Explain Burning Wheel to me

[Lonely Tylenol]

So, the game enforces a style of narration and calls it a rule. It's still just a style of narration. Only apparently you have to play Burning Wheel in that style even if you don't like it, but other games don't have this restriction.

As HeapThaumaturgist points out, D&D supports this style. It also supports not using this style. It does both with equal facility. I don't see enforcing a style of narration as a positive aspect of a game. At best, it's a shortcut to facilitate focus on some aspect of play. At worst, it's the writer making people play in the style he thinks is best.

 

[Dave Turner]

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

So in the aftermath of the DMG II, D&D is now a Forge game?

I don't own that book, so perhaps you could quote some of the relevant passages for me?

 

[Dave Turner]

So, the game enforces a style of narration and calls it a rule. It's still just a style of narration. Only apparently you have to play Burning Wheel in that style even if you don't like it, but other games don't have this restriction.

Let's not change our definitions so quickly! You stated that Burning Wheel didn't include rules about Let It Ride and I showed you that the text clearly identified Let It Ride as a rule. What else are rules except ways of enforcing a particular type of play? Without rules, we'd all be playing Cowboys and Indians ("Bang, I shot you!" "No, you didn't!").

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

So in the aftermath of the DMG II, D&D is now a Forge game?

I don't own that book, so perhaps you could quote some of the relevant passages for me?

Say what? Go read it yourself. It's a big book, fer chrissakes. Bits of it were cribbed from Robin's Laws, by Robin Laws, if that gives you some idea of its content.

 

[Sejs]

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'm mostly just sitting back and watching, but I would like to interject a moment. It's a perfectly viable goal, it's just a manner of how you state it.

To use an example from a particular show: My goal is to be the strongest man/greatest swordsman/most adept warrior in the entire world. In persuit of this goal I train myself relentlessly, seek out learning from other combat masters, and gladly test my skills against any and all comers. In game mechanics terms, my goal is to level up, and keep leveling up as long and as far as I possibly can.

 

[Sejs]

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

My wife is a perfect example of this. There have been times when her exact words to me were "Screw this, I just want to kill orcs".

 

[apoptosis]

I think rules that create and faciliate a certain style of play is a good thing. If only one game in the world existed then it would be bad, but since there is a plethora of games..i believe that games that promote styles of play is bonus.

 

[Dave Turner]

As HeapThaumaturgist points out, D&D supports this style. It also supports not using this style. It does both with equal facility. I don't see enforcing a style of narration as a positive aspect of a game. At best, it's a shortcut to facilitate focus on some aspect of play. At worst, it's the writer making people play in the style he thinks is best.

D&D might support that style, but not in the rules. Please quote the relevant sections of the D&D rules that explicitly identify the Let It Ride style of play.

Taking 10/20 is not the same as Let It Ride. It tells players that they might not have to roll for a particular action, but where does it say that one instance of "taking 10/20" is supposed to apply to a series of situations in which a roll might be called for?

 

[lukzu]

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.

Actually, I was baiting you. I never dismissed anything. I said: DnD allows a lot more room for GM fiat and does not have rules for conflict resolution; Burning Wheel has a lot less room for GM fiat and does have rules for conflict resolution.

You called me pretensious and dismissive -- before you gave me a chance to respond to your defense against my assertions.

[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.][/QUOTE]

Dude, you just talked about me like I wasn't in the room and then insulted me to my face. Let's pretend we're having a civil discussion, please? You could have at least added a smiley to soften the blow.

Come on, man. Let's not go round and round like this.

The thread's got my attention. I'm here to talk about BW at the OP's request. So let's discuss!

Let me see if I can adequately respond to your counterpoint. First, I never said that DnD didn't do anything "at all." For the record, let me state that I love DnD. I think it's a great game and deserves great praise. I do not consider it competition for Burning Wheel at all. More like a crazy old uncle with a motley cast of characters as friends.

And more to the point of your thrust

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).

