A BW Discussion on the HârnForum

[Durgil]

There seems to be a pretty good discussion shaping up on the HârnForum regarding various facets of the BW system. Check it out here (http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6814) if you'd like to put in your two pence.

[luke]

Excellent discussion! Thanks, Tony.

I find it pretty funny, out of all the radical mechanics we have in the game -- trait votes, Circles, Fight! -- Let it Ride gets the most protest and air time from disgruntled readers. LiR seems like such a simple and obvious point to me. The rule merely says, "In this game this is when you roll, this is when you don't."

I love the kid's point about an 8-success Perception test ruining his mystery. That'll teach him to hide his mysteries behind Perception tests! Let it Ride is a specific disincentive for this type of play. Think about it. The results would have been far more disastrous if the player had rolled NO successes. Then how would he have spotted the mystery clues?! Yeah, definitely not the way to run BW.

It's also funny how Circles and Resources are suddenly useless when you're away from home. Resources gets a +1 Ob penalty for being away from your source of income. (Page 86, BW).

And Circles is damn near universal. I've found it's pretty rare when a player can't think of a person who fits into his Circles to wander into the scene. Usually this has more to do with a class situation than geographical location.

fun stuff!
-L

[Durgil]

I have always found the amount of crap that some of those HarnForum members can pull out of their asses amazing and usually very disturbing. I guess that's what keeps me coming back to that forum. :roll:

I think it's very hard for players who are used to figuring the weight of every item their character is carrying or wearing to the nearest ounce and keeping track of every farthing they own to switch mental gears to grasp what the BW system is trying to accomplish. That's probably the reason why I'm working so hard on those expansion combat rules. :wink:

[luke]

The discussion continues here:

http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6821

Oy vey. Definitely not the game for this guy.

-L

[khelek]

I played Harn once. Once.

When I ended up with a Peasant Merchant Perfumist (who had a Smell/Taste attribute of 6 from a max of 18) in a party of knights and soldiers, I knew it was not the game for me.

I really was not interested in the adventures of my perfumist.

[luke]

Random character creation?

[khelek]

Have you never seen it? if not then you have no idea.

When I was told to roll for the level of enstrangement from my birth father, I started to get scared (it was defintly my enstrangement from the game). When I rolled Perfumist i just gave up all interest in the game. I was thankful when it ended.

You have really no control over when you get.

[luke]

I never seen anything more than the cover of a few supplements and maybe the interior of the Harn Manor supplement.

BW is about blood and guts heroic fantasy. Ultra-sim fantasy interests me, but not as a roleplaying game. So I never bothered.

-L

[stormsweeper]

There's apparently a hastily-added point-buy system in the second edition of the game, but the web is rife with homebrew character creation systems. Random character creation can be fun (e.g. Marvel, if you don't take it seriously) or lame (pretty much any older BRP game). It sounds like they went over the edge, though.

[Omar]

HarnWorld seems like a pretty cool setting. I'd originally planned to buy BW and Harn at the same time, so I'd have a systemless setting and a settingless system, but I bought BW first, read it, and said "fuck it, I'll never need another fantasy game again."

[khelek]

Agreed. I paged through some of the setting material while the knights were killing people.

It had detailed plate tectonics and weather patterns! I was more detailed my Geology book in college.

As a GM, I want to be a participent not just an abirator of the Rules. As a player I want to drive my character, not be at the mercy of some dice throws at the begining.

I have been running the "New" vampire game for the last year; reading over the BW rules and seeing how the players drive the story, has driven me to try and figure out how to kill the characters off.

Stick with BW.

(If you been reading Penny Arcade then: I have not been paid to say this. ) :lol:

[Durgil]

Coming from an AD&D background in the early '80s to MERP/Rolemaster in my college days in the late '80s, I thought HârnMaster rocked when I found it while I was in the Navy in the mid ‘90s, but that completely random character generation in a medieval setting was quite scary. Most of the GMs that I ever played with though let you role like 4 to 6 different backgrounds and let you pick what you thought sounded the coolest. I've heard tell of plenty of GMs out there that were pretty hard core about it though. I have managed to pick up the entire setting, as well as all of the rule variations, except for most of the Hârn lores and Encyclopedia Hârnicas, which wasn't cheap or easy. That kind of detail, IMHO, though is wasted on a system like BW with its Resources, Affiliations, and Circles. The kind of role-players who are really in their Hârn campaigns (Hârniacs) are very possessive of those little details and the idea of giving up that kind of control is, I imagine, quite terrifying.

