[The Burning Wheel] "The Inheritance" at GenCon '06

[sjarvis]

At GenCon '06, I played in Luke Crane's Burning Wheel session of "The Inheritance," his 10-player Viking funeral aftermath game. It was one of the best role-playing experiences I've ever had in twenty-some years of playing RPGs. Because there were ten players at the table and a LOT of stuff going on --- sometimes all at the same time --- this is going to be a pretty impressionistic and less-complete AP than I would normally do. I just can't remember everything that happened in those four hours. I'm going to point out the big stuff that was important to ME and to my character. Others are welcome to fill in the detail (and correct me where I misremember something, which is certain to have happened).

In the group of ten, at least five or six of us had played Burning Wheel extensively, a couple had played some or at least read the books, and there were two newbies. The experience showed, which I didn't find surprising. The GM's role in this scenario is fairly minimal, really, as it's set up for a lot of PvP. Luke set the stage and managed the flow of scenes and adjudicated rules questions. It was impressive, because in my memory it seems like he didn't really DO all that much, which I know is wrong; he was just subtle about it MOST of the time.

Basic setup: Viking grandfather has died and the extended family is assembled for his funeral. There is a patriarch (the jarl), his wife (played by me!), two sons (one of whom begins the game exiled --- more on this below --- and who brings a man-at-arms with him), a Christian priest who is a long-time advisor to the jarl, a dwarf (also a long-time advisor to the grandfather and the jarl), the jarl's cousin (who is one-armed and therefore cannot die in battle), the cousin's crazy wife (a priestess of Odin), and the cousin's young daughter, who refuses to marry. Whew. LOTS of characters! I'll identify them all by their roles and family positions, as I can't remember the Viking names of anyone but my character (Fülla).

When Luke read the descriptions of all the characters, there wasn't really one I latched onto immediately, so I waited to see what others wanted. The others, however, weren't so picky. :) I ended up with the wife by default, which was fine with me. Turned out it was a good "choice," as she was full of conflict and potential. This was the beginning of something I learned about myself in this game: that I'm more interested in creating a cool story at the table than I am in developing my character or even having a character that I like, and I don't mean as a person, but as a character that I run. I think I've finally purged myself of any last vestiges of "Let me tell you about my cool character" to replace it with "let me tell you about the cool story we made!"

When our group plays Burning Wheel (and I think this is the norm), everyone at the table knows everyone else's Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits. The PLAYERS know, not the CHARACTERS. We've found that it can be MORE fun when you know what the other players BITs are and know that the hammer's gonna fall at some point, but you don't know how or when. In The Inheritance, none of use knew the other players' BITs, which is a little more traditional approach to that sort of thing. It turned out to be a lot of fun, though, which was surprising, as that was one of the things our home group has consciously abandoned. In The Inheritance, we were forced to interact with each other and reveal (or not) our motivations and secrets. My character was hiding a BOMB, and the anticipation leading up to the dropping of said bomb was a lot of the fun for me (so was the dropping itself and the fallout!).

We started with the funeral itself, lighting the grandfather's boat/pyre. Everyone got a bit of a speech as they contributed a flaming brand to the pyre. The players started asserting their positions and Beliefs. The exiled son showed up. Words were exchanged, the conflicts began. The son was exiled for killing his brother. My character was hiding the fact that the slain son had discovered her and the now-exiled son praying together, that they had secretly converted to Christianity. The exiled son had killed his brother protecting his mother, so she lived with the guilt of having cost her and her husband the loss of both sons. She wanted to heal the rift between the exiled son and his father, the jarl, with the goal of convincing the jarl to convert to Christianity so that she could confess her sins (as she saw them) and forgive the son and allow him to return.

The cousin's daughter had been in love with the slain son and refused to marry the third son (or anyone else, though the third son is in love with her) because of her undying love for the slain son. She blamed (as did everyone else), the exiled son for his death. So, we had a love triangle where one of the members is dead. Hot!

There were a LOT of different subplots running throughout the game, but I'm going to concentrate on the ones I've outlined so far since those are the ones I was directly involved in and which I remember the best. They also illustrate what was cool (to me, anyway) about the game and about Burning Wheel, for which I have an open and undying love.

One of the guidelines Luke set forth at the beginning of the session was that we were NOT going to use BW's extended combat mechanic --- called Fight! --- because we didn't have time to resolve a number of extended combats and still get in a number of Duel of Wits social combats and other sorts of scenes. Also, that was an excellent excuse to show off the simplified combat system in BW, the bloody versus test (which can be used to quickly resolve any sort of opposed conflict in BW). There are detractors of BW who complain that the scripted combat of Fight! is too weird or complex or whatever, but then complain that the bloody versus test (one opposed roll) is too simple or quick. In The Inheritance, we proved that the bloody versus test is quite effective even for really important conflicts. The key was in setting stakes for the bloody versus test that resolved the conflict that allowed the opposing sides some choice as to what "success" or "failure" meant other than "you die." I know that our home group will be using them more when we play BW now, and that's really the best endorsement I can give a mechanic.

