Advice for a Burning X newbie

[fnord3125]

My love and interest for RPGs has always outweighed the free time I have to play them. Consequently, Burning Wheel (and its supplements) and Burning Empires are the latest of many games I've purchased but have yet to have a chance to play. I've been reading the books for both BW and BE off and on lately and I'm very interested in trying it out, however. But I have a couple questions / requests for advice from those experienced BW/BE players.

To start with, are these good games for me and my group? Specifically, I'll certainly be GMing but I'm hoping for something that won't (besides pre-game campaign/character planning) require lots of GM "homework." It seems that these games are built to strongly encourage player/character-driven play, and this is what I'm looking for. I'm tired of planning everything out ahead of time. Also on this note, more than likely, the group will just by myself and my two best friends. Are these games that can work okay with just a GM and 2 players?

Secondly, assuming I do try it out... does anyone have some advice on the best way to start? Leaving aside issues of setting and fantasy vs. sci-fi are either Burning Wheel or Burning Empires significantly more difficult to learn than the other? I know they're based on the same basic mechanics, of course, but I also know there are significant differences and I haven't quite read enough of all the books to know exactly what they are.

I probably have other questions too, but... this seems like enough for one post. :)

thanks in advance!

[Sempiternity]

Leaving starting advice up to the veterans, i have to say:

* BW is an excellent system for 2 players - especially if you want to get heavily into the Fight! subsystem. (Persumably DoWs, as well.)
My last game, and my current soon to start one, are both with a GM and two players, and i noticed that even though you can't escape having less brainpower in the room (;)), you do have more room to focus on each player, each character, and each character's individual story.

* The way i prep for BW, which seems to work well enough, you do a lot of work during and after the first session - burning up the world and characters as a group, and then preparing NPC antagonists, bringing conflicts to life with an r-map, as a GM - but later sessions all you need to do is talk over character change after play and prepare simple bangs before the game to make things hum along. Much, much easier than stocking a dungeon.

[Fuseboy]

BW doesn't require lots of GM homework. My play style was totally different than BW when I first started, so I spent a lot of time thinking up good 'bangs' between sessions, but as that becomes more natural you'll be much more able to do things on the fly. I found Chris Chinn's articles on flag framing and protagonist play very helpful.

But the most important thing, I'd say, is getting good beliefs from your players. Read all the sticky threads about writing beliefs, have your players read them too.

Play the Sword first. Don't skip this step.

Your players must want to participate creatively, or it won't work. (Not all players do.) It's also very helpful to be conflict-seeking in your approach to story; compared to (say) D&D, BW is like a character-personality demolition derby. :-)

BW can work well with one player - see the Si Juk stories in the Playing.. forum (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12). Also, I've done three one-on-one sessions with Sanjeev, and it's been fantastic so far. (But also very intense, as there's no relief for either of you from the spotlight.)

My gut says play BW first, but I don't know which is easier as I haven't played BW myself. BE looks like an evolution of BW that incorporates more of the conventions of the BWHQ's play style, so it's a bit like a dance - you each need to know your parts before it will work smoothly.

[fnord3125]

thanks for the input! i just downloaded and took a quick look over The Sword and it does look like a really cool introduction. Any idea how long it would take to play with just 2 players? Normally for just about any game I do I allot one full session to make characters and talk about everyone's ideas for the campaign, and I definitely would be doing this for Burning Wheel. On the other hand, I'd probably be shooting for doing some kind of relatively short mini-campaign with Burning Wheel and I'm not sure I want to spend 1 session with The Sword then the session 0. On the other other hand, better to do a one-shot intro to a game to see whether people dig it than spend a lot of time and have it fall flat. yeah, i just convinced myself. i think i might try running The Sword this week.

[Fuseboy]

When we played it, I think it was a couple of hours, and that was with four people. (Others may have good advice about which characters to pick for a two-player version.)

One of the nice things about the Sword is that it gives you a sense of the grittiness of combat (so you appreciate the risk involved), it teaches you how DoW works (the way the stakes are binding, in particular), and gives you a nice example of creating an entertaining, unexpected outcome that changes the characters without having to test it out on characters that are precious to you.

