There's an interview with Luke Crane over at Treasure Tables (http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/11/interview-with-luke-crane) Read it. It's excellent. Quotes within are from the article.
I played in one of the games Luke discusses in the interview, and I thought I would add my own perspectives.
I, TurtleA lot of that interview resonates with me, partly because he talks about a game I played in and comments on a form of "turtling" in which I engaged. I don't think Luke is referring to me specifically.
QuoteThe other side of turtles is the "My Guy" syndrome. As in, "My guy wouldn't do that." Which is complete bullshit. But these players are tough to crack.
I've actually had players take up the Captain character in "The Gift" and say, "I'm not going to do anything, I like the character as he's written." Why do they even fucking play the game, then? Are they gamer voyeurs? I never understood willfully NOT participating in game because of something you perceive (WRONGLY) on the character sheet.
It's every player's responsibility to get into the mix with his priorities. Yes, responsibility. It's the player's main job at the table: Put something on the line so we can all say, "cool!" My demos are meant to be training for that type of behavior.
I played the Elven Prince (is this the Captain he refers to?) in Luke's BW game at MACE. He ran several, but I played in the one that his brother Hart jumped into. I felt myself struggling with playing the character as written, but I wouldn't call it "My Guy" syndrome; I'd call it "Luke's Guy" syndrome. I was trying to play the character as Luke envisioned him, based only on a handful of scant details about his beliefs. And Luke designed that character to be at war with himself:
QuoteThe Elven Captain, for example. His Beliefs are written to desire peace, but everything else about that character screams war: Skills, stats, gear, attributes — he is bred for war. That is a deliberate conflict. Sure he desires peace, but he's much better at war.
Wouldn't it be easier to betray these beliefs and just kill away all your problems? Oh wait, if you do, your charge, the prince, will die. That character is infused with conflict, but players inevitably shy away from it.
I don't think I was one of those conflict-shy players. I was the Elven Prince who whispered orders to my two counselors: "We attack first." Of course, I felt I'd exhausted all other options and I believed they were going to kill us if things went much further. Certainly, Hart's Dwarven Warden character was pushing for the fight and the Dwarven Prince was losing control of the situation, or just not caring if it went to blows. So I made a decision and we fought. The action went against everything in the Beliefs on my sheet, but it was hella fun.
GM AbuseLuke also talks about how he wrote BW to prevent his terrible abuses as a "dysfunctional, railroading, 'this is my fucking story' GM." I felt some of those abuses during the game, unfortunately.
This isn't a review or criticism of Burning Wheel. The 4-hour game at MACE was essentially a demo, somewhat scripted as demos are. It was enough to get the flavor of the game but not enough to understand if I'd enjoy playing it as a campaign game. I want to Burn my own character and play a couple games before I make that decision. The MACE game was more fun to talk about later than it was to play. It wasn't awful. I'd say it was a mediocre experience. I have had more fun in D&D games at cons, but I knew the rules. I had more fun in The Shadow of Yesterday and The Shab-al-Hiri Roach games at MACE, and I didn't know the rules going in. In "The Gift," I felt railroaded and frustrated, but there were some real moments of fun.
Burning Wheel is a complicated game. My sheet was one page, front and back, packed with information. Our characters were very powerful, if my judge of BW character power is right. Luke explained how the rules worked at a high level, then we jumped into play. Throughout the game, he'd stop and explain how some other aspect of the rules might help us, and we'd pull a bit of "artha" off the back of our sheets for rerolls and so on.
The game was presented as a contest between two groups of three players each. Luke even conscripted his brother Hart to play "to even things up" when our sixth player didn't show. We played through two long Duels of Wits.
The problem was that Luke wasn't giving us all the information to use our characters to their fullest potential. There was no "beginner's take-backs." When I asked if I could use certain metagame points to affect my die rolls, he let me know that I could have if I'd done it before the dice. This was the first time he'd explained that rule. After the end of the second Duel of Wits, Luke admitted that one of my skills, an Elven Song, was "essentially a 'win any Duel of Wits' skill." He'd intentionally kept it from me so as not to derail "his" story. That was frustrating.
