PDA

View Full Version : Burning Wheel General Comments


NkEnNy
11-14-2007, 11:10 PM
Hi everyone,

As this is my first post on the forum I guess I might introduce myself. I go by the handle NkEnNy, I've been playing roleplaying games for ages, I'm pretty much addicted to Exalted setting and I've just discovered the "Burning Wheel".

Quick intro
I first read about the Burning wheel as a off-comment on the rpg.net forums. These lead to an interview (with the creator I believe) and a review of the game system. At the time I simply noted its existence behind my ear, and then promptly forgot about it.

Three days ago I was browsing my local hobby stores book shelves. And lo and behold, there was a shelf set aside for "The Burning Wheel". After some thought I discarded the Exalted Manuals of Power: Sidereals book I was holding and decided to pick up the dual packaged Rule Book and Character Burner.

The Burning Wheel
I went home and read through the books in a semi organized fashion. I skipped some chapters, read them later, re-read others, and generally made a big mess of things. This is how I read RP books, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

The Burning Wheel (revised 3rd edition?) is definitely a cool, dynamic, and above all captivating beast. After my first read-through I simply felt compelled to write my initial observations.


I LIKE the Burning Wheel.
- Though a rather rules heavy system, its easy to learn!
- The Belief and Instinct mechanics are something we've played with for years, just never codified. Brilliant!
Difficult to use Book.
- Personally I found the Rulebook to be rather rules heavy, and at times hard to navigate. This can partially attributed to its physical size, limiting presentation options; but I cannot help but believe that some additional polish would have smoothed out wrinkles.
- My first impression was that the author had just cheerfully described what was at the foremost of his mind at the time of writing.
- After reading through it a few times there did seem to be something of a system to this madness however. :wink:
- Particularly the scripted combat system, though dramatic, seems to slow things down. Must be a mess with more than two contestants too.
Heavy on the Metagaming
- I find this the most essential character of the game system, but might be hard to adapt to.
- I suspect that it will require a fair bit of 'impulse' culling to adapt the previously cultivated table-top instincts.



Monster Burner
The story doesn't end there however. Having found myself generally impressed by the sheer audacity and charm of the game. (as well as its robust mechanics) In addition to having played around with the (generally) pleasurable aspects of Character Burning. I went ahead an acquired the Monster Burner.

I can only say that this book contains all the things I hoped it might. It is amazingly refreshing to see a "Monstrous Manual" -type compendium that actually deals with Monster building, culture, and play-integration Rather than just trying to fill a book with seemingly endless variations of well-worn myths.

Class A work.

Burning Empires
Admittedly it was the very attractive "Burning Empires" book which originally caught my attention. A rather hefty (import) price tag stayed my hand, but after reading through the core system; I decided to go for it. (and Both Iron Empires comics (first comics I've bought all year))

I must say this book blew me away. All the stumbling rules, the 80s style artwork, and somewhat cumbersome formatting was gone. This is truly most refined and polished product, and one of the most welcome surprises in table-top RPGing I've seen all year.

A game which can only really be described as narrative wargaming, a strong setting, stunning artwork, and polished rules. I can hardly wait to try GMing it.


Final Words
Though the rule themselves stand very well on their own. One cannot help but comment:
Will there be additional supplements for Burning Empires? (perhaps to follow the directions as defined in the comic books.)

Am I the only one who sees the Warhammer 40k potential of this ruleset? (particularly considering the frankly awful rules GW are planning to use ofr the 'official' release.)

While I recognize the drama inherent in the "Scripted" Duel of Wits and Combative engines. I cannot but want for ways to simplify these. Perhaps some sort of playing card system as player aids?

Burning Wheel, particularly as presented in the Burning Empires setting shows its maturity. It is easily up there with the Big20, and WW's D10. I'm eagerly anticipating more books in this line, and can't wait to actually try it on the table. (next weekend I think)

luke
11-15-2007, 02:49 AM
Hi Nkenny,

Thanks for the kind words. I'm very glad you like the games. You certainly took the plunge!

I'll field one of your issues: Scripted combat is faster in play than just about any other detailed combat engine out there. If you're looking for play aids, check out our wiki. Download the scripting sheets and laminate them. That speeds things up mightily!

Thanks again,
-L

JamesDJIII
11-15-2007, 08:07 AM
Or catch a demo at a con. You HAVE to see Luke run a game.

Also, wear a helmet.

Merritt Baggett
11-15-2007, 11:41 AM
If you get a chance, browse through the wiki. It's got some of the stuff you're looking for like:

multiple contestants:

http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Multiple_Combatants

http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Multiple_Combatants_Example


players aids:

http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#Scripting_Sheets

NkEnNy
11-15-2007, 02:17 PM
Thank you.

