Explain Burning Wheel to me

[fett527]

...The difference is in the set up. The players and the GM collaborate to set up the adventure. They do this by designing the characters' Beliefs. This way, you're certain that you're going to get what you want because the game is going to be about your character and your priorities. Again, you can do this in other traditional fantasy games, but it isn't explicit and it certainly isn't rewarded. By building it into the explicit mechanics, we get more fun per time unit.

sorry if I didn't get to your question, you kids are crazy.
-L

I've read through the thread and am glad this particular point came back around. We always inject deep background and motivations in our long-term D&D 3.5 games and any person can choose to do so in theirs. Our story hour consists of characters that all had to start in a certain village and have ties to the village. Each character had a detailed background in which the player and DM worked through to set up the relationship to the village, character alignment, motivations and current goals for the character. The DM took these backgrounds and weaved them deftly into the campaign world and also gave role-play XP awards associated with the backgrounds and how the character reacted. We were able to do this with the D&D 3.5 rules set because we chose to. Why did you feel you needed a mechanic for this?

 

[Wil]

That always makes me ask, though: if I have to make up the rules that I need to enjoy your game, then why did I need you in the first place? Why didn't you get it right?

Because there's a difference between a rule and a mechanic. Good rules can be used in virtually any game because, being guidelines, they're not strictly bound by the game they originated in. There may not be a rule that specifies exactly how to handle a situation, but the mechanics should be robust enough to be able to handle the rule you create and the rules should be broad enough to give an indicator of how to apply the mechanic. If I have a rule that says, "Throwing a knife is resolved by rolling DEX+d20+Throwing skill", I can extrapolate that throwing a rock will use the same mechanic.

It is not the fault of the designer that every iteration of "throwing x" is not covered by a rule. It is the fault of the designer if the rules are not crafted in broad enough manner to not allow extrapolation, or the mechanics are not flexible enough to allow the application, just as it's the fault of the GM for being incapable (or unwilling) to extrapolate rules from what already exists.

EDIT: I just remembered a very apt concept. If you run most games strictly by the mechanics, 9 times out of 10 those mechanics will wind up violating what you know to be true - either as a result of your experience in the real world, or as a result of your expectations from the genre you are playing in, or just as a violation of common sense.

For example, I have a game where PCs have 20 hit points and a dagger does 4 points of damage. Mechanically, someone wielding that dagger can never kill a PC while they are sleeping. That violates our understanding of how the world works.

Rules adjudicate the mechanics, by saying,"A coup de grace will kill any character regardless of their hit points. In this task, by adjudicating the mechanics to help facilitate the expected range of possible results, by necessity some rules need to be conceived during play. When you decide, for example, that a 1 in 10 chance of fumbling is too much and implement a rule that when a 1 is rolled, you roll again, you are doing so to abjudicate what you believe is a shortcoming in the current rule.

Once again, this is not a failing on the part of the game designer - it's a difference in opinion. I don't buy games to have definitive rules that shouldn't be changed, although the better designed the system is the less likely I am to change the rules.

 

[Funeris]

You still haven't sold me Luke (although I have to admit that truthfully, I'm not in the market for a new system at the moment--and probably won't be for some time).

So...Beliefs? They sound just like Passions from White Wolf's d10 system...specifically from the Wraith: The Oblivion game (1st and 2nd edition). And you were rewarded there for fighting for your beliefs/passions as well. Often with hps (corpus), willpower points (for avoiding all sorts of effects OR to use as action points), or pathos (to fuel your own magic).

Character creation in the game was quite detailed as well...with natures and demeanors which gave you a more described personality mechanic than alignment.

And you can purchase relationships?? Well...White Wolf called that a Background...specifically Allies or Contacts.

But...after playing that system for...oh 5 years straight or so...I grew quite tired of the Well I can do this to add another die to roll and increase my chance of success mentality. When you're rolling 25 d10s it kind of burns one out.

So..I moved to DnD...with the nice, simple d20 mechanic. Need to do this, roll a d20 and add the appropriate Skill/etc. Nice and quick.

And beforehand, I sit down with the players and find out what kind of game they want to play...we go very in-depth with personality/personal beliefs/character history/character goals. And then I craft the game THEY want to play as well as one that I will enjoy. I tie it all together so that all characters reach their full potential and are fulfilled.

SO...why should I buy BW (if I were to look for another system)? It doesn't sound to me that it has done anything ingenious (of course, I don't know everything it HAS done--just the few examples given here). And I'd just like to say I don't want to get into system VS. system comparisons--too much bad blood that way. But, from my point of view, it looks like it has only mimicked an old world of darkness White Wolf game.

Give me your sales pitch, Luke. I can't see what all the hub-bub is about.

