TheRPGSite

At the risk of getting so completely Forgie that the site implodes, has anyone played Burning Wheel or any of its incarnations? I saw a setting book for it at Half-Price the other day that I picked up (about medieval Japan) but it isn't self-contained; you need the base game to play. I wanted to get some feedback on the system before dropping the coin, so let's hear it.

I also have the Mouse Guard game which, while I've read it, that was a few months back and the memory is the first thing to go as you get older. :) I understand it is a fairly heavily modified version of the rules anyway, so it might not be a decent source of information.

WK,
  I bought the original BW book from a player on RPG.net.
  I have not been able to get very far with it. The writing style was hard for me to grasp. I think a combination of a sort of personal writing style and an attempt at "cuteness" or snarkiness made it hard for me to follow the rules. Little things like, when you roll a dice and it comes up 1, 2 or 3, it is a failure, we will call those dice traitors. Just derails the whole conversation for me.
  I have tried on three separate occasions to read it and just gave up after 20 or so pages.

  I have heard good things about it. the lifepath system looks interesting and the fact that the rules for representing and promoting your chosen faction are baked into the rules is fascinating to me. but the writing style is just too much for me.

  An 0n-line friend of mine is eager to GM, so maybe I will see if I can get him to run it and I can see what the rules are actually like.

  I know it is not super helpful, but I do hope this post helped at least some...

I found the snarkiness mostly helpful in terms of learning how stuff works.

I've gotten through the Rim (the basic rules that are all that's required to play) and some of the Character Buiilder, and it seems like a pretty cool game with a fairly simple core.  The Spokes (the more complicated subsystems/minigames) I have not gotten through, and they seem pretty dense, although not much worse than any "modern" mainstream RPG.  

I haven't been able to playtest it, yet, but once I finish getting through the rest of the core I'm probably going to run a demo scenario for my group to see how it handles in play.

Mechanically and ideologically speaking, this is a love it or hate it game.  You're either going to love it's ideas or you're going to hate it, since it's very much Luke's game and he's present throughout making sure the proper way to play is made clear.

I owned it for a few months.

I got sucked in by all the hype on RPG.net and made a trade for it...it is so dense and overdone that it did less to inspire me to play RPGs than any game I've read other than MAYBE Heroes Unlimited.  Just...just...yeah.

It's okay. I wrote a review for it on RPGnet. As others have mentioned, it has a Lifepath system. It also has scripted combat, which is interesting, if not my cup of tea.

Seanchai

There were a lot of interesting ideas in there.

It was quite complicated though and the author's writing style left my nose gushing blood after about sixty pages.

I might play it given the opportunity, but I'd never be able to run the thing.

Burning Wheel is an interesting game.  Like Riddle of Steel it is basically a Forge-based traditional RPG, although BW uses more Forge conventions.

Main Points...
-Lifepath system is good, could have been great with more detail on some of the abilities.  The races of Middle-Earth style Elves, Orcs and Dwarves are awesome.

-"Duel of Wits" social combat system makes sense, but with any minigame, it can detract from in-character perspective.

-"Fight" combat system manages to include a detailed tactical range system that doesn't need minis.  Unfortunately, it is a scripted combat.  You come up with a plan and then try to execute it.  Of course the old adage "every fighter has a plan until he gets hit" is evident here as developments can render some of your actions non-applicable.

-Character Mechanics. Beliefs, Instincts, Traits.  You want to see how people use them here. (http://rpgsubsystems.blogspot.com/2008/09/burning-wheel-bits.html)

-Style. The rules are written conversationally, with rants and important points getting their own symbol to flag them.  Reading the book and the BW forums, you'll see that like most Forge games, the special mechanics were designed to influence bad behavior, in this case, the disfunctional behavior of a group of New York guys who argue like every day is Jerry Springer's birthday.

-Pretentiousness.  The whole Burning Wheel thing (spoke hub, spark, Character Burner, World Burner etc) create some kind of arcane language that makes losers think the game is bigger then it really is, as evidenced by this post on RPG.net.

Quote from: AnyaTheBlue on RPG.netLuke Crane is a genius.

I don't say that lightly.

Unfortunately, I think he has one of the typical problems geniuses have: he has trouble communicating with people who aren't geniuses.

The Burning Wheel is two things. It is a game system, and it is a setting. The Monster Burner tries to make this explicit -- with these tools, and the Tolkien-inspired setting as an example, you can make the game you want! Monsters are characters! Robot lifepaths? Go to town! Psychic powers? It's all there, in potential, waiting to be chiseled out.

But lots of people look at it, see the shadowy shapes of greatness, and have a hard time actually pulling it out.

Luke, being a genius, noticed this. That's why Burning Empires is shaped the way it is. It's still Burning Wheel, but it's got this extra structural bit -- the Infection mechanics -- which provide some extra focus. It's like Luke is saying, "See, here's another example, with some more detail! Here you go. Do you get it now?"