So, machinations begin, whispered conversations are had, shouting is heard, tempers flare, etc., etc. --- the good stuff in a BW games, esp. one about Vikings. :)

Turns out the Dwarf says that Grandfather's last dying wish was for his Son and Nephew to die in battle (something that's unlikely for either, one being old and one being sans swordarm). The Dwarf is lying, of course, and misreads the grandfather's will on purpose. What the Grandfather REALLY wanted was for his son and nephew to convert to Christianity so that they might also go to Heaven. The Dwarf, being of the old faith, doesn't want this.

Nor does the Cousin's crazy priestess of Odin wife. The priestess has Faith, the emotional attribute in BW that lets you perform acts of divine magic. At one point she calls upon Odin to give them a sign, succeeds, and Odin cracks the gigantic Feasthall's table in two. Nice. ;) The fear of Odin has been smacked into the Jarl (and a lot of the others).

My character pleads to her husband the Jarl to welcome their son back into the family. She knows in her heart that SHE killed their eldest son (even though she didn't physically kill him --- she's a bit overwrought about that what with the guilt and worrying about going to Heaven and whatnot), so she wants to reunite her family and clear their exiled son. She also has the Aura of Martyrdom trait, which can only cause things to end badly. ;)

There's a scene where the Jarl tells his cousin to ensure that the cousin's daughter gets married, that it's his decision as to whom she marries. The cousin's crazy Priestess of Odin has him by the balls, though, and he shrinks from the jarl's command. The menfolk are arguing over who's going to tell the cousin's daughter whom to marry. At some point (and I'm a little hazy here about the details), I think the daughter had a DoW with the father, got a compromise and I THINK agreed to marry whomever he chose BUT not the exiled son, whom she blames for killing her true love (his older brother).

In the midst of this, I dropped The Bomb: "SILENCE, FOOLISH GIRL, for you know NOT of what you speak! [Second Son's difficult-to-remember Viking name] didn't kill his brother! I DID!" Now, she didn't REALLY smash his brains out with a rock (exiled 2nd son did that), but my character's more concerned about cause and effect and guilt. She thinks she caused his death, no matter what the instrument.

The response from the other players was amazing. They were really into their characters at this point. Oscar (Wuxia on the BW forum), player of the Jarl, played the Jarl in shock, going from a commanding ruler of his house and family to a nearly broken man, stunned by the horror that his wife and son(s?) are/were capable of causing all that ruin in his family. The daughter of the cousin decided, I think, at that point to kill the 2nd son, having confirmation that he did indeed commit murder, even if it was to protect his mother. She was none too happy with me, either, at this point.

The girl is now sorta desperate. She brews up some poison (and there's no way THAT can end well!). I'm a little unclear as to exactly what happened next in that side of the table, but there are some arguments that break out, the truth of the will is revealed (that the Jarl and his Cousin convert to Christianity), and the Jarl, surprisingly (but totally in keeping with the character) converts, pretty much on the spot, hoping to seek redemption for himself, his wife, his sons, everyone. Things fall apart rapidly at this point.

More arguing, and somehow the Jarl and his Cousin end up at odds and a fight breaks out. The Cousin (who has not converted) defends himself poorly with his off hand and is run through by the Jarl (the Jarl handily won the bloody versus test). That was one of the best scenes in the game: the Jarl embracing his Cousin and saying goodbye even as he runs him through in a fair fight, thus sending his Cousin to Valhalla. Hot!

Then there's some more arguing, something about the two sons and the man-at-arms fighting over the girl, who pulls out her poisoned dagger, intending --- I think --- to stab the exiled second son. Instead, she ends up stabbing MY character for causing the death of my character's eldest son. Because my character has the Martyr trait and one of her Beliefs is that she must confess her sin and redeem her exiled son, she doesn't defend herself and takes the dagger thrust and is poisoned. There's probably some ambiguity as to whether that was suicide or not, but I chose to have her believe that it was not (since Suicide is a sin, and being devout was one of her Beliefs). That was maybe the first time I had ever played a character into that situation and was that satisfied at the outcome. It's rare that your character gets killed and you still feel like you won the game. ;)

Then the Jarl and the exiled son and the third son get into some quick stabbing action, Bloody Versus tests are resolved and the Jarl and the second son die. I think the cousin's daughter gets killed by the second son for stabbing his mother, too. Other people get stabbed, too, or jump off cliffs, or run away. My character dies a lingering fevered death a few days later from the poison on the dagger and a broken heart. Only the Priestess of Odin (who runs away) and the Third Son (who gets all the Inheritance and is now Jarl) survive.

Good times. :)

The lessons I learned?

