Explain Burning Wheel to me

[Wil]

This is part of why I'm such a formalist when it comes to RPG rules. If your game leans on pro-active players who must go beyond the rules/mechanics gaps in your game to encourage roleplaying, then maybe your "roleplaying" game needs an overhaul. If that stuff is important to you, why not choose a game that makes strong, explicit emphasis on it with rules/mechnanics?

While I definitely agree that rules for social conflict and character interaction are normally sorely lacking in rpgs, I have to doubt whether or not systems that actively support the act of playing a role are any better at encouraging it than those that imply the players should play roles. There's too much wiggle room there.

It's crucial to point out that this doesn't mean that the players must come up with NPCs on their own (although Burning Wheel does encourage that) or that they must draw dungeon maps for you to run them through. What BITs do is to point the GM in the direction that the players are interested in going. It's a way of ensuring that the players will be actively engaged in the stories, since the stories will reflect the goals/themes that they said they wanted! Notice that in the above example, all the player is stating is "Please put me in situations in which I get to lie and that causes conflict/trouble/fun." That's it. No more player input is required. And you can bet that when the player starts to see situations in the game (provided by the GM) that allow for some dramatic impact through lies, that player is going to sit up in his or her chair and get excited.

And while the execution has been prettied up a bit, it's not like in other rpgs that this doesn't happen all the time. Hell, in John Wick's now infamous article "Hit 'Em Where It Hurts" (http://library.gamingoutpost.com/content/index.cfm?action=article&articleid=77&login=) he suggests that not only does the player want the disadvantages he or she chooses for their character to be used, but they actually prefer for their character to be screwed over in the process.

Finally, BITs aren't that complicated. You don't need to fill out reams of paper with complex character studies. You pick one to three Beliefs (the more the better, since each Belief is a chance to earn Artha!), one to three Instincts (these are automatic "triggers" for action that you set for your character. For example, an Instinct might be "Always draw my sword when startled"), and Traits (these are personality quirks acquired during Character Burning through Lifepaths). It's not that complicated, but it's important and fun. [EDIT HERE: Traits also have mechanics attached to them, allowing players to do things like reroll skill failures or add dice to rolls in which the Trait is involved. It's all about backing up the roleplaying with mechanics! ]

The thing, is that isn't backing up roleplaying with mechanics - it's backing up what amounts to another set of stats (BITS wind up being quantifiable stats) with mechanics. I could argue that by providing rules and mechanics for "roleplaying", you succeed in discouraging players (especially rules lawyers and power games) from roleplaying and wind up with characters that are only as complex as the BITS on paper. Granted, this may be more complex than they might have created otherwise.

Every character has his or her background firmly established by the time character creation is over. For GMs with players who refuse to detail their characters' backgrounds, Burning Wheel's Character Burning makes such a refusal impossible.

While I don't necessarily think this is bad, it removes an entire set of possibilities - particularly, factors emerging from a PCs' background during play that neither the player nor the GM were aware of. There are plenty of people out there who like to explore the background of a PC while they are actually playing that PC and many will argue that doing it up-front takes the fun out of it.

The alternative, and this is the best way to go, would have been to design the system in such a way as to allow these decisions to be made in play as well as at the beginning. If I get hold of it, it may be one of the first things I house rule.

On a related note, now you see that just because you include rules for everything in no way guarantees that those rules will survive contact with the intended players unscathed.

Quick example. I decide to burn a Man who ends up with the following Lifepaths: Born Peasant, Conscript, Foot Soldier, and Village Guard. So right away, we have someone who was swept up into a war as a conscript, survived a few years as a foot soldier, and returned to his home and took a spot as a defender of the village. Along the way, the character has also picked up the following Traits: Flee From Battle and Thug. Now if a player refuses to put more meat on the bones than that, well, there's not much Burning Wheel or a GM can do.

See above - in many cases, they will not put more meat on the bones, simply because there's no incentive to.

 

[Dave Turner]

Wil,

There's a lot of stuff in your post that I suspect we're just going to have fundamental disagreement on. I'll try to put my side forward and hope we connect. If not, no big deal.

