How does Burning Wheel play?

[SavageRobby]

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

I took a look at the thread - not much there crunch-wise at the moment.



So far I've only written up a conversion for Beliefs and Instincts. Both are basically the same deal as in BW - write up three of each, make them interesting and tools for conflict/drama, expose them to the GM and other players.

For Beliefs, I wrote a rule that lets you call on one once per session, and you gain a +2 on all Trait rolls for the scene. (Of course, it must be an important scene and tied directly to the belief called on somehow - no bonus mongering.) I used the scene from Out of Gas where Mal Soaks the shot from the pirates, drives them off the ship and then staggers to the engine room to put in the part as example text.

For Instincts, they're basically what they are; an automatic reaction based on a condition (always, never, if/when). I put in that you can't affect someone else with the action, so no casting a spell on someone else, although you could ready a spell or cast a spell on yourself. Out of combat Instincts are a bit more liberal (such as the 'Scrounge for weapons after battle'). I like the section later in the book that states Instincts are essentially "I don't want to deal with this again" or "challenge me here, I dare you" statements.

I haven't written up anything for skills, but I plan to include the action/intent declaration, instead of the simple mechanical declaration. I also plan to add FoRKs, with each success and raise on a related Knowledge skill gives a +1 bonus to the skill roll at hand. I may limit that to one FoRK per skill roll. And of course, the aforementioned Let it Ride, at least in some context. I like it for skills that represent a series of actions rolled into a single roll - Survival, Streetwise, Persuasion, Tracking, etc, and I think FoRKing and Let it Ride (and Helping) should go hand in hand. If its big enough and important enough to be able to get Help or FoRK, its big enough and important enough to be rolled once, period.


Also, I should note that reading through the BW Test of Wills was a really cool read (although it sounds like it would be fiddly in action, but thats pure speculation) - and it reminded me a great deal of the Mass Combat rules in SW, most especially the way that Flynn used them in his game* for a large social conflict (the Dwarven Allthing). I definitely want to use those more often, and after reading the Test of Wills, I see how that could be useful in an RP context as a system to (mechanically) resolve character disagreements.





* If you're a Savage fan and you're not reading Flynn's Savage Reports, you're missing something. Here is the thread, set on the page that contains the description of the Allthing: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=213056&page=5&pp=15

 

[cr0m]

Hi, I've played BW a few times and I like it, though its not my be-all end-all game (nothing is).

It's a really simple system with a couple of complicated, scripted, optional subsystems, including Duel of Wits for social combat and Fight! for combat combat. I've had a lot of luck with DoW, but never managed to get Fight! down to the point where it felt good. I've still had lots of fun fights with the simple combat, but it wasn't satisfying for a knock-down, drag-out, tactical extravaganza.

There's a learning curve to it and its all up-front. Character creation is time-consuming and intimidating for newbies and casual gamers. Writing the Beliefs that define the character, the campaign and advancement system is a fine art.

The one-shot games with pre-gen characters are really fun. I've run them at conventions and every time it's different. Those are what I'd try first. One of the campaigns I played in with a new batch of players of varying "gamer-ness" got so bogged down with character creation and beliefs that it fizzled after just a couple sessions. The best games I've played or run are those where everyone is really into BW and committed to the adventure in a big way. Some of those were one-shots, too!

 

[PetriWessman]

Because artha is not XP?

Ok, fair enough, on reflection I agree. Still think "exponent" is a bad term to use, though.

 

[PetriWessman]

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.

This sounds weird. Are you claiming that BW is somehow a totally different game paradigm than D&D, and not just a different ruleset? That sneaking around an orc fortress is something that would never happen in a "BW game"? That sounds bizarre, to me.

Sure, your typical BW game would have less combat (because combat is more deadly, and also slower to resolve if done the scripted way), more "social combat" (because there are actually rules for it), and in general a more "gritty" tone usually. But "different paradigm"? I'm not seeing it. At all.

It's a fantasy game ruleset. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Berandor]

This sounds weird. Are you claiming that BW is somehow a totally different game paradigm than D&D, and not just a different ruleset? That sneaking around an orc fortress is something that would never happen in a "BW game"? That sounds bizarre, to me.

Sure, your typical BW game would have less combat (because combat is more deadly, and also slower to resolve if done the scripted way), more "social combat" (because there are actually rules for it), and in general a more "gritty" tone usually. But "different paradigm"? I'm not seeing it. At all.

It's a fantasy game ruleset. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let me try to answer that. In D&D, sneaking through a castle would mean that you make Sneak checks typically for every 30 feet or so, but realistically (take 10 and such) whenever you meet a guard. Because you're trying to be quiet.

In BW, you're not trying to be quiet, you're trying to get into the orc chief's bedroom by sneaking past all the guards. That's one intent, and one test. Still, LiR doesn't necessarily mean you sneak past everyone; say you roll 3 successes, and the normal orcs have 1, whereas the elite guards have Observation (a special noticing skill) and get 4 successes. Now you manage to sneak into the castle, but your 3 successes aren't enough to get into the bedroom (LiR).