And, again, some people are confused.

Mouse Guard is the most recent iteration of this conversation. And, finally, lots more people 'get it' than have up till now. And 'it' has nothing to do with anthropomorphic mice.

Unfortunately, there are still rather a lot of people saying 'Hell, why would I want to play this? It's got mice in it!" As someone very old (in gaming terms), this just reminds me of RuneQuest and Ducks, but there you go. Luke isn't the first person to have this kind of problem.

Anyway -- my point: Burning Wheel, Burning Empires, and Mouse Guard are not different games. They are different examples of the same game.

And they rock. (IMHO)

Then again, all games have whackjobs, this one just seems inclined to create cultists.

All in all, a good game.  The character mechanics manage to be central to the game yet don't give me that metagame itch.  The Duel of Wits and scripted combat are well implemented, but like Seanchai said, not really my cup of tea.

Go to the Burning Wiki and check out the downloads page, they show sample chapters. (http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads)

Like PaladinCA, I could probably play this thing, but could never run it.

I really liked it at first, but the more I read, the more confused I got. By the time I got to Artha and the three different kinds of experience points or what have you I was hopelessly lost.

I might run a game of it someday just to see if I can, but unless something really clicks with me on a re-read I don't think it's really for me.

I found the writing obtuse, and the game poorly explained. It has neat bits. But honestly? They don't focus on the neat bits which make it unique. (The handling of the races, for example in my books were pretty glossed over--and that seemed like a neat bit they ignored.)

 Mechanically it reads as too complex for me, it might not play that way but its explanations sucked. I also loath scripted combat. No one plans their moves in complete absence of information. You may have seconds to act, but you can read some of a person's cues and use that to act or react. So scripted combat runs into the problem of planning for something blind, and not being able to face a semblance of a living foe.

Yeah, that's one thing that's really got me scratching my head - scripted combat? Seems to me like that's just novelty for the sake of novelty, but not having seen it in action, I'm not really sure how it would play out.

All I know about it is that it comes up repeatedly in those "tell me about an rpg.net darling that really disappointed you," threads.

Apparently it doesn't live up to the hype.

Cheers,
-E.

I like Burning Wheel a lot. I love in general, the core mechanic, of picking up a handful of dice and counting successes. There are many little bits that interact with each other nicely, like FoRK dice from other skills, or helping dice from other characters. I love the way Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits drive play. I love Lifepath character generation. I love the way the skill progression mechanics create characters that slowly grow and develop organically. I love the way Artha (a kind of hero or drama points to affect dice rolls) interacts with play. I think the scripted combat works because it comes in such short bursts, and the disconnect between making a plan and seeing the way it hits the road make for a bit of frantic desperation in combat that can be fun. However, I do find combat, and several other bits (wounds and healing, run and cover) to be needlessly baroque. We've played around with replacing Fight! with the conflict mechanic from Mouseguard, with mixed success.

Well, let me ask this - is Mouseguard (which I have) easier to understand while retaining some of what you like about Burning Wheel? Is it "broad" enough to use as a system itself, or is it pretty specific to the MG setting?

So far the trend seems to be negative, but the positives sound interesting enough to balance it out... guess I might just have to get a copy and read it. :P

You're also posting on, you know, this site.  A lot of people here don't seem to like crunchy rules systems, let alone ones with any relation (small or not) to the Forge.

However, I think Mouse Guard is a little more clear and easily understood, and in terms of "editions" of the BW, it's one of the more generally well-received.

If you want to do standard high-fantasy with MG, I'm not sure if you've heard of Realm Guard, but it offers a neat way to hack MG for Middle-Earth in the 4th Age, letting you play as rangers.

It's hard to say without knowing what you specifically intend to do. I don't know as much about Mouseguard--I've only played it a couple of times, and don't own it. I do know that it has a much more structured approach to adventure progression and scene-framing, and its conflict-resolution system is much looser and more abstract than BW various mini-games. It has been well-received as very easy to pick up and play, and there are a number of hacks which replace the default setting with something else.

Mouseguard: Hacks and Expansions (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?47-Hacks-and-Expansions)

Quote from: Werekoala;392429Well, let me ask this - is Mouseguard (which I have) easier to understand while retaining some of what you like about Burning Wheel? Is it "broad" enough to use as a system itself, or is it pretty specific to the MG setting?

I've played Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard, and Mouse Guard is clearly, clearly a refinement of BW's core systems, thoughtfully pared down and the result of years more experience. I'm not sure Mouse Guard is easier to hack than Burning Wheel, given certain strong assumptions built into the game, but people seem to repurpose both pretty frequently.

I own it and have run it for two short campaigns. I recently was considering it for another campaign, though, as you see on the front of the threads here, I changed my mind.