[fnord3125]

Hmmm, then maybe it'll be possible to do The Sword, and if my friends like it, go on to talk about a larger campaign and at least get started on burning characters.

The other thing that, to me, looks really great about The Sword is it will hopefully show them that the game is meant to be driven by the players and their character's goals (Beliefs)... and they'll either like that or we'll decide BW isn't good for us.

I have, in the past, occasionally had moments when we've come to a lull in the action of the game and everyone looks at me like "What next?" and my response is simply, "Well, what do YOU think your characters should be doing now?" Sometimes this has worked fine, sometimes I just get blank looks. Of course, I'm not entirely sure we've ever made characters and discussed the campaign/world from the beginning with the understanding that I, as the GM, wasn't planning on driving everything.

[quixoteles]

The real deal breaker for Burning Wheel is the character demo. Fuseboy's right this game is a demolition derby. The idea that characters are sacred is thrown out the window in this game. I have been patiently seducing a player in my group for years, he's terrified of character demolition, he just can't bring himself to do it. I personally am eager to tear a guy of my own apart, but have yet to do much actual Player-character gaming. I am trying, but it is not so easy.

[fnord3125]

The real deal breaker for Burning Wheel is the character demo. Fuseboy's right this game is a demolition derby. The idea that characters are sacred is thrown out the window in this game. I have been patiently seducing a player in my group for years, he's terrified of character demolition, he just can't bring himself to do it. I personally am eager to tear a guy of my own apart, but have yet to do much actual Player-character gaming. I am trying, but it is not so easy.

By tearing a character apart you mean...? In the sense of their beliefs, right? mental, emotional, psychological demolition?

[Fuseboy]

Heh.. demolition was hyperbole - they're not destroyed, but they're changed. Think of a typical episode of Law & Order or the X-Files - very little happens to the investigators in the course of an episode that changes their psychological makeup.

Then think of the movie Seven. (It's a little adolescent, but it makes the point.) Brad Pitt's character is not in the position to make a hypothetical sequel, Eight, as the same guy from the first movie - the experience will have changed him deeply.

BW is the game where the Lich cuts off your hand in Fight!, tells you he's your father, and duels (of wit) you into ruling the known world as father and son. :-)

[fnord3125]

Okay, thats what I thought you were getting at. I knew it was hyperbole, incidentally. :) I think, but I'm not positive, that the guys I usually play with will be cool with that. Or at least more cool with that than likely character death (my understanding about BW combat is that it's gritty and very east to get HURT but not extremely easy to flat out DIE... right?). I can't be entirely sure how down with the major character change ideas until I talk to them about it though (hopefully this weekend), since we haven't done too many games in which that kind of thing is common or featured. I dig the Star Wars analogy though.

Okay, let's assume for the moment that I try to get a 2 player, 1 GM game going. Since so far no one has weighed in on whether or not I'd be better off going with BW or BE... is there any reason, if we try BW that we ought to stick with using the mannish character stock? maybe it's just because i'm not sophisticated enough and i'm drawn to the "kewl m0nsterz" but I'm sort of tempted to offer up use of the stocks from the Monster Burner. would that be a terrible idea for people still learning the game?

[stormsweeper]

I will write a longer treatise tonight when I have more time, but for now some quick thoughts.

BW and BE are fairly different in play. BE is very structured, and less free-flowing than BW. I like both, but I think BW has the wider appeal.

As to character stocks, I think any of the them are fine for a first campaign, if people are excited. The Mannish stock (and Roden to a lesser extent) work well as a start mainly as they have the fewest "exceptions" to the base rules.

Definitely play the demos. The Sword really lays open how story can follow from very little prep - the whole scenario is the four characters and a couple paragraphs explaining the situation.

[fnord3125]

Another question about the Sword. I know it says it's doable with just two players, but would it be a good or bad idea for me, as GM, to take one of the remaining characters as an NPC? I was especially thinking maybe that would be good if neither of my friends wants to play the Roden, since he's supposed to be the one who brought them there, and as far as I can see, he doesn't have a direct interest in the sword so long as he gets paid.

[Fuseboy]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I've only played it once, but maybe you take the Roden and they take the Elf and Dwarf? Or Elf and Human?

[Daniel H.]

