Is the Burning Wheel "how to play" advice useful for D&D?

[innerdude]

To address the OP -- I think this advice is most relevant for being explicit to the reader (i.e., it's actually written in the book), and is backed up by pointing to key elements of the characters themselves.

It's one of those things that may not be mechanically supported in other RPGs like it is in Burning Wheel, but I think the overall tone and sensibility of the advice would be relevant and useful in nearly any RPG. The key is simply "getting it out there"--if it's written down, even if there are not as many actual mechanical artifacts to support it, it presents a thought process, or way of thinking about how characters interact, that could be useful if the GM wants to promote a certain style of play.

I think these are things that could successfully be added to many other RPGs--D&D included--as an added layer of potential player interaction, without necessarily adding the actual mechanical underpinnings.

The point is that it's out there--it's being actively looked at and considered. It's similar to one of the things I said in another post about D&D 3e Craft, Profession, and Perform skills. Sure, mechanically they may not appear to have much in-game utility, but the simple fact that they exist carry potential ramifications for approaching worldbuilding and character interactions. Simply including this kind of advice in other systems, even without the mechanical support, would be useful for helping GMs and players consider aspects of play.

 

[innerdude]

Perhaps a should have said "...D&D players don't approach a campaign that way." I only mean that I rarely (as in "can't remember ever seeing it") see a player choose a class or race in order to signal something to the DM about the game they want to see. Some groups certainly discuss campaign parameters ahead of time, but that's not the same as what Burning Wheel does.

I regularly approach character creation from a standpoint of, "If I want to be involved with thematic material X, I should choose a character 'trope' that lets me engage with X."

For example, I specifically took the "Wealth" talent tree in a Star Wars Saga game, because I felt that being from a wealthy background would give my character an excuse to be involved in galactic politics.

Unfortunately, I think that Star Wars GM was the only one that actually took the hint, and added some cool thematic material to the campaign to support my choice. I don't think any of my other GMs have ever really cared to ask me how my character choices might play in to what I wanted to experience thematically.

 

[Celebrim]

However, that doesn't mean that D&D is very good at driving that kind of play. If I'm looking to play a drama/story-centered game, especially right from the get-go...I think I'm better off using a game designed for that, rather than trying to bash D&D into that shape.

Then let me rephrase my quibble. I'm not sure that the games which are designed to drive drama/story-centered play are necessarily well designed to achieve that. The open question is, "What sort of rules really do drive good drama/story-centered games?" I'm not entirely certain that it is even a rules issue, and to the extent that some one has experienced drama/story-centered games in rule sets intended for that purpose, I'm not sure that that isn't correlation rather than causation. It could simply be that the sort of groups that are interested in and capable of story drive play are also the ones that seek out game system supposedly designed to support that. As you say, narative driven play doesn't require a lot of rules. I know I've played sessions of D&D were for 4-6 hours we didn't pick up the dice or reference a single game rule. Even recently, in my current campaign with a group of players that are about as far from Thespians as I've ever dealt with, we managed an entertaining 4 hour session with lots of laughs and maybe just the first glimmers of some much deeper narrative engagement that had just a handful of skill checks, one saving throw and one attack roll the whole four hours.

Perhaps a should have said "...D&D players don't approach a campaign that way." I only mean that I rarely (as in "can't remember ever seeing it") see a player choose a class or race in order to signal something to the DM about the game they want to see. Some groups certainly discuss campaign parameters ahead of time, but that's not the same as what Burning Wheel does.

Pondering it a little more while writing this response. Maybe that's because we usually already know what a D&D campaign will be about. I mean, the only times groups engage heavily in that discussion (IME) is when they are planning on deviating significantly from D&D's "script." "Let's do an evil campaign" "Let's do an all-thieves campaign" or something similar. Otherwise, you're generally free to roll up your Dwarf Fighter start play...many times even without a name.

