Topic: [Burning Wheel] Fear and Loathing in Tarshish
Started by: rafial
Started on: 12/20/2003
Board: Actual Play
On 12/20/2003 at 9:16pm, rafial wrote:
[Burning Wheel] Fear and Loathing in Tarshish
I used our third session of BW to address the "intimidation" regarding the combat system that several players had expressed in the previous thread.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8985
After framing some opening scenes for each of the characters, I framed a scene in which Cpt. Pentu, watch commander and accquaintance of both Darius and Cpt. Jessup attempts to delve more deeply into the apparent animist conspiricy that's underway in the slums. This let me set up a combat where each player ran an NPC (Cpt. Pentu, and two of his guardsmen) vs six Tarsh street toughs. It was intended as a "no fault" opportunity to get a feel for scripting. As it turned out, the Cpt and his boys clobbered the toughs, with only one guard getting scraped up because he got mobbed by three toughs (he'd have been worse off, except I incorrectly calculated the damage for a great strike with a cudgel). Cpt Pentu got his helmet stap cut. On the side of the toughs, three ran off, two were restrained and one guy wound up bleeding on the ground with a severe sword wound in his shoulder.
The combat dominated the session, taking a bit over a hour to resolve. Much of that can be put down to inexperience, and having to look stuff up in the book alot. This is my third BW combat run, and the second for first for everybody else. We agreed that with familiarity it ought to run much faster. The whole thing took about 5 exchanges.
The biggest confusion people seemed to have was over when natural defenses applied, and when they didn't. The fact that you always get to resists a lock or a tackle, no matter what you script, but a strike with no scripted defense just goes right through took a while to sink in. Players had great fun with the two syllables of speech rule, shouting out disjointed speeches "Halt Po!" "Lice Drop!" "Your Weap!" :)
Also, afterwards we thought that things might have flowed a little more smoothly had we sketched out a quick map and used markers for the combatants. Dealing with movement is probably the area in which I'm still foggiest in BW combat. I know Luke claims it is not supposed to be a wargame, but I'm not sure I fully believe that.
In other news, Darius was awoken by a couple guards pounding at his door, who had been sent to see why he hadn't reported for muster (reservists are being activated to meet the pirate threat). He got dragged to headquarters, where he met Cpt. Jessup in the company of Cpt. Pentu. (this was prior to the aformentioned brawl) Cpt. Jessup and Darius then went down to the Chain & Anchor, where Cpt. Jessup paid off Sami, his coxswain from the Obol Heap, and told him to assemble a crew for the spy mission. Meanwhile, Darius noticed a sickly old man who resembled Arlevatticus, the hustler who has been blackmailing Kvardo the Dwarf (who is now known around the table as "that damn Dwarf"), and leading Darius on with stories of the missing statue. Darius buttered him up and pumped him for information. Finally, Kvardo went to visit his girlfriend, the foxy dwarf widow Snoovla, who was hopping mad that he had been seen coming out of the Blushing Barmaid, a bar/brothel that caters to Dwarven perverts who enjoy consorting with human midgets. He'd been dragged in there last session by Gad and Deron, local thieves guild heavies.
In all the aformentioned goings on, we've gotten pretty comfortable with the basic BW mechanic. The FoRK system is very nice, as it removes worries of which skill applies. Just pick on as the base and FoRK the other. Also, just because you don't have a skill, you can usually try it anyway, it is just an unskilled attempt. Once again, I must admit that during play, I haven't really been keeping the players beliefs or instincts in mind, although traits seem to be getting plenty of exposure. But things seem to be developing in an enjoyable direction (or so I as GM believe) so I'm not too worried.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 8985
On 12/21/2003 at 7:04am, abzu wrote:
RE: [Burning Wheel] Fear and Loathing in Tarshish
Sounds like a lot of fun! Very rich and evocative setting.
I'm glad the system is gelling; it is definitely built for the long run.
-L
On 12/31/2003 at 8:25pm, Alan wrote:
RE: [Burning Wheel] Fear and Loathing in Tarshish
My current thread over in GNS theory ( Systems of group meaning negotiation ) has prompted me to comment on our game in Tarshish.
Burning Wheel shows excellent design features that support simulationist play. I was a little dubious about playing, because my past experiences with sim games have felt stiffling. I have a strong drive to address thematic premise (not just in rp, but in life!) However, I have really enjoyed our sessions.
