Sell me The Burning Wheel [Archive]

higgins

08-24-2007, 03:40 AM

Burning Wheel is much more complete and internally consistent than the Riddle, but also much deeper strategically and mechanically. I have to say I fear that if TRoS is too complex for you and/or your friends, BW may be as well.
I can handle TROS, but it's my humanitarian female gamers I'm worried about. I thought of mixing a system together from Over the Edge (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1887801529/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-8690920-6251134#reader-link) (character creation), nWoD (http://www.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/) (dice), Godlike (http://arcdream.com/godlike/) (wound marking) and TROS (http://www.theriddleofsteel.net/) (combat and spiritual attributes). For the sake of my players, I'd simplify TROS combat to basic manouvers of course. Sheet would be something like this (http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/1119/sheetyy0.gif) (terms in Estonian, sorry).

Maybe I could improve my mix with the ideas gained from BW, or maybe I'd switch to it entirely if I'd happen to like it. I'm here to find out the chances of both. :)

That said, if you're interested in social conflict, the Duel of Wits in BW is totally awesome.
Do you mean dice rolling to solve the outcome of a social situation? My players would kick my ass if I interrupted their engaging dialogue with a roll. ;)

kruug

08-24-2007, 07:38 AM

Do you mean dice rolling to solve the outcome of a social situation? My players would kick my ass if I interrupted their engaging dialogue with a roll.

Well, sorta. BW takes social conflict and blows it out into a full-fledged combat system, where you try to outwit your opponents with maneuvers like Point, Rebuttal, Feint, Obfuscate, etc.

Instead of being resolved in a single roll, it becomes a tactical system. I personally love it, but at first, it seems to get in the way of "the roleplaying". Once you get over the learning curve, it rocks.

I have to say I fear that if TRoS is too complex for you and/or your friends, BW may be as well.

This is true, but there are streamlined ways of handling combat, if the players aren't interested in a high level of detail.

I'd just like to say: Try it out. It's very cheap, compared to many mainstream books. Like, look at D&D--the core books are what, $40 each? You can get the entire BW system for about half of that.

And I've got to say that the BW books are probably the most entertaining game books I've ever read, so even if you never play it, it's worth it to become familiar with the concepts in it.

One final thing: Circles ftw.

higgins

08-24-2007, 08:22 AM

BW takes social conflict and blows it out into a full-fledged combat system, where you try to outwit your opponents with maneuvers like Point, Rebuttal, Feint, Obfuscate, etc.
Definelty not my cup of tea then.

This is true, but there are streamlined ways of handling combat, if the players aren't interested in a high level of detail.
Oh, they are. Just not in high level of rules. ;)

I'd just like to say: Try it out. It's very cheap, compared to many mainstream books. Like, look at D&D--the core books are what, $40 each? You can get the entire BW system for about half of that.
Only D&D book I ever paid for was Quintessential Ranger... :) But living in Eastern Europe, you basically have to double the price of every book I buy because of posting fees. :(

But okay, more specific questions now:

I glimpsed at the orc lifepath file. Mixed feelings. I'd like the paths to be player defined, not picked from a list. Pick & combine is a bad tone in my opinion, as no list can ever be exhaustive. Are there guidelines for making up lifepaths by myself? Like, for a modern game?
Are rules for firearms supported?
Combat is writing down stuff and then comparing sheets? How are the dice pools handled? Could someone explain how is it "better" than TROS? I didn't also get if there were hit points or not.
What's the difference between Beliefs in BW and Spiritual Attributes in TROS?
What, in essence, is Monster Burner? What does it help me to do?
How many BW books are there? I get I need only two to play, but what is recommended?

higgins

08-24-2007, 08:24 AM

Double post, sorry.

stormsweeper

08-24-2007, 08:44 AM

1. The Monster Burner has the rules for making new LPs. The orc LPs are meant to represent them as in Tolkien's work. The mannish ones are much more exhaustive.
2. There's some basic rules for medieval era firearms. Essentially, they're really powerful, but very unreliable.
3. Better is subjective. You match manuevers up against your opponent, and then roll the dice to hash out the results.
4. Beliefs aren't attributes you can tap directly. They power the reward system - you get "artha" from playing them which can then be used to tweak die rolls and do other things. They fill a similar role overall, though.
5. The BW Construction Kit, really. Rules for making creatures, new races, lifepaths, skills, traits, and other bits.
6. I would recommend the Monster Burner, especially if you are a tweaker. The books other than that are all specific setting books. All but The Blossoms are Falling (Heian era Japan) are freely available on the wiki.

higgins

08-24-2007, 08:55 AM

1. The Monster Burner has the rules for making new LPs.
Including modern?

3. Better is subjective. You match manuevers up against your opponent, and then roll the dice to hash out the results.
But what's the praccal difference? At the moment, I get that in BW you decide your actions in advance and live with it, but in TROS you constantly adapt yourself to current situation while making possible tactical plans mentally which you may discard and change your direction.

stormsweeper

08-24-2007, 09:05 AM

Sure, but the game is really a fantasy game. Even the settings like Under a Serpent Sun (post-apocalyptic) or Jihad (Dune-like) are still more fantasy than modern.

Scripting is one of the things you have to experience to fully get it, I think. It's very evocative, and simulates the chaos of a fight. And you can change your actions, within some constraints.

Someone needs to get Jake Norwood in here. ;)

Really, though, if you find LPs too limiting, and don't like having rules for social engagement, you're probably not going to jive with BW.

Verrain

08-24-2007, 09:37 AM

Someone needs to get Jake Norwood in here. ;)

Indeed. What I can say is that I've played in a Burning Wheel game with Jake and he loves it! He basically said that Burning Wheel does the kind of things he would have worked into TROS 2.0, so since Luke already did the work Jake doesn't have to. :)

To answer your question 1 Higgins, yes including modern. What it won't give you is a modern skill list or rules for modern equipment. However, you can get some of that from the settings on the wiki such as Under a Serpent Sun or Jihad.

As for 3, I've not played TROS but Burning Wheel does give you the option to scrap a action to change an action so there is room for adjusting on the fly in combat. The dice pools come into it for rolling the skill that matches up with your action chosen. You script Strike but you still have to roll your weapon skill to see if you hit him. He scripted Block, so he has the chance to stop your attack but still has to get more successes than you did on your strike. That sort of thing.

Oh and there are not hit points. Each successful attack is given a rating based on the Power of the attacker, the weapons used, and how many successes were rolled on the attack. So say I hit you with a sword for a B7 wound. You have a gradation of wound levels based on your stats. On you a B7 might be a Severe wound, on a giant that could be a Light Wound. All wounds but Superficial decrease all stats. When a stat hits zero you are incapacitated. That's combat in a nutshell. Its clearer in the book of course.

higgins

08-24-2007, 10:51 AM

Scripting is one of the things you have to experience to fully get it, I think. It's very evocative, and simulates the chaos of a fight. And you can change your actions, within some constraints.
It's just I can't see myself doing the scripting, as I near exlusively play over the internet, and most importantly -- hate book keeping. Having manouver lists to choose from however, would certainly make things easier to players. I thought of making manouver-lists for my mixed system too.

What I can say is that I've played in a Burning Wheel game with Jake and he loves it! He basically said that Burning Wheel does the kind of things he would have worked into TROS 2.0, so since Luke already did the work Jake doesn't have to. :)
Do you know any specfics? I'm just curious what pieces he meant by that. I like Instincts very much myself. :)

higgins

08-24-2007, 11:02 AM

Double post again, I just can't get it.

ChrisG

08-24-2007, 11:04 AM

Sample Chapters (http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#Burning_Wheel_Revised_-_Sample_Chapters) on the wiki, if you haven't seen the other ones.

Another thing that's worth mentioning is that if you like tweaking systems, you might be frustrated with BW. IMO, it doesn't lend itself to easy tweaking right off the bat. It's a really tight system with a lot of depth, so hacking around before you've played it a bit can really mess things up.

luke

08-24-2007, 11:14 AM

Deliverator

08-24-2007, 11:16 AM

Higgins,

Might I suggest some light-weight fantasy RPGs like Conspiracy of Shadows (http://www.bobgoat.com/games/cos.php) and The Shadow of Yesterday? (http://www.crngames.com/the_shadow_of_yesterday/)

-L

Yeah. When I was playing with a TRoS group that didn't work out because the rules burden was too heavy, we switched over to TSoY and it went much better. That was TSoY 1st Ed., and there's now TSoY 2nd Ed., which I've also played and found to be even more excellent.

BRING DOWN THE PAIN!!!

Matt

higgins

08-24-2007, 02:27 PM

Another thing that's worth mentioning is that if you like tweaking systems, you might be frustrated with BW. IMO, it doesn't lend itself to easy tweaking right off the bat. It's a really tight system with a lot of depth, so hacking around before you've played it a bit can really mess things up.
Thanks for warning me. :)

Might I suggest some light-weight fantasy RPGs like Conspiracy of Shadows (http://www.bobgoat.com/games/cos.php) and The Shadow of Yesterday? (http://www.crngames.com/the_shadow_of_yesterday/)
The first one is completely new to me, but I think I've seen the second one looks pretty interesting if to look at its themes and influences. However most rules light systems don't appeal to me, as I'm the weird guy who wants to have freeform creation and rules lightness with realism. I know it's a tough combination, but I believe I'm achieving that. :)

I like your Instincts mechanic very much, and this will probably earn BW a place in my influences paragraph. :)

Yeah. When I was playing with a TRoS group that didn't work out because the rules burden was too heavy, we switched over to TSoY and it went much better. That was TSoY 1st Ed., and there's now TSoY 2nd Ed., which I've also played and found to be even more excellent.
We haven't actually tried out TROS with my group, but if people have hard time figuring out thei Defence in nWoD... Actually I believe switching to simplified TROS will make things more rules light, as dividing dice pool into two is easy and adding a description has never been a problem. Add health boxes to limbs for marking wounds and it will all be a piece of cake with simplified shock and blood loss. At least I hope.

I will definetly read TSoY. I found a free version 0.9 on the net. :)

luke

08-25-2007, 03:07 AM

First Age

08-25-2007, 05:08 AM

Realism has nothing to do with a game being rules light or rules heavy. Those games are great and will produce very fun results at your table. If none of these games satisfy you, write your own. But write it, though. Don't make it up as you go along and don't just hack up another system. Go for what you want.

Absolutely.

