I think wises are the way players can fill in the blanks about setting so you don’t have to make all the crap, virtually in the same manner as circles and resources. You can make stuff on the fly in this game. You don’t have to ple-plan anything if you don’t want to. Yes, you can use Bangs if you want. But y’know what? To me the best Bang is the Bang you did not have to use, because the game played itself (thanks to the players’ proactivity).
I hear ya. As I mentioned above, I usually plan for failed declarations. Like, once I prepped some stats for an owl-bear, anticipating a failed Bear-wise test. The Wise was used, but the test passed, and my owl-bear stats were wasted. But showing that page to the other players at the end of the session really gave the whole group a great deal of satisfaction in knowing that they averted a potential crisis. ^^
Okay, so this thread got away from me while I was gone! I’m not going to parse all of those posts, so…
Remember my silly example of a smelly chamberlain, yeah, there was a reason I used that: Secrets and the Smelly Chamberlain. That link pretty much sums up what is going on in this thread I think – each of us uses different techniques! Whatever, I’m fine with that! I’m not at your table, what do I care?
Some are being honest that they allow more-than-the-norm declarations: super! And I mean that, at least you are being honest.
You have never had a player trample on your “myths” - such as a declaration that would invalidate an entire arc (as per pg 300 of the AdBu), or try to declare a fact on an NPC which would invalidate an entire arc. Cool! I really wish I was that lucky. I’ve had players trample more than just that. I’ve had players use Let it Ride to swim in zombie-bear organs, or burn down towns that the character supposedly cared about, or generally have no regard for character integrity. I have examples that I still have baggage from.
Here is the important part of this discussion for me: I used actual page numbers from a BW book to support my argument. Not Lady Blackbird or Fiasco or Apocalypse World or Polaris or whatever. That is pretty much all I was looking for from the Say-Yes-to-every-declaration-ers. EDIT: And using other games is like invalidating what Luke Crane said in his “Game Design is Mind Control”.
This is not fruitful without those links to actual Burning Wheel rules.
On a more personal note: I use Bangs and NPC Beliefs aimed at PC Beliefs are the #1 way to bring those in for me. Not that that has anything to do with Wises, Declarations, or saying Yes/No.
Yeah, I’ve had troublesome players in the past, and it’s important to keep a tight grip on the GM stick in those situations. I’m lucky with my current group though, as we’re all like-minded individuals who respect the fiction we create. In fact, all of us save for one are elementary school teachers – we spend so much time during our days saying “no” to bratty kids that we are more than happy to just get along and have some fun at the game table.
The problem as I see it here is that while you quote from the book, you’re applying your arguments to ridiculous theoretical situations. Really. You make it sound as if we’d Say Yes to declarations of pink marshmallows falling from the sky, but that simply isn’t the case. I can’t speak for Etsu, but I assume he’s in a similar situation with me, in that we both have gaming groups that respect the integrity of the shared world we are creating. Respectful players are not prone to ridiculous declarations. Far from it.
I think the thing that is irking you is how we are admitting we’d Say Yes to a declaration that contradicts something the GM had already planned (but not yet disclosed), or to something that directly challenges the Big Picture. And again, I say, we would not Say Yes to pink marshmallow rain. I would consider a declaration that contradicts a GM myth or the Big Picture, and might Say Yes if it’s cool and interesting in some way. Consideration of declarations is a subjective process, not a purely objective one. To make a solid rule that such declarations are impossible is to discount the really cool ones with potential.
Here are some (paraphrased) quotes from the book, since you asked for them:
No problems there that I can see. Declarations contradicting “GM Myths” falls directly under the second option, in which I should set an Ob and call for the dice to be thrown. Contradicting previously established facts falls mostly under stuff the PCs have already seen, as is described on that page and elsewhere in this chapter of the book. Contradicting actual facts the GM knows to be true but hasn’t shared yet with the players should either be denied (contradicts actual monster stats and stuff), or should be subjectively considered (see below).
Now we’re getting into some meat, but it’s important to realize that this is also talking about theoretical situations. The declaration might contradict the Big Picture? How? That’s the sticking question. Not all contradictions are bad, and quite a few can be used by the GM to spin the story from an entirely new angle. So, what the above quote is really saying, IMHO, is: “If you want to declare something that could possibly contradict what the GM has planned for the Big picture, the setting, or the situation, run it by the GM to see if it’s cool first. Don’t be surprised if he says no, but so long as you’re respecting the fiction as much as the GM is, chances are good he might just Say Yes, or set an Ob and ask to go to dice for it.”
