Why does ENWorld hate Burning Wheel?

[Ebon Shar]

Kidding...sort of. I never see any discussion of Burning Wheel here, which is a shame.

I wanted to share my blog, in which I write about my current BW campaign. Enjoy and comments are very welcome.

http://dorkrage.blogspot.com/

 

[Morrus]

I guess the response to that is: why are you not discussing Burning Wheel on EN World? That would then be discussion of Burning Wheel on EN World!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There's not much Burning Wheel discussion on RPG.net, either. It hasn't been the new hotness for a while, which is usually what generates the most discussion.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The Burning Wheel wouldn’t be my favourite game as I find the rules a bit overly complex for what it sets out to do. To say the whole of Enworld hates it though is a bit strong and you’re welcome to discuss why you like it, of course.

 

[Parmandur]

I have heard of it, but can't say I am very familiar. What is about it that you like?

 

[pemerton]

I never see any discussion of Burning Wheel here, which is a shame.

I wrote up my play of Maiden Voyage using BW, although in somewhat system-neutral terms, here.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Someone set my wheels on fire once; I didn't like it at all.

 

[Crothian]

When it first came out it was popular but I found the game too complex for what it wanted. It read like it wanted to be rules light but it was too rules heavy and played to slow for what it wanted to do. After a few sessions and then playing at Origins with other people running I was still unconvinced on the game so I traded it to someone.

But I woudn't expect much talk here about any Indie RPG. This is still a very focused D&D type gaming board.

 

[pemerton]

The Burning Wheel wouldn’t be my favourite game as I find the rules a bit overly complex for what it sets out to do.

I found the game too complex for what it wanted. It read like it wanted to be rules light but it was too rules heavy and played to slow for what it wanted to do.

I think that Dan Davenport got it pretty right on his rpg.net review:

If you've ever wanted to combine the powerful emotions and epic grandeur of Lord of the Rings with the brutally detailed combat of RuneQuest, then boy, do I have the game for you . . .​

I don't think BW sets out to be rules light. But it does set out to produce a play experience that I think would be more typically associated with rules-light games.

(That said, I don't find that play in BW is particularly slow. Though all these standards are relative: my main comparators are D&D, most recently 4e, and Rolemaster.)

 

[Celebrim]

I suspect it's because it's a Fantasy Heartbreaker that didn't capture a lot of long term play. It's got a lot of innovations in it, and I particularly like the concept of the character burner, but for me - while I can't actually hate anything I don't play - I had three big problems with it.

1) It's combat system aimed to support detailed process as simulation, while the rest of its system aimed to support high concept story play. Both seemed to be a bit extreme in their design for my taste, and the combat system just seemed to detailed for anything that wasn't inspired by something like the works of Dumas and fencing simulation as core of play (sort of the fencing version of Aces and Eights, another innovative but complex system).
2) There was a lot of features of play that involved, meta-play rather than play. That is, very often play was supposed to stop and you'd were supposed to have a discussion about what the prior play had meant and what direction future play was to take. To me it felt less like a game than like agile software development applied to story creation.
3) The snarky edgy writing style drove me bonkers.