Let's look at the beginning of each game. Typically, in DnD the GM is handed the responsibility with developing the campaign and adventures within it. The players are responsible for making cool characters. The GM and the players are then responsible for making their cool ideas fit together in play.

BW starts a step earlier. The players and GM agree on a game concept, then make characters. The players' goals for their characters are written out as Beliefs. These Beliefs are part of the reward mechanic, but they also highlight flashpoints of conflict which will be included in the game. This is expressly written in the text; it's a rule

Here are some Beliefs from a recent game.

Tavis is an Imperial Justiciar, assigned to ride circuit at an imperial outpost which oversees a merchant's commune run by his wife, Rochelle:
"I will root out corruption in the Emperor's name."
"Horoth [Tavis' boss] has the best interests of the empire at heart. I am his strong right hand."
"I will not allow my ex-wife, Rochelle, to raise my son."

It's worth noting that the player also bought "relationships" with Horoth and his ex-wife. Relationships are featured NPCs that the player wants in the game. Lots of games have this mechanic, though.

In the game we played, Tavis was put to the test as Horoth, an Imperial Steward, tried to use his and Tavis' legal powers to break the legal charter of the commune. Tavis also caught Horoth covering up a crime that a local Baron had committed. Why did this happen? Because the player wrote those conflicts into his Beliefs. He doesn't get to say exactly what happens, but he does get to say "Hey, I want something like this in the game!"

A similar process happens when players kibbitz for any game, DnD included. However, the process is explicitly part of BW's rules and, even better, it's tied directly into the reward mechanic. This usually generates a different type of understanding and play. It's not for everyone, but most people who try it enjoy it and recognize its differences.


A little finer point: DnD uses task resolution as its primary resolution mechanic. BW uses conflict resolution. The difference is subtle, but important.

First example, Tavis' player wants to convince a naval captain to review his weapons lockers and look for a missing pistol. That's the task. The player, Thor's, intent was to determine if indeed there was a cover up going on. He rolled, won the test, and nailed his intent: His justiciar determined that there was indeed a cover up, though he didn't quite know who was behind it. Which lead to the next conflict, confronting the captain's superior.

From my days playing DnD, I remember that a similar situation could arise. A player wants to make a roll to find something or convince someone, but the actual value of the roll is up to the GM. In the above circumstance, the GM has free rein to say, "You convince him to do an inventory, but he doesn't turn up anything." Or to go with the result that Tavis uncovers something. My point is that the player's intent -- the reason he is rolling the dice -- is supported and enforced behind the dice in Burning Wheel.

In another example, another player tried to convince his criminal brother to turn over some information to the courts. We used an extended conflict, called the Duel of Wits. The player wanted his brother to turn over the information. The brother -- played by me -- didn't want to have any dealings with the law whatsoever. It ended in a compromise in the player's favor. He won and got the information, but the brother -- me -- got the concession that his younger brother wasn't to come around the estate any more.

Social conflict with compromise decided by the players -- based on the results of an extended conflict -- is a big part of Burning Wheel. I don't think there is any such conflict resolution in DnD. Such social conflicts are left either to a single roll with no compromise, or up to GM fiat.

For those of you who were asking for examples:

You can see plenty of BW characters here:
http://burningwheel.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=3

Some BW combat done online here:
http://burningwheel.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=13
(though it's pretty boring when it's just the numbers)

Our play-by-post forum here:
http://burningwheel.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=11

We also have tons of samples and examples in our downloads section .

I apologize for any typos or anything unclearly stated. I poste in haste.

-Luke

 

[d20Dwarf]

D&D might support that style, but not in the rules. Please quote the relevant sections of the D&D rules that explicitly identify the Let It Ride style of play.

Taking 10/20 is not the same as Let It Ride. It tells players that they might not have to roll for a particular action, but where does it say that one instance of "taking 10/20" is supposed to apply to a series of situations in which a roll might be called for?

It says if Krusk is climbing up a DC 10 cliff, he can just Take 10 instead of making all the rolls called for. It's right there in the Player's Handbook.

I know, I know...that "doesn't count."