Is the Burning Wheel "how to play" advice useful for D&D?

[Celebrim]

IFor instance, it is a default assumption in D&D that the content of the module is secret from the players.

It's not necessarily a strong assumption that a module is more secret from the players than is recommended by the Burning THAC0 pdf. It was the interior of a module that was deemed secret and the reason modules were shrink wrapped. It wasn't strongly assumed that players couldn't see the front cover or read the back blurb and many would have been familiar with the product from the blurb product catalog, and at least known the title of the module (which in many cases was a blurb itself). In fact, some DMs did show players this much in order to obtain permission from the players for running the module, as in, "Is this something you think your characters would do?" or "Is this something you are interested in as a player?" A DM in a long running campaign probably just isn't going to assume the players go to the Tomb of Horrors. He's going to in some fashion obtain their permission to frame the scene.

What's important about Burning THAC0 is it does assume some degree of secret knowledge is best ("You don't have to reveal every twist and secret"), usage of the maps in some cases, preplanned encounters, a predictable and therefore roughly linear plot, etc.

Whereas in BW, telegraphing the stakes is more important - once they're known to the players, then the players have a reason to engage despite the fact that the challenges are horrible.

This is get really silly. D&D telegraphs the stakes to, "Fantastic treasure or horrible doom await! Step on up!" And how many D&D groups have been hooked by appealing to the characters idealism, "Innocents are endangered! My Paladin just can't stand by, we must make haste to Durbinshire!"

(The canonical mode of monster building in the BW Monster Burner involves player feedback on GM monster designs. Think about how out of place this would be in Gygaxian dungeon play!)

Yes, but Burning THACO has moved out of that canonical mode into a new equally valid mode. It's still BW, but its got a list of monsters in the module discussed as an appendix. Remember the goal here is to capture old school feel. It does that not mostly by changing mechanics, but mostly by changing the approach to play.

That's kind of like saying "Take RM combat, but strip out the crit and wound mechanics in favour of hp attrition, and you'd have something pretty close to D&D."

The simultaneous secret declaration of 3 "volleys" (which may be anywhere from 1 to 6+ actions) at a time is a key part of the game. It's how you can win in melee even if you're weak, for instance: because you outsmart them and strike when they're not defending.

Ok, sure, but I'm not saying that you need to make these alterations. Keep the 3 volleys, and its still going to play like D&D. My point was just how minor the mechanical differences really were between BW and various editions of D&D. And as far as simultaneous secret declaration goes, the 'strike when they're not defending' is as applicable in shorter volleys as it is in longer. It's an aspect of 'secret simultaneous' and not of '3'.

 

[pemerton]

Why not at any random losing cause? Neither advancement nor Artha comes with a restriction that the PC need care about the cause.

Artha gain is linked to Beliefs, Instincts and Traits - so the incentive is to engage with situations that the PC cares about, or that s/he is related to via these character features.

 

[Nagol]

Artha gain is linked to Beliefs, Instincts and Traits - so the incentive is to engage with situations that the PC cares about, or that s/he is related to via these character features.

Odd. My copy of BW suggests artha gain for roleplaying, player handling pressure with grace, teamwork, and achieving goals -- both player designed and GM provided. There is nothing about Athas gain from Beliefs, Instincts, of Traits -- though you can LOSE artha by straying from Belief.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION], given that what you describe is not in Revised or Gold, perhaps you have a 1st ed? (I have never seen the original version.)

 

[Nagol]

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION], given that what you describe is not in Revised or Gold, perhaps you have a 1st ed? (I have never seen the original version.)

It's a (c) 2002 and isn't labeled as anything but BW. I figured it had to be a different version.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Ok, sure, but I'm not saying that you need to make these alterations. Keep the 3 volleys, and its still going to play like D&D. My point was just how minor the mechanical differences really were between BW and various editions of D&D. And as far as simultaneous secret declaration goes, the 'strike when they're not defending' is as applicable in shorter volleys as it is in longer. It's an aspect of 'secret simultaneous' and not of '3'.

The more salient point is that even if you did effectively make these changes in Burning Thac0, it would play marginally more like D&D, but still not very much like it all. "Fight for what you believe" supported by mechanics is not "Kill/Trick/Evade the monster, get the treasure, get power" supported by mechanics. You might end up killing the monster, getting the treasure, and gaining power in BW by fighting for what you believe. In Burning Thac0 you'd almost assuredly do so. You obviously might, in any number of D&D campaigns, fight for what you believe while doing that killing/looting/power thing.

I also might get wet while while cutting timber and might have a tree fall on me while at a pool party. The experiences would be about as close as playing D&D and BW.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Odd. My copy of BW suggests artha gain for roleplaying, player handling pressure with grace, teamwork, and achieving goals -- both player designed and GM provided. There is nothing about Athas gain from Beliefs, Instincts, of Traits -- though you can LOSE artha by straying from Belief.

That's the original. I've got BW Revised and Gold. In Revised, it's page 65. in the first book, "Earning Artha". That section has all the ways that you can earn artha, and the fast majority of them are from the BITs. For example, there are five basic ways to get Fate: dramatically playing a belief, following an instinct when it gets you into trouble, invoking a trait to get into trouble or drastically alter the course of the story, stopping the table dead with humor, or having the right skill (as a reward for clever character burning, but cautioned to keep rare). The persona section is similar. Deeds are so rare and quest given that it is more indirect. (You'll never live to get a Deed point if you don't gain some Fate and Persona along the way, but you get the Deed for completing a major story line successfully at some sacrifice.)

The gold version has this on page 61. not much changed from revised.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Crazy Jerome Can't xp but 106 is full of good words that make good sentences! That's what I was getting at but more succinctly put.

 

[pemerton]

It's a (c) 2002 and isn't labeled as anything but BW. I figured it had to be a different version.

That would be the original.

Like CJ, I've only got the later two versions. It's interesting to look at the Revised acknowledgements/bibliography, which has separate headings for each edition: for 1st ed, it lists AD&D 2nd ed, Cyberpunk, Warhammer and maybe one or two other RPGs; for revised ed it lists DitV, Sorcerer, maybe Inspectres and some other indie games. So I think there was a pretty self-conscious development between the two editions (whether you describe it as a "tightening up" or a "change of direction" I guess would be a matter of perspective).

Without knowing the history, my speculation would be that the sucess of the original edition brought Luke Crane into communication with The Forge/indie scene, resulting in the changes to Revised. Gold is in basic outline pretty similar to Revised - I would say the changes are more in terms of mechanical minutiae rather than fundamental principles - and has a preface by Jake Norwood (from the Riddle of Steel). I think that's interesting in itself as showing where the BW guys think their game is situated in relation to other fantasy RPGs: they're carrying on TRoS's legacy of indie, narrativist, mechanics-heavy, somewhat gritty fantasy RPGing.

 

[chaochou]

So I know this thread kinda petered out, but anyway, here's a statement from Burning Wheel:

"Nothing happens in the game world that doesn't involve a player character."

What is being stated and what is being implied by that statement? Would adhering to that statement cause a change in your game?