Explain Burning Wheel to me

[Wil]

I really need to start coding and doing some housework, but I'll answer this one till later...

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?

Actually, it's the DM that forces the character to wear armor to survive - the fact that armor makes one survive most physical threats easier is an extrapolation of the real world, and not a design concern. I doubt seriously anyone would take well to a game where putting on armor universally made you easier to kill. It's a faulty analogy because the mechanics don't actively reward high AC - they simply mimic what we know to be true and expect. That fundamental difference is why providing mechanics for roleplaying can never guarantee roleplaying will take 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?

But you neatly sidestep the issue that if it works the way you describe, it is mathematical and no one should ever have to actually roleplay - they just need to roll against their traits and roleplaying magically happens.

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".

And mine is that there are no odds - the changes that would help facilitate roleplay in D&D are minor and have been made countless times. It's not like it takes a genius to figure out how to facilitate roleplaying.

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

That really would have to be proven, and it really can't be proven. The only thing that you can show is that there are mechanics that reinforce (and in some ways) force behavior that is typically though of as "roleplaying". Whether or not the result is actually roleplaying, ironically enough, has to be judged by the same criteria as someone playing D&D or any other roleplaying game.

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.

You're mistaking a criticism of the idea that having mechanics like that guarantees "roleplaying" will be produced for a dislike of the existence of said mechanics. I have no problem with them in and of themselves, I'm just unconvinced that games that do not codify the experience will be lacking in a quantity of "roleplaying" or that it's any easier in the BW. Different maybe, easier you can't guarantee.

 

[Dave Turner]

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.

I'd merely suggest that you're bogged down in an earlier part of the thread that we have moved beyond. I haven't gone back myself to look at the details, but I think that, at this point in the thread, my position is nothing like what you were suggesting.

Wil,

I don't think you and I can make any further progress. In looking over your responses, I get the urge to copy and paste things I've already said. So we're likely at an impasse.

For what it's worth, I think this impasse is highly theoretical, abstract, and shouldn't affect your enjoyment of Burning Wheel (or D&D for that matter!). In the end, I just hope that folks give Burning Wheel a try. I think you have enough information about the game, rather than my own personal game design philosophy, to decide if Burning Wheel is right for you. I appreciate your input!

EDIT: Actually, that last bit is too wishy-washy. I do hope to affect people's opinions and to change their ideas about what is good gaming. If I didn't think that my ideas about gaming were right, I wouldn't have them, would I? Go out and play games like me! I'm objectively right!

Just have fun gaming. That's all that matters.

 

[Dave Turner]

Actually, Wil, there's some stuff in your first paragraph that I can respond to.

Actually, it's the DM that forces the character to wear armor to survive - the fact that armor makes one survive most physical threats easier is an extrapolation of the real world, and not a design concern.

There are rules in Unearthed Arcana which suggest getting rid of armor as a way of boosting AC and instead giving every character a Defense Bonus based on their class. What you see are two different design decisions regarding how a character can raise their AC. In the core D&D books, armor increases AC so that's what players (whose characters can wear armor) do.

Does the real world experience of armor's value influence the design decision to make armor increase AC? I'm sure it does. But it wasn't the only method designers of D&D could have put in the core rules, is it? They could have used the Defense Bonus and then no characters would wear armor.

I agree with you that a DM can force characters to wear armor. But this is done by making a rules decision about whether the DM wants to use the "armor=AC" rule or the "defense bonus=AC" rule. The combat system itself forces characters to wear armor. If you suggested to a D&D player that his fighter shouldn't wear armor, what would he say? He'd refuse because he wants his character to live. Without armor, the rules of the game (the to-hit rolls and damage rolls) will kill his character. That is a mathematical certainty.

It's a faulty analogy because the mechanics don't actively reward high AC - they simply mimic what we know to be true and expect.

I'm suggesting the mechanics of D&D do reward high AC - they reward you by keeping your character alive, which is of fundamental importance in D&D and it's complex combat system!

 

[Numion]

So, what if there is that corridor, that may or may not be trapped (with 5 consequently harder traps), and may or may not lead to the fabled treasure room of Big Riches. None of this is apparent, since the builders didn't want to mark it as such.

Now in Burning Wheel, depending on the characters goals it either is or isn't a big goal. Say it is (the characters big goal is finding Big Riches Inc.), and now the player has to roll all five traps. But doesn't the player then know, when the GM asks for roll number two, that it's the right way to go indeed leading to his big goal, and not a decoy built buy the Big Riches Inc.? And if it isn't, the player would know that this is a decoy, but will know that the Big Riches are in the dungeon, since the whole dungeon wasn't glossed over with one roll.