Some very good points, and I may have to send some XP your way for that. I have ran an 'all elf' and an all 'goblinkind' campaigns before specificly because I wanted the campaign to address certain ideas about those races I found interesting. I think the main difference here may be that for the most part, the expectation is that the DM in D&D will pick whatever the main theme of the campaign will be, which may or may not have a dramatic element beyond simply 'kicking butt and getting loot', and the players are expected to find play within that. Although, even within that, if you have players with a Thespian inclination, you can end up having subplots that revolve around the particular things that the player signals he is interested in, either through backstory or table play. A player with a 'Raistlin' type character is signaling he wants to explore the price of power, for example. Whereas, a player with a 'Dritz' type character may be signaling he wants to explore the ideas of alienation and toleration or perhaps the issue of racism. I don't find it unusual in D&D play for their to be at least one player at the table who has his own agenda like that, and I personally try to encourage it in my players. That's slightly different than a game that is actually about The Character - which a game like BW seems to be trying to achieve - but I find that games about The Character really only work 1 on 1 or in similarly small numbers because when you have an ensemble cast you can't spot light too much attention on one person's story.

 

[Nagol]

I regularly approach character creation from a standpoint of, "If I want to be involved with thematic material X, I should choose a character 'trope' that lets me engage with X."

For example, I specifically took the "Wealth" talent tree in a Star Wars Saga game, because I felt that being from a wealthy background would give my character an excuse to be involved in galactic politics.

Unfortunately, I think that Star Wars GM was the only one that actually took the hint, and added some cool thematic material to the campaign to support my choice. I don't think any of my other GMs have ever really cared to ask me how my character choices might play in to what I wanted to experience thematically.

It can be tricky. If a player builds a character with a a really high lockpick score, is it because he wants to engage thievery as a theme or because he doesn't want to deal with locks as a challenge?

If a player buys a high wealth score, he may want to engage in higher-wealth themes, he may want to circumvent types of challenges, it may be a simple background image the player has. It wouldn't cross my mind a player would buy wealth to delve into politics, especially in a feudal style society -- class and wealth may get entangled, but they are separate.

If a player wants to engage in particular themes, he needs to be explicit with the table especially the GM; that's what makes the upfront characterisation rule sets so valuable for this purpose. I find the character design in other games too subtle to accuurately guess what the player wants to engage with.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Just so you guys know, BW is certainly heavily influenced by Forge theory, but not on the the single GNS axis, and not even on the later creative agenda categories. It's got a heavy dose of all three, though the simulation part is usually more macro than micro. I'm hard pressed to think of a game that, out of the box, nails the feeling of LotR elves and dwarves better. But because that materials is embedded in the races, if you drop both and do a game with men and roden (sort of "ratmen"), you'll get something a lot closer to Lanhkmarr (though not as close a fit as the elves and dwarves are to LotR). So one of the things that makes BW advice useful to a hard-driving story approach with D&D is that BW is a hard-driving game that is not hung up on Forge dogma.

Now, if you aren't doing a hard-driving story, then there are bits and pieces that are still useful--if nothing else just to shake up your thinking--but the advice as a whole is not nearly as applicable. There's not real support or even desire to support, for example, leisurely exploration of a location. You could "just roleplay" such a scene in BW if you wanted, but you wouldn't be using much, if any, of the rules while you did so. It would be somewhat like using 3E for a game that was focused on nothing but shopkeepers--slightly more possible than in early or later versions of D&D, but for a very small value of "slightly".

I think BW has a lot more to offer a 4E game because the hard-driving approach is the particular kind of roleplaying where 4E is going to shine the most. And like BW, it shares the characteristic that if back away from that aspect, the roleplaying could get pretty bland, quick.

 

[Libramarian]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] Thanks for sharing this -- you're right, this stuff speaks directly to my concerns about player responsibilities in a non-railroaded story-heavy campaign.

The pre-game concept brainstorming I would need more structure and guidance on -- either that, or a game that comes with it built-in (or adventures/scenarios? I've been wondering lately what an adventure optimized for non-railroaded story-heavy play would look like. You and [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] seem to use adventures/APs a lot but with heavy alterations. What would an adventure type product look like if it were optimized for this style of play?)

"Make your character's life hard."

"Players in Burning Wheel must use their characters to drive the story forward - to resolve conflicts and create new ones. Players are supposed to push and risk their characters, so the grow and change in unforeseen ways."