I felt like I couldn't win. This affected me on two levels, or Creative Agenda. First, I couldn't "Step On Up" and play the Gamist game. I didn't have the tools at hand to explore fully the very tactical Duel of Wits game and show other players what I was made of. Second, I couldn't "Live the Dream" and play the Simulationist game. I felt stymied at every attempt to get into character because I didn't know what the buttons and switches on the sheet did. I ended up trying to play a very Narrativist game, putting my own stamp and judgment on the game situation, with the message that those pesky dwarves could drive a very patient Elf to violence. ;)
Hi Adam,
thanks for the feedback. Aside from the Voice of Ages call on my part, where else did you feel I was being railroady or abusive? I admit that I'm an aggressive GM, and I can brutally scene frame in my demos, but I don't remember if that was the case.
The Gift explicitly states that scene framing is up to the players.
Beyond the kicker, there is no other "plot" input for the GM. I don't recall making any decisions regarding the direction the story. You and the other players decided all this via the roleplaying and DoW.
As for my restricting the Voice of Ages, there are a couple of reasons: First and foremost, I can't explain all of the rules individually to each player in the demos. BW is designed to put a large burden of rules processing on the player. It's just a matter of course that some of the subtleties get lost. Second, it was the first Duel of Wits for the group and it wasn't crucial. I felt it was better to show how the mechanism worked so we could ramp up to a more dramatic conflict later. Those are calls I made as a GM.
-L
I don't think you were abusive. I was just echoing the language you used to describe the actions. I should have put "abuses" in quotes. I do think you were a bit railroady. Where? I think in the "demo-ness" of the game, not in traditional railroading techniques.
Some of that is just that I didn't know the rules and you were withholding some of the information from me for your own dramatic plotting reasons. You were offering lots of advice about pulling in skills for conflicts, but you held back on Voice of Ages. When I asked if it'd be useful, you told me I couldn't use it.
Some of that was due to the constructed nature of a con game. The scenario in "The Gift" isn't a kicker in my mind. It drops me into the action and makes a whole lot of choices for me, then shuts off the autopilot after things get to cruising speed. It seemed to go past where a Kicker would stop, but maybe I'm imposing additional constraints on the definition.
Right or wrong, I assumed, "Hey, Luke wants us to play this a certain way so we shouldn't fuck with the plot too much." Now, I heard (post-game) that one past group neatly side-stepped the tension and all went dungeon-crawling together, so you're obviously open to taking things in creative directions. Maybe I was victim of my own gamer baggage, but I really felt like we were supposed to do the best we could within the confines of the situation you'd set up. Lots of tension, lots of opportunities for role-play, but inevitably a situation that I didn't create or ask for. That's what con games are though. "The Gift" just turns this up to eleven.
You did aggressively scene-frame things for us. If I recall correctly, you explicitly told us that the action started in the throne room after the introductions. We weren't allowed to do anything before that point. Believe it or not, I would have ensured we had a gift! =) I remember thinking that your descriptions of splendid gold and silver and such must be the gift I brought and being confused when I found out it was someone else's. I felt that, not only was the lack of a gift a mistake My Guy would not make, it wasn't a mistake that I would make. It was the first thing I thought about when I saw all the etiquette-directed stuff on my character sheet.
I'm very willing to discuss how much of this was my own gamer baggage. I'd like to understand it all better. And in case my tone isn't clear, I'm curious and enthusiastic, not angry or bitter.
Hey Adam,
If I might get into some of that baggage...
I played the Gift Demo with Luke at Origins this year, and I can't imagine that he changed the presentation too dramatically from when he ran me through it, and when he ran you (Luke will correct me if I'm wrong). I think the problem may simply be that you expected some gamism. There's no gamism in that scenario at all. Familiar with the Kobiyashi Maru from the movie Star Trek II. The Gift is the same, not a test of ability, but a test of character. For RPGs, this means extremely narrativism stuff.
