Reading through BW, I feel like I am seeing a mix of creative agendas. I was wondering if some of the people who have played a lot of BW could chime in on how their BW games lean in terms of CA.

This is what I see:

Sim:
On the whole, I feel like sim is fairly dominant. Character creation with life paths and character advancement through use seem to focus on in-game causality. Also, Luke has done a lot of research on medieval society and warfare, and I think the combat system tries to be very realistic. There is no attempt to "balance" starting characters in terms of combat-baddassitude, which is realistic. A starting peasant farmer is simply NOT the equal of a knight. Most of the lifepaths we see are ordinary people life paths that don't look anything like D&D classes, which are basically all "adventurer" life paths.

Nar:
I'm not sure where BITs fall. I could see them facilitating naratavist play, but I feel like they might be better understood as facilitating exploration of character, which as has been argued elsewhere should not be conflated with narativism, although I admit I have a hard time differentiating them in my head.
Then you have Artha, which seems to be very naratavist. You get points for achieving goals for your character, playing your BITS, and contributing to the overall story.

Gamist:
Personally, I think the BW combat system rocks, which is great for a gamist agenda. Combat is very strategic. If you are clever, you can defeat a much stronger opponent. For example, circle around him until he has the sun in his eyes, then strike! Converseley, if you take a hack-and-slash attitude to combat, you're dead meat. Hack-and-slash is the enemy of gamism, since there is no "step on up." You just attack and roll. But the step on up factor in BW is high both because strategy is important and because the stakes are high, since combat is very deadly and healing magic is much less powerful than in D&D.

I'm very interested to see how well my predictions match both Abzu's intent and the way actual play turns out.

Also, if people agree that there are multiple creative agendas in the game's design, is this a problem? That is, in actual play, does this lead to GNS incoherence or does it smooth itself out?

PS: I'm kind of new to this whole GNS theory thing, so I hope I haven't made any GNS fallacies. I'm trying not to conflate the techniques and ephemera of the game with the creative agenda, but I definately think that certain techniques strongly facilitate certain agendas. (And isn't that the point of "System Does Matter"?)

Well, I don't qualify as having played "a lot", I think, having only 10-11 sessions under my belt, but I can comment on my experiences.

In the BW campaign I recently ran, we up front and explicitly decided to adopt a primarily simulationist agenda. This meant a focus on character and npc motivations, and a commitment to "let the dice speak" when they were invoked.

This was combined with explicit authority for players to assume director stance an introduce background and aspects of situation, with a GM veto.

In my experience, BW supports this mode of play quite well. The basic task system is set up to answer the question of "how well did you do, and how long did it take?" The main difficulty I had as a GM who was not used to so strict a mode was to get in the habit of setting explicit obstacles up front, rather than playing the game of "roll some dice and see if it looks good".

BITs in our experience played two functions, one being a source of inspirations for players to draw in determining "what is my motivation", and secondly being producers of Artha as beliefs and traits were reinforced or challenged in play.

I'd say from my experience that BW would *not* be suitable for gamist oriented play, despite the red herring of the combat system. I view the combat system as gamist only in the way that any competative simulation can be treated as a game. However, BWs lack of desire to provide any system enforced balance on character capabilities combined with no method of determining "degree of challenge" would seem to make a gamist drifted BW a recipie for disaster.

As for narrative play, I think the hooks are in place to support narrative drifting, but they are not quite as "baked" as the simulationist aspect. BITs as an engine for generating Artha certainly provides a feedback loop between addressing themes (which ought to be arising from BITs in the first place) and character effectiveness. They are not quite the hammer that something like SAs in TROS are, but then maybe that's not such a bad thing either, at least to my tastes.

Certainly an interesting question to ponder, as Ron's writing seems to suggest a greater harmony between narrativist and gamist goals than either of those two and sim, and yet BW does seem to have staked out some turf along a nar/sim axis.

Perhaps those with a better grasp on theory can weigh in...

As far as the theory goes, I wouldn't get too worked up worrying about it.

GNS (or more correctly the larger - as yet unnamed - theory that includes GNS is about actual play, not about categorizing game texts.