1. Turns out that creating a cool story and being fully engaged in making the story cool is AWESOME. I'm still recovering from a lot of old school style play with lots of conservative playing and resource management causing me problems from having FUN NOW. I think I may have burned the last of that out of my system finally, after two years of working on it.

2. In creating a really powerful, intense story like that, straight-up actor stance role-playing in front of a bunch of strangers is TOUGH on an introverted geek like myself, but I feel like I did a pretty decent job of it. I'm a natural roacher, I think, but that session certainly showed me what happens when I step up.

3. Duel of Wits is still my favorite RPG mechanic. I'm open and honest about my love for Burning Wheel. No doubt. But, DoW is a really powerful tool NOT because it allows you to have "social combat" in the game between the characters, but because it's so good for resolving conflicting goals BETWEEN THE PLAYERS. That's the magic of Burning Wheel in general ("It's about the PLAYERS, stupid"), but it especially shines in DoW. Thanks, Luke.

4. Bloody Versus tests work. They're not for everyone (nor is Burning Wheel) and not for every situation, but for quick conflict resolution-style combats they WORK, and work WELL. They especially work where things are moving fast and furious and slowing down to take up a Fight!-powered conflict might steal some of that momentum.

Thanks,

Steven

[Luke]

Hey Steve,

Can you describe some of your old habits? Can you talk about the game from the perspective of "old you"? What would you have done differently? During play, did you have impulse to roach? If so, how did you over come the instinct?

-L

[sjarvis]

Can you describe some of your old habits?

I think there are actually two things in play: (1) ditching some gamist play style habits and (2) the session being a one-shot con session. It being a one-shot sorta blew out some of those character/resource preservation tendencies even if it had been a game usually played in that style, so that, I'm sure affected my play, too.

But, primarily, it's been a slow process over the last couple of years (which has included a LOT of Burning Wheel play --- it's been our gateway drug) of getting out of that resource conservation/management type play: making decisions about conflicts in terms of "if I do this, what's the chance my character will die or have to expend too much of his [spells/hit points/gold/whatever]?" instead of "what's the most interesting way to add something cool to the story here?" I'm not purposely trying to bag on D&D or any other more gamist sort of game --- I enjoy that, too -- but with Burning Wheel in particular, I have MUCH MORE fun if I think more narratively. The problem for me, though, was that I tended to approach ALL games with gamist habits even when it wasn't what I WANTED to do (I didn't really know any other way to play) and when it wasn't fun. I think I've done that in our home group, too, but the Inheritance session was a really great example of concentrating on the story and how I could make that story better through my character.

I think a not insignificant factor in that for me was playing not only (1) a pre-gen but one that (2) I didn't choose and (3) is atypical of the sorts of characters I tend to play (sneaky bastards).

Can you talk about the game from the perspective of "old you"? What would you have done differently?

A couple of years ago, I would have been somewhat frustrated and bewildered in that session if I had played that character. I would have been more concerned about trying to "win," and I probably would have seen my Beliefs more as "goals" to be achieved. I would have been frustrated by those goals, though, because the character had conflicting Beliefs (though I can't recall exactly what they were)! I'm maybe being a little hard on myself, though. In the actual session, I reveled in those conflicting Beliefs because it game me more grist for the mill during play.

I probably would have gone for what appeared to be a more straightforward, "adventurer" sort of character, also. That probably wouldn't have helped all THAT, though, seeing how conflicted Fülla was. ;)

During play, did you have impulse to roach? If so, how did you over come the instinct?

The roach warning sirens were going off constantly during that session! I think that's primarily because I'm naturally a wallflower, and I was out of my safety zone of my regular group, who are okay with me playing in Author stance most (99.2%) of the time. It seemed more appropriate in that session to play in Actor stance, though, because there was some really good Actor stance play being thrown down. And when it came time for me to drop the bomb and deliver that speech, I felt that Actor stance was the way to go for it to have the most impact. So, I sucked it up and dove in. I'm sure there was some element of "Hey, it's a con game, and if you look like an idiot, you'll never have to see these people again" to it, too. I think it being a con session lowered my normal inhibitions somewhat about a number of things.

It was tough. I usually prefer the distance that Author stance allows me, even in really tense games. I find it less confrontational on a PLAYER level, even when I'm throwing my CHARACTER headfirst into all sorts of nasty confrontation. I'm a big wuss, I guess is what I'm saying. ;) But, that experience helped me get over that, if just by a teeny bit. I guess I'll find out tomorrow night, when I run Dogs for the first time.

Steven

[Sovem]

That was a really cool report, sounds like the game was a lot of fun.
I find that I'm in the same boat as you, having trouble adjusting to "let me tell you about the cool story we made!" from the "Let me tell you about my cool character" like you were talking about. Actually, I'm doing a lot better at it than my Players are, which can be a bit of a problem =T. Any suggestions of how to coax Players out of the latter mindset?