Explain Burning Wheel to me

[Storm Raven]

OMG!!!111 U h8 teh Burnign Weel!

I don't hate it, I'm just not finding the mechanic being touted as being anything more than a granulatiry of resolution determination.

 

[Wil]

I don't hate it, I'm just not finding the mechanic being touted as being anything more than a granulatiry of resolution determination.

Which might tie back to "experience with systems" - someone who's never thought of such a thing before might say, "OMG, that's revolutionary - don't roll unless it's important!" while those of us who have been operating under that assumption for years without any kind of rule to codify it kind of yawn and say, "Yeah, what's new?". I will admit that it's nice to have a rule like that,if only because there are plenty of gamers out there who would never do it unless it was in the rules, but it doesn't necessarily make the game more "complete".

 

[lukzu]

That's not a rule, that's just a difference in the granularity of resolution. Saying "you can use your sneak roll for the whole sneaking process" is just deciding on a particular level of abstraction for resolving events, and not substantially different from breaking it down into subrolls on any level other that what magnification at which you want to examine the actions of the game.

Just what is a "rule" then. I thought "rules" were instructions on how to play the game. Which is what that is -- an instruction on when to roll and when not to roll.

And on one level, you're right. It's a small thing. Not that big of a deal. I mentioned it at the beginning of the thread because I knew it would tweak a lot of people here. But I do disagree that it's not substantially different. I submit that it significantly alters the tone and pacing of a traditional fantasy roleplaying game session.

-Luke

 

[Dave Turner]

That's not a rule, that's just a difference in the granularity of resolution. Saying "you can use your sneak roll for the whole sneaking process" is just deciding on a particular level of abstraction for resolving events, and not substantially different from breaking it down into subrolls on any level other that what magnification at which you want to examine the actions of the game.

There is a rule in Burning Wheel which tells you when and how often to roll dice. D&D has rules like this too, like telling when and how to roll for initiative or attack rolls. What you are describing as "difference in granularity of resolution" is a requirement that comes from the rule about how and when to roll dice for conflict resolution.

Because Burning Wheel has a rule for when and how often you should roll dice for a particular situation, you have a certain level of granularity. The granularity isn't the rule, but it springs directly from the rule, no?

 

[lukzu]

That's not a rule, that's just a difference in the granularity of resolution. Saying "you can use your sneak roll for the whole sneaking process" is just deciding on a particular level of abstraction for resolving events, and not substantially different from breaking it down into subrolls on any level other that what magnification at which you want to examine the actions of the game.

Just what is a "rule" then. I thought "rules" were instructions on how to play the game. Which is what that is -- an instruction on when to roll and when not to roll.

And on one level, you're right. It's a small thing. Not that big of a deal. I mentioned it at the beginning of the thread because I knew it would tweak a lot of people here. But I do disagree that it's not substantially different. I submit that it significantly alters the tone and pacing of a traditional fantasy roleplaying game session.

-Luke

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Y'know, I've been thinking about trying to find a system that gives the players some of the story-making responsibility...and BW sounds pretty good. If I have money later, I might pick it up.

And there was a lot of snark earlier on in this thread that reminded me exactly why I don't post on rpg.net; it only happens once in a while here, as opposed to being nigh-constant on rpg.net

 

[Wil]

Just what is a "rule" then. I thought "rules" were instructions on how to play the game. Which is what that is -- an instruction on when to roll and when not to roll.

I figured people were getting tired of me hammering my own dichotomy into their heads, but I'll pop in and say: yes, by my definition that is a rule. A rule is a method that explains how to process instructions. Say, "Only roll Sneak until the situation drastically changes" is an rule in the same way that, "Show the little hourglass icon until the thread stops processing" is a rule. Yes, I tend to think of rpgs in programming terms, it helps me a great deal

But I do disagree that it's not substantially different. I submit that it significantly alters the tone and pacing of a traditional fantasy roleplaying game session.

You've hit paydirt there. It's not the "Gee whiz!" factor of the rules themselves that makes any game interesting, unique, whatever, it's how those rules interact. I can take every critically acclaimed, downright certified innovative mechanic in rpgs today and throw it together and still have a game that plays like crap.

 

[Wil]

Datburn double posting...

 

[LostSoul]

That's not a rule, that's just a difference in the granularity of resolution. Saying "you can use your sneak roll for the whole sneaking process" is just deciding on a particular level of abstraction for resolving events, and not substantially different from breaking it down into subrolls on any level other that what magnification at which you want to examine the actions of the game.

Just a note, there is a rule for this in D&D. You make a new Hide/Move Silently check each time you take a move action. Which is not how I thought it worked, but alas, I was wrong.

There's another thread where I have this pointed out to me over in the Rules forum. I'll edit in a link in a bit.

edit: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=156710 I first ask the question on post #35.