Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Why wasn't that posted two weeks ago when I started new Burning Wheel campaign? Well, anyways I'll talk about believes again today.
Basically there doesn't seem to be anything that Luke hasn't said on the Burning Wheel forums but still it's worth reading.
Long story short, I was browsing the shelves at the Strat last week and couldn't turn down the core Burning Wheel books for $25. Now I have to read them and see what all this hubbub is about. I know this might be an impossible question since this new adventure supplement is not out yet, but you think I would be doing myself a disservice by starting a campaign with some local friends w/o this resource? Already decided to not throw down the money for Monster Burner or Magic Burner until I'm sure I will enjoy the game, since it's possible that my early disappointment with RPGs could just be a case of them not being for me at all.
After that start with something small, don't try to do huge campaign that will last years. Something that fits into few sessions is fine and after that you can reconsider buying additional books.
I'm curious about this statement, though: What are you talking about? Did he use a Lament to mitigate a Grief test? AFAIK, there is no "rolling" to avoid a Grief test. You just take a Grief test.
EDIT: I'm sort of interested in trying out Luke's suggestion in the Adventure Burner: throw a monster in there too. Start The Sword like normal - arguing and fighting and so forth - until someone gets the sword. Then, The Guardian wakes up.
For the record, though, tying someone up and leaving them to die is probably a minor Grief test at best. If they were friends for life, that'd be one thing, but if they stayed together just because they had a common goal, that's not really significant in the Grief world. Remember, Elves can be assholes. Grief is definitely more of a personal thing for Elves.
That is, however, an excellent Greed test for the dwarf, or a Hatred test for an Orc. The Dwarf should have probably been significantly more Greed-driven than he was being played. That was his sword, and it's one of the finest specimens he's ever seen. He's not letting that go easily. Tying up the Elf and leaving him to die? That's an Ob 10 Greed test.
Remember, you don't test the emotional attributes (except Faith) directly; there are situational tests that advance it. All the situational tests are specifically designed to give you tests during the course of play whenever you play to that idiom. A Greedy dwarf will do greedy things and earn Greed tests; a Grief-stricken Elf will do things or suffer things that cause more Grief and earn Grief tests. That's how the game is supposed to go; don't fight it.
But you're right about throwaway characters: you often don't care whether or not they live. Try The Sword again, and this time, stay within the character idioms but throw caution to the wind. Watch how the system unfolds when you try the risky and dangerous thing. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. The Elf can do that, although not easily if the Dwarf is playing the way he should. The Dwarf has plated leather from head to toe and a B11 Mortal Wound; the Elf wears no helmet and has a B9 Mortal Wound. The Elf is faster, but the Dwarf is tough enough that it should be an even fight. Don't forget the rat and the human, too; they should be trying to get in on that action. Dwarf and Elf fighting? Human could sneak up and steal the sword.
The point where he was sucker-punched and left for dead - hell, the only reason he wasn't murdered outright was because he abused the elf's morals and honour enough that he just tied him up and left him for dead instead(And I kept daring Gunt to risk ludicrous grief for it, even more so than a 9), though he did come back and gag him securely when he kept shouting down the corridor - it was literally pointless, and just for shits and giggles. The adventure was resolved in a way that was optimal for everyone, and My character got fucked over and killed, for no reason other than just for the sake of it, and from my reading of the rules again later, seems that if nothing else, he'd get rewarded for it, and have little to no consequences. I worked hard, roleplayed the character pretty fucking well, including a damn good speech, in full character, as to not only a plan to why he should get the sword(and they take it back to the elves after, which would be easy - and a further adventure to play ) or alternatively(and the option he was really pushing for) a solution where the elves get what they want, and he keeps his legs unbroken, and then I simply and literally got punished for nothing more than trying to play the fucking game to the best of my ability.
