How does Burning Wheel play?

[eyebeams]

When you want to convince a noble to lend you horses, you make a Diplomacy check. The check determines nothing about whether your intent is achieved. All it does is determine if you shifted the NPCs general attitude towards you. Whether you get what you're really after (the horses) is up to the DM.

1) Common sense should allow anyone to connect points A and B in this situation. Common sense is not an arbitrarily unimportant factor, since the same idiotic possibilities you fear from the DM would indicate issues so severe that BW wouldn't work, either.

2) If I want to do the same in BW, I play the noble as a decent guy, and set the OBS for arguing him out of his horse obscenely high if I'm doing it quick (I can burn nobles with sufficient social chops for that, easy), or the player initiates a Duel of Wits. The idea that a player can threaten to drag everyone into a involved argument over horses is amusing, but hardly exemplary design.

In both situations, the GM has as big a hammer. The rhetoric merely differs.

3) You've now effectively argued that Let it Ride works *better* in D&D, since with my single Diplomacy check, I can play off an improved attitude in a number of ways, but in BW, if I want something else from the noble, by your interpretation of the rule, it's a new stake, and I have to roll again.



You're basically winging Let it Ride, with all the subjectivity that you'd apply to DMing. This inconsistency shows it. This means that by the design goals of the game, the rule is screwed. This is not a big problem for me, because I think that entire design agenda is foolish

 

[eyebeams]

Everything I've cited is in the BW book. Your assessment of how LiR functions doesn't match what's in the book at all, afaict. It's not even close.

Fraid not. I'm going by the book's discussion, including the rationale and examples. Your view of LiR is inconsistent, but that's understandable because the game's description of it is inconsistent. Its easy to claim a bad rule is what you want it to be -- that's the "System Doesn't Matter" thing. And LiR's Rorschach Inkblot properties show that BW certainly hasn't risen to the task of solving that problem. Again -- doesn't make it a bad game by my standards. But Let it Ride blows chunks. It really sucks, and requires a wall of extra-textual rhetoric to defend.

 

[ghashsnaga]

But how does it actually play?

The scripting of Tests of Wills and Combat is an interesting idea, but does it work? For example, it seems like combat would be fairly slow, but brutal, graphic, interesting and short

Also, my normal group are (mostly) not "gamers" Is this the kind of game that would interest them, or is it more of a "gamers" game?

[/QUOTE]

Hello,

First off i do play BW and I am not best buddies with Luke. I am just a guy in the SW.

BW is my main FRP system now. BW plays quite well. I will try to answer some of your questions as best I can. All references to page numbers are from BW Revised 1st printing.

Brief background: Currently I am running a Burning THAC0 which is classic AD&D adventures run using BW, no house rules, no fudging, just straight up BW. We will soon be switching back to our main game with is BW 2nd Age Middle Earth.

What do you mean by Tests of Will? Is this the Duel of Wits mechanic?

Combat:

There are two modes as I see it. If no Beliefs are on the line and it's something the characters aren't willing to die for then we use the Bloody Versus (pg. 140 BW FRS). This is quick and easy with some chance of getting hurt, also gains you a check towards advancement.

Example from play: The characters sneak up to the goblin outpost and seek to do in the goblin guards by sword. Intent: Kill the goblins Task: Using sharp and pointy things. Not much is at stake here so we go Bloody Versus

The second mode is Fight! (pgs 139-169). I've run fight a few times when Beliefs were one the line and violence was the choice.

Examples: In the Sword adventure , one on one with players, in the Middle Earth game, and in Burning THAC0.

Fight for the first time can be slow however if everyone at the table has had a chance to at last read through the rules it goes a little faster. Also laminated Fight! sheets and dry erase markers help too. Once everyone has a hang of what to do it rolls pretty smoothly. If I remember correctly Fight! is setup to simulate tactical choice/consequences and the chaos of battle.