Yes, that means when you say above that you were forced into narrativism, that the scenario performed precisely as it was designed. The only reason to feel railroaded was because you wanted an opportunity to win. Note that when you wrote:
QuoteBelieve it or not, I would have ensured we had a gift!
I think to myself, "Then it's a damn good thing that Luke didn't allow you to start with a gift!" That would have destroyed the scenario. Because the lack of a Gift is all the scenario is about.
In fact, if we looked at Luke's prep sheet for the game (if he even has one), it probably says:
1. Hand out characters, and let players look them over.
2. Have the players frame the arrival of the Elves, so that the lack of gift problem can be revealed.
3. Have players frame more scenes. Make sure to suggest serving Nog at some point. Let trouble ensue.
Arrive with a gift, and there's no game. The continuing action, like many LARPs, comes from the interactions of the character drives from that point on. No initial conflict, no ongoing conflict.
In any case, it is all supposed to go to hell in one way or another. There's no way for anyone to win without concession. The fun part is, as a player, getting to decide the nature of the failure. What do you think is the least bad answer to the problem? There's no way that he was making those decisions for you. Oh, it may have seemed like it, but that's merely because he was forcing you into making a sort of decision you couldn't see. Again, which way to lose. When you were looking for which way to win.
Mike
QuoteYou did aggressively scene-frame things for us. If I recall correctly, you explicitly told us that the action started in the throne room after the introductions. We weren't allowed to do anything before that point. Believe it or not, I would have ensured we had a gift! =) I remember thinking that your descriptions of splendid gold and silver and such must be the gift I brought and being confused when I found out it was someone else's. I felt that, not only was the lack of a gift a mistake My Guy would not make, it wasn't a mistake that I would make. It was the first thing I thought about when I saw all the etiquette-directed stuff on my character sheet.
Adam, you can see in my notes (in the Gift .zip) (http://www.burningwheel.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewdownload&cid=4), I frame the first scene -- the set up, basically -- everything else is up to the players.
Perhaps asking you to back off on the use of the Voice of Ages was a bad call on my part (and I'm sure I asked, not "allowed"). I did it merely for demo purposes -- as a GM i felt you were sufficiently engaged and doing well with your character, thus my extra energy would be better spent elsewhere. I misjudged.
Mike's analysis is largely correct from my standpoint. (The scenario didn't change one bit from Origins to MACE, btw. Just the different players.) My one quibble -- you can win.
-L
A bit more about my gamer baggage: I actually have very few experiences from the player side of the table. I've been GMing (mostly D&D, some CP2020, WEG Paranoia, WEG Star Wars, and bits of other 80's TSR games) for decades. My player experiences are limited to a handful of badly run D&D games in high school and less than a dozen games (mostly D&D) at cons. I can't speculate how that might have colored my experiences at MACE, though y'all are free to jump in.
I think the combination of the heavily tactical Duel of Wits three-round volley setup and the three-on-three scenario setup got me revved for Gamist play. Certainly competitive at some level. I hate to mention the "I" word but I had moments of immersion where I felt like I was channeling Finrir son of Fanrir. =) I got grumpy for my character and wanted him to win, too. But that's just me wanting to win, I know. But it feels different to me.
Is Burning Wheel considered a good game for Nar play?
Hi, Adam,
I hope this isn't completely off-topic, but I wanted to share an experience I had playtesting Inheritance with Luke, and see if it rings any bells for you. I was playing a heavily conflicted Dwarf Runecaster, carrying around a sodding great timebomb, and for the first half-hour to an hour, I was paralysed into turtledom (-hood? -neck?) by that character's internal conflict.
It was agonising.
I knew that I had to make a decision about how the Dwarf would deal with the information only he had, and that affected every other character - and every other player. The responsibility was almost crippling, because which ever way I went, someone was going to get fucked bad (possibly me - but that didn't bother me at all... a glorious death is always worth it). I couldn't sustain that internal conflict: the Dwarf had to have a crisis and break one way or the other, and once I did, it was gangbusters from there on out, and I had a whale of a time. The initial pain was worth it: almost everyone died, it was miserable, tragic, very viking and utterly glorious.