While I definitely agree that rules for social conflict and character interaction are normally sorely lacking in rpgs, I have to doubt whether or not systems that actively support the act of playing a role are any better at encouraging it than those that imply the players should play roles. There's too much wiggle room there.

Why do you doubt it? You're a big vague there. I think my position has strength in its simplicity. Let me try it again and hope I don't repeat myself too much.

If a one game has rules systems that actively support roleplaying while another does not, I'm strongly tempted to state that, by definition, one game is better at bringing out roleplaying than the other. I think it's important to get rid of the wiggle room you're worried about by divorcing the human factor from consideration. The wiggle comes in when we start to qualify the analysis with examples of "good roleplayers" and "bad roleplayers". All other things being equal, it just seems more likely that a game with explicit roleplaying rules will tend to produce more roleplaying. Do you think I'm off the mark there?

I should also mention that we must assume that the players are playing the RAW or as close to it as is reasonable.

And while the execution has been prettied up a bit, it's not like in other rpgs that this doesn't happen all the time.

Sure, there's lots of other RPGs that do this. But we're comparing Burning Wheel to D&D.

The thing, is that isn't backing up roleplaying with mechanics - it's backing up what amounts to another set of stats (BITS wind up being quantifiable stats) with mechanics.

To continue your analogy, though, I'd suggest that BITs are "roleplaying stats", so we arrive back at the spot where BW has mechanics to back up roleplaying.

I could argue that by providing rules and mechanics for "roleplaying", you succeed in discouraging players (especially rules lawyers and power games) from roleplaying and wind up with characters that are only as complex as the BITS on paper.

I'm not sure how this argument would look. Maybe you could spell it out a bit more?

At first glance (which you are free to correct with a more elaborate argument), I don't quite see where you're going. In any game, the rules/mechanics establish how players are rewarded for action. In D&D, you gain experience points and treasure which make you more powerful. In Burning Wheel, you get credit for difficult skill tests that count towards advancing those skills.

In D&D, you're rewarded for overcoming challenges based on the CR system. So players take actions that will allow them to overcome challenges so that they get xp. In Burning Wheel, players get better with the skills they use, so they use the skills they want to get better at.

D&D does have a couple of paragraphs about roleplaying XP awards, but they're relatively minor (50xp per level per character is the suggestion) and "purely ad hoc". But the reward for roleplaying in D&D is just the same as for killing orcs. In the rules, it's a limp, tacked-on idea which receives virtually no emhasis or support ("purely ad hoc" is serious buck-passing by the game designers. ). It's not even really a meaningful mechanic in itself, since players can't actively use XP in the game to influence other mechanics. I concede that players can spend XP to build magic items and that's a mechanic/rule. But when compared to Artha's ability to influence die rolls in the game, it just seems to pale in comparison to me.

By providing rules and mechanics for roleplaying, you set up a system of rewards for the players. Players like to be rewarded in the game. The whole reason we have RPG systems that are more complex than Cowboys and Indians is because we want a robust system of rules that contains mechanical advantages and disadvantages. Artha is a reward for roleplaying that gives the players mechanical advantages and effects in the game.

To suggest that a formal system of game rewards would somehow discourage players from using that reward system seems (at first glance!) to contradict a fundamental feature of gamer psychology. If the game mechanically rewards roleplaying, players will roleplay. The more robust the mechanics of roleplaying, the more roleplaying you will find. Do you think I'm off the mark here?

While I don't necessarily think this is bad, it removes an entire set of possibilities - particularly, factors emerging from a PCs' background during play that neither the player nor the GM were aware of. There are plenty of people out there who like to explore the background of a PC while they are actually playing that PC and many will argue that doing it up-front takes the fun out of it.

This misapprehension is my fault for not fully presenting the rules of BITs. Burning Wheel has rules and guidance for changing Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits. Nothing is set in stone at the start of play. But BITs are all replaced with different BITs, so they are always present on the character sheet and always driving play. Sorry for the confusion.

See above - in many cases, they will not put more meat on the bones, simply because there's no incentive to.

There is an incentive: those who aren't roleplaying their BITs will see the players that are using their BITs get Artha and, consequently, do all kinds of cool stuff in the game with Artha.