Another question about the Sword. I know it says it's doable with just two players, but would it be a good or bad idea for me, as GM, to take one of the remaining characters as an NPC? I was especially thinking maybe that would be good if neither of my friends wants to play the Roden, since he's supposed to be the one who brought them there, and as far as I can see, he doesn't have a direct interest in the sword so long as he gets paid.
It is a good idea for the GM to play the roden if possible. He's somewhat underpowered compared to the other characters and his demanding payment is a great first conflict for this scenario.

With two players and and a GM, it is best to have the elf and the dwarf contending with one another. Both are competent and have a lot riding on regaining the Sword. Last week was my second time running this scenario, and my two players chose the human and the dwarf. The former was basically pushed around by the latter, although the players' individual play styles also contributed to the dynamic.

Regardless of the characters used, it does not hurt to make it very clear to the players beforehand that the characters will be going head to head in this scenario. The each want something--laid out in their BITs--and the real enjoyment of this scenario comes from the characters fighting tooth and nail for everything they can get. If a player is not proactive about his character's agenda, he'll miss out on a lot of the fun.

[ghashsnaga]

I highly recommend running the Sword first and then have post whatever questions you may have. After that you might want to try running a Burning THAC0 game. The GM prep is minimal. I just read the module background to the players and let them create characters and beliefs centered around that.

Ara

[xenomouse]

Don (Eruditus) and I were sitting down with a longtime D&D fan and we were trying to describe the difference between the two systems to him. Together we came up with this relatively good description of combat: D&D combat is like watching an action scene from a Blockbuster movie (lots of crazy action, defying of physics, etc), and Burning Wheel combat is like witnessing a mugging (fast, chaotic, and painful).

As for advice, I would use bloody versus for combat at first (unless you feel brave enough to take on Fight!) but use Duel of Wits to deal with social roadblocks. Also, "Let it Ride" is a very important aspect of the game - but unfortunately easy for beginners to forget.

The best advice I've seen for GM's is this (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showpost.php?p=55308&postcount=19). The best of which is:
With a couple of bits of card with tabs, I can quickly flip to other useful pages underneath. Chief among these are player BITs in short form (e.g. Sasha's instinct to "Never forget an insult", I record as "Insult Sasha."), a list of pregenerated NPC names, and a couple of pieces of scrap.(emphasis mine)

BITs = Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits.

[fnord3125]

I've no real interest in doing Burning THAC0. Though... I haven't read it either. But the idea is that it's a D&D-like implementation of BW, right? I don't like D&D. At all. I have no interest in doing something that's similar to D&D. So if the major ideas of BW don't appeal to my friends, it's okay: we'll play something else. But generally they're both more than willing to try something new. It doesn't always work out really well, but they're willing to try, which is great.

The organizational ideas... hmmm... looks like a lot of work! but then, I've always been a fairly disorganized GM and I think I've suffered for it. I probably should at least do something like you suggest to keep track of the players' BITs since that's the kind of stuff that obviously needs to be hit pretty hard in BW but it's also the kind of stuff I always INTEND to hit, but FORGET to hit. Virtues in Exalted, Virtues and Vices in nWoD, Passions in Unknown Armies... I always have strong intentions to hammer on those, and in the heat of the action, I always forget.

[Z-Dog]

1. do the sword

2. focus on beliefs

3. master the hub of the wheel section...let your players learn/master the other sections they're interested in

I can see BW going one of two ways:

1. players fighting actively for what they believe: hot

2. a more traditional mode of play...but one where the players and gm can push hard against each other...don't plan too much and expect the players to take the game in interesting directions...

[Fuseboy]

The way I organize my binder just accumulated over time, it would have been very out of character for me to launch into a game with that setup! I'm happy to give you the spreadsheets I use for NPC name generation and the template for note-taking.

I'm not yet super fast on my feet for thinking up awesome conflicts during play, so I tend to prepare a few ahead of time.

One neat way (either lifted from or inspired by Chris Chinn) is to put the names of the PCs around the edge of a piece of paper, with their beliefs (or rather, key words from their beliefs) in orbit around them.

You're then looking for ways to draw lines that relate the beliefs of more than one PC. This is trivial for the shared belief, but doing it with secondary beliefs can help come up with ways to get the PCs involved in one another's business.