This is great -- I think if 4e had explicit player responsibilities like this, I don't know if it would have been more successful (depends how many people actually like and want to use D&D for this style of play, clearly explained), but discussion about it between supporters and detractors would have been much less confused and out of synch. 4e is less hard on characters than earlier editions. Detractors look at this and say "player entitlement" and "tyranny of fun", supporters say "death/disability is not the only way to stimulate the player by challenging their character, challenge them in more story-oriented ways"

To me that's not really a persuasive response--fair enough, there are other ways to challenge characters and ways to fail forward, but if it's entirely up to me as the GM to devise these then I can do that in any game, why would I give up my save-or-sucks and save-or-dies? But if the game says it's the players' job to contribute by priming their characters for story pressure and then when it comes to engage it and push the story forward, then it makes sense to me why the game would exclude or de-emphasize character consequences that take away the player's narrative agency. It's not about mollycoddling the players, it's about not taking away their ability to get their characters into trouble. That's the missing piece of that argument for me.

When I'm running a classic D&D gamist sandbox/adventuring location with gp=xp sort of thing, I want the full suite of consequences that punish the player as well as the character, because they give the game its enjoyable challenge and tension. There it is the player's job to "win" (in a sense) and I don't expect the players to purposefully get their characters into trouble -- so playing without these consequences feels like playing Jenga where the players take pieces off the top instead of the middle of the tower.

This type of story-heavy play that BW seems to be going for where it's really personal and character-centric is more appealing to me than the high fantasy/epic quest style. I find most quests (ie plotted story that doesn't really require much player input or tie into their characters, other than the fact that they're really powerful and heroic) to be cheesy and cliched, and I'm not very good at coming up with anything better. They seem to be a lot of work for only a mild at best dramatic payoff. The most irksome 4e Design & Development article for me is this one by James Wyatt: https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20071121 where he's very presumptive about this being the standard D&D adventure.

I know it sounds deflationary to people who are very story-focused but the whole dungeon-crawling for blood, gold and gems thing makes more sense and is more appealing to me when the characters don't have much of an exterior motivation but are just roguish explorers/treasure hunters who do this because it's the only thing they know how to do. My primary influences for D&D are picaresque S&S (Conan, Fafhrd & GM, Cugel) mixed with a little bit of Oregon Trail for the dungeon/wilderness adventures, and my model for town/city adventures is basically spaghetti Western movies mixed with the Grand Theft Auto series of videogames, where the characters raise their social status by undertaking missions for different factions, but as things get more complex the missions start becoming contradictory and the PCs either have to make some enemies or leave town.

Character-centric fantasy supers D&D is kind of odd in my view but not totally unappealing...I would give it a try. pemerton you've mentioned before that a major influence for your 4e game is Claremont's X-Men run -- I'm not big into comics so I didn't know what that meant but I brought it up with my friend who is and he said that's the source of most of the storylines used in the early 90's X-Men cartoon, which we both like a lot. We both agreed that those storylines were awesome but we also had a laugh because it's so different from our D&D games, where we don't go into how the PC's know and care about each other much at all, heh.

 

[Libramarian]

Explicit player responsibilities would allow us to say for example whether the game supports [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] in telling his DM to skip some part of the adventure or not.

I think looking at this list from BW he would be, because he's not just saying "I don't like this, come up with something else DM" he has a dramatic conflict in mind and wants to get to that.

However, I'm looking at the 4e PHB and I think he would be out of line in this game:
"D&D is a cooperative game in which you and your friends work together to complete each adventure and have fun." p. 6

"The DM creates adventures (or selects premade adventures) for you and the other players to play through." p.8

(Emphasis mine).

What I get from this is that it's the players' job to try to complete the DM's adventure and they don't really have any business trying to shortcut parts of it.

To contrast BW's player responsibilities here's 4e's:

"You have almost limitless control over what your character can do and say in the game." p.8

"Through your character, you can interact with the game world in any way you want. The only limit is your imagination—and, sometimes, how high you roll on the dice." p.9

"Your character is your representative in the game, your avatar in the D&D world... Throughout this book, we use the word “you” interchangeably with “your character.” As far as the rules of the game are concerned, your character is you." p.12

4e basically says that the player gets to make whatever character they feel like with no responsibility to do any pre-game dramatic coordination with the DM or other players, and roleplay them however they like, as long as they try to complete the adventure created by the DM (but it's OK if they fail, "even when your character is defeated, you don't "lose""p.6). Very light on responsibility, very low stakes. But even still, I think editing the DM's adventure is against the spirit of the game.