Fuck it, If that's the way of The Sword, Here is how I play it next time. I talk everyone into resting before we remove the sword, say whatever the fuck I have to to get it done, as the sword room is easily defensible, and only has one point of egress, yaddah yah. We propose to alarm the sword with equipment the characters have on them, that will sound as soon as the sword is touched or moved in any way, and someone stands watch. As soon as my watch comes around, a silent dagger through the backs of their heads while they sleep, they obviously never even wake up, take the sword, adventure over. Fuck 'em, I'll rationalise it away as a test of character, consequences be damned if I don't manage to either talk my way out or otherwise avoid them, because fuck it, I'm not touching that character again. That's the simple method, and works for any character. Another method - Offer them grand riches and whatever else you need to that isn't the immediate sword, or failing that, propose a short-hold scam where they get the sword, but them possessing it is the important part, and we'll take the sword back together to the wherethefuckever, and soon as they get back, use the overwhelming odds of allies to simply kill them all, usually by scamming them into attacking you for some reason, so that your allies rush to your aid and turn them into greasy smears, or neat adventurer shaped pincushions.
Are they the ones holding the sword, Ala the short-hold scam? Tell your people that you've tricked them into coming back with you(which is absolutely true, after all) and that if they are not killed or have the sword otherwise taken from them, they will take the sword away from your people, and it will be lost again. Fucking done. Anyone complains? Fuck 'em, That's Burning Wheel for you.
So the Elf and Human struck a deal in view of everyone else, and then everyone else watched as the Elf stabbed the Human in the back? Sounds to me like the other players were less invested, or everyone made a conscious decision to fuck you over. Was it? Did you get payment in hand? No? Then nothing was resolved. Your Robard sounds a little too trusting - and that's fine - but in a conflict-driven game, you should expect the trusting people to get fucked over a whole bunch. If you trust someone and make a bargain with them, you should expect them to stab you in the back. You can either persist in the face of back-stabbing, or change dramatically at some point. Either way makes for good storytelling.
Generally, though, in a one-shot scenario, you probably shouldn't be thinking long-term.
Yes, you played The Sword wrong. Generally, I would say that there's no right or wrong way to play something, but it sounds to me like you sort of missed it. Also, am I to understand that the GM was also a player? That's sort of a recipe for disaster, especially if someone knows rules that you don't.
And sure, you can stab everyone in their sleep - that's certainly an option - but that's over-reacting. Burning Wheel encourages you to make difficult choices, and you have to deal with the consequences of every choice that you make. Trust the Elf and he fucks you over? That's what you get for trusting.
Players dictate the actions. That's an important thing to learn in BW. You said you were playing Robard "in character," but what does that mean? It means whatever the fuck you want it to mean. What do you want to happen in the game? Your character is the vehicle for that. You drive the story, not the character.
My reasoning was this: the top priority for the elf is to redeem himself in the eyes of his fellow elves. That's the whole reason he's there, and I decided that I was going to be nuts about it and not let a goddamn thing threaten that objective. So here's this human criminal who wins an argument with me to help him integrate into elven society in return for the sword. Do you think my high-n-mighty elf buddies are going to ignore me befriending a sleazy human criminal with gambling debts out the ass just because they got their pretty sword back? I don't know, but I wasn't willing to take that chance, so I left him in a situation where he wouldn't be able to follow me home but, rather pointedly, one that he would be able to escape, which set us up for an interesting, possibly compromising (for my character, in the eyes of my new friends) confrontation later if we continued.
Though, for future reference, Elf vs. Dwarf is a lot more fun one-on-one, since the Dwarf is more of an even match. That, and he can spend a Persona point to Fua the Fiah and add a pile of dice to a roll.
What I wanted to happen in the game was an actual fucking game, like both the books and the very title "Game" suggests rather than "Ooh, my stats are better than yours, so I'm just going to fuck you over for fun, and fuck you if you don't like it."
EDIT - Sure, Gunter can rationalise real well afterwards, but none of this came up in the game. In the game, it was just oh, right, game over, fuck you, I win. It means as much as my rationalising a huge grief on him - fuck all, because it's all after the fact. Furthermore - It took me abusing his honour and morals to have him not murder the character on the spot, and then I had to speak to him OUTSIDE of the game to even get the concession of possibly escapable bonds. Post-hoc Rationalisation does not fucking roleplaying make.<./end edit>
All of the vaunted "Superior Roleplaying" and "Getting away from games like D&D;, which just want to be World of warcraft like everyone else" cock and bollocks? Yeah, that went out the window, as soon as the other guy decided to attack me. There was no way to roleplay myself out of it - he had superior stats, and I had effectively zero chance of beating him, and if I didn't like it, too bad, thanks for fucking playing.
