Explain Burning Wheel to me

[Dave Turner]

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).

There are no rules in D&D that directly influence or support player goals. There is alignment, but there are no rules that reinforce alignment or support alignment. There are rules that rely on alignment, like a paladin losing his class abilities or categories for bypassing damage reduction. But those aren't rules about alignment itself. They treat alignment as a simple descriptor, like a weapon with the adamantine property. Where in the DMG are the rules for awarding experience points based on alignment? Where are the rules for granting bonuses to a roll based on alignment?

Sure, D&D supports conflict resolution mechanically. All RPGs do. It has good rules for tactical combat, (crappy) rules for social conflict, and (flimsy) rules for mental conflict.

 

[d20Dwarf]

There are no rules in D&D that directly influence or support player goals.

What if my goal is to level up? I know exactly what I must do to do this.

 

[Dave Turner]

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.

Nice try, d20Dwarf!

If you fail the roll, then you're probably captured by the orcs or, at the very least, spotted and chased/attacked.

If you change your mind in camp, then you can state a new conflict ("Alright, I'm gonna stab the orc chief in the face!") and make a new roll.

I'm not sure what you mean by "circumstances change", but the idea is to look at what the new circumstances are and see if they require a new conflict.

You would make one roll, but it's not just the GM narrating. You would be encouraged to do your own narrating. You could share the narration of what happens, each adding fun details to the scene. Keep in mind, though, that there is a GM in the game with some of the traditional authority of a D&D DM.

Let's say you described the conflict as "I want to sneak into the orc chief's camp and listen to his secret plans." You've established the parameters for what you can achieve in that scene with your roll. This could be handled with the following narration:

"Like a wraith on the blackest night, you slip through the campfires and tents of the orc encampment to the chief's tent. From behind the chief's own armor rack, you listen with horror at the schemes he lays out to his lieutenants. Shaken by what you've heard, you slip back out of camp and hurry back to town."

Notice that I didn't get into the nitty-gritty of every step the character took? Notice I didn't say exactly what the chief said? Naturally, what the chief said would be revealed to the players, but I didn't need to do it during that Sneak roll. You stated that you wanted to sneak into camp and hear what the chief said. You did that.

This is a switch from the gritty, second-by-second approach to conflict resolution that D&D burns into your brain with its combat system. The story is advanced by that narration and we move on. Sneaking into the camp and getting the info isn't as important to the story as what the info actually is. So, as a result, we gloss over the fine details of the infiltration. Your Sneak roll succeeded, and so you "won". It was a minor dramatic moment.

Now, if sneaking into the camp to hear the plans happened to be a climactic moment in the story, then we could narrate it more deeply and get into it more.

 

[Dave Turner]

What if my goal is to level up? I know exactly what I must do to do this.

Fair enough, but that's arguably not a roleplaying goal or a character goal. I'm not sure what Luke would make of that, but I don't think it counts, somehow.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Fair enough, but that's arguably not a roleplaying goal or a character goal. I'm not sure what Luke would make of that, but I don't think it counts, somehow.

I have no doubt it doesn't count.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Nice try, d20Dwarf!

This is a switch from the gritty, second-by-second approach to conflict resolution that D&D burns into your brain with its combat system. The story is advanced by that narration and we move on. Sneaking into the camp and getting the info isn't as important to the story as what the info actually is. So, as a result, we gloss over the fine details of the infiltration. Your Sneak roll succeeded, and so you "won". It was a minor dramatic moment.

Now, if sneaking into the camp to hear the plans happened to be a climactic moment in the story, then we could narrate it more deeply and get into it more.

I use a lot of this shortcutting in my D&D game as well. I'm just saying.

I love new games that encourage new ways to look at roleplaying, but I'm not a big fan of pretension. It seems these two aspects of my personality are always at conflict when discussing the Forge.

 

[jdrakeh]

There are no rules in D&D that directly influence or support player goals.

That's simply not true - if a player wants to challenge themselves tactically or engage in simple wish fulfillment, there are mountains of rules in D&D that both influence and support these goals. Now, what I don't specifically see are mechanics that support or influence character goals past the basic pass/fail level of mechanical resolution. Burnign Wheel certrainly has the edge there - but I also don't feel that this excuses Luke's out of hand dismissal of D&D as an exercise in GM fiat.

It has good rules for tactical combat, (crappy) rules for social conflict, and (flimsy) rules for mental conflict.

I won't argue with that synopsis of D&D's strengths and weakness, but plenty of people will - and some of them make very compelling arguments supported by actual evidence. Point is, those are subjective value judgements and, thus, a largely worthless basis upon which to stake a claim of mechanical superiority (really, when you get right down to it, it's not much different than saying "My game rocks and your game sucks, 'cause I say so!" and we all know how much merit those arguments have).

 

[Dave Turner]

I use a lot of this shortcutting in my D&D game as well. I'm just saying.

I love new games that encourage new ways to look at roleplaying, but I'm not a big fan of pretension. It seems these two aspects of my personality are always at conflict when discussing the Forge.

If you use Let It Ride in your D&D game, that's great. One of the criticisms of D&D, however, might be that it doesn't explicitly include such a rule.

I'm a good friend of Luke's and it's odd to hear it suggested that he's pretentious. He's very enthusiastic about his game and he (rightfully, IMO) believes that it does many things better than D&D does. I don't see that as pretension, however, but rather as fierce love for Burning Wheel.

There's plenty of free Burning Wheel material made available by Luke on the Net for you to download and examine. Visit www.burningwheel.org and see for yourself!

 

[Glyfair]

I'm a good friend of Luke's and it's odd to hear it suggested that he's pretentious. He's very enthusiastic about his game and he (rightfully, IMO) believes that it does many things better than D&D does.

I don't know, his quote that this game is versatile and powerful, while stating that all the previous games weren't sounds awfully pretentious. Not just D&D, but everything that came before it.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Alot of this sounds pretty interesting, but: One man's ground-breaking era-shattering mechanic is another man's interesting house rule.

Mostly it's the Steve Jobs Syndrome, I think.



--fje