[Burning Wheel] Inheritance - MACE 2005 (long)

[lampros]

1. The action is so egregiously out of character as to break the 4th wall. (It didn't seem like it to me, but I wasn't there.)

What fourth wall? I'm confused.

Like, I was playing Unknown Armies, and a friend of mine created a liberal art student. Halfway through the game, he got bored and started playing the guy as a NRA maniac with a hair trigger temper. It was impossible to imagine or explain unless you focused on the OOC fact that my friend was bored and felt like killing something. That's the kind of thing I mean. Anything less extreme than that I go along with.

John: Sure, I'll keep anything personal I have to say out of this thread. Can we have the debate about GM intervention here? It seems relevant.

Alex

[Librisia]

Anyway, we deliberately attempted to design these women to be very potent. In our playtest session, in which I played Tyrvald, Fulla dominated play. The climax came when Tyrvald cursed her and attempted to run her through. He was killed by Einherjar's man instead. Einherjar killed his man for killing his father. And Fulla slit her throat in front of all for what she had done. So our initial experience was very different from yours.

Can you explain a little more why you felt that she wasn't at the heart of things?

Thor & Luke, I see some problems here.  Yes, I think Jonathan did bring baggage to the table.  It's likely the baggage I would have brought to the table as well.  You can't expect people to come baggage-free to anything.  That's unrealistic.  Most of the time, people don't even KNOW what their baggage is.  Forget trying to express it or get rid of it. 

Part of the problem I see in Thor's defense above is that he and Luke have been playing the game with its system since inception. You have a lot of knowledge that I think was unintentionally assumed during Jonathan's experience.  What I mean is this: when you are utterly familiar with something, it's often difficult to remember exactly what other people don't know or understand about it anymore.  I think that's part of what was going on.

Adam Dray, it seems that you know all of the ins and outs of the system, and know how to play a character and how to maximize your play by simply looking at a character sheet.  A new player has NONE of the that knowledge.  Jonathan could not, as a new player, look at his sheet and say, "Wow, I'll be able to kick butt in contested social roles!  Now I know how to play the character!"  Though there was a lot of passive character involvement in the Queen's history, perhaps there needed to be more active story elements that showed how the Queen could have been involved.  Some kind of non-vital bargaining session early on as a demonstration ... (just a thought).

Brand's critique sums up a lot of things. 

Personally, I can see both the pros and cons of the private planning sessions.  It keeps players from acting on knowledge their characters don't have.  I also think that plans, once made, need to be given to the GM.  Jonathan, you should have told Luke what you were planning the minute you had it finalized in you mind.

It sounds to me like there were old habits of play being used on Jonathan's part, but also that Luke assumed a lot of information that new players don't have. 

[Thor Olavsrud]

Krista,

That wasn't a defense. That was honest head scratching at the idea that the landowner's wife was not at the heart of the conflict, and shouldn't get involved in the "men" stuff, especially when the "men" stuff concerns the life of her son. It was me wondering whether the way something had been written suggested that she wouldn't challenge a man. I think the mechanical issues are a red herring. Yes, if you're trying to game the situation (and please don't construe this to mean I think that's a bad thing) then you need to understand the mechanical capabilities beyond the Beliefs. But I don't think it's necessary in order to address the character's issues.

It's her son that murdered her other son. It's her son that her husband exiled. It's her son that the priestess demanded be sacrificed to the gods for his sins. It's her husband, Tyrvald, that is struggling to find his way. And it's her family that is being shivered apart, largely due to decisions she has made.

This is just one of Fulla's beliefs: "I am guilty of a great sin—Einherjar murdered Baldir to protect me. Now I must shield him from Tyrvald's wrath and gain him the forgiveness he's deserved."

Yes, we designed her to be extremely potent mechanically, but I don't think understanding that she has a heroically strong Persuasion skill is necessary in order to choose a path for the character and a reason to mix it up with any and all characters in the game. She has a strong call to action.

This isn't about mechanical effectiveness. It's about willingness to engage with a character's issues. I'm sorry if this comes off as harsh. This is not an attempt to berate Adam and Jonathan. If you don't connect with a character, you don't. That's a danger of pregens and there's nothing we can do about it. But I think it's important to note that after running and playing in these scenarios many times, it's clear that one type of player will consistently have the most fun. And that type of player is the one that gets a character, decides on a course of action based on the character's Beliefs, and then continually asks himself (or herself) "How can I pursue this course of action in a way that creates the most fun (and most interesting decisions!) for everyone else in the group?"

[Brand_Robins]

But I think it's important to note that after running and playing in these scenarios many times, it's clear that one type of player will consistently have the most fun. And that type of player is the one that gets a character, decides on a course of action based on the character's Beliefs, and then continually asks himself (or herself) "How can I pursue this course of action in a way that creates the most fun (and most interesting decisions!) for everyone else in the group?"

Yes.

