GM: Sean Nittner
System: Burning Wheel
Last night started off late due to me missing an email. Even after everyone arrived we had to decompress for half an hour before people were ready to game. Starting at 10 when I originally hoped to end by 10:30 meant I was fairly restrictive about the scenes, essentially ever character got one conflict.
Jordan had to win back the heart of Jaina, which after a brutal DoW he did by claiming his devotion for her and asking for her hand in marriage. What a dirty old man.
Luke got wind or rumors that the Gilnean army had deserted the alliance when they were needed the most. Through bullying his own troops and royally pissing off Uther he found the source of these rumors; a one eyed grizzled veteran who Luke will cast before the feet of Arthas for justice.
Genn swore and oath to bind the Stealtoe dwarves and man together and then set off into the cave. He nearly made his orienteering roll but failure meant he was caught by the dragon Searinox and not the other way around. Searinox was amused by the mechanical contraction he used, impressed somewhat by his boldness and mostly believed he found an agent to rid him of pester some Dwarves. An extremely one sided Duel of Wits sealed Genn as his agent.
What rocked
The Duel of Wits between Jordan and Jaina was brutal. Each of them wanted to change each other in ways that were personal. I finally felt like the stakes were something that rested on internal and emotional consequences rather than external political ones. Don’t get me wrong, both kinds of stakes are important, but I was missing the “human” element of the game and this provided it quite nicely. Jordan won but by the smallest margin of error. He won back Jaina’s heart but only by promising never to leave her side. They are now betrothed. Rock.
Luke is really starting to show his true colors. He is a bloody bastards who chews threw everyone and anyone to get what he wants. Arthas wanted the source of the rumors found and like a bloodhound on a trail Luke found them. He proves over and over what he is willing to do for status and power. I’m really warming up to this character. Next stake will be something more personal, will he give up something he actually cares about to move on?
Genn got to cheat death, claim victory over the Dragon and unite the Dwarves and Humans… pretty much all through lies and betrayal. See below, however, for why this kind of sucked too.
What could have been improved
Pacing. I didn’t intend for this first battle with the Orcs to take so long. Considering that in the scope of the campaign arc, it really is a blip on the radar I was thinking we’d be at it for only a couple of sessions. Were now getting into the “several” category and the battle is far from over. This isn’t a problem per se, in fact it really fits with the Burning Wheel system, but it feels a little less epic than the Warcraft campaign setting, where crazy shit is happening all the time.
No Macro Level mechanics. While I said last time I was going to use a linked vs. test, there is of course complications. Luke wants to bring his sorcery into play, and of course the Orcs have their own demonic magic, plus the blademaster who is essentially invulnerable and I have to figure out what to do with all of that. In the end I think I’m going to turn spells into advantage dice, with the cost that a Forte roll must be made to compensate otherwise the leader will be taxed during the time he needs to be barking orders. Still, feeling dissatisfied with this.
Hesitation = Fail. Before the DoW with Genn and the Dragon they made apposed intimidation rolls, the looser gaining hesitation by his margin of error. The Dragon’s intimidation is epic, he rolled 13 sucesses vs. Genn’s 4. Genn had to sit through nine actions of Searinox destroying him in a DoW, standing and drooling. In a lot of ways it makes sense. Dragons do have such overwhelming presences that people should be awed and broken by their will. But the problem is that is no fun. I mean why play at all if the GM is going to dictate your outcome. Yes, it was a gutsy (if stupid) move to approach the dragon alone, but I don’t think any of us wanted to see Genn so thoroughly destroyed and unable to gain even minor concession due to hesitation. This left a bad taste in my mouth, enough so that I have been thinking about how to put those two together again. Here’s my ideas and I want feedback from the players:
- Searinox lied. He said he would sleep for 200 years but you know what? Dwarf meat is tasty and he wants more. A message is sent to Genn that he either needs to provide some fresh dwarf meat to the dragon or Searinox is going to go out and get it himself, making everyone know Genn lied. Negotiations will have to open back up.
- After a fight with the Orcs both Arthas and Luke are going to realize that the Blademaster is indestructible by mortal means, including sorcery. The doesn’t mean the battle can’t be won, it just mean that the Orcs will have a brutal advantage that can’t be mitigated without the orb of fire. Between Luke, Arthas and the Dwarves putting their heads together, going back to get the Dragon’s heart will become the obvious decision, and who better to do it than Genn (well assuming he convinces everyone that he is the only one why could find the Dragon’s body)?
