Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7095454" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I can't speak for [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] (obviously) but I find the premise of the question a bit strange.</p><p></p><p>The GM has a lot of responsibility for the success of a game of BW. From the rulebook (Revised p 268; Gold p 551 - the text is the same in both editions):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">In Burning Wheel, it is the GM's job to interpret all of the varous intents of the players' actions and mesh them into a cohesive whole that fits within the context of the game. He's got to make sure that all the player wackiness abides by the rules. When it doesn't, he must guide the wayward players gently back into the fold. Often this requires negotiating an action or intent until both player and GM are satisfied that it fits both the concept and the mood of the game.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">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. His perspective grants the power to hold off one action, while another player moves forward so that the two pieces intersect dramatically at the table. 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. It's a heady responsibility, but utterly worthwhile.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Most important, the GM is response for introducing complications to the story and consequences to the players' choices. Burning Wheel is all about choices - from the minute you start creating a character, you are making hard choices. ONce play begins, as players choose their path, it is the GM's job to meaningfully inject resonant ramifications into play. A character murdes a guard. No big deal, right? Well, that's up to the GM to decide. Sure there's justice and revenge to consider - that's the obvious stuff - but there's also the bigger picture elements to consider: whole provinces have risen in revolt due to one errant murder.</p><p></p><p>Personally I find it very demanding.</p><p></p><p>The next page of both rulebooks goes on to discuss "the sacred and most holy role of the players", who "have a number of duties", to:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">[O]ffer hooks to their GM and the other players in the form of Beliefs, Instincts and Traits . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[L]et the characgter develop as play advances . . . don't write a [PC] history in which all the adventure has already happened . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><u>se their character to drive the story forward - to resolve conflicts and create new ones . . . to push and risk their characters, so they grow and change in surprising ways . . .</u></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><u></u></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><u>Use the mechanics . . .</u></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><u></u></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><u>Participate. Help enhance your friends' scenes and step forward and make the most of your own. . . . If the story doesn't interest you, <em>it's your job to create interestig situations and involve yourself.</em> . . .</u></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><u></u></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><u>Above all, have fun. . . . Listen to the other players, riff off of them; take their leads and run with them. Expand on their madness, but also rein them in whey they get out of hand. Remember that you're playing in a group, and <em>everyone</em> has to have fun.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>Those duties are demanding too. [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] has talked, upthread, about "release valves" and about inviolability of character concept. Well, BW - as you can see - insists that players put their characters on the line. Characters might change in ways that noone foresaw (changes of ability; changes of colour; changes of goals).</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>There's no analogue, in BW played as per the above guidelines, to just rolling up some PCs and taking on White Plume Mountain. (This is why <a href="https://www.burningwheel.com/wiki/images/BurningTHAC0.pdf" target="_blank">Burning THACO</a> is a significant departure. It drops much of the player and GM responsibilities mentioned above, and instead is all about light-hearted, beer-and-pretzels module bashing.)</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>I wouldn't think of it as having very much in common with either playing or GMing 3E/PF, except in some very surface level ways. There is not a whole lot of PC-build rules and lists of spells to remember and adjudicate. The dmeands all relate to establshing and engaging with the fiction.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>Perhaps I've missed the point, but this seems an odd place to argue about GM creativity. In D&D, if the player makes a roll to hit, all the GM gets to do is either leave the target's hp unchanged (on a miss) or reduce the hp tally (on a hit). (Having read on a bit, I see that [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] has made much the same point.)</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>And if we think about non-attack moves declared by a player, like climbing - well, the GM gets to declare "You go up", "You stay put" or "You fall". When [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] once suggested that, using DW-type principles, the GM might instead narrate an essential item falling into the crevasse, I remember this provoking a degree of controversy.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>So what GM creativity are you envisaging being opened up by player action declarations that is missing from DW?</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>"Curated" is not a synonym for "designed". And no one is claiming that the <em>moves</em> in PbtA games are authentic - the claim is about the play that these systems tend to support or push towards.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>Because this thread is lacking in contention and points of disagreement, I'll just put this out there: one function of the D&D alignment system, in at least some of its applications, is to shield the players from having to fully deal with the ramifications of the choices. For instance, instead of having to wonder (in character) "Having done that terrible thing, am I still a good person?" there is a little entry on the PC sheet that assures them that they still are.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>Another example in the same general conceptual space: Faith, in BW, is bound by "intent and task". The task is speaking a prayer: so, at the table, the player has to speak the prayer his/her PC is making. The intent is the deisred (mechanically defined) outcome, which also determines the difficulty of the check, although (as per Revised p 231; Gold p 523) "Outlandish intents are a fine cause for massively increased obstacles and a little divine wrath." Having to actually speak your prayer puts the player of the faithful character in quite a different position from the player of the D&D cleric: there is no "hiding" behind spell slots and V, S, M/F components. You have to give voice to your faith.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>And yet another example, in a different conceptual space, but that relates back to the account of the GM and player roles that I have posted in response to Tony Vargas: the GM is expected to respond to what you, as a player of your character are pushing towards, and if you check fails the GM is expected to <em>thwart that intent</em>. Upthread, [MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION] described this as unduly adversarial. Personally I don't find it to be such (otherwise I wouldn't play the game), but it is putting emotions, and conceptions of the character and the fiction, on the line. There is nothing like an alignment system, a pre-written scenario, etc to serve as a buffer or a "release valve" for these issues.</u></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7095454, member: 42582"] I can't speak for [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] (obviously) but I find the premise of the question a bit strange. The GM has a lot of responsibility for the success of a game of BW. From the rulebook (Revised p 268; Gold p 551 - the text is the same in both editions): [indent]In Burning Wheel, it is the GM's job to interpret all of the varous intents of the players' actions and mesh them into a cohesive whole that fits within the context of the game. He's got to make sure that all the player wackiness abides by the rules. When it doesn't, he must guide the wayward players gently back into the fold. Often this requires negotiating an action or intent until both player and GM are satisfied that it fits both the concept and the mood of the game. 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. His perspective grants the power to hold off one action, while another player moves forward so that the two pieces intersect dramatically at the table. 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. It's a heady responsibility, but utterly worthwhile. Most important, the GM is response for introducing complications to the story and consequences to the players' choices. Burning Wheel is all about choices - from the minute you start creating a character, you are making hard choices. ONce play begins, as players choose their path, it is the GM's job to meaningfully inject resonant ramifications into play. A character murdes a guard. No big deal, right? Well, that's up to the GM to decide. Sure there's justice and revenge to consider - that's the obvious stuff - but there's also the bigger picture elements to consider: whole provinces have risen in revolt due to one errant murder.[/indent] Personally I find it very demanding. The next page of both rulebooks goes on to discuss "the sacred and most holy role of the players", who "have a number of duties", to: [indent][O]ffer hooks to their GM and the other players in the form of Beliefs, Instincts and Traits . . . [L]et the characgter develop as play advances . . . don't write a [PC] history in which all the adventure has already happened . . . [U]se their character to drive the story forward - to resolve conflicts and create new ones . . . to push and risk their characters, so they grow and change in surprising ways . . . Use the mechanics . . . Participate. Help enhance your friends' scenes and step forward and make the most of your own. . . . If the story doesn't interest you, [I]it's your job to create interestig situations and involve yourself.[/I] . . . Above all, have fun. . . . Listen to the other players, riff off of them; take their leads and run with them. Expand on their madness, but also rein them in whey they get out of hand. Remember that you're playing in a group, and [I]everyone[/I] has to have fun.[/U][/indent][U] Those duties are demanding too. [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] has talked, upthread, about "release valves" and about inviolability of character concept. Well, BW - as you can see - insists that players put their characters on the line. Characters might change in ways that noone foresaw (changes of ability; changes of colour; changes of goals). There's no analogue, in BW played as per the above guidelines, to just rolling up some PCs and taking on White Plume Mountain. (This is why [url=https://www.burningwheel.com/wiki/images/BurningTHAC0.pdf]Burning THACO[/url] is a significant departure. It drops much of the player and GM responsibilities mentioned above, and instead is all about light-hearted, beer-and-pretzels module bashing.) I wouldn't think of it as having very much in common with either playing or GMing 3E/PF, except in some very surface level ways. There is not a whole lot of PC-build rules and lists of spells to remember and adjudicate. The dmeands all relate to establshing and engaging with the fiction. Perhaps I've missed the point, but this seems an odd place to argue about GM creativity. In D&D, if the player makes a roll to hit, all the GM gets to do is either leave the target's hp unchanged (on a miss) or reduce the hp tally (on a hit). (Having read on a bit, I see that [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] has made much the same point.) And if we think about non-attack moves declared by a player, like climbing - well, the GM gets to declare "You go up", "You stay put" or "You fall". When [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] once suggested that, using DW-type principles, the GM might instead narrate an essential item falling into the crevasse, I remember this provoking a degree of controversy. So what GM creativity are you envisaging being opened up by player action declarations that is missing from DW? "Curated" is not a synonym for "designed". And no one is claiming that the [i]moves[/i] in PbtA games are authentic - the claim is about the play that these systems tend to support or push towards. Because this thread is lacking in contention and points of disagreement, I'll just put this out there: one function of the D&D alignment system, in at least some of its applications, is to shield the players from having to fully deal with the ramifications of the choices. For instance, instead of having to wonder (in character) "Having done that terrible thing, am I still a good person?" there is a little entry on the PC sheet that assures them that they still are. Another example in the same general conceptual space: Faith, in BW, is bound by "intent and task". The task is speaking a prayer: so, at the table, the player has to speak the prayer his/her PC is making. The intent is the deisred (mechanically defined) outcome, which also determines the difficulty of the check, although (as per Revised p 231; Gold p 523) "Outlandish intents are a fine cause for massively increased obstacles and a little divine wrath." Having to actually speak your prayer puts the player of the faithful character in quite a different position from the player of the D&D cleric: there is no "hiding" behind spell slots and V, S, M/F components. You have to give voice to your faith. And yet another example, in a different conceptual space, but that relates back to the account of the GM and player roles that I have posted in response to Tony Vargas: the GM is expected to respond to what you, as a player of your character are pushing towards, and if you check fails the GM is expected to [I]thwart that intent[/I]. Upthread, [MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION] described this as unduly adversarial. Personally I don't find it to be such (otherwise I wouldn't play the game), but it is putting emotions, and conceptions of the character and the fiction, on the line. There is nothing like an alignment system, a pre-written scenario, etc to serve as a buffer or a "release valve" for these issues.[/u] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top