~Fune

 

[Funeris]

Let me clarify my own statement about system VS. system comparisons before I get flamed (cuz I mentioned White Wolf).

I meant I don't want to enter into a flame war about whose system is better. Comparisons are kosher. Flamewars...not so much.

~Fune

 

[Henry]

Give me your sales pitch, Luke. I can't see what all the hub-bub is about.

While I'm not pushing for a sales pitch (Luke can give it if he wants, though ) again some examples of play would be useful. Does anyone (Luke, Dave, or another interested party) know of a site where can be found stories arising from game play, or play-by-posts, or similar info? I've seen C&C, GURPS, D&D and d20 game systems, Shadowrun, Exalted, etc. all represented on other forums, but none that I've seen for Burning Wheel games. Seeing someone use said mechanics on a character would give me an idea of how it plays compared to games I do know. (While I'm no system maven, I do have a pretty decent knowledge of RPG's ).

 

[Dave Turner]

If I have a rule that says, "Throwing a knife is resolved by rolling DEX+d20+Throwing skill", I can extrapolate that throwing a rock will use the same mechanic.

It is not the fault of the designer that every iteration of "throwing x" is not covered by a rule. It is the fault of the designer if the rules are not crafted in broad enough manner to not allow extrapolation, or the mechanics are not flexible enough to allow the application, just as it's the fault of the GM for being incapable (or unwilling) to extrapolate rules from what already exists.

Sure, I'm with you on that one. I think we have different ideas about what Rule 1 is, then (perhaps because you just assumed I agreed with your version. )

For me, Rule 1 is not "extrapolate rules if we didn't specifically mention them", but rather "get rid of our rules and put your own in because our rules don't do what you want them to do". If people are throwing out portions of the rules and applying rules "fixes", then the game has failed those people. Rule 1 is of no practical use to them.

Another version of Rule 1 is "ignore the rules you don't like", which pretty amounts to "write your own rules to replace those that aren't working for you". If the rules of a game are affecting the fun of the players to the point where they have to abandon the RAW and make their own, then something is wrong with the rules.

One could argue that this is a feature, not a bug, of the "broad framework" rulesets, like d20 or GURPS. But if a game's rules/mechanics (I consider them synonymous) as written are interferring with the game to the point where they must be abandoned, then perhaps it's time to look for an alternative game with mechanics that you do like. A game that is played without its mechanics is failing on its own terms, I feel.

 

[The_Gneech]

That's perfectly understandable and legitimate way to approach the game. I believe that Let It Ride is meant to counteract the inevitable bad luck that your detailed approach to the game would entail.

I assume that you want to make multiple rolls at various stages of the infiltration? The question is how you are approaching the goal of infiltration. Why is your character infiltrating the camp? Your description makes it sound like the infiltration is the climax of the story, filled with tension. If that's the case then, as Luke suggests, you can roll for every step you take. But understand that with every roll you take, you increase the probablity that you are going to fail a roll.

Failing rolls isn't bad. It's actually good, since it injects drama into the story. What Let It Ride is meant to do is to try to avoid "triggering drama at the wrong time". If you fail the very first Sneak roll into the camp, then there's a good chance that you've blown your chances of achieving the goal for which you are infiltrating (wow, that's a crazy sentence). Characters are rarely infiltrating places just for the sake of infiltration. There's a goal in mind: steal the war plans, rescue your comrades, eavesdrop on an important conversation. Failing a roll halfway to the goal of infiltration might needlessly distract the players from the building story. I'm starting to ramble a bit, but do you see where I'm going?

I can see it, but like I say, it just seems like it would take most of the fun out of it for me. It gives me a kind of "Reader's Digest" feel to the story. I agree that to make a good story, there's a certain amount of "skip to the good part" that needs to go on, but a well-structured adventure is probably pretty safe from being spoiled by any one skill check. The Let It Ride mechanic seems to turn the whole scenario, or at least the particular goal, into one giant "save or die" situation.

Some of my reaction is because, frankly, I suck at rolling dice. My favorite example is that I once rolled a 16 on 8d6. I just have rotten luck with any random element. So I want there to be MORE dice rolling, not less! The more dice rolled, the more it will even out. Using the infiltration example, suppose I'm sneaking my way in and blow my stealth check -- some guard spots me. At that point, I can flee and try again, or I can attack the guard in an attempt to take him out before he calls for help, whatever. The point is, I blew that roll, but I have a chance of recovering from it.

Not so with Let It Ride, from the sound of it. In this scenario, I have ONE chance to get in, and if I blow that, then I might as well write it all off. There's no partial success, there's no serindipitous discovery ("Well, I didn't find the plans, but check it out, I snagged a jeweled dagger from that one guard!") etc.

