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

[LostSoul]

But there is text in the GURPS game the blesses negotiating the replacement of a flaw with a new flaw of equal worth in reaction to events that are happening in game. There in a nutshell, admittedly perhaps a bit concealed and much less blessed and highlighted, is the basic mechanic of rechoosing your 'Beliefs' as used in BW.

When you change your Belief in BW, you are most likely going to gain a Persona point. It's a big deal. (If it's not, you're not going to get that Persona point. It's called "Moldbreaker".)

I don't know how GURPS works, but I'd be surprised if the replacement of a flaw with a new flaw resulted in a mechanical bonus for the PC.

However, in the games he makes and advocates - don't get me started on Sorcerer or I'll get really insulting - he's actually removing player agendas from the game and limiting play.

I'd like you to get insulting, it might be interesting! I like Sorcerer, and I agree with you that he explicitly tries to remove player agendas from the game. I think he's pretty up-front with the fact that the game isn't for everyone. His language is pretty harsh, I think, but eh. I don't see why anyone would take it personally.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION], thanks for stepping in with a couple of good posts.

 

[Iosue]

I don't know how GURPS works, but I'd be surprised if the replacement of a flaw with a new flaw resulted in a mechanical bonus for the PC.

Every Advantage and Disadvantage in GURPS is worth character points (or minus points in the case of Disadvantages). Your character is created with a set number of character points (typically 100, with less for more gritty games and more for more "four-color" games). Advantages cost a varying number of character points, while Disadvantages add to the points you can spend.

Through playing the game, you get more character points to spend on things like more Advantages, skill upgrades, and attribute upgrades. Just like in character generation, you can also gain points by taking on more Disadvantages in the course of the game. So, you can use your earned character points to buy Advantages or "buy off" Disadvantages. Implicit in this (or perhaps explicit, it's been a while since I've looked at the rules) is the idea of a credit system. You could, in the course of the game, gain an Advantage that you have to pay off with future earned character points. You could gain a Disadvantage that would give you more earned character points. Celebrim mentions trading one flaw for another of equal worth. You could also trade in Advantages.

Now where the assumptions perhaps differ, if I understand BW correctly, is that GURPS in theory attempts to keep all players on a relatively even power level base, so if you change a -5 point flaw for another -5 point flaw, there's no mechanical bonus involved -- the change is purely reflected in the character's story and the game world. You have to take on a new flaw, or change from a -5 point flaw to a -10 point flaw to get an actual bonus (points to spend elsewhere). Thus inasmuch as GURPS incentivizes change, it encourages change for the worse, or in a sense, more plot-hooky and interesting. BW seems to incentivize change for change's own sake, perhaps because it places more explicit value in player-generated story hooks.

 

[Janx]

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 got into this late, but I agree with Celebrim on pages 1-2.

As to quoting ratskinner, specifically, when I choose an Elven Fighter/Thief/Mage and say he is the son of a Council member and he's going out to earn his reputation so he can join the Council, that should be sending a subliminal message to the GM on the kind of material I'm looking to experience.

True, it's not as direct as some non-D&D games might have me convey. But unless the GM is thick-headed, he should see that I've allowed for expecting to do "traditional D&D stuff" initially as the party does to earn XP, but I eventually want the plot to move toward me joining the Council and the politics involved with that.

Luckily, for me, back in 2E, that worked just fine and that's exactly how it turned out with my GM.

So yes, what race you choose and class, skills, etc are part of the signal to the GM on what kind of stuff you want to do. A Ranger wants to be in the woods and stuff. A Giant hating Ranger wants to be fighting Giants in the wilderness, not messing with political intrigue in the city. A PC with a lot of ranks in social skills wants to be using them on people, not mucking around in dank dungeons looking for traps.

 

[Ratskinner]

As to quoting ratskinner, specifically, when I choose an Elven Fighter/Thief/Mage and say he is the son of a Council member and he's going out to earn his reputation so he can join the Council, that should be sending a subliminal message to the GM on the kind of material I'm looking to experience.

Underlining added.

That's not subliminal, that's direct, and that's fine. It wasn't even a part of what I was arguing. All I was saying was that for most editions of D&D the two statements:

• I choose and Elven Fighter/Thief/Mage.
• He is the son of a Council member and he's going out to earn his reputation so he can join the Council.