As for your gaming group question. My group consists of people who are new to role playing games, old school gamers, and casual gamers. We sort of catch everyone here. My finacee who has never played an RPG game of any sort joined our group and with no prep from me was handling the rules (pgs 12-77) quite well.

General advice for what it is worth.
1) Check out www.burningwheel.org the Forums and the Download section. Ask lots of questions!!!

2) Follow what the book says. Start playing with the rules from pgs 12-77. It's a great way to learn and loads of fun.

3) Maybe run Fight! one on one with another person so you both get the hang of it. DoW can be done with more so you can have an audience.

4) All the rules LIR, Say yes of roll, Task/Intent, etc.. are worked in to every aspect of the system. So be wary of reviewers who haven't played the game and are pointing to a single part taken out of context.

5) You have to make up your own mind if BW is a good fit for you. I hope this post has some place in that.

If you have any additional questions and would like some more examples from actual play I have a bunch. I took lots of notes including player comments, confusion, my own confusion , things we liked

Ara

 

[cr0m]

eyebeam, I can't follow what you're saying about Let It Ride. The main way that it differs from a game like D&D is that D&D specifies how often to roll. For example, Climbing has to be re-rolled every x feet. The bummer here is that a) it's boring to roll five times to scale a 100' cliff, especially if nothing is appreciably different on any given part and b) that's five ways to fail.

All Let It Ride does is let the players move the goal posts around. If you're trying to climb up the cliff to sneak into an enemy camp, go ahead and roll your climbing check. 100' later, you're in the camp (or you failed in some way).

In my games, the effect is to either fast forward to the PC doing what he wanted or fast forward to where he screws up, and save us the hassle and unfairness of rolling five times.

@ Buzz, I'm pretty sure you mean well, but splitting hairs about intent and so forth doesn't help sell it to newbies.

 

[buzz]

@ Buzz, I'm pretty sure you mean well, but splitting hairs about intent and so forth doesn't help sell it to newbies.

Duly noted.

 

[lukzu]

Malcolm,

Tell us again about the bad math behind Let It Ride. I love that one!


And unsurprisingly, since we've been round this mulberry bush before, I think your interpretation of Let It Ride is off.

The first two paragraphs of page 35 state the rule for Let It Ride:

One of the most important aspects of ability tests in game play in
Burning Wheel is the Let it Ride 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.

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. Tests must be distilled down to as few rolls as possible. The
successes of those rolls ride across the entire situation, scene or session.

Everything else on page 35 and 36 is commentary. I agree that it's inflammatory commentary and muddles the issue. I wish I hadn't included it because it detracts from the importance and elegance of that simple rule.

I think the last sentence is key. In addition to the repeated use of the term situation.

Let me use your horse trading noble as an example.

What's the situation?
Your group is in trouble and needs to get out of dodge quick.

What's your intent?
I want to convince the noble to lend me the horses.

What's your task?
Roleplay: "I'm glib. I praise his taste in all things equestrian as I impress upon him his noble obligations."

The GM sets an obstacle based on those factors then you test.
If you succeed, you get the horses.
If you fail, you don't.

If you succeed, you can also press your advantage and convince him to further equip your group for a long, fast and hard journey. That is well within the bounds of the situation happening in play.

You cannot convince him to give you his daughter's hand in marriage. That is a different situation. The change in situation is evident to anyone involved in the game play. i certainly hope it's evident in my example.


For us, this stuff is second nature. We rarely talk about these levels of play and execution. They come naturally. Distilling situations down to one or two rolls gives our games a nice pace. They get a bit of a gallop and a sweep. Time passes during play and we move from exciting challenge to daring exploit.

Your mileage may vary, of course.
-L

 

[buzz]

Common sense should allow anyone to connect points A and B in this situation.

I'm not talking about issues of what's common sense. I'm pointing out that nowhere in the rules for Diplomacy does it say anything about the roll getting the player what they want. The skill shifts NPC attitude, and that's it. That's intent-irrelevant. That's D&D as-written. It works fine (I play D&D more than any other RPG), but it nonetheless works differently.