- My least favorite idea, but doable. We retcon the DoW. Instead of destroying Genn while he hesitated the dragon gloats. He’s a billion years old, he in his own domain and believes himself invulnerable. Like a cat and mouse, it is no fun if your prey can’t put up a fight, or at least give you chase. So rather than taking advantage of Genn’s hesitation, he rides it, casting insults, and generally being a self absorbed asshole until Genn recovers his wits and can properly debate the topic.
Here’s my thoughts, from a GMing perspective:
The only part that seemed steamrollerie over the player was the roll. Felt like you said, ok roll now, and the player didn’t like that in the end(from what I saw)
Rather than saying roll right now, it’s intimidation based, maybe saying something like, “If you decide to make the roll as is, you’re making an intimidation roll, and the dragon looks awfully fearsome. Is that what you want to do?” I think this would fit with my perception of Duel of Wits, or at least give the opportunity to say a last bit to get another FoRK.
I’d also say that this is a game of bad consequences from failure. It’s much grittier than D+D, and frankly, the fact that a single person survived an encounter with a dragon should be reward enough. Even in WoW, facing off with a dragon your level normally requires 4-9 other players to be survivable. Besides, you made the point more than once that Dwarves hunt Dragons with an army. No matter what our military may say, one man does not an army make.
I’m not sure another encounter with the dragon is the way to go. Genn’s already had a consequence for failure, and 1 and 3 seem to penalize the player more for already having failed, no matter how neat it might be for other players to watch, or even for the player to play through. 2 could be neat, or it could serve to be an annoyance to the player.
I’d say look at the player’s beliefs and instincts, and see if they are interested in the Dragon. If nothing is mentioned about the dragon in them, then I’d say the player doesn’t want to deal with him anymore, at least not in the near future.
The only part that seemed steamrollerie over the player was the roll. Felt like you said, ok roll now, and the player didn’t like that in the end(from what I saw)
Rather than saying roll right now, it’s intimidation based, maybe saying something like, “If you decide to make the roll as is, you’re making an intimidation roll, and the dragon looks awfully fearsome. Is that what you want to do?” I think this would fit with my perception of Duel of Wits, or at least give the opportunity to say a last bit to get another FoRK.
Yeah, that is really a failing on my part. It is too easy to say… “Roll dice” without first determining what the stakes are in. In this case the actions were already taken (each had threatened the other) but I still should have slowed down a bit and put the consequnces on the table before rolling. Good point and something I need to remember in the future.
I’d say look at the player’s beliefs and instincts, and see if they are interested in the Dragon. If nothing is mentioned about the dragon in them, then I’d say the player doesn’t want to deal with him anymore, at least not in the near future.
That’s true. BITs (Beliefs, insticts, and traints) are really the players power to steer the game. I’ll review Genns for direction.
Meh, I wouldn’t put the blame entirely on your shoulders there. I think it’s a paradigm issue.
In D+D, and most of the games that I’ve played (in fact…I think every other game I’ve played long term), the general theory seems to go this way:
To accomplish X, roll dice. If your number is (above/below/equal to) Y, you do X. If not, you do not do X.
Burning Wheel changes that to:
To accomplish X, roll dice. If your number is >= Y, you do X. If not, you do not do X AND Z happens, which is a natural consequence of your failing to do X.
Now, that concept is present in one place in a lot of games: Climbing. Most games, if you make your climb roll, you climb. If not and you fail by enough, you fall. It’s either a positive or a negative result, with a tiny chance for a neutral.
Burning wheel is all about positive OR negative consequences, and most games are just Positive. The only way for a player to take a negative consequence is for an NPC to get a positive consequence.
forgot my point, lol.
Point:
It’s not you, it’s all the other games. Gotta relearn how to make rolls happen for this game to work, and both players and GM are learning.
Found this on the BW Forums here: http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6954&page=3
From the 25 or so BW sessions I’ve had, both in a campaign and as one-shots, I think every single time there was a problem– and by which I mean, something that left me or one of the players frustrated or dissatisfied– it was due to the fact that intent had not been sufficiently clarified before the dice were rolled.
Actually, let me qualify that just a little bit. Let me instead say, that every single time there was a problem, it was due either either to intent not being sufficiently clarified, or to the consequences of failure not being stated clearly in advance. (In truth, I think these are actually flip sides of the same coin…. since failure is ultimately the failure to achieve intent. Still, I think it’s worthwhile to point out that it’s really, really essential for both successful intent– and failed intent– to be explicit in advance. Failure to do this can, in my experience at least, really screw things up.