Burning Wheel insights about player input

[reclusive.geek]

Resources, Circles, Wises are really the same type of currency available to players.

Resources allows a player to bring a “tangible” objects into play
Circles allows a player to bring people into play
Wises allows a player to bring knowledge into play


As I was driving home from work, I decided that I wanted to help my group understand these elements. We have very much been part of a group where the players are responsible for reacting to what the GM throws at them. Aside from a character’s back-story which is written before the first dice is rolled, the only way for a player to contribute to the world is through the character’s direct action. It is certainly possible for the player to expound upon the setting, but the mechanics are not there to do it in a diplomatic way.

So ten minutes into my drive, I thought the following: In the context of The Sword, if I were playing Brechtanz, the dwarf, how could I play to my instinct of “Always compliment good craftsmanship” with the idea that Brechtanz would compliment Fidhean’s father’s craftsmanship of the sword. By admitting the sword was made by Fidhean’s father, Brechtanz’s claim to the sword could be weakened. However, Brechtanz’ character could make a Stuff-wise test to bring a receipt into play; Setting a lower OB for the existence of the receipt; With a much higher OB to have the receipt. Obviously the intent is will dictate things. Failure in the lower OB case could be the receipt itself being lost, or later determined to be a counterfeit. Failure in the higher OB could mean that the receipt is on hand, but so badly damaged as to be illegible.

Needless to say, bringing things into play could continue ever on. However, that is what I believe to be the brilliance of the system. World-creation at run-time allowing the players to not only alter the present, but create the past and present far-off surroundings.

[Odie]

I think you've largely got the right idea, but I take issue with one thing you mentioned. I don't think I'd allow a player to Wise an object in hand. That doesn't seem like a correct task for a Wise; it's not knowledge of any kind, it's direct possession. I wouldn't allow a character with Sword-wise to make a test to have a sword at hand, as it has nothing to do with knowledge of swords. (Edit: OK, fine, "swords are sometimes kept stashed in secret places" when such a likely secret hideaway is nearby might fly.) At best, Brechtanz might be able to make a (high) Stuff-wise test to know that generally stuff of this quality should have a receipt, and then insist that the receipt will be the true test of ownership (and of course, it's not here in this cave, so I'll just hold onto the sword for now...).

Our group had an interesting time adjusting to Wises. At first, we were too cavalier with them, and the game suffered because the fiction felt too malleable, too arbitrary and dependent on player whims. Players would use FoRKs as a way to sneak in stuff that should have been a Wise test (or in many cases, shouldn't have been a valid Wise use at all). We gradually adjusted (and then did it all over again for History skills). Wises were the hardest thing to adjust to, far more for us than Circles or Resources were.

-B

[noclue]

The AdBu has a nice discussion of wises and the limits thereof.

[Fuseboy]

It took me a while to realize that not every player wants to have this sort of creative control; I find BW works well in a group of players made of potential GMs.

Rather than zap them with theory, something you can do is as you hit them with the main situation and belief challenges, gently remind them of these tools they can use to their advantage. "Perhaps you know someone who can help you?" "Perhaps you know something useful already?"

The Sword scenario is really good in this regard, particularly if someone escapes the cave with the sword itself. You then have a no-holds-barred competition taking place in a barely-defined landscape, so players will be glad of anything that gives them a leg up on the other guy. Then, if you keep your adventuring burning on the sketchy side when you begin playing the campaign proper, perhaps some of this will translate.

[noclue]

Our GM is particularly devious with this. We love adding things with wises and he's totally fine with it, but he makes sure to come up with failure conditions that spice up this kind of roll. So, what you originally thought was a nice, frivolous statement can suddenly be about something very important.

And yes, most of us have done a bit of GMing ourselves.

[reclusive.geek]

Thank you for the responses. I mispoke, wise-ing up possession the receipt would most definitely not be allowed. But imagine the fun of having a Brechtanz make a linked test with a Stuff-wise to create the receipt followed by trying to Circle-up the existence of the person that has the receipt.

And I'm hoping I can get my group to jump on BW. We have five or six players, 3 of whom actively participate in theater, 4 of whom are regular DMs. One player is somewhat an enigma in how he would respond; Role-playing is his number one passion, but I don't know how much he wants to collaboratively contribute to a story so much as build his own personal story. Another player is a dyed-in-the-wool World of Warcraft player, and I suspect BW is not his cup of tea (And yes these numbers total more than 6).

So next steps...

I'm trying to concoct a 2 or 3 session adventure (as one of the players has a theater induced conflict for the next bit of time).