As a GM, I think I tell a pretty good story. But you know what? There are four other people at my table, all just as smart as me (and a couple who are probably smarter). They have good ideas too, and sometimes their ideas are better than mine. That’s cool, I’d rather use the best ideas we’ve got, so I’m quite happy when players pitch new ideas to me via declarations. Doesn’t mean I have to accept them – I’m the boss, tough luck kids – but I’m glad to consider them.
Also, one habit I have is that whenever a player requests a skill test that I am iffy about, I don’t say no right off the bat – I ask the table. It goes to a player vote. Nine times out of ten, if I am iffy about it, the player’s peers will turn it down too. Sometimes they change my mind. Cool beans, let it slide and game on.
How about a concrete example from my campaign, so that we don’t muck around in theoreticals forever?
After their disastrous failed Read test, the players started talking amongst themselves, trying to figure out who the smuggler Karthos’ mysterious benefactor had been. I had already planned out who the benefactor was: a mercenary Lord named Kirsch who was the arch-nemesis of one of the PCs. But the players decided that the benefactor must be the powerful Tristeid Guild itself. They were sure of it.
I immediately Said Yes. No dice were rolled. Hell, it wasn’t even an in-game declaration. It was just the players talking amongst themselves OOC. It could have been a declaration; one of them could have mustered up an appropriate Wise, and they would have had I asked for it. But I just Said Yes and accepted their assumption as fact. Truth was, their idea was WAY BETTER than mine! The Tristeid Guild is uber in our campaign, controlling a port city and the entire region beyond, and Kirsch, while powerful, is just one guy in a castle by a mid-sized town. They actually tied this plot element more tightly to the Big Picture than I had intended. I have no problems with that!
It did drastically change the setting though, and the Big Picture was highly intensified. Instead of having a local mercenary lord funding a goblin uprising in the city of Katarren, it’s now the Tristeid Guild itself who is doing so. The campaign started with Katarren in dire straits because the Tristeid Guild had been leeching trade away from the west coast, but now it’s escalated into outright war. Wow.
So, how would you have handled this? Would you have stuck to your guns, keeping the plot element tied to the small fry, or would you also have changed your mind about the Big Picture, accepting your players’ suggestion? Note that I also admitted the truth to the players. I didn’t keep it a secret. I Said Yes, and I said it out loud.
~ Dean
I don’t know what the “Myth” thing is. When I play, I play with friends. (Even if I don’t know the guys, I hope they play friendly.) I don’t play alone, and it’s not my fiction. It’s our fiction, our world, our characters. I don’t see what a “arc” is neither, and what it has to do with what we read on page 300 of the AB.
Well, now we see what the problem is. You should talk to your players.
The problem is that nobody said anything even similar to “Say-Yes-to-every-declaration-ers”. You don’t say ‘Yes’ when there is a conflict. You roll dice. (And you must to aim to conflict.)
I read the AB and I still don’t know what your argument is and why you are so confrontational with something I said in a foot note in another topic.
BW is not alone. It exists in a gaming culture. I started to play with Star Wars D6 and then Call/Trail of Cthulhu and then The Burning Wheel. BW taught me how to play this way. But then others games came, like Lady Blackbird and Apocalypse World, and taught me some new things. Do not like it? Good for you. But I really do not understand why you feel this need to turn canon your hard way of play as a result of having apparently some disruptive players. (I don’t know if that’s the case.)
The way I play is the way I play. I did not change or alter the rules in any way (I think) because I like the game. I hope to learn new ways to play BW in the future, from here, this forum, or from anywhere else.
This is what I don’t understand. Just read the whole Gold book. (And you can read the Dean’s post.) But if you want some link, here you have one. See? You can play this way and nothing bad happens. But you don’t have to if you don’t want to, I suppose.
Dean: once again we agree, even if it isn’t fully. I don’t even consider the book thing much of a declaration in my mind. And it isn’t problematic in any way and I’ve done much the same. I never said declarations are bad. But I will say I prefer them to be framed as a question to the GM not a statement to the GM.
