Thoughts from a first-time player

[Paul B]

So some of you probably heard that I'm finally getting to play Burning Wheel. My buddy Rob (posts here, very infrequently as chillydawg) is a first-time GM as well: not just of BW, but of any kind of RPG. (EDIT: I think he ran some sessions of Rune in the past.) We've been playing together for decades -- wow we're old -- but he's always, always been a player.

Anyway, my first session of play revealed some really interesting things to me about the BW player experience. This was really the point of the exercise, since anything worth doing is worth doing well and I think I've pretty much exhausted my learning from the GM end of the table.

Beliefs

I have a really good talent for Belief-building. I'm not sure why it's so hard to pass that information along to the other players. When we were workshopping our initial Beliefs, I nailed down four (picked up Loyal, because I love me some moldbreakers) in a couple minutes and then tried to help everyone else. The biggest errors I saw -- and it really is a different perspective as a player -- were:

* Too much nuance. My opinion is, nuance is a way to dodge an inconvenient Belief. Which is funny, because that's treating the Belief like it's an obligation, which in turn misses the point that the whole economic engine of BW is built on bribes and not extortions.

* A desire to dodge conflict. This one's easy for new players to fall into, especially before they see how the whole game comes together. But, like, static Beliefs are such a dead fish. When I was helping a brand-spanking-new BW player figure out his Beliefs, I kept asking him "Okay, so why haven't you done X yet? What's keeping you?" And, unfortunately, the answer usually ended up something like "Um...because I haven't gotten to it yet."

The best thing I did for myself was to give my character four mutually exclusive, very non-nuanced Beliefs. Pretty much the whole game is one moldbreaker moment after another. Bang-o-matic!

Engaging the System

I think this is where GMing BW really gave me an edge in play: Because I know precisely what the system can deliver, I'm ready and eager to engage with it to get what I want in the fiction. Such a different POV from the old style "This is what I want to do, how do I do it?" attitude. Feels good to have an active hand on the steering wheel.

Embracing Complication

Yeah...you definitely need a deep level of trust in the GM that your game won't become unfun because you're "failing" rolls. Luckily I have that with Rob, since he and I are cut from the same cloth play-style-wise. In one session I happily taxed myself, Circled up an NPC who will almost certainly stab me in my sleep, defied my clan chieftain and probably committed our tiny nation to war. I dunno...that all sounds pretty good to me! Especially since all those complications are just more reasons to earn Artha so I can really knock it out of the park down the road.

We also have a pretty explicit "death is boring except when it isn't" aesthetic in our play group, which helps a lot. Despite that, I still have a couple guys -- not in our current campaign -- who just can't get behind allowing their carefully crafted plans to fall apart. These are the same folks who can't seem to get two Artha to rub together, either. They continue to not see the connection, even when I point it out.

Realization: character advancement in traditional games is a rich-get-richer scheme -- as you succeed, you become more successful. That's one hell of a conditioned response to get past.

Character Traits and the Artha Cycle

I'm officially 180 degrees away from my first-blush take on CTs. It's really easy to view them as mechanically useless, particularly out of context with the Artha system. But my Blossoms guy doesn't actually have an CTs -- everything he got is a die trait (and not really the kind that's easy to dig yourself into a hole with). It's tough, really tough, to play without CTs. In fact I'm loaded to the gills on Persona because I've got so many Beliefs and Instincts in conflict with one another. But I'm starved for Fate! I'm also having to kind of cut my character's personality from whole cloth, which is also more work than having Traits in place to help with that.

So, anyway, CTs rock. I'm already gunning for a couple new ones come our first Trait Vote.

DOW

Luckily I'm very, very good at the Duel of Wits, and this is a talky-talky game. But I was so impressed with the ultimate outcome of our first big-deal DOW: it was a nail-biter, and the fact that I had to basically sacrifice my shot at outright victory to achieve a major concession was tactically exciting to me.

I've also figured out why it doesn't work for some of my players: In the past, I've had players who simply did not live up to their DOW obligations. That sucks and it's unfun for the side that won (which more often than not is me, when I'm GMing).

Also, the actual narrative contents of the DOW stuck with me as a player much more than they ever do when I'm GMing. There's just too damned much in my head when I'm GMing to keep up with every detail of a conversation, but as a player the whole thing has stuck with me. That's interesting. I think that must have something to do with the increased personal investment in the outcome I have as a player.

GMing BW Is Very Player-ish

I guess one bottom line, based on my single session of play, is that GMing BW all these years really helped get me in a good head to play it -- and hopefully playing it puts players in a good head to GM it. The roles feel much more interchangeable than I've experienced in other games. Mostly it's the core BW conceit that the system is there for everyone, not just the guy in the viking hat. That is a very, very tough sell for experienced non-BW players.

Playing BW is Very GM-ish

And of course the opposite is true. The point where this became most apparent was in realizing how "Say Yes" feels as a player: Basically I'm expecting the GM to Say Yes in most cases, because as a GM I do the same thing. So that's, like, way-opposite many of my other play experiences (which have often been comprised of GMs telling me "no" outright, or jiggering the mechanics so a "no" is inevitable).