[fnord3125]

Speaking of BW vs. BE... I have a question about character burning.
BW lists picking Beliefs as step 12, almost the very end of the process. BE has it as step 2, the first thing after picking a basic character concept. I was wondering, is this due to fundamental differences between BW and BE or does it reflect a change in views among Luke and Co. in about when Beliefs are best discussed and chosen in general? that is, is it a good idea to do Beliefs early on even if we do BW? I kind of had the feeling it might be, but if there's a good reason not to, well I'd be intersted in hearing.

Also re: Beliefs - I think I've seen here and there around these forums mention of having players have at least one Belief "in common" or that connects to the same person/place/thing/situation/etc. in the campaign/setting... Not that I don't agree that this is a damn fine idea, but is it actually specifically in any of the books? I don't remember seeing that until I started reading stuff on here and the wiki.

[Kublai]

You can do Beliefs whenever during the process. It won't matter too much, though a good Belief can alter a character concept enough that the player would choose different Lifepaths.

Also, there's nothing in the book that states you must have a belief about the campaign goal. That's just a lesson we learned from playing so much. We recommend a belief about the campaign goal, a belief about another player, and a personal belief. That makes for some spicy play!

[fnord3125]

Well considering that Belief-like things in RPGs are something that my friends and I are still working on getting a good handle on, making them as spicy and strong as possible is probably a really good idea. I read over some of the stuff on belief advice that was posted on the wiki and it was really helpful, and those suggestions sound great too! if we're gonna do this BW thing, I wanna do it right, so I think that if the Sword goes over well, I'll do Belief discussion toward the beginning of character burning.

[Sempiternity]

I found this thread (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4900) to be very helpful in understanding the creation of powerful and useful Beliefs.

Still working on internalizing it in my own games, though handing that document out has been very effective, at least with some of my players.

[fnord3125]

Wow, this is all some really great advice.
I have one question that both about Beliefs and about BW/BE in general. Someone made a point in the thread Sempiternity pointed to about making sure your Beliefs work with the group, and don't, for example, require your character to go off questing in far away lands when the other players intended for their characters to stick in the same area. However, one impression I'd gotten about both BW and BE from listening to people talk about it and reading about it is that it's possible for it to work well even outside of the "traditional" PC-Group-As-An-Adventuring-Party model with characters that work separately toward simliar goals, on entirely separate goals, or even potentially against one another. Is this accurate or am I totally off-base?

I also have another question/request for advice about running the Sword. I was originally thinking that it might be need to have a monster of some kind guarding the Sword, giving the players a chance to work together before they have to fight/argue/whatever over the Sword between each other. But since we've never played and yet I AM pretty interested in trying out the Fight! mechanics anyway, I'm now thinking it would be better to probably have it just be the two of them be the most likely participants in any Fight!ing, so that I could just concentrate on arbitrating the rules.
Also... weird question, since I know it's setup to be a pretty free form and simple scenario... but... when do you think the roden would demand his money? He's not a very tough looking character, and it seems that if he leads them to the Sword then says, "There it is: pay up," the others could easily just decide to refuse and beat the tar out of him together if he makes too big of a fuss.
I guess on this stuff I'm less asking questions and more just thinking outloud... but... still. :)

[Fuseboy]

The "adventuring party" is a bunch of people who will stick together through thick and thin, and I think developed out of necessity when you want a) a long campaign and b) no quick way of resolving disagreements.

The binding nature of DoW makes it fun to inject a healthy level of conflict between PCs, so they can grumble and argue - even intensely - about what to do next, without the party having to split up. (Players can still choose that, of course.)

So it's great when PCs have the same goal, but have friction about the means of achieving it, who can get hurt along the way, etc.

If you have PCs with entirely opposed beliefs, you can wind up in a situation where they kill each other on the starting pad. (The Sword is set up like this deliberately, but it's not a model for a six-session story arc.)

The other dimension is that BW and BE have an emphasis on just playing the interesting scenes. Don't play out how you get from the merchant's shop to the wharf, unless it's important to the story.

Doing that gives you some latitude for players to be in different places doing completely different things without it being disruptive, and get 'more story' per gaming hour.

