Teoriakatsaus #31

Teoriakatsaus #31

Theory review #30

Theory review #30

Teori-innblikk # 29

Teori-innblikk # 29

Two Burning wheels

There are two ways of playing Burning wheel; one relies on consensus-based decision making and respecting the sanctity of the characters, whereas the other has more focus on challenging the core concepts of the characters and unpredictable, perhaps unwanted, story outcomes. For the usual disclaimers, please see a few paragraphs down.

Storyboarding

The game is a means of shared story creation. Players each play a character and they typically have an idea for a storyline they want the character to go through, or at least some way they are going to evolve. The role of dice and uncertainty is to add twists and surprises along the way, but it is not their mandate to create a bad or undesired story. Techniques (or rules) that might support this include:

  • Negotiation of dice rolling outcomes until everyone is happy with both the effects of failure and success. Telling the failure stakes ahead of time is paramount, as it allows the players to object to any undesired outcomes and suggest more fun ones.
  • Players should typically be allowed to play the characters they want. Adjusting lifepaths and requirements might help with this.
  • Beliefs are a sign of where the game should go next. They are typically taken very seriously.
  • Persona complication optional rule is a good bet.
  • If there is too much or too little adversity, the game master might remove or add some.
  • The negotiation of dice rolls is a good safety tool.

Story now

The game is a means of creating a story none of us can control. Players each play a character and advocate for them. The purpose of play is to challenge the beliefs of the characters and see how things turn out, no matter where it goes and how well or poorly the characters do.

  • Dice rolls are unlikely to be negotiated. Announcing failure outcomes might not be done in a systematic manner; maybe only if they are hard to foresee.
  • Players might be forced to play something not quite what they wanted due to lifepaths or resources.
  • Beliefs are a sign of what is to be challenged, what is uncertain about the fate of the characters. They might be taken more an indicators of what the game should be about, rather than an ironclad rule.
  • The game events might derail the game from what was expected or planned for.
  • The game might turn into a depressing tragedy or an easy triumph for some character, and this is okay. It might be a good reason to rewrite beliefs to take this into account.
  • It is necessary to handle group safety by some other means, since nobody is in control about where the game is going. Safety tools or at least general attention and support.

Disclaimers

These are not discrete modes where necessarily do one or the other. People might not have or know their preferences, and I have, for the sake of simplicity, blended together a few things that might not always be blended together. The idea here is more to illustrate that there are differences what some of them might be to act as a first step in discussing them.

I have preferences here. I tried to write both descriptions in a positive light, but to the extent I failed, please do better and I’ll be happy to link to it. Or write angry feedback in the comments.

Related readings

Ron Edwards does not approve of storyboarding play. This is in context of Primetime adventures, but the same reading applies to Burning wheel, too: http://adeptplay.com/seminar-hearts-minds/discuss-primetime-chat . The other non-D&D things linked in the later theory review can also be relevant: https://ropeblogi.wordpress.com/2021/10/02/teoriakatsaus-28/

My aim with an earlier house rules text was what I have here named story now play: https://ropeblogi.wordpress.com/2021/08/03/oiled-wheel/

The term ”story now” comes from the alternative name of the narrativism creative agenda by Ron Edwards. No further knowledge of or belief in the theory is necessary. A better name is naturally welcome.

Two Burning wheels

Teoriakatsaus #28

  • Roleplaying Is an Emotional Contact Sport, kirjoittajina Noah ja Sam, http://adeptplay.com/actual-play/roleplaying-emotional-contact-sport, kertoo Palava pyörä (BW) -pelistä, jossa pelinjohtajan tunteet olivat välillä pinnassa ja minkälaiset sääntömuunnokset olivat käytössä.
  • Our series begins, Ron Edwards ja muut, http://adeptplay.com/actual-play/our-series-begins, esittää Parhaaseen katseluaikaan -pelin pelaamista ja keskustelua ja kommentaaria peliä koskien. Tuottajalla (pelinjohtaja) on monopoli taustatarinan suhteen, vaikka pelaajilla onkin välillä kerrontaoikeutta ja muuta keskustelua asian suhteen. Myöskin tuotantotiimineuvottelupelaamisesta on keskustelua.
  • Premium, https://podtail.com/fi/podcast/viskningar-fran-kryptan/avsnitt-4-premium/, sisältää pitkän keskustelun alkuperäisehköstä D&D:stä, tai oikeammin sen uudisrahastuspainoksesta, lähteineen ja vaikutuksineen.
  • Discuss: Primetime Chat, esitelmöitsijänä Ron Edwards ja useita kirjoittajia, http://adeptplay.com/seminar-hearts-minds/discuss-primetime-chat, käy läpi Parhaaseen katseluaikaan -pelin kahta ensimmäistä laitosta sääntöjen ja historiallisen sääntötulkinnan kannalta. Voimavarajärjestelmä ja tarinatyöpajapelaamisen ja roolipelaamisen ero ovat keskiössä.

