Explain Burning Wheel to me

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

What is it with that man and milky white plastic?

 

[jdrakeh]

Fortunately, perceptions of pretension are also subjective value judgments.

Fair enough

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?

I don't know... given some of the unsupported claims that you're making about D&D, your familiarity with that game seems to be extremely limited in scope. I'm starting to think that further conversation would be fruitless.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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."

Half of my current group. Seriously. They play it like chess. Little Napoleans. The other half are more what you'd call middle-of-the-road gamers, with goals other than strategic victory.

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.

Check out the Dungeon Master's Guide II. It covers a lot of that.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I
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.

Every time?

No.

But some of the time? Hell yes. Sometimes, you just wanna kill monsters and take their stuff.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Sometimes, Giving It A Name DOES sort of "make something be".

Take podcasting. It's the year's big internet technology ... but it's been around for a very long time. Before that it was just audio on the internet, and some folks had a subscription model and some didn't. A few things came together and somebody called it "podcasting" and suddenly it was hot crap on a stick, and even big media needed podcasts to stay "with it".

Same with Blogging. Yeow. People had livejournals and the like for YEARS before "Blogging" became a big buzz word. Then everybody had to be a blogger and have a blog and blog from work.

"Let It Ride" is merely a facet of granularity. It's always been there. I've used Let It Ride before there was Let It Ride. Sneaky Pete rolls a Stealth check, the orc guards all Take 10, and we're done. But it's a matter of perspective. Some people may not see that in the D&D rules, though it's really there. You can even, gasp, not roll at all and have everybody take 10 and reduce the challenge to a story-board moment.

Just a second ... I have a new core mechanic. Everybody takes 10, UNLESS they spend an action point to force a roll. Players will only force a check when they either need more than 10 to suceed or will get additional benefits for a greater success. I'll have to think more on this.



--fje

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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).

The character I mention in the other The Forge thread has very different goals from me. He wants his life to be organized and ordered, and for his subordinates to perform the tasks he gives them, and for his superordinates to be just as organized as he is.

I, however, want to see him fray at the edges slowly until he finally cracks from the strain of a world gone mad.

We don't see eye to eye. Fortunately, I'm the one in charge.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Sometimes, Giving It A Name DOES sort of "make something be".

Take podcasting. It's the year's big internet technology ... but it's been around for a very long time. Before that it was just audio on the internet, and some folks had a subscription model and some didn't. A few things came together and somebody called it "podcasting" and suddenly it was hot crap on a stick, and even big media needed podcasts to stay "with it".

Same with Blogging. Yeow. People had livejournals and the like for YEARS before "Blogging" became a big buzz word. Then everybody had to be a blogger and have a blog and blog from work.

"Let It Ride" is merely a facet of granularity. It's always been there. I've used Let It Ride before there was Let It Ride. Sneaky Pete rolls a Stealth check, the orc guards all Take 10, and we're done. But it's a matter of perspective. Some people may not see that in the D&D rules, though it's really there. You can even, gasp, not roll at all and have everybody take 10 and reduce the challenge to a story-board moment.

Just a second ... I have a new core mechanic. Everybody takes 10, UNLESS they spend an action point to force a roll. Players will only force a check when they either need more than 10 to suceed or will get additional benefits for a greater success. I'll have to think more on this.



--fje

And if a group of guys came on the internet and said that they invented streaming audio and internet radio and that all other internet audio was crap because they coined it "podcasting" they'd be laughed off the blogosphere (damn, that one's taken!).

 

[mythusmage]

Burning Wheel is Abzu's attempt to recreate his glory days before Tiamat and Leviathan horned in on his territory.

 

[Dave Turner]

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.

Wait, I thought you hadn't actually read Burning Wheel? Are you sure you're in possession of most (or even any) facts about Burning Wheel before you make judgments on them?

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).

Then are we talking about D&D as a Warhammer Fantasy Battle proxy? I wholeheartedly agree that comparisons about D&D and Burning Wheel face difficult questions about what counts as a roleplaying game and the goals of play should be. But I think it's fair to suggest that D&D does a terrible job of supporting roleplaying in its rules. It relies on unwritten tradition rather than explicit textual support and rules. This is, to my mind, a tremendous flaw in D&D.

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

I don't visit the Forge and I'm not familiar with their terminology aside from familiarity with GNS. I also think that repeated mention of the Forge is a red herring that is being used to tangentially attack Burning Wheel.

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).

I've probably painted myself into a rhetorical corner that I don't really want to be in. I agree that player goals and character goals are not the same thing. But there's surely some connection between the two, if not a direct 1:1 link?

If I state that my character's goal is to "Kill every filthy orc I see", then it's obvious that the player doesn't have that goal. For one thing, orcs don't exist. But the player defines a character's goals and, in some sense, shares the character's goals. A goal like that indicates that the player wants opportunities in the game to kill filthy orcs. That is something that the player wants to happen the game; it's a player goal.

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.

Sorry, Awkward, but it's a rule:

A player shall roll once for an applicable test and shall not roll again until conditions legitimately and drastically change. Neither GM nor player can call for a retest unless those conditions are met. Successes from the initial roll count for all applicable situations in play [emphasis in original].

A GM cannot call for multiple rolls of the same ability to accomplish a player's stated intent. Nor can a player retest a failed roll simply because he failed...this is a hard, fast, fixed rule [emphasis mine]. If a player finds a GM calling for unnecessary retests, he is free to call [the GM] on cheating.

 

[Dave Turner]

I don't know... given some of the unsupported claims that you're making about D&D, your familiarity with that game seems to be extremely limited in scope. I'm starting to think that further conversation would be fruitless.

I'm extremely familiar with the rules of D&D. Don't confuse my ideas about D&D's shortcomings with unfamiliarity with the RAW.