Explain Burning Wheel to me

[Lonely Tylenol]

So it's round-robin combined with the Dramatic Editing mechanic from Adventure!, but is success-based instead of resource-based?

I don't know Adventure!, but the die mechanic is: you get a number of d20s equal to your rating in a certain skill and you roll off against the GM. If your highest die beats his highest die you win, and if more than one of your dice beat his highest die, you get more than one success. Each success means you can state one fact. For the secret door example, fact 1 is "there is a secret door". Fact 2 might be "it leads to a treasure vault." Fact 3 might be "there is an expensive tapestry on the wall of the passage." The GM must then narrate back to you the results, including all your facts. He can add details and such, but he must include the facts. The treasure vault might be guarded by an orc, the secret door might be locked and trapped, etc. If you fail, the GM gets to lay down the facts, and you have to narrate it back to him. He ought to be cruel.

So yeah, I'd call that success-based. Stuff in this game is generally abstract. You might happen to have a 10 foot pole, but you need to roll for it to see if you do.

 

[Henry]

"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."

O.K., let's play. Meet me in the Playing the Game Forum.

(Actually, I'm getting off work soon, and not back on the boards until this weekend, but had you asked this for real, I'd be curious to work up a short game, to see how it happens.)

 

[lukzu]

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 posted a bunch of links up-thread. But here's an excellent example of play written up by RobNJ on the Forge:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16734.0

-Luke

 

[jdrakeh]

There have been allusions to "crazy" amounts of mechanical support, but nothing is quoted from the books.

Anybody familiar with the books wouldn't need to have examples of mechancial support for tactical gaming cited word for word, which is why I think you must have less familiarity with the books than you claim. At any rate, though, it's not my point to prove - it was a rebuttal to your assertion that D&D provided no mechanical support for player goals. A point you have not yet produced any evidence to support.

As for the crazy support for tactical gaming, that's definitely what I look for in an RPG: "Dungeons and Dragons, the Tactical Game"!

It might not be what you look for, but as billions of dollars in income genrated worldwide have proven, it is what an overwhelming majority of D&D players look for. You keep making the argument that because you don't play D&D for tactics, then nobody must. Let's see you back up that claim with evidence. I honestly don't think that it can be done.

I find it funny that you burst into this thread making entirely unsupported claims about D&D's failure to facilitate certain styles of play, and felt that you should be taken seriously - yet suddenly, people who refute those claims on the grounds of common knowledge must cite page numbers and quote text to be taken seriously. If that isn't the height of prentention so far exhibited in this thread, I don't know what is.

So, who isn't walking the walk?

I'll strike a deal. Show me yours and I'll show you mine. When you can cite a page number in a recognized authoritative text that proves D&D doesn't support a tactical play style, I'll cite a page number... well, let's up the ante... I'll cite five pages in the SRD that exemplify that play style being implemented in actual design. And I'll even go one better...

If you can cite a page number in a recognized authoritative text that proves your assertion that people don't play D&D because of an emphasis on tactical gameplay, I'll link to an entire forum's worth of threads (i.e., hundreds) dedicated specifically to tactical character builds, spell casting, and combat in D&D.

Put your money where your mouth is. If you can.

 

[Dave Turner]

Here are some links, Henry.

First, let's not forget that Burning Wheel was nominated for an ENnie for Best Rules!!: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16015.0

This seems to talk about fighting in the game; http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16006.0

This talks a bit about character creation: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15363.0

OK, I just found this through Google and it's the way to go:http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/index.php

There's a forum for rules and for actual play threads. Have at it!!

 

[Wil]

I just wanted to chime in that, after reading one of the linked to an actual play thread, that I see nothing that cannot be done in any other game - nor anything that I haven't done myself. The actual mechanics seem interesting - more from a rules perspective (in terms of what I can take away for use in other games) than anything else to me.

 

[Dave Turner]

It might not be what you look for, but as billions of dollars in income genrated worldwide have proven, it is what an overwhelming majority of D&D players look for. You keep making the argument that because you don't play D&D for tactics, then nobody must. Let's see you back up that claim with evidence. I honestly don't think that it can be done.

If I've given that impression (or stated that), then I was mistaken. If folks like to play D&D on a purely tactical level (to the point where they don't name their characters, even), then there's nothing wrong with that. I would point them in direction of Warhammer Fantasy Battle or Confrontation (or even Axis and Allies), but I won't say that they're having (as RPGnet likes to call it) BadWrongFun.

I find it funny that you burst into this thread making entirely unsupported claims about D&D's failure to facilitate certain styles of play, and felt that you should be taken seriously - yet suddenly, people who refute those claims on the grounds of common knowledge must cite page numbers and quote text to be taken seriously. If that isn't the height of prentention so far exhibited in this thread, I don't know what is.

Unclench your sphincter. As a supporter of Burning Wheel, I pointed to a portion of the text that supported my interpretation of the game. I'm not here to defend d20. I don't think it's beyond all reason to expect those who are positively suggesting that d20 has certain characteristics to actually do the work needed to support their own claims. I'm not going to do your work for you.

Until such time as you can cite a page number in an authoritative text that says D&D doesn't support a tactical play style, I'll cite a page number... well, let's up the ante... I'll cite five page in the SRD that exemplify that play style being implemented in actual design.

You have the wrong impression of my argument or perhaps you're straw-manning my position. I do believe that D&D has plenty of rules that support tactical play. What I don't believe is that D&D doesn't have plenty of rules to support roleplay.

It's a long thread and maybe my message hasn't been consistent. But is it possible that the length of the thread has also confused you regarding my position?

 

[Dave Turner]

I just wanted to chime in that, after reading one of the linked to an actual play thread, that I see nothing that cannot be done in any other game - nor anything that I haven't done myself. The actual mechanics seem interesting - more from a rules perspective (in terms of what I can take away for use in other games) than anything else to me.

I don't think that anyone (myself included) is suggesting that Burning Wheel allows you to tell different or new stories than D&D or any other fantasy RPG. The choice of Burning Wheel should be precisely because one prefers the mechanics. It's the mechanical difference between Burning Wheel and D&D that matters.

 

[Dave Turner]

I posted a bunch of links up-thread. But here's an excellent example of play written up by RobNJ on the Forge:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16734.0

-Luke

Glancing over this thread, it has lots of system detail for those who are curious. Probably a better resource than the play threads I linked to.

 

[Wil]

I don't think that anyone (myself included) is suggesting that Burning Wheel allows you to tell different or new stories than D&D or any other fantasy RPG. The choice of Burning Wheel should be precisely because one prefers the mechanics. It's the mechanical difference between Burning Wheel and D&D that matters.

Probably one of the off-putting things is the use of a lot of jargon, but I'd need to take a closer look to see how off-putting. I dislike Immortal: the Invisible War and Aria not becuase their mechanics were flawed (even though Immortal's were and I never got far enough into Aria to take a close look at the mechanics) but because the jargon was too dense.