Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dave Turner" data-source="post: 2794065" data-attributes="member: 12329">Jdrakeh,I regret that you’ve gotten upset over something as silly as some RPG comparisons.  Jim Hague and I are having some good, civil discussion on some specific points of difference between Burning Wheel and D&D that Jim raised.  I hope you can gain something from them.P.P.S. to Phil Reed: I hope you aren’t too upset either.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Jim!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Great stuff, here are my thoughts.I agree that Charisma is supposed to represent the strength of a character’s personality, but unlike Burning Wheel, it doesn’t really push players to define their character.  I can see where you’re coming from.  Players with high-CHA characters are supposed to give their characters what are considered desirable personality traits.  But the reason it’s so often a dump stat is because there is no robust mechanical support for the stat in the game.  It adds a modifier to a few social skill rolls (in support of a very weak social conflict system) and helps sorcerers and bards determine their spells per day.  Look at Burning Wheel’s BITs (Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits).  The core books (both the main rules and the Character Burner) have considerable detail and emphasis on this part of a character.  It’s not as vague as D&D’s Charisma, which is broadly-painted.  Burning Wheel has specific things to say about these rules for defining a character’s personality:What does the PHB say about Charisma?There’s also a brief section about character personality in Chapter 6 of the PHB.  Here are some excerpts:Ultimately, we’re discussing what you write here:If I can torture your analogy a bit, if D&D are two sides of the same coin, then I’m suggesting that Burning Wheel should always land facing “up”.  Wow, that’s pretty awful.  Moving on!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />If you are trying to play D&D as a roleplaying game, rather than a complex tactical combat game, then you have to bring a lot to the table.  As I’m trying to point out, the game gives the GM and players no real help in the roleplaying arena.  As you say, the roleplaying is implicit in D&D (but for a game described specifically as a “roleplaying game”, that just strikes me as odd!).  I would characterize your assessment of D&D’s roleplaying advice as implicit]/i] to be, well, very generous.  This was strongly highlighted for me when I read Burning Wheel and saw how clearly and strongly Luke was making explicit points (and rules!) to reinforce roleplaying in Burning Wheel.Just so that folks who are unfamiliar with Burning Wheel’s Artha system are clear about how it works, let me take a moment to explain where the subjectivity comes in.  I’m not going to pretend that figuring out when to reward players for roleplaying (the Artha system) is an exact science or a science of any kind.  Roleplaying is a subjective matter and we can’t avoid that imprecision.  The same kind of uncertainty shows up in D&D when a DM has to decide precisely how much of a Bluff bonus to give a player after he roleplays out his (hopefully) dazzling lie. Burning Wheel tells the players and GM what kinds of actions trigger Artha rewards and how much Artha to award, but is unavoidably fuzzy on when the threshold for the award has been crossed by a particular player.  With that said, I’ll make clear that I’m suggesting that rulesets which explicitly provide rules and mechanics for roleplaying are superior to rulesets that have implicit roleplaying support.  I have some long thoughts about why folks should buy into this view and I’ll briefly summarize it here.  I’m sure that in summarizing it, there will be some holes in the logic and flow of the argument.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I believe that the RAW of any game represents what the game designers think is important in play.  Anything implicit that has to be teased out of the rules is arguably something that the designers didn’t think was important.  RPGs are extremely concerned with rules and mechanics.  If a game doesn’t provide mechanical/rule support for roleplaying, then the designers of the game aren’t really concerned with roleplaying and the game isn’t very good for roleplaying.  This approach is very formalistic, I freely confess!I’m broadly familiar with Spycraft’s Chase system (as well as their 1.0 hacking and infiltration systems) and I can envision how that might be broadened to social conflicts.  I own Spycraft 2.0, but haven’t fully digested it to see how the systems actually work.  I think that’s a great idea and precisely where D&D should be moving.  It should definitely be in D&D 4e.  The Chase system has lots in common with Burning Wheel’s Duel of Wits in that it’s a system that allows for legitimate tactical play among the players.  It’s The Way Things Should Be In d20.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />But we are talking about D&D and, in the RAW, D&D is hurting in this regard.  Ultimately, a D&D DM could import the Spycraft social conflict systems, thanks to the modularity of d20.  So I confess that I’m taking a small cheap shot at D&D. But that’s because I want folks to try Burning Wheel, so surely I get some slack?!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I broadly agree with your worry over stating that one game is objectively better than another.  Terms like “objectively” are so thoroughly vilified these days (Thanks, postmodernism and deconstruction!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ) that people are often polarized by the mere mention of it.  But I think it’s a mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water and decry all attempts at comparison and evaluation as meaningless just because we can’t agree on math-like standards of objectivity.What we can do is to look at the rules themselves and see if, on their own merits, one seems to be doing a better job than the other.  Despite the dominance of things like Rule 0 in the minds of gamers, I don’t think it’s unfair to judge games by their RAW.  A game’s rules are all we have to go on.  If one game has implicit and (forgive me) ultimately weak explicit support for roleplaying while another game gives explicit mechanical and textual support (that game doesn’t have to be Burning Wheel), then I think it’s fair to make a judgment that one game is better at encouraging and fostering roleplaying.  If two games both offer implicit roleplaying support, then I think it’s a bit more justified to tease out the implicit support in defense of the games.  But when one game is actively and explicitly pushing roleplaying, can’t we say that the explicit game has a leg up on the implicit game?</blockquote>

Verification