Ultimately, I would say that the game serves us. But it can only really serve us well when we truly understand it.
As far as some of the lifepath decisions that were made by BWHQ in order to produce this game, well somebody had to make them. They may not be the ones I would have chosen, but there they are!
I do know that Luke and company put a lot of time and talent into making this happen and I appreciate what they have accomplished here, even when I disagree with some decision or ideom that they have chosen at least they are willing to talk about it in forum.
Regarding house rules I say what was wisely told to me once.
It’s your game, just remember that you are no longer playing burning wheel, you are playing your version of a burning wheel hack. Your group might have fun with it or you might not, but what ever happens and what ever it is. It isn’t burning wheel.
House rules, just like houses, require a firm foundation if they are to withstand the storm.
For what its worth, I disagree with the idea of a Drunk guard too. But if you change it, change it to something equally unflattering (Cynical, Bored, Bully, ect). Flipping it into something desirable goes against the kind of character trait it is (something to play against or with for character development) undesirable traits are things to overcome in play while desirable ones are things to exemplify.
Though the game has no world full of ethics or laws, the rules do contain a philosophy and outlook that implies a certain type of place. There are consequences to your choices in this game. They range from the very black and white, “If I engage in this duel, my character might die,” to the more complex, “If my character undertakes this task, he’ll be changed and I don’t know exactly how.” Recognizing that the system enforces these choices will help you navigate play.[/b]
[/i]
The game never says it’s multi-universe compatible or widely versatile. It plays a certain kind of game very well, one in which mechanics enforce the fact that player choices have consequences. That’s being said, you really don’t need anyone’s permission to hack the game and do whatever you want with it. Heck, if you come up with interesting house rules, there’s a whole forum called Gold Sparks devoted to house rules and hacks. But if you ask why Life Paths work that way, we’re probably going to answer and tell you why we recommend playing it that way.
Really, I think it’s too much work to fight against the spirit of the rules. There are tons of games out there that do things Burning Wheel doesn’t do, I’m not sure why I would spend any time at all trying to turn BW into one of them. But that’s just me. Here’s what I do when I look down at the Guard lifepath and see Drunk as a required trait. I grumble and shake my fist at the skies. Then I curse Luke Crane and call him nasty names. Then I write Drunk on my character sheet and move on.
Someone (I think Judd Karlman) once said making a character in Burning Wheel is a heart breaking experience.
On the flip side, I have been rewarded with some of the most meaningful and intense roleplaying experiences of my life. So, I guess a little bitter with the sweet isn’t such a bad thing.
Burning Wheel is a game that’s got some really nice interactions between the various components, beautiful cycles that you really don’t want to break. It’s also a game with a lot of details — or even entire subsystems — that you can easily tweak or replace. Most folks on the forum prefer to be cautious here.
Now, is there harm in tweaking a character trait or two? Not much. The lifepaths aren’t perfect, anyway, and character traits are mostly tools to help you and your group talk about your characters.
But, before you do, just a teeny word of caution: the point of lifepaths isn’t so much to create a hero as it is to create a person, someone who’s shaped by — and limited by — their life experiences. You can sprinkle on a bit of the extraordinary through unusual LPs or special traits, but really to make your character a hero, someone who shapes their world rather than being shaped by it, you’ve gotta do it in play. That’s why there’s no paths for common fantasy tropes like “Trained from birth to be a master assassin.” (There’s a joke on the wiki, LPs for Conan. Take a look and compare to how a regular BW character develops.)
To me, that Guard trait is saying “Guards are drunkards, as a group.” Like, a huge part of the practical and social dimension of being a guard is drinking a lot with your buddies. Ditto for rabble-rousing city students: being one (as opposed to receiving a more cloistered or more elite education) means immersing yourself in an atsmophere of youthful know-it-all iconoclasm. If your character isn’t at all like that, would they even pursue that life?
Maybe the answer is “yes” and this is otherwise perfect and it’s worth bending the LPs a little. (An example I wouldn’t even bat an eye at: “My Young Lady should have Sewing. That’s just what all the ladies in <Burgundy, Saxon England, Minas Tirith, whatever> do all the time, as their main domestic craft.” An example I would scrutinize, hardcore: “It makes sense that sorcerers learn some humility during their grueling apprenticeships, but I want mine to be a big ball of unmitigated arrogance instead.”) Just don’t do it a lot because it takes away from the power of the lifepaths, which is to make your character’s history more grounded than it would be otherwise. If you’re temped to do it often, it’s a sign that either you’re picking the wrong LPs for what you want, or the game’s implied setting strongly doesn’t match your setting, or you’re “trying to have your cake and eat it too” a bit too much in chargen.
What this whole debate sounds like it is heading, in essence, is towards Lifepath Burning. To be honest, it is almost exactly that if you consider it.
