to them, no matter what arguments are marshalled) there shouldn't be any Duel in the first place. The player should just walk away (or at least demand a change in stakes to something that would be more realistic, in his view).

To put it another way: When you agree to an opponents' stakes in a DOW (by not walking away), you're essentially agreeing to the following: "I am willing to have the story go in this direction if I lose. I agree to it because, as a player, I agree this is an interesting direction for the action of our story to go in-- even if it's not the one I personally most want to see. Moreover, I agree to this because I think it's plausible from an in-game perspective, that my character *could* realistically be persuaded to do this." So 'realistic-ness" is built into the stakes from the beginning!

[themadviolinist]

I don't think I fully get your problem.

To say it in one sentence:

You are unhappy with the way compromises work, because they might compromise (ha!) the character concept when the conflict is not properly tied to bits.

Is that right?

I think that's part of it, though even in a conflict where central BITs are involved, everyone has some things they simply will not compromise no matter what. It seems that the DoW doesn't respect this reality, since characters do not in fact exist.

I think there is more to my discomfort, but this is a good first approximation. I'll see what happens further down the thread.

[themadviolinist]

[QUOTE=Berandor;56551]So what you're saying is, basically, "my character wouldn't do that" trumps the mechanics?

Fact of the matter is people do strange things all the time, they act contrary to what they'd themselves think they'd do all the time. They rationalize it, they get manipulated into it, or they didn't know themselves well enough beforehand.
. . .

Yes, but that is itself a rationalization and to me holds no greater value than rationalizing why my character would absolutely not compromise in a way that might be dictated by group consensus or GM fiat, which are possibilities in the absence of a specific mechanism for creating the terms of a compromise as is the case in the rules (unless I'm forgetting something.)

And no, your response is spot on, not tangential at all.

[themadviolinist]

If you're not willing to compromise, you don't accept the DoW. You walk away or escalate to physical violence.


But, unless I misunderstand, "walking away" is accepting the contrary position without a duel, or exiting the scene altogether. And perhaps I'm not the dueler, but simply an interested spectator. Spectators are expected to honor the DoW as well.

[themadviolinist]

There is an interesting thread in the posts in response to mine; the idea that it is unrealistic to be unwilling to compromise under any circumstance. I maintain that this is in fact a lot more realistic than people might want to believe; the religious fanatic, filled with his visions of God isn't going to be swayed by argument or emotional appeal, or at least it should be possible this is true, since, while such a turn-around can burn the world down, there can be equal drama in his intransigence and utter imperviousness to considerations outside his vision. The sociopath isn't going to be swayed by arguments of social contract or compassion, whether she is evil or not. Ben Kenobi isn't going to be seduced to the Dark Side of the Force, no matter how glittering the argument.

So the players refuse the duels?

[Saphim]

I think that's part of it, though even in a conflict where central BITs are involved, everyone has some things they simply will not compromise no matter what. It seems that the DoW doesn't respect this reality, since characters do not in fact exist.

I think there is more to my discomfort, but this is a good first approximation. I'll see what happens further down the thread.

Well, if something is that central to a person than the person would probably escalate to violence if the DoW would go south.
A game doesn't try to realistically model reality, and I don't think BW does either. It is on purpose that there will arise situations in which you either give up your beliefs or you follow them through with extreme measures, no matter what society might think of you afterwards.
I think that is supposed to be a feature, and not a bug.

[Berandor]

There is an interesting thread in the posts in response to mine; the idea that it is unrealistic to be unwilling to compromise under any circumstance. I maintain that this is in fact a lot more realistic than people might want to believe; the religious fanatic, filled with his visions of God isn't going to be swayed by argument or emotional appeal, or at least it should be possible this is true, since, while such a turn-around can burn the world down, there can be equal drama in his intransigence and utter imperviousness to considerations outside his vision. The sociopath isn't going to be swayed by arguments of social contract or compassion, whether she is evil or not. Ben Kenobi isn't going to be seduced to the Dark Side of the Force, no matter how glittering the argument.

So the players refuse the duels?
Interesting. I know I just recently, in a talk I gave about conspiracy theorists, argued against discussing with them for the very reason that 99.9% of the time you'll be talking to a wall that does not budge. And I heard similar claims for people warning scientists not to do a discussion with a creationist.

The argument for such a discussion is, of course, the audience, who may be swayed by the dicussion on the podium. The True Believer will not, however. So you're right – people often don't change their beliefs no matter the evidence. They *might* change their behaviour, though. And the audience may be swayed.