Teoriakatsaus #28

Theory review #27

Theory review #27

Teori-innblikk # 26

  • Yliopisto-opiskelijat uivat henkilöstöjohtajan nahkoihin pelaamalla – digitaaliset oppimispelit ovat rantautumassa myös korkeakouluihin av Titta Puurunen, https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12084626, forteller om bruk av digitale læringsspill i handelhøgskolen til Universitetet i Jyväskylä.
  • Anti-Lovecraftean horror av Anders, https://forums.gauntlet-rpg.com/t/anti-lovecraftean-horror/6959/13, bygger en mer progressiv alternativ til Cthulhu-mytologi.
  • The influence of board games on mathematical spatial ability of grade 9 students in junior high school av Chih-Chao Chung, Yen-Chih Hsu, Ron-Chuen Yeh og Shi-Jer Lou, https://grdspublishing.org/index.php/people/article/view/317/2792, prøver å vise at bestemte brettspill kan forbedre spatiale matematiske ferdigheter. Kontrollgruppa hadde ingen relevante aktiviteter. Elevene med bakgrunn i digitale, spatiale spill gjorde det bedre enn de uten sånn.
  • Why? av Matthew Colville, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7In4ftJddEo, argumenterer at spillerne bør fortelle spillederen hva de prøver på og hvorfor, fordi spillederen er jo ikke imot dem. Videoen antar mye av spillet og spillemåten og disse antakelsene er ikke eksplisitte.
  • Immervise story av John H. Kim, en artikkel i https://nordiclarp.org/w/images/8/84/2004-Beyond.Role.and.Play.pdf, sammenlikner et tradisjonelt syn på fortellinger og rollespill. Mens i tradisjonelle fortellinger prøver skaperen å vise fram følelsene til hoderollene, kommer disse automatisk i rollespilling og er ikke nødvendigvis kommunisert til andre deltakere.

Teori-innblikk # 26

Teoriakatsaus #25

  • Judgments of effort for magical violations of intuitive physics, kirjoittajina John McCoy ja Tomer Ullman, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0217513, tutki ihmisten käsityksiä yksinkertaisia fysikaalisia periaatteita rikkovien taikojen vaativuudesta. Vaativammiksi havaittiin taiat, jotka rikkoivat perustavanlaatuisempia ja nuorimpina opittuja fysiikan periaatteita.
  • Session zero, keskustelijoina Michael Stensen Sollien ja Nicolai Krogsrud-Strøm, https://vertshuset.podbean.com/e/episode-43-session-zero/, koskee aloituspelikertaa ja sen tarpeellisuutta. Myös muutamia vaihtoehtoja mainitaan.
  • The Matt Mercer Effect: What I Learned From Watching Critical Role (Ep. 195), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RywZPmGNGQ, käsittelee Matthew Mercerin pelinjohtamista lähes täysin esiintymisen näkökulmasta.
  • The d8 Role-Playing System, kirjoittajana Michael O. Church, https://antipodes.substack.com/p/the-d8-role-playing-system, esittelee noppailu- ja hahmonkehitysjärjestelmän. Noppailu noudattaa likimääräisesti Poisson-jakaumaa ja taitojen käsittelyssä on vahvan mallintava ote. Huomattavaa kirjoituksessa on, miten kirjoittaja asemoi itsensä erittäin tukevasti ja monisanaisesti perinteiseen roolipelisuunnittelukeskusteluun ja elää erittäin selvästi perinteisessä roolipeliyhtenäiskulttuurissa.
  • Using RPGS to build the intellectual edge, kirjoittajana Sean West Money, https://theforge.defence.gov.au/wargaming/using-rpgs-build-intellectual-edge, katsoo lähinnä indie-liikkeen roolipelejä sotilaskoulutuksen suunnasta. Sotateemaiset pelit ovat keskiössä.
  • Radically transparent DM-ing, kirjoittajana Sandra Snan, https://idiomdrottning.org/radical-transparency, keskustelee mitä tietoa pelinjohtaja antaa pelaajille pelatessaan ja mistä asioita pelaajat pitävät kirjaa.

Teoriakatsaus #25

Theory review #24

  • Story Improvisation in Tabletop Roleplaying Games: Towards a Computational Assistant for Game Masters by Devi Acharya, Michael Mateas and Noah Wardrip-Fruin, https://ieee-cog.org/2021/assets/papers/paper_164.pdf , presents an interview of several game masters for a future attempt to create a digital GM assistant. The game masters clearly have different approaches to player input, either genuinely giving players power or dodging around it, but the authors do not take this into account. A game master assistant without acknowledgement of such different ways of running games can hardly be very useful.
  • To crawl or not to crawl mostly by Ron Edwards, http://adeptplay.com/consulting/crawl-or-not-crawl, discusses the concept of the crawl, a class of gaming where characters go into a dangerous situation, lose resources and earn something before returning to safety, and all of this with a real risk.
  • Hvordan lede rollespill, https://poddtoppen.se/podcast/1536830416/rollespillprat/episode-02-hvordan-lede-rollespill, is a discussion about how to run roleplaying games. It does acknowledge different ways of doing so and there is even some discussion of actual player agency.

Theory review #24

Teori-indblik # 23

  • Necromancer 1, Party 0 af Jon Hastings og Ron Edwards, https://adeptplay.com/actual-play/necromancer-1-party-0, handler om Tunnels and trolls og fantasispil mere generelt; om rolledød, fantasihistorier og hvordan D&D kom til at være som det er nu for tiden.
  • A Theory Point: RPG Essentialism & RPG Exceptionalism af Vincent Baker, https://lumpley.games/2021/08/23/a-theory-point-rpg-essentialism-rpg-exceptionalism/, fortæller om to idéer om rollespil: at rollespil er helt forskellige fra andre spil og at det er egentlig én ting alle rollespil sigter mod, ellers er de ikke virkelige rollespil. Vincent fortæller ikke at den andre idé er kilde til generelt spillederråd; for hvis rollespil er forskellige fra hverandre, giver generelt råd ingen mening, nu gør det vel?
  • Karakterbuer af Michael Stensen Sollien og Nicolai Krogsrud-Strøm, https://vertshuset.podbean.com/e/episode-42-karakterbuer/, indeholder tale om karakterudvikling som er set i gang af spilleren selv eller spillederen. Også, hvad slags information bør begynnerspillere ha for at spille rollepil?

Teori-indblik # 23