So, I wonder if part of what you experienced was holding on to both sides of an internal conflict, rather than resolving the conflict for yourself and using that resolution and subsequent resolve to drive play?
Quote from: Adam Dray on November 28, 2005, 04:13:30 PMNow, I heard (post-game) that one past group neatly side-stepped the tension and all went dungeon-crawling together, so you're obviously open to taking things in creative directions.
This may have happened with other groups, but I'm pretty sure this was my group at GenCon Indy 2004. In retrospect, I can see that Luke was surprised by our approach -- but at the time, it was completely fluid. When the session ended, I thought that was how the game was supposed to play out; it was discussing it with Luke afterwards that made me realize how open "The Gift" actually is, and that got me fired up to play it a second time. The second time, it went
completely differently.
As far as Voice of Ages goes, I played the Elven Prince in my second run-through (GenCon Indy 2005), and I'm pretty sure I used VoA and still lost that Duel of Wits. Both sides had some fairly experienced players, and we were throwing such large gobs of dice that VoA was less significant than it might otherwise have been. The Elves lost every Duel of Wits in that game, I believe. (Luke may correct me on one or both of those points.)
I'm glad you liked the interview, Adam, and it's interesting to hear your experience with "The Gift."
Quote from: Adam Dray on November 28, 2005, 09:28:16 PM
Is Burning Wheel considered a good game for Nar play?
Hi Adam,
Yes. Burning Wheel is geared toward supporting narrativist play.
It all comes down to Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, and Tests. These four things constitute the currency cycle of Burning Wheel. Playing to or against your Beliefs, Instincts and Traits (BITs) is how Artha is generated. I think BITs are Story Now machines.
Tests form the other side of BW's currency cycle. You earn tests by rolling your skills/stats/abilities, and those Tests count toward increasing the skill/stat/ability tested. But more importantly, by the rules, you only roll when you have a situation with risk and consequence.
To put it all together, Tests exist to test BITs. When BW is firing on all cylinders, a character's BITs will push him into Tests in which he puts those BITs on the line. The way in which the character approached that Test, and the consequences of it, show us whether the BITs have been affirmed or broken. When Beliefs and Instincts are broken, the player rewrites them right then and there. The player has made his statement about this issue and is ready for something else. Traits are interesting because they do something else. Because they are voted on or off your character, they reflect the opinion of the rest of the group as to how you made a statement about your character's issue.
When I say that you can't win, I mean that every character has internal conflicts set up so that I don't think that they can satisfy everything 100%. For example, those who want to foement trouble do so only at the potential displeasure of their leaders. Yeah, if you can convince other players to shift their attitudes, then I suppose it's possible to get what you want entirely.
Mike
Lots of great feedback. Thank you, everyone. I'm glad to see more discussion about the Turtling half of my post, too.
Alexander, your experience is similar to mine, though I didn't care about fucking over other players. I felt paralyzed by the internal conflict of my Elven Prince and didn't know how to bring that out into role-play. The situation of "The Gift" is intended to put that PC's player (and the others, too, I'm sure) into a serious dilemma. I tried to portray a character torn between wanting to be perfectly civil (Belief: Any obstacle can be overcome with the application of etiquette and grace; Trait: Calm Demeanor), wanting to prove himself to his father the king, and wanting to protect my dignity (Belief: I am Prince by birth, rank and nature. Question this at your peril). As I re-read the character now, I realize that I was projecting my own frustrations into my portrayal of the character. I wanted to run the dwarf through with a sword, and eventually tried to do so when protocol failed and we seemed to be heading towards a very dangerous situation.
If I had just relaxed a bit more and played the Calm Demeanor nature of the character, I might have come away from the table with a different feeling. Maybe. I suspect that would have largely removed the conflict between me and the Dwarves and my Elven advisors would have been trying to convince me (through DoW) not to walk away from the table and return two years later (Elves and Dwarves do live long lives) with appropriate gifts.
Luke, if my counselors had agreed with me and we walked away from the table, what would you have done? The Dwarven Prince was about to throw me out anyway. Would the game have ended there?