Making small tweaks to already existing lifepaths (such as Cynical guardsmen instead of Drunken ones) then setting them side by side to the original on the menu, is really just an expansion of lifepath settings to allow some variation in choice.
“Lifepath burning for dummies” is what it kinda amounts to. I may be way off or vastly incorrect, but it seems to me that what is being discussed is boiling down to an already existing system within Burning Wheel. Admittedly, it was developed for revised, but I don’t see much need to adjust the Lifepath Burning concept for Gold.
Provided there isn’t too much tweaking (as an example, trade out negative Traits for an equal cost negative trait. No trading out negative char traits for positive ,D-T’s), then it shouldn’t be horrendously game breaking.
You know how there’s, like, Sergeant and Corrupt Sergeant, or Acolyte and Failed Acolyte? I could totally imagine making a “Washout Guardsman,” kinda like the loner who nobody liked or whatever.
Also keep in mind that it doesn’t mean that the guard is a drinker. Character traits can also just be the way the general public perceives you. In their interactions with city guards most have been drunks. And who can blame them. Most of their day involves sitting around waiting for something to happen. Now, if you don’t want your city guard to be a drunk that is great. He has never tasted the stuff. However that doesn’t change the public initial perceptions of you. So maybe they will treat you like a drunk. And maybe your actions convince them other wise. Come time for trait vote, you lose the drunk trait and gain something better.
I had my issues with mandatory traits at first too. For most of the reasons you do. However they do serve as a wonderful catalyst for some great roleplaying. At the end of the day, that is why we all play Burning Wheel isn’t it? Just remember that a trait doesn’t always necessarily mean it’s true about your character. Only that it is the public’s opinion. Then it becomes up to you to charge that opinion in game.
I guess, one of the things that gets me is that sometimes in life, you have to do things you don’t want to do. My character I’m making, for instance, was sent to school by her well-to-do parents, and while she likes academic study to a certain extent, she wanted nothing to do with the life being forced on her, and was looking for a way out, constantly causing trouble.
I haven’t memorized the trait list… but something like trouble-maker, a bad reputation, or something negative, would be in line. Rabble rouser? She’s really not a people person. In her mind, they exist to be manipulated, and larger groups are harder to wrangle.
If I want to play a character of divine perfection who can just slaughter the world… why would I move from D&D? I want Burning Wheel because I want people. People who are unique, who are flawed, who have great strengths and great weaknesses. This character in D&D, I’ve arbitrarily removed her hit points, basically - she freaks out at getting hurt, and while she’s not precisely a coward, she can’t handle the pressure of in-your-face-combat. She’s an assassin sort, and doesn’t really want to have anyone hostile who’s actually capable of fighting back. She’s grievously wounded, emotionally, and is throwing it all in, in a desperate bid for survival, with hope of maybe managing to do more than just survive.
I don’t want to make all-powerful people with no flaws or drawbacks. I want to make people, unique, sometimes extraordinary people, but people nonetheless, who bear the marks and strains of an unusual life.
You can interpret rabble-rouser more broadly. Sure, usually it implies getting the crowd riles up, but maybe she does it one rabble-member at a time and her reputation is for the collective effects. And your idea still looks like a great fit for the other two Student LPs. Dangerous seems like a fitting trait, and the no requirement LP lets you choose your own. Cha traits are wide open; you can really come up with your own. But from your description I really like the idea of a Dangerous noble student.
God, I really think about this stuff too much…I probably need some kind of intervention.
Anyway, I feel you. Everything you’ve said makes sense. Totally logical. And there’s not a person here who hasn’t come to chargen with a character in mind only to be told by the game, sorry, won’t work. You’re character is 32 not 23 and you can’t get from wampum hunter to spelunker without going through Outcast, so I guess you spent time as a pirate. We’ve been there and we’ve seen posts like this numerous times throughout the years.
Will the game explode if you change one little mandatory trait on one little life path? No.
But, here’s the thing. Luke’s a pretty smart dude who preaches designing games that deliver as intended, and he’s had over 10 years full of this criticism and three revisions. If it was something that wasn’t central to the design, it would be gone by now. You’d just have a list of traits and points to buy them with. So, obviously the game does not want you to blithely create that unique, sometimes extraordinary person. I guess, ultimately, Burning Wheel is not impressed by backstory.
Lifepaths? They’re not really about uniqueness. Sure you can customize things and mix and match, but your Guardsman gets the Drunk trait. You’re right, it’s a stereotype. Where uniqueness comes in is your BITs. That’s where your focus is most rewarded. What does your character Believe and fight for? What drives your character? How do they react in various situations? And what are you doing with the choices that you did have among the various traits on offer? Most of all, what do you do with those things in play. Fighting for uniqueness in your backstory seems like a distraction to me, and I think the mechanics back me up.
