How does Burning Wheel play?

[PetriWessman]

It plays pretty well, though there are some bumpy bits.

1) Let it Ride is a terrible rule that does the opposite of its declared purpose of protecting players because it makes awful rolls stick without giving players another chance, and the example tosses its intended applicability into doubt. We fixed this by putting it in the player's hands. They can choose a Let it Ride roll that is averaged with a control value equal to their average -1 (for reasons that are too complex to go into now, fixed values have certain advantages) or 1 (whichever is higher), or choose an unfixed roll that can be re-challenged.

Yeah. I've been tinkering with the idea of using BW to run some D&D modules, and "Let It Ride" is the first thing that would fly out the window. It reduces the typical "shades of success" thing (which my players tend to enjoy a lot) into a binary thing, and as you note if a player makes one bad roll they are stuck with it. I understand it stems from Luke's bad experiences with dictatorial GMs and his design goal of reducing GM fiat to an absolutely minimum amount -- but I don't see how it could work in a normal D&D scenario.

Let's say the players try to infiltrate an orc fortress. The try to sneak past a guard. With Let It Ride, they either sneak past that guard and all the other guards in the module, too, or they fail -- and will fail every time from there on, too. That, to me, is not how you create fun and suspenseful play.

The game has a steep learning curve, which is not helped by nonstandard terms (using the word "exponent" to label a number that is not a mathematical exponent is the biggie) and a somewhat irritating, presumptuous authorial tone (no, you don't need to tell me what I *must* do, or provide icons to point it out).

Amen to both. I found the term "exponent" a bit stupid and distracting, since as you note it's not an exponent -- why call it that?. There were some other weird terms there, too (I mean, why "artha"? It's not cool enough if you just call it "XP"?).

...and the authorial tone made me want to scream at times, extremely irritating and presumptuos (largely stremming from Luke's stance that GMs will always turn into dictators, unless explicitly prevented from doing so by the rules). Dude, if your gaming group is dysfunctional and need game rules to prevent OOC conflicts, please don't assume that other people need the same thing. Most groups do just fine with the good old "GM gets to decide" model. Why? It works, most of the time.

I generally like the fact that a game has an "author voice". Here, that author voice was extremely annoying, and was (to me) detrimental to reading the game. Not a game killer by any means, but... annoying. Sorry, Luke :/

All the above sounds like I hate the game, which is far from the truth. Despite some problems I have with it (and hey, I have problems with most games ), it's a really good game engine; it makes combat dangerous and unpredictable, makes social conflict gameable (and fun!), and in general contains a ton of cool ideas. To anyone interested in looking a bit outside the D&D box, it's highly recommeded. Sure, it's not for everyone and there is a steep learning curve, but it's well worth checking out.

 

[SavageRobby]

Thanks for all the replies. Any more?



Side note - upon reading, I thought the Let it Ride rule was pretty cool, not so much from the standpoint of player-protection, but from the standpoint of making individual skill rolls more consequential and more meaningful. However, just as I wouldn't have a player use the same Fighting roll for an entire scene, there are some common sense applications that I'd apply. Stealth is a good example - I'd do that on a per scene basis, so if the scene was sneaking through the entire fortress, then I'd have the player make just one roll. But if those scenes were broken up (circumstances changed), I'd have a different roll per scene.

I may yet get a group together to play BW - it sounds interesting. I'm also working on converting some of the coolest stuff to Savage Worlds (our usual game), like Beliefs, Instincts, Action/Intent declarations, Let it Ride and FoRKs.

 

[kensanata]

I thought the Let it Ride rule was pretty cool, not so much from the standpoint of player-protection, but from the standpoint of making individual skill rolls more consequential and more meaningful.

I've actually had good experiences with Let It Ride. It gets rid of the "we all roll Spot checks" and the "roll Spot/Listen/Search at every corner". I think the important part to realize is that people will try to use lots of forking (getting pluses by narrating other skills into the story) and that the skills usually don't apply for a moment but for the scene. For example, the priest of Ares has arranged for a ceremony on the war ship. He uses his Suasion skill of 5, uses some Krythos-wise (the name of the island they are on) for +1 because he refers to the importance of Ares to the island, he uses some History for +1 because he recounts the epic battle 20 years ago, he uses his Ritual for +1 to slaughter a pig in just the right way. Each bonus is supported by a few sentences by the player, proving that getting that each +1 is deserved. At the climax he rolls 8d6 and counts his successes. Let It Ride means that he can't pull out another pig, redo the ritual, or anything like that. He did it, he tried it, and the world has changed. Based on the results, things change.

I like to think about these rolls not as run-of-the-mill skill checks but big contests about narrative control. These are big, meaningful moments, and most scenes consist of just one big roll, or a set of two or three linked tests (for example to find the guy to do the introduction, get past the guards, speak to the senate).

