[Burning Wheel] stuck with new campaign

[ffilz]

4 weeks ago, I decided that things weren't looking good for my Cold Iron campaign, and suggested to the players we try something else. I pitched several games including Dogs in the Vinyard and Burning Wheel. The players settled on Burning Wheel and we brainstormed about a campaign and came up with a conspiracy idea, but not a lot of details. We then started burning characters.

Out of that first session, we wound up with a Roden arsonist, an Elven healer, and a human soldier captain (whose unit had been ambushed, he suspected as part of the conspiracy). The 2nd session, we struggled with beliefs and instincts. The 3rd session, after getting some advice on the Burning Wheel boards, we re-worked several beliefs and instincts. In the meantime, I had also met a fourth player and burned a character with him. At the end of the 3rd session, I was desperate to roll some dice, so I quickly set something up so each player could make a test (which resulted in the Roden blowing himself up while making firebombs, and the healer patching him up). These tests were all sort of flat. Come the 4th session, I pointed out that most of the characters weren't well tied into things. The fourth player had re-burned his character, and the Roden player (the young husband of all my previous campaigns, the elf is played by his wife), burned a new Roden that was a spy in the employ of the 4th player's PC. I had also built a conflict web following Chris Chinn's suggestions, and we tied the characters into it. This session, we had a bit more time, and I managed to inject several conflicts.

But with all of that, and 4 sessions under the bridge, I'm still really stuck. The players really aren't engaged. The young wife has been reading comics, and has twice asked why we weren't playing Dogs in the Vinyard which she rather liked (this sort of floored me, she has never made any statements before that suggested she actually had preferences for play - mostly I've just noticed things she doesn't like). I still haven't figured out how to turn all the mess I've got (PCs with their BITRs, conflict web, and campaign brainstorming) into something that I can run.

Before trying Dogs, I was unsure of this non-map based, conflict resolution stuff, but Dogs was fun to run. I knew what to do. Now it does help that Dogs has lots of sample towns available. I've looked at the three sample Burning Wheel scenarios, but none of them really strike a spark for me. I don't know if Burning Wheel is just totally not the right game for me and my players (I think one issue may be their degree of understanding how much capability they have for input, and perhaps us as a group not knowing how to negotiate that input). Or perhaps I'm just not invested in what came out of the brainstorming (I really am at a loss for how to turn the conspiracy idea into something playable).

Part of me is tempted to punt on Burning Wheel for now, and perhaps run Dogs to get the players better on board with this new fangled conflict resolution and narativist supporting gaming. Or maybe there's a better game (but now I'm a little reticent to try something new, feeling burned by the wheel...).

For reference, here are some posts I've made to the Burning Wheel forums:
[Conspiracy in Portland] Getting started - how to flesh out
[Conspiracy in Oregon] The court sorceror
[Conspiracy in Oregon] The human army captain
[Conspiracy in Oregon] Rubia Soldwells Elf Healer
[Conspiracy in Oregon] "Roast"

Frank

[Ron Edwards]

Yikes ...

Well, if I'm interpreting correctly, my first question is, Does the "conspiracy" seem interesting or important to you? Because from where I'm sitting and reading, it seems to me as if it's just a word, at present. I mean, we can all say the word and pretend it means something, but ultimately, it doesn't.

There has to be a conspiracy to do something, make something, destroy something, or whatever. In other words, stuff has to be happening. If you have a conspiracy, but stuff isn't happening, then, well, you don't really have a conspiracy, you just have a word and are looking around wondering where the stuff-happening is.

Therefore the next question is, given your conspiracy, what should happen? And hit the characters with that like a ton of bricks at the very start of the next session.

Best, Ron

[ffilz]

Conspiracy to do what? Yea, that's a big part of the problem (well maybe it is the entire problem). Part of what is happening is that I was hoping that the players, after proposing that a conspiracy be afoot, would somehow give me some suggestions as to what it is. About the only hint I have is the soldier's having been set up for failure. Of course the big question is why was he set up? I'm not sure any of the other players are really invested in the idea of a conspiracy at all, and to be honest, I guess I'm not invested either.

I guess the big problem I'm having is that I want something other than "kill things and take their treasure" for Burning Wheel, but I'm struggling to understand how to set that up. I found Dogs in the Vinyard very helpful in telling me how to set up "there are towns with problems, and you're the people with authority to pass judgement on them." And I guess I could run Burning Dogs in the Vinyard, but it seems like if that's what I'm going to run I should just use Dogs in the Vinyard.

So what it comes down to is that I'm struggling with what the core story of Burning Wheel is, and how do you prep for that? And how do you get player buy in? Because I don't think I have player buy in to anything right now.

Right now, it feels like we've just done chargen masturbation... And I see the young wife, having for the first time in a long while (if ever) seen what play could be like (in the Dogs game), questioning why we're piddling around with something that isn't going anywhere.

Frank

[Ron Edwards]

Got it. You have just done character-generation masturbation. Couple concepts to go through ...

1. There is no Burning Wheel "core story." Stories are constructed wholly through play when player-characters' Beliefs, Instincts, and Circles come into conflict-of-interest with the NPCs and situations constructed by the GM. Dogs gives you the training wheels of town structure and the socially-mandated role of the Dogs themselves; Burning Wheel has no training wheels.

2. You said "conspiracy" and then sat back and waited, to see what the players would give you for what it is? Dude, the players have sat through what is it, four sessions, waiting to see what you will give them for what it is! You need to realize that you have been inadvertently torturing them. Geez, if I ran four sessions like that, my players would tar and feather me.

I'm not sure what to tell you, except this ...

Say to the group, guys, I have screwed up. You asked for a conspiracy, and I didn't give you one. I have not been a good Burning Wheel GM. Next session, I will hit you like a tidal wave. I will know what the conspiracy is about, and what kind of people are colluding in it. I will introduce at least two interesting NPCs per player-character, each with his or her own agenda. I will provide a wealth of information regarding the possible nature of the conspiracy. I will drive every action of conspiracy-member NPCs toward fulfilling the conspiracy's goals.

Then see if they want to keep playing.

Best, Ron

[ffilz]

Actually, one of the players said "conspiracy" when we were brainstorming ideas. I guess my bad was accepting that input without either having a good idea myself of how I might set up a conspiracy, or without driving the players for more input as to what they wanted. Part of what went wrong with that brainstorming session is that I didn't manage to communicate/negotiate with the players what degree of input they had.

Ok, so either I say "I fucked up" and we start over, or I say "I fucked up, and now I'm going to deliver." Do you have any pointers for some good formulas for constructing a good conspiracy? I've got a decent start on a web of NPCs (and it won't take too much more work to draw connecting lines between them and the PCs). I'm also inclined to borrow a bit from Dogs and determine what each NPC wants from the PCs (which given the wider scope might be "I want PC X dead"), and even the "what happens next if the PCs don't come along" is useful. But where I'm really stuck is what does the outline of a conspiracy really look like?

I assume a first step is to look at each PC, and try and guess how the conspiracy could threaten that PC's way of life (presumably by threatening their beliefs).

I feel like this should be easy, but somehow I'm stuck (and I'm wondering if my "stuck" is really "I don't want to play" or "these PCs don't have hooks that grab me", is the latter something that other GMs struggle with?).

Ok, so let me present one of the PC's beliefs and an NPC, and ask what you might do to challenge that belief:

The soldier's belief: General Roxhythe has all the answers (about why the soldier was set up - I think in the last session the player tuned this belief some to make it more action oriented - like "and I will get the answers from him").

My current thought is that the general is part of a conspiracy to overthrow the current ruler.

Frank

[Ron Edwards]

You should check out Conspiracy of Shadows, from Bob Goat Games. It's dedicated specifically to building a conspiracy for a harsh, gritty fantasy setting and the set-up/prep guide in its text would slot straight into Burning Wheel without a hitch. It's also short (for an RPG) and very easy to read, so I think it's ideal for your purposes. Best advice for what you're looking for that I can think of, in all of RPG history.

Best, Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Whoops - posted too fast and overlooked your question.

I think going for the Beliefs and so on, right at this moment, is premature. You should focus exactly on what the conspirators want, why they can't have it, and what they plan to do about that. Then the good strong look at the character sheet (what you're doing now) should come next.

Best,
Ron

[ffilz]

Ok, thanks for all of that. I've ordered the CoS PDF (and the companion also). I may have to stall for tomorrow's session...

Any suggestions as to what to do for the short term, or would I be better off playing a board game tomorrow?

Frank

[Ron Edwards]

Well, I hesitate to intrude quite this far into your choices. If it were me, I think the little speech I suggested plus a board game would be best for tonight, and then you can prep and think for the following session. Especially for the Burning Wheel ... really good NPCs take some time to construct.

Best, Ron

[Keith Senkowski]

If I may, a good conspiracy in an RPG has to center on the characters and the player's interests.  So having a conspiracy about the overthrow of a government that the characters are not a part of or have no vested interest in probably won't pop as well as a conspiracy centered around what they are actually involved in.  The Players need to want to choose a side, and the only way to get that to happen is to tie it to things like the character's beliefs, their lifepaths, and traits.  Those are the signals as to what they are interested in and the conspiracy needs to touch on that to be successful.

Keith

[Thor Olavsrud]

Hi Frank,

There's some really great advice already in this thread. Let me see if I can add to it.

Let's start at the beginning. Here is your campaign:

Roden Beliefs:
* Fire purges all wrongs.
* Roden should be equals!
* Possett was wrong about the interlopers

Elf Healer Beliefs:
* War should be only the last resort.
* Nature will always provide.
* Roden can change for the better.

Army Captain Beliefs:
* I will bring those responsible for my comrade's deaths and my disgrace to justice.
* I will find allies for my quest.
* As the elves defend their forests, they defend the cities.

Court Sorcerer Beliefs:
* Increase your houses power, increase your own
* The law exists for everyone's protection.
* + 1 more

The first thing I'll say is that I'm not surprised you're having trouble. With experience and continued application, we're learning more and more what it takes to write a really good Belief that drives the game forward. Most of the Beliefs that I see here are what we've come to call 'proto-beliefs.' That means that they're a good solid foundation, but they don't take you all the way. They can if you know your players really well and understand what exactly it is they want out of what they've written, but if you don't know exactly what it is they want out of them, you're probably going to founder.

I hesitate to pound on this too much, because I recognize that you've already struggled with Beliefs a great deal. On the other hand, exploring it is probably the only way to resolve some of the frustration you've been experiencing. When all cylinders are firing, Burning Wheel should be very easy to run, as it's just a matter of firing off Bangs aimed at the Beliefs players have written.

Here's my current thinking on Beliefs:

* A belief should contain an ideological stance of some sort.
* A belief should contain a goal in the "I achieve this goal and earn a Persona point" sense.
* A belief should express how the ideological stance drives the character to achieve the goal.

Among these Beliefs, the only one that currently achieves this is: "I will bring those responsible for my comrade's deaths and my disgrace to justice."

This is a Belief that will drive that player into action if you punch the right buttons. Here's my rule of thumb for GMing into the Beliefs a player has written for his character: When a player gives you a Belief, you should be able to say to yourself: "Oh REALLY?! Let's see if you still believe that if THIS happens."

For instance, what happens if one of the people responsible for the deaths is a Relationship that the captain really cares about? What if the captain can only bring them to justice by further disgracing himself or disgracing his dead comrades? That's bloody rare story meat.

