Explain Burning Wheel to me

[jdrakeh]

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 think the pretension comes in when he openly dismisses D&D and other games as being somehow inferior to his own product based purely on subjective value judgements, while simulataneously ignoring certain aspects of said games simply because it suits his position to do so. And, of course, the whole 'Forge theory influences everybody, even if they ignore it' comment probably rates worthy of the label, as well.

[Note: A year ago, I would never have referred to Luke as pretentious, but he seems to have... changed... as his game has garned more praise in peer (indie-press) circles. I think that a lot of what he's been saying lately might very well be pretentious.]

 

[d20Dwarf]

I'm a good friend of Luke's and it's odd to hear it suggested that he's pretentious.

Maybe he's not, I don't know him, but if he wrote:

""But unlike it's predecessors, this system is versatile and powerful..." "

then maybe he just doesn't come across well in writing. To outright tell people that what you've done is better with no justification is either pretension or lack of confidence. Since he's done something that many people like, I don't see why he'd lack confidence or need to puff it up with grandiose claims. I like what I'm reading *of* Burning Wheel, but I'm not so much liking what I'm reading *about* it. (And no, it's not because I'm jealous ).

 

[Dave Turner]

That's simply not true - if a player wants wants to engage in tactics-oriented combat or 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.

I worry that you're oversimplifying for the sake of making your point. How many players do you know who sit down at the gaming table and say: "My goals for this game are tactical combat simulation." It's logically possible for such a player to exist, but it's extremely unrealistic and unlikely.

D&D has no explicit rules for highlighting and protecting the goals of a player/character. There are rules for how much you can carry, how much experience an orc is worth, how many fireballs you can cast per day. There's plenty of ad hoc advice available on the Internet that talks about DMs talking with players about campaign goals, but that's not in the books. The books do point out that the DM has vast control over the game world, but doesn't carve out much control for the players. In the end, D&D ultimately places control over the story in the hands of the DM by, if nothing else, failing to explicitly protect player/character goals in the rules.

If there is some text in the DMG that contradicts what I'm saying, then I'm very willing to read it and reevaluate my position. I'm not infallible.

 

[Dave Turner]

""But unlike it's predecessors, this system is versatile and powerful..." "

I think every game publisher is allowed a little leeway for the sake of marketing?

 

[Dave Turner]

I think the pretension comes in when he openly dismisses D&D and other games as being somehow inferior to his own product based purely on subjective value judgements, while simulataneously ignoring certain aspects of said games simply because it suits his position to do so. And, of course, the whole 'Forge theory influences everybody, even if they ignore it' comment probably rates worthy of the label, as well.

Fortunately, perceptions of pretension are also subjective value judgments.

But why aren't we discussing the other mechanical aspects of Burning Wheel vs. D&D that Luke alluded to? I'm sure we're all familiar with both the rules of Burning Wheel and D&D and are therefore in a good position to critique both?

 

[d20Dwarf]

I think every game publisher is allowed a little leeway for the sake of marketing?

D&D is the ultimate game system and provides everything you ever need for a true roleplaying experience.

Sound good?

By the way, I guess in your circle they might be rare, but there are hundreds of thousands of people playing D&D for the sole purpose of hacking some orcs in simulated tactical combat situations. It's why people post endless threads about "Greataxe or longsword and shield?" and the like, because they're trying to maximize their goals (tactical combat) through the rules.

I just don't believe any of the assertions made about the relative robustness of BW are verifiable when one looks at the facts. It's silly to make such grandiose claims in a game that leaves almost everything up to the narration but claims to not work via GM fiat. Let your game be good and move on, don't spend your life trying to defend grandiose, and largely delusional, claims about it.

 

[jdrakeh]

I worry that you're oversimplifying for the sake of making your point. How many players do you know who sit down at the gaming table and say: "My goals for this game are tactical combat simulation."

I edited my post to more clearly reflect my meaning. As to your question, above - the answer is "an assload" (much to my admitted chagrin). Tactics aren't my thing, but a lot of people like them (many of them D&D enthusiasts).

It's logically possible for such a player to exist, but it's extremely unrealistic and unlikely.

I believe that the Forge actually has a Creative Agenda dedicated to this group of individuals - it's called 'Step On Up' (Gamism).

D&D has no explicit rules for highlighting and protecting the goals of a player/character.

I think here's where the problem lies - a player is not their character, nor do they necessarily share the same goals (I realize that sounds paradoxical, but from all but the most blurred perspective, it's 100% true).

In the end, D&D ultimately places control over the story in the hands of the DM by, if nothing else, failing to explicitly protect player/character goals in the rules.

This is only true if Story Now is your target Creative Agenda (i.e., your goal as a player). D&D has mountains upon mountains of rules that empower the players where Step On Up and Right to Dream are concerned.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Double post

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

It's not a rule. It's a style of narration. It's not specifically included or excluded. It might have made a good suggestion, but only if you're open to doing things that way. If you are, then you might be doing it anyway. If you're not, then you won't.

It's not that Let It Ride is getting used in D&D games. It's that the style existed before Burning Wheel, and Giving It A Name doesn't invent it.

 

[d20Dwarf]

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.

See, I"m getting drawn into Forge-style deconstruction. If only Derrida was a roleplayer.

Let's keep it simple, for me:

Your thief stands at the end of a long corridor filled with traps. Each trap is successively more difficult to bypass, so that only a master thief could bypass them all without a little luck.

How would Let It Ride adjudicate this?