As others said, BW is a love it or hate it game. Specifically, there is a lot of crunch, and that crunch is loaded in places that are not where you'd usually put it. For example, the Artha system is very complex, in what amounts to a Fate point system, but is very, very specific about what it rewards. The same goes for the various Scripted systems - they have a very particular intent, and so you have to buy into that intent or the whole thing flops.

Also, the game assume a more shared GM/Player Authority over the game. Players are handed specific bits of narrative power over the game. Failure in exercising this power will really make the game weak or floppy.

Personally, it broke my old gaming group. As it turns out, I didn't want to stay with them anyway for exactly the issues BW brought out. At the same time, I don't think I'd run it again. That very odd complexity is too much for me now, and I feel that it just isn't worth it.

That said, I've lifted other useful concepts from the game, so there's that. And I personally like the writing style (but I'm a fan of Greg Stolze's style too, so, I like a game author to be "familiar" in describing what he was going for in the game).

It should be noted that Luke Crane has learned from himself. Burning Empires, a BW game based on the Iron Empires setting, is worlds away better in writing and explanations than Burning Wheel. The mechanics really do, in my opinion, fit well with that setting. I've heard the same about Mouse Guard and I'll probably end up buying it.

If it means anything, BW is probably the only game I've ever repeatedly fought myself to try to love. It's got such ideas in it that I think I should be playing it more, but when I finally get around to it getting over the hump of the rules themselves puts me in conniptions.

Quote from: Werekoala;392404Yeah, that's one thing that's really got me scratching my head - scripted combat? Seems to me like that's just novelty for the sake of novelty, but not having seen it in action, I'm not really sure how it would play out.

Well that one is easy to answer. Burning Wheel plays tactical without minis. So if you like tactics in your combat but dislike minis the combat system is usually a good fit for you.
The complexity people usually describe as overwhelming is actually a mistake on part of the readers as they try to take on the whole game from the beginning while the game book clearly tells them not to do so.
The rules are very well organized and written in a fashion that you can turn up the complexity over the course of your game in accordance to you either getting more familiar or you wanting more complexity in certain areas.

Quote from: Mencelus;393748As others said, BW is a love it or hate it game. Specifically, there is a lot of crunch, and that crunch is loaded in places that are not where you'd usually put it. For example, the Artha system is very complex, in what amounts to a Fate point system, but is very, very specific about what it rewards. The same goes for the various Scripted systems - they have a very particular intent, and so you have to buy into that intent or the whole thing flops.

Yeah, no one can accuse it of being rules-light, that's for sure! Still, your Artha comment seems odd. It's not something that ever caused a problem at our table. Typically, at the end each session, we'd go through the categories and hand out Artha by group consensus. One of the nice side-effects of that was that we'd essentially go through a recap of the highlights from the evening.

But the Fight! system and Run and Cover are definitely a little too overworked for my tastes. I can't agree with what others have said, that those chapters are very well written. They weren't bad to read through, but using them as a reference document is a pain! And the Treatment and Recovery chapter, just forget about it! One of the players at our table made a flow chart to figure it out! (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?5582-Treatment-Recovery)

QuoteAlso, the game assume a more shared GM/Player Authority over the game. Players are handed specific bits of narrative power over the game. Failure in exercising this power will really make the game weak or floppy.

This is one of the things that is my favorite part of the game, especially as it applies to Circles rolls. Where it's done with -wises is a little more wishy-washy, and definitely needs some pre-game discussion and clarification, but can really add a lot of zap! to the game.

QuotePersonally, it broke my old gaming group. As it turns out, I didn't want to stay with them anyway for exactly the issues BW brought out.

This is an juicy comment. Care to elaborate?

QuoteIt should be noted that Luke Crane has learned from himself. Burning Empires, a BW game based on the Iron Empires setting, is worlds away better in writing and explanations than Burning Wheel. The mechanics really do, in my opinion, fit well with that setting.

Absolutely! Firefight is a thing of beauty!

Like the others I found it very tough to penetrate. I don't mind crunchy rules, but the writing style really conspires against easy understanding. It's a shame, because there's an interesting game lurking underneath, I'm sure.

Quote from: two_fishes;393826This is an juicy comment. Care to elaborate?

Basically I had two issues at the table with four of the players (the other three were fine; when I left the old group I took them with me).

One player was a "do everything by badgering the GM." Basically, she wanted her awesome roleplay to count for EVERYTHING, and her character sheet to count for nothing except combat. That's fine if that's the table agreement, but I made it clear as a GM that it isn't fine for me. She did it for every game. I told her that if she didn't have dice or points to back it up, it wasn't happening.

Two players were super duper passive. Boy and girlfriend. They just breathed air. I'm not an entertainer and don't like to do that - I ALSO want to play as GM, not just provide you plots that you never choose anyway.

