The Forge Archives

Hi folks,

This is really the thing in BW I'm really diggin on.  Pretty much though, the advice seems to be like "Here's a semi-formal Social Contract of your character, use it or lose it!".  Here's my take on them:

Beliefs- Roleplay these to get Artha, sometimes you can Call on them.

Instincts- These are nifty reactions that may allow you to kinda cheat the rules("But of course I keep a knife handy!", "I always know where the exits are!") in terms of handing some automatic actions over to characters.

Traits- Aside from the ones with specific dice/DN rules, basically they are there to be roleplayed, as a group agreement of plausibility("Make a Will roll or fall asleep, you're a Night Owl and its morning...") and occassionally Called On traits.

If I'm seriously misunderstanding, or missing out on something, please let me know.

Now, onto my questions-

Called on Traits- As far as I can tell, it looks like these either serve as tie breakers, or give you a reroll.  I don't really see much more happening with these...Luke, can you give some input or examples of using these in play, if there's anything else that goes one with them?

Beliefs & Artha rewards-

It seems that Artha is designed to be rewarded maybe like 4-5 points a session.  It would also seem that folks are going to be spending like 2 or 3 of those a session(at least, I'm guessing here).  What's your experiences with rewards, spending, and improvement?  

While I can dig the "no powergaming" aspect of BW, the advancement seems to encourage long campaign style play.  Is this your intent as far as BW play?

Thanks,
Chris

Great thread topic, hopefully it will generate some real discussion.

I loved these aspects also, and in fact commented in an RPG.net thread that I wish there was more on them.  From your questions Chris, I think you're seeing the same kick ass potential of them lieing there just under the surface...begging to be released.  I suspect they really fire in Luke's campaigns.

Right Ralph,

These seem like less formalized cousins of TROS's SAs and Universalis' Traits.  I definitely dig the "cue to roleplay" aspect, as well as the choice to not use them(i.e. not restricting like alignment) and gain others, I'm just looking for some more examples of them in use and perhaps a little more formal stuff on how they are supposed to be used.

Chris

Hi Chris,

I see you got your copy of the game! I'm always relieved to know when one of my precious babies arrives safe and sound.

Now, as far as Beliefs, Instincts and Traits (BITs) go...

They scare me. Why? Because they are essentially a limitless and subtle part of the game. I feel that belaboring them would demystify and limit the game for people just coming in.

However, I will say a few things: BITs are not just for veteran campaigns. Savvy players in our demo games have used them to great and hysterical effect.

Arbel the sorcerer (http://www.burningwheel.org/pdf/Arbel_Sorcerer.pdf) is a great example. Players trundle along with him, inevitably wishing they could cast fireballs or some such. Every so often a player reads his BITs and really gets into him. For example, one Arbel player wanted to help his companion who was getting mauled by an Orc. Arbel has the Never lift a finger instinct. How to get around that? Have that Spirit Servant drag a rock over and drop it on the orc! That's how. Such a simple solution, but at the time the player was dumbfounded by this.

At another point, Arbel found himself in the midst of a melee. He cast a Shards spell and was preparing another when he looked at his Traits: Skulking. Screw this! he said and he skulked on out of there despite the fact that his companions were getting eaten alive.

::sigh::  Such simple things make me so happy. But like I said, these are just simple examples. Another one of my players has the Instinct: Always suspect the silent hand of Heresy. He's a knight-justiciar and also has the World Weary and Suspicious traits. It's fantastic, and creates some brilliant roleplaying--a grand argument in a baron's court with the baron's sorcerer comes to mind. But it creates some bumps, too; he's put more innocent people to the sword and torch than any other character I know, including quite a few bearers of ye olde plot.

Anyway, I'd prefer to hear you and Ralph postulate, rather than listen to my old wind bag clatter along. What do you see in the BITs.

-L

Quote from: Bankuei
It seems that Artha is designed to be rewarded maybe like 4-5 points a session.  It would also seem that folks are going to be spending like 2 or 3 of those a session(at least, I'm guessing here).  What's your experiences with rewards, spending, and improvement?  

1 point a session, maybe. Plus 3-5 points at the end of a scenario or "adventure." Most of my players don't spend any artha in a session. However, we just finished a session where one player spent over 20 points and another spent at least 10 and another 8. It was quite a game...

Also, I am working on a variant of the Artha system. I will post a pdf of it for you to take a look at. It is much more involved with the BITs system.

Quote
While I can dig the "no powergaming" aspect of BW, the advancement seems to encourage long campaign style play.  Is this your intent as far as BW play?

BW is definitely a long term relationship. HOWEVER, i have players who will attest to learning a skill from absolutely nothing in one night and advancing it a few ranks to boot. Those are some pretty intense nights, but it can be done. The main thing to remember with the advancements system: YOU MUST PUSH YOURSELF.

thanks again for your kind words.
-L

ps: there may be little powergaming, but i'll tell you there sure are ways to cheat the hell out the BW system. If you get a chance pop over to RPG.net and our trolls thread. Check out Pete's troll vs my troll. Both legit and legal characters. Same number of lifepaths, but completely different power levels.

pps: over here at BWHQ we consider cheating an admirable quality. Winners always cheat. Cheat to win, win to cheat.

Hi Luke,

Well, its funny.  Given that I'm somewhat intimidated or flustered by the amount of other rules in the game, I find that BITs are under developed for my tastes.

Here's the various ways that I see BITs getting used:

1) Color-
Mmm, pretty much what you get in the book.  You play them, they're nifty, and you get some Artha for doing so.  This is pretty much how I see the majority of gamers are going to read them.

2) Play Drivers-

This is how I'd like to see BITs getting used.  TROS has its SAs, Trollbabe has its Relationships,  and I see BW doing stuff with its BITs.  But to make it happen, I'd like to see the mechanics have a heavier hand in play.  Which means I'd like to see BITS serve as FoRKs, regular re-rolls(not just on ties or close calls), and spit up some Artha on the spot for being roleplayed.

Maybe I'm just spoiled by SAs, but I can't really see them being anything less than that, perhaps with the extra caveat that they hook up some Author/Director stance stuff.

Chris

QuoteThey scare me. Why? Because they are essentially a limitless and subtle part of the game.

And that's what makes them great.  Because they are scary.  I'm kinda glad you used that word first, because my read of your creation in the rules made me think just that...like you had backed off or just avoided going further because you were a little frightened of what they might do.  Given your comment on RPG.net of likeing to GM with alot of control over the story, I can definitely see where they might seem a little threatening...like something that's going to require you to have to break out the GM's Wand of Illusion a little too often in order to patch up some crazy player thing.

Hopefully will get a chance to play some games like Troll Babe or Dust Devils, or even Universalis at GenCon.  Not mind you that these games are "better" but they are very different and require very different player/GM mindsets.  Different enough that I at least have trouble describing them, but a couple of sessions of which should serve to illustrate what I'm probably currently saying rather poorly.  At any rate whether you respond with a "oh, neat, but I didn't really enjoy that" or a "holy cow my gaming paradigms have been shattered" is secondary to illustrating why Chris and myself see such powerful potential in these traits.

And I really hope we can get Jake to run some Riddle for us.  TROS and BW are so very similar in so many ways.  Riddle though really throws the valve open on the SAs.  

QuoteI feel that belaboring them would demystify and limit the game for people just coming in.

Here is my take on the text regarding these.  Its not so much a question of volume of discussion about them (in the belaboring sense) but rather the choice of things to highlight.

I'll try an analogy.

You have a park in the park are a TON of EXTREMELY cool things to see and do.  Guests can wander around the park and pick and choose what they like and want to see.  To help them along the way you put a path through the park that passes by some of the main attractions.  There's still plenty of things off the beaten path for those who like to explore, but the path really serves to highlight the possibilities.

Ok, the park is the beliefs, traits, and instincts with lots of cool things to try.  The guests are players, of course, and the path is the examples in the rules.  

I think I Chris and I are on the same page on this so I'll venture to speak for him, in that what we mean when we like to see more is that we wish the path you gave touched more on some of the more powerful possibilities.  Instead of hitting the main attractions, your path kind of meanders through the more mundane, less exciting portion of the park.

Did that make sense at all, I'm kind feeling like I'm meandering a bit here.

Hi Luke,

QuoteNow, as far as Beliefs, Instincts and Traits (BITs) go...

They scare me. Why? Because they are essentially a limitless and subtle part of the game. I feel that belaboring them would demystify and limit the game for people just coming in.

I found this was the same sort of thing brought up by Jake for TROS, except that TROS has very explicit rules about what its SAs are about.  Many games have magic, many games have skill systems, or combat, not many games have BITs or things like them.  What I'm afraid will happen is that folks will pick up your game, say, "Oh, look, its GURPS/MERPS with a funny combat system" and put it down without ever looking at BITs.

And that would be a damn shame.  It happens to Sorcerer all the time, and its really a great game.

Now, as it stands, what the text gives me, is that BITs are pretty much roleplaying cues, that sometimes give you a bonus(although what kind of bonus is very vague).  What I read is, "these give you an extra die, a reroll or break a tie, sometimes, if you like, sorta, kinda, um, however you want to do it".  Compare this to the many varied ways that we get explicit rules on Artha, or Skill advancement.  

Now here's where it gets tricky, you use BITs, in some manner that makes sense to you and your group.  What the rules state, are very loose, and very vague.  I'm not sure how you "intend" them to be used.  Granted, I could use them any which way I want to, and rest assured, in the end, I probably will.  But I'm deeply interested in how you use them, because I might find what you're doing is really cool, and I want to do it that way too.  Or maybe I'll only like part of it, or none of it.  But I don't really know based on the rules.

Right now, I'm not sure if all BITs are for you, are simple rp cues, minor bonuses(um, sometimes they help), full on bonuses(like SAs), or room for the players to start pulling in director stance(control over more than simply their character).  From the text, and from your posts, as far as I know, they are the first two I mentioned, but very well could extend into the latter two.

If we're going to go with the "do what you will with them", than I'd run them as SAs with director stance options, and give folks Artha everytime they make a meaningful decision or roleplay them well, on the spot.  Yeah, that means a player could say, "I'm a night owl, so I know where all the good bars are, so I'll go visit the Blue Moon, and talk to my buddy the bartender there, and see if he knows anything", with the player having made all of that up on the spot.  And then when he rp's being grumpy and snappy in the morning(Night Owl, right?) screwing up his chance to talk to the girl he's been trying to get at, I give him a point of Artha, right then and there.

But see, what I'm talking about may have nothing to do with what you're talking about.  And its a damn shame because you've given us tons of rules on stuff like shooting arrows through shields, damage from being slammed against walls, etc, but the thing in your game that stands out and has me jazzed, I'm getting vague info.

Anyhow, I'm finding BITs to be the most intriguing, and I'm looking for more info on it.

Chris

Quote
Which means I'd like to see BITS serve as FoRKs, regular re-rolls(not just on ties or close calls

Chris, this is exactly what I was trying to steer away from with Instincts and Beliefs. I wanted something that was aside from and possibly above dice. I think I have the dice covered in every way possible in the regular system.

Which leads me to artha. Instincts and Beliefs (and to a lesser extent, traits) are fantastic vehicles for earning artha. Speaking of which, check out the revised (and optional) artha system I have been working on.  It is of course in pdf format (http://www.burningwheel.org/pdf/artha_wheel.pdf) And it stresses BITs in gameplay for earning artha.

-L

Quote
but the thing in your game that stands out and has me jazzed, I'm getting vague info.

WAIT! Isn't the whole reason are getting jazzed about these rules is because they are vague? Because you can see possibilities in them that I might not have? Wouldn't my writing in my style constitute the egregious error of coloring your perception of the game? Of limiting?

On the other hand, I understand your point. You like them. You want to know more. What I am trying to say is: YOU are the more. These are deliberately left open as a vent against the heaviness and dicey-ness of the game. A set, firm and ensconced place to insert weighted opinion and have it affect the game without hacking it.

As in all things BW-related, I am too close to the matter. I am going to see if I call can in an airstrike players. See if I can rouse those lazy bastards to comment.

thanks for your questions.
keep asking! me brain is a-burnin.
-L

Hi Luke,

Your revised Artha rules are very cool, and I already think I dig them better than the originals.  They are very much like SAs in the "spending is a good idea" mechanic, which I think is awesome, plus gives folks encouragement to actually use them.  

QuoteWAIT! Isn't the whole reason are getting jazzed about these rules is because they are vague? Because you can see possibilities in them that I might not have? Wouldn't my writing in my style constitute the egregious error of coloring your perception of the game? Of limiting?

I'm getting jazzed based on what I THINK it might be, and that there's a possibility that what you're talking about might be different, and way cooler than what I'm thinking of, but since its not defined, I don't know.  

To give you a valid comparison, consider the "Make your own class" rules in D&D3E.  They give you about 3 paragraphs of vague info, that basically boil down to, "Um, keep it balanced, yeah" without any sort of info on how to do that.   With that bit of info, WOTC can say, "You can DO ANYTHING in D&D", which, while technically true in the most genie twisting the words sense, is complete bullcrap.

Here, you've got some things that can either totally drive that story along, using system, like you've mentioned, or it could just be a nifty hood ornament.  You've taken the time and the effort to detail rules on armor degradation, FoRKs, and a lot of cool, detailed stuff, but right here, right here on what I consider to be the "Telling Mark" of BW, where you're able to do the things that "No other game does", you give us vague rules, without even some serious guidelines to work it.

I'm not trying to complain, and I'm not asking for Dogma on High.  I just want some examples of how you, or other folks have used it.  What are some nifty ways you've made it work?  I need to know, because right now, they could be some nifty extras on the side, or they could be the main dish, and its not clear on what role they play.

Chris

Quote
Right now, I'm not sure if all BITs are for you, are simple rp cues, minor bonuses(um, sometimes they help), full on bonuses(like SAs), or room for the players to start pulling in director stance(control over more than simply their character). From the text, and from your posts, as far as I know, they are the first two I mentioned, but very well could extend into the latter two.

Of course my first instinct is to say, "Yes, all of the above." But let me see if I can humor you with some examples.

Caveat Emptor: BITs are primarily player driven in the games that I run. Not that NPCs don't have them, but I don't stress them that often on my side. I see it as my job to incorporate them into behavior--basically use them as guidelines for RP. Players do that and more.

Following is a short list of all the relevant instincts and beliefs I could track down. I'll try to give examples of how i run them, but feel free to ask for more detail.

Rabani, Hardradan insurrectionist:
T: Academic, Aura of Innocence, Sanguine Outlook, Fervent Believer, Quick-Witted.
B: No man has the right to own another.
We have a right to a free and independent Hardrada (He is speaking of freedom from foreign control).
Our cause is just and fair.
I:Blend in and move with the crowd. Rabani is always considered to be using Inconspicuous skill. However, this instinct has on a number of occasions taken him away from the party/action.
Always work patiently and carefully when building firebombs.

Ashton Fitzroyce, Zirconian manservant
T: Comely, Charismatic, Glib, Fleet of Foot, Tall
B: People are happier when they do not know the truth.
It's all a game.
Believe your own lies.
I: Assess people by their hair and shoes.
Believe your own lies.
As you might imagine, Ashton is very manipulative. The player is constantly using his Falsehood and Soothing Platitudes skills...on everyone, including the PCs. Though occasionally i torture him with die rolls, often I let ashton pass off his pap without a test--so long as the player can roleplay it. (and oh he can!) What's even cooler is that other players have taken the hint and are "letting" ashton convince them, too.

Moa Dib al Ghazi, former ghazi (cavalryman)
T: Low Speech: Horse Whisperer, Sangiune Outlook, Fervent Believer, Quick-Witted, Claustrophobic.
B: Khudul (God) is great.
Horses are Khudul's greatest gift.
SNAKES are bad, bad, bad
I: See a snake (cultist) attack him immediately
Assess when bowing
Always keep what you steal.
Moa Dib's beliefs/instincts largely come from his recent experiences. First, of being an escaped slave and second of being carted off by the Snake Mother Cult of Gulmarg. His RP cues of bowing and scraping let me know that he is actually watching out for trouble. His "attack immediately" instinct means that there is no time at all between him seeing a cultist and him attacking. No way to stop him from at least trying.

Ok, onto to a different campaign.

Omi Gyo, Sonae Sorti Third (sgt)
(think hobgobliny)
T: Tough, Loyal, Determined, Chronologue, Cool-Headed, Disturbingly Large Mouth.
B: Death is less than a sip of tea, Duty is greater than the whole ocean.
To serve with honor is to please the ancestors.
The Patriarch is on to something, and I want in!
I: Look busy/serious when commanders are around
Fish when waiting/bored. Think about fishing if I can't fish.
Stealth when the Beetles are near. (Beetles is the Omi name for armored samurai)
Gyo was an incredibly interesting character. He was played out of his element--in a city he'd never been to before with friends he couldn't really trust on a mission from his Patriarch. The player knew this when he built the character, but he still built him with an eye to where he was, not where he was going. So his Beliefs and Instincts left him a little out of place and uncomfortable. The RP of the traits more than made up for it. Basing all of his actions on his Tough, Loyal, Determined and Cool-headed traits the player managed to drive the entire plot along by sheer dint of will. He wasn't the spotlight character, either. He was behind the scenes most of the time, but he diligently manipulated every other character into doing what he needed from them.

Ultimately, his TLD traits got him in trouble. There was a double-cross and Gyo went to avenge it against even his better judgement! And then there was some doubt surrounding his mission--doubt about whether or not he had satisfied his patriarch's demands. Rather than bail and cut his losses, he kept working at it (even when everyone else had abandoned him) right up until the point when the assassins came for him.

Randi Ting, small time Lorettan pimp

T:Streetsmart, Cold-Blooded, Piercing Whistle, Healthy, Night Owl, Charming, Ambitious, Lithe, Tall, Deferential to Women.
B:Gotta look out for number 1.
Brains beat fists.
Someday, I'm gonna ride some tide out of this hellhole.
I:Glare at 'em.
Shove back when shoved.
Disappear when the cops show up.

It bears noting, Randi's two main skills were Intimidation B6 and Lorettawise (city-wise) B5.

Randi has got to be one of my favorite characters ever played in one of my games. I think he even surprised his player! Randi was effusive, smart, and always ready to do what ever it took to scare the hell out of whom ever he was talking to.  More than anything, his BITs and the way he played them shaped the flow of the plot. When ever he spoke or attacked we knew he was intimidating. It worked. The other characters grew to mightily respect him and this allowed Randi to grab hold of the plot wheel and give it a good wrench. And yes, Randi was up all night every night scheming.


As I type these out I see that all of these are roleplaying cues and minor bonuses. Let me see if I can dredge up some other examples.

Rerun, Brotherhood of Sinkalese Blacksmiths crossbowman

T:Obedient, Aura of Stupid Innocence, Compulsive Talker, Thread Puller, Plain Faced.

Thread Puller Rerun had the amazing ability to get to the heart of the matter: "What you are really saying is...".  He would constantly do this in the context of the plot. He always knew when other players were fumbling, and how to recover and nudge them in the right direction. He would use out-of-character knowledge, anachronisms, and just weird shit. But none of us batted an eye. It all fit perfectly with the character and, more importantly, drove the plot along.

B: Rerun's beliefs aren't really relevant...

I: When confronted unexpectedly, avoid and disappear.
When working, or in hostile territory, be inconspicuous.
Make sure that Sharpeye (his partner) has plenty of bolts--preferably one cocked and loaded.

This last instinct worked great. Two players were playing crossbowmen, Rerun and Deadeye. Rerun never fired a shot, but he was always handing his friend a loaded crossbow. This came down to a crucial moment when another PC and their nemesis, the Prince, were dueling on a wall. The Prince was winning. No time to react. "Here's a loaded crossbow..."

Kirin Matakuri, sword saint and wheel bearer

I:Sword practice every morning.
Never eat unfired food/drink.
Always note strong auras.

Pretty straightforward. Kirin has Celestial Sight, so he is always on the look out for aura. And his practice trait ensures that no matter what he says that skill will continually advance. His eating strictures only serve to make him seem more alien to those around him, isolating this already distant character even more.

Kublai Park, former General of the Center, Civil Governor of Easter, Master of Tae Poong Do.

T: too many traits to list.

B: I am the avatar of my god.
I create my own truth.
Kublai considers everyone with whom he talks or hears of to be his acquaintance, to be used in the future to further his goals and aims.

I: Enter combat in aggressive stance.
Steel my mind against invasive magic.
The Chime is always on me. (a holy artifact of his religion).

The "truth" belief is rather problematic. It makes for some very cyclical arguments and odd behavior. Still it is an RP choice for the player. And it really is rather fun to watch. The middle instinct is essentially a trait he is always working on. He's terrified of being dominated and is constantly meditating to strengthen his will. He's actually earned a number of traits from playing this out and spending artha. His last belief is just hysterical.

Hm.
An interesting overview.
This is a cross section of current or recently in play characters. It seems that most of my players use their BITs as RP cues and minor bonuses. Personally, I like the "you did it" mechanic of BITs. Minutia that players are constantly doing that I forget about--like practice, or research--is all taken care of.

But this is only the way I play it. BITs are open enough to be taken much further. It really depends on how much you want to stress them in your game.

-L

Thanks Luke,

The variety of examples  really illuminates how you're using them and what you expect of them.  Now I have a good idea on the "just color" to "central mechanic" scale of how they were intended to be used.  I'm really pleased to see the amount of innovation in roleplaying games lately, and hope you do get a chance to play Riddle of Steel, Trollbabe, octaNe, and maybe even the Pool at GenCon or with someone familiar with the various systems.  It's very interesting to see how folks took different approaches to add more than just hack and slash to their games.

Chris

QuoteMake sure that Sharpeye (his partner) has plenty of bolts--preferably one cocked and loaded.

This last instinct worked great. Two players were playing crossbowmen, Rerun and Deadeye. Rerun never fired a shot, but he was always handing his friend a loaded crossbow. This came down to a crucial moment when another PC and their nemesis, the Prince, were dueling on a wall. The Prince was winning. No time to react. "Here's a loaded crossbow..."

Just to clarify, by this do you mean that the player pretty much invented and made up on the spot the loaded crossbow to hand to his partner (i.e. he hadn't earlier gone through the whole "I ready my weapon" routine), and was allowed to do this (where another character wouldn't have been) because he had this instinct.

If so...that very cool stuff and the kind of thing that had me excited by them.  We'd call that Director Stance in jargon terms and there are quite a few happy practitioners of the craft here.

Its exactly the kind of thing you'd see in a movie...a few set up shots early on where crossbows are being handed out, and then later in the movie at the critical scene...bam, the payoff.

QuoteJust to clarify, by this do you mean that the player pretty much invented and made up on the spot the loaded crossbow to hand to his partner (i.e. he hadn't earlier gone through the whole "I ready my weapon" routine), and was allowed to do this (where another character wouldn't have been) because he had this instinct.

Hi guys,

I have the distinct honor of being one of Luke's longtime players.  Randi (the intimidator) and Rerun (the thread puller) were my characters.

The way I remember the crossbow incident, we hadn't yet broken down into scripting actions for Rerun and Deadeye, in order to facilitate faster action.  Deadeye had fired his own shot, and Rerun hadn't really declared what he was up to.  When it was clear that Deadeye needed to take another shot that was dramatically imperative to the plot, I called on Rerun's instinct and said that he had his crossbow loaded and ready to hand off to his partner.  The crossbow and ammo were part of his gear, and Rerun hadn't been doing anything significant in the time previous to that moment that would have prevented him from having his crossbow ready.  So, the significance in calling on the instinct was as if to say, "I didn't say I had this ready beforehand, but the instinct says Rerun would have done it anyway."  When we play, Luke is usually pretty strict about declaring or scripting actions, so the instincts give a small but powerful "automatic" or "free" action or series of actions particular to a character.

Another good example of how we use instincts happened recently when I was playtesting a Troll with the instinct to "Grab whatever unexpectedly gets On The Inside (and then eat it or thow it away)."  When a giant spider slung a web at the Troll, sticking to his chest on the last action of an exchange, Luke declared that the instinct was triggered and my Troll instinctively grabbed the web right away, without using up one of his actions.  This allowed me to script "pull web really hard" as the first action of my next exchange and use my Troll-ly strength to yank the web right out of the spider's nasty little feelers.

Valamir,  I get the idea of what you describe as "Director Stance" and I'd have to say that although we don't go with much of that in our gameplay, Instincts create a nice little zone of wiggle room for such player influence.  If Rerun had actually used up all his crossbow ammo in game, and the dramatic moment with Deadeye arose, I might have reminded Luke of the instinct, and asked if there was any chance that while Rerun was running around on the battlefield, he might have seen stray bolts lying about that he might have instinctively picked up for Deadeye, hoping for a last minute reprive.  But I would not expect to automatically get it;  it would be GM's discretion.

But the concept of Instincts is certainly open to as much Director Stance power as you wanted to give it, based on your preferred game play, in my opinion.

Hope this sheds more of the light you were looking for on how we use instincts back here at BWHQ.

Cheers,

Zhu Kwan Sung, Herald of the Dread Lord Crymsah
Randi the Pimp
Rerun the Idiot
and occasionally
Rick

I guess I'm the reinforcements. . .

in our game, we've only had a few adventures, so people's characters haven't really changed much from the way they started.

My character, "Kite", is the utter freak of the group. He's a sorceror, former necromancer, from an albino tribe.  Under contacts he has the headless, handless ghost of his former mistress, who he didn't kill quite thoroughly enough.

Traits: Skulking, Sucking up, Iron Stomach, Gifted, Albino, Secretive, Cold-blooded, Murderous, Charming.

Beliefs:
They will come for me.
The only good enemy is a truly dead enemy.
I can pull off this look.

Instincts:
Stay in the shadows.
Keep Eldritch Shield up.

How has this shown up in play? Well, when they DID come for me, I was utterly unsurprised. And I had an Eldritch Shield up. I've played CSI with dead bodies, getting crucial clues, while others were covering their noses and keeping their distance.

And as a six foot two, scrawny albino in a black hooded robe, I think the self-confidence in the look is crucial . Because when albinos blush, it's not pretty.

As for "Skulking" and "Sucking up"- I didn't choose those lifestyle traits, but they had a surprisingly large effect on how I played Kite from day 1. Being a male in an Amazon society, it's good to have 15 years practice skulking and sucking up.

I'm thinking my next Belief might be: "White Fire fixes everything." Maybe it's my rolls, but I've gotten one-shot kills every time except one, and he had an Eldritch Shield up.


From a game mechanic point of view, if you make the good Traits too good, there will be even LESS reason to take bad Traits. (I personally think that "Blind", "Stupid", "Quadripilegic", etc. should be 0-point traits or something.  )

Hi Neb,

this is kinda the reason that I'm wondering about more explicit rules about traits resulting in Artha awards.  This would be a good reason for folks to take negative traits.  Fang Langford's Scattershot system does this, in that XP dice are awarded for bringing in your Disadvantages.  Otherwise, without a reward, I don't see a point in having Disadvantages cost points.  The other possible use would be if they provided some occassional advantages, with some guidelines of them in use.

Chris

Hey Rick, great clarification.  What you describe is largely the sense that I got from the book.  That instinct is a way of codifying the age old debate between "but you didn't say it" vs. "but my character would do it".

Some of the D&D DMs I've gamed with would actually expand the "standard marching order" into a whole S.O.P. that the party would use so that we could do the "check for traps", "listen at doors" routine without slowing play down to explain every single step and getting screwed if we forgot.

QuoteValamir, I get the idea of what you describe as "Director Stance" and I'd have to say that although we don't go with much of that in our gameplay, Instincts create a nice little zone of wiggle room for such player influence. If Rerun had actually used up all his crossbow ammo in game, and the dramatic moment with Deadeye arose, I might have reminded Luke of the instinct, and asked if there was any chance that while Rerun was running around on the battlefield, he might have seen stray bolts lying about that he might have instinctively picked up for Deadeye, hoping for a last minute reprive. But I would not expect to automatically get it; it would be GM's discretion.

That's how I'd describe what you explained too...providing just a touch of Director Stance to give a little bit of wiggle room.

BEWARE: rant herein
Yes, Instincts and Beliefs are there to cut down on table shite like arguing and gm-screwing. But they are also there to make the characters more believable. It is impossible to represent a person/thought entirely through numbers. These very loose rules allow players to inject thoughts into their characters (which are otherwise numbers).

Investiture is a similar rule. Very little mechanics, but it provides "wiggle room" for the GM and the player to make something magical happen.

Instincts and Traits can be used to wiggle further and harder. The Scavenger trait is the perfect example. A successful Perception test and the character can find nearly anything they want whenever they need it. Inexplicable, occassionally frustrating, and great fun. But it costs 4pts in character burning.

Personally, I run a very tight game ship. My players learn about hardship, suffering, and pain. So I want the Instincts and Beliefs to be gritty and tied to the "real world." I do not want characters pulling chicken wings out of the air every time they are hungry. Nor do I want characters to be in any way indefatigable. This is a dice-based game. The dice ultimately decide defeat or victory. I like it like that. And I like my characters, at least in some way, vulnerable and human. (This is what creates compelling stories for me.)

QuoteBut there are sizeable circles of traditional gamers who will roundly declare that there *arent'* supposed to be rules for character behavior or psychology

Not only am I am member, but I am also the president of the school which Valamir refers to.


Never. No. Uh uh. Nope. God forbid. There should be a papal bull.

A system should NEVER force a player to roleplay/behave in certain way. YES, there should be guidelines--as in Beliefs or Instincts. NO there should not be a resolution mechanic that says, "Gee, your Belief says "X", your Instinct says "Y", the dice say, "Z". Ok, you agree to be his slave for life."

argh.