Everyone: My Mitra/Set example is not theoretical - it actually happened when I first started playing Burning Wheel in 2006 (almost exactly 6 years ago - neat!). I could try to write up the AP, but I don’t have any of my old notes (BITs for PCs or NPCs).
Etsu Riot: this is where I’m having a problem…
You can say No - the rule isn’t literally Roll the Dice or Say Yes to everything. That is why I keep quoting the AdBu.
I read the AB and I still don’t know what your argument is and why you are so confrontational with something I said in a foot note in another topic.
I warned in that other thread…
And you specifically said…
Which is what started all of this.
BW is not alone. It exists in a gaming culture…Do not like it? Good for you. But I really do not understand why you feel this need to turn canon your hard way of play…
Burning Wheel is a game and I feel that every game should be played the way the game is designed to be played. I don’t mix and match rules from other games. Side note: I DO like those other games. My favorite games at the moment are: Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, and more besides – but that doesn’t mean I’m going to start to use MC Principles in BW or use hard and soft moves.
The way I play is the way I play. I did not change or alter the rules in any way (I think) because I like the game. I hope to learn new ways to play BW in the future, from here, this forum, or from anywhere else.
Cool! Me too. And as I’ve said a bunch of times: play the way that works for you! (Just don’t state it as a factual way of playing without backing it up with cold hard facts and page numbers).
See? You can play this way and nothing bad happens. But you don’t have to if you don’t want to, I suppose.
Again, of course you can play any way that works for you. But realize it is a drift.
Sorry, but I don’t think it’s a drift in any way whatsoever. Yes, I have a problem with number 3 for the reasons I explained to you in the other topic, but whatever. It seems that you only allow players throw dice when it is not important for the Big Picture. I think you have to roll dice only when it matters. Wises are not a tool for extract information from the GM, IMO. But yes, if a player says something that contradicts something you had in mine for the Big Picture, you can consider the Intent invalid and say so, but be honest with the player about that. Don’t hide it in secret. Tell him. If he does not agree with you then you two have a conflict. BW has a lot of tools to deal with conflicts. (Skill tests for example.) I prefer to use the game system instead of be a dick GM saying ‘No’ to good ideas. As a Game Master you can rarely say ‘No’ in this game, it is not something that should happen very often.
And yes, games should not mix, but is not the case here. Certain principles of AW not only are compatible with BW, but I can’t imagine playing BW without them. ‘Play to find out what happens’ and ‘Sometimes, disclaim decision-making’ particularly. Usually when you play any game you are playing this two, or you are not playing at all. Vincent did not invent all this things, and the same goes with John Harper’s GM Tips. They just put in words things we already knew -or should have known-, and this is awesome. But you can prefer to be a more “traditional” GM if you want to, I guess. It does not affect the issue and it is not related to what was being discussed in the other topic, IMO.
I feel like some goal-posts have been moved here. 
I agree with everything you said above.
Uhm. No. I use the rules pg. 32 BWG.
Wises are not a tool for extract information from the GM, IMO.
This is where we really disagree and we aren’t going to ever agree, so I’m going to drop it. I’ve even quoted page numbers and you won’t acknowedge it.
Don’t hide it in secret. Tell him.
Where did this even crop up in the discussion? I’m confused. And I also disagree here. Occasionally, sometimes it is fine to keep a GM secret if it has to do with a future event [page 300+ AdBu] - something I feel they need to work to find out and not just declare.
If he does not agree with you then you two have a conflict.
Sure, but once again I don’t let the players run rough-shod all over my NPC BITs.
I prefer to use the game system instead of be a dick GM saying ‘No’ to good ideas. As a Game Master you can rarely say ‘No’ in this game, it is not something that should happen very often.
Whoa there! No need to name call! I don’t say no to “good ideas”, just to ideas that would otherwise ruin a Situation by invalidating NPC BITs.
But you can prefer to be a more “traditional” GM if you want to, I guess. It does not affect the issue and it is not related to what was being discussed in the other topic, IMO.
Again with the trolling? Seriously I play “indie” games. I love indie games. I don’t know what you are on about.
Because nothing you quoted has nothing to do with what I can understand from your words.
You seem to have implied that some GMs keep certain elements of the Picture Big in secret. That can be truth, but in my opinion you must to drop your secrets if it hurt the game.
I don’t see when in the AdBu you can read that the GM has future events pre-planned in advance. How could the GM know what will happen?