But if they have unrelated beliefs, they'll just wander apart and never meet up again.

With just two players, I'd avoid adding a monster. Let the players fumble through the rules against each other.

On the subject of the Roden, why not have him demand payment immediately? If they quibble, demand a DoW. (I can't remember how good he is in DoW.) If they lose, then they can beat the tar out of him. Good stuff!

[pseudoidiot]

And don't forget, it was the Roden that led them there. Just emphasize that it's unlikely they'll find their way back out without the Roden's help.

[fnord3125]

Hmmm, maybe I should make it clear I didn't intend to suggest that players should have ENTIRELY unrelated goals. And while I think it could be interesting for them to be opposed, I don't think they should be opposed in a simple way.
i.e. two rival sword-fighters.
Session 1: duel to the death!
End of game.
This, obviously, would not be very cool. :)

However, in game with more social stuff going on, in which the characters are, say, leaders of some sort, opposition could be interesting. A simple example might be one in which one character is lower nobility, trying to climb the ladder of influence in his or her city-state to gain power and perhaps eventually take over in some way. The other character might perhaps be some kind of Robin Hood-esque bandit-leader type attempting to organize some kind of socialist workers' rebellion to take the money and power away from the corrupt nobility. They're in opposition, and yet their goals aren't ENTIRELY opposing. They both, in their own way, want to improve the city-state. If, for example, the orc warlord living in the tunnels beneath a nearby mountain decides to attack the city... perhaps they might work together to oppose him, perhaps one might try to use it to his or her advantage... who knows?

Is a game like that feasible in BW?
My friends have mostly played a lot of games with traditional kind of "party" groups in which all the characters are, more or less, together ALL THE TIME. I'm somewhat bored with this, and with only two players, there isn't going to be all that much fighting for spotlight time. Consequently, if the mechanics and system support it, I'm quite interested in seeing a game in which, while the characters' stories, beliefs, goals, etc. intertwine and relate to each other, but they don't necessarily work together directly, or even possibly at all. It wouldn't be that interesting if their actions didn't affect each other, but I don't necessarily want to see a game where the two PCs are "partners" working with each other at all times. Does this make sense? And does it work for BW and/or BE?

And good point about the Roden, pseudoidiot! I had assumed that once they got there, they would be able to find their way out on their own... but there really isn't any reason to assume that. He knows his way through those tunnels, they probably don't nearly so well.

[Kublai]

Have you read the Burning Taranis posts? Those are some good examples of characters having lots of opposing beliefs, but somehow sticking together. It's totally a way to play BW and is WELL supported. Personally, I don't prefer it, though!

[fnord3125]

Here's the thing: I'm just as interested in seeing characters that DON'T have opposing beliefs and DON'T stick together. :) Mostly I'm just really fucking keen on seeing something different from the usual "team" set-up that, if not required by most RPGs, at least seems to be assumed by most RPG players from traditional backgrounds.

But I'll definitely take a look at those posts. Thanks!

[John Anderson]

...I'm just as interested in seeing characters that DON'T have opposing beliefs and DON'T stick together....

Hi,
Don't forget that with three Beliefs your players have a lot of lattitude in how their characters tick. If they go for one belief tying themselves into a group goal (however loosely) and one belief which draws the character away from the group then you've got great internalised conflict straight away. BW thrives on conflict.

In one of my current games, we have two players each with conflicting beliefs that has lead to some great inter-personal conflict as well as beliefs which tie the group together. The interplay between the group is fantastic and the players have stated that they really feel like they're getting alot from their characters. They both have the situation of having to prioritise their belief to the group and theirselves. All good grist to the mill.

John

[fnord3125]

That's cool, I really dig that. I just wanted to see whether people thought BW worked just fine even if (to take a really extreme example) the two PCs were NEVER in the same place at the same time, even though their actions affect one another and they have beliefs and goals relating to the the same things.

[Kublai]

What's the attraction there? It's like you're playing two solo campaigns in the same setting. BW can handle it, though.