I've checked out the links and I've lurked around the forum. Some things are cleared up, other concerns haven't really been addressed but I'll probably just 'wing it' once the question hits the table. :)

Overall I think specifically the abstraction of the 'Positioning' test doesn't translate well to "multicombatant" engagements(scruffles!). Especially in the nature of weapon reach I can see some inherent problems cropping up.

Example:

Side A
- Polearm wielding Guy
- Swordsman

Side B
- Polearm wielding Guy
- Sword and Shield Combo


"Polearm A" is going to have an advantage vs "Sword B" but not vs Polearm. Is this resolved by two rolls? or just clever storytelling? (declaration of intent) ("I will attack SwordsmanB")

NkEnNy
11-15-2007, 02:36 PM
Hmmm... nevermind I might very possibly be an idiot. Further scrutiny of rules and examples:

In the above example you would not only use "Declaration of Intent" but as positioning is 'rolled' you would simply give BOTH polearm wielders the Superior Reach bonus? no?

stormsweeper
11-15-2007, 03:07 PM
Here's a good breakdown of a fight with multiple opponents:

http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Multiple_Combatants_Example


And we generally only hand the bonus dice for weapon reach and speed multiplier to the highest/best one in the situation. If there's a tie among any of the combatants for first, no one gets the die.

Gray Mauser
11-16-2007, 02:13 PM
Ya know what would be great that I was thinking of making, a positioning ruler like so:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/Woas/Fighttracker.jpg

If the players or yourself have a miniature fig collection from other games, you could grab one that looks like your character and place them in the boxes and track who is at what distance, etc.

Drozdal
11-16-2007, 03:26 PM
Ya know what would be great that I was thinking of making, a positioning ruler
You mean something along the lines of this (http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#Fight.21_Positioning.2FW eapon_Length_Helper)?

Merritt Baggett
11-16-2007, 04:57 PM
You mean something along the lines of this (http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#Fight.21_Positioning.2FW eapon_Length_Helper)?

Well, yeah.

Except that if you're using minis, Gray Mauser's chart at least looks like a fencing strip. Putting minis on the wiki diagram makes it look like you're playing Tapper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapper)

Fuseboy
11-16-2007, 05:03 PM
I did a reference sheet (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showpost.php?p=40814&postcount=5) along those lines, with the weapon stats built in - I couldn't remember them.

NkEnNy
01-29-2008, 11:31 PM
Burning Wheel Two Months After
Hoi, I'd just thought I'd like to drop by and give a brief review of gaming after Burning Wheel.

First Things First:
Burning Wheel is apparently selling quite well here in Oslo. I believe its actually been sold out 2-3 times already, formidable for any indie RPG!
Good job.

So Nice and Shiny:
In our gaming group we tend to be big on adopting new ideas. BITs is one such concept which has pretty much spread like wildfire. Every game I GM/play I always try to define a good set of Beliefs and (if system allows it) instinct concepts.

Clunky, Clumsy and Somewhat Cumbersome:
Though riddled with cool gameplay Ideas we haven't actually run a <proper> BW game yet. And I'm saving BE for a bigger booming game. My main gripe is really the rulebook. Though extensive, its an addlebrained mess of crossing-rules and somewhat clunky "interfaces". As I've already noted BE is far better in this regard, and I hope that future settings/books will adopt this format.


Final Conclusion
We learned something from it. BITs ands its derivated systems is what we feel is the heart of Burning <System>. We've adopted/bastardized/cobbled this into many of our games, and enjoying a an improvement in play focus.


In other words? Mostly Cool stuff. Very Innovative. Fun and focused gameplay. Cheers.

*Ninja-awaaaayyy!*

Z-Dog
01-30-2008, 10:16 AM
Burning Wheel Two Months After

1. Burning Wheel is apparently selling quite well here in Oslo. I believe its actually been sold out 2-3 times already, formidable for any indie RPG!

2. My main gripe is really the rulebook. Though extensive, its an addlebrained mess of crossing-rules and somewhat clunky "interfaces". As I've already noted BE is far better in this regard, and I hope that future settings/books will adopt this format.

1. Awesome! BWHQ sells out! ;)

2. Hm?

Dwight
02-01-2008, 03:23 PM
Though riddled with cool gameplay Ideas we haven't actually run a <proper> BW game yet.
Define 'proper'? I hope you don't mean 'without using Fight!' or some other section? Because BW without Fight! is certainly still proper BW, if your table didn't want to put that much emphasis on combat.

NkEnNy
02-01-2008, 10:49 PM
I mean proper as in using all rules found in BW (as written) and just playing any-ol game.