Write it even if you have a lot of games that you like already. Write it so that you can bring that perfect blend of what you think is important to the gaming table. Write it to enjoy the process of being creative. Write it so that you can share it with others. It's what I am doing.

My game openly acknowledges a debt of thanks to a number of wonderful books, principally Burning Wheel and HeroQuest, but when finished will be something of my own, a blend with my own take on a roleplaying game. My first play test was last night. It's a lot of fun.

Meantime I need to work up some stuff for a Blossoms are falling game... :)

higgins

08-26-2007, 02:22 PM

Realism has nothing to do with a game being rules light or rules heavy.
It's easy to confuse "realistic" and "detailed" in this kind of discussion, but my experience says that while detailed systems might not be realistic, realistic systems are nearly always detailed... Details however, tend to boost the amount of rules. Or can you give me some examples which work otherwise? :)

If none of these games satisfy you, write your own. But write it, though. Don't make it up as you go along and don't just hack up another system. Go for what you want.
I am blending (for my own purposes) and I have no intention of making something up while running a game. But as for "hacking up" ... I figure what you meant by this, was that I was going to use existing parts of another gaming engines?

Of course, I understand that it's not the nicest tone just to use a mechanic from some other game... But why to re-design and possibly damage a working mechanism? Okay, I'm going to simplify it for my players, but I'm really talking about a base mechanic here.

Write it even if you have a lot of games that you like already. Write it so that you can bring that perfect blend of what you think is important to the gaming table. Write it to enjoy the process of being creative. Write it so that you can share it with others. It's what I am doing.
Bringing the perfect blend in my games is the sole purpose I am mixing the system up. But where do you draw the line between influence and theft? If I've bought or downloaded a free game, I don't feel bad if I use use them and mix them up for a gaming engine for my personal use. But to share it? That wouldn't be nice and probably not legal either. But if all of the base materials were available for free? That's complicated subject and the main reason I decided not to share it.

ChrisG

08-26-2007, 03:36 PM

This is a long standing "gamer" conversation, but here's how realistic doesn't necessarily mean detailed. I've been looking all over for it, but somewhere out there on the internet I remember reading some compiled statistics for gunshot wounds in the Vietnam war that was something along the lines of 1 in 4 gunshots being fatal. Let's just say for the sake of argument that those statistics are correct--we can easily look up the actual statistics at some point when my Google-fu is working.

So I could arguably make a game about being a soldier in Vietnam, let's call it "Grunts". And in the course of my resolution system, if any one of the grunts gets shot, you roll a d4, and a 1 means your character dies from his injuries. Realistic, because statistically valid, but not detailed.

On the other hand, you've got a system like Fight! which may or may not have anything to do with real sword fighting--I think Luke's priorities are not the realistic modeling of actual medieval dueling. Fight! is pretty detailed. But it's not necessarily realistic.

higgins

08-27-2007, 06:35 AM

So I could arguably make a game about being a soldier in Vietnam, let's call it "Grunts". And in the course of my resolution system, if any one of the grunts gets shot, you roll a d4, and a 1 means your character dies from his injuries. Realistic, because statistically valid, but not detailed.
Well, while this kind of system produces a realistic result, gaming tends to focus on the process. So, while it makes a good example, it also makes a useless system for most of the groups. :)

Jake Norwood

08-27-2007, 09:54 AM

Hi Higgins. Jake Norwood here.

Yes, I like BW very much. Where BW "Classic" was a neat game but didn't appeal to me much at all, I think that BWR is probably the most tightly designed FRPG ever written. That's important here.

BW really expects you to play by the rules. The good news is that the rules are brilliantly coherent and interwoven; it's hard to find a place where you have to just guess or make it up as the GM. Do I think that TROS Combat is a more dynamic, more visceral, more "like being in a fight" type of experience...yeah, I still do. But BW has enough of that to keep me satisfied while I enjoy the other fine points of the game.

BW may seem "rules heavy" at first, but unlike TROS or, say AD&D or DnD3.x, the rules actually all lean against each other, support each other, and ultimately work on the same engine. The game has a logical structure that takes some getting used to, frankly, but I have found the payoff to be immense. If I ever did write a TROS 2.0 or something of the sort that would be the primary lesson that I would take from it--unity of design and vision in every aspect of the mechanics. Simply put, BW mechanics matter.

The books, given size and format, are very easy to use. I look things up often, but it's not as unpleasant as it is with other games, especially the big "math-book" hardbacks that have been the industry standard for so long. The two-book format is very handy, too. The books feel good in the hand and are not especially intimdating.

The rules system, integrated as it is, is fairly modular. You can add pieces on as you go.

The combat--where you pick a few "rounds" of actions in advance--seems like a terrible idea at first, but after a few bouts (like TROS, I suggest a little bit of pre-game practice the first time) it's smooth and fairly intuitive, but with a depth that one discovers with time. I reccomend looking at the Arena threads, where I got my first "schooling" in how BW combat works.

DoW is simpler than combat, though they are designed along the same model. It allows character skill in social contexts to really shine without overshadowing "good roleplaying." It is not, however, especially freeform.

So what am I saying...um...

BW is not a "Freeform" type game. It is very structured, but it uses the structure efficiently and as an enabler. It provides the most "fair" play environment I've ever seen in an FRPG, both on a mechanical and meta-level.

I'd be happy to field your questions.

Jake

higgins

08-27-2007, 12:12 PM

Do I think that TROS Combat is a more dynamic, more visceral, more "like being in a fight" type of experience...yeah, I still do. But BW has enough of that to keep me satisfied while I enjoy the other fine points of the game.
Hi Jake!

Firstly, I must say I really admire how TROS handles the combat with Exchange of Blows and all other melée combat systems I've seen pale in comparison. When writing a gaming engine for myself, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible for me not to copy what TROS is doing, as the Exchange of Blows mechanic is the only system so far that has made a perfect sense to me.

Aside for the system being too complicated for my players, I've got only one beef with TROS: I like a working system in my head and don't really like referencing books during sessions. With TROS, it's of course impossible for normal human beings to memorize all the damage tables. :)

But I get that this is what BW combat essentially is -- the part that I hate -- referencing from the sheets. I'd have to try it out of course, but this is the impression I get.

BW may seem "rules heavy" at first, but unlike TROS or, say AD&D or DnD3.x, the rules actually all lean against each other, support each other, and ultimately work on the same engine.
This is, of course, a heavy plus for any gaming engine. So, are you basically saying that while I might not use BW for my games, it would be educating to try it out?

The rules system, integrated as it is, is fairly modular. You can add pieces on as you go.
Could you elaborate that point? Has it got something to do with Monster Burner?

The combat--where you pick a few "rounds" of actions in advance--seems like a terrible idea at first, but after a few bouts (like TROS, I suggest a little bit of pre-game practice the first time) it's smooth and fairly intuitive, but with a depth that one discovers with time. I reccomend looking at the Arena threads, where I got my first "schooling" in how BW combat works.
I checked out the Arena and found this (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-832.html) thread most understandable at first glance, but it was difficult anyway, as I have no idea what the most manouvers are supposed to mean.

stormsweeper

08-27-2007, 12:21 PM

Could you elaborate that point? Has it got something to do with Monster Burner?

I beloieve he's referring to what the book itself advocates - start using the basic resolution system, then phase in the detailed conflict rules.

Jake Norwood

08-27-2007, 01:05 PM

Hi Jake!

Firstly, I must say I really admire how TROS handles the combat with Exchange of Blows and all other melée combat systems I've seen pale in comparison. When writing a gaming engine for myself, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible for me not to copy what TROS is doing, as the Exchange of Blows mechanic is the only system so far that has made a perfect sense to me.

Hi Higgins. It's nice to hear something nice. Thanks.

Aside for the system being too complicated for my players, I've got only one beef with TROS: I like a working system in my head and don't really like referencing books during sessions. With TROS, it's of course impossible for normal human beings to memorize all the damage tables. :)

But I get that this is what BW combat essentially is -- the part that I hate -- referencing from the sheets. I'd have to try it out of course, but this is the impression I get.

The book-reference load in-combat is quite a bit lighter in BW, really, for two main reasons. The first is that BW's damage system (the element of my game that required the most lookup) is very straightforward and certainly more traditional that TROS' collection of ghastly wounds. BW's Physcial Tolerances aren't Hit Points, either, mark you, but if you're familar with something along the lines of Shadowrun's damage system your on the right track.

The second time-saver in BW is that the hand-out sheets that you use as "battle mats" or Fight! worksheets or whatever really contain everything you need. You might need to look up the details of a Throw, Push, or Great Strike in the middle of an exchange, but all of that information fits on the back of the page that you're marking up your script on.

Because BW combat is scripted in advance, though, you *are* married to the sheets when you play. Like I said, not a "freeform" game at all.

So, are you basically saying that while I might not use BW for my games, it would be educating to try it out?

Absolutely. There is a lot to be learned from BW about good, coherent game design, especially since the larger a game gets the less coherent it seems to get (no wonder so many good indie games are so short...). If you do pick up BW and decide to play it, make sure not to tinker--play it as written, although you can certainly simplify a little bit at the outset.

Could you elaborate that point? Has it got something to do with Monster Burner?

LOL, no. Stormsweeper's right, it's more about the way the game is built. It's like this:

First, you learn the "hub" of the wheel, which is the basic resolution mechanics. You can actually play the whole game using just these rules, though you'd be missing out on a lot.

Then, you learn the "spokes," which get into Skills, Beliefs and Instincts, advancement, and other stuff which essentially flushes out the use of your character. Between the hub and the spokes you can now play BW without much reference to the book at all and still have a very engaing game.

Finally you begin pulling in, one piece at a time, the rules from the "rim" of the wheel. These are the advanced rules for combat, resources, duels of wits, weapons and armor, and so on. This is where all that scripting and referencing the text becomes necessary. The good news is that, if you find combat or duel of wits too detailed or difficult, you can still resolve a conflict using the rules from the hub and the spokes. You don't have to use the rules out at the rim, but the game is built with each of them in mind. It's modular in the sense that you use what you want or can initially. Sooner or later we all end up using them all, because it's generally more fun that way. But there's no hurry.

I checked out the Arena and found this (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-832.html) thread most understandable at first glance, but it was difficult anyway, as I have no idea what the most manouvers are supposed to mean.

Well, sure...but, if you download the combat worksheet you'll see a mechanical description of each of the maneuvers, and you'll be able to follow the fights as they progress from one end of the sheet to the other. You won't understand many of the mechanics, of course, but at least you'll be able to get a better grip on what's going on and why.