The Army Captain's second Belief, "I will find allies for my quest," is close. It has a clear goal. But it lacks emotional gravitas. Most of the Beliefs of the other characters have awesome ideological stances, but lack goals and action that the player wants his character to undertake in pursuit of that goal.

And when I say goal, I mean goal. We tend to be very mercenary about it, by which I mean that each player generally resolves a Belief at least once every three sessions. During that period, we earn Fate points for playing up the Belief each session, and earn a Persona point for resolving it.

That leads to another important point that can't be stressed enough: Beliefs are not meant to remain static. They are designed to grow and change. To be strengthened, weakened, resolved or broken. If a Belief expresses something about your character that you never want to change, then it should be expressed as a trait instead. Even then, it could be voted off by the other players if you fail to play it.

I want to stress that you haven't done anything wrong and neither have your players. This is an example of where the text of the book failed to convey what happens at our table. It's compounded by the fact that at our table, we often wrote Beliefs just like the ones your players have written. It's just that for us, the unwritten elements were understood by all.

[ffilz]

Ron - thanks for the input, I've royally screwed up on this one.

Keith - that was my impression, and part of what I've been struggling with. If the PCs don't have things they care about that can be threatened by a conspiracy, it's going to be hard to pull them in.

Thor - Thanks for that input. What I've posted so far doesn't represent the latest round of beliefs, though I also just after last weeks session, saw your latest thoughts. The Roden Arsonist has been replaced with a Roden thief/spy that should fit things better. The human sorceror has also dropped his sorcery and now is a merchant/information monger.

I was able to acquire the PDFs last night, and started to work out some details for the conspiracy. As I got into things, I think I'm understanding part of my reticence for a conspiracy theme. In the past, I have been very reticent to have a "plot" for RPG campaigns, for two reasons, first, I think early on, I picked up on the potential for illusionism when the GM has some story to tell, and second, my interest in a particular scenario only lasts for a few sessions.

I need to give this a bit more thought, but at the moment, I'm leaning towards appologizing for moving forward on a campaign premise that I wasn't really invested in. I hate to piss off all the time already spent, but I feel like we need to go back to square one and get everybody on board for whatever game we're going to play. If Burning Wheel is still to be on the table, perhaps I should run one of the demo scenarios so the players have a better idea how BITs work in Burning Wheel.

My other thought is to pitch the initial "conspiracy" idea, and drive harder on the beliefs as Thor suggests, and take the existing characters with improved beliefs, and just start pounding at them. Perhaps the conspiracy could drift into the background somewhat, or perhaps different conflicts that the players are more invested in would arise from improved beliefs.

I also wonder about the fact that most of the PCs do not have any relationships. Thor - do you have any thoughts on that?

Frank

[Mayuran]

Hey Frank-

at the moment, I'm leaning towards appologizing for moving forward on a campaign premise that I wasn't really invested in. I hate to piss off all the time already spent, but I feel like we need to go back to square one and get everybody on board for whatever game we're going to play.

You and your group seem pretty dedicated to making the game work, so that's great. All is not lost.

I think it's a good idea to take advantage of the bumps in the road to talk about the situation you want in the game. It's hard for me to help you with some bangs because I'm not sure what the Conspiracy is about. It really should be fleshed out before play started, but, as Thor said, the tools to actually create a great situation aren't something provided by the text.

It doesn't mean you're doomed - but focusing on what you and the players can do is quite important.

From what I see in your threads - someone is trying to overthrow the government. These are the "villains" and involve some Orcs and other things. They have contributed to the slaughter of the human soldier's comrades, and are trying to involve the rodens in some way. The players are all in separate areas - their beliefs don't necessarily intertwine or conflict with each other. They could be playing in separate games, and have no immediate need to be in each others scenes. Your goal seems to be to use these sessions to push them together, but making them all ally for/against this conspiracy.

In the past, I have been very reticent to have a "plot" for RPG campaigns, for two reasons, first, I think early on, I picked up on the potential for illusionism when the GM has some story to tell, and second, my interest in a particular scenario only lasts for a few sessions.

