Explain Burning Wheel to me

[Tinner]

I've read the book.
I've read a bunch of reviews.
I've read interviews with the author etc.

I just don't see what the fuss is about this game.
It's got a few novel ideas, but what about it is really so special?

I guess what I'm asking is What about Burning Wheel sets it apart from D&D, or any other fantasy RPG?

 

[LostSoul]

I think it has something to do with the "Duel of Wits" mechanic. I'm not very familiar with the game, so I don't know.

 

[Henry]

Review of Burning Wheel Revised over at RPG.Net.

Upon reading, it sounds like a cut-down Shadowrun in terms of mechanics, with quirks and flaws labeled as beliefs and instincts, and traits acting as sort of an alignment descriptor. That definitely doesn't fit it exactly, but it's a loose description.

 

[King_Stannis]

The fuss is:

1) It's a fantasy game that is not D&D

2) RPGNet has seized upon this as one of their "pet" games. See also "Riddle of Steel" for a similarly overrated game.

 

[jdrakeh]

I guess what I'm asking is What about Burning Wheel sets it apart from D&D, or any other fantasy RPG?

The conclusion that I came to was 'nothing'. It is a well-written game that clearly presents its ideas, but for all intents and purposes, the end results that one achieves with Burning Wheel are not very different than those achieved with dozens of other fantasy systems.

I think that the big fuss had to do with the method in which Burning Wheel achieved those results, as the mechanics themselves iare what tend to excite most Forge members. I was always at odds with the Forge here - I feel that people play games primarily for the results, not the method used to achieve those results.

Sure, people have system preferences, but I've seen damn few people outside of The Forge who were more excited about the mechanics of a game than about what those mechanics allowed them to do.

 

[HinterWelt]

Sure, people have system preferences, but I've seen damn few people outside of The Forge who were more excited about the mechanics of a game than about what those mechanics allowed them to do.

He says on a d20 message board.

Bill

 

[Henry]

He says on a d20 message board.

Bill

However, he's right in this case (IMO). when d20 was released, the big draw was what they allowed you to do that you couldn't do in AD&D. However, I also see the "d20 or bust" crowd still, same way as I see the "anything BUT d20" crowd.

 

[jdrakeh]

He says on a d20 message board.

Bill

Even in d20 communities, I've seen very few people excited about the mechanics in and of themselves, as opposed to what those mechanics facilitate. Many games at the Forge are far more concerned with how to do things, than with getting things done. This is what truly sets apart most Forge games from the commercial mainstream of our hobby (i.e., publishers who sell thousands of products every fiscal quarter).

Look at the design of the d20 System, Storytelling System, Basic Roleplaying System, GURPS, etc. All of these systems are unconcerned with 'gimmick' mechanics - very little (if anything) is there just for 'flash value' - it all serves a defined purpose other than to titillate the reader or differentiate the game from the status quo. This even holds true for Palladium. The same can't be said of very many Forge games.

Look at Fastlane (I hate to pick on Fastlane, but it's the most obvious recent example of flash over function that I'm familiar with). Why does Fastlane use a roulette wheel to resolve action? The author of the game freely admits that there is no mechanical reason to use a roulette wheel, but that he implemented this choice merely to be different (i.e., he opted for the roulette wheel over a simple, functional, dice mechanic in order to differentiate his game from the staus quo).

That kind of design is great if the primary goal of a game is to be different (in that respect, many Forge games can be considered a conceptual success), but a game whose primary goal is to be functional should be more concerned with functional mechanics as opposed to flashy ones (this may be common sense, but it's something that a lot of designers seem to overlook). All of the flash in the world won't trump tried and true function in the grand scheme of things.

As a general rule, games that implement gimmicky mechanics simply for the sake of implementing gimmicky mechanics don't appeal to as wide an audience as those games whose mechanics have a reason to exist outside of 'looks cool'. For many Forge-created games, however, the focus isn't on achieving different results, but achieving fairly commonplace results differently (such was the case with Burning Wheel, IMHO).

The truth is, however, for most people outside of the Forge roleplaying is about what they can do with a game, not how they can do it.

 

[apoptosis]

I have purchased the burning wheel and I think it is a very good game but is focused on a particular style of play with certain ramifications that differ from say D&D 3.X.

I am somewhat biased as I havent played a fantasty RPG in awhile and bought 3.0 and some 3.5 books (ok actually a lot of books) and after so many modifications realized that what D&D does really well (fantasy superheroes) is not the type of game that I enjoy at this time (might again in the future though). While D20 and D&D with enough modifications can play most styles it does not play them all particularly well. So I went back to Rolemaster...and then Burning Wheel caught my eye.

It does certain things well. It has a dangerous but not always deadly combat system, it makes you want to avoid fights (certain D&D mods can do similar of course), it does not have the huge difference between beginning and advanced characters while still allowing for good advancement. Its magic system is very powerful and deadly without being completely pervasive to the story (due the inherent dangers of it).

But it is reallly driven by its mechanics to interwine the story to the characters. Everything in the story is mechanically advanced using the background and beliefs of the characters (once again with some mods you could probably do the same with D&D), but this is intrinsic to BW.

It is not a perfect system, but for a particular type of Fantasy RPG or type of gaming experience its mechanics do certain things well.

I do not think things are done different for the sake of difference, I personally dont believe that particular criticism is valid (you obviously disagree). I believe that it inputs certain elements of drama in places where I would want to see them and abstracts things (and it is written into the mechanics) in parts of the game that I like.

Now once again I am sort of biased as I have have grown to dislike enough parts of the D&D ruleset that it is no longer a game that I enjoy (which kind of sux as i used to really enjoy it when i played AD&D and 2nd edition) so my arguments need to be taken with that in mind.

IN summary...it has definite different types of mechanics from D&D...though probably stuff that could be modified to make D&D play similar to BW (which is basically what i had done in the past until i found BW) but BW does this particular type of game which I wish to run and my players play, better than a modified version of D&D. On the other hand BW does certain types of games ipoorly to very poorly (large combats, advancement from lowly guy to super warrior, dungeon crawls). I know a lot of people hate the forge but one good piece of advice is....use the right game systems to run the right types of games....there is not a one shoe fits all....

Why am i on this board? Because though i dont play D20 and probably wont for awhile if ever...people here have some absolutely fantastic ideas that i can steal for many types of games..

 

[Glyfair]

2) RPGNet has seized upon this as one of their "pet" games. See also "Riddle of Steel" for a similarly overrated game.

My FLGS had some early copies that were signed and numbered. I picked it up and personally wasn't impressed.

However, one impression I got was that it had a very elitist attitude. It does seem the sort of thing I've heard RPG.net tends to gravitate towards.

Just glancing at the introduction, I see "But unlike it's predecessors, this system is versatile and powerful..." That's the sort of feeling I got reading the book, like he was talking down to anyone that didn't subscribe to his personal theories of roleplaying.