Seems like that would throw character knowledge out of whack. No suspence or secrets when you either get the important rolls or it's just glossed over.

 

[Wil]

I agree with you that a DM can force characters to wear armor. But this is done by making a rules decision about whether the DM wants to use the "armor=AC" rule or the "defense bonus=AC" rule. The combat system itself forces characters to wear armor.

Actually, the DM "forces" the characters to wear armor by invoking the combat system, not with any kind of decision as to how armor is implemented. I.e., by choosing to have a combat-heavy game, the GM can anticipate that the PCs will wear armor. By choosing to have a game with a lot of political intrigue and interpersonal conflict, the GM can anticipate that there will be a lot of roleplaying (or at least tests against social skills). On the flip side, In no way does the existence of offensive/defensive game mechanics guarantee a combat heavy game, just as the existence of "roleplaying friendly" mechanics does not guarantee a roleplaying heavy game.

The difference, and the reason why the analogy is faulty, is that you won't find an rpg without some kind of defensive mechanic (except maybe Dallas, the RPG, and even then I'm sure it has something) - yet those same games have gotten along with the players roleplaying without any mechanics to facilitate it.

It definitely can't hurt to include roleplaying mechanics in a game, I just challenge the notion that it necessarily makes roleplaying better - the same way that combat mechanics don't guarantee that combat will be better.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Oh, you noticed that too?

The thing is, I'm the last person that anyone should accuse of being a d20-system groupie. I play D&D, plus a dozen other systems. I have systems I bought from The Forge in my freakin' sig. But somehow if I express some doubt about the ability of Burning Wheel to roXXor my soXXors, I'm a d20 fanboy who's just nay-saying criticism of his beloved system. If this is what the Forge forums are like, I'm glad I never wound up over there.

 

[Dave Turner]

Oh, you noticed that too?

The thing is, I'm the last person that anyone should accuse of being a d20-system groupie. I play D&D, plus a dozen other systems. I have systems I bought from The Forge in my freakin' sig. But somehow if I express some doubt about the ability of Burning Wheel to roXXor my soXXors, I'm a d20 fanboy who's just nay-saying criticism of his beloved system. If this is what the Forge forums are like, I'm glad I never wound up over there.

It was nice of you to chime back in with some substantive comments, Dr. Awk. I now regret your absence.

 

[jester47]

I nominate this thread for the archives. Good game design theory getting thrown around.

A.

 

[Storm Raven]

A player states the following goal: "I'm going to sneak into the orc chief's camp and listen to his plans!" The GM nods and asks the player to roll his Sneaking ability (whatever system he's in) to approach the camp. The player succeeds and the GM narrates his stealthy approach. Now the GM describes the guards outside the orc chief's tent and asks the player to roll Sneak again to bypass them. Again, the player succeeds. Once inside the tent, the GM rolls the orc chief's Spot and has the player roll Sneak again to stay hidden. The player succeeds again! Finally, the player tries to get away with the knowledge he's learned and the GM asks for another roll. This time the player fails and he gets captured or at the least chased by an entire orc camp.

In Burning Wheel, the first successful Sneak roll would have counted until the player was safely away from camp. It's assumed that all obstacles that the player might have faced were all overcome by this single roll.

That's not a rule, that's just a difference in the granularity of resolution. Saying "you can use your sneak roll for the whole sneaking process" is just deciding on a particular level of abstraction for resolving events, and not substantially different from breaking it down into subrolls on any level other that what magnification at which you want to examine the actions of the game.

 

[Wil]

That's not a rule, that's just a difference in the granularity of resolution. Saying "you can use your sneak roll for the whole sneaking process" is just deciding on a particular level of abstraction for resolving events, and not substantially different from breaking it down into subrolls on any level other that what magnification at which you want to examine the actions of the game.

OMG!!!111 U h8 teh Burnign Weel!

Sorry, I had to put that in there. I'm not saying that anyone in this thread has reacted that way (no one has) but it seemed funny. Hopefully Luke will understand my sarcasm

I hadn't thought of it before, but I think that exposure to various roleplaying systems (or lack thereof) definitely impacts the "novelty" factor. I've read a few reviews of BW now where the reviewer seems to be under the impression that different bits of the mechanics are innovative or new. Truth be told, more than likely 90% of the mechanics (incuding the scripted combat - and if you're in for a real shock I'll tell you where the first time I ever saw it was:

Spoiler

RoboRally!

) have been used in a similar form in other games.

However, a game is more than the sum of its parts - there are some very unique things in BW from what I've seen, or at least pieces used in new ways. I am interested in seeing how those pieces fit together in actual play, I just need to scrape up the cash to get my mitts on it