Thor, we didn't really do anything with BITs other than use them to get into the head of the character. Mechanically, I don't think they affected play at all. I most certainly violated my Instincts and Beliefs several times during the game with no mechanical consequence. There were no Artha awards given during the game (Luke pointed out that he often skips these for convention games). I'm sure my Calm Demeanor Trait ought to have been voted off my sheet when I leapt over the table to attack the Dwarven Prince but that did not happen. So, if BITs are Burning Wheel's "Story Now" engine, I didn't see it with the gears running. I barely understood how to use the rerolls and extra dice generated from Fate/Persona/Deeds. Maybe understanding BITs and the use of Artha would have helped me play better -- who knows.
Mike, I was trying to "win" the situation (i.e., make nice with the Dwarves) without betraying my character as I understood it. Is that trying to "satisfy everything 100%"? I was willing to compromise the character's Beliefs and Traits if it were a transformational thing, but I didn't understand mechanically if the rules allowed me to do that. I probably should have asked for clarification but I suspect a certain amount of gamer baggage told me to play according to the sheet.
Quote from: Adam Dray on November 29, 2005, 12:10:02 PM
Thor, we didn't really do anything with BITs other than use them to get into the head of the character. Mechanically, I don't think they affected play at all. I most certainly violated my Instincts and Beliefs several times during the game with no mechanical consequence. There were no Artha awards given during the game (Luke pointed out that he often skips these for convention games). I'm sure my Calm Demeanor Trait ought to have been voted off my sheet when I leapt over the table to attack the Dwarven Prince but that did not happen. So, if BITs are Burning Wheel's "Story Now" engine, I didn't see it with the gears running. I barely understood how to use the rerolls and extra dice generated from Fate/Persona/Deeds. Maybe understanding BITs and the use of Artha would have helped me play better -- who knows.
What you said here stuck with me.
I was in a demo of The Gift awhile ago, and I was really disappointed to see that the BITs, the features of the game that I was the most interested in, weren't featured at all in the demo.
Of course, I had already bought the game before the demo, so Luke already had me at that point. ;)
I'm imagining Luke writing the game with a chef's hat on, and when he wrote the section on BITs he shouted, "BAM!" They got me really juiced up, but I know that most people are probably more interested in the Combat/DoW rules. And they're fantastic, don't get me wrong. It just feels like BITs are the heart of the game, so I'm still sort of confused about why they're left out.
Also, in the demo I played, I totally Turtled, and WAY more than you did. Diving over a table to kill someone? You call that turtling? Jeez, I sure don't! And yeah, I understand your frustration at not being able to use all your abilities, but it was a demo and you weren't playing for money (were you?). And it sounds like you had a hell of a game regardless.
Quote from: Bret Gillan on November 29, 2005, 12:26:23 PM
I was in a demo of The Gift awhile ago, and I was really disappointed to see that the BITs, the features of the game that I was the most interested in, weren't featured at all in the demo.
I thought that conflicting Beliefs in The Gift were the demo.
Doncha think?
Okay, I guess what I meant was how Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits interact with the system and as a result push drama, story, and portrayal.
Quote from: Paka on November 29, 2005, 12:59:49 PMI thought that conflicting Beliefs in The Gift were the demo.
They are. But the mechanical reward system that makes the BITs so potent is absent.
The Gift is a brilliant example of building a scenario around conflicting beliefs. It does not, however, show the full potency of the Burning Wheel system and the way that the BITs normally drive play because the whole "response and response" part of the educational cycle is absent. It's rather like demoing college courses by attending a lecture but not ever seeing the tutorials, labs, or study groups. Of course you can't show the whole brilliance of Burning Wheel in a 4 hour demo, so something has to be sacrificed.
Its similar to how the "kickers" of The Gift are something like Sorcerer kickers, but not at all the same thing. In a normal kicker you're in an impossible situation of your own devising. In a demo with a pregen kicker you're in an impossible situation of someone else's devising. I'm strongly reminded of the Sorcerer and Sword discussion of the game setup for a story like Thieves in the House and how much the game changes if Conan's player says he's in jail or if the GM does.
