[The Burning Wheel] The Gift -- at MACE 2005

[Adam Dray]

There's an interview with Luke Crane over at Treasure Tables 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, Turtle

A 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.

The 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:

The 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 Abuse

Luke 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. ;)

[Luke]

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

[Adam Dray]

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.

[Mike Holmes]

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:

Believe 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

[Luke]

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.

Adam, you can see in my notes (in the Gift .zip) , 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

[Adam Dray]

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?

[Iskander]

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?

[Martin Ralya]

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.

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."

[Thor Olavsrud]

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.

[Mike Holmes]

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

[Adam Dray]

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.

[Bret Gillan]

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.

[Judd]

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?

[Bret Gillan]

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.

[Brand_Robins]

I 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.