tissek @ tissek @ttrpg.network Posts 32Comments 165Joined 2 yr. ago
It's a good technique but one that can be abused. As most techniques. Using it as a tool to funnel the group into the content that has been prepared regardless of group strategies is one of the worst. In such cases I'd be much happier and excited if the GM comes out and says only the ogre path is prepared.
I would also like to divide the quantum ogre into two parts - the quantum obstacle and the quantum reward. Quantum obstacle being that regardless of path A or B the same encounter will happen, like a group of ogre bandits. The quantum reward being that regardless of path the same reward waits for them. Like they went after the ogre warcamp instead of the orcs' and found leads to the greater conspiracy. Same leads that would have been in the orc camp. The quantum reward I love to use as it keeps the game going forward, as each (equal) path leads to the same rewards there is no need to do multiple.
I feel Ironsworn is a good mix of PbtA and BW. At its core it is a PbtA, moves and all that jazz. But it hands over narrative drive to the players in a direct way. Ironsworn demands Vows to be sworn, essentially telling the Player that if this matter for your character a vow need to be made. Its progress then tacked and when fulfilled rewards given. I see parts of the Artha Cycle there (minus the meta-currencies) but one not as active as BW's.
I find a simple way is to relinquish control of the game and let the players drive it. Once you, together with the group, have set up the Situation and Big Picture hand over the reins to the players. Saying
Ok, you have your Beliefs. Anyone wants to begin trying to achieve something?
It may be slow in the beginning, lots of questions and hesitation. But be a bit careful using this technique as it can devolve into a bunch of solo games. Nothing wrong with that but it may not be what you want.
Second method is a bit more directed. Between sessions look at beliefs that weren't touch upon and figure out a scene where you can drop the characters straight into. Or if your players are active and send you their new ones take one of them. Drop them straight in, no fuss, full in media res. If they want to poison the king drop them into the castle kitchens and ask them where they got the poison from. Use that information, with perhaps a test, to set up their immediate obstacle. I also call this the Blades method (as I've take it from Blades in the Dark).
Instincts and traits I seldom get a chance to actively engage when GMing, have so many other things going on then. Leave these things up the players.
Sometimes though it really helps to see how others do it. Jump into a few actual plays, I would skip around in their character burning sessions to see if their flavour warrants more in-depth dedication.
Read it and I have to say I vehemently disagree with the author's conclusions. Only the third point I can a bit agree with, but not the others. Not saying it is bad advice but for the goal of "three methods to get the magic of BURNING WHEEL's approach in your game, no matter what it may be"* the mark is missed. My methods instead would be
- THE
- ARTHA
- CYCLE
It is in its Artha Cycle one finds the magic of Burning Wheel, everything else is just fuel for the fire. The Artha Cyle then...
- The player states a Belief their character has. It is good, but not required, to include a goal in this Belief.
- The player has their character try and achieve said Belief, if the test really matters Artha (player-facing meta currency) is spent on the roll to improve the chance for success. Perhaps they get a bit on their way, perhaps they succeed. Or they fail. Regardless...
- The player is awarded for playing their character's Belief with Artha (meta currencies) and the character is rewared by getting better at the skill.
- Update Belief and start the cycle anew
That there is Burning Wheel at its core. You can find more about it in the Hub and Spokes (free), or just ask if you want to know more about it.
Relationships, which the author so focuses on, are a tool for the player to write Beliefs about and use to achieve them. They are also excellent tools for the GM to challenge Beliefs as at the beginning of the game every relationship the characters has are someone the player spent points on to create when they burnt their character. So they matter because the Players have said so. But you can remove them and still have Burning Wheel.
Lets talk a bit about the Author's third point
III: Build Massive, Compound Stakes on Dice Rolls
I agree that Burning Wheel really wants the tests to matter. Spamming tests are not the way. Let's circle back to the Artha Cycle. Players and Characters are rewarded (mainly) for having their Beliefs in play, which on the other side says that if the scene isn't about a Belief of theirs there is barely anything in it. Instincts, Traits, other PCs, relationships etc may be there using the character to get involved. But back to big tests. The less you test in Burning Wheel there more those tests matters and the more the player can make those tests matter through spending Artha on them. The player is also more inclined to spend Artha on tests if they don't feel they have to spend it on several minor tests. What I've found this leads to at the table is a test or two to set up the big test. Also there is a focus around the test, a focus to better position their character for it. So once the test comes around it already matters, the table has invested in it and we are all eager to see it play out.
That is all I have to say about it for now. Read Burning Wheel, at least the Hub and Spokes. There are good things in it.
But since I cannot shut up - if you are running a more classical fantasy game implementing the Artha Cycle from Torchbearer may be a better idea as it is a bit scaled down.
Because it hasn't been posted yet...
Indentured servitude - The age old question of what to do with the one who cannot pay their debts? If they are killed you don't get it back, if they are punished in a way they cannot work you don't get it back. So instead they are offered a payment plan of providing their creditor a certain amount of labour.
Serfdom - generational bondage to the land. Not belonging to the landowner but to the land and the obligation to tend it. The more common the worship of the Earth Mother and her thousand daughters are the the more sacred this duty becomes. Some legal systems recognize the serfs possibility to move, but only if they find someone else deemed of similar of better quality to take over the land.
Work as rehabilitation into society and paying one's debts to it - This was a spur of the moment choice I made in one game where a player or two went straight to execution for crimes. But that didn't jive with me so instead it is a more common practice for criminals to pay off their debts to society through work while undergoing rehabilitation and reintegration. Also prisons are expensive, unless we are talking about inhuman stuff, so them not being a financial black hole helps keeping them human.
Chattel slavery - only if I want to showcase a culture as vile to the bone pretty much without any chance of redemption.
Then we can get into the issue of raising, trading and slaughtering livestock as the difference between the soul in a beast and a human is that the beast is much more strongly affiliated with the Beast rune. But in essence they are the same. And yes that leads to widespread veganism and/or sacrifices to and worship of the Mother of Beasts.
So you are saying that isn't already the case?
Considering it's the norm when you aren't doing something genre typical to take two ir more genres and just smoish the names together. This way you get things like blackened death metal (black plus death) or epic gothic power metal (take a guess). Now smoosh those teo examples together and you get something like blackened gothic melodic death metal. See that there, now we get into the transformative properties of metal subgenres. Death metal with a bit more melody and structure, which power metal has in spades, becomes melodic death metal.
Fun isn't it? Also I may have bullshitted together half of the above. But it is a real thing
Funeral Doom Metal is too occupied walloping in a blacked pit of despair to join the chat
I thought of picking up Dolmenwood but if I remember correctly that campaign launched shortly after Shadow of the Weird Wizard. And SotWW ate my whole fantasy budget
I backed it for more than I shouldn't have, but I want it on my shelf. Looking cool. Looking provocative. I mean how could I not want it on my shelf? Also the pitch does make it sound awesome!
Or you could just take some ready made package, deactivate things you don't need and accept what you are left with.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to secede? Let the inhabitants of each state vote under international supervision to make sure the vote goes by according to western standards. I see no reason why any community should be barred from seeking independence and self rule.
In this deluxe edition, you'll also be getting...
- Cyberware quirks and features for particular megacorp product lines
- Variant gengineered human types for PCs who don't fit the baseline mold
- Optional rules for the psychological strain of Cyber Alienation
- Optional rules for cheap street cyber, for those campaign settings where every goon with a knife has some wire beneath his skin
- Spellcasting, spirit summoning, and magical items for GMs who want to add a dash of magic into their cyberpunk world
Haven't dug into it so I cannot speak about how essential these extra options are to the game but based on experience from his previous games (Stars & Worlds) they are nice. But not mandatory unless your game leans into one of those headings. For example if your Stars Without Numbers setting features Mechs you will want the deluxe edition of Stars as the Mech rules are in the deluxe edition. And if you Cities setting features magic (like Shadowrun) you will want the deluxe edition because it is there you find those rules.
I generally say grab the free edition and get going. Then if you find yourself wishing for rules covered in the deluxe edition then get it. Or if you just find it an awesome product and have a few dollars to toss Kevin's way.
how would you characterise dominate person cast with indefinite duration?
As "your character is now mine until the spell is broken, here is a new sheet for you". Reread the spell and if I would be the recipient of it I would be very uncomfortable. Agreeing with jjjalljs that when it is used on a PC is really sucks.
upcasting dominate [...] difference in power between [...] heightened metamagic plus [...]
Mechanical stuff. Permanent Dominate Person feels like the realm of a Wish spell so saying it is the equivalent of a ninth level spell sounds appropriate. Unless it was cast in combat, in front of the players and their characters I wouldn't really bother with exact rolling mechanics. Things happening behind the scenes I just let happen. But if it was in front of them, with the saving throw called for it was in front them, I'd say it would and should be fair to ask the DM what powers were behind the roll. Especially since it is practically a save-or-die (-for-a-while) spell.
Rant about enchantment spells
I personally really don't like many enchantment spells, particularly those about mind control and domination. They make me uncomfortable. When DM-ing I wouldn't use any unless I would have gotten explicit permission from the player that it would be OK for them and general permission from the table at large. They can be triggering and I always have "Mind Control/Alteration" as a topic on my Lines&Veils document I ask my players to fill in. Play safe, take care of eachother and push boundaries only with consent in safe spaces.
End rant.
No I won't.
What you are saying sure does highlight an impalance in the system, one that is probably hard to solve without removing what is "core dnd". Decoupling skills from attributes is one step. Maneuvers for all another. I don't know what else to do without starting to make it not dnd. And honestly I don't really need to do anything. There is apparently something out there called Advanced 5e for those that want "dnd but more". For me there are a thousand and one systems out there for me to like.
Why not just communicate with the rest of the group that you want to play something else? Let the group help you "write" them out of the narrative.
The problem is that the only way a fighter can interact with the world is by murdering people
Pretty much the only mechanical way to reliably interact with the world. Since the results from skill checks aren't defined the point that comes across is that they matter less. Why can't the Fighter "suggest" to the ruffians to drop their weapons through their skill in Intimidation? They can of course but nowhere it is written as clearly as having the spell Suggestion.
To help non-spellcaster have reliable ways to interact and change the world there needs to be more details regarding skill check outcomes.
I had a hard time understanding this blog. One read I was confused. Second I wondered when the point was coming. Third read I understood why it didn't click for me - OSR (trad?) blogs are sooo meandering. Spreading out their kernels all over the place. Once I started reading like that its concepts came to me.
And it was Play to Find Out in a different package. The Plot spoken about in the article are fronts. Yup, I'm not in the OSR scene.
Also, why did it read like a recipe blog?