Adam, if you had come up with the character and the kicker yourself, rather than "inheriting" it from Luke, do you think it would have influenced how you felt about the game, the character, and the situation? How much of your discomfort was from trying to win or have everything, and how much from finding yourself in an intensely conflicted situation in which you had no say in the setup of the situation? What if you had, in a normal Burning Wheel game, decided on your own that your character had forgotten the gift in order to set up the conflict?
I think the reason some people turtle or have problems getting into demos like the Gift, or lots of pregen character/kicker Nar games in general has something to do with that very point. If you set it up yourself you're cooking with gas, if someone else sets it up for you its going to be hit and miss by the nature of humanity.
That the Gift hits more than it misses shows how well done it is.
QuoteLuke, if my counselors had agreed with me and we walked away from the table, what would you have done? The Dwarven Prince was about to throw me out anyway. Would the game have ended there?
I dunno. It would have depended on what the other players wanted. Given what I know now, I suspect that "walking away" would have actually created some air in that game and would have improved play. It would have given the other players narrative license to maneuver. But it's different every time, so it's difficult to predict.
As for BITs driving the system...
Well guys, I admit that I deemphasize one of the prime mechanics in the demos, Artha. Awarding those points for playing on or against Beliets, etc is a big part of the engine of BW. The other part is that the players in the demo don't write those Beliefs, I do. Writing (and rewriting) Beliefs is a major mechanic in the game.
And though Beliefs mechanics are fairly straightforward, they are no less important and no less featured than any other mechanic in the game. In fact, Beliefs need a different handling in order to make the game go. Adding dice mechanics to Beliefs in Burning Wheel would fill in the "fruitful void."
Quote from: me on vincent's site
conflict/challenge with/to a Belief
decide how to confront said challenge; which ability?
violence or conspicuous avoidance thereof utilizing chosen ability and chosen system
artha and advancement
escalation to further, more extreme, violence or wilful cessation of violence or hard right turn away from conflict
Note well that the little burning wheel of the fruitful void can't get started without a Belief.
-L
Bret, I don't think I Turtled at the end of the game but I definitely did during the first half of the game. I specifically remember one volley in the DoW in which I didn't contribute anything at all -- despite a desperate desire to do so -- and I think it was due to my paralysis because of the reasons I explained above. From what I understand of BW now, when I had my guy leap over the table and attack the Dwarven Prince, I would have rewritten my "Any obstacle can be overcome with the application of etiquette and grace" Belief. The rudeness of the Dwarves was a major test of Finrir's Beliefs and he'd have failed himself at that point when he acted against Instinct. I think.
Brand, I think you nailed my feeling. I was in an impossible situation of the GM's devising and that is what felt like railroading to me (more than just a Kicker) -- combined with the way that Luke seemed to feed us information about the rules.
QuoteAdam, if you had come up with the character and the kicker yourself, rather than "inheriting" it from Luke, do you think it would have influenced how you felt about the game, the character, and the situation? How much of your discomfort was from trying to win or have everything, and how much from finding yourself in an intensely conflicted situation in which you had no say in the setup of the situation?
I think when a GM puts my character in an "impossible" situation, I see it as a Step On Up challenge. When
I put my character in an impossible situation, it's to Address Premise. I am not saying this is a universal for all people and all GMs or anything. Just what I feel.
If I had created the character myself, I would have felt more comfortable changing my BITs in play. In a con situation, I assume that I'm supposed to play as written. If every player ignored the sheet, the whole thing goes to hell, no? Why would the GM bother writing the character otherwise? Certainly, the rules by which I could change my character during play were not explained, so I defaulted to "I am not supposed to do that."
QuoteWhat if you had, in a normal Burning Wheel game, decided on your own that your character had forgotten the gift in order to set up the conflict?
That would be damned juicy role-play. I don't feel, however, that Finrir as written (the paragon of politeness) could do such a thing -- it would be against his Beliefs and Instincts.
