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: 2794222" data-attributes="member: 12329">Wil,There's a lot of stuff in your post that I suspect we're just going to have fundamental disagreement on.  I'll try to put my side forward and hope we connect.  If not, no big deal.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Why do you doubt it?  You're a big vague there.  I think my position has strength in its simplicity.  Let me try it again and hope I don't repeat myself too much.If a one game has rules systems that actively support roleplaying while another does not, I'm strongly tempted to state that, by definition, one game is better at bringing out roleplaying than the other.  I think it's important to get rid of the wiggle room you're worried about by divorcing the human factor from consideration.  The wiggle comes in when we start to qualify the analysis with examples of "good roleplayers" and "bad roleplayers".  All other things being equal, it just seems more likely that a game with explicit roleplaying rules will tend to produce more roleplaying.  Do you think I'm off the mark there?I should also mention that we must assume that the players are playing the RAW or as close to it as is reasonable.Sure, there's lots of other RPGs that do this.  But we're comparing Burning Wheel to D&D.  <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=";)" />To continue your analogy, though, I'd suggest that BITs are "roleplaying stats", so we arrive back at the spot where BW has mechanics to back up roleplaying.  <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'm not sure how this argument would look.  Maybe you could spell it out a bit more?At first glance (which you are free to correct with a more elaborate argument), I don't quite see where you're going.  In any game, the rules/mechanics establish how players are rewarded for action.  In D&D, you gain experience points and treasure which make you more powerful.  In Burning Wheel, you get credit for difficult skill tests that count towards advancing those skills.  In D&D, you're rewarded for overcoming challenges based on the CR system.  So players take actions that will allow them to overcome challenges so that they get xp.  In Burning Wheel, players get better with the skills they use, so they use the skills they want to get better at.  D&D does have a couple of paragraphs about roleplaying XP awards, but they're relatively minor (50xp per level per character is the suggestion) and "purely ad hoc".  But the reward for roleplaying in D&D is just the same as for killing orcs.  In the rules, it's a limp, tacked-on idea which receives virtually no emhasis or support ("purely ad hoc" is serious buck-passing by the game designers.  <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=";)" /> ).  It's not even really a meaningful mechanic in itself, since players can't actively use XP in the game to influence other mechanics.  I concede that players can spend XP to build magic items and that's a mechanic/rule.  But when compared to Artha's ability to influence die rolls in the game, it just seems to pale in comparison to me.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />By providing rules and mechanics for roleplaying, you set up a system of rewards for the players.  Players like to be rewarded in the game. The whole reason we have RPG systems that are more complex than Cowboys and Indians is because we want a robust system of rules that contains mechanical advantages and disadvantages.  Artha is a reward for roleplaying that gives the players mechanical advantages and effects in the game.To suggest that a formal system of game rewards would somehow discourage players from using that reward system seems (at first glance!) to contradict a fundamental feature of gamer psychology.  If the game mechanically rewards roleplaying, players will roleplay.  The more robust the mechanics of roleplaying, the more roleplaying you will find.  Do you think I'm off the mark here?This misapprehension is my fault for not fully presenting the rules of BITs.  Burning Wheel has rules and guidance for changing Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits.  Nothing is set in stone at the start of play.  But BITs are all replaced with different BITs, so they are always present on the character sheet and always driving play.  Sorry for the confusion.  <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=";)" />There is an incentive: those who aren't roleplaying their BITs will see the players that are using their BITs get Artha and, consequently, do all kinds of cool stuff in the game with Artha.  <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=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification