Moral Question, Author Stance, and the planted player

[agony]

I've been a lurker for a short while now and will not pretend to know a great deal about GNS.  I was not quite sure if my post fit in this section but it does pose a question concerning implementation of theory with in game play.

At this point I plan to be running a Burning Wheel campaign in the future, it will be my first game containing a great deal of Author Stance and player authorship (as well as utilizing Kickers/Bangs and the like).  I have co-developed the concept of the campaign with the players and what I have thus far is basically they will embark upon an epic quest (this is fantasy) and will be heading off to locate a fabled horn which is said to be able to reunite the realms of man (which have been defeated and subjugated).  The players are each champions in their own right and will be going after the thing for different reasons.  I will leave this up to them, but the most common reason thus far is to use it to actually reunite the human realms and not for an alterior motive.

My first question thus far is the Moral Question I wish to pose in order to facilitate the crafting of their Kickers.  I thought about simply asking, "What are you willing to sacrifice in order to reunite the realms of man?"  After reconsideration I realized one or more of the players may be seeking the item for completely different reasons (I will get to that in a second).  So I revised the question merely to, "What are you willing to sacrifice in order to obtain the horn?"  This is sort of rubbing me the wrong way however as it seems awfully specific and not really hitting the theme of the campaign on the head.  The theme will of course be the corruption of man (which is why the human realm was subjugated and defeated originally) and it will rear its ugly head in play.  Perhaps I should change the question as to "Why?" instead of "What?" or do you have any specific suggestions? 

Second question.  I have a player who has expressed that he may like to play a planted character which may/will betray the group at the climax.  This runs completely in line with the theme as he will be looking to turn the horn over to the enemy (whether he's a spy or he is doing so because he has been forced he will need to work out).  In doing this and utilizing Player Authorship and their Beliefs/Instincts/Traits (Burning Wheel attributes) I was wondering whether I should keep this from the other players.  The surprise factor could be astonishing...but is that really what I should be looking for when using Player Authorship and running Narativist play?  Should I simply make it known to the whole group ahead of time so that the group can riff off each others roleplay and even facilitate actions they wish to see occur?

Thanks for listening.

[ScottM]

Sounds like a good setup- particularly since the players are interested.

For the kickers, I don't think you need a solid moral question.  (In fact, I don't think you'll ever need to be able to articulate your Premise).  You just need to make sure that their kickers are dramatic and large-- the kicker should explain why the character's shaken out of their old life or old habits.  It can be anything-- an assassination attempt by unknown people, a random mugging-- anything that would be a dramatic start to a story.  Of course, the heart of it comes when you weave the character kickers in with your background, making whatever they come up with the center of your story.  [Note: That could be difficult, since you already have a center to your story selected-- the quest for the horn.] This thread has some good advice on what's required in a kicker.

The betraying character sounds cool.  The biggest question, to me, is how much play will go on before the betrayal?  If it's a session, you might get away with the pausing the game and passing notes, but if it's going to be longer, I suggest that you have him play it openly at the table.  The other players might get excited by it and get themselves in more trouble.  The signifigant thing here is to prevent predetermination... he might set his character up to be a betrayer-- but it'll work best if at the moment of betrayal, he's honestly tempted to go either way.

A couple of cents,
Scott

[agony]

Thanks for the feedback Scott, appreciate the link as well.

The betrayal will be long term, and your suggestions concerning that are doubly fruitful.  I will need to converse with the player a greater deal but letting the group know that he may betray them in the end will certainly jolt them into adding their two cents when it comes to player authorship.  It will definately be better then that the players know his true beliefs and can help riff off his own bangs as well as each others. 

[Bankuei]

Hi A (is there a real world name I can call you by?),

Welcome to the Forge!

It might help you in setting things up to know that you don't actually have to have a specific moral question in mind when you start play- what you need is a meaningful theme that the players can riff off of and make a question from that.   

For example, if the quest is to unite humanity, then the ideals and motivations behind that are where you're going to get interesting stuff.  "What are you willing to sacrifice for task X?" is sort of a mask- the real questions are "How much will you sacrifice for ambition?  How much will you sacrifice for love?  For truth?  For freedom?"  A perfect example of that is the story behind the movie Hero.  The characters have multiple motivations and through the story, make choices between those and reveal aspects of themselves (including the false stories).

If you were playing Sorcerer, Humanity is exactly that focal point that everyone bases their Kickers and motivations off of.  In this case, the real question to put to the players is "Why would you go on this massive quest?" and it would be up to the players to produce a meaningful and plausible reason for the Big Quest.

With that- if one player wants to play the Judas, it would be more useful for everyone to try playing it with full player knowledge that this is the setup.  Let the players engineer greater tragedy and drama in the betrayal by making their characters into best friends, to share hard times and really develop it for maximum drama.  And you hand out Artha the whole way.

Plus- that means when the moment of betrayal is up, then the player can make a REAL statement- is friendship or duty more important?  Therein will lie his personal moral question, and it will be really awesome because the whole table will KNOW the weight of the question for that player.

Chris

[agony]

Hi A (is there a real world name I can call you by?),

Welcome to the Forge!

It might help you in setting things up to know that you don't actually have to have a specific moral question in mind when you start play- what you need is a meaningful theme that the players can riff off of and make a question from that.   

For example, if the quest is to unite humanity, then the ideals and motivations behind that are where you're going to get interesting stuff.  "What are you willing to sacrifice for task X?" is sort of a mask- the real questions are "How much will you sacrifice for ambition?  How much will you sacrifice for love?  For truth?  For freedom?"  A perfect example of that is the story behind the movie Hero.  The characters have multiple motivations and through the story, make choices between those and reveal aspects of themselves (including the false stories).

If you were playing Sorcerer, Humanity is exactly that focal point that everyone bases their Kickers and motivations off of.  In this case, the real question to put to the players is "Why would you go on this massive quest?" and it would be up to the players to produce a meaningful and plausible reason for the Big Quest.

With that- if one player wants to play the Judas, it would be more useful for everyone to try playing it with full player knowledge that this is the setup.  Let the players engineer greater tragedy and drama in the betrayal by making their characters into best friends, to share hard times and really develop it for maximum drama.  And you hand out Artha the whole way.

Plus- that means when the moment of betrayal is up, then the player can make a REAL statement- is friendship or duty more important?  Therein will lie his personal moral question, and it will be really awesome because the whole table will KNOW the weight of the question for that player.

Chris

Insightful as well as completely clear and concise.  Thanks for the responses both of you, definately helped get the ball rolling where it had been stuck in the mud.

You can call me Charles by the way.

[M. J. Young]

I'm hoping I am not too late to contribute meaningfully to this situation, but I'm going to suggest a slightly different tack on this.

I don't think that "this character is going to betray the group" is a terribly useful thing to say about a character at the beginning of the game. That's actually part of what is ultimately going to be answered.

I think instead, this is where this player's kicker lies. It's probably something like "The enemy has become aware of the horn, and has promised to destroy your family/your village/whomever you hold dear if you do not deliver it to them." Thus the character starts the quest believing that his intention is to betray the party, but he is not locked into this. It then becomes his means of addressing the premise, whether or not he ultimately sacrifices all that he holds dear to save the more general mankind, or betrays the party in the end, even though as he starts he is intent on the latter.

Similarly, I think that your kickers could very well incorporate the reason each of the characters is on the quest in a way that is not always entirely altruistic. Assuming that they come from different areas of mankind, it's easy enough to imagine more than one of them heading out with the assumption that once the horn is blown, his people, or even he himself, will be the leader of this new unified humanity. One member of the party might have it in mind that he wants to find the horn to prevent it from being blown--there is, after all, a certain motivation that the big fish in the small pond has to prevent the dam from combining all the ponds into one big one where he would be a small fish.

For those who start out with the idea that they are after the horn for the entirely altruistic reason of saving humanity, they will (or at least should) be confronted with the quesiton of whether these other selfish companions of theirs are the ones they expect to save.

I think I would not tell all the players what it is that motivates each of the other characters toward this end, but let it come out in play. After all, the player whose character is on this quest to turn over the horn and save his village ought to have the ability to decide whether (and when) to tell his companions, or whether to mumble something about, "yeah, the good of mankind", or whether to get irate when confronted with the question.

I think that this will play better if the players discover each other's secrets through play.

Take that with however many grains of salt you wish, but I think that's much more what you want than "this character will betray the party at the end".

--M. J. Young