To each there own. :wink:

[luke]

You know what? This has come up a lot at GHQ lately. I'd like to state for the record: WE LOVE COLOR. All those details and cool bits? We love them. But we're only going to use what we can bring directly into play. If it's not supported by what's happening in play, then it's no good (to us).

Color is VITAL to a fulfilling roleplaying experience. Harn as oodles of color. It just stresses that color in a way that we don't agree with.

-L

[Durgil]

I quickly just want to write that the Hârniac portion of my last post was not directed towards anyone in particular on that forum or this one and was just a general observation on my part. :)

[Daisho]

Kid?

I'm 37. (Strangely, this reminds me of a Monte Python scene.)

Every rule has issues, Let It Ride is no different. Most times, it works. Sometimes it's broken. For every example of the rule being broken, there are a dozen where it is not.

As to hiding mysteries behind a perception role, it's much like any other system. A critical hit ends a serial villian in GURPS, or a fumble destroys a library in Ars Magica. The problem I have encounted is the PER4 players open-ending into low tens (13 the best so far) on a regular basis. It's just luck.

Not to step on your system and as I said in the Harnforum, Burning Wheel is servicable. It does somethings well and others not. In the end, it's the system I sit down with every week to enjoy some good times with my friends.

Craig

[luke]

Hi Craig,

thanks for coming by! Glad you like the game.

My point was that BW serves some situations better than others. "Find it" mysteries are not it's strong suit. Better to give the evidence and see what the players do with it. It's telling that there are extended mechanics for interpersonal conflict and life and death struggle and not investigation, right?

Oh, and the "kid" remark is a Young Ones reference.

-L

[Skiorht]

...and another Hârniac chiming in.

One thing people should always keep in mind when talking about Hârn is that Hârn is not the same as Hârnmaster. The system is still published as a systemless one, and a lot of people are running it with very different rulesets.

For example, while I did have a 10+ year campaign using Hârnmaster rules, I have also run games set in Hârn using FATE, RQIII, Rolemaster, Paladin, and Universalis. Stressing different elements of the setting can prove to be an eye-opening experience in many ways.

FWIW, I think BW is a very good match with Hârn, since you can have all the important elements of a feudal setting - web of responsibilities, social limitations, scarcity of resources, and the assorted nastiness of medieval life - without getting bogged in the details. The trick is to make the detail of Hârn work for you, not to get obsessed by it. I've always loved using Hârn because it means I don't have to do the grunt work, but instead can focus on the cool bits. I'm certainly looking forward to using BW to run a kick-ass Hârn campaign next summer when I get back to my regular gaming crew.

[Daisho]

The circumstances behind the perception rolls vary, but none were investigation.
In one, the characters had climbed the wall of noble's manor house in the middle of the winter, a storm blowing outside with snow obscuring vision and (an attempt at) drama being driven by the possibility of stumbling into guards. One character tested his perception: 13!! (his base was B5). Well, the opaqueness of the snow vanished and the character was able to make out the rounds of the patrolling guards, and a lot of the tension just bled away.
Granted, there was probably a better way of handling the scenario, but the intention stated was: Keep a close eye out for sentries, and see them before they stumble into us. (An intention: to watch and a consequence: have guards stumble into them).

The scenario was still a good one, but the atmosphere of poor vision, a dark night and desperate task seemed to evaporate. The approach became.... mechanical.

My 2d (that's silver pence to non-Harniac folk)

Craig

[emukt]

The scenario was still a good one, but the atmosphere of poor vision, a dark night and desperate task seemed to evaporate. The approach became.... mechanical.
I very much battle with this. I create a situation that will most likely go in one direction - and due to improbable luck - it goes another. Whenever something like that happens I try to make it part of the story.

What I would have done was ask the player to explain the results. Why do the distractions and hindrances of the world fall away while on this mission?

Maybe even use the results to add in something unexpected into the story. Use the new element as an added task or direction. Rather than just see their way clearly, they see an old enemy. Should they use this unexpected opportunity to take revenge on the enemy or continue on their task?