Looking at texts is useful only in the sense of trying to define elements that can help support different Creative Agendas in actual play.

I think your identifying various elements of BW with different CAs is pretty much on, at least solidly in the "close enough for the non pedantic" category.

In many ways BW represents the traditional notion of including a little bit of something for everyone. It doesn't focus on a single creative agenda (of course the game was written without reference to the GNS theory) but has a bunch of stuff that could be latched on to by different people looking to pursue different agendas.

I think if a group were to play BW exactly as written it would produce fairly incoherent play.

But BWs strength, one of the things that I fell in love with when I read it, is that its elements tied together pretty seemlessly making it very easy to drift.

I think most groups who play BW wind up drifting the game fairly notably without even realizing they're doing it. BW is a game that's easy to drift without needing to resort to a lot of house rules to do it with.

Simply by altering the way the players approach Artha can drift the game dramatically Sim or dramatically Nar, and both groups could properly lay claim to playing BW, and playing it "right".

I wholeheartedly endorse a theory-model that investigates and expounds upon actual play. I cannot endorse one that parses game texts. But the theories put forth on this site do exactly what I endorse, they support actual play.

So asking about the GNS of BW? Who knows. My question would be turned back on you, "How do you play Burning Wheel?"

That said, Burning Wheel was written with a number of very specific design goals in mind (design goals=play i wanted to foster and encourage):

1) What is it like to be there? I very much wanted to play in a game that took you into the moment. However, Burning Wheel sacrifices much much much "realism" in order to facilitate fast and smooth gameplay. I just want it to feel right, I don't actually want it to be right.

2) To grant players clearly defined control over their characters and the ability/rules to back this control up so they could use and manipulate that control independently of GM fiat. (This describes BITs and Artha). And as an unspoken adjunct to that, clearly defining the GM's role as overseer of everything that is not player character.


Did I want the game to be able to be played (drifted?) in a number of ways? Absolutely. I very deliberately refused to come down on either side of the fence in a number of places in the rules. This has caused some trouble, but has generally benefitted the game, I think.

Also, as a footnote, the combat system is deliberately and self-consciously designed to be a game within the game. It's the game of survival. You have many options, what will you do? How far will you go?

The same goes for the advancement system. It's a game, not acting class. You're supposed to manipulate the rules and make your character better. The hook is that, in general, the more you push this side of the game, the more fun you'll have and the more interesting things your character will do.

The same goes for artha. Even in the original system, it's a point-based, resource-allocation game that the players are supposed to play at underneath the over-arching simulation.

So Ralph, why do you think BW would generate incoherent (CA?) play as written? I suspect, and I could be wrong, that I play the game as written. My group definitely plays with the lean toward "being there", but these tendencies are followed closely by playing the internal "games" which are equal in stature to manifesting Beliefs and Instincts in an effort to get at the character's premise (if you'll allow me to borrow the term).

The game as written supports this type of play, doesn't it? (And I ask this knowing you haven't really played.)

-Luke

So Ralph, why do you think BW would generate incoherent (CA?) play as written? I suspect, and I could be wrong, that I play the game as written. My group definitely plays with the lean toward "being there", but these tendencies are followed closely by playing the internal "games" which are equal in stature to manifesting Beliefs and Instincts in an effort to get at the character's premise (if you'll allow me to borrow the term).

The game as written supports this type of play, doesn't it? (And I ask this knowing you haven't really played.)

If I'm reading everyone right, an unspoken assumption going on that is troubling things is "Incoherence = Bad" I don't think that's the case at all. To quote from "GNS and other matters of Role-playing Theory"

In terms of design, the issue is incoherence, defined here as failure to permit any Premise (or any element of Exploration) to be consistently enjoyed.

2) To grant players clearly defined control over their characters and the ability/rules to back this control up so they could use and manipulate that control independently of GM fiat. (This describes BITs and Artha). And as an unspoken adjunct to that, clearly defining the GM's role as overseer of everything that is not player character.

In terms of actual play, yes, one "can" bring "any" GNS focus to "any" RPG - but I argue that in most cases the effort and informal redesign to do so is substantial, and also that the effort to keep focused on the new goals as play progresses is even more substantial.

Ralph,
well, you've gone a bit too deep into ifs for me to follow.

But I can comment that there is supposed to be a tug of war between "Do I risk it all for a point of advancement, even pushing beyond what my character 'would do'" and "Do I do it like 'my character would'".


Mike,
you've illustrated my point to Ralph. Thanks! And I remember turning to you as you announced your action and saying that, if it had been regular game, you would have been awarded artha on the spot for taking that course. It was in character, making the situation harder for you but more rich for everyone else. That is exactly what artha is meant to reward.

-Luke

The more I think about it, the more Artha really seems to be the keystone of the CA. Its too bad that in a book that is 232 pages long, Artha gets 3 pages, 185 - 187. If you removed those three pages, I would say that the game was strongly sim-leaning, but with the potential to be gamist if people really wanted to (of course, you can always game ANY system if you really want to). Or maybe you could say that it is sim, but with combat as this gamist bubble inside the sim.

But then you throw Artha in there, which totally changes everything! I think Artha can certainly be used for any CA, but its full potential is Narativist. This is especially true of the alternate Artha rules, which are very cool, although somewhat complicated. If you look at what gets you Artha, most of it represents narativist values, so the artha system rewards you for playing nar.

I just realized that if you reward narativist play, then somewhat who is internally playing gamist will do the same things that a narativist would do. Both get the same reward (Artha) and do the same thing, but for totally different internal reasons. Of course, you could probably still tell which a player was from "tells," especially things like out-of-game comments.

Also, to respond to Michael, I think its a good point that Incoherent doesn't necesarily equal bad, at least in terms of game design. It might be more of a problem in actual play if the various players and the gm all have different CA's in mind, but I think that as long as they all agree on which CA they are after, it doesn't matter that the game itself can support different CA's at different times.

On the one hand, I think this flexibility is a strength in that it lets you do more different things and appeal to a wider range of players. On the other hand, the advantage of a game like Sorcerer that is really in-your-face about its creative agenda is that it prevents incoherence in actual play before it happens.

To summarize, incoherence is bad in actual play, but it is okay in game design as long as play is coherent within a single game. Hmm... I think I'm drifting away from Burning Wheel and off into RPG Theory land.

Henry: Yup. That's exactly how I see it.

Luke, I don't see where anything Mike said contradicts anything I said. I fully agree with everything he wrote.

I thought I was pretty clear that I found BWs ability to be easily drifted to be one of its strengths. It does this more painlessly than any other game I've seen.

TROS on the other hand, is much more coherently Nar. Its elements of "realistic combat" and "cool tactical decision making" are completely subserviant mechanically to the SAs. If you wanted to run a pure sim chuch the Nar crap game of TROS, it would take some work to beat the game into shape.

BW can be drifted pretty easily in any direction. This is definitely a strength, but its also a vulnerability. I don't think its possible (save by coincidence) to get a good coherent game of BW without making some decisions about how different aspects get emphasized.

Now some groups who already have a history of coherent play with other games can pick up BW...immediately sieze upon those parts that seem familiar and be off to the races running the game very much to their own typical Creative Agenda...simply by default interpreting the rules in a way that drifts the game that way.

Another group with a different group CA, could do the same thing. They can immediately sieze upon those parts of BW that seem familiar and be off to the races with their own Creative Agenda...but a different one than above...because they drifted it their way.

But mix and match between these groups, and that's where the potential for incherency steps in. Because both sets of players can easily view themselves as playing "by the rules as written" even when they are pursuing incapatable Agendas. The fact that each group was actually drifting the rules to suit their own preferences is largely invisible because BW is such a painless game to drift (i.e. they can do it without even realizing they did it, let alone needing any major surgery or house rules).

As Henri points out, how Artha gets used in the game makes a world of difference. But 3 different GMs coming from 3 different CA backgrounds can read the Artha rules and immediately "know" how to use them. All 3 of them can use Artha effectively in their game, and all 3 of them are doing it enough differently from each other that great discussion would ensue if they compared notes...even though all are following the rules "as written".

Did I say that any better this time?

Did I say that any better this time?

Howdy Luke,

abzu wrote: I'll post more on that elsewhere.