 

[lukzu]

...but the order page only has UPS shipping, which is too expensive for my purposes (I'm going away for the holidays and won't be back home until well after New Year's), so I bought it used on Amazon. Even at 14 days from Dec 21 it will be here before I get back.

There's a drop down menu at the top of the shipping pane. You can choose UPS or USPS. USPS Priority Mail rocks.

-Luke

 

[lukzu]

Pooped? I just can't follow all the back and forth sub-referencing that started 100 posts ago.

Anyway, I'd like to throw in for my man Dave. Burning Wheel, like DnD, is built to reward a certain type of play and behavior. The play and behavior which is rewarded is different than the play and behavior which DnD rewards. Therefore, the games are philosophically different -- while remaining kissing cousins.

DnD players are rewarded for good tactical play. BW players are rewarded for crisises of belief.

Of course, rewards can be arbitrarily added to any game or situation. But we've built a reward system into the core of the game that takes into account and ties in nearly every aspect of the game. So rewards are a function of design, not personal preference. It's not that I don't trust your personal preference as a player, but I strongly believe the rules for rewards need to be objective, not subjective. They need to be a fair and neutral arbiter that applies to all players at the table (and the GM is just another player).

I hope I'm helping Dave here and not hindering. I admit I've only skimmed the verbal brawl above.

-Luke

 

[Wil]

If a one game has rules systems that actively support roleplaying while another does not, I'm strongly tempted to state that, by definition, one game is better at bringing out roleplaying than the other. I think it's important to get rid of the wiggle room you're worried about by divorcing the human factor from consideration. The wiggle comes in when we start to qualify the analysis with examples of "good roleplayers" and "bad roleplayers". All other things being equal, it just seems more likely that a game with explicit roleplaying rules will tend to produce more roleplaying. Do you think I'm off the mark there?

Because there's a dichotomy between encouraging and succeeding. I don't see any evidence that having mechanics in place that force roleplaying (let's not mince words here, because this is what any proposed mechanic like this does) succeeds in creating "roleplaying". This is most easily evidenced by games like Pendragon, which have quantifiable mechanics for character beliefs and values, where you can essentially play the character solely by the results of tests against those traits without ever really getting into the role. While this is not necessarily the case with BW, the danger there is that it becomes too programmatical.

Sure, there's lots of other RPGs that do this. But we're comparing Burning Wheel to D&D.

The problem with comparing it to D&D is that it has a tremondously long history of people succeeding (at roleplaying) apparently (according to you) against the odds. More on that in a minute.

To continue your analogy, though, I'd suggest that BITs are "roleplaying stats", so we arrive back at the spot where BW has mechanics to back up roleplaying.

There's no question it has mechanics to back up roleplaying, the question is does it succeed at producing "Roleplaying" and do those mechanics improve the chances of producing it?

By providing rules and mechanics for roleplaying, you set up a system of rewards for the players. Players like to be rewarded in the game. The whole reason we have RPG systems that are more complex than Cowboys and Indians is because we want a robust system of rules that contains mechanical advantages and disadvantages. Artha is a reward for roleplaying that gives the players mechanical advantages and effects in the game.

Or, alternately, we have more complex rules than Cowboys and Indians to a) lend a sense of maturity to what many see as a childish endeavor and b) because the grandfathers of the hobby were old grognards.

Of course, I can't argue the flimsiness of D&D's roleplaying encouragement mechanics - and while Artha may different in the rules for application, the basic mechanic exists in many more places than the Burning Wheel (SilCore has Emergency Dice and Genre Points; Exalted has Stunts and Virtues).

To suggest that a formal system of game rewards would somehow discourage players from using that reward system seems (at first glance!) to contradict a fundamental feature of gamer psychology. If the game mechanically rewards roleplaying, players will roleplay. The more robust the mechanics of roleplaying, the more roleplaying you will find. Do you think I'm off the mark here?

Actually, it doesn't contradict human psychology at all. There's growing evidence that the more immediate the reward for something, and the more often that reward is given, that the subject's response will actually be not as great as time goes on. In other words, they get jaded. The response becomes rote. And this still does nothing to prove that these mechanics create "roleplaying" - they instead just encourage behavior, that may or may not actual be the player roleplaying. The player may just be playing the game by the rules at that point.