However, I now think that may be a degree of fanaticism that is not well represented by a DoW. The DoW presupposes a willingness to compromise and change that should be there simply because playing a character influenced by other people and perhaps forced into action can be much more interesting than playing a machine that only follows its own programming. But in such a case, yes, then I think the character should either not enter the DoW or enter into it expecting to escalate afterwards.

In the end, though, I think this might be addressed as a conflict between narrativism and simulationism. I just wouldn't be sure who would be on which side...

[Fuseboy]

I think there's an unstated axiom that's adding fuel to this fire.

In a traditional RPG, your character's "personality" has no mechanical impact - but it's also inviolable. "My character would never do that," is a legitimate stance.

In Burning Wheel, personality is largely within the mechanics, it's not at all safe from interference by others. You don't decide what your character would never do, you prove it through conflict.

So don't look at DoW as a way of demonstrating your character's personality, look at it as a way of learning your character's personality.

[luke]

What seems to me unrealistic would be to imagine that your characters are never influenced by anything anyone around them ever says, incapable of being persuaded to do-- or not to do-- something by reasoned argument, impassioned appeals, social pressure, or anything external to themselves.

Yes! Yes!

My axiom for human interaction:
Every idealist eventually compromises; every warrior eventually surrenders.

That said, you can turn your back on arguments and fights. That's a legitimate choice in the game. The game is about your choices and their consequences.

-L

[Z-Dog]

My axiom for human interaction:
Every idealist eventually compromises; every warrior eventually surrenders.


DoW has a way of convincing me, the GM, that the player got one of my dead-set, heels dug into the ground NPCs to do something I never thought they'd agree to.

For me, it's a very satisfying mechanic to point to and say, "Hey, I lost, you got it, you convinced him!" And I don't feel like I'm cheating, or giving in to social pressure, or "just being nice" to my players. I feel like they won, just like they win a fight.

[zabieru]

Also, name an idealist for me. Go ahead, do it. I'll find you some time when they compromised on something.

The duel of wits is not about your beliefs (necessarily), it's about your actions. When you compromise with the infidel, it's not because you've suddenly embraced religious pluralism. It's because you needed to, because there was too much at stake not to, and you decided that compromise with the infidel was a lesser evil. For now. Until the Bear-Time is upon us once more and you, the Flaming Claw of Endless Bear, come down upon the heathen!

I maintain that the idealist, the fanatic, the unbendable will are facades. They are self-images and self-promotions by people who, like virtually all humans, will bend and compromise. But unlike a human who values flexibility or the appearance of flexibility, they will frame their compromise in terms of unbending will.

I think you're rejecting that possibility by making this too black and white. Sure, Ben Kenobi ain't about the dark side. But the fact that he is not now and never has been a Sith lord does not mean he's never compromised or changed his actions. He has. He ran off to Tatooine, didn't he? He lied to his apprentice. Those aren't exactly things you'd expect of old sans peur et sans reproche Jedi Knight Obi-Wan. They reflect compromises with the world (though they are not DoW results in this case). He frames them as necessities (and in a sense they are, if he hadn't made those choices he'd be in a different place than he is now, so to get here he needed to do these things) but he could have made different choices and I expect that he did struggle over these choices even though he retroactively denies that struggle by painting them as the only right paths.

There are two paths of the idealist. One is the uncompromised heart, to withdraw from the world and remain pure. This is a falsehood and a betrayal. You can walk away from Duels of Wits every time. You can never stake your beliefs on anything that depends on another. It does work. It's a sad thing to see, but it's possible. You don't usually hear about these guys because they don't matter. They might have built a better world, but they didn't care enough to hand it down.

The other is the uncompromised world. This is the path of compromise. Decide what matters, then act. Gandhi walked this path. So did Saladin. It means recognizing that what's at stake in the duel of wits can be bigger than your principles, and asking if you care enough to bend.

[technomonkey]

If a player really doesn't want to compromise, walking away really is "what my character would do" option. As an anecdotal example, I was at dinner once with a bunch of people including my then roommate, who believes the earth is 6000 years old. We were all having, from my perspective, a very civil conversation about the conflict between science and creationism and he just got up and left in the middle of dinner. Maybe he couldn't cope with hearing the conversation, or maybe he was afraid that if he stayed he would compromise his beliefs. But he just walked away and exited the scene.

[stormsweeper]

The problem here is the player who doesn't want to use that option, but feels that the game rules should not apply because "that's what my character would do." I'm going to start calling those guys "The Bat" (http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=0b4a31dea861d1108090071b1fa07a34) although in truth I haven't had to play with anyone like that in a long time.

