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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Hey Frank-

Frank wrote: 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.

Frank wrote: 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.

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.

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

Guess that throws my thoughts out the window. Something to keep in mind for later, maybe.

Four sessions without actual play... That would drive me crazy.

Yep, it's been driving me crazy. I feel really bad. Partly I'm frustrated at the system since it feels like it doesn't have enough help (which it also sounds like is now recognized). But I also realize I really dropped the ball in not pushing harder. But this is all a new style of gaming to me, and all I've got under my belt so far is 3 sessions of Dogs in the Vinyard (one chargen with another GM, one play with that GM, one chargen+play with me as GM).

But it does get me thinking about when I started with Basic D&D. I watched my friends play Friday evening. I stayed up all night absorbing the rules. We played through several sets of characters on Saturday (rolling up, and playing until they reached 4th level where the Basic rules no longer handled them). Somehow RPGs need to re-capture this ability to do chargen and go (with basically no GM prep - for that first day of play, I used the Dungeon Geomorphs and Monster and Treasure Assortments that came with the basic set). Though I admit that there is something to be said for somewhat more complex characters, but even then, it should be feasible to do chargen one session and launch into play the 2nd session (without more than an evening of prep on the part of the GM). I think Dogs fits that relaxed standard (and I think it might still fit that standard for folks who have never played an RPG - though I did bring a lot of reading about Dogs to the table with me, and when I GMed, I took into account what I observed from my first session of play). For someone who has never played the game before, Burning Wheel clearly doesn't.

Frank

Uh, no, Frank. I don't agree.

Although the buy-in or prep time for BW is high, that's tangential to the real point at issue in this thread.

The point is whether you, personally, have a blazing drive to make "story now" when engaged in role-playing. This is analogous to a person's drive to win (or to avoid losing) while playing in a sports context, whether role-playing or not.

If you have such a drive, or are at least cultivating it, then games like Sorcerer, The Riddle of Steel, and Burning Wheel are very similar - certain features and tactical options all work together in a way that "blossoms" during moments of high-stress conflict for the characters. This blossoming feeds right into a variety of mechanics that range from providing more options to radically altering or even killing the character.

Dogs in the Vineyard is more like HeroQuest, in which a fairly straightforward combination of explicit options (abilities, etc) on one's sheet can be relied upon, and in which the conflicts are fairly easy to present to the characters in a structured way. These games also reward the urge for Story Now, but in a way that lets you coast if you have to or if you're a little stuck on how it's all supposed to work.

No coasting in Burning Wheel. Unless you as GM are providing context and adversity, unless the players are providing drives and goals, then nothing happens, and unless the real point is what emerges from that, then nothing happens. The game relies on your drive to see what comes next, and how it will turn out, not on providing you a step-by-step for what to do next.

Bluntly, the players seem to have done their job along those lines. You apparently haven't. Now - I do not care one bit about all your talk of "apologizing" and "feeling bad." You might re-read my little speech I wrote; it does not include an apology, even if you read one into it. This isn't about blame or taking the rap. It's about what you have to have inside in order to play this game.

I'll tell you what I see when I look over all those threads you linked ... I see someone who wants to walk, and needs his hand held a little. Fine. You got your hand held. But did you even try to walk? No! It's like holding a kid's hand when the kid goes all limp and sack-like; you've seen that, right? No walking.

So, again bluntly, what's the point of holding your hand any longer? I haven't seen any walking, yet. I'm about ready to call bullshit on your cry for help, because I haven't seen you do anything with the help yet. Again, I'm not interested in your apologies. Can we see an end to all this self-immolating talk about being sorry? As well as this "blame the game" riff you seem to be developing?

If you want, apply the rules outlined so well in Conspiracy of Shadows. Prep for the next session with a good eye toward the characters. Actually play. If, at that point, you need help or advice again, I'm your man (as are the others who've posted). But not until then.

Best, Ron

While Ron's reply was a little harsh, he's pretty well on point. Your friends (the players) have entrusted you with the task of creating everything for the story, a fairly monumental task, but if you've been GMing for a while you're up to it. So here's my bit of hand holding that is a bit more specific than Ron's.

1. Every game needs a theme, a direction to explore. You chose "Conspiracy" arguably one of the most difficult types of story to tell. You need many complex characters with complex motivations, and a clearly envisioned and established world for them to operate in. You may have bitten off more than you can chew. No harm in admitting it and doing something you are more comfortable with. The other option is to step to the plate and swing as hard as you can. It will take some serious prep time to write out your power players, but once you do, once you understand who they are and how they react and what they want, the game will write itself. You will never have to do any prep work ever again. Trust me, I've done it.

2. You, as the GM are responsible for being familiar and comfortable with the system. It's new to you, sure. The style of play isn't what you are used to, sure. Again, you can go back to something you are comfortable with, or you can put in the extra mile to try something new. Read the books Cover to cover. I've read them all, they are (as role-playing books go) amazingly well written. Even fun to read in many places. Get comfortable with the rules all the way through before your next session. Talk to Luke (the author) or Thor (Our other resident Burning Wheel guru.) if you have any questions at all. They will help you, and maybe by talking with them you will better grasp how the flow of this particular game works.

3. Don't be afraid to strong arm your players into clearly establishing their characters goals. Players love to come up with vague motivations. Less work for them. Don't let them. They will thank you for it later.

That's it. Walk by yourself (as Ron would put it.)

Well, I think I think I've got things rolling now. I started off by admitting that the conspiracy theme was way out of my comfort zone, and we've agreed to change directions. I should not have agreed to the conspiracy theme in the first place if it was so far out of my comfort zone.

What we're going with now is a more simple theme of doom from an impending Orc invasion. We've retained most of what has been established so far (the elves are aloof and will need convincing to join forces, so will the dwarves, the roden will need to be won over or contained lest the roden society go rampant in the disorder). And if a little bit of conspiracy sneaks in, well that's fine.

On a thought of having the NPC adversaries too far above the PCs, we've toned down the general to a captain (so it should be a 5 lifepath character - someone the 4 lifepath soldier can hope to gain in power against to defeat). Using Thor's latest belief guidelines, we've refined the beliefs (some PCs currently only have 1 or 2 beliefs, but that was at least enough to drive some play today).

And then we got some play in. Just bare bones NPCs, but at least something the players could start to exercise the system with. We did some circles tests, a nice little investigation by the roden (and boy, let it ride made that so much easier, and really worth spending artha for). The soldier got into a duel of wits with and elven protector (building on one of last weeks events where he failed to prevent a small band of orcs from burning some trees in the forest). He's now fixed up for a confrontation with the captain. Artha got awarded, players recorded some skill checks towards advancement.

And now I have a better framework to prep against. I've got some specific NPCs to prep. And the prep I had done so far for the conspiracy is not wasted.

The biggest issue right now is how to tie the elf into things. Once we start seeing some real fights, the elf will have some nice spell songs to sing, and even knows which end of the sword to stick in the bad guys. The elf did succeed at a circles test at least. She also needs the most work with beliefs.

So thanks for the help, and the kicks in the pants.

Frank

Hi Frank,  I'm looking at running Burning Wheel myself so have read this thread with interest and hope to learn from it as well - so your suffering has not been in vain!

Please keep us posted on how it goes, whether here or at the BW forums as I want to find out hit progresses.

Cheers, Colin

glad we could help. The point is to have fun. I figure, if you're having fun, you're doing it right. If you aren't than you're not. Post a new thread here once the story gets rolling, i'm interested in seeing how it turns out.

ffilz wrote:
The biggest issue right now is how to tie the elf into things. [...] She also needs the most work with beliefs.