This misapprehension is my fault for not fully presenting the rules of BITs. Burning Wheel has rules and guidance for changing Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits. Nothing is set in stone at the start of play. But BITs are all replaced with different BITs, so they are always present on the character sheet and always driving play. Sorry for the confusion.

But we're talking about not defining this stuff at the start of play at all. There are people out there who want to not know their character at the beginning of play and discover the details as play progesses. You'd be hard pressed to argue that the characters that result from this type of play are less developed than one that leaps whole-cloth from the player's brow.

There is an incentive: those who aren't roleplaying their BITs will see the players that are using their BITs get Artha and, consequently, do all kinds of cool stuff in the game with Artha.

Actually, if this works like you say it should, they shouldn't have to play their BITS - the mechanics should take care of it for them.

 

[Dave Turner]

I don't see any evidence that having mechanics in place that force roleplaying (let's not mince words here, because this is what any proposed mechanic like this does) succeeds in creating "roleplaying".

Until you put the scare quotes around that final "roleplaying", I think you were heading for a tautology.

When I read your quoted text, I immediately think of the following alternate version:

I don't see any evidence that having mechanics in place that force [characters to put on armor to survive] succeeds in [characters surviving].

I'm thinking of D&D's AC system. Combat in D&D is built primarily on (among a few other things) having a high AC that can defeat to-hit rolls. The rules of D&D tell me that a good way to raise my AC is to put on armor. There are certainly other options for raising my AC. But D&D rewards me when I put armor on my character; my character survives and thrives in the game.

This is what game mechanics and rules do. They reward me for actions I take. D&D forces me to improve my character's AC to survive. As a result, my character succeeds when his AC improves. I'm not sure why you think that this dynamic isn't the same for roleplaying mechanics. Burning Wheel rewards me for taking actions that are in keeping with my character's stated personality. Roleplaying is arguably taking actions within a game in keeping with a character's stated personality. We might disagree over the quality of the roleplaying that is present in any particular game, but can't we agree that roleplaying of some type is taking place?

I don't wish to defend the position that having rules/mechanics for roleplaying automatically creates roleplaying like some kind of mathematical algorithim or scientific principle. Roleplaying is an inherently fuzzy concept and is more art than science. We can disagree about the precise definition of "roleplaying" but, to paraphrase a famous sentiment about pornography, I think we both generally know it when we see it. The fact that we're having a discussion about roleplaying without significant confusion shows that there is a common core of understanding that we share. We might have differing opinions over what constitutes good or bad roleplaying, but I think that roleplaying has enough neutral features to render it broadly recognizable?

The problem with comparing it to D&D is that it has a tremondously long history of people succeeding (at roleplaying) apparently (according to you) against the odds.

I don't really see this as a problem per se. My position in this thread is largely that D&D is not well-suited to promoting roleplay because people have had to struggle "against the odds".

Again, this shouldn't be misinterpreted as a condemnation of how folks play D&D. It's a criticism only of the rules of D&D, not anyone's unique experiences with the rules. I've played D&D in the past and I would play it again in the future. D&D isn't universally bad. It's just bad at promoting roleplaying.

There's no question it has mechanics to back up roleplaying, the question is does it succeed at producing "Roleplaying" and do those mechanics improve the chances of producing it?

I think the answer is self-evidently "Yes!".

Actually, it doesn't contradict human psychology at all. There's growing evidence that the more immediate the reward for something, and the more often that reward is given, that the subject's response will actually be not as great as time goes on. In other words, they get jaded. The response becomes rote. And this still does nothing to prove that these mechanics create "roleplaying" - they instead just encourage behavior, that may or may not actual be the player roleplaying. The player may just be playing the game by the rules at that point.

First, let me pedantically point out that I referred to gamer psychology, not human psychology.

Second, I'm not sure how to respond to this. I can't give you a proof of mathematica rigorousness that Burning Wheel creates roleplaying. I can only state that Burning Wheel promotes and encourages roleplaying much more than D&D does. RPGs are a social human endeavor and no game can guarantee that roleplaying will occur.

But we're talking about not defining this stuff at the start of play at all. There are people out there who want to not know their character at the beginning of play and discover the details as play progesses. You'd be hard pressed to argue that the characters that result from this type of play are less developed than one that leaps whole-cloth from the player's brow.