Luke, I would gladly have played one Duel of Wits instead of two in order to spend some time learning to use the BITs and Artha and all that. I mean to say that you can run "The Gift" as written in the space of four hours and just focus more on some of those other aspects. The second DoW didn't really contribute anything additional to selling the game. Additionally, understanding those things would alleviate a lot of the confusion that made me think the game was complicated. I believe that understanding and playing those mechanics -- even if it complicates the demo -- will sell the game better than muddling around the mechanics and feeling confused as a player. Just one guy's opinion though.
I wasn't advocating adding dice mechanics to Beliefs. I thought someone said there were some dice mechanics so I was just saying, "Cool, would have liked to have understood those." But there seem to be rewriting mechanics that we didn't explore, and those would have made the demo game a thousand times cooler.
I don't want you to fill in Burning Wheel's "Fruitful Void" with mechanics. I want to experience filling it in myself during play. I think a Burning Wheel demo is incomplete, even soulless, without the player's ability to experience the Fruitful Void himself. I think it's a mistake to decapitate your game system in pursuit of demo-accessibility. What are you really demoing then?
Quote from: Adam Dray on November 29, 2005, 04:45:31 PM
QuoteWhat if you had, in a normal Burning Wheel game, decided on your own that your character had forgotten the gift in order to set up the conflict?
That would be damned juicy role-play. I don't feel, however, that Finrir as written (the paragon of politeness) could do such a thing -- it would be against his Beliefs and Instincts.
Everything else in the post aside: who said anything about he (the character) doing it? I asked about you, the player, setting it up. After all, it wasn't his failure -- it was the failure of his staff. And doesn't some good address of premise come from what happens when the character has done somethings he wouldn't normally do?
However, stance niggling aside, I think we're agreeing in general about kickers.
So now: would it have helped you if you'd had more understanding of the situation going in? I mean I assume you've probably read over the adventure by this point. Had you read the whole thing ahead of play, and then played knowing what was going on (which Luke even talks about in the text) do you think it would have helped? Hurt?
What things might have helped you bridge the gap between a kicker you would have made if the character was your own, and the one that Luke made in order to create explosions?
QuoteI think it's a mistake to decapitate your game system in pursuit of demo-accessibility. What are you really demoing then?
Adam, we didn't connect during a somewhat off demo. I wish we did, but sometime the demos don't hit. However, more often than not, they do. Certainly no reason to get all fatalistic.
-L
Brand,
I wasn't answering for my character, I swear. My answer as a player is there: "That would be damned juicy role-play." In other words, yummy.
I actually haven't had the extra time to read the adventure yet. Probably will tonight. I'll answer your question about if the knowledge would have helped or hurt after I do.
QuoteWhat things might have helped you bridge the gap between a kicker you would have made if the character was your own, and the one that Luke made in order to create explosions?
I'm aware that my answers below may be largely gamer baggage. Still, you asked what might have helped. Here goes.
I think I was waiting for permission to take ownership of the character. This isn't usually an issue in RPGs where the players make their own characters. I felt like the steward of the character and felt beholden to play him as written. I had no knowledge of the Burning Wheel rules that encourage players to rewrite BITs at crucial moments of play.
I wish I could have understood my character better, mechanically. Luke could simplify the character or to explain the options better (at expense of time spent role-playing the second DoW).
I also felt constrained by the kicker and felt that I had to play a certain way or there'd be no game. That's my own gamer baggage and I don't think it's Luke responsibility to fix it. But the distance the kicker goes seems unusual to me -- a lot like the old "okay, you awake to find that you're in prison with no equipment" sort of "kicker." Since "The Gift" works very well for many, many people, I assume that's also my gamer baggage at work.
Luke,
Sorry about the colorful language. I don't mean to be fatalistic.
You say, "we didn't connect during a somewhat off demo." This may be semantic quibbling, but I think we did connect, you and I. You ran an energetic and exciting game, listened to me, and gave me lots of feedback. That said, I didn't connect with Burning Wheel during the demo. I am starting to connect with Burning Wheel now, as I understand it better. That's why I think the demo didn't serve me well. I doubt I (or many a Forge game designer) is your core demographic but I firmly believe that you should showcase the coolest things in the game during your demo. Lots of people are telling me that the coolest things are BITs and Artha. You even called those things the Fruitful Void around which the game centers. I just don't feel I got an accurate picture of Burning Wheel from the demo.