Let It Ride works for me.

 

[WizarDru]

I've only briefly scanned the rules, because they're just dense in some way that I can't elaborate. I picked it up on the hopes that it would be LESS rules-intensive than D&D, but it actually was a harder read for me, instead. That's no comment on the quality of the rules, but more on my ability to process them. It sounded like there were some good ideas in there, but it wasn't compelling enough to convince me to replace 3e or 4e with it (though there were certainly some good ideas that might have value to me as variants or house rules).

 

[buzz]

Yeah. I've been tinkering with the idea of using BW to run some D&D modules, and "Let It Ride" is the first thing that would fly out the window. It reduces the typical "shades of success" thing (which my players tend to enjoy a lot) into a binary thing, and as you note if a player makes one bad roll they are stuck with it. I understand it stems from Luke's bad experiences with dictatorial GMs and his design goal of reducing GM fiat to an absolutely minimum amount -- but I don't see how it could work in a normal D&D scenario.

Let It Ride won't work at all in D&D. That's the primary mistake people make when criticizing it. LiR is an integral part of BW, and in BW, it works perfectly. It will not work perfectly in D&D, and should not be expected to. BW core resolution is a totally different paradigm than D&D.

 

[buzz]

(I mean, why "artha"? It's not cool enough if you just call it "XP"?)

Because artha is not XP?

 

[Woas]

I may yet get a group together to play BW - it sounds interesting. I'm also working on converting some of the coolest stuff to Savage Worlds (our usual game), like Beliefs, Instincts, Action/Intent declarations, Let it Ride and FoRKs.

Great minds and all. I started a thread over at the SW boards last month on the very subject. I haven't really put much effort into it yet and was mulling over the idea of making Savage World skills advance through use ala BW and not so much with BITs and such. Take a gander if you please.

Savage Wheel

 

[buzz]

Not that much changed between editions...

A lot changed between editions.

Do you no longer have hundreds of skills and traits to track during character creation and dozens to track over the course of actual play. Again, I believe that the answer is 'Yes'. ...

While parts of John's review are no longer relevant (feel free to spell out which parts, if you like), the sections that deal with the many dozens of variables in play at any given time are still dead on.

There aren't hundreds of skills and traits to "track" in chargen, and there aren't dozens of variables to deal with in play.

Have you actually played BW?

 

[buzz]

Okay, I forgot artha, but with artha and tests for advancement, what else is there resource-wise to keep track of?

Nothing, really. Equipment doesn't play the large role it does in D&D, and wealth is abstracted, so you're never dealing with Excel spreadsheets full of treasure like you tend to do with D&D. (Our D&D games always end up with someone being the campaign's "Excel bitch".)

Basically, when you use a skill or stat, you note the test difficulty. When you spend artha on a test, you note that. Thats all you're tracking from game to game.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Thanks for all the replies. Any more?

Note: I don't have any actual experience with playing the game. I tried to read the book, and put it aside. It's not for me as is. Many of the fans have done an excellent job at unselling me on the game as well.

I'm posting mainly to note that there _is_ a newer version of these rules that will be showing up in the Mouseguard rpg. Why on _earth_ would I bring this up, when I apparently dislike BW and a number of its fans?

I'm willing to give things another chance and I believe in being fair. I tend to prefer rules-lighter games, and while BW does _not_ qualify as such (I don't care whether it's front or back loaded), the Mouseguard rpg does explicitly say it's going to be for all ages and levels of rpg experience.

http://www.aspcomics.com/mouse_guard_rpg.php

The other reason I mention this is because I also don't happen to be a fan of the ORE system in general, as you can see it in Reign, Wild Talents, Project Nemesis (you can download it for free from here: http://www.nemesis-system.com/downloads/5.html). Some of the fans kinda annoy me too.

But there was a really spiffy game put out called Monsters and Other Childish Things, which also said it used a simplified version of the ORE rules. I liked the premise of the game, I think it's possible to use for a variety of other types of games, so I gave it a shot.

And so far, I've been quite happy with it. And I still want nothing to do with the other versions of the ORE engine.

So when the Mouseguard rpg shows up, I'll take a look at it. Even though I don't happen to like the other games that use the BW rules, I'll still take a look at it and give it a shot. If it looks cool, I'll either ask for it for XMas, or buy it next year when I'm getting rpgs again. I'd even do a review of it; I think it's important for people that _don't_ happen to like everything in a game line to step up and say when something _does_ work.

I'm working on doing a review of Monsters and Other Childish things, but an upcoming funeral and my wife's travel schedule are putting a damper on getting some solid gameplay before I put it up.

If Burning Wheel makes you want to bang your head, it's possible that it'll change into a more friendly game with Mouseguard. Afterall, it happened with the ORE system, so it's possible it'll happen with Mouseguard. Just something to keep in the back of your mind.