I guess I would be hard-pressed, but I'd never attempt that argument.

Look, maybe Burning Wheel isn't for you. It's not for some people and there's nothing wrong with that. It takes very strong positions on a number of facets of play. You can rip out the BITs and just use the rest of the system if you like. You are the boss of you.

But after many conversations with Luke, it's possible that he might tell you that if you intended to play Burning Wheel without the BITs, he'd tell you not to buy the books and not to play the game. Luke's free to come by and tell me to shut the hell up and not ruin his sale, of course.

 

[apoptosis]

The discussion between Dave, Wil, Luke and Jim is really a good one and I think covers some very basic ideas in game design and play.

Thought i would extend the comparisons (without vitriol) between the games and styles of play that each seems to promote

Wil,

I t hink your point is very valid for BW...just because it has explicit mechanics to promote roleplaying does not mean it will. I have BW and am starting a campaign and will see if the mechanics do in fact assist and enhance RPing, i am betting highly that its mechanics are really do promote RPing. Sorcerer also has mechanics to promote roleplaying and that I have played and think that it is very successful in doing so.

Sorcerer is a very good game, but is really good for only specific styles and games that you would want to run and would be a less fun system for othe styles. BW seems to be the same in that it seems to be very good for a certain style of play, this also applies to D&D as it is very good for running a specific type of game (and by that i mean style, genre etc.)

Wil, I do think that you could have BITs not improve RPing with certain types of players but I also believe that those type players would not be attracted to BW in the first place so becomes a valid but unlikely rebuttal, IMO.

on another comparison:


Large scale combat:
One thing that BW does not seem to do as well would be large scale tactical combat, but i could be wrong about that...of course combat in BW is different in both mechanic and in general results (fighting is just more dangerous in general with longer ramifications due to injuries and how healing is done...this can be good or bad based on the type of game u wish to play). AD&D was great at this, 3.X is also good (though at high levels with feats and buffing spells and such can be a headache for unrprepared or novice DMs). BW does small scale tactical combat great (it is a different type of tactical combat than D&D and has been really fun in mock combats), but havent tried for larger combats (say 8-10 individuals).


Advancement:
As luke mentioned earlier the advancement schemes are much different both in what gets advanced and the range between characters at startup vs extended play (in D&D it is from peasant to superhero...whle in BW the range is generally much less)...i think this is really a player preference issue

Social:

Social was talked about, but one thing not mentioned is that BW has a social circle mechanic that allows players to make up NPC connected to their characters on the spot. If the roll fails, then the NPC is then brought into the game but is now a rival or antagonist of the character instead of being useful (of course this can really be good for drama). D&D does not really promote social mechanics in this sense and instead is usually a DM controlled event (storyteller system had a nice contact system, though i like the BW better as the social circle ability is more fluid than contacts and can generate better drama in certain situations i think).

Magic:

D.X has so many different magic mechanics with different supplements that it is very hard to compare. BW has a philosophy that magic is inherently dangerous and/or unpredictable, while teh base D&D magic system is basically a resource managment system. The summoning system in BW is very interesting.

Just some mechanics to ponder (while inevitably a better/worse type comparison will arise, i am noting up front that better/worse is really dependent on the style and type of game that you are wanting to play at the time)

 

[philreed]

P.P.S. to Phil Reed: I hope you aren’t too upset either.

I'm not upset at all. I just find it funny someone would say the rules don't support tactical play when so many others complain about the amount of tactical play required in an average session.

 

[Dave Turner]

I'm not upset at all. I just find it funny someone would say the rules don't support tactical play when so many others complain about the amount of tactical play required in an average session.

Phil, I think you'd help yourself immensely by actually reading all the posts between the one you quoted and this one. Then reevaluate your criticism without jradkeh's wacky lens.

 

[philreed]

Phil, I think you'd help yourself immensely by actually reading all the posts between the one you quoted and this one. Then reevaluate your criticism without jradkeh's wacky lens.

It wouldn't be the internet if I did that. Trust me, I'm not mad or upset. It was just a very funny thought (to me).

EDIT: And if I misunderstood and you never said that then I am sorry. It's still a funny though, though.