-The Gneech

 

[lukzu]

James,
Let's talk privately sometime. Because 1) we're leveling some heavy personal mojo 2) If you're talking about the EDG debacle, I don't know what to say 3) as I said before, I don't think we actually disagree about anything.

Henry,

The game brings in most players right at the beginning. All the archetypes that you talked about (which I don't necessarily agree with, btw) have incentive to participate in the game, because they get to each contribute a series of conflicts that they want to pursue. They're then rewarded for pursuing them when the GM drops them in their laps. This counts for folks who want to pursue a social conflict, a martial conflict, sorcerous, academic or whatever. Counts for folks who want to advance their characters and who want to roleplay hardcore.

Fett57,
I chose to include because I wanted to make it central, not optional or adjunct. I wanted all players contributing to the conflict from the get-go. I wanted to explicitly remove the GM as the sole arbiter of "what we will do." Check out our Jihad supplement/setting for an explicit exercise and collaborative setting building.

Funeris,
I've given my "pitch" in multiple forms throughout this thread. You want my 30 second con sales pitch? Here goes: "Burning Wheel is a d6-die-pool-based fantasy roleplaying system that uses the game mechanics to explicitly focus on player priorities in a way that other fantasy roleplaying games simply do not. It achieves this through a system called Beliefs which tie player goals into the game. Beliefs are directly plugged into the reward system. Rewards allow players to juice their rolls when they really want to get something done -- like when they want to accomplish the goals they set out in their Beliefs. It's worth noting that "rewards" and advancement are two separate tracks -- one does not affect the other.

Extended conflict in the game is handled in a system of exchanges and volleys where the players plan out their maneuvers in an attempt to outwit their opponents. I've got a 15 minute demo ready to go right now. Would you like to give it a try? I can show you how the basic mechanics, social conflict and martial conflict work."

-Luke

 

[lukzu]

Not so with Let It Ride, from the sound of it. In this scenario, I have ONE chance to get in, and if I blow that, then I might as well write it all off. There's no partial success, there's no serindipitous discovery ("Well, I didn't find the plans, but check it out, I snagged a jeweled dagger from that one guard!") etc.

actually, since BW uses an Intent and Task method of resolution, you can still get what you want when you fail. This is discussed in the basic mechanics. Adjucating the consequences of failure is one of the main jobs of the GM.

And putting all your weight on one roll in BW is good thing. Because you can spend your rewards, get help and use other mechanical advantages. You, the player, know that when it's time to roll the dice, it's important. Therefore, you spend your points as needed -- and those points are finite! you don't have an endless supply. So you choose your conflicts carefully and get in good when the time comes.

The other perk of the core mechanics of BW is you don't need a "well-planned adventure" to run the game. GM prep work is pretty minimal -- you look at the Beliefs and relationships and pick out some conflicts you want to build in based on them. So failure in a certain task means the game naturally turns in another direction -- without the need for extensive "if, then" planning.

-Luke

 

[Wil]

Sure, I'm with you on that one. I think we have different ideas about what Rule 1 is, then (perhaps because you just assumed I agreed with your version. )

For me, Rule 1 is not "extrapolate rules if we didn't specifically mention them", but rather "get rid of our rules and put your own in because our rules don't do what you want them to do". If people are throwing out portions of the rules and applying rules "fixes", then the game has failed those people. Rule 1 is of no practical use to them.

Another version of Rule 1 is "ignore the rules you don't like", which pretty amounts to "write your own rules to replace those that aren't working for you". If the rules of a game are affecting the fun of the players to the point where they have to abandon the RAW and make their own, then something is wrong with the rules.

From a design perspective, the inclusion of "Rule 1" in any roleplaying game is to let the GM and players, who may feel that they only have the rules in the book to work with, know that it is perfectly acceptable to introduce new rules or break existing ones. Whether these are rules to handle an ad-hoc situation that is not specifically covered by another rule or to replace a rule that is viewed as "broken", it's not the province of the game designer to dictate. Thus, most applications of "Rule 1" will include that the rules be discarded if the players don't like them. It has to be broad like that, given it's somewhat contradictory intent of providing a rule to break the rules.

One could argue that this is a feature, not a bug, of the "broad framework" rulesets, like d20 or GURPS. But if a game's rules/mechanics (I consider them synonymous) as written are interferring with the game to the point where they must be abandoned, then perhaps it's time to look for an alternative game with mechanics that you do like. A game that is played without its mechanics is failing on its own terms, I feel.

Rules and mechanics are not synonymous. Rules are business logic, mechanics are code. The business logic dictates how the code is to be used, but does not change the code itself. You are entirely correct that the mechanics should at least not interfere with the goal of the game's design, and should facilitate it if necessary - and the rules should support the application of the mechanics.