[themadviolinist]

So don't look at DoW as a way of demonstrating your character's personality, look at it as a way of learning your character's personality.[/QUOTE]


Interesting and radical. If I understande you then, in BW, players relinquish what are traditional levels of control over their characters. I had not gotten to that interpretation. It seemed to me that BW provided mechanisms that one could use to allow characters to change, but that these were optional. If I read you correctly, the optionality of change that the player doesn't author is in question.

[themadviolinist]

I am missing the reference in the below link due to lack of visual equipment I think.

I think I may be embodying your bat, though I don't know. This discussion has narrowed things down for me though to two points.

1. I think I may be confused about the implications of "walking away". If I heard Mel White's description of DoW in his Virtual Play podcast correctly, it is permissible to refuse a DoW if one can't agree to stakes without prejudicing the outcome of the conflict for which the DoW is proposed as the method of resolution. I wonder if this is correct though, since I seem to recall that walking away implies consent to abide by the other's stakes. My confusion may be that walking away is not synonymous with refusing the DoW????

22. Does BW want the player to not be the sole and final arbiter of character actions? I mean it is permissible to walk away from conflicts, etc, but I get the sense that this is considered incorrect behavior among you all, as breaking social contract.

Finally, I want to respond to the people talking about compromise. I agree that every idealist compromises. I make the related statement that everyone has something about which they cannot or will not. The safety of my children is one of those non-negotiables for me. There are a few other bed-rock considerations. Were I a BW character, there is no force in the Verse that would get me to compromise that. If I assert that my character is running into one of those no-compromise situations, how would the DoW address this? Is it even appropriate to use the DoW for something as black and white?The problem here is the player who doesn't want to use that option, but feels that the game rules should not apply because "that's what my character would do." I'm going to start calling those guys "The Bat" (http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=0b4a31dea861d1108090071b1fa07a34) although in truth I haven't had to play with anyone like that in a long time.

[luke]

1. Walking away is refusing a DoW. Walking away is a narrative convenience. What really happens in the metagame is that you stop fighting with the other player and we move on. Now this gets sticky when one player wants to go in one direction and is prepared to argue his case -- he challenges you, so to speak. Unless you take up the challenge, murder him or ensorcel him he's going to get his way. You're going to have to deal with the consequences of not standing up to him.

2. In Burning Wheel, you are not the sole arbiter of your character's actions. Steel tests and Duel of Wits results are just two notable examples out of many instances where this is true.

3. Compromise. It's a game. It's about fighting for what you believe in. If your character isn't prepared to fight for his children, then you're playing the wrong game. Part of the game is the risk that you might be convinced otherwise, be forced to compromise or even die trying. Those are the risks when fighting for what you believe in Burning Wheel.

Hope that helps!
-L

[Fuseboy]

It's not, but think of BW for a moment as a soap opera generator. The idea is to move smoothly from dramatic conflict to dramatic conflict, which each conflict producing a meaningful change in the characters or story. So bring characters who are ready to change.

You'd never introduce a fighter to a D&D game by saying, "My character concept is a tough warrior who never gets hurt." A legitimate response could be, "How's that? He's only got AC 15 - a kobold could hit him!" However, if you played ten sessions of brutal dungeon crawling combat and somehow didn't get hurt, that's another thing - it would be deserving of quite a reputation. But it would stop there; your AC would still be only 15, and you'll probably get creamed one day.

So if you say, "My BW character would never, ever abandon his kids," you could legitimately ask, "How's that? His Will is only B4; any thug with a knife and a lucky roll could Intimidate him into doing it."

If you make a character with a belief about never abandoning his kids, it's like asking the GM for the thug to be in the story.

Ben Kenobi would have Die Traits either earned or burned-in to represent how hard he is to sway. (But so would Darth Vader! In a "convert to my side" DoW, no doubt the loser would escalate to violence!)

[jchokey]

It's about fighting for what you believe in.

Yeah... I think that "Fight for what you believe in" is really *the* way to look at this.

You, as a player, have absolute authority (and, I would say, a duty) to have your character *FIGHT* for what he or she believes in-- physically, verbally, or otherwise.

But, you *don't* have the authority to say that your character always wins that fight. Yeah, you may lose a specific battle-- but that doesn't mean you can't keep fighting the war!

[zabieru]

Hey, can we cut this off here?

If anyone really cares, start a thread in the Chatterer. You can call it "What I Know Devin Really Meant: Ethics and Compromise."

EDIT: Thanks Luke.

[luke]

Thread split here (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5808).