 

[Celebrim]

Explicit player responsibilities would allow us to say for example whether the game supports [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] in telling his DM to skip some part of the adventure or not.

Really, isn't one thread enough for continuing that discussion? And really, that horse is beat to death even in the other thread. I'm thinking of starting a different thread so that I can discuss what I'm interested in the topic of 'surprises' in without picking on Hussar as an example continually.

But, as far as it goes, I read the above and I hit this about DM responcibility:

"Also, the GM is in a unique position. He can see the big picture - what the players are doing, as well as what the opposition is up to and plans to do. . . More than any other player, the GM controls the flow and pacing of the game. He has the power to begin and end scenes, to present challenges and instigate conflicts."

So, even in BW, I'm seeing a player attempting to hijack the flow and pacing of the game, attempting to begin or end scenes, or attempting to establish what the challenge is or what conflict will be dealt with next as being usurpation. He's out of role. If his DM sucks, I can sympathize with why a player might want to do that, but I don't think you can justify that as part of the normal mode of play. Clearly there was conflict between him and the DM. Clearly Hussar was not happy. I'm pretty sure the DM could have handled things better. I'd be willing to bet the DM was not happy either. But I think any time a player offers an outcome in a game that does explicitly put fortune at the end and explicitly give the player narrative resources to spend on scene framing or resolution, then the player is out of line. The DM may also be out of line, and these things tend to escalate.

But, enough of that, back on topic.

The BW advice is largely applicable to D&D because there is so much overlap between how the two concieve the roles of the player and GM.

Look at the GM stuff. It's a combination 'referee' and 'director'.

Look at the player stuff. It's 'backstory authority' combined with 'character advocate'. Even note that the 'backstory authority' is limited to putting the character in a position to start his adventures. The main story is assumed to occur through play.

All of that is just like D&D.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Good thread idea, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]!

I will say that I think the advice is potentially very applicable, depending on the desired play style of the group. For me and my group, it certainly is; the advice here underscores all the things that have 'gone right' in some of the more enjoyable campaigns I've run, as well as in the parts of other campaigns and adventures that have really resonated with me.

As a player, I also find that the game is more enjoyable when the DM offers adventure based on a given character's hooks. Looking back, I can see how this has been the case for me, even if I didn't realize it at the time.

As others have pointed out though, this advice can be very group- and style-dependent; not every group cares so much about story and characters, or their motivations beyond looting dungeons and overcoming challenges. Likewise, people who prefer a more passive exploratory stance to character may also not find much in there that resonates.

That said, one bit of the advice that I think should be more explicit in every RPG book, is the part about discussing everyone's expectations beforehand. I find it really helps when everyone playing is on the same page with respect to the game, tropes, themes, power level, etc.

One thing I'd like you to expand upon, if it's not too much trouble, is the part about Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits; what are they in the context of the game, and how do the players go about leveraging these things?

 

[Manbearcat]

One thing I'd like you to expand upon, if it's not too much trouble, is the part about Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits; what are they in the context of the game, and how do the players go about leveraging these things?

I can help with this right quick.

Beliefs are expressions of your character's ethos. They are cues to the GM that express what thematic content that you wish scenes to be framed around to challenge your character; "We are men of action, lies do not become us."

Instincts are insurance against the GM claiming minor agency from you and framing scenes that would violate important aspects of your characters. They're typically if, then; kind of like readied actions. "If the meek are bullied or exploited then I will intervene."

Traits are purchasable PC build resources kind of like Feats/Theme/Background Material/APs in 4e (kind of). They come in 3 variations; Die Traits, Call On Traits, and Character Traits. Die Traits are traits which affect die rolls. Call On Traits are narrative controls that are called upon by the player during times of need and mandate a roll when there otherwise would have been none. Character Traits are descriptive in nature and mostly color.