How does Burning Wheel play?

[buzz]

BW rocks on toast. Period.

Is it complex? Sorta. Luke's comment about the complexity being front-loaded is very true. I.e., it looks intimidating if you just read straight through, but in play it's not that complex at all. Unlike D&D, you're not dealing with exceptions all the time. There are almost never those moments as in D&D where you figure your PC can just go ahead and do X... and then someone who knows the rules better than you points out how they can't in that specific instance. Instead, BW works pretty much the same all the time.

On top of this, the BW text is explicit about working the complexity into your game slowly. You can successfully play using the core resolution rules alone. The add-on systems (Duel of Wits, Fight!, etc) are amazing, but you don't have to (and should not) use them right out of the gate... much like a newbie should probably not try to play a 20th-level D&D game right off the bat.

That said, BW is going to work best if everyone at the table is interested in learning the rules. If your group is very casual and prefers minimal effort, then BW is not the game for them. Granted, I'd say the same about D&D and a few other systems.

It should also be noted that despite being "indie," BW is actually pretty traditional. You can totally dungeon-crawl with BW. There's a whole subset of BW play that fans call "Burning THAC0" that is all about using BW to play through D&D modules. I ran Keep on the Borderlands, and it was great! Granted, I ran it from the monster's perspective.

Anyway, there's learning curve, but I think it's worth it. IMO, BW is one of, if not the, greatest RPGs ever written.

 

[buzz]

On the other hand, you do log every test you make for advancement.

True, though, IIRC, I think you only log the most difficult tests for a given skill when you're in DoW or Fight!

Nonetheless, keep in mind that you're making tests (a.k.a., "checks" in d20) as much as you would in D&D. E.g., you'd never be rolling a bunch of tests to, say, search a room. The scope of tests in BW is different.

Advancement also encourages interesting skill use. E.g., sometimes you'll want to eschew getting help, or even take on a task you know you probably can't win, because you need a difficult test in order to bump a skill (or start learning a new one).

There's always multiple layers to BW's mechanics. It's awesome.

 

[jdrakeh]

I would ask you to clarify this, because BW uses an abstract resource stat and I can't really see that being even close to D&D and it's gp counting, hp counting, and if anybody still does that, weight and encumbrance, specific components, and so on.

Read the review that I link to. The term "resources" does not refer solelty to "equipment" -- it refers any player or character resource. There are dozens of variables that need to be tracked during character creation, actual play, or both. The review spells them out in very specific detail.

 

[Mean DM]

Also, resource management occurs on a scale unlike any that I've seen elsewhere (bean counting is a huge part of the game).

While I would agree that the game has a fair amount of mechanics to follow (a fact that I actually like due to their internal consistency), I have not experienced this with resource management at all. If fact, this is one of the easiest aspects of the game, far easier than any other game that I have played.

 

[Berandor]

Read the review that I link to. The term "resources" does not refer solelty to "equipment" -- it refers any player or character resource. There are dozens of variables that need to be tracked during character creation, actual play, or both. The review spells them out in very specific detail.

As mean DM says, I ask because that seems specifically not an issue with BW.

Okay, I forgot artha, but with artha and tests for advancement, what else is there resource-wise to keep track of?

 

[lukzu]

Also, my normal group are (mostly) not "gamers" - they're friends that like our biweekly/monthly Savage Worlds games, but are just as wont to play board games or poker or hang out. Is this the kind of game that would interest them, or is it more of a "gamers" game?

The game probably isn't a good fit for your group. But you could easily play The Sword or Gift scenarios with little prep and no future commitment. In fact, I think those are scenarios are fun enough to toss into your group's schedule, even if you're not planning on playing BW.

You can find them on our wiki

 

[Mean DM]

Any comments anyone has whose has played the game would be much appreciated.

I absolutely love the game. It took awhile to trust DOW and Fight!, but the results have won me over. Of course, game systems boil down to personal preference, but BW has spoiled all the other games on my shelf for me.

 

[jdrakeh]

This is just isn't true.

Hi, Luke. I didn't say all of them. I said many. I don't think that Ken Hite's review is a shill, of course.We both know that shilling your buddy's game by way of review or directed forum discussion is whole heartedly endorsed by many Indie publishers as a valuable viral marketing tool. A quick Google search will dredge up some rather telling links between the authors of many small-press RPGs and the reviewers who give them glowing reviews. A few more Google searches will dredge up some rather telling soap box editorials about how several small-press publishers only distribute review material to 'friends' or other close acquaintances who will gurantee them a positive review.

