Explain Burning Wheel to me

[jdrakeh]

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).

Actually, I didn't level that particular criticism at The Burning Wheel. I believe that The Burning Wheel is focused on being different but with a purpose past 'looking cool' (that purpose being to achieve familiar results in an unfamiliar manner). I also believe that among Forge games, it is rare in this respect

 

[HinterWelt]

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.

That has to be a pretty good response to statement ratio. If it was not obvious I was joking.

In truth I am closer to your camp than anyone on the Forge.

Bill

 

[lukzu]

It warms my heart to see the boys at ENworld talking about elitism on rpg.net while looking down their noses at a non-d20 game. The world is truly a wonderful place.

James, if you'll permit me, I'll take you last comment as a compliment: Thank you.

To answer the OP's queries, let's do a compare and contrast. I'll offer up some of BW's mechanical underpinnings and system philosophy. You all feel free to offer up the same from another fantasy rpg of any era.

And let me out myself right here, I disagree with James. System ("getting there") does matter, perhaps more than the results. Sure, in DnD and BW you might get to overthrow the city state and kill the tyrannical overlord. But in one you do it because the GM thinks it's ok and cool, and the other you do it because the system supports you in the resolution of each conflict and the fulfillment of your stated goals as player.

Ok, in Burning Wheel, we reduce the whiff factor by using die pools and the Let it Ride mechanic. Let it Ride states that you roll once per conflict (excluding extended conflicts like fighting and arguing). You do not reroll at the GM's behest until you fail.

In Burning Wheel, the player decides his own goals for his character, and his character's ethos. There are no restrictions or categories, only a limit that you must choose three Beliefs.

These Beliefs then determine how the player is rewarded in play.

Rewards do not equal advancement. Advancement is a separate track. Rewards are spent to modify die rolls so that when that one test comes up which you must pass, you can spent your reward points and do it.

Extended conflict requires active player strategizing and participation. It's very hard to get by in BW by just shouting "I attack" and throwing a die. The Fight!, Range and Cover, and Duel of Wits mechanics encourage players to think about the situation in the game and to roleplay in a focused manner.

Lastly, the game actively speaks out against GM fiat. In BW, the GM is just another player with some specific, albeit important, duties.


So let's compare. Lots of other games have these features. Who's first? DnD? Runequest? Warhammer?

-L

 

[d20Dwarf]

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.

I've used both RoS and BW for my Star Wars game and they work great.

 

[Henry]

I'm assuming it's Luke, so glad you could join us!

...in {D&D} you do it because the GM thinks it's ok and cool, and {burning wheel}you do it because the system supports you in the resolution of each conflict and the fulfillment of your stated goals as player.

Keep in mind that D&D, like most RPG's, has the freedom to either run it as a "DM fiat contest," or as a strict contest of capability. The Challenge/Reward system in D&D is such that a party will expend roughly a set amount per conflict, and from there it becomes luck of the dice for cases of extreme success or extreme failure.

Now, to understand: Are you saying that Burning wheel offers some sort of "action points" (fate points, etc.) as reward for following beliefs? I'll admit that while I've seen action points since the early 1980's, and rewards for following alignments (7th sea rewards your "flaws" with experience points), I'll admit it's the first I've seen to mix the two.

Can you explain how the Extended conflict works? I've read a couple of reviews, but all I get from the review is, "Oh, this is great, this is great, this is so cool!"

Question: are you familiar with any play-by-post Burning Wheel games currently going online that we can take a look at? I'd be curious to see these things first-hand. Even an old archived one would be helpful.

 

[Henry]

I've used both RoS and BW for my Star Wars game and they work great.

I will say that the author of Riddle of Steel demo'ed a quick fight for me at Gencon '03, because my curiosity got to me. It was a neat "gambling" mechanic, similar to Liar's dice, but seemed a bit much to do for combat, unless you wanted quick, final, decisive fights, which I don't necessarily play RPG's for.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Question: are you familiar with any play-by-post Burning Wheel games currently going online that we can take a look at? I'd be curious to see these things first-hand. Even an old archived one would be helpful.

Examples of play would definitely be expedient in this case.

 

[jdrakeh]

But in one you do it because the GM thinks it's ok and cool, and the other you do it because the system supports you in the resolution of each conflict and the fulfillment of your stated goals as player.

Please explain how D&D does not support conflict resolution mechanically for and/or provide a structure for fulfilling a player's goals. In point of fact, despite your assertion thing don't just magically happen in D&D because the GM thinks that they're 'okay' and 'cool' - but because the system supports them mechanically. This is, in point of fact, the single most cited reason for D&D's success (both by its fans and its designers).

That said, I do agree that D&D doesn't do these things with as much focus as Burning Wheel does, but doesn't do them at all? I think the assertion that D&D is just a mess of GM fiat left completely unsupported by system is patently absurd for lack of any definitive evidence to support it. As Henry pointed out, any game (including yours, Luke) is open to potential abuse in the form of GM fiat.

 

[Dave Turner]

I'm glad that Luke arrived to defend his own game, since he'd do a better job than I ever could.

I'll reiterate at least one thing which Burning Wheel has which Luke mentioned and is possibly the single best rule in RPG design in quite some time: the Let It Ride rule.

As Luke points out in the game, every time a player rolls the dice, he has the chance of failing the roll. Eventually, probability will catch up with the player and the roll will fail. Every time the GM calls for a die roll, he's pushing the player closer to the probabilistic edge of failure. Burning Wheel cuts short this craziness with the Let It Ride rule: the player rolls once for a conflict and uses that result until the conflict is resolved. An example is in order.

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.

It's a wonderful change of perspective on how rolling dice affects the game and how GMs and players can properly use dice to resolve conflicts in the game without dice sabotaging the conflicts.

 

[d20Dwarf]

I'm glad that Luke arrived to defend his own game, since he'd do a better job than I ever could.

I'll reiterate at least one thing which Burning Wheel has which Luke mentioned and is possibly the single best rule in RPG design in quite some time: the Let It Ride rule.

As Luke points out in the game, every time a player rolls the dice, he has the chance of failing the roll. Eventually, probability will catch up with the player and the roll will fail. Every time the GM calls for a die roll, he's pushing the player closer to the probabilistic edge of failure. Burning Wheel cuts short this craziness with the Let It Ride rule: the player rolls once for a conflict and uses that result until the conflict is resolved. An example is in order.

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.

It's a wonderful change of perspective on how rolling dice affects the game and how GMs and players can properly use dice to resolve conflicts in the game without dice sabotaging the conflicts.

If I fail the roll, can I just say I don't sneak into the camp anymore?

What if I change my mind when I'm in the camp, or what if circumstances change?

Do I essentially make one roll and then sit back and listen as the GM tells me the story of what happens to my character for the next hour and a half?

There's really nothing simple about this system, I'm trying to understand it with my feeble Sim brain.