[fnord3125]

I don't think that's the case at all. Granted they are all different storytelling mediums, but we can compare to books and movies. There are plenty of both that have main characters that aren't together or a team or what-have-you but do things in the same "world" and whose actions affect one another. I can think of two really good movie examples off the top of my head The Departed and Infernal Affairs... which... have some definite plot similarities, actually. Both have two real main protagonists who don't work together (actually who oppose one another) and who have major effects on each other, but never really conflict one-on-one in a direct way either.

As far as attraction? Like I said, I'm just kind of bored with seeing the stereotypical rpg "teams" is all. In the end it'll happen the way it happens. I'm not going to try to push my friends not to play characters that are partners or work closely together. If that's how they want to do it, that's great, and I'm sure that as long as we come up with a setting/situation that we all dig and they have rockin' Beliefs and concepts it'll still be totally kick-awesome.

[fnord3125]

to put it more succinctly, it's my contention and belief that it's a cohesive campaign if the actions of all the characters form one interconnected story.

[EarthenForge]

Hmm...okay - I think the idea of what you're getting at is cool. And hey - The Departed is one of my all-time favorite movies, so I can certainly understand wanting that kind of coolness in your game. Like Kublai said, it's totally doable in BW, but he's also right in that it could be like running two one-on-ones in the same setting: parallel stories that occasionally bend into each other. From a player's perspective, there are pros and cons to this. On the plus side, you get a chance to do whatever you really want to do and play whatever kind of character you want. You could have the mob boss verses the cop or insiders on each side - essentially playing opposite characters in a way the allows for an arc instead of a one-shot. If each player is working against the other in a manner more subtle than instant death - like trying to circle up friends/enemies of the opposition and foil each others plans, this could be tense and really, really neat. The key here, I think, is having interests that conflict somehow.

On the down side, if interests don't conflict enough, the story won't seem cohesive, and the tension may be lost. But even more important, is that the players won't get the pleasure of interacting with each other's characters - this is why it might be like running two one-on-ones. When I get the chance to play, I love interacting, for better or worse, with the other PCs. In a recent game, I played a guy who had a belief about wanting to gain the trust and friendship of another PC. Something happened and he totally lost respect for her, even helping her opposition in a DoW - he broke his belief. Later, a much bigger event forced them to work together, and he saw a strength in her that gave him renewed respect for her again. It was really cool - and it's hard to get this kinda stuff if you never meet your fellow PCs. Just something to think about.

http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5371&highlight=Burning+Esgaroth
Russell's Burning Esgaroth game gives some nice examples of PCs that interact some of the time, and do their own thing some of the time. This might be a nice compromise, if you and your players have a hard time getting on the same page. Making sure you frequently cut back and forth between each player's scenes is probably the most important tool in any case. Good luck!

[fnord3125]

Well yeah... I know there are problems with the idea. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure my GMing skills are good enough to handle it anyway. And like I said, I'm not going to push too hard for my friends to play in a way that doesn't interest them. Anyway... at this point I'm not even sure how much we'll like BW. I'm planning on doing The Sword with them tomorrow night then talking about what kind of game we want to play, discussing setting/situation/campaign concept/etc. We'll see what everyone thinks then.

[fnord3125]

Well we tried The Sword last night and it didn't really go as well as I'd hoped but we started to get a handle on the rules and at least one of my friends is interested in playing more so I guess we'll start talking situation and burning characters next week...

[fnord3125]

Needless to say, a few questions were raised during our attempt at The Sword. Is it okay to ask mechanical questions here, or should I start a thread in another forum?

[Fuseboy]

Best to start new threads, that way people can more easily find the answers you get if they wind up with the same questions. Of course, have a quick search first to see if your questions were already asked.

[fnord3125]

well the problem is, actually, my mechanical questions aren't that specific because a lot of it boils down to some general confusion. For example, we ended up having a Fight! between the dwarf adventurer and the elf bard. partially i think the person playing the dwarf was just not in a good kind of mood, but he ended up quitting after taking two superficial wounds, claiming he had no chance to win. i was pretty sure it wasn't nearly so clear, but i wanted to ask people that have more experience and have seen those characters... are the dwarf and elf competitive in a physical fight with each other?

[wombleton]

are the dwarf and elf competitive in a physical fight with each other?
They look relatively comparable to me, perhaps with the edge to the Elf.

[luke]

Start a new thread please.