Have nothing to do with each other, and you can't derive or divine the second from the first.

While there are tables and groups that would object to framing your character's career from the outset, I generally don't have a problem with it. I just don't think "I'm a halfling bard." is an effective way to do it.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Sometimes, depending on the context of what's going on in a given campaign or setting, those associations might be more clear, or send a more clear signal.

If, for example, that particular campaign were about a power struggle with the Council of elven F/M/Ts and some other group, if a player chooses that race/class combo, one could easily infer it's because they wanted to be involved with that in some way. I can think of dozens of examples from my own campaign world that would illustrate a similar point, but without the background won't mean much.

So while it's certainly true that not every choice in D&D sends a signal like that, many of the choices a player makes can, and often do, when you apply campaign-specific context to them. Book choices on their own usually don't, because they lack this context most of the time.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

For me, the easiest way to know how well a game system works for story-based gaming is to consider classic "groups" like in LOTR, The Avengers, Batman & Robin, Doctor Who + Companions, Robin Hood and the Merry Men:

If there is a large disparity in people's ability to accomplish actions in the game, can you still have fun playing? Game systems I have played and run like DWAITAS, Mouse Guard, FATE, My Life With Master, Everway, Fiasco, Call of Cthulhu are Ok with that. If my CoC investigator is no good at anything, I can still have fun playing him. In other systems I have played and run like D&D (2,3,4), GURPS, Hero, Star Wars Saga, definitely not.

In between are systems like Supernatural, Savage Worlds, Deadlands where the answer is more mixed.

One you've played a few rally different systems, it's pretty clear that different systems have different things they are good for. D&D provides little support for story-based games directly, so if you want to run a story-based game with D&D, to me *it makes perfect sense* to look for advice on how to run a game from other systems, and see how much you can use. The stated use of Beliefs, Traits and Instincts by a previous poster is an excellent example.

For me, I used Everyway's card-based resolution as a way to introduce story into high-epic 4e play; each person could choose pictures from anywhere they liked that they felt described their character. If they used the car in conjunction with a standard 4e power, the power was enhanced based on the degree to which the card's picture matched the story situation. Examples:

* One character used a card showing courtly love to enhance his power to move fast; his in-game wife also got the benefit, dispelled her immobility and they escaped.

* One character had a card showing a door being closed by a wizard. The plot I had planned was to force them to use a powerful artifact to close a gate to the Far Realms. He used the card with a simple "I close the door" action and that changed the campaign.

* One character had a picture of Sigil. The characters had a near-finale battle is Sigil, and the Lady of Pain ended up dead. The character who owned that card was asked to take over running Sigil, and did so,

Adding story elements to a game that doesn't directly support them isn't hard -- all it takes is an open mind, a willingness to read other systems and get ideas, and a set of players who can handle a GM telling them: "I'm going to try this. If it doesn't work, we'll drop it, but let's give it a go ..."

 

[Campbell]

One of the most interesting elements of RPG* play is that the rules of play are not really defined by the text of the game, but by a combination of interpretation, social mores, and player consensus (where the GM is also considered a player). This makes rules drift between games easier. Granted some elements can be lifted easier than others, and some games are more resistant to drift.

Elements like "Say yes or roll the dice", "let it ride", failing forward, and declaration of intent along with task declaration while as much rules of play as character generation and task/conflict resolution rules are more suitable to drift. On the other hand drifting elements like Burning Wheel's progression system that encourages players to take on tasks they will likely fail in are less so without dramatically rewriting portions of the game text, although they will still dramatically effect play.

I know some will disagree with me that the rules of the game extend beyond task resolution, but I say bunk. The role and responsibilities of GMs and players at table, the goals of play, player priorities, and other "metagame" priorities are as much a part of the game rules as Power Attack. When a game is silent on these issues it just means it expects player groups to establish that element itself.

*Actually true for most games, but since most are competitive endeavors little drift tends to happen. I do have experience where unspoken rules for attack priority have made games like Risk play dramatically different from table to table though.

 

[Campbell]

Double Post

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION], good post.