Phew. What a relief.
These systems are overall very interesting to me. Part of the reason for doing Blades for me, too, was getting a model for wheels turning in the background. Burning Wheel talks about the importance of background movement, especially in the Codex, but I felt like there wasn’t much in the way of guidance for that process. Of course, that isn’t really Burning Wheel’s job; it’s a system (with a paradigm of play built in), not an instructional text on how to run a setting. I do think there’s an interesting anthropological angle regarding some of the assumptions of the TTRPG culture that BW came out of and was a response to and how the loss of those assumptions influence the interpretation of BW – but probably here is not where to do it!
What were we talking about? Factions? Right. Here are some Factions questions:
1a. Why the recommendations to bar Circles access to Factions behind Affiliations? It seems counter-intuitive that I can’t circle up my brother who is (conveniently) a member of the Holy Order of Saint Michael because I also did not buy into that affiliation. As a player, isn’t part of the appeal of Circles that you can get access to otherwise unaccessible factions through friends and family?
1b. Why the Members Must Believe clause? It seems like that precludes the duplicitous schemer archetype who is just using a faction’s assets and influence for their own ends – which is an archetype I’m sure I’m not alone in my affection for!
It seems like these stipulations paint a picture of highly insular, sincere organizations. I’m a huge fan of constraint, but these limitations leave me scratching my chin.
- I noticed that because smaller factions go first, it behooves a larger faction to secure an alliance with a smaller faction and use them as a catspaw to strike at the bigger factions rivals, while supplementing the smaller faction with a helping die. Is that the idea?