Why does ENWorld hate Burning Wheel?

[Starfox]

Is Mouse Guard a simplified version of Burning Wheel? I have tried Mouse Guard, and found it had too many rules. It also encouraged metaplay. In order to get maximum experience from a fight - and this is very strictly given in the rules - you first have to fail a lot only to later catch up and win. Mouse Guard also formalized role-playing situations in a way that I suppose could encourage a group of players who are not into role-playing, but for experienced role-players it felt like a crutch and leash combined.

Overall, the experience was that this is a boardgame trying to emulate a good free-form role-playing session by formalizing it into rules.

Not saying it can't work for the right group, but someone mentioned training wheels and I agree with that sentiment. Once you know how to play, you no longer need the training wheels.

Also, if Mouseguard is a simplified version of Burning Wheel, the original must be really really complex.

On the positive side, it really put a LOT of control into the players hands. There were player resources and player-called scenes that had merit. Only, as I noted above, the best way to use these resources were sometimes to fail.

 

[WayneLigon]

I liked some aspects of BW but the XP system is simply too weird for me to deal with. Trying to play a mage was a total massive act of frustration - spell costs have little to no relation to how powerful or useful they are, for instance. Also, I despise any system that tells me how old my character is.

 

[Fuseboy]

Is Mouse Guard a simplified version of Burning Wheel?

No, not really. I mean, you'd see some mechanical similarities but the overarching turn sequence ("players' turn, GM's turn") was new to Mouse Guard. Chargen, combat, etc. is all quite different.

 

[pemerton]

My one critique of Burning Wheel is that it does not work with larger groups.

With more players the spotlight passes more, so you need to work a little bit more as a group (although BW doesn't seem to handle a traditional "party" as well as other games; but does a pvp or neutral group much better).

I have been running with three, and hope to step that up to four or five in due course.

Establishing Beliefs that link the PCs, and link them to a common backstory, seems fairly crucial to this.

 

[Fuseboy]

Rachel Walton has written a fair bit about running with larger groups. If players aren't used to explicitly providing the cohesion themselves (e.g. if they're used to the GM dragging them around), there's a temptation to put three 'side quests' as beliefs (goals), which will tear the game apart with centrifugal force.

Players definitely need to show up with characters that are strongly linked to the common goal, but in large groups the second and third belief should relate to other PCs. This way, following your beliefs engages other people at the table instead of (say) just the GM.

 

[Celebrim]

I have been running with three, and hope to step that up to four or five in due course.

Establishing Beliefs that link the PCs, and link them to a common backstory, seems fairly crucial to this.

I learned back in the '90's that this is necessary for an RPG whether it mechanically defines backstory or not. Whether the goals and beliefs are explicit or implicit, groups need to have common threads that explain why the group stays together even in the face of disagreement. If the goals and beliefs of the characters diverge too much, the better RPers you have, the more likely you are to see party dissolution.

It was at that point that I started approving backstories on the basis of whether they would serve the game, and not merely whether they were plausible for the setting.

 

[Razjah]

Players definitely need to show up with characters that are strongly linked to the common goal, but in large groups the second and third belief should relate to other PCs. This way, following your beliefs engages other people at the table instead of (say) just the GM.

This is extremely true! One thing I find fascinating about BW is that if you aren't playing as a group it is very easy to be telling three stories with one GM (4 person group). It doesn't take too much effort for the players to write beliefs that interact with each other, but it does need to be conscious. D&D seems to run under an assumption of adventurers being folk heroes and almost a tangent to society, similar to how comics rarely address what it is like to live in a world where 10% of the population is potentially extremely volatile and dangerous. Burning Wheel has the PCs as people who are involved in the campaign situation, but they are regular people with obligations and jobs- not adventures who are essentially para-military monster slaying hobos (I'm exaggerating for a point).

I find it good to use FATE's guest appearances as an idea. In FATE everyone knows a couple people in the party, if not all of them. You can do something similar in BW using the beliefs.
LotR Example:
-Gimli: I will prove dwarven courage and skill by besting Legolas in killing the most orcs.
-Legolas: I'll show Gimli that elves are superior even in war by killing more orcs that him.

-Aragorn B1: I pledge everything, even my life, to ensuring Frodo reaches Mount Doom.
-Aragorn B2: I am the true king of Gondor, I must claim the throne to win this war.
-Frodo B1: I need Aragorn's skill and knowledge of the wilderness to reach Mount Doom.
-Frodo B2: Samwise is my best friend, I must see that no harm comes to him.

Things like that can help ensure the group stays together, cares about each other, and actually cooperates.

I have been running with three, and hope to step that up to four or five in due course.


Establishing Beliefs that link the PCs, and link them to a common backstory, seems fairly crucial to this.

3 PCs works wonderfully for BW, 4 is good too. But my playgroup has 7 total, 6 PCs and a GM in BW doesn't work nearly as well.

 

[Wicht]

-Aragorn B1: I pledge everything, even my life, to ensuring Frodo reaches Mount Doom.
-Aragorn B2: I am the true king of Gondor, I must claim the throne to win this war.
-Frodo B1: I need Aragorn's skill and knowledge of the wilderness to reach Mount Doom.
-Frodo B2: Samwise is my best friend, I must see that no harm comes to him.

Things like that can help ensure the group stays together, cares about each other, and actually cooperates.

Maybe not the best example, as that particular party split, then split again, so that there were two people in Mordor, two people in Gondor, one person riding with Rohan, and three others who went off on a side quest along the paths of the dead.

 

[Razjah]

True enough, but the competition and mutual beliefs about rescuing the hobbits kept Gimli and Legolas together. And Aragorn's plan to attack the black gate to draw Sauron's attention was fueled by his desire to protect Frodo and do all he could to ensure his success. Until the Fellowship breaks it works well. Plus you can re-write or create new beliefs after something big happens. After Sam (in the film) finds the crumbs of elven bread that Gollum threw off the stairs he changes a belief to be something like "Gollum is a traitor and a fiend, I will prove this to Frodo"