What I'm wondering is if, at least for my character, play has drifted into narrativism.
Wil made some choices in starting the game that gave us a lot of input into the overall situation and position of our characters. We started from scratch and developed the basic milieux through group discussion. Then Wil encouraged each of us to come up with a "kicker" - a recent event that forces our characters into action. Also, the character generation system allows us to choose a wide range of allies and enemies for ourselves. I had a lot of say about the starting situation of Darius, my character.
In addition, in play, Wil runs with the "no myth" approach, creating world details to fill in the stage in response to player character situation and actions. And just as John Kim says about rpgfa simulationist play, exploration is led by the players - there's no pre-set path or storyline.
So to date, I've felt like I did playing Trollbabe. Darius has "melodramatic family" as a trait and I chose a problem created by his father as kicker. I hadn't thought of it before, but perhaps I'm addressing "what will a man do for his family" as a narrative premise.
Alternately, consider a concept that John Kim proposed in the meaning thread above: that sim play can involve authorship power. Am I just enjoying the authorship power that "no myth" play allows - or am I drifting play for my character into narrativism? (Or both?)
I realize my fellow players can't know my internal process, but maybe they can comment on what they have observed.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 95359
On 12/31/2003 at 9:48pm, rafial wrote:
Whose head were you in?
Alan wrote: I realize my fellow players can't know my internal process, but maybe they can comment on what they have observed.
I have a really specfic question about the most recent session of play.
I framed your character's first scene by having a pair of guardsman show up and force Darius to come along and report for duty. As we exited this scene, I head you say "Why am I being dragged into this?"
I'm curious to know whether that comment came from Darius the character, or Alan the player. And if it came from Alan the player, what was your state of mind. Were you peeved at me for railroading your character? Or was there something else at work there?
Just to inspect the sausage a little more, I'll let you know that I originally framed the scene purely from a little "what happens next" logic: Darius had received an order to report for duty, and had failed to show up. Only when we went to the next scene, when I realized that both Darius and Avram were at guard headquarters, for "internal world logic" driven reasons, did I suddenly intuit that of course ya'll should run into each other, for "story may result" reasons.
On 1/1/2004 at 5:14pm, Alan wrote:
Re: Whose head were you in?
rafial wrote: "Why am I being dragged into this?"
That was me, the player. I had not previously gotten the message that reporting for draft had such a short deadline and was surprised the brute squad was so adamant. Before that happened, I had on my agenda to go visit the governor so Darius could try to negotiate out of the army. My hope was that the governor would demand that Darius do somethig for him in return - something related to Khaldun, the missing statue, or the money Darius needs to solve his problem!
I quickly learned that the interuption in my plans provided new opportunities to pursue Darius's investigation. I'd been planning to track down Avram anyway. Also, crossing paths with the web of concerns and contacts of another PC multiplied the material available to play with, and by the end of the scene, I had the impression that visiting the governor was still an option. So, in retrospect, the brute squad was a welcome interruption.
On 1/2/2004 at 12:25am, John Harper wrote:
RE: [Burning Wheel] Fear and Loathing in Tarshish
Alan -- it sounds to me like you were "saying yes" to the scene that Wilhelm created, in classic Improv style. He pitched an idea (the Brute Squad comes for you) and you rolled with it for the sake of a better (more interesting) story. Even though you had specific goals and ideas for your character's next actions, you were willing to suspend them and it sounds like better play was the result.
Now, what kind of play is happening here? Did you feel like you were shifting to Author stance when you decided to go along with Wilhelm's scene? Did you retroactively come up with an in-character reason for Darius to act the way he did? Or did you stay in Actor stance throughout the scene and only recognize the authorship elements after the fact?
I'm very interested in shifting stances during Simulationist-driven play. I'm personally very aware of stances during Nar play (using them as 'tools') but much less aware of them during Sim play (I'm focused on the Exploration to the exclusion of other stuff, like thinking about metagame concerns or tools).
And, on top of the stance stuff, where does GNS fit in to this? Can we analyze this micro-decision (Darius goes with the Brute Squad) and glean a GNS preferrence for this one instance?