I know, an extreme and ridiculous example. Let's take FVLMINATA. It's brilliant. System and Background are great. Yet, the social resolution mechanic makes me flop like a fish drowning in air. No. No. No. Dice should never tell a player character what he or she should do. One, it is condescending. You are stripping control from your players and assuming they don't know how to play. Two, it contains the potential for the largest exercise in munckinism this side of Rolemaster. (And, in the results, there is utter success but no room for abject failure. argh.)

Perhaps my guidelines are exceedingly vague: "There are guidelines. They should influence your character in play." That's all they really say. But beyond that, I couldn't conceive of writing out rules for the infinite myriad of BITs and BITs gestalt that exist in the game. If you have suggestions for a workable mechanic (that does not go beyond the scope of BW as a game mechanic, i.e. no coins.), I am dying to hear it. To me, though, it is up to the players to infuse their character with this loose agenda.

Lastly, I did see the flaw in the Artha system and how it related to BITs. I have corrected this. I think the new variation is better suited to BW gameplay.

thanks for your thoughts and input,
-luke

Heh, I certainly appreciate your perspective...different strokes and all that.  After all, the sorts of thing that send you into flumoxed conniptions may earn a big shrug and a "so what" from me, and vice versa.

However, I did want to take a brief second to make one little point.

QuoteI know, an extreme and ridiculous example

The danger in using extreme examples, is if you repeat them oft enough they become a sort of mantra which serves as blinders.  Any reference to a behavioral "mechanic" than instantly queues up this mantra which leads to instant and summary rejection.

I suggest that there are NUMEROUS examples of behavior mechanics that operate on a much subtler level and more importantly, on a less prescriptive level than your example.  At the risk of annoyingly bringing up TROS as a repeated example, its SAs serve as behavioral mechanics that are 100% mechanical (honest to god number crunching game dice impact) and 0% prescriptive in any way.

If you repeat that extreme example to yourself too often, you just might find yourself missing out on some really cool gaming possibilities that maybe you wouldn't mind so much...even though they'd fall into the same general category of behavioral mechanics.  In other words, not only is your example "extreme" its also extraordinarily narrow and represents only a tiny fraction of such mechanics.

For the record...the extreme example you note repulses me too.  But there are alot of other options out there that are actually very exciting and game enhancing to me as well.

[quote="abzu
Lastly, I did see the flaw in the Artha system and how it related to BITs. I have corrected this. I think the new variation is better suited to BW gameplay.
[/quote]

The new Artha system goes hand-in-hand with BITs as they are intended to be played in BW from the beginning. Now you are rewarded with Artha for: playing our your Traits - good or bad; sticking to your Beliefs, especially if they create appropriate drama; and having creative and timely Instincts. This has always been the heart of the BITs and Artha connection, as I interpreted it. With the new system, we have been given stricter and more explicit guidelines for establishing this symbiotic relationship. Hopefully, this will fulfill the need by some to have well-defined rules for everything versus the freedom desired by those who are able to imagine things on their own.

Hi Luke,

That right there is the sort of input I've been looking for(at least on the "intent and spirit of the law" level).  It's also the point at which I was being confused.  Clearly in BW it states that your BITs can change by out and out in-game behavior.  So if I choose a set of lifepaths that give me stuff like Cowardly, Run away, or similar Traits, and I play my character as a fearless, never-back-down warrior, then I can change the traits over.

My only concern in that is that the guy who wants to play the latter pays a price in getting less Artha for "bad roleplaying" when in fact, that's what they wanted to roleplay all along.  While this isn't a "hard rule" like alignment would be in restricting players, this is still a tendancy that will push many players to treating BITs as such, instead of the open system that they are.

What I would like to see, is a solid set of guidelines, just like you've got for Artha, saying what can and cannot be done with BITs.  Not a list of such, for each one...

For example-
-If you tie, and have an appropriate BIT, then you win(perhaps just barely)
-If you lose, and you have equal dice to the challenger, you get a reroll
-If you want to claim that you've done some small action that would make a big difference(such as hiding extra money in a sock), or remembered to bring some small item, and have the appropriate BIT, then you do.
-etc, etc, etc

In other words, a list of guidelines that can be applied across the boards on BITs.  

Thanks again,

Chris

Quote from: Bankueithis is kinda the reason that I'm wondering about more explicit rules about traits resulting in Artha awards.  This would be a good reason for folks to take negative traits.  ... Otherwise, without a reward, I don't see a point in having Disadvantages cost points.  The other possible use would be if they provided some occassional advantages, with some guidelines of them in use.

I think the new Artha system goes a long way in addressing your concern. You are rewarded for playing your BITs. The more creative they are and the better you play them, the more often you will be rewarded with Artha. And they are more explicit. But I guess I just posted all these points. So...

Off to a more explosive and passionate topic - Traits!

All traits have a cost. Period. The more the Trait benefits your character, the more it costs. The worse it is for your character, the less it costs. Period. Thus, the Gift is 5, and Blind is 1. It's pretty straight-forward.

The reason behind this is fairly straight-forward, as well. Something that is free is valueless. Something that is free is something that anybody can have. It will usually be taken for granted and have no meaning to that person. Just take a look at my toys when I was a child!