As for your other stuff, Luke has answered you far better than I could. Suffice it to say that the BW you describe doesn't resemble the one I've read and played.

 

[eyebeams]

Malcolm,

Tell us again about the bad math behind Let It Ride. I love that one!

Do you complain about everyone who thinks your game is good but not perfect?

It's pretty simple: You, like many designers and players, have seemingly bought into falsely identifying averages with real expectations of what will happen in play, but the value of an average as a metric relies n a decent number of instances. Let it Ride reduces the number of instances.

And unsurprisingly, since we've been round this mulberry bush before, I think your interpretation of Let It Ride is off.

The first two paragraphs of page 35 state the rule for Let It Ride:

Everything else on page 35 and 36 is commentary. I agree that it's inflammatory commentary and muddles the issue. I wish I hadn't included it because it detracts from the importance and elegance of that simple rule.

At this point, I think Let it Ride is probably classic Edwardsian Calvinball, really. People like avoiding annoying rolls, so they interpret it in as many ways they can manage that lets them roll less and feel ideologically strong.

I think the last sentence is key. In addition to the repeated use of the term situation.

Let me use your horse trading noble as an example.

What's the situation?
Your group is in trouble and needs to get out of dodge quick.

What's your intent?
I want to convince the noble to lend me the horses.

What's your task?
Roleplay: "I'm glib. I praise his taste in all things equestrian as I impress upon him his noble obligations."

The GM sets an obstacle based on those factors then you test.
If you succeed, you get the horses.
If you fail, you don't.

If you succeed, you can also press your advantage and convince him to further equip your group for a long, fast and hard journey. That is well within the bounds of the situation happening in play.

You cannot convince him to give you his daughter's hand in marriage. That is a different situation. The change in situation is evident to anyone involved in the game play. i certainly hope it's evident in my example.

See, this disagrees with Buzz's interpretation, which is if the stakes change, the LiR instance dies. See how this is working out? The guy coming to your defense got it wrong. Or maybe he didn't on even numbered days of the month, but did on odd days. It's all pretty wacky at this point, since theres a cauldron of designs mixing with ideas people want to believe post hoc.

Sure, I'd like to get rid of monotonous rolls (like in D&D, where part of the game balance comes from trying to bore you into making a mistake).

My solution came from reading Iron Heroes, which formalized the negotiation process that normally occurs when players want some good stuff and ransack their character sheets for a rationale. IH's skill challenges provide a tool for this, so I figured that rather than using LiR as an us against them tool, Id make it a tactical player tool.

I did it because I like your game. Maybe you should relax a touch and make that the center of your attention.

 

[eyebeams]

I'm not talking about issues of what's common sense. I'm pointing out that nowhere in the rules for Diplomacy does it say anything about the roll getting the player what they want. The skill shifts NPC attitude, and that's it. That's intent-irrelevant. That's D&D as-written. It works fine (I play D&D more than any other RPG), but it nonetheless works differently.

As for your other stuff, Luke has answered you far better than I could. Suffice it to say that the BW you describe doesn't resemble the one I've read and played.

He thinks your version of Let it Ride is wrong.

 

[lukzu]

I did it because I like your game. Maybe you should relax a touch and make that the center of your attention.

Please don't be defensive. I'm truly flattered. I think you understand the spirit of Let It Ride: You are correct that it helps control the instances of random determination in the game and that it's in place to cut out monotonous rerolls. But you're misinterpreting the application of the rule, so I'm just trying to help you get the most out of the game. If you have any issues with the cited rule and the example, we can discuss that further. But I stand by them.

Burning Wheel works well as written. All of the various parts click into each other in a meaningful fashion. Let It Ride, for example, ties into both the conflict resolution of the game and the advancement mechanics.

Thanks!
-L

And can I ask that you please don't call names, impugn my friends or denigrate my fans? It doesn't help the discussion.