On 1/2/2004 at 6:45am, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: [Burning Wheel] Fear and Loathing in Tarshish
Alan -- it sounds to me like you were "saying yes" to the scene that Wilhelm created, in classic Improv style. He pitched an idea (the Brute Squad comes for you) and you rolled with it for the sake of a better (more interesting) story. Even though you had specific goals and ideas for your character's next actions, you were willing to suspend them and it sounds like better play was the result.
Seems to me that it takes a clear understanding between players of how those situations are going to go down, either via in-game text or social contract. How does Alan know whether Wilhelm is taking the first step in a nice long rail ride? In a group of unknowns, I'd take the guards' arrival as a warning flag, but I know Wilhelm made very clear and up front his intentions to be hands off.
No-myth sim gaming seems like hard work for a GM, especially in the kind of game where a mistake means character death. It can see that kind of game easily drifting into a gamist survival approach for the players.
On 1/2/2004 at 7:37am, rafial wrote:
Pardon me boy, is this the Chattanooga Choo Choo?
Matt Wilson wrote: How does Alan know whether Wilhelm is taking the first step in a nice long rail ride?
Indeed. I think we've hit on something fascinating here, so while I'm eager to hear more about Alan's thought processes, I'll also spill some of my own.
The guards were intended as complication for Alan the player to react to via Darius the character. The complication was generated in a nod to the sim play conceit of "there's a whole world going on outside." I was open to Alan reacting to the guards in numerious ways. Going with, tricking them, sneaking out the back window, whatever.
One thing I do realize in retrospect was that while I had assumed Darius the character would have an idea why he was being rousted, I should have provided Alan the player with the knowledge -- as he rightly pointed out, I failed to attached any urgency to the previous summons. So rather than "there are two guards banging on your door", perhaps I should have said "there are two guards banging on your door. You have a sneaking suspicison they are following up on that scroll you got yesterday."
I fell into the classic sim trap of assuming player knowledge == character knowledge, when that is very evidently not the game we are playing. For example, we currently have an NPC (Arlevatticus) attempting to swindle Darius, with the reluctant assistance of another PC (Kvardo), and all this has been established out in front everyone. So if I as the GM am adding assumed knowledge to the world (when the guard says "report for duty now", they really mean now) it is incumbent upon me to convey that knowledge to the players, rather than playing the game of "boy, you sure look dumb."
Fortunately, the actual play that happened actually worked out quite well, but as Matt said, perhaps there was a warning bell hidden in there as well.
On 1/2/2004 at 7:55am, Alan wrote:
RE: [Burning Wheel] Fear and Loathing in Tarshish
Feng wrote: Now, what kind of play is happening here? Did you feel like you were shifting to Author stance when you decided to go along with Wilhelm's scene? Did you retroactively come up with an in-character reason for Darius to act the way he did? Or did you stay in Actor stance throughout the scene and only recognize the authorship elements after the fact?
Now that you ask, I happen to have vivid recall of my internal process in several decisions in this scene.
My first response to the arrival of the brute squad was "if the GM said it, it happened" - I didn't think to negotiate that issue - probably a conditioned response learned in past games with more GM Authority. So I don't know if you would say I said "yes" or "yes, master." :)
I started in actor stance to originating dialog, then almost immediately made an author stance decision to persuade the squad to leave my character alone. I wanted to return to my agenda of seeking a plot device from the governor.
When that failed, I considered escallating to combat or escape, but nixed that idea because those acts would radically change Darius's social situation and I want him to stay on the right side of the authorities so I could continue in the situation I had created. It might have addressed a Premise like "what side are you on?" which is also inherent in Darius's design to date.
But I think it was another author-stance decision. However, I did double-check. My imagination immediately offered lots of justification from my character POV. If it hadn't I might have reconsidered the initial decision.
So there's a portrait of the inside of my head. I tend to jump stances an awful lot. In this case, I was in author stance a lot. I do play actor stance but it's my least prefered.
On 1/2/2004 at 5:11pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: [Burning Wheel] Fear and Loathing in Tarshish
My first response to the arrival of the brute squad was "if the GM said it, it happened" - I didn't think to negotiate that issue - probably a conditioned response learned in past games with more GM Authority. So I don't know if you would say I said "yes" or "yes, master." :)
You know, only in the past year would I have ever dreamed of negotiating. "Can we have the guards arrive later so my character can do something else first?" That's crazy talk.