So, since I'm expecting the GM to Say Yes, that puts me in a more authorial head: Now I need to exert some responsibility for making cool new shit, rather than offering up dumb shit and hoping to browbeat the GM into letting it happen (but expecting it to just get shot down). This one's probably the biggest revelation. Dunno if my other players feel the same way.

Looking forward to discovering more stuff and expanding my understanding of the emergent dynamics.

p.

[luke]

Thanks! This is great stuff.

I find that going back to GMing BW after playing is a bit of a shocker. GMs have very different mechanical priorites than players. There's a lot less singular number crunching and a lot more macro view elements that have to be taken into account.

-L

[stormsweeper]

Thanks! This is great stuff.

I find that going back to GMing BW after playing is a bit of a shocker. GMs have very different mechanical priorites than players. There's a lot less singular number crunching and a lot more macro view elements that have to be taken into account.

-L

When you're a player, you only need to worry about one set of BITs.

[pseudoidiot]

When you're a player, you only need to worry about one set of BITs.

I don't know if that's 100% true. At least, not for me. Yeah, I'm focused on my BITs, but I also try to keep a vague understanding of other players' BITs. That way:

1) I can offer ideas to challenge them when I see an opening.
2) I could completely forgo one of my own Beliefs to help achieve one of theirs in the hopes of earning a Deeds point.
3) It can be fun to stir up trouble between the PC's and if I know where BITs don't agree I can aim towards those situations.

So, maybe I'm not worried about anyone's BITs but my own, but I am keeping my eye on them.

[luke]

I agree, Jeremiah, but it's a moment to moment thing. And you can "keep your eye on them" reactively. "Hey, Paul's playing that Belief. I'll fuck with him a bit and give him a chance to earn artha." As the GM, you have to be proactive with all of the players' Beliefs. It's a different dynamic.

[pseudoidiot]

I agree, Jeremiah, but it's a moment to moment thing. And you can "keep your eye on them" reactively. "Hey, Paul's playing that Belief. I'll fuck with him a bit and give him a chance to earn artha." As the GM, you have to be proactive with all of the players' Beliefs. It's a different dynamic.

Good point, and I agree. There is definitely a distinction, but I wanted to mention it.

[Paul B]

I agree, Jeremiah, but it's a moment to moment thing. And you can "keep your eye on them" reactively. "Hey, Paul's playing that Belief. I'll fuck with him a bit and give him a chance to earn artha." As the GM, you have to be proactive with all of the players' Beliefs. It's a different dynamic.

That reminds me of an interesting moment of play. Lemme see if I can quickly do up a brief AP:

Okay, so my guy -- heir to the Otomo clan, son of the clan chieftain -- has been ordered by Dad to go open diplomatic channels with our most hated clan. I decide we'll offer a lavish gift: a beautiful one-off sword created by our family's master artisan.

The artisan is being played by Chris, our BW virgin. He has a Belief along the lines of "only the most honorable may wield my creations." I know this. So I set up a scene and head to his workshop. As his Provincial Lord, I demand he give me his finest sword so I can give it to the eeevil Taira.

I'm pounding directly into it and giving him a chance at at least a Fate if not a moldbreaker Persona. And poor Chris looks like a deer in the headlights: Why are you attacking me? So he kind of waffles and offers up a non-sword, some other trinket from his workshop. And I'm all "No, I don't want your trinket. Duel of Wits time!"

Now he's totally freaking out because it sounds/feels like I'm going to murder his character in his workshop. This is in the first 20 minutes of play, mind you. In my head it's a perfect BW moment: I'm struggling with two Beliefs (briefly, 1: Fuck the Taira and 2: Obey Dad) and I'm hammering Chris' artisan on his primary Belief.

I'm thinking we all come out ahead, hopefully a F and a P each. That's a huge shot of play lube! But it was so hard for him to pull back enough to see that he actually profits even if he loses the fight.

Engineering that moment was interesting, because I definitely needed to be aware of his character's stuff. I'm a bit less aware of Jason's stuff (the other player) because he's already played a bunch of BW and expect him to bring his own awesome. But now that I'm thinking about it, I think I'm gonna doodle down some notes so I can do the same with him. A rising tide of Artha carries all ships!

p.

[Rafe]

Something to add re: Beliefs and Instincts: Not only do they have to engage the player, but the GM.

If it's a fun Belief for the player but pretty unactionable for the GM, it'll be a dead fish. It has to be something the GM has flexibility to work with, which will end up benefiting the player greatly because more options means more situations you have essentially said you want to happen.

(I know everyone who's posted here so far knows that, but still it's important to keep in mind.)

In terms of Character Traits... I really haven't encountered their necessity yet (as a player). Then again, the only character I've ever created and played has two, Cry Wolf and Hoarding. I acted on Cry Wolf (which was fun for the story) but Hoarding... not really. Part of it is interpretation of what they mean and how they correspond to actions in play.

I supposed that speaks to the idea of getting a trait voted off, also. If you don't want it, don't play to it, or rather do so in a way that shows how the trait is overcome.