In a traditional "mystery" game, the GM controls all the secrets and doles them out to the players when they succeed at certain tasks. Burning Wheel offers the tools for the players to establish the facts of the mystery in play. In fact, the players need to know that they can establish the situation through their tests and conflicts.

For example, let's say the player of the soldier wants to find one of the men involved in the betrayal of his troops. That's a circles test. In fact the player can say "The person who is involved is a soldier in another unit" (within his circles) and "I know him through my affiliation in the 13th Legion." This person may not exist on the existing relationship map. He rolls his circles, and if he succeeds, he's found the guy successfully. If he fails, the GM can activate the emnity clause "you find him, but he hates you."

(One thing that is important to note in Circles tests is that the increased obstacles for time/place/etc are optional, and only matter if time and distance are important to the game.)

Make every scene confront a players belief. Push on those beliefs and they will push back - make sure they know that a belief  can change as a result of a conflicts, and should when the players find it appropriate. That allows them to grow as they engage with each other.

Good luck and keep us posted.

peace

mayuran

[Jasper the Mimbo]

something struck me as I was reading this. What ever this conspiracy is, it's been moving foreward for four game sessions now regardless of if the PC's know it or not, right. I don't know how much time has passed in the game world during those sessions,  the question is, how much time does it take before the conpiracy does something noticeable, maybe even catastrophic, to the existing power structure. The PC's may have been in a place to do something about it, but didn't. Out of game it was due to the problems that have been being discussed so far. In game, it's because of lack of information or action on the part of the characters. As Ron said, something needs to happen, and it needs to be big.

One of my favorite things to do is to give the players a world (a frame of reference), spend enough time in it that they are comfortable or complacent (I try not to let them get bored, but it occasionally happens), and then I dump it on it's head. Yank the carpet out from under them. See how they react.

My most successful games have started out event based. All it takes is a timetable. This will happen at this time, unless the PC's do something about it. If they beat it, they're involved. They've made enemies of the people they stopped. Game is set. If they don't beat it (my favorite) the scramble in the wake of the event has every one confused and reactionary. Everyone has an agenda to consolidate or re-establish power in the wake of the disaster, and the ones who set it in motion in the first place have an advantage because they were the only ones ready. So what's their next plan. And the cycle starts over with another event timetable.

There's my two cents. Hope it sparks something.

[ffilz]

Jasper - actually, while we have gathered together for 4 sessions, we have yet to actually start playing...

Some things I was thinking about last night after reading through CoS... First off, in general, I'm not much of a TV person. I've heard of X-Files but have never watched it. Another thought I had, when I did watch TV, it was in the late 60s through the 70s or so. Actually, I pretty much stopped watching TV by the time I started gaming. One interesting note - the TV I watched was mostly non-serialized compared to much of the TV folks quote as source material these days. I suspect this partially informs my play (on the other hand, I have read plenty of serialized novels - but I also pretty quickly rejected the thought that an RPG would ever really come out like a novel). To this extent, Dogs in the Vinyard's structure happens to fit really well with my play style. On the other hand, I see a problem with this disconnected style for me - there's nothing long term to develop. In the past, I've solved that issue by having a GMPC (NPC party member who gets XP and levels up like the PCs). I'm curious how long I could run Dogs before I would burn out - would watching the PCs develop based on how I push them be enough?

Mayuran - you're right that the players have showed a lot of patience (except for the young wife). Things may be salvageable, but clearly I need to lay it all out on the table that I've been going about things wrong, and really wasn't invested in the campaign premise. From there we can decide where to go. If they are interested, I'm willing to spend one more week trying to set up a conspiracy, but personally, at this point, I think it would be more productive to re-vision the game. Perhaps if I can get one solid belief for each PC, I would have something to start pushing, and once they see how things work, the rest of the beliefs can be brought online.

Frank