A Bang is not a pre-plan. It is a contingency.
NPC BITs are not important. Are just a guide.
If the player knows that a particular NPC has Beliefs, why he would want to invalidate it?
Note: I was not talking about you. I was talking about a GM attitude. In fact, I was talking about me.
Calling other people ‘troll’ is not an argument.
Keeping Big Picture secrets from the players is, for me at least, very traditional. Besides, there are indy traditional games. I’m not calling ‘traditional’ to you, but the technique. We are talking about techniques here, I hope.
Maybe it is a language barrier but that isn’t the definition of a “Bang”.
NPC BITs are not important. Are just a guide.
Without them I don’t even have a Situation!
If the player knows that a particular NPC has Beliefs, why he would want to invalidate it?
The player wouldn’t. But sometimes, occasionally, rarely, etc. I see it as important to keep a secret about an NPCs BITs – as in the case of the Set possessed mayor.
Keeping Big Picture secrets from the players is, for me at least, very traditional. Besides, there are indy traditional games. I’m not calling ‘traditional’ to you, but the technique. We are talking about techniques here, I hope.
All I can say is read the blog post by Eero I linked to. He explains my position extremely well.
Since you might have missed my prior post I’ll quote it here:
Eero is saying what I’m saying, but as usual is more articulate in doing so.
All I can say is that I disagree with him on some of the things he says.
Anyway, I see your point. But I’m not sure why this is so important to you. Are just different levels of flexibility.
Agreed to disagree! I shake your hand sir. 
If I understood well, you’ve had bad experiences sharing narrative authority. I suffered the same problem at least once. Playing Cthulhu Dark, the most interesting thing was supposed to happen on the return trip, but the spacecraft ended up crashing in Pluto, players contradicted things that they themselves had previously established, and a player asked me if the ship was like the Normandy from Mass Effect. I just stopped playing. I got up and left.
Maybe there is not right answer. It all depends on the kind of people you choose to play.
That might be a small part of why I have a problem with complete narrative sharing. But the real issue I have is summed up by Eero.
Example:
Somebody at Story Games suggested in relation to 3:16 (don’t remember who, it’s not really important) that a great GM technique would be to leave the greater purpose and nature of the high command of the space army undefined so the players could make this decision when and if their characters find it out. So maybe they find out that the great space war is a hoax or whatever. I find that this is completely ass-backwards for this sort of game: the players cannot be put into a position of advocacy for their characters if those same players are required to make the crucial backstory choices: am I supposed to myself decide that the space war is a cruel lie, and then in the next moment determine how my character is going to react to this knowledge? Doesn’t that look at all artificial?
The problem we have here, specifically, is that when you apply narration sharing… you require the player to both establish and resolve a conflict, which runs counter to the Czege principle.
EDIT:
Or in my Conan-pastiche serial game - telling the players that he is Set Possessed would have invalidated the Situation. There would have been little tension or drama for them to interact with. They knew the Situation was “people are being kidnapped off of the streets and some bodies have been found that suggest Sacrifice”. If they knew the mayor’s BITs none of my subsequent Bangs would have been interesting. And note I’m not even talking about the mystery of finding out whodunnit. I’m just talkin’ Bangs here.
I have a question Etsu Riot: do you, as a GM, come up with the complications for a failed roll or do you put it to group collaboration?
I guess I do have more to say. Darn it.
Bangs are integral to how I play not a contingency. And sharing narration in this instance would have ruined my reactions to events:
I was a player who had a character who was a Coward. The GM put me in a scene [Bang] where I could save a person or my own worthless hide. Easy choice, I started to move away. Then the GM lays it down: the person turns and I see it is my dearest friend [Relationship].
I say out loud, “crap!”. The GM smiles. I say, “I need a moment” and the GM spotlights another character.
When it gets back to me I say, “my character stands there in shock. He feels like someone just gut-kicked him. Deer in the headlights for a minute”. The GM says, “you need to act. Run or help?”.
“Dammit”, I say, “okay okay. I’m going to help but I’m still a coward…”. I lay out a plan that attempts to put my character in as little physical danger as possible while still trying to help my best friend.
I fail. My character takes some damage, is wanted by the authorities, and my Relationship dies, but I get away.