To make things appreciable, they must require some sort of sacrifice. Even if that sacrifice is minimal, it will give that thing importance and value.

Further, BW considers personal drama and story-telling to be just as important as the dice. Consider this in terms of Trait cost. Which creates more opportunities for drama; having a lame leg or being Glib? The answer for me is being lame. Struggle creates drama. Overcoming difficulties creates drama. Thus, whatever causes struggle and obstacles is more valuable to a story than something that makes life easier.

And so, bad traits cost.

You might argue, then, that bad traits which are really bad - like being blind - should cost more than lesser evils - like being stinky! I contend that point with a simple phrase, "That's just mean!" The cost of 1 pt. is the sacrifice required to give it value and that's enough for me.

The great thing about this cost system is that if you think it's unfair, there is no rule which forces you to purchase negative Traits to balance your positive Traits. I always hated that about other Trait systems. Why should my leperous, hunch-backed rat-catcher have any good Traits?

Hi Tae,

I have no problem following the logic that "some characters are just fucked up", and that some players may want to play that, just cause its fun.  I'm cool with all that.  What I'm talking about, which I'm glad the new Artha rules address, is making sure that people who play those jacked up characters get something for their roleplaying, vs. "Johnny got an Affinity for Bows" who gets his advantage from the Trait itself.

Chris

Quote from: Bankuei
My only concern in that is that the guy who wants to play the latter pays a price in getting less Artha for "bad roleplaying" when in fact, that's what they wanted to roleplay all along.  While this isn't a "hard rule" like alignment would be in restricting players, this is still a tendancy that will push many players to treating BITs as such, instead of the open system that they are.

In our games, Artha is not given out solely to those who play their BITs to the tee. It is also given to those who break their molds. Your example of a cowardly snit wanting to be a hero is perfect. Imagine the battle he is in is turning against his side and he finds himself presented with a choice; flee the battle now and live, or risk his life in an effort to win the day.

It is my opinion that both options are Artha worthy. If he turns tail and runs, he gets an Artha point for playing his idiom. However, if he betrays his BITs and chooses the heroic path, then he will be rewarded with a point of Artha - perhaps Rolling with the Punches or some other category.

I believe this is the way the relationship between Artha and BITs was intended. I would not prefer to have anything stricter in terms of rules that would take away this choice.

Quote
It is my opinion that both options are Artha worthy. If he turns tail and runs, he gets an Artha point for playing his idiom. However, if he betrays his BITs and chooses the heroic path, then he will be rewarded with a point of Artha - perhaps Rolling with the Punches or some other category.

ABSOLUTELY.  The point is NOT to turn characters into robots.  The point is to say THIS...THIS THING...RIGHT HERE...is what is important.  

And here's the cool part...important to the PLAYER.

Important to the character is irrelevant because at the end of the day, a character is just a piece of paper with numbers on it and a vision in our shared imaginary space.  All that matter is what is important to the player.  To the extent that "playing in character" is important to the player, great.  To the extent that "challenging the archetype" is important to the player, great.  But it all comes back to the player.  

By highlighting what's important, any act that ADDRESSES that importance is a powerful addition to the story...confirms it, denies it, adhers to it, violates it...doesn't matter, it got addressed and thus had impact.  That's what makes it Artha worthy.

I'm not sure if you're really seeing what I'm getting at or not.  Your comment about about "people who need rules for everything and people who can use their imagination" is so 100000% off the mark I don't even know where to begin.  Maybe that was just one of those off the cuff remarks that get made...but if so...its definitely an example of a blinders producing mantra.

Hi Tae,

Upon further reflection, and Ralph's post, here's something of note:

QuoteFurther, BW considers personal drama and story-telling to be just as important as the dice.

Which is exactly why I'm pushing for more guidelines on using BITs.  This also completely links into my statement that BW backs off at the point of actually stating that there are "bigger goals in play" than simply "realism" and leveling up.  If it's important, it deserves guidelines.

Chris

Quote from: Valamir

Quote
Your comment about about "people who need rules for everything and people who can use their imagination" is so 100000% off the mark I don't even know where to begin.  Maybe that was just one of those off the cuff remarks that get made...but if so...its definitely an example of a blinders producing mantra.

It was meant to express how frustrating it must be for a game designer to create a balance between these extreme camps. It was meant to express my opinion that these new artha rules do a good job of achieving that balance.

I am sure I could express this sublime thought properly in Haiku, but I suck at poetry. And I can't write Japanese. ;)

Chris, Ralph:

I've been thinking a lot about your comments on BITs in BW and I want to thank you. You've got my gears turning. I don't have any answers yet, but I am thinking on the subject.

thanks again, I really do appreciate the comments and wrangling.

-L

(must...play...more...)

Hi Luke,

Thanks for your input and thoughtful replies.  I'm interested in seeing what churns out from your thoughts about this.  I'd also like to see what you think if you get a chance to play some Riddle of Steel, the Pool, Hero Wars/Quest, or some Trollbabe as examples of games that do things differently but have elements of what BW does, in very different and interesting ways.

Looking forward to your musings,

Chris