Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6111310" data-attributes="member: 4937">Given that you seem to have a problem responding to anything I actually said, probably so.But anyway, about that other thread.   I wasn't saying how BW worked.   I was saying how I would make them work in D&D.   I believe my mechanic is reasonable and well accords with similar definable traits in other systems that lean narrativist (Dogs In The Vineyard, Monsters and other Childish Things, FATE, etc. even Call on Traits in BW) where stating something about your character, like "I'm the toughest man in these parts." is mechanically powerful and can be called on to influence the course of play.  The reason for the mechanical tie in is that D&D tends to be a very crunchy system, and I didn't want to get into XP awards or other sorts of tie ins for playing to belief.  In particular, since D&D tends to have a gamist mindset that may not be part of established BW play, I thought it important to attach mechanical motivation to those beliefs lest they be ignored.  In other words, one of the problems D&D already has is that player will establish a character and play it entirely in pawn stance with the actual player motivation not being exploration of belief, but simply gaining some story advantage.  What I wanted to do was allow the D&D version of beliefs to override this and make it mechanically motivating to reward actor stance in play (and author stance in character creation) in the hopes of driving the game toward making it be about the beliefs.  BW on the other hand presumes player desire to act on their beliefs.  If a player in BW isn't interested in engaging with their beliefs, there really isn't a recovery mechanism to BW (well, other than the DM erasing beliefs, saddling the player with unwanted traits, and deciding not to award Artha).   In D&D, if the player isn't engaging with their beliefs, then there is still hack n' slash, etc.Do you think it's good design to port in a mechanic from one system to another without considering the differences between the system?As for beliefs "letting the player drive the action, dictate what matters, and establish the scenes that are important", I have player backstory for that which lets the player signal to me the sort of things that they are interested in, as well as a questionare I typically hand out before planning a campaign where I ask the players what sort of game that they are interested in playing.  If they all agree, "We want to play pirates.", then we'll play pirates.   If everyone hates adventure paths, then I'll avoid having a "save the world" sort of plot that demands player attention.   If on the other hand everyone loves adventure paths, then I'll have a primary "your corner of the world is threatened" plot that can continually drive forward action without heavy player proactivity.The problem I'm having is I'm beginning to feel from peoples descriptions of play is that beliefs in Burning Wheel end up granting players less influence over the game and game world than the way I normally play.  I again refer you to the points I raised about the adventure burner and the discussion of the 'difficulty' in adjudicating 'Say yes' and the explicit authorial control BW grants the GM to establish scenes and decide whether those scenes are relevant to belief and therefore must be tested mechanically.   In other words, if a player says, "Why am I hanging on this ledge above a chasm?  This doesn't relate to my beliefs.", it seems pretty clear that the GM is presumed to be able to say, "Well, you want to prove you are the true king, right?  And on the other side of this narrow ledge is the tomb of the ancient kings, where maybe you can find some proof of your ancestory?  So, roll the dice or fall."  I've seen no sign whatsoever in the BW rules that Beliefs give the players scene framing power at all.  The seem to serve only as signals.  They don't let the player direct the story, and notable they don't provide the player with the ability to use his narrative force (that is the defined results of his mechanical propositions) to obtain the outcomes the player wants.   And if only signals, then the fact that you have just a few sentences in which to make your signals is pretty limiting.You make fun of me for not understanding BW because I thought it would be cool to provide a mechanical benefit for playing to belief, but I was looking at it as a player - "This ledge is in the way of me getting to the tombs of the ancient kings.  But, lo, my belief carries me across the ledge."  - is far more empowering than simply signaling to the DM that I want my beliefs challenged.In fact, I already have this mechanism and in a far more powerful form than the '+1 bonus'.   It's called Destiny Points.   Destiny points let you do lots of cool things, but they are hard to replenish.  One way to replenish them is accomplish one of your declared character objectives.  So, if one of your declared character objectives is, "Keep the world safe from necromancers" or "Protect the innocent" or "Serve the Temple of Aravar", then when you achieve that goal by killing a necromancers, saving the lives of innocent bystanders, or fulfilling a quest given you by the High Priest of Aravar you get a destiny point.  It means if you are being proactive and pursuing the things you say you want to do, then you are much less likely to fail.  And it also means that I'm motivated to make the oppurtunies to achieve these objectives.   Now, granted, objectives aren't the same as beliefs but they do share with a well designed belief in BW that they motivate the player to action.Ok, that's nice.  But looking at your your own example, "Stating a belief for a peasant that 'I'm the true king of this land' does not make it factual in the game.", that means that the player can't really say what the game is about.  So yeah, while you can say that the player gets to drive the action and dictate what matters, the truth is not so much.  If your belief is, "I'm the true king of this land.", and the GM's belief is, "That's ridiculous.", you may find the game playing out more like Don Quixote when what you really wanted was Morte D'Arthur.  So while you can meekly accept the idea that the game is about, "a mad peasant rebel rising to challenge the established order", you can't really say what the game is about nor force it to be the story you want it to be.  Where as in my game, you can say in your backstory, "I AM true king of this land.", and you are.   And moreover, if your objective was, "Regain my rightful throne", every time you do something that advances that agenda - like convince someone you are - you are owed a Destiny Point which can then use to secure your character and advance his agenda.And that's the honest truth.  I haven't actually had a player set up there backstory as, "I am the true king of this land." yet, but I did have a player set up the backstory, "I'm the daughter of the High Thane of the Dwarf Kingdoms" and I said, "Ok, you are."UPDATE: Actually, it occurs to me that I have gone farther than that.  I recently had a player submit a backstory that called for them to be the mortal descendent of a diety that had hitherto in the game univere celibate, and I approved that - essentially altering the mythology around one of the universe's major dieties.  And the player had that idea because it's explicitly called out in my rules as a possibility.  Beliefs are pathetic in their demands on the universe in comparison.</blockquote>

Verification