To be explicit here: I don't think either Luke or Jonathan did anything wrong. There was no huge dysfunction here, no "OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DID THAT!" There was, however, a lack of connection that led to the game not being all that it could be. Sometimes in games, especially demo games, that just happens. Especially demos of games that are doing something different than the games the players have experienced before.

I started posting on this thread (and the other one) because I want to learn from Luke as a GM. I also want to learn about expectations of players in demo and con games, as next GenCon is going to be demo city for me. So seeing places where things go right and where they go less than well are both important to me.

One of the things I see going on here is that there is a very definite expectation built into the Burning Wheel demos. I've read The Gift, the Heist, and The Sword and see it there as well. You sum up that expectation perfectly, and give it clarity and focus. However, assuming an intuitive understanding of that focus among your players isn't helpful to people that aren't your ideal type. If you want to maximize the fun that many types of people have around the table, you have to help them figure that out and figure out how to do that. (Which, yes, I know isn't fully possible in a 4 hour demo game and I'm asking for the Sun and the Moon -- but I refuse to believe there are no better tools than "if you get it you get it, if you don't you don't.) 

Now how can we help more people get to the point of being that player? Of even understanding that they are supposed to be that player?

Nik, I think, missed an important point of this: the whole "most fun for other players" -- which is why Luke had the negative reaction to Nik's final choice. However, it also sounds like Nik didn't fully get that part of it. He was pushing for as strong a character statement as possible, and in the mixed dialogue of the table got caught more in the "push as hard as you can and let others push back only so far as they can step up and do it" angle. How do we get Nik to keep the character intensity, but focus on making choices to push the game rather than just his own agenda?

Similarly, Jonathan, would it have helped you if when you talked to Luke he'd focused you on doing the most good for the other players in terms of story generation rather than pushing you back towards the will reading? Would it have helped if at the start of the game someone had given it to you the way Thor did above? What tangible actions would have helped you get at being the player you wanted to be for that session? Did the diplomacy style sideboards make you feel more competitive with other players, or more cooperative? If it had all happened at the table, showing everyone everything, would it have helped? Or were the sideboards fine? What about more communication above game? Less push, more pull?

What about the OOC banter around the table? Was there enough? Were you talking openly about your character and how she was getting pushed? Were others talking about that for their characters?

And... That's a lot of questions. I'll stop there.

[Adam Dray]

Adam Dray, it seems that you know all of the ins and outs of the system, and know how to play a character and how to maximize your play by simply looking at a character sheet.  A new player has NONE of the that knowledge.  Jonathan could not, as a new player, look at his sheet and say, "Wow, I'll be able to kick butt in contested social roles!  Now I know how to play the character!"  Though there was a lot of passive character involvement in the Queen's history, perhaps there needed to be more active story elements that showed how the Queen could have been involved.  Some kind of non-vital bargaining session early on as a demonstration ... (just a thought).

Whoa, nelly. I've played Burning Wheel once, in another of Luke's demos at MACE ("The Gift"). I was inquiring about Duel of Wits only to find out if Jonathan had the opportunity to use his character's social strengths within the mechanics or if he was just trying to freeform it through role-playing. No judgment or recommendation about what he should have done should be inferred from what I wrote.

I, too, think that some kind of early bargaining session might have served the game well.

[Adam Dray]

As always, I think it just comes down to good communication. Every GM and player has to know he's on the same page as everyone else. Maybe things would have been better for Jonathan and Nik if Luke had said, "Okay, here's your character. Don't worry about winning. Concern yourself with doing the coolest thing possible that creates the most fun for the group. Make it yours. If you want to have the character change from what is written, here's how you do it." Or if Jonathan and Nik had chimed up about their frustrations earlier. Or any number of places where people weren't talking when they needed to be. Same problems in the game I played in, I'm sure.

[Luke]

Guys, we've reached the realm of purest speculation. So snow pure, in fact, that you're speculating about things that actually happened at the table.

As always, I think it just comes down to good communication. Every GM and player has to know he's on the same page as everyone else. Maybe things would have been better for Jonathan and Nik if Luke had said, "Okay, here's your character. Don't worry about winning. Concern yourself with doing the coolest thing possible that creates the most fun for the group. Make it yours. If you want to have the character change from what is written, here's how you do it."

I say something like this at the beginning of every game.

Jon, do you have anything more to say on the matter?
-L

[Jonathan Walton]

Luke, I think we're cool.  I mainly wanted to get this out there as game data, for all the people involved and for people not specifically involved to consider and reflect on.  I think people have hit most of the major issues at some point or another and I certainly gained a lot from writing the post, reading and articulating responses, and working through the emotional stuff lingering from the game.  I think specific suggestions about how to handle play is probably not the greatest solution, because roleplaying is a negotiation that requires new things each time, especially in dealing with the kinds of issues brought up here, but increasing awareness means we can all make different choices (if we decide that's what we want) or at least better informed choices (even if they're the same) next time.