Finally, I recall that earlier you asked about the similarities between TROS' SA's and BW's Beliefs (and Instincts, to a lesser degree, I'd say). In TROS, SA's are fast-burn. They flare up, make a big impact, and allow the character to--even if only for a moment--dominate the story. BW's Beliefs are more of a slow burn. They don't provide any kind of bonuses to the "now," but they fuel the collection of artha, BW's Karma/Luck/Drama type mechanic. That artha, in turn, allows the character some of the same "high burn" that TROS's SA's give right away.

For GM's they do the same thing, though--they tell us the player's wants and desires for their character, which makes engaging the PCs as protagonists infinitely easier. OTOH it makes railroading really, really difficult. But both games see that as a feature, I believe.

Hope all that helps.

Jake

higgins

08-28-2007, 03:33 AM

Thanks for the through answers!

I'm also confirming that Jake Norwood has sold me the Burning Wheel. :)

The winning argument was the coherent game design to be learned from. Looking forward to recieveing the package. :)

Tobias

08-28-2007, 04:22 AM

I checked out the Arena and found this (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-832.html) thread most understandable at first glance, but it was difficult anyway, as I have no idea what the most manouvers are supposed to mean.

Hi Higgins,

Let me start by saying that my BW experience is limited to online play (Arena) on this forum.

As such, I only have a little feel for the Duel of Wits and Fight! mechanics.

The thread you link to is well-documented, however, it is BWC (Classic), which counts paces during combat, which BWR (Revised) has abstracted to range categories. So 'current' BW Fight! is a bit different (more streamlined, I've heard) from Classic.

As to 'holding tables in your head' - I've found that sure, you use the lists of fight options a lot during your first fights, but they get more and more natural over time, having to look up things less and less.

I'll gladly fight an Arena fight with you, if you like.

higgins

08-28-2007, 05:30 AM

Hi Tobias!

As you know your way around these forums, and I don't, could you link me a well documented BWR Arena thread? If I get how the system works, I'd be more than happy to enter the Arena.

As for book knowledge, I just placed an order a couple of hours ago and flying them to Europe usually takes weeks, so, I guess I'm not be able to create a character by myself for a while... Though I could try it with orcish lifepaths, if there's enough materials in the Wiki. I glanced at them, but never looked if they make a complete character creation rules for orcs.

Jake Norwood

08-28-2007, 06:25 AM

Tobias

08-28-2007, 08:35 AM

Hi Tobias!

As you know your way around these forums, and I don't, could you link me a well documented BWR Arena thread? If I get how the system works, I'd be more than happy to enter the Arena.

Higgins,

Almost all the arena examples are between 2 opponents that at least have rulebooks and are cherry-picking what's relevant for them (I think). One example that I like, because it's fairly simple and includes a Duel of Wits, is this one:

http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3867&page=2

higgins

08-28-2007, 12:09 PM

Great! I'll PM you with duel set-up details when I've studied the thread. :)

First Age

08-30-2007, 01:17 AM

Bringing the perfect blend in my games is the sole purpose I am mixing the system up. But where do you draw the line between influence and theft? If I've bought or downloaded a free game, I don't feel bad if I use use them and mix them up for a gaming engine for my personal use. But to share it? That wouldn't be nice and probably not legal either. But if all of the base materials were available for free? That's complicated subject and the main reason I decided not to share it.

Sure, if you are just basically ripping off a game with a few personalised tweaks then that is indeed naughty.

My own game uses a d6 dice pool with 4 to 6 as successes and a scaling mechanic similar to the shades in Burning Wheel. I also have something similar to beliefs though they are setup and work differently. I also acknowledge the strong influence of HeroQuest.

Most games are built on the backs of other designs, while bringing somethings that are new, often brought together in a tight package that takes people in a new direction. Even Burning Wheel. I guess it depends where you have got to with your blend. Sounds like you are enjoying mashing your perfect homebrew game, which is fun!

Cheers

ThoughtBubble

08-30-2007, 03:28 AM

I may be a bit late to the thread, but I have to chime in for the Duel of Wits. I love the DOW. Seriously, it turned our arguments from: "What are you doing?" "Nothing, what are you doing?" to "I don't need you, I have my own goals, and I'm doing you a favor!" "I don't doubt your passion or skills m'lady, but I will not have you belittling my men." It was huge. Since they HAD to say something appropriate every volly, they really dug down and found that stuff. And since it was the rules, they were able to take a step back and yell in character while cheering each other on out of character.

The fact that the size of the volleys makes each statement short and dramatic is just icing on the cake.

In my group, The DOW facilitates better impassioned arguements, more drama, and more acceptance.

Glendower

08-30-2007, 08:59 AM

I'll second the duel of Wits. I have a player or two that sometimes have a problem thinking on their feet. This normally puts them at a disadvantage during other games, as arguments by the "faster and more agile" speaking players would mean that they aren't able to really keep up.

With the Duel of Wits, they have a moment to compose their thoughts and have some real zingers to throw out as you move from volley to volley. You know that moment where you think ... "Oh man, I should have said this!", in the Duel of Wits, you have time to think of that perfect phrase to really make the other players go "OH NO HE DIDN'T!" Jerry Springer style.

Jake Norwood

08-30-2007, 06:03 PM

Sure, if you are just basically ripping off a game with a few personalised tweaks then that is indeed naughty.

It's only naughty if you're selling it. Or publishing free online, for example,to some degree...that's legal, but probably not a very nice thing to do.

OTOH indie games openly borrow (and credit) ideas from each other all the time. Burning Empires, although it's mostly a BW port, borrowed ideas or concepts extensively from both Universalis and My Life With Master, but it credited those games openly.

Jake

First Age

08-31-2007, 05:06 AM

OTOH indie games openly borrow (and credit) ideas from each other all the time. Burning Empires, although it's mostly a BW port, borrowed ideas or concepts extensively from both Universalis and My Life With Master, but it credited those games openly.

Quite right too. I plan to do the same.

Anyway, this thread has generated another convert. Huzzah!

higgins

08-31-2007, 07:37 AM

Quite right too. I plan to do the same.
Where could I see your game, by the way? But this thread has made me to seriously consider to re-design my blended system. I've generated a couple of ideas for starters, but it seems like a rip-off now, rather than a copy. Well, to me anyway.

Anyway, this thread has generated another convert. Huzzah!
Convert? I haven't even read it yet. :P

But just out of curiosity... Where do you get most of your... um... conversion fodder? What games do they play? Is there a trend?

First Age

08-31-2007, 08:52 AM

Convert? I haven't even read it yet. :P

But just out of curiosity... Where do you get most of your... um... conversion fodder? What games do they play? Is there a trend?

I'm that confident that you'll love Burning Wheel!

My own game is in early playtest and I hope to have something out late next year; I'll make the biggest online splash that I can when the time comes. It will be available free on the web as a PDF under a creative commons licence, and with extra layout and art in a POD book form too.

Influences that I will credit include the following games:

HeroQuest (the biggest influence)
Burning Wheel
Silhouette (Dream Pod 9)
The Shadow of Yesterday
The D6 System

It's fun just creating it. Once you get a critical mass of text (I'm now over 20K) and have a workable core game you can really explore what you are trying to achieve.

Back to it...

Cheers

Z-Dog

08-31-2007, 11:20 AM

Mention above about games that cannibalize other systems:

Conspiracy of Shadows feels like an unashamed Frankenstein of great games: Delta Green, Prime Time Adventures, probably some Burning Wheel in there, too.

So sometimes cannibalizing is very very good!

Re: Selling you on Burning Wheel---glad Jake did.

My two cents: Duel of Wits/Let it Ride/Fight!/World Burning/Character Burning all rock!

higgins

09-01-2007, 05:09 PM

I'm that confident that you'll love Burning Wheel!
I hope so too. I bought Monster Burner as well. :)

It's fun just creating it. Once you get a critical mass of text (I'm now over 20K) and have a workable core game you can really explore what you are trying to achieve.
A whole setting then? I'm just trying to create a gaming engine me and my group can be happy with.

I've got an idea how to re-design my current Over the Edge character creation system. It will still seem like a rip-off, but how can you make a 100% loose mechanic, which is not based on character concept and add-on flavours?

I'm also gonna rip-off the base combat mechanic from TROS (as much as they share for free themselves). Of course I'd like to think of something myself, but I've been a fan for dice pools for years and TROS combat is just so natural... and I couldn't bring myself to using anything lesser than I'm happy with. I also like SA's very much and look forward to seeing what BW's beliefs are.

So, yeah, while I'd like to make it available, I don't think it's feasible.

I also thought I've got the wounding mechanic figured out but re-reading it yesterday it just felt too heavy if compared to the rest of the system.

Tinkering is fun indeed. :)

Mention above about games that cannibalize other systems:

Conspiracy of Shadows feels like an unashamed Frankenstein of great games: Delta Green, Prime Time Adventures, probably some Burning Wheel in there, too.

So sometimes cannibalizing is very very good!
Does it only feel, or does it look like them too? I think there's a diffrerence.

And to those with Burning Empires copy... How are the above (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showpost.php?p=47005&postcount=35)mentioned games credited there? I'm just curious. :)

cathexis

09-02-2007, 07:09 AM

And to those with Burning Empires copy... How are the above (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showpost.php?p=47005&postcount=35)mentioned games credited there? I'm just curious. :)

Last page on the 'Ography page, there is a section titled "Gameography" which lists all of the games (and what in specific they influenced) that Burning Empires borrowed stuff from. If you're only borrowing from one or two sources a note on the credits page would probably be most appropriate, if you are borrowing from more or if you are referencing a lot of other media (books, movies, etc.) in addition to some games that handle specific things in ways that you like, I'd say having a bibliography is the best way to go.

Cheers!

higgins

09-02-2007, 10:24 AM

It shows there is a new post on the thread on the front page, but not in the thread itself. :(

Added:
Okay, it appreared now when I made a post. Thanks for the tip. :)

higgins

02-12-2008, 05:09 PM

Okay, I finally had the time to sit and read my BW books a bit. I don't know if I read it wrong, but the further I read, the more I get the feeling that BW is a game about skipping. I especially loathe the linked tests -- a good measure of rich detail and exitement going down the drain with a single roll. If I'd done the ship escape scene that was set as an example, I would have worked up the tension and have my players adrenalin pumping as they reach the ship and make off with it (and I do not bear a combat scene in mind here).

And players describing their success in combat? How do you avoid swashbuckling or action movie feel if this is not what you're after?

I have mixed feelings on Circles. On one hand, it's a good way to fill some gaps left in from the character creation, but on the other hand it went really over the top. Filling the ranks of infulencial people with your relatives based on lucky rolls? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE players who generate NPCs and I don't mind my PCs having powerful aquiantances, but this method doesn't sound quite right. A person as important as abbess is most likely a defined NPC and while it sounds tempting to change some aspects of the current NPC, so that she would be a PCs aunt (leaving the ambitions or whatever as it was planned before) it might not fit with the general background or what other PCs have since discovered.

PCs are assumed to know or be tied to each other. Okay, this could easily be ignored, but to me this is just another example how different methods I and Luke use when GMing. I always prefer PCs starting off as complete strangers, as no bond is as strong as the one forged in in-game. Plus, getting to know other people and their aquanitances is the most fun part of the game and allows much more complex web of relations. Yes, some PCs are not trusted by others in my games, or they see another as dangerous, insane or a competitor. And yes, almost all information is gathered individually (though some share what they hear with others).

So, if I've understood correctly, BW does not only cover the task resolving mechanics but also encourages a certain type of gaming organisation (PCs work as a group, certain detailes are deemed unimportant etc).

If I'm misread something, please explain it to me. :)

Dwight

02-12-2008, 05:40 PM

Sell me The Burning Wheel
I'm not sure about that but I can give my ideas on answers to your questions.
Okay, I finally had the time to sit and read my BW books a bit. I don't know if I read it wrong, but the further I read, the more I get the feeling that BW is a game about skipping. I especially loathe the linked tests -- a good measure of rich detail and exitement going down the drain with a single roll. If I'd done the ship escape scene that was set as an example, I would have worked up the tension and have my players adrenalin pumping as they reach the ship and make off with it (and I do not bear a combat scene in mind here).
You skip what isn't important to you and your players. If it is something that you AND the players want to focus on then focus on it. It really is that simple.

And players describing their success in combat? How do you avoid swashbuckling or action movie feel if this is not what you're after?
If your players are doing that a much better question is why are they doing that? Are they maybe not interested in what you are selling?

I have mixed feelings on Circles. On one hand, it's a good way to fill some gaps left in from the character creation, but on the other hand it went really over the top. Filling the ranks of infulencial people with your relatives based on lucky rolls?
What does it matter if they are relatives? That in no way means they'll do what you want. Same goes for aquaintances.
A person as important as abbess is most likely a defined NPC and while it sounds tempting to change some aspects of the current NPC, so that she would be a PCs aunt (leaving the ambitions or whatever as it was planned before) it might not fit with the general background or what other PCs have since discovered.
You need to check for this before the roll. If known facts say she can't be the PC's aunt then adjust to a different potential outcome and roll on that. Remember that the player can't roll on something that you don't first agree is possible.

The assumption that the PCs are known to each other is just Luke tossing a bone to players so they don't have to spend a bunch of resource points for relationships. DO NOT turn down a gift from Luke, they are extremely rare as he is a notorious penny-pinching jerk. ;)

That doesn't mean that the PCs need to have a long history, or any history at all, between each other prior to the moment the play starts. Although in my experience that "getting to know you" stuff pales in comparison to a well set up clash between PCs. That doesn't require that the PCs know each other prior but out-and-out forbidding such takes a lot of possibilities out of play.
So, if I've understood correctly, BW does not only cover the task resolving mechanics but also encourages a certain type of gaming organisation (PCs work as a group
PCs work as a group? I don't follow you here, could you expand?
, certain detailes are deemed unimportant etc).
If you mean as a group the players and the GM, up front and ongoing, agree that they want to emphasis certain parts of play and not others, then yes. For example that is used as the criteria used when you select which parts of the rules you use. Combat is something you want to really dig down into? Use Fight! If you (and by 'you' I mean the concensus around the table) is not really that interested in it, then using Simple Combat is fine. Or a mixture of the two, using Fight! for the battles you want to emphasize.

Kublai

02-12-2008, 05:45 PM

I just want to say that in no way does BW require the characters to know each other. BW just asks that they all share a common goal that will motivate them to stick together. But if the character want to know each other, well then there's no resource point cost.

And as mentioned, the GM has the authority to nix any Circles roll that would interfere with the facts of established NPCs.

Dwight

02-12-2008, 06:11 PM

higgins,

About that 'skipping' part. I think of it as very akin to film editting. Literally at the table that is how I personally visualize it. I'm contantly watching the tempo at the table, and adjusting.

While Jake really likes the coherent game design I see that as the means to the end. The real gem of BW is how easily you can set the detail scale in different parts of your game. There are usually rules for two or three different levels of detail for proceeding, and they work much like each other. They all work off the same numbers on your character sheet.

With this, if you feel things are moving to slowly, you can cut, cut, cut by choosing the faster systems or to make it even faster simply say "yes, it happens/you do it". Likewise if there is somewhere you (and the rest of the table) feels they want to really explore you focus in you can draw this out.

Z-Dog

02-12-2008, 07:10 PM

i get the sense it was made to skip to the most exciting stuff

if you don't want action movie stuff just agree not to do it

and yeah, BW certainly encourages a particular kind of play, I think Luke's a little more revealing about that than most game designers

artellan

02-12-2008, 11:47 PM

I have mixed feelings on Circles. On one hand, it's a good way to fill some gaps left in from the character creation, but on the other hand it went really over the top. Filling the ranks of infulencial people with your relatives based on lucky rolls? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE players who generate NPCs and I don't mind my PCs having powerful aquiantances, but this method doesn't sound quite right. A person as important as abbess is most likely a defined NPC and while it sounds tempting to change some aspects of the current NPC, so that she would be a PCs aunt (leaving the ambitions or whatever as it was planned before) it might not fit with the general background or what other PCs have since discovered.
Just because you circle up an NPC, doesn't mean your character knew the NPC prior to the Circles roll. How & whether you knew the NPC is part of the color of the roll -- you might define it before the roll ("I want to circle up my Aunt") or after (GM: "okay, you managed to find a surgeon, how do you think you did so? Did you know him from your university days, or have an acquaintance in common ... or just find him on the street?"). If any of these details conflict with what the GM knows or feels strongly about, he can modify them (although if it comes up before the roll, the player could change his intent then or even choose not to roll).

All this stuff comes naturally once you start playing, by the way. BW is one of those games that seems complicated until you start playing. And Circles really just fills a need for something that's fundamental to shared storytelling - the ability for everyone to introduce new characters.

luke

02-13-2008, 12:23 AM

Circles tests are also notoriously difficult to succeed at.

higgins

02-13-2008, 04:55 AM

Sell me The Burning WheelI'm not sure about that but I can give my ideas on answers to your questions.
You don't have to worry about that. I've already bought the books. ;)

I especially loathe the linked tests -- a good measure of rich detail and exitement going down the drain with a single roll. If I'd done the ship escape scene that was set as an example, I would have worked up the tension and have my players adrenalin pumping as they reach the ship and make off with it (and I do not bear a combat scene in mind here).You skip what isn't important to you and your players. If it is something that you AND the players want to focus on then focus on it. It really is that simple.
But what's the purpose of the rule then? Just stating that Let it Ride can apply to multiple skills simultaneously?

You need to check for this before the roll. If known facts say she can't be the PC's aunt then adjust to a different potential outcome and roll on that. Remember that the player can't roll on something that you don't first agree is possible.
If I agree that something is possible and I like it, why bother with a roll at all?

PCs work as a group? I don't follow you here, could you expand?I've been constantly warned of not tweaking anything in the game, and the "PC are assumed to know each other" sounded like a requirement. If it's there to say that you don't have to spend your precious points on other PCs, that okay, but I was just being cautious.

I just want to say that in no way does BW require the characters to know each other. BW just asks that they all share a common goal that will motivate them to stick together. But if the character want to know each other, well then there's no resource point cost.
So, sticking together still IS a requirement?

With this, if you feel things are moving to slowly, you can cut, cut, cut by choosing the faster systems or to make it even faster simply say "yes, it happens/you do it". Likewise if there is somewhere you (and the rest of the table) feels they want to really explore you focus in you can draw this out.
How is this different from any other game out there? It's just a matter of pacing after all.

And Circles really just fills a need for something that's fundamental to shared storytelling - the ability for everyone to introduce new characters.
I like the idea but I'm uncomfortable how the execution was handled. It's difficult to explain really.

Verrain

02-13-2008, 07:47 AM

So, sticking together still IS a requirement?

Only in the sense that you should all be part of the same story. Have you checked out the intro scenario the Sword? All four characters either want the Sword or want to be paid for their part in finding the Sword. So where the Sword is, all four of these characters will be there. But they aren't allies. Most of the fun of the scenario is seeing what alliances develop and then how they break when a guy thinks they can gain advantage.

So there is no requirement for the characters to know each other or to be on the same side. What is required is for all of the characters to have a stake in the same things so that following their Beliefs keeps bringing them in contact and conflict with each other.

Kublai

02-13-2008, 09:58 AM

If I agree that something is possible and I like it, why bother with a roll at all?

Exactly! This is called "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" and is covered quite extensively here on the forums and discussed in the book.

So, sticking together still IS a requirement?

C'mon. Have you ever run a game where the characters didn't know each other, didn't have a motivation to stick together, and that didn't crash and burn because it lacked these? It's just common sense to telling a good story. In this sense, we highly encourage it, but still there's no rule that requires it.

higgins

02-13-2008, 10:59 AM

So, sticking together still IS a requirement?Only in the sense that you should all be part of the same story. Have you checked out the intro scenario the Sword? All four characters either want the Sword or want to be paid for their part in finding the Sword. So where the Sword is, all four of these characters will be there. But they aren't allies. Most of the fun of the scenario is seeing what alliances develop and then how they break when a guy thinks they can gain advantage.
No, I hadn't looked at that, but that particular adventure is still group adventure -- the MacGuffin keeps the group together and they cannot really move on their separate storylines (think of A Song of Ice and Fire here) since the bond with the MacGuffin is too extreme. Of course I understand that this is whole the point of that introductory scenario, but other people have also admitted that sticking together is required for BW mechanics to work the best (if I undesrood correctly)...

Esteban

02-13-2008, 11:06 AM

But what's the purpose of the rule then? Just stating that Let it Ride can apply to multiple skills simultaneously?

The purpose of the rule is to make formal the agreement that test related to a future task affect that task. Burning Wheel is a game, and as such it explicitly establishes that relationship by increasing the Ob of the linked test.

