I am new to Burning Wheel, but I think this is hyperbole.
Sure. But if a player says such a thing, and you think that it’s silly, something is wrong for the day one. Sounds like you and the other players are not on the same page to begin with. I think I would pass a very difficult time trying to play with them. Even create the setting sounds like a difficult task. This explains why the Game Master has to take a more dominant position during the previous phases of the game and during the game itself.
I prefer to play with people who inspire me, people who has interesting ideas, people who force me to be consistent and constant. The idea that Players are silly but Game Masters are serious people it makes no sense. You must to talk with your friends, let them know what you want to play, and they have to agree with it. If they are not interested, or lie about it, play with then can be too hard to be fun.
Who said during the game? I’m talking about the GM Pitch only. That is it. The GM Pitch. The GM PITCH. Got it?
How do people get on the same page: the GM Pitch. And after the GM Pitch we re-arrange things to include appropriate player input that fits with the GM Pitch.
My Silly Walk example was indeed hyperbole. Definition: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
So it’s okay for you if a player creates such organization during the game?
Or we change the ‘GM Pitch’ entirely because another player had a better idea than yours.
And this is the real sticking point and why we will never ever see eye to eye (and that is fine).
Why is the GM even there? I mean the Pitch does have to be accepted by everyone. You understand that right? If nobody accepts the pitch then the other players obviously have different ideas for what they want from the game and one of them should run it. Very few of my groups had “the guy who always runs the games” so maybe my view is way different than yours here.
So the GM has a “strong present vision” of what s/he is interested in running. What is the problem there? I’m not saying that the players don’t have input, not at all - of course they have input! Just within the bounds of the GM Pitch. The GM Pitch is how everyone is on the same page.
A Pitch can be super simple: “I want to run a noble court intrigue game”. But if a player then says that they want to play an adventurer who is never really at court because he is out slaying monsters or questing or whatever then there is something wrong there. The player’s idea is outside of the bounds of the GM Pitch.
Another: “I want to run a game set in a small frontier village that is facing an imminent threat from bandits”. And a player says they want to be a part of a giant crime syndicate. The GM says that it is a small frontier village, so obviously the player is wanting to play something else. That is fine. The GM came with a bunch of pitches and says another. Or the player pitches his “better” game with a giant crime syndicate.
There is nothing there about GM tyranny. There is nothing there about railroading play. I’m really not getting why a GM Pitch is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil.
Because you are pointedly ignoring this:
Why is this bad?
EDIT: and since Fiasco was brought up via PM with Etsu Riot I’m going to repeat something I said there.
“Playbooks in Fiasco ARE the GM Pitch with the absence of a GM. We all agree to play this Playbook.” As such that means that if we are playing “70s night club” it would be inappropriate for a player to say they want to play something that doesn’t fit that Playbook/Pitch.
Irm, Etsu. ENOUGH. You disagree. We get it. Don’t comment on each other any further.
1 Like