Seriously, Fuck Burning wheel right in the neck. I played it like it wants to be played, like the books suggest, followed the guides, did everything I could to play the best game of burning wheel that I possibly could, and I still got fucked over for nothing more than what amounts to "He had better stats, all done, he wins the adventure, go home!" - there was literally not-a-fucking-thing I could do to stop it...because the other guy's stats were better. Oh wait, Getting away from that was the reason I spent 30 pound on burning wheel books in the first place? Well, apparently, Luke Crane's comment on the issue is "Here's the same thing as before, overhyped, and with "Roleplaying for dummies" attached! Thanks for the money, Sucker!"
No, I frankly couldn't be bothered with this bullshit. You want to know the difference between the Roleplaying I was doing before burning wheel, and the Roleplaying I was doing with and after? The roleplaying I was doing before Burning wheel wasn't pretentious, hypocritical, overhyped bullshit, and the roleplaying I've been doing after seems all the more pleasurable for just being what it is and being honest about it, while saying "Hey, feel free to do the rest yourself, however you like! Change the rules, mess with shit, see how it goes! Whatever man!", and not being overhyped, hypocritical pretentious bullshit.
Statistically, stats will win individual conflicts more often. Otherwise, why have states? Why even have a system of collaborative storytelling at all? The whole point is that you don't have control over the story, you only have control over the decisions the characters make.
I play the game like it says to play it, I play my fucking guts out, I get fucked for no reason.
I say something about it, All I get back is "that's the way it works, too bad for you".
Any clarification on this, I get back "Yeah, that's the way the game works, too bad for you".
Then, The guy who fucks me over for laughs gets applauded for playing the game exactly right, when he previously said he wasn't even trying to embody the character, just because he came up with a post-hoc rationalisation? Christ, I was there when he came up with it the first time, in a much more abbreviated version, because I'm the one who raised the question about his motivations. I even helped him flesh it out some, though I'll admit, that was also part of my trying to talk my way into getting him a ludicrous grief.
I've pointed out multiple times that I was roleplaying my fucking arse off, and that I did it within the game, and your best response is "Roleplaying is not for you"?
Jesus christ, I'd insult you, but I'm not sure I actually have any reasonable response to match that level of condescension.
Yeah, I'm not Bowing at crane's feet, and I'm getting mighty fucking pissed off. You know why?
Because despite doing the right thing, and playing how it's meant to be played - according to everything I'd been told about the game, read about the game, and had been by anyone I could get the information from - Including you, I might add, at length - And pressing into service every bit of roleplaying skill and fast talking that I've mustered from playing these sorts of games since I was bloody well twelve - I end up getting fucked for all of that for a cheap fucking laugh. I say something about this, and I get told "That's just the way the game is played" - entirely contrary to everything I've been told about the game, and read about the game.
The guy who fucked me over for a cheap laugh? He gets applauded for playing the game correctly, because of a bullshit post-hoc rationalisation that I helped him flesh out after he'd already been, gone and done the thing he's trying to rationalise. And Then, All you have to say for yourself is just being condescending?
No shit I'm pissed off, genius.
If you were in my place, and you got fucked over by someone not even playing the game, You'd be pissed off too, and when everyone kept telling you that you're doing it wrong and you're stupid, and he's doing it right, after he admits that he wasn't even trying, You'd be really fucking pissed off and ranting too. Deny it, and I'll just call you a bullshit artist - You've recorded probably multiple hours of you doing the same thing with your close friend, both on record ranting when something pisses you off, even if it's only something minor, though I'll credit you that it didn't start out as the point of the exercise, unlike my rant. I'll also somewhat credit you that you don't swear as casually, because despite all arguments to the contrary, it's still looked upon as unacceptable in day to day conversation, and as a sign of intellectual paucity. Fact remains, positions reversed, you'd be ranting and pissed off to.
One short bad experience isn't worth getting so frothingly angry over.