I offered one suggestion (replace the second DoW with some time playing with BITs and Artha) based on a very limited experience with the game. I am willing to be totally fucking wrong. =)
What I haven't mentioned here, and probably should have, is that the demo didn't work for everyone else at the table. There was another player, Bob, who actually left. I have no idea what his reasons were. I got to see Bob play a bit of Dogs in the Vineyard (run by Eric, but that wasn't the session I played) and I got to play with Bob in the Roach game.
Bob actually freaked out a bit and left in a weird way. I think Luke got to chat with Bob and he might be able to shed more light on what happened there. We were just getting into the second Duel of Wits and Bob interrupted without any warning and told Luke that it "isn't working at all" for him and that he wasn't "having any fun." He passed off control of the DoW to another Dwarf player and Bob diddled with his dice and pencil for 5-10 minutes before disappearing from the table. We finished the game without refilling that slot.
I mention this only because it might have contributed to Luke's feeling that it was a "somewhat off demo."
(Despite my apparent whining here, understand that I had a lot of fun and never considered leaving the game.)
I too played in this game as the Elven LoreMaster. I've already commented on burningwheel.org. Short summary: Luke is a mad man. I wish there had been more mechanic demo in the demo.
I'll add that it was a bit uncomfortable being the dimwit who "forgot" the Gift. Adam spent many a minute glowering at me, immersed up to his chin, I'd say, as a fuming Elven Prince. All in good fun!
I understand why the setup was as it was - but I think as a player I really had no firm grasp on what the game boundaries were. That's probabaly baggage from every convention game I've ever played. You see the rails, you just just follow them. The Gift didn't seem to have any rails once we got past the opening scene.
Ooooh - one more thing - I read the Gift pdf later. I didn't notice the Dwarves using their scene framing power AT ALL. Did I just not notice it?
Hi, James! Glad to see you here.
I hope it was obvious that the glaring was the Elf's, not the player's. ;) I would have given the LoreMaster as a gift to the Dwarven Prince if I thought it would have satisfied his Greed. ;)
I think the Dwarves framed one scene -- the first after my little one-on-one negotiation with the other Prince. After that, we proceeded through two Duels of Wits and a Duel of Swords in the same scene, more or less. Luke framed the later scene in the Dwarven Vault, I believe.
Hey folks,
I thought I'd chime in here as well, considering both the other Elven players from that demo have spoken ;)
I was playing Eonwe, the Captain, and I enjoyed the game as well. I think some of the troubles that Adam has pointed out might be related to the way the demo hits the ground running. I remember having a bit of trouble getting into the skin of my character and figuring out the scenario simply because so much of my action was predicated on the other elves, who I (as a player) didn't know anything about. For example, if we had been able to step aside (huddling the teams) and spend 5 minutes getting to know each other, that might have helped me jump in more fiercely.
Another thing that tripped me up a bit was (arrogantly) thinking I should coach Adam and James on Burning Wheel mechanics. Having had a bit of experience with BW before the demo-- and being eager to learn more directly from Luke-- I was trying to point out that they could use Resources to try and conjure a gift, completely unaware (not having read the scenario) that not having it was the whole point. I just assumed James creatively "forgot" the gift just to start trouble...
As for the player who withdrew, I have to say that the second DoW did go on somewhat longer than it needed to. I think those of us that were participating in it were starting to run out of ways to make our points, and we were arguing in circles. Nonetheless, the Body of Argument pools weren't yet empty, so we kept going. I suppose we could have started the fight earlier.
I should point out that, regardless of the issues I saw above, I did enjoy the game-- I even bought a copy afterwards!
So I totally had a somewhat similar experience in Luke's viking inheritance demo at same con (and actually already posted about it on my LiveJournal), but I'll start a new thread instead of highjacking Adam's.