The next session I play my character as a caustic ass. Other PCs try to comfort my character, try to help him. He doesn’t want to hear it he spits and yells and insults them! But they understand [because I told them player to player what I was doing] and give him his space.
The next session I send my character to church. He is broken, he needs answers and doesn’t know where to turn. He doesn’t get any. The gods are silent. He curses them! And then says he will serve them if they give him an answer.
The character never got his answer. Never gained Faith. And in the end died not being a Coward and redeemed himself in his eyes.
It was excellent! I got to see my character change. I couldn’t have done that if I had been allowed to declare the gods answer his prayers or he gets revenge on the Baron or whatever.
That’s a weird question.
If a player fails, it is my decision what happen next. Because it’s a game, and I want to participate too. I’m a player. I want to play the game and say things. I say things when the other players fail their rolls. But if the other players have success, they say what happen. That’s why you have success and failure in this game: so no one has the power to impose his notion of “the story” over the others.
Great. So why would you declare such a thing? This is a social game, so everyone wants to collaborate and say interesting things. I find it quite annoying this notion that any contribution that is not mine is not going to be interesting enough.
Actually, you don’t know what would have happened if someone had said something else. I am confident enough on the game system and the rest of the players to believe that no matter what that would have been just as satisfying. Building on each other’s ideas, as Graham Walmsley would say.
Exactly!
I just get the feeling from what you’ve said that you consider any “planning” [eg. Bangs, Scenes, Big Picture, NPCs and BITs, or whatever] as you forcing a story – and that just isn’t the case. You are a player, but it is not an equal collaboration either. The GM has the authority to put out scenes that challenge the PCs and see how they react.
I’ll quote Eero’s blog again:
What I described above as the problem is naive narration sharing, which is the belief that you can just take any old roleplaying game and execute its gamemastering role with an extra dash of mutual cooperative narration. It’s such a nice idea, isn’t it? We don’t want to be evil authoritative GMs, after all, so doesn’t that mean that we should be inclusive and bring everybody in on the authorities available? This is simply wrong as an universal claim: while there are games where narration-sharing is central, and there are games where you can add great dollops without breaking the game, there are also games that do not withstand it.
Can you see how this underlying fundamental structure is undermined by undiscretionary use of narrative sharing? The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character.
… challenging revelations for the character, not asking the player whether he’s OK with it – asking him is the same as telling him to stop considering the scene in terms of what his character wants and requiring him to take an objective stance on what is “best for the story”. Consensus is a poor tool in driving excitement, a roleplaying game does not have teeth if you stop to ask the other players if it’s OK to actually challenge their characters.
And while I don’t think you are “breaking the game” – I do think you are changing the nature of it.
I’d like to restate something I said earlier here: When in doubt, ask the table for their opinion. This goes for everything, and even applies to the GM. The GM is under no obligation to comply with their opinion (though it’s generally a good idea), and sometimes you’ll reach an impasse where the GM just has to make a judgement call (the players want their friend to win, but you can see the eye-rolls and half-hearted "yeah, sure"s), but it’s always a good idea to make sure you’re all on the same page, all telling the same kind of story you’re all interested in experiencing. You’re all on this train together, and when contribution comes mainly from one person – be that the GM or a player – is when railroading begins. Avoid at all costs!!!
The whole Set incarnate thing is a prime example of something that I would have shared with the players – not the characters – to make sure it was kosher with them. It’s also a prime example of something my players would not have been cool with. If I just dropped that on them, they would have been annoyed.
And no, players having meta-information doesn’t “break the game”. In fact, Luke has been explicit about this being the best approach to using his rules in play.
I recounted a GMing mistake I made earlier where I tried changing the Big Picture and the players got upset. In particular, I tried making the gods relevant to the PCs, changing the Big Picture from “save the region from economic catastrophe” to “save the human race from destruction”. I had a bunch of cool ideas, and had been working up to this change for some time. But when I sprung it on the players, I realized that that was just not the kind of story they wanted to tell. They wanted small-scale conflicts, simple and believable. No prob. We eliminated that entire aspect from the game and continued on without regret.
My point is, there is no right or wrong way of playing when it comes to content contribution, so long as you’re all contributing equally and always in a way that everyone at the table agrees is proper.
Yeah, we’re running in circles here. Are you saying that Eero’s blog post is advocating for railroaded play? Because the blog post is what I’m advocating for myself.