Besides, Mandatory lifepath traits are just the beginning of a long list of ways the game is going to intrude on your character decisions. Burning Wheel is going to twist and mutilate your character in play, at least if you’re doing it right. It’s going to present you with difficult choices and you’ll learn who your character is by the choices you end up making. It’s fitting that the game starts messing with you early. It’s a metaphor for how the rest of the system works and I’m not sure you’re best served coming into the game with too firm a grasp on your character.
For my characters, I start with a concept, burn the character, write a vague back story (which will certainly change in play as my character learns more about himself and his past), from that I write my beliefs and instincts as well as purchase my affiliations, reputations, and relationships as they make sense for the character and game.
You may have a problem here. Have you removed hit points because you don’t want to see her in combat?
Burning Wheel is the sort of game where, if you put down on your sheet that your character freaks out at getting hurt and can’t handle the pressure of combat, it becomes the GM’s duty to put combat in her path and make situations where she has to risk getting hurt to achieve what she wants.
And, thereby, you get to see that fear of violence have an impact on play, rather than merely sit around in your head as an inert footnote. She gets a chance to confront her fears. Maybe to grow beyond them. Maybe to be broken by them. Maybe to find out just what it is that’s worth more to her than her own safety - and what it is that isn’t.
If you don’t want that, if want her to be safe - not just in the combat sense, but in the conceptual sense - then this is the wrong system for you. This is a system that will press change upon your character, and not necessarily the change you expect.
Everything else you’re saying suggests maybe you’re fine with that. But removing hitpoints sounds like flinching away from the character conflict, not embracing it. If your character fears getting hurt, you shouldn’t be changing the mechanics so she can’t get hurt. That’s the opposite of what Burning Wheel does.
In D&D (depending on which edition) a long term character can have more “hit points” than some Dragons! (as your character has been played for a while, I presumed that the deity-like hit points were what you were referring to) You won’t have that kind of problem in burning wheel. As far as your characters B.I.T.s are concerned, write her up and post her in the Crucible forum and I am sure folks will be willing to give encouragement and advice.
laughs Trust me, I’m okay with that. I’m almost sadistic with the poor girl - I find it hilarious when she freaks out.
By removing hit points, I didn’t mean that I was making her immune to getting hit… exactly the opposite! Her hit points, due to her level, suggest that she should be able to be stabbed a dozen times with a dagger without so much as flinching. Ha! If she gets worse than a rose’s thorn, she’s going to be bolting in a hurry.
I’d be delighted at the GM putting danger in her path as something for her to get past. It’ll involve some sweat (and maybe tears :P), but I’m sure she’d find a way to manage. She’s a survivor, that one.
A thought occurred to me that’s only slightly relevant, but I’m going to ponder openly here anyway.
The often-advocated style of GMing for BW is finding the character’s soft spots, via beliefs or relationships, and hammering at them. It’s not adversarial in the D&D DM sense, but it’s still a hit hard, pull no punches, make 'em bleed and test their mettle style of gaming. That’s hurling danger right at the character or her loved ones, pummeling beliefs directly, and in some sense making the player reactive to what’s happening to beliefs. But it occurs to me that it’s only necessary to start striking close to home for players who are “playing safe” and keeping out of trouble and danger. Paradoxically, those who have been “well trained” by BW to leap into risk and live dangerously don’t actually need that. All the GM has to do is offer an opportunity to forward beliefs, even with risk, and the player will send the character rushing in. With caution, maybe, but not excessive caution.
Eventually danger isn’t really necessary. The question is really how far characters will go and what they’ll do. Facing risk is only one aspect of that. It can be equally interesting just to offer differing paths to a goal and seeing which one the character picks. Not all the time, because risk is the spice of gaming, but it doesn’t need to be all hazards at all times.
In my best BW games it becomes a tag team event, with the GM finding ways to challenge the player and the player throwing themselves into challenging situations. But, it’s all about hard choices rather than just hazard.
Here, I borrow something from Apocalypse World: “Make as hard and direct a move as you like.” So I tend to start with jabs to see what they do with it. Do they lean into it or run away? I also take a look at their Artha pile. If they’re flinching away from the hard stuff or hoarding Artha, I need to press. Otherwise, I basically taunt them and let them come to me. It’s proven to be effective (even though I’m far less than perfect about this in practice).
But, relating it back to the thread at hand. You aren’t really gung-ho about being a Rabble Rouser? That’s cool. I won’t put it on the table right away. I tend to like to hit Beliefs first because I know those are the things you had the most freedom with anyway and I want you to get a little comfortable, for reasons both empathetic and nefarious. But, if I know there are Traits the players aren’t fond of, I try to put them in situations where that Trait becomes necessary somehow within the first 2 or 3 sessions. “Hey, does anyone here know how to rile up the crowd so we can have an effective protest? The morale here is a little low.” (This is assuming the protesting works in their favor, of course.)