[khelek]

13 Yeses on a B5. Thats whn you immedietly nomiate the character for the Penetrating Gaze trait.

[Suicide King]

Isn't this also a matter of setting stakes?
Let it ride applies to a situation or the direct after-effects... like a specific tracking of a specific individual or group, not every animal and person the tracker has to find for the next 5 years.

If the stakes are "roll to see if you can see your sorroundings", then yes, he should have seen everything in the garden.
However, every system has this, sometimes the players are just goddamn lucky. I've seen 5th lvl d&d characters take out 12th lvl npc's by sheer luck. If you don't like this, it's not about BW, it's about dice systems. If randomness having an effect on the game bothers you, use a diceless system like amber or nobillis. Both good games, neither with any random elements to mess up a good story.

I have run a good investigation scenario in BW. The trick is to set stakes, I think. If the stakes are "roll to see if you can find anything of use on the crime scene" then that's it. If I've placed everything necessary to solve the mystery in that one scene, then I've fucked up as a GM, not the system.
As I read it, let it ride applies to a specific situation, even though the conditions of the situation changes, it's still the same situation. Am I wrong in this?

Btw, I'm not trying to be antagonistic in the above, I really enjoy diceless systems as well and sometimes randomness does bother me (I guess we've all seen a beloved villain die due to a critical hit, or lost a great character to a failed save), but I think the rewards outweigh the disadvantages.

[Daisho]

:roll: I don't complain about randomness. It's part of gaming.

My only point was: with the Let It Ride rule, a single bout of randomness (13 successes on B5) can go from single lucky roll to a string of perhaps ludicrous connections.

In the above example, the group around the table began looking to "Captain Nightvision" to monitor the progress of guards around the walls. The suspense was displaced. No big deal, happens in all systems. I just puzzle about the exacerbation caused by Let It Ride.

Craig

[ChrisG]

You're absolutely right. Let It Ride means that sometimes the characters knock it out of the park, and sometimes they just suck and suck and suck.

But the situation you described--that sounds like it was super empowering for the player. The stakes must've been high for him to burn that much Artha/pull that many FoRKs/etc to get 13 successes. That was a powerful statement: he was saying "this is critically important to my character--he is going to call on all his years of experience, pray to the gods, really go above an beyond to succeed".

Am I totally off base?

p.s. I gotta say, those guys on the HarnForum are really a pleasure to talk to. After rpg.net, I always expect the worst when talking BW on a public forum.

[Yagathai]

Pssst! Don't say his name! You might summon him!

[Suicide King]

My apologies if I misunderstood you, then.

However, Let it Ride shouldn't be a problem as a single roll should not apply to a whole bunch of different situations and if you've set the stakes well for the roll.
If the stakes are very vague ("roll to see if you find any clues in an a 5-mile radius of the scene") then you have a problem, but that's not about let it ride, that's about setting stakes for the roll at hand...

Argh, reading through this again, I don't think we disagree on anything. I personally like the Let it Ride rule and have started applying it to every game I run.
In D&D, if you take the rules at their face value, you often have to make the same roll 5-10 times in a row and you often have situations where a character hears/tumbles/balances extremely well in one round, the falls over his own legs the next round. I think most people apply let it ride in almost every game, just to not drie themselves nuts with multiple rolls for the same thing. Don't you?

[khelek]

As far as Lit It Ride goes, I like it! it keeps people/players (i guess players are people too) form rerolling till they succeed amazingly. I have actually brought it into my other non-BW games.

As far as game breaking, I feel that the GM has the say when it ends, and can craftt he story around it. The stakes sounded good and the roll was great...

So you narrate Bob the Barbarian (or whom ever) leading the party (is is blind) through the rain and fog they can hear the foot steps of the guards, but Bob keeps them hidden (maybe even slaying a guard), they make their way into the keep. The message the party gets is: Thank god we have Bob! then the game goes on, the scene is over and it is time to get back to work. The suspense is still there, the story is good, and the party knows who is "the Man". Getting out might not be so easy either.

[Daisho]

No Artha. Just open-ending. He rolled five successes with 3 sixes on the first roll, three more sixes on the second roll, etc, etc.

Sometimes when I am in the thick of the game, I can allow intents that are loosely worded. In order not to slow the game with a debate about the intent, I'll let it go and it was this that led me into the Captain Nightvision scenario. My bad, made worse by his good luck.

Craig

[Suicide King]

A mistake everyone that runs games makes every once in a while... Quiete often, I think :)

[jchokey]

The discussion continues here:

http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6821

Oy vey. Definitely not the game for this guy.

-L

Well, except for DOW and Fight!, I quite like it. Sorry I don't share the same enthusiasm for those two parts of your system that I do for the rest.

[luke]

Sorry I don't share the same enthusiasm for those two parts of your system that I do for the rest.

Sorry Jim. I'm not telling you what to like or dislike or whatever, but DoW and Fight ARE the game. They are the major conflict resolution mechanics for BW. They are the ultimate expression of the game's premise: You must make tough decisions in play and face their consequences. You're not playing BW if you're not using them.

Personally, I think your perceptions might change if you used these systems in play -- not in test, not in theory, but in actual play.

-L

[jchokey]

Sorry I don't share the same enthusiasm for those two parts of your system that I do for the rest.

Sorry Jim. I'm not telling you what to like or dislike or whatever, but DoW and Fight ARE the game.

No. They are *part* of the rules system-- not the whole system, let alone the whole game. (The same, of course, can be said of any part of any rules system.)



They are the major conflict resolution mechanics for BW. They are the ultimate expression of the game's premise: You must make tough decisions in play and face their consequences.

I have to disagree. If anything in BW constitutes the 'ultimate expression' (a term, IMHO, that really is little more than hype anyway, but let's not quibble about that) of such a premise, I would say its the option of handling combat simply as a "Bloody Versus Test" as described on pp. 140-141.

The idea that a whole combat, in which the life or death of a PC (or NPC) may be at stake in a single die roll emphasizes the concept of making tough decisions and facing their consequences far more than a set of mechanics that breaks that combat down into a series of individual, tactical substeps, which are resolved on an action by action basis, using multiple rolls, where much less rides on each.

Moreover, from my newbie perspective, at least, the idea of treating combat as a bloody versus test, rather than using the detailed "Fight!" rules, is more consistent with vision/premise presented as part of the basic BW rules mechanics. The examples and the impish rants in the first section of the book present clearly the idea that a single roll- or a series of linked tests-- ought to suffice for representing the entirity of an action. Consider your "No! No! NO!" example about a GM calling for multiple stealthy tests for separate substeps of a general sneaking-up action... or the example of poisoning a wizard on p. 32, which is treated simply as a series of linked tests, rather than breaking them up into a series of microactions which must be played out in full and tested separately and sequentially.

Indeed, from this perspective, it could be argued that DoW and Fight!, which rely upon breaking up major forms of conflict resolution into discrete steps, rather than placing everything on one roll, or on a short series of linked rolls, are in fact *contrary* to the premise you mention.



You're not playing BW if you're not using them.

It might be playing a *modified* version of BW if one alters them from what is written. But to say that it's "not BW" seems a little silly (and again, hyperbolic).



Personally, I think your perceptions might change if you used these systems in play -- not in test, not in theory, but in actual play.

Well, I'm planning to give that a try at some point. However, I'm curious to know as to why you think this would be the case. Why would those aspects of DoW and Fight! that I don't like, based on my reading of the rules and in practice combats run, suddenly become less unappealing to me if they occured in the course of an 'actual' play session?

[Judd]

Weclome to the Burning Wheel forum.

You are way off here and I am going to attack your premise and not attack you.

This is me, not attacking you.

But I will attack your words which I find to be bullshit.


Indeed, from this perspective, it could be argued that DoW and Fight!, which rely upon breaking up major forms of conflict resolution into discrete steps, rather than placing everything on one roll, or on a short series of linked rolls, are in fact *contrary* to the premise you mention.


The Let it Ride rule that prevents GM's from making their players roll over and over and over until finally they fail has no relationship to DoW or Fight!.

DoW and Fight! make it so that there are tons of difficult life-threatening world changing decisions in every conflict that utilizes them in their resolution. Difficult decisions that will cause blood and change are what Burning Wheel is all about.

Duel of Wits, Fight! and Range & Cover are all about tons of difficult decisions (Aggressive or Defensive, Strike or Parry, Incite or Point, Rush with Steel or Cover...etc. and etc.) that will decide the fate of your character and through your character the whole fucking world.

Hope that helped.

[jchokey]

You are way off here and I am going to attack your premise and not attack you.

How fortunate to know that my person is not actually at risk of harm.


But I will attack your words which I find to be bullshit.
Ah, so charming and eloquent...



Indeed, from this perspective, it could be argued that DoW and Fight!, which rely upon breaking up major forms of conflict resolution into discrete steps, rather than placing everything on one roll, or on a short series of linked rolls, are in fact *contrary* to the premise you mention.

The Let it Ride rule that prevents GM's from making their players roll over and over and over until finally they fail has no relationship to DoW or Fight!.

How is breaking up melee combat (or ranged combat, or an argument) into a series of discrete and sequential steps, each of which carries its own set of risks, any different from breaking up a sneaky reconaissance mission-- or the act of poisoning a powerful wizard-- into the same?



DoW and Fight! make it so that there are tons of difficult life-threatening world changing decisions in every conflict that utilizes them in their resolution.

The same could be the case in the two examples I gave (both of which are taken from the rulebooks), if they were actually broken down into individual substeps. Yet BW specifically urges *not* doing that-- and instead treating them as a single test (or as a set of linked tests)--presumably in order to emphasize the stakes that ride on that course of action and the test for it). But when it comes to DoW, Fight!, and Ranged Combat, the system doesn't do that-- but instead, breaks things down into a series of micro-tests, where, inevitably, less rides on each roll. No, I still maintain what I said before-- treating combat simply as a bloody versus test is more consistent with the vision and premise presented in the main body of the rules than the Fight! mechanics are.



Difficult decisions that will cause blood and change are what Burning Wheel is all about.

Pretty much *all* RPG games are about that, at some level. That said, I will agree that the basic BW mechanics do place a premium on the the setting of stakes more so than other games, with their emphasis on the declaration of intent, the setting of stakes, and the principle of "Let it Ride" However, "Fight!" (as well as DoW and Ranged Combat) still seem to me to move in the opposite direction suggested by these basic mechanics, by making it so that things do *not* ride on a single roll of the dice, but upon a series of rolls.


Duel of Wits, Fight! and Range & Cover are all about tons of difficult decisions (Aggressive or Defensive, Strike or Parry, Incite or Point, Rush with Steel or Cover...etc. and etc.) that will decide the fate of your character and through your character the whole fucking world.

Again, the same could be said about pretty much every RPG's fight mechanics... at least if one wants to use so much hype and profanity. But, that's really a tangent. My main point is that "Fight!" (and DoW, etc.) make *less* ride on each individual decision than does the model of treating combats simply as bloody versus test, in which everything is decided by a single roll.


Hope that helped.

Well, I suppose it depends on what exactly it was you were hoping to help achieve.... If it was to disabuse me of some mistaken conception of mine about the nature of Fight! or DoW, then, no I'm afraid it didn't.

[Judd]

How fortunate to know that my person is not actually at risk of harm.


Well, actually it is.

I wasn't attacking you personally but I was attacking your ideas.

You think I'm wrong and that's fine but I wanted you to feel welcome, if disagreed with.

I could waste a bunch of time going line by line and arguing but I don't think that is going to do anything. You believe something different from me. Enjoy your opinion.

[Judd]

Like a sore tooth...one more try...


How is breaking up melee combat (or ranged combat, or an argument) into a series of discrete and sequential steps, each of which carries its own set of risks, any different from breaking up a sneaky reconaissance mission-- or the act of poisoning a powerful wizard-- into the same?

Becuase there are no rules for making meaningful choices in any of those other choices.

Fight!, DoW and Range and Cover are set up to be extended conflicts. There are whole extended conflict systems in place there for us to utilizee, as with propaganda in the Burning Sands setting.




Pretty much *all* RPG games are about that, at some level.

But Burning Wheel backs it up with its Beliefs and Instincts and how they roll into the Artha system.

My last question is this: Have you played through a Fight! or a DoW or a Range and Cover?

Because fundamentally, the difference you are missing is that they are fun and extended conflicts where you roll the same skill again and again is not fun.

Creeping through the forest and rolling the same dice for the same conflict until you fail is not fun.

Choosing your maneuvers and scripting and making positioning tests is fun.

Jim, I really came to this thread not to argue with you for the sake of arguing and not to disabuse you of some notion but to lend a point of view in good will of someone who has played this game a whole helluva lot. THis isn't me saying, "I have a high post count n00b, bow before me!" but it is me saying that I have a perspective that comes from play and I posted to this thread when I saw that you were new and seemed to be seeking an opinion.

However, if you are seeking an extended argument, I'm really not interested. Some of the sentences you posted in your last post had a snarky tone when I really posted last night in nothing but welcome and disagreement.
[/quote]

[luke]

Well, I'm planning to give that a try at some point. However, I'm curious to know as to why you think this would be the case. Why would those aspects of DoW and Fight! that I don't like, based on my reading of the rules and in practice combats run, suddenly become less unappealing to me if they occured in the course of an 'actual' play session?

Jim,

In play, there are a number of factors operating that simply do not crop up when reading and testing. You can certainly get a feel for the mechanism and how it ticks by reading and testing, but it is difficult so see its full scope. A common reaction to this system is for players to say, "Ok, I see how it works, but why does it work that way?"

In play, the situation that leads to a fight or debate is organic. The participants, the conditions, the gear and all that are open to negotiation and maneuvering. Players make different decisions in play when controlling a character in which they have a significant investment. Those decisions are supported by the system more than the decisions one would make in testing. Players also make different decisions based on who their player-opponent is. A GM's priorities in one scene aren't the same as the player's, and those priorities don't usually include giving the system a whirl. He'll be making decisions based on his agenda for that moment -- which will be based on the situation in the game.

-Luke

[jhkim]

Hello. I'm in Jim's Harn group, and Jim bought me a copy of Burning Wheel which I'll be checking out at our next session. We'll probably try a one-shot of it at some point.

I get that many people love the scripting, but I've also read other reports from people who didn't like it. I'm not saying that we won't try it, but I don't understand the point about it "being" the game. Is the game unplayable without it? Hasn't anyone tried playing where you only script for a single volley, say?

[Judd]

Hello. I'm in Jim's Harn group, and Jim bought me a copy of Burning Wheel which I'll be checking out at our next session. We'll probably try a one-shot of it at some point.

I get that many people love the scripting, but I've also read other reports from people who didn't like it. I'm not saying that we won't try it, but I don't understand the point about it "being" the game. Is the game unplayable without it? Hasn't anyone tried playing where you only script for a single volley, say?

Saying, "I don't like scripting," is entirely kosher and yes, I think the game is playable without it.

Saying, "Scripting breaks the Let it Ride rule," is what I was arguing against.

If ya don't want to script, go with bloody versus.

[stormsweeper]

Hasn't anyone tried playing where you only script for a single volley, say?

The thing most proponents of this don't seem to pay attention to is that you'd need to plot out three volleys anyways, since you may have more (or fewer) than one action per volley. Sure you'd only be plotting out one volley at a time, but you'd still need to keep track of exchanges and how many actions have been spent, as well as "long" actions that take multiple scripted actions (standing from prone, drawing a melee weapon, readying ranged weapons, etc)*.

I haven't tried scripting-by-volley, but that's because scripting-by-exchange works just fine.


* You often do this by exchange anyways, but it's somewhat easier when you are scheduling blocks of actions.

[jchokey]

How is breaking up melee combat (or ranged combat, or an argument) into a series of discrete and sequential steps, each of which carries its own set of risks, any different from breaking up a sneaky reconaissance mission-- or the act of poisoning a powerful wizard-- into the same?

Becuase there are no rules for making meaningful choices in any of those other choices.

Sure there are. One can use the regular rules for handling those various individual substeps-- and the choices that occur in each-- individually. And the results, of course, could be extremely meaningful. For example, to use the 'poisoning the wizard' example from p. 33, successfully sneaking into the house-- or failing to-- could be quite meaningful, treated as an individual action, rather than merely as one part of a linked test. Same with intimidating the servant, whose reaction *could* be quite meaningful depending on the negotiated stakes and the success of the roll.



Fight!, DoW and Range and Cover are set up to be extended conflicts.

Yes, that's true. In fact, that was pretty much my point. The rules set these three areas up to be extended conflicts that are resolved by breaking them up into very small little substeps which are then resolved equally and sequentially.... and which involve repeated rolls for the same thing. (Don't strike him the first time? Well, you can try again in two volleys-- one if you've got a short weapon) This is quite a contrast to the more basic mechanisms of the game-- and the concept of combat simply as a bloody versus test-- where everything rides on one extremely meaningful test.



Pretty much *all* RPG games are about that, at some level.

But Burning Wheel backs it up with its Beliefs and Instincts and how they roll into the Artha system.

Ah, but that's BIT and Artha, now-- not Fight! or DoW. If Luke had written that BIT or Artha "ARE" BW, I might be willing to agree with that (at least if it weren't for my general distaste for hyperbolic metonymy in the first place :) ).


My last question is this: Have you played through a Fight! or a DoW or a Range and Cover?

I've run through two 'practice' Fight! sessions, to get a feel for how scripting works and plays out in practice. No actual gaming yet-- but I'm hoping to give actual play with actual characters a whirl fairly soon.


Because fundamentally, the difference you are missing is that they are fun and extended conflicts where you roll the same skill again and again is not fun. Creeping through the forest and rolling the same dice for the same conflict until you fail is not fun. Choosing your maneuvers and scripting and making positioning tests is fun.

The point of Luke's that I was responding to wasn't about "fun". It was his claim that the game's main premise is "You must make tough decisions in play and face their consequences" and that Fight! and DoW are "the ultimate expression of that premise". I still maintain that treating combat simply as a bloody versus test where all can be resolved in a single roll is a much clearer expression of that premise than the Fight! or DoW mechanics which involve treating those decisions as extended conflicts that involve resolving multiple microdecisions, tests, and rolls.


Some of the sentences you posted in your last post had a snarky tone when I really posted last night in nothing but welcome and disagreement.


Well, if dismissing someone's comments as "bullshit" is your idea of welcome, then you shouldn't have any trouble viewing a wee bit of snarkiness as appreciative thanks, should you? :)

[jchokey]

In play, the situation that leads to a fight or debate is organic. The participants, the conditions, the gear and all that are open to negotiation and maneuvering. Players make different decisions in play when controlling a character in which they have a significant investment. Those decisions are supported by the system more than the decisions one would make in testing. Players also make different decisions based on who their player-opponent is. A GM's priorities in one scene aren't the same as the player's, and those priorities don't usually include giving the system a whirl. He'll be making decisions based on his agenda for that moment -- which will be based on the situation in the game.

While I don't disagree with any of that, Luke, I'm not sure it's actually an answer to my question. (Well, obviously it is in a literal sense, since it was how youanswered it.... but you know what I mean.)

Certainly players and GMs may be bringing different agendas to a conflict, and maybe making different decisions based on the context of the confict (e.g. nature of the characters, context of the scene within the story, etc.) But, I'm having a tough time imagining how someone who generally doesn't like certain aspects of the mechanics would suddenly find those mechanics more appealing simply because they occured within a specific narrative scene. In fact, I personally find that unappealing mechanics are more frustrating when they're occuring in a scene with characters and actions that matter-- rather than just in practice and paper-- because I've got a lot more riding on mechanics that I don't like!

However, I'll definitely give the Fight! and DoW mechanics a fair shake exactly as written in actual play. Who knows? Maybe I'll end up loving DoW and Fight in practice-- but then hating everything else about the game. :D

[jchokey]

Hasn't anyone tried playing where you only script for a single volley, say?

The thing most proponents of this don't seem to pay attention to is that you'd need to plot out three volleys anyways, since you may have more (or fewer) than one action per volley.

In Fight!'s melee combat, yes, that's true. But not in Ranged Combat or DoW. In DoW, there's always and and only one action per volley-- the same with Ranged Combat. (Or at least I'm pretty sure that's the case. If not, I guess I better hit the books again.)

That was one of the things I mentioned on my Harnforum post that I couldn't figure out (and which, no-one over there seemed able/willing to address)-- what the point was of scripting three volleys at time for DoW and Ranged combat? Luke, any chance that you or someone else could enlighten me on that point?

[luke]

Well, if dismissing someone's comments as "bullshit" is your idea of welcome, then you shouldn't have any trouble viewing a wee bit of snarkiness as appreciative thanks, should you? :)

Moderator Luke

Ok, this has ceased to be a productive discussion. You want to talk about scripting rules, take it to the Burning Wheel forum. You want rant about how Burning Wheel is teh sukc, take it to the Sea of Abzu. You want propose changes, take it to the Spark.

Do not post further in this thread.


Thanks,
-Luke