Why does ENWorld hate Burning Wheel?

[trancejeremy]

I don't think it hates it, but this site started as a 3.0 site and while it's broadened, it's mostly broadened to other editions of D&D...you might find a thread or two about some other game, but that's it, unless it's something this place puts out.

 

[Zak S]

There are parts of Burning Wheel which are explicitly written for people who would get in fights when using D&D or for people who couldn't get D&D to do suuuuuuper basic D&D 101 things (like handling duels of wits without defaulting to "Roll. Roll.").

So if you are so into D&D that you are posting about it on the internet for strangers to read, there's a good chance D&D does work well for you, so there's no need for a lot of the rules that make up Burning Wheel.

It has interesting ideas--the freeform combat system and it enables kinds of play not built into D&D (conversation as math game, f'rinstance) but tons of the design space in it is given over to problems that the average D&D fan considers solved. So I can see why it wouldn't much be discussed.

Kinda like the reason training wheels aren't discussed much on a mountain biking forum.

 

[Ezequielramone]

There is a micro rpg niche in my country. And there is a big group o people (much of them are good friends of mine) who love to play indie games, BW is like their god. We make fun of them with affection because they are hippies, and then make fun of us because we play D&D, Pathfinder, etc.

One of my closest friend recommended me to read BW, I bought the books and started reading. I could not stand the way he wrote and I felt like he was talking about how great his game was but I wasn't read a single rule (I didn't read it a lot really). I was in a heavy study time in my life, so I decided this didn't worth my time.

 

[innerdude]

I own Burning Wheel Gold (Revised). And there's a part of me that thinks that Burning Wheel is in many ways a "platonic ideal" of a kind of roleplaying system I would absolutely love. A system where character beliefs are hard wired into the resolution system, and PCs can't advance without actually playing up to those beliefs? Sign me up for some of that please. I am soooooo beyond sick and tired of playing RPGs where the characters are little more than numbers, optimized to meet some mechanical end. Burning Wheel feels crafted to specifically go away from that. I can very much get the sense for the kind of game Burning Wheel offers to participants, and I'm fairly certain I want that game experience.

Unfortunately, there's another part of me that knows, beyond all reasonable doubt, that based on the current player base for my two general gaming groups, that Burning Wheel will never, ever, ever see actual play at the table.

 

[Paka]

I really love BW but always thought of this forum as the D&D joint, so I take my discussion of the game elsewhere, usually to my blog or the BW forums.

 

[TerraDave]

Hmm, doesn't look like it is being discussed much anywhere:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/hotgames.php

I mean its no Silver Age Sentinels or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, after all.

 

[DM Howard]

I remember my friend and I picked up two of the first edition copies when they first came out way back when, but it ended up being one of those systems that was interesting to read, but not too fun to put into practice (for us mind you). I also don't see much discussion about Hackmaster (my favourite RPG hands down), but that's due to this being a very D&D focused board, and a lot of people think Hackmaster still means "that parody game". Discuss and the discussion will come I suppose.

 

[TrippyHippy]

It has interesting ideas--the freeform combat system and it enables kinds of play not built into D&D (conversation as math game, f'rinstance) but tons of the design space in it is given over to problems that the average D&D fan considers solved. So I can see why it wouldn't much be discussed.

While I get the broad thrust of your argument, I don’t think that The Burning Wheel’s scripted combat is freeform - quite the opposite. I also take issue that the combat system is comparable to RQ in terms of complexity, as somebody else mentioned.

RuneQuest’s combat isn’t especially more complex than that of D&D, unless Hit locations are seen as unduly complex, and the various manoeuvres are not really that much different to some of the Feats or manoeuvres available in D&D at various levels. It still essentially runs in a progressive way that can become intuitive with practise - it runs in a similar linear, spontaneous fashion to D&D.

However, the Burning Wheel scripted combat idea puts the whole system on its head - you literally write a script for how the fight will go for each character (including NPCs) and then try to play it out against each other. Moreover, this is just one option of three different combat systems in the book, along with a lot of complex interaction from personality traits (what would your character do?), and other fiddly, technical bits that have lots of confusing jargon. It’s not spontaneous at all, counter-intuitive in my view, and is very confusing - especially to first time gamers.

 

[Zak S]

While I get the broad thrust of your argument, I don’t think that The Burning Wheel’s scripted combat is freeform - quite the opposite..

It's interesting is all. That's my main point.

I dont' recommend it and it has never worked for me or my group, but it's interesting.

 

[TrippyHippy]

It's interesting is all. That's my main point.

I dont' recommend it and it has never worked for me or my group, but it's interesting.

As a flippant aside, you could say the same thing about syphilis!

But seriously, though my major point is to not downplay how difficult some of the subsystems can be for the uninitiated in The Burning Wheel.