One thing to remember is that even though an action has been condensed into one roll doesn't mean you have to role play it in the 10 seconds it took to make the roll. The amount of detail will be dependent on the group and the people involved in the action. As GM you can choose how granular you can go or how arching, the system doesn't constrain you in that regard.

If I agree that something is possible and I like it, why bother with a roll at all?

The system concerns itself with only possible outcomes. As a corollary, if something is impossible, why are you even considering it? Rolls determine the probability, that is, how probable is something. That something is possible does not imply it is very probable.

I've been constantly warned of not tweaking anything in the game, and the "PC are assumed to know each other" sounded like a requirement. If it's there to say that you don't have to spend your precious points on other PCs, that okay, but I was just being cautious.

Like others have said, the PC's should have access to each other's characters, one way or another. Be it through a joint organization, play, etc... The game focuses around them and their story. This isn't a requirement of the system, but it definitely focuses play.

For an example of how players being at different ends can disrupt play, there are several threads. A recent one being this one (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5470).

I like the idea but I'm uncomfortable how the execution was handled. It's difficult to explain really.

Might it be that you're not quite comfortable with sharing control of the world with the PC's? You mentioned an example of an abbess being a PC's aunt, yet from your description it seemed like the character had already been established in the game or at least in your mind. I'm not quite sure where the example came from, but could it be that you're uncomfortable with PC's having their way with the world's NPC's? Just a thought.

higgins

02-13-2008, 11:12 AM

C'mon. Have you ever run a game where the characters didn't know each other, didn't have a motivation to stick together, and that didn't crash and burn because it lacked these? It's just common sense to telling a good story. In this sense, we highly encourage it, but still there's no rule that requires it.
I play in two such games. One has lasted a year (just had our anniversary party when all the players were in the same house for the very first time, and no, our characters weren't). That group has 6 players. My character has... talked to one PC and seen three others, I have only some OOC information of who the 6th one is. Then there's a game that has lasted two-years... My character is paired up with another PC there, but we know very little of what the other two are up to. And my own game has lasted three years, so, all PCs have met and talked in that one... some even share information regularly. ;)

Dwight

02-13-2008, 11:21 AM

How is this different from any other game out there? It's just a matter of pacing after all.
The difference is in the tools that are given. There are a lot of tools given for compressioning action but still use the character. It really feels like the character was there. It helps heal the disjunction that happens so often between what the character is doing and what is written on the character sheet, what the player thought the character was about and capable of and what the character was really allowed to do.

This has another great benefit. It makes solo side adventures fair less painless. Painless for all the other players around the table that aren't involved with it because it happens fast. Yet it still feels much more like the PC was there and did things. I was stunned the first time I ran The Sword demo.

Yes, you can do things like this with other games. I try, boy do I try. But in the end BW just does it better because it's tuned right into the rules. *shrug*

If I agree that something is possible and I like it, why bother with a roll at all?
As Kublai points you can always say "yes" if you want to, although the player still might want to roll because facing the challenge improves the character. The real issue is when you don't particularly like it but it still fits within the overall setting that everyone agreed upon and it isn't blatantly contradictory of other facts in play.

This is about a rearranging of resposibilities. Check in the Appendixes in the back of the BWR (forget the page #) that gives the Player resposibilities and GM responsibilities.

Another way to look at this is if when the player says "I swing the sword and hit the monster!" Do you arbitrarily say yes or no, based on whether you like that or not? I highly suspect you let the rules and the dice decide the outcome. Circles is like that, you have the burden lifted from you in another aspect. And the player [EDIT: is far less] likely to feel the decision on whether or not they locate the NPC is arbitrary, as it was when it was just you the GM giving the thumbs up or down.

Esteban

02-13-2008, 11:22 AM

No, I hadn't looked at that, but that particular adventure is still group adventure -- the MacGuffin keeps the group together and they cannot really move on their separate storylines (think of A Song of Ice and Fire here) since the bond with the MacGuffin is too extreme. Of course I understand that this is whole the point of that introductory scenario, but other people have also admitted that sticking together is required for BW mechanics to work the best (if I undesrood correctly)...

For this part I usually resort to the movie analogy...

The players have all agreed to tell a story. Much like actors have agreed to star in a movie. However, this agreement on the player's part does not imply the characters are working together.

The players can play characters that are at odds with each other, don't know one another or even are antagonists. Much like actors play different roles in a movie, not all of them supportive.

The main tenet is that there be some common thread that unites them all. It can be something quite abstract or very high level. Or something very defined and focused, like in The Sword. But like with any story, it helps to have a theme and a point.

BW shines when it isn't just for creating character biographies, it isn't merely about the characters life. There's usually a point to it other than narrating the daily life of a fictional character. So you wouldn't just have a character who happens to have been in a war. You'd be playing a game about the war, with characters revolving around the war. Or you'll play a game about a Kingdom/Town/Family/World/Conflict/Whatever and you'll center the characters around that.

I think that's what we mean by sticking together, the players have decided that X is the important thing, and the story will center around X. X can be as wide or narrow as you and the players want it to be.

---- Edit ----
In most games the players have agreed that X is the GM's campaign. That is to say, the players have agreed to cede control of the point and story to the GM who will coordinate everything for them. In BW, the players have agreed to all participate and in order to coordinate amongst themselves they've agreed on a common topic or trend. If that makes sense.

Dwight

02-13-2008, 11:27 AM

No, I hadn't looked at that, but that particular adventure is still group adventure -- the MacGuffin keeps the group together and they cannot really move on their separate storylines
Not true. The first time I ran it (and it is amazing that something so simple and straightforward plays out so differently each time it is played) the PCs, after an initial quickly aborted combat, agreed upon who would get what and help whom with the other's problems. The action then split, each going separate ways. The roden was paid. The human got the sword and went off to pay off his debt (a whole side adventure, because the sword wasn't actually worth enough to cover the debt) and the elf and dwarf agreed to work together to solve each other's problems that were motivating their desire for the sword (another side adventure).

EDIT: BTW the primary reason that the roden didn't have a side adventure was that I the GM was playing him, we had only 3 players plus me. So I had him just take the money (actually some of the other PC's gear) and head back home.

Paul B

02-13-2008, 11:45 AM

Any preconceptions of how an RPG is "supposed" to work? Toss 'em out the window if you're going to experiment with BW-style play.

It might be worth breaking down all the places where traditional RPGs and Burning-style play part ways. Shoot, it might even be worth a faq -- surely it's not the first time the subject has come up.

p.

Kublai

02-13-2008, 11:53 AM

Dwight

02-13-2008, 12:06 PM

You play in a manner that is alien to me. I made my last comment based on my own experience, where all the players sit together at the same table each session. What you describe seems quite different. Quite different, indeed.
It isn't really alien to WoD, as that is a more LARPish structure. It is more like multiple campaigns running within one overall game world. So it isn't going to come apart because it isn't really ever together. It also isn't unlike playing in one of the number of Living campaigns out there, if you've ever been involved with one of those?

higgins,

Have you checked out Luke's log of his one on one sessions with Four Horseman over in the 'Playing Burning Wheel and Burning Empires' forum? It is divided among four separate threads, sticked to the top so they are easy to find. This is the first one. (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3246)

higgins

02-13-2008, 12:11 PM

Might it be that you're not quite comfortable with sharing control of the world with the PC's? You mentioned an example of an abbess being a PC's aunt, yet from your description it seemed like the character had already been established in the game or at least in your mind. I'm not quite sure where the example came from, but could it be that you're uncomfortable with PC's having their way with the world's NPC's? Just a thought.
The abbess example comes from the Circles chapter in the BW brown book.

Let me explain how the games I've used to usually work. The referee presents a setting, players come up with characters and their associated NPCs (usually 10-20, but I've recieved even 40 once -- all of those have pictures). Then the referee (who knows what's in the setting) improves the NPCs ranks to fill the possible gaps (using both her own and PC generated NPCs. This will total for about 100-150 NPCs when the game hasn't even gotten off the ground yet. Then more and more NPCs are introduced as the game evolves. Now, I'd say it's extremely difficult for a player (who probably has talked to half or has seen 3/4 of the NPC base) to come up with an idea that doesn't conflict anything.

Like others have said, the PC's should have access to each other's characters, one way or another. Be it through a joint organization, play, etc... The game focuses around them and their story. This isn't a requirement of the system, but it definitely focuses play.

For an example of how players being at different ends can disrupt play, there are several threads. A recent one being this one (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5470).
I'm used to all players having different goals and having separate storylines. I see this "disruption" as a feature. Do you hang out constantly with four other guys? I don't. Why should my character? There is no such thing as a "party". 90% of the time, play happens one-on-one. Players have gotten used to this and warn the referee in advance if their character is about to pay a visit to another PC.

Kublai

02-13-2008, 12:20 PM

You describe the opposite style of game that BW encourages.

Paul B

02-13-2008, 12:23 PM

Higgins,

Can I ask, what are you trying to accomplish in this thread?

If it's to have BW-style play explained to you, it appears that's taken place. Do you have any additional questions?

Is it to decide whether you can fit BW to your existing style of play? It seems like the answer is a resounding "no." It's a different RPG, and it's more than just a set of die-rolling procedures and skill lists.

If it's to explain how BW play is "wrong", that's pretty much just trolling on your part since you're posting to this game's home forum. The play style may, however, be wrong for you. And that's okay!

p.

Dwight

02-13-2008, 12:26 PM

Let me explain how the games I've used to usually work. The referee presents a setting, players come up with characters and their associated NPCs (usually 10-20, but I've recieved even 40 once -- all of those have pictures). Then the referee (who knows what's in the setting) improves the NPCs ranks to fill the possible gaps (using both her own and PC generated NPCs. This will total for about 100-150 NPCs when the game hasn't even gotten off the ground yet. Then more and more NPCs are introduced as the game evolves.
I'm trying to understand the context of what you are doing. I'm curious, what are all these NPCs doing? What is their purpose in the world and in terms of the game?
Now, I'd say it's extremely difficult for a player (who probably has talked to half or has seen 3/4 of the NPC base) to come up with an idea that doesn't conflict anything.
Intent is the thing. They give their intent, the reason they want the NPC to exist, and you work together to formulate the specifics. In that way you can identify overlap. With so many NPCs already floating around there is a good chance there won't need to create a new NPC at all. In this way the PC (and somethimes the player) discovers these NPCs they don't know about.