I think the 'feel' of the scripted fight rules (and the excitement they produce) is amazing. (as for DoW) and wouldn't want to be without em. :)

Regardless we are considering a with somewhat simplified scripting, but still haven't come up with what I feel is adequate abstraction for "positioning" tests.

Dwight
02-02-2008, 10:51 AM
I mean proper as in using all rules found in BW (as written) and just playing any-ol game.

I think the 'feel' of the scripted fight rules (and the excitement they produce) is amazing. (as for DoW) and wouldn't want to be without em. :)

Regardless we are considering a with somewhat simplified scripting, but still haven't come up with what I feel is adequate abstraction for "positioning" tests.
Fight! is a bit of a bear to learn. I know it moves fast once you know it but there are a lot of parts. Anytime you have a several line cross-look-up table it just takes a while to get your head around.

But trying to simplify it is, well, I think it becomes ever MORE confusing. I've had much more success in beefing Simple Combat up (basically making it multiround...if you want I can post details but that really should be a separate thread) rather than trying to slim Fight! down. The later I couldn't even get a good grip on so I didn't even try spring it players. ;)

P.S. Incidentally it helps a lot with Fight! if everyone is using the same length weapon to start with.

Dwight
02-02-2008, 10:57 AM
Oh, and including every single section of rules in a game is probably NOT going to give good results. Especially when the players don't have everything down pat. But even when they do selecting certain aspects to highlight is an important part of world burning. IMO the beauty of BW is the ability to give a tailored feel to the world by selecting a specific subset of BW's sub-systems.

NkEnNy
02-02-2008, 05:52 PM
Terriby sorry, I shouldn't have used the word simplified. I ought to have said streamlined, optimized, or simply trimmed down. Essentially abstracted slightly to let storytelling handle the more abstract mechanics/relationships.

Simplified being a "no" word in certain circles. *sigh*

----

All in all I don't think this should bog down to a discussion about Fight!. BW is in general deceptively grainy and capable of handling smaller 'details'. This is great for some game-styles, not so good for other styles. No one is forcing BW down anyones throats, but certain concepts of BW are well worth porting.

All in all. 3 months after BW is still one of my favorite purchases. (BE and the comics too!)

Dwight
02-08-2008, 02:42 PM
Terriby sorry, I shouldn't have used the word simplified. I ought to have said streamlined, optimized, or simply trimmed down. Essentially abstracted slightly to let storytelling handle the more abstract mechanics/relationships.

Simplified being a "no" word in certain circles. *sigh*
No, I understood what you ment. I'm just observing that it is very difficult to distill Fight! Fight! is already a highly tuned system so it tends to come apart if you start pulling things out or rearranging things. Although R&C is sort of like a distilled Fight! but it's really hard to get to R&C from Fight!, they branched further back.

All in all I don't think this should bog down to a discussion about Fight!.
Thus my suggestion of another thread. I'll post the stuff I've used for extended Simple Combat in another thread sometime later when I dig out the notes.
BW is in general deceptively grainy and capable of handling smaller 'details'.
If you want it to. It is also "deceptively sweeping" in that it handles events in a very wide scope manner if you want it to. Both are real BW. Or do you mean character details rather than events?

P.S. I have also spliced some parts of BW things onto other games, notably Circles and Resources. Though I find that these and things like BITs and such don't work as well without the other core systems there.

smeelbo
02-10-2008, 01:33 PM
I am thinking that a good simplification, for learning purposes at least, would be to choose only one exchange in advance, instead of three. Fight! is generating the most player opposition, although really, some in the group are not getting Beliefs, which are far more important.

Smeelbo

Dwight
02-10-2008, 03:01 PM
I am thinking that a good simplification, for learning purposes at least, would be to choose only one exchange in advance, instead of three. Fight! is generating the most player opposition, although really, some in the group are not getting Beliefs, which are far more important.

Smeelbo
That isn't really a simplification but instead aleviating some the feeling of dread and chaos that Fight! was designed to evoke in the players. Not saying that that won't remove a good deal of the opposition but if it does I would surmise that the players were more freaked about choosing out farther ahead than the complexity of the rules themselves. So they complain about the complexity as sort of code for "I can't be in direct control of the situation, and the minutia of my characters reactions, and that freaks the everloving crap out of me".

I've seen the later from DoW too. The concept that your PC can be talked into something. The player will freak out and think this is mind control, in spite of this misconception being addressed directly in the core rules.

A lot of the dread might also be rooted in the players being ingrained with fighting to the death rather than surrender. The term I've used heard for this is Wolf Syndrome, where a player will run his PC in such a way that the PC wins ever battle but his last. Burning Wheel is designed such that failure is not only normal but expected to occur frequently. So the player is incorrect in thinking they must win or their PC dies (or the GM handles it that way, which is even worse).