I'm uncertain if you're aware but, recently, there have been several rumblings in certain online communities about honest peer criticism (as opposed to pulled punches and glowing praise) due the perceived recent spate of woefully explained or poorly edited small-press RPGs (to be clear, I don't think that BW is a game that lacks explanation or editing, I merely think that it's very complex) and, to a lesser, degree because it looks bad. It's a big enough issue that a great many people (including several small-press publishers) think that more brutal honesty and less brotherly love is required prior to the publication of many small-press games.

Also, John's review is obsolete.

No, it's not. I did note that it's for the pre-revised version of BW, though it's also still very relevent with regard to the degree of 'fiddly' bits that inhabit the game. Not that much changed between editions (though, as noted, I do think that the things that did change, changed for the better). Do stats no longer have Exponents or Shades in the Revised Edition? I believe that they do. Do you no longer have hundreds of skills and traits to track during character creation and dozens to track over the course of actual play. Again, I believe that the answer is 'Yes'.

These details are still 100% relevent with regard to how the game functions in its Revised Edition. While it's understandable that you'd prefer people link to reviews that gloss over the specific degrees of complexity with regard to tracking different variables, I do not feel that claiming such variables no longer exist or directing people to reviews that neglect to mention them is honest. This is exactly why I linked to John's review. While parts of John's review are no longer relevant (feel free to spell out which parts, if you like), the sections that deal with the many dozens of variables in play at any given time are still dead on.

I think it's probably safe to assume that we disagree on all of this. That said, I don't think that I need to explain my posts any further. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to PM me or email at jdrakeh [at] msn [dot] com.

 

[eyebeams]

It plays pretty well, though there are some bumpy bits.

1) Let it Ride is a terrible rule that does the opposite of its declared purpose of protecting players because it makes awful rolls stick without giving players another chance, and the example tosses its intended applicability into doubt. We fixed this by putting it in the player's hands. They can choose a Let it Ride roll that is averaged with a control value equal to their average -1 (for reasons that are too complex to go into now, fixed values have certain advantages) or 1 (whichever is higher), or choose an unfixed roll that can be re-challenged.

2) The ranged combat system is too complex for what it does. Where scripted combat links complexity to a lot of interesting stuff, ranged combat was the groaner.

3) Chunks of character creation seem kind of filler-ish, but this is a more subjective judgment.

The game has a steep learning curve, which is not helped by nonstandard terms (using the word "exponent" to label a number that is not a mathematical exponent is the biggie) and a somewhat irritating, presumptuous authorial tone (no, you don't need to tell me what I *must* do, or provide icons to point it out).

However (and really read this part): If you play with friends who'll take the time to pass the book around and don't find that sort of thing a momentum-killer, the discovery process is a whole lot of fun. When you treat the system as an object to be explored rather than something to help you convey a story according to a particular cadence, you find yourself trying out rules like cool bits of a toy. Fights remind me of watching how a turn-based computer game plays out, after you've laid down your plan. It definitely gets a thumbs up from me, though after running it a couple of times, I've decided it works better as a secondary resource or plugin for other games. I like fiddling with house rules, so it serves a very valuable role in my library even when I'm not running a full-blown game.

 

[kensanata]

But how does it actually play?

I've been running a game with two players via Skype. A typical session will start with me setting the scene and asking the players what they want to do. They're in a city with several goals. One of them is to extract person X who doesn't want to leave, and is sick and therefore not reachable. The priest then says, "I will use a Circles roll to find the priest who is tending Gylippos. My Circles is X. I'll fork (grants +1) my my Temple-Wise skill by looking for an appropriate temple, and being a well known priest I'll use my Affiliation with Y (granting +2) on my roll." The DM determines the obstactle, player rolls dice, and stuff happens.

Basically I'm saying that any element of narrative control by the players needs to be supported by dice rolling. Players spend a lot of time looking over their skill list and deciding what skill to use, what bonuses might apply (and narrating them into their action in order for them to actually apply).

We haven't had a fight in four sessions, and we did not use the Duel of Wits for the first two sessions.

We also have a campaign wiki, but that probably gives you little insight into how the game plays.

The report for the first session is a post-game analysis of what the various scenes were about. It might give you some insight into the structure of the game.

The bookkeeping mentioned by others is something each player handles for his own character. For every successful test, they note the skill and the difficulty. A certain number are required to increase those skills.

The main point during the session is the push forward the plot and to earn Artha (akin to action points) while doing so. Artha is what you need for those really difficult and heroic stunts and I find these provide excellent principles to guide players. At the end of every session we spend up to half an hour talking about who earned Artha rewards for what.

As there are no maps and practically no fights, my prep time is about five mintes per session. That's a welcome change!