P.S. There is a school of thought that examples don't belong in rule books because sometimes people read too much into them without understanding the full context of the example. I think that could be happening here.

higgins

02-13-2008, 12:29 PM

You play in a manner that is alien to me. I made my last comment based on my own experience, where all the players sit together at the same table each session. What you describe seems quite different. Quite different, indeed.It isn't really alien to WoD, as that is a more LARPish structure. It is more like multiple campaigns running within one overall game world. So it isn't going to come apart because it isn't really ever together.
LARP!? :o In my experience LARP works best with a simple one-line plot and pregenerated characters. I don't see even the vaguest conception similarity...

It also isn't unlike playing in one of the number of Living campaigns out there, if you've ever been involved with one of those?
First time I ever heard of living campaigns. Thanks for the reference.

Have you checked out Luke's log of his one on one sessions with Four Horseman over in the 'Playing Burning Wheel and Burning Empires' forum? It is divided among four separate threads, sticked to the top so they are easy to find. This is the first one. (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3246)
I read some of the beginning... what about it?

Esteban

02-13-2008, 12:32 PM

I'm used to all players having different goals and having separate storylines. I see this "disruption" as a feature.
Sure, but in the linked thread you would have noticed it wasn't a feature for at least one player in that group. I see for your group that's not an issue, and is in fact a feature.

Do you hang out constantly with four other guys? I don't. Why should my character? There is no such thing as a "party".
Once again that depends on the kind of story you're telling. If it's the story of a group of mercenaries, like say the A-Team, then sure, for the intents of the game your party is always together. As you're focusing on that particular point, the group adventures. It happens likewise in may other scenarios/stories. What Murdoc does on his spare time isn't really the focus of the game, so it just doesn't figure as a big part of it.

However, that's side tracking, you've made obvious that's not of interest to your group.

What is relevant is that it seems your group aims for a very detailed game, a simulation perhaps, of a kingdom or world. By the number of pre-generated NPC's and the amount of detail in the game world, and the inability of a player to introduce detail without contradicting established fact all point to a gaming style that does require a referee or controller. I don't think BW hinders detailed play, but it provides features to not make it a requirement.

BW's mechanics like circles and resources that are there to help avoid such preparation from the get go. You can introduce NPC's that are relevant to the conflict at hand, no need to have predicted their necessity from the beginning. In this way the details emerge from the conflicts.

Put another way, BW's process is deductive, you start with a premise (the conflict/story) and you work your way down to the details. The other is inductive (the world details) and you work your way up to a conflict from those details. This can also be seen in the intent/task dynamic. First you state the top goal (intent) and then you work out the details (tasks).

higgins

02-13-2008, 12:42 PM

You describe the opposite style of game that BW encourages.
Then it's like I thought and there weren't a misreading. Thanks!

Can I ask, what are you trying to accomplish in this thread?
Sure. Firstly I wanted people to explain me why I should buy BW, and in the end I bought it. Then I read it and it felt ... let's say weird. I came back and explained why it was weird, and asked if I was reading or undesrtanding anything wrong. After I'd explained how my group games, people seemed to agree that BW encourages completely opposite style of play. With that, my goal in this thread was accomplished. Thanks to all the contributors! :)

Dwight

02-13-2008, 12:43 PM

LARP!? :o In my experience LARP works best with a simple one-line plot and pregenerated characters. I don't see even the vaguest conception similarity...
There are Vampire LARP groups, well I think they might go by a different name (?) but they are basically LARP, that span multiple cities and rarely meet as one larger group. But the characters all live in the same game world and interact and influence each other's events.
I read some of the beginning... what about it?
Well first off that is an example of what it sounds like you are doing. A character doing it's own thing inside a larger world that contains other characters. Second, if you read through all the logs to the end it is a pretty good demonstration of a lot of BW's strengths. How the system tends to really bring out a character in play.

higgins

02-13-2008, 12:55 PM

I'm trying to understand the context of what you are doing. I'm curious, what are all these NPCs doing? What is their purpose in the world and in terms of the game?
First and foremost, they provide rich details (including their personal goals) to the gaming world and make interesting personalities to communicate, confront or manipulate with (or being maniplulated by). Without them, the gaming world doesn't really feel like a real place.

Dwight

02-13-2008, 12:56 PM

You describe the opposite style of game that BW encourages.
Then it's like I thought and there weren't a misreading. Thanks!
I think it is probably better put that it encourages the opposite of preloading a game world with a lot of fleshed out NPCs. It does this by removing the requirement for this.

With a BW character some of those NPCs are there but they often start out as just a name/position listed in a Relationship or implied existance because of another NPC's station. For example if I say I have a Relationship with the Captian of the Guard then there is an implacation that there underling guards that the Captian commands. But you don't write up detailed descriptions for them. The details of them are fleshed out in play. As Esteban succinctly puts it, deductive as opposed to inductive.

Dwight

02-13-2008, 01:01 PM

First and foremost, they provide rich details (including their personal goals) to the gaming world and make interesting personalities to communicate, confront or manipulate with (or being maniplulated by). Without them, the gaming world doesn't really feel like a real place.
BW basically removes the requirement that you precreate them to that extent. It allows you to build the richer world as you play. You discover all this rich detail as you look at it. If a player turns somewhere unexpected? The rich detail is there too because you didn't need to anticiptate and precreate it.

dsellars

02-13-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins http://burningwheel.org/forum/images/blaze/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?p=53010#post53010)
I play in two such games. One has lasted a year (just had our anniversary party when all the players were in the same house for the very first time, and no, our characters weren't). That group has 6 players. My character has... talked to one PC and seen three others, I have only some OOC information of who the 6th one is. Then there's a game that has lasted two-years... My character is paired up with another PC there, but we know very little of what the other two are up to. And my own game has lasted three years, so, all PCs have met and talked in that one... some even share information regularly. ;)

My first thought when I read this was that in these example you are not all playing the same game. Just lots of games with the same GM and same setting. If I understand you correctly. I'm not being critical here it just seems a bit weird.

On the subject of NPC's, I think the point about Circles is that you don't need the players to come up with 30 - 40 people they know. They just bring them into play as they need them. On a side note, that seems like an awful lot to keep track of?

Paul B

02-13-2008, 01:11 PM

Sure. Firstly I wanted people to explain me why I should buy BW, and in the end I bought it. Then I read it and it felt ... let's say weird. I came back and explained why it was weird, and asked if I was reading or undesrtanding anything wrong. After I'd explained how my group games, people seemed to agree that BW encourages completely opposite style of play. With that, my goal in this thread was accomplished. Thanks to all the contributors! :)

Groovy. Hopefully the Burning zealots won't, in turn, spend too much more time explaining why your play style is "wrong" as well. Seems only fair!

p.

Dwight

02-13-2008, 01:24 PM

Groovy. Hopefully the Burning zealots won't, in turn, spend too much more time explaining why your play style is "wrong" as well. Seems only fair!

p.
I just felt, still do, that the structure of how the players and the GM weren't always all in the same room was a bit of a red herring. That obviously throws some people off. I don't think that conflicts with BW at all. BW does smaller group play as well any pretty much any RPG. It certainly handles side runs and characters going off and doing their own thing really well. EDIT: I find it handles players, and therefore PCs, missing a session or two really well too. Which is just a limited version of what he experiences.

The style conflict is with the huge pregen of the world. I thought it was worth explaining to him how BW handled that different. How he'd end up playing in a rich, detailed world with it too. But yeah, if he and/or the rest of his group don't think they could be comfortable with operating that way? *shrug* Then yup BW isn't going to be their bag, that's a very core priciple in the game. Which, as you kids say these days, is groovy. :)

Best of luck and have fun higgins!

eruditus

02-17-2008, 07:38 AM

Groovy. Hopefully the Burning zealots won't, in turn, spend too much more time explaining why your play style is "wrong" as well. Seems only fair!

p.

Maybe not wrong, but being an experimental bloke I wonder if the group is interested at all in trying something new?

Just curious,
- Don

wanderer

02-17-2008, 11:47 PM

I play in two such games. One has lasted a year (just had our anniversary party when all the players were in the same house for the very first time, and no, our characters weren't). That group has 6 players. My character has... talked to one PC and seen three others, I have only some OOC information of who the 6th one is. Then there's a game that has lasted two-years... My character is paired up with another PC there, but we know very little of what the other two are up to. And my own game has lasted three years, so, all PCs have met and talked in that one... some even share information regularly. ;)
Higgins, didn't you say earlier in the thread that most of your games are conducted over Internet chat? I can see this style of play working better in that medium, when the players can have a lot of private interaction with the GM, than with everyone seated around the same table for a few hours.

It reminds me of the later books in the Wheel of Time series, where the main characters are spread out all over the world, trying to deal with their individual problems and agendas.

Playing a character in a campaign like this could be enjoyable, but I certainly wouldn't participate if it meant being away from the action for 75-80% of the time for which I was present. Burning Wheel and Burning Empires are designed so that the characters immediately impact the story; the characters and their BITs are the story, really. It might not be for everyone, but I've found this style delivers a very satisfying game experience, given the short time I have to devote to gaming in a week.

higgins

03-27-2008, 05:51 AM

Higgins, didn't you say earlier in the thread that most of your games are conducted over Internet chat? I can see this style of play working better in that medium, when the players can have a lot of private interaction with the GM, than with everyone seated around the same table for a few hours.
Certainly. Private interaction with the GM is one of the core principles, so, it indeed works very good online. Though it can also work for groups that prefer the traditional social gathering if parallel games are ran among the group... unless the GMs are playing together, mosty evereyone can play. :)

Playing a character in a campaign like this could be enjoyable, but I certainly wouldn't participate if it meant being away from the action for 75-80% of the time for which I was present.
Was that the case in the Wheel of Time novels you brought as an example? I haven't read them, but I somehow doubt it. Each player gets relevant action to her character. In my game, one has smuggling and custom issues, another has a murder to solve, another focuses on cultural differences in an engagement and another includes perverse games in the upper society while the fifth character has become addicted to some demons blood. All these stories are intertwined... Sometimes more, sometimes less.

Burning Wheel and Burning Empires are designed so that the characters immediately impact the story; the characters and their BITs are the story, really.
Well, all this happens in my games too, so, I don't see a difference in that section. :)

Saphim

03-27-2008, 10:53 AM

Groovy. Hopefully the Burning zealots won't, in turn, spend too much more time explaining why your play style is "wrong" as well. Seems only fair!

p.