One guy was actually okay, but he was married to the first one, so he tended not to quite do what he wanted too.

These were things that happened throughout the three short campaigns I ran for them, one of which was BW. It was the second one, and it really showed all the above. I don't mind people being crushed under complexity or whatever - it happens, right? Just, they didn't even TRY to understand either the game or the rules. And they definitely didn't act on anything - they only reacted.

This happened again in the last game (Savage Worlds 50 Fathoms), so, I finally left the group, though it was BW that clued me in. I couldn't figure out why I didn't have super fun in the first campaign; in the BW game everything came out hard. The third game cinched it.

P.S. - so, this should be a cautionary tale about everyone being on the same page. They had VERY different play expectations than I had, and didn't know how to communicate them. I didn't notice fast enough for sure. BW only works when everyone is on board with all its concepts.

Quote from: Mencelus;393841And they definitely didn't act on anything - they only reacted.

Oh yeah, it's definitely a game that pushes for the players to be active agents. Really, as a GM, you should be able to look at the characters' Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits, and plan the game by pushing those buttons.

Actually you can get away with reactive players if you make sure they get proper beliefs, i.e. ones that (partially) oppose those of other players or ones that align with the beliefs of more active players. Just make sure they are not quite the same. What usually happens is that they get sucked in.

Well, all the comments have been quite helpful, and will serve as good background as I start to read the books I won on eBay yesterday. I got the revised two-book set and the Monster Burner for $16.00 including shipping, so at least I won't be blowing much if I don't like it.

Quote from: Werekoala;393861Well, all the comments have been quite helpful, and will serve as good background as I start to read the books I won on eBay yesterday. I got the revised two-book set and the Monster Burner for $16.00 including shipping, so at least I won't be blowing much if I don't like it.

16 bucks including shipping for those three?  That's a killer deal.

I bought them new...heh.

Yeah... I got really lucky apparently, as there aren't any copies of this to speak of being sold used it seems. Not sure if that's a good sign or not. :)

Burning Wheel is a great game, especially if you're a lover of traditional fantasy adventure games. BW is a big, crunchy game filled with combat rules, different kinds of magic, dwarves, elves, orcs and enchanted swords.

Werekoala, if you're looking for play advice, since you've already got the books, I would stick to JUST the basic rules at first, and add in the more detailed sub-systems (combat, ranged combat, magic and the Duel of Wits) later, if your group decides they like the game.

My first BW campaign was a big fat mess, because we used every rule in the book, and confusion reigned.

My last BW campaign was a series of city adventures, and we used only the basic ("Rim") mechanics, which I preferred.

Actually, the basics are the Spokes, I messed up there, too.  Doh. :D

But yeah, that's one of the things I find really attractive about the system -- any conflict can be boiled down to a Versus test and solved right then and there.  You only really want to get into the really detailed stuff for conflicts that matter, or when the group as a whole feels like it.

Very different from D&D, where practically every combat is played out, regardless of whether the group is excited about it or not.

Quote from: Saphim;393752So if you like tactics in your combat but dislike minis the combat system is usually a good fit for you.

That's an interesting idea. What makes it tactical? How do you mean "tactical"?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;393988That's an interesting idea. What makes it tactical? How do you mean "tactical"?

Seanchai

The same way Exalted combat is tactical without minis -- lots of meaningful choices (maneuvers) during combat as well as depending heavily on anticipating your opponent's moves while trying to work the situation to your advantage.

It's also more about disabling opponents and taking them out of the fight than it is about outright killing them.

Quote from: Seanchai;393988That's an interesting idea. What makes it tactical? How do you mean "tactical"?

Seanchai

Well basically speaking it is the interaction between weapon speed, Striking Distance, Positioning Tests, VA and Maneuvers.
Let me make an example. Let's take two combatants. One is the sergeant of the city guard. He has a spear in his hand, a sword at his side and a knife in his belt. He corners a thief in a completely barren dead end. The thief draws a knive himself.
In most RPGs this is a very boring fight, there is no escape (because I fiated that), no spellslinging, just I attack, you attack, whether with feats or without.

Let's take a look at this in Burning Wheel.
So, first of all, this is going to be a lot about positioning, because if the thief can come close, the sergeant has to drop his weapon and draw the knife because fighting against a knife fighter with a spear at close range is going to get you killed.
But the thief, who earns his living running away, is a lot faster and doesn't wear chain mail, so eventually he is going to win positioning.
So what do you do as the sergeant? Do you draw your sword and hope for the best? Try the risky disarm maneuver or aim for the legs? Do you hope an early blow will cause a steeltest and take care of the kid that way (but the thief spent alls his life in the streets,  he might have the steel to pass)?

These are only some of the tactical choices/challenges burning wheel combat presents to only one combant in a bare room just based on different weapons.
You don't need a map to enjoy any of it. You don't need miniatures