Basically, BW as I understand it doesn't hold to the D&D paradigm of strict task resolution and rolling until you succeed, but chooses a freeer form of tests that encompass larger tasks or conflicts. What that means is in BW, you try once and make failure interesting, whereas in D&D you try until you succeed... or fail as it is.

The question would also be, if your rogue is a good enough sneaker to get past four guards, why wouldn't he pass the fifth identical one? Or better: even if there's the possibility of failure at the fifth roll, is that really so exciting that you cannot check once and move to the next hurdle/conflict/scene?

 

[PetriWessman]

Let me try to answer that. In D&D, sneaking through a castle would mean that you make Sneak checks typically for every 30 feet or so, but realistically (take 10 and such) whenever you meet a guard. Because you're trying to be quiet.

In BW, you're not trying to be quiet, you're trying to get into the orc chief's bedroom by sneaking past all the guards. That's one intent, and one test. Still, LiR doesn't necessarily mean you sneak past everyone; say you roll 3 successes, and the normal orcs have 1, whereas the elite guards have Observation (a special noticing skill) and get 4 successes. Now you manage to sneak into the castle, but your 3 successes aren't enough to get into the bedroom (LiR).

Basically, BW as I understand it doesn't hold to the D&D paradigm of strict task resolution and rolling until you succeed, but chooses a freeer form of tests that encompass larger tasks or conflicts. What that means is in BW, you try once and make failure interesting, whereas in D&D you try until you succeed... or fail as it is.

The question would also be, if your rogue is a good enough sneaker to get past four guards, why wouldn't he pass the fifth identical one? Or better: even if there's the possibility of failure at the fifth roll, is that really so exciting that you cannot check once and move to the next hurdle/conflict/scene?

Ok, thanks. That's a good way to put it, and yeah -- that point of using the number of successes to bring some "grayness" (i.e. you succeed vs some guards but not against others) is a good one. I don't like absolute succeed/fail things, but you're right: it doesn't need to be an absolute success or fail, even with "strict" LiR.

I'm still not a huge fan of LiR, but neither am I a fan of zillions of repetitive skill checks. Were I to run something D&D:ish with BW, I'd probably try to minimize the number of checks, only calling for another one if the situation changes in some important fashion.

So consider my question/comment answered, thanks

 

[apoptosis]

This sounds weird. Are you claiming that BW is somehow a totally different game paradigm than D&D, and not just a different ruleset? That sneaking around an orc fortress is something that would never happen in a "BW game"? That sounds bizarre, to me.

Sure, your typical BW game would have less combat (because combat is more deadly, and also slower to resolve if done the scripted way), more "social combat" (because there are actually rules for it), and in general a more "gritty" tone usually. But "different paradigm"? I'm not seeing it. At all.

It's a fantasy game ruleset. Nothing more, nothing less.

One big difference between the two is failure. In BW (and TSOY and Sorcerer) vs D&D failure never results in nothing happening.

By that...in D&D for example - if you fail to open the safe at the mayor mansion, nothing will necessarily happen. You could try again or you could just leave etc.

In BW..anytime a roll is made something is at stake. So if you fail the "open the safe" roll, something bad will happen (which will then lead to more drama). Basically the GM and the player sets stakes for all rolls.

Tied to this is "intent" which is what is important in these types of games. In trad games your actions are intent neutral. In BW and similar games, intent is incredibly (crucially) important. If your intent is to find blackmail material on the mayor and you succeed your roll to "open the safe" you WILL find some blackmail material (or something in a similar vein that is should ratchet up the drama). In trad games whether you find blackmail material or not is really in the DMs purview based on his preference or not on the simulation of the system. You could open the safe and find nothing ('zilch play' is what our group calls it, where your successful but really zilch happens)

 

[cr0m]

Actually guys, I don't think there's anything in the BW rules that specifically says "conflict resolution" vs "task resolution" (opening a safe being a classic example). It's really a very traditional game, as written.

 

[buzz]

Actually guys, I don't think there's anything in the BW rules that specifically says "conflict resolution" vs "task resolution" (opening a safe being a classic example). It's really a very traditional game, as written.

The core resolution specifically talks about intent; it's the first step in the process. The task rolls then determine if your intent is achieved. That's why LiR is so important; remove it and you're not resolving the stated intent, you're only determining if a specific task attempt succeeded.

The book also invokes (literally, it quotes) Vincent baker's "Say yes or roll the dice." It immediately follows up with "...a fundamental rule of Burning Wheel play: When there is conflict, roll the dice."

Hello, conflict resolution.

BW is pretty trad in a lot of ways, but this aspect alone makes it very different from D&D.

 

[Berandor]

Actually guys, I don't think there's anything in the BW rules that specifically says "conflict resolution" vs "task resolution" (opening a safe being a classic example). It's really a very traditional game, as written.

I actually agree. It doesn't say conflict resolution. And I think the subsystems Fight! and Duel of Wits are pretty clear task resolutions. Even the other tasks aren't true conflict resolutions.

That doesn't change the fact that by stating the intent (and consequences of failure) and with LiR, these task usually encompass a bigger span than the comparably detailed rolls in D&D. Because you wouldn't say "I want to climb the first ten feet of the castle wall", but rather "I want to climb the castle wall and the princess's tower".