In my Tarshish game, I've been seeking to follow the "No Myth" style of GMing, in so far as I understand that concept as it has been presented at the Forge. This is the idea that everybody explicitly understands and accepts that the PCs do not move in a fixed and preexisting world, but rather that the world is built out on the fly as characters and story move into it.

This obviously means making stuff up on the fly, so my prep consists of compiling lists of names of people, places and things, and writing out short descriptions of possible events and complications that can be used as the seed for scene framing.

I thought'd I make some comments on how that has worked out with respect to BW as a ruleset. At one point, Luke warned me against trying to create BW NPCs on the fly. I've actually not had a terribly difficult time with this. My rule of thumb is that for any given test, if its something the NPC is likely to know how to do, they get 3 dice if it is something they'd be average at, and 4 dice if it is something they'd be good at.

Now I've also learned the value of formally burning NPCs. I've been watching my relationship map, and looking for the NPCs that seem to be rising to prominence, and then burning up a couple of them before each session. The lifepath system causes you to learn some surprising things about the character. For example, the watch commander NPC turned out to come from a nomadic herding background, and to be a surprisingly good singer and poet, neither of which I knew before I burned him. It'll help me add color to his portrayal.

On the other had, I've had to use liberal doses of GM fiat in burning NPCs -- for example I've discovered that the animist priests of Tarshish just don't fit into any of the existing lifepaths, so I've just blocked out the time and then winged it. Or the NPC has evinced traits or skill in actual play that can be achieved by the strict rules. So I just use the burner as a framework and add what is necessary.

On area where BW and No Myth seem to be at odds (at least for me) is the area of Beliefs and Instincts. I find that while I may start with a particular motivation in mind for an NPC, as soon as that NPC meets a PC, the nature of the interaction may cause me to radically revise my opinion of what the NPC is all about. So for now, when I burn an NPC, I leave off Beliefs and Instincts until the NPC has a chance to "bake" in the fire of actual play.

Any thoughts from those that have run BW? How does this compare contrast with your experience and method of prep?

Rafial--

That sounds really good. That's pretty much how I would run Burning Wheel, too. I have little interest in writing up loads of setting before play. I prefer to let the setting develop through play, with lots of player contribution. I'm a big fan of collaboration, so I don't play to heavy GM a lot.

Your approach to NPCs is great! Very useful. I'll keep that in mind when I run BW in the future.

rrrockin.

You've discovered some of the secrets and quirks of the game.

Your 3, 4 and 5 dice scale is perfect.

I have a similar play style, though I do a bit more preplanning. I still only stat out the most relevant NPCs. I never do incidentals. There is just no point.

The BITs are tough, I admit. But also aren't entirely necessary. What we developed over the years was more of a system of developing and applying cultural traits to various peoples. I assign two to three character traits to people from distinct nations, or cities depending on the nature of the culture. This gives the players a hint at the type of behavior they can expect, and it gives the GM a good guideline for reacting to various stimuli. I am going to talk about this in my latest Actual Play. Look for it later tonight or tomorrow.

My "warning" really applied to significant NPCs, especially those the players will confront in one manner or another. These characters need BITs just like played characters. Without them, they really are hollow and vulnerable.

For other significant but less conflict oriented characters, I try to get the players to help me define their BITs. "What do you think about Vega?" I'll ask, or something like that.

burn on,
-Luke