Actually the only one I am getting a "you are doing it wrong"-vibe from in this thread is higgins with all his "rich"ness and "details" that are oh so necessary for a good story, while continuously emphasizing how burning wheel would not be able to do anything he doesn't naturally do in his games.

But then, my perception might be wrong.

zabieru

03-27-2008, 08:54 PM

I think Wanderer's point about 75% downtime was related to table play. If you play around the table, given your intense focus on disparate character actions and individual-GM scenes, I'm gonna be out of action for most of the time that I'm there. Since you play online, it's not an issue. You covered this yourself when you said that if you were to play around the table, you'd want more than one GM running simultaneously to reduce downtime.

Read his post with the first section you quoted and the second section grouped together as one concept. See if it reads better.

I think the point is that if you wanted to run the Two Towers around one table with one player per character, Sam and Frodo are gonna be bored during the Rohan bits and everyone else will be bored during the Mordor bits. It works better with different tables or online, the way you actually play it.

wanderer

03-28-2008, 09:14 AM

Was that the case in the Wheel of Time novels you brought as an example? I haven't read them, but I somehow doubt it. Each player gets relevant action to her character. In my game, one has smuggling and custom issues, another has a murder to solve, another focuses on cultural differences in an engagement and another includes perverse games in the upper society while the fifth character has become addicted to some demons blood. All these stories are intertwined... Sometimes more, sometimes less.
I think Wanderer's point about 75% downtime was related to table play. If you play around the table, given your intense focus on disparate character actions and individual-GM scenes, I'm gonna be out of action for most of the time that I'm there. Since you play online, it's not an issue. You covered this yourself when you said that if you were to play around the table, you'd want more than one GM running simultaneously to reduce downtime.
Devin has it. My post wasn't about whether or not the players are undertaking things relevant to their characters, it's how much time each person gets with the GM. Even if what my character is doing is important to him and interesting to me, it would be difficult for me to sit down at a table with three other PCs where we each get alloted 25% of the session because the GM has to do everything one-on-one. I raised this point to be sure I understood your group dynamics correctly, Higgins, and it sounds like you make these situations work because either the sessions are conducted over Internet chat or they are played with more than one GM. Sounds good.

I didn't mean to be critical; I have a limited amount of time to devote to gaming every week, so in my sessions I prefer to focus on scenes and situations in which all the PCs are present.

Well, all this happens in my games too, so, I don't see a difference in that section. :)
Burning Wheel hard-wires a lot of what traditionally is considered good GMing practices into the rules. I like this part of the game, but not everyone wants or needs that kind of focus in their RPGs.

Thanks for stopping by to reply.

higgins

03-29-2008, 05:43 PM

I think the point is that if you wanted to run the Two Towers around one table with one player per character, Sam and Frodo are gonna be bored during the Rohan bits and everyone else will be bored during the Mordor bits. It works better with different tables or online, the way you actually play it.
Exactly. Frodo and Sam aren't even there since they have no real chance to meet spontaneously with others. They are treated as a separate gaming group. Pippin and Merry have a very good chance of meeting the others after being kidnapped however, so, Pippin takes up his Sin City game in another room and Merry plays Marv. Rowr, baby. :cool:

Burning Wheel hard-wires a lot of what traditionally is considered good GMing practices into the rules. I like this part of the game, but not everyone wants or needs that kind of focus in their RPGs.
Could you elaoborate this? An example or two?

-----

As I was rereading the thread to see if I'd been offensive or preachy as suggested, I came upon an interesting bit I missed the first time around:

With this, if you feel things are moving to slowly, you can cut, cut, cut by choosing the faster systems or to make it even faster simply say "yes, it happens/you do it". Likewise if there is somewhere you (and the rest of the table) feels they want to really explore you focus in you can draw this out.How is this different from any other game out there? It's just a matter of pacing after all.
The difference is in the tools that are given. There are a lot of tools given for compressioning action but still use the character. It really feels like the character was there. It helps heal the disjunction that happens so often between what the character is doing and what is written on the character sheet, what the player thought the character was about and capable of and what the character was really allowed to do.

This has another great benefit. It makes solo side adventures fair less painless. Painless for all the other players around the table that aren't involved with it because it happens fast. Yet it still feels much more like the PC was there and did things. I was stunned the first time I ran The Sword demo.

Yes, you can do things like this with other games. I try, boy do I try. But in the end BW just does it better because it's tuned right into the rules. *shrug*

Could someone elaborate that?

wanderer

04-01-2008, 12:30 AM

Could you elaborate this? An example or two?
Of course. There are probably better and more subtle examples that could be made, so anyone else fee free to join in on this point.

Burning Wheel takes what is important to the characters or interesting to the players and puts these things out in front where everyone at the table can interact with them. If a character has sworn to destroy the One Ring in the fires of Mount Doom, or lives only to seek vengeance against the man who killed his father, the player should write a Belief about these things. It tells everyone at the table, including the GM, "This is what my character is about. This is what I want the game to be about." Similarly, if a character is ruthless, if he would sell his own mother into slavery, he should have an Instinct that says as much.

The GM is obliged to frame scenes that challenge these aspects of the characters. Sneaking into Mordor to destroy the Ring is hard, but hey, the player asked for it. Similarly, give the player a scene where the Church inquisitors have, in fact, come for his mother. When the chips are down, does he follow his Instinct, or play against it?

The Artha mechanics reward players for acting in accordance with (and sometimes even against) their Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits. Artha then gives the character an edge in the important conflicts he faces. Pursuing his goals feeds back into helping the character survive long enough to complete those goals.

What is important to your character, what defines who he is: in Burning Wheel, these things aren't just part of the roleplaying, they have a mechanical significance, too. And they're right there on the character sheet alongside how capable the character is in a sword fight.

Burning Wheel isn't designed for the characters to play parts in the GM's story. The basis for the campaign comes from who the characters are. Sure, the GM has a hand in shaping that story, and the players have to be proactive their character roles, but unlike some other RPGs, these things are the heart of the game.

This is just one example of how what you're doing--building your campaign around your characters--is built into the Burning Wheel system. I'm not the best at explaining this stuff, so please let me know if you have further questions.

higgins

04-02-2008, 01:29 AM

What is important to your character, what defines who he is: in Burning Wheel, these things aren't just part of the roleplaying, they have a mechanical significance, too. And they're right there on the character sheet alongside how capable the character is in a sword fight.
Well, the Spiritual Attribtes in The Riddle of Steel are just the same, except that the characters swordfighting abilities are actually improved a bit when he fights for what he cares about, making him more able to face the odds. Also, SA's are more flexible -- there can be five of them.

Any less obvious examples in BW? :)

zabieru

04-02-2008, 04:52 AM

If you're interested enough to want us to dig through BW and pull this stuff out for you, I suggest you borrow a copy and read it yourself.

At this point, the thread has reached nine pages (!) and I find it hard to believe that you're still undecided. Either you've been sold or you haven't.

Spiritual Attributes are flags like Beliefs, and they're tied into the reward cycle like Beliefs, but each is different from the other. I'm not honestly particularly interested in discussing the subtleties so long as you're just hanging around pointing out that this other game does something that sounds the same to you. I'd love to hear your opinions after playing BW.

It seems to me that if you're interested enough to go nine pages, you're probably interested enough to read the books and find out if there's anything worth it for you. Even though it does sound like BW is a poor match for the structures of your current gaming, you clearly have an interest in something. If it's just poking the internet with a stick, that's one thing. But if it's BW, I think you owe it to yourself to borrow the books from someone and have a look.

higgins

04-02-2008, 10:46 AM

At this point, the thread has reached nine pages (!) and I find it hard to believe that you're still undecided. Either you've been sold or you haven't.
In case you missed it, I actually bought all the books around page five or so. :)

But they didn't seem all that awsome to me and the rest of the thread has been about whether I've missed something or is it just plain unsuitable for me. So, feel free to refence any of the three BW books when you make your examples. I have them -- yet I just don't see how the tools that are given are so awsome and best (no pun intended).

I didn't get that "compressioning action with character still feeling being present in the scene when basically skipping stuff" mechanic for example. Any references/examples?

Dwight

04-02-2008, 10:49 AM

Well, the Spiritual Attribtes in The Riddle of Steel are just the same, except that the characters swordfighting abilities are actually improved a bit when he fights for what he cares about, making him more able to face the odds. Also, SA's are more flexible -- there can be five of them.

They differ a fair amount.
- A given Belief is much more explicit than a SA, as such the communication with the GM tends to be clearer.
- Your character doesn't 'use' a Belief to do something.
- Your character gains a reserve (Artha) at the end of the session for acting upon and achieving a Belief. This lag between action and reward builds tension. It also means you don't need to juice the difficulty of a task if it might intersect with the Belief, like you need to do with Riddle of Steel (unless you want the PC to walk over the opposition). EDIT: The effect is that the character has to really put their money (butt) where their mouth (what they say the are about) is.

In case you missed it, I actually bought all the books around page five or so. :)
EDIT: Then play it. *shrug*

Or better yet see if you can find someone with Burning Wheel experience to run it for you. I'm not sure if you mentioned where you live? If you ask around someone here might even do that. Or maybe you'll get a pointer to nearby a Con where a BWR demo is being run.

P.S. Certain Traits allow an extra Beliefs tied to that Trait, so you can indeed have 5 Beliefs, or theoretically more, for a given character. For example the Traits Zealot (from the Cultist Lifepath IIRC) and Faithful each give an extra Belief slot. So a 'cultist cleric' would have 5 Beliefs. The extra 2 being about the wacky theology of the cult and the character's relationship with the god, respectively.

Paul B

04-02-2008, 11:11 AM

In case you missed it, I actually bought all the books around page five or so. :)

But they didn't seem all that awsome to me and the rest of the thread has been about whether I've missed something or is it just plain unsuitable for me. So, feel free to refence any of the three BW books when you make your examples. I have them -- yet I just don't see how the tools that are given are so awsome and best (no pun intended).

I didn't get that "compressioning action with character still feeling being present in the scene when basically skipping stuff" mechanic for example. Any references/examples?

IME, BW only makes sense once you're playing it and can see all the moving parts. Discussing each of the moving parts out of context isn't going to give you a sense of how it all works.

At this point, I don't think anyone's really skilled enough (or has enough time or interest, unfortunately) to break down the "BW RPG Experience" in narrative form, highlighting where specific decision gates differ from various other RPGs.

So, play it or don't, but you're not going to get what you're looking for by just talking about it.

p.

higgins

04-02-2008, 12:45 PM

Then play it. *shrug*

Or better yet see if you can find someone with Burning Wheel experience to run it for you. I'm not sure if you mentioned where you live? If you ask around someone here might even do that. Or maybe you'll get a pointer to nearby a Con where a BWR demo is being run.
I live in Estonia and would be immensely suprised if I found a person in my country who actually owns an indie game. Our local stores don't even have White Wolf products... A pure D&D reign.

wanderer

04-02-2008, 01:27 PM

Well, the Spiritual Attribtes in The Riddle of Steel are just the same, except that the characters swordfighting abilities are actually improved a bit when he fights for what he cares about, making him more able to face the odds. Also, SA's are more flexible -- there can be five of them.

Any less obvious examples in BW? :)
Jake Norwood already offered some thoughts on how Beliefs are different than Spiritual Attributes earlier in this thread. He has some older thoughts on the matter here (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showpost.php?p=37581&postcount=2). I've played both games, and I think the two aspects function differently enough in play that it is worth experiencing both. One's Artha can certainly help in a sword fight, but how it helps is different than how Spiritual Attributes help. Artha can allow a character to re-roll failures, open-end dice, or add more dice to his pool. If he's spent enough Artha on his Sword skill over time (Artha gained from playing to his Beliefs, among other things), he can even shade-shift his Sword skill in a crucial moment--a huge advantage.

I'm trying, however, to keep from discussing Burning Wheel only in comparison to other game systems. You've already bought the books, so I would rather focus on the play experience the game delivers rather than the minutia of how Burning Wheel is different than other fantasy roleplaying games. How much of the books have you read? At this point, it might be easier for everyone involved if you raise specific points from the text about which you would like more information or examples. We'd like to help you make something of your purchase, but if you continue bringing up how other games already do what people here are describing, or how your group's play style already accomplishes what Burning Wheel sets out to do, there's nothing more we can offer you and your players.

higgins

04-02-2008, 01:39 PM

I'm aware what Jake said... But that was not my primary question anyway... Well, I've read the brown book and skimmed through the red. Never really touched the black one.

The book already elaborates on the mechanics, so, I don't want to make you repeating the book. So, I ask the opposite way around. I'll bring out a concept, and you can tell me what rules enforce it. Example:

Where in the book does this "compressioning action with character still feeling being present in the scene when basically skipping stuff" mechanic exists? I've not spotted it.

Dwight

04-02-2008, 03:56 PM

Where in the book does this "compressioning action with character still feeling being present in the scene when basically skipping stuff" mechanic exists? I've not spotted it.
Since it's basically got a whole chapter to itself and it's really early on in the book, you've definately read it. But you haven't experienced it in play so that makes it hard for you to see it for what it is.

EDIT: Although I guess it's arguable that the whole of what you put in quotes is embedded elsewhere in the book. For example the "say yes or roll" part where Dogs In The Vineyard is quoted is one of the contributing parts. Again, it is the culmination of a lot of little parts in action. Without seeing it in action it is really, really hard (and not particularly helpful) to say "there, that is the one thing that makes it all work".

Paul B

04-02-2008, 04:23 PM

higgins

04-02-2008, 04:55 PM

I already explained the context on the previous page and asked it quite a few times.
With this, if you feel things are moving to slowly, you can cut, cut, cut by choosing the faster systems or to make it even faster simply say "yes, it happens/you do it". Likewise if there is somewhere you (and the rest of the table) feels they want to really explore you focus in you can draw this out.How is this different from any other game out there? It's just a matter of pacing after all.
The difference is in the tools that are given. There are a lot of tools given for compressioning action but still use the character. It really feels like the character was there. It helps heal the disjunction that happens so often between what the character is doing and what is written on the character sheet, what the player thought the character was about and capable of and what the character was really allowed to do.

This has another great benefit. It makes solo side adventures fair less painless. Painless for all the other players around the table that aren't involved with it because it happens fast. Yet it still feels much more like the PC was there and did things. I was stunned the first time I ran The Sword demo.

Yes, you can do things like this with other games. I try, boy do I try. But in the end BW just does it better because it's tuned right into the rules. *shrug*

Paul B

04-02-2008, 05:28 PM

Okay, I think I get what you're getting at. I'm going to take a swing at this; please read this generously and not confrontationally.

I think it's a part of traditional roleplaying culture that, if a system exists to resolve some part of the action in a game, the assumption is that you'll want to use it. The very existence of the rule strongly implies that you're supposed to use it, even if the text never outright says, "when your character gets poisoned, roll to save vs. poison every time, without exception."

Rules are flags that indicate something is important. Perhaps they are not in your personal play history, but that history does exist for many other players.

Now, take the explicit BW procedure, which is comprised of several parts.

When something happens inside the game's fiction, the VERY FIRST THING you address is, can I let this go or might the story take an interesting turn here? The "you" in this case is the GM. The "something happens" refers both to GM-generated events as well as player-proposed events. This piece is the Say Yes or Roll the Dice rule: It's a rule, not a suggestion, not advice. It's hard-coded right into the game's procedures.

So let's say you enter that decision gate: can I let this go, i.e. Say Yes? If the GM feels this moment of play might split the narrative off into a new direction, if he decides this moment would be most entertaining if there was some tension involved, he declares that you'll be rolling the dice.

The next decision gate is establishing intent. Whomever proposed the event is the one who, really, needs to stake out what it is they want to accomplish with the event. This is a metagame consideration, mostly, that takes place at a more authorial level. The character wants to slip by the guards unseen, but what does the player want to accomplish by doing so? There are two reason for this step: one, both parties are totally clear on what they're gambling for and what the consequences will be; two, the GM gets a second chance to decide if this moment really requires a roll. Nobody rolls 'til everyone agrees on what the intent is. Usually the GM also specifies what the consequences of failure will be (although several BWHQ guys have said they don't always explicate this, which IMO is rules drift).

Based on the intent, the GM decides what the task will be and how to use the system to resolve it. Intent first, task second is a rule, not a suggestion, not advice. It's hard-coded right into the game's procedures.

Feeding into these decision gates is the third set of rules I want to talk about: the reward system. Two kinds of reward are tugging at the player: Artha and advancement. Every time the dice come out, the player is getting incentivized two different ways. This has a very strong, immediate and direct impact on decisionmaking, in my play experience. Again, these are rules.

EDIT: Totally forgot about Let It Ride! The short version of this is that each specific intent/task/consequence matchup can only be rolled for one time without considerably changing the circumstances of the roll. The in-game effect of this is to sharpen up intent discussions because you get the one time to get it right. It also speeds up play by making every roll a test to see if the player got his intent, not if the character accomplished a task (by rolling and rolling and rolling 'til you get what you want).

And finally, there's an overarching philosophy that shows up some in the book, but largely as part of the BW "culture" on the board(s): You play the game by following the rules, and everyone at the table is beholden to the same rules. The GM doesn't get to fudge, and the procedures are set up such that fudging is IMO never necessary. There is no "Rule 0" in BW regarding changing the rules if the GM deems it necessary; BW's Rule 0 is, don't be a dick.

So in actual play, you end up with this vibe that a) everyone's playing by the same rulebook, b) the GM's authority is explicit, c) every "new moment" of play is analyzed for interesting tension-creating opportunities, d) everyone is explicit about what their intent is, what task will accomplish that intent and what the consequences of failure will be, and e) everyone is clear on what the reward cycle entails as a result of their actions and choices.

That's about as atomized and specific as I can get without actually playing through a scenario with you. It might be really interesting, actually, if someone could code out The Sword into d20, ORE and WHFRP.

p.

Z-Dog

04-02-2008, 05:31 PM

uuuuuuuuuhh....side quests take a shorter amount of time because of Let it Ride and Say Yes?

and you can lend Helping dice to people on side quests, so you're still in the action?

and BW BITS driven play focuses on important conflicts, so people aren't bored out of their minds when other people are rolling the dice?

*EDIT* what Paul said

pseudoidiot

04-02-2008, 05:45 PM

and BW BITS driven play focuses on important conflicts, so people aren't bored out of their minds when other people are rolling the dice?

I'd expand that further and say that people aren't bored out of their minds even if they're the ones rolling the dice. I'm sure most of us have had experiences where you just really weren't that into what was going on at the table even though your character was involved somehow. The important point being that every time the dice hit the table it's going to affect the story in some way.

And... what Paul said; great write-up, by the way.

wanderer

04-02-2008, 06:18 PM

Well said, Paul.

Also, in regards to Let it Ride: the more I play Luke's games, and the more I read about people's examples of play on the forum here, the more important Let it Rides becomes. It really has implications throughout a lot of Burning Wheel's subsystems, but the implications are so subtle at times that it is difficult to articulate them.

higgins

04-03-2008, 04:54 AM

Okay, I think I get what you're getting at. I'm going to take a swing at this; please read this generously and not confrontationally.
That's exactly what I asked for. Thanks!

Now I get what you all meant by that. I'm still probbaly not using BW to run a game -- Fight!, wound system, character creation and a bunch of other stuff isn't my cup of tea, plus I'm too immersionsist/simulationist so that Intent+Linked Test=Skipping to me -- but at least now I get what Luke meant by writing it. Gotta thank you for that alone! :)

stormsweeper

04-03-2008, 07:54 AM

I tried to tell you BW probably wasn't your cup of tea back on page one. ;)

Paul B

04-03-2008, 12:16 PM

That's exactly what I asked for. Thanks!

Now I get what you all meant by that. I'm still probbaly not using BW to run a game -- Fight!, wound system, character creation and a bunch of other stuff isn't my cup of tea, plus I'm too immersionsist/simulationist so that Intent+Linked Test=Skipping to me -- but at least now I get what Luke meant by writing it. Gotta thank you for that alone! :)

I think it's safe to say that BW isn't going to serve your needs. It sort of serves the Sim agenda, IMO mostly through the lifepaths (BE is much more Simmy), but the hard-coded requirement that the players step into and out of the cockpit of their character interferes "you are there"-flavored immersion for a lot of players.

Side note: When I started playing this game really hard, I also felt that making players get out of the cockpit right in the middle of every rollable conflict scene was disruptive. But you know what? It's a learned behavior, just like every other behavior in an RPG. Most of our gaming behaviors are so ingrained we don't even think about them, so they're not disruptive. Getting ready to enter a fight in D&D? Your eyes move straight to the various modifiers and tasks to get the math straight. Yet we don't find this disruptive to our "immersion" because we do it all the time.