Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8371951" data-attributes="member: 42582">I've neither read nor played BitD (or other FitD games), but have read a lot about them! I have limited PbtA experience (DW play) but have read AW and DW very closely and engaged in a lot of discussion about them.I think the language of "provide opportunities" can be both an invitation and a trap. (Maybe that's a bit dramatic. Hopefully my point will be clear enough nevertheless.) When what we have in mind is, say, a classic railroad module - say a DL module, or the 3E-era Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, or even the 4e module Thunderspire Labyrinth (which, as written, is basically a railroad once the players make some basic choices) - then "provide opportunities" is clearly an invitation to do something different - to open up a space of player choice.But if what we have in mind is, say, Tomb of Horror or White Plume Mountain, or even if we focus on those parts of Thunderspire Labyrinth that do offer choices (like how the players choose to orient their PCs vis-a-vis some of the factions) then "provide opportunities" can look like simply doing more of that sort of thing: dungeons/settings that allow meaningful choices about exploration, what challenges to tackle and how, who to ally with, etc. But that would still end up being a long way from Burning Wheel play and pretty skill/challenge focused rather than "narratively" focused.What I like about the BW advice I quoted in the OP is that it move beyond abstractions like "provide opportunities" or "leave blanks" to focus on who brings what to the table. It expressly calls out those things that are central and where they come from (ie traits, gear, relationships, Beliefs that are found on PC sheets; NPCs that flow from Circles checks that are declared by players for their PCs). This is also what I was getting at with my final comment in the OP:In a game in which the GM brings the content that is provided by (say) Beliefs and relationships - and there are pretty strong hints of that in (eg) the DW suggestion that the GM will first frame the PCs into an ambush, and then ask the players to help flesh out its fictional context - it's going to be harder to follow the BW advice.I think this is a pretty important question. We could say that - in relation to player-oriented or player-driven RPGing - it sits in the same sort of space as do questions about "Monty Haul" or "Killer DMing" in relation to classic dungeoneering.Here's my take (again, with due acknowledgement to [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] for pushing me hard to think about this): the more that the player gets to "front load" the arc/fate of his/her PC, and hence the conception of his/her PC, the less s/he is going to be challenged by actual play. Play becomes more like the working out in detail of something already decided.You can see how the BW approach opens the door to this possibility: if the key setting details are coming from the PC sheet, then a lot of what happens is going to deal with or speak to those details. As I posted above, the main device that BW uses to protect against this risk is its relatively high failure rate.I don't think it's just about clarity of explanation. I think it's about identifying the author, and the method of authorship, of key setting elements.Obviously if we're comparing these games to (say) classic D&D or 5e D&D, the distinction I'm drawing might vanish from sight as we pull away to expand the horizon of our comparison. But in the OP my goal was to focus in on points of difference between the two games. Part of the reason for doing so was some other recent discussions I've been in where DW has been approached in ways that were a bit unexpected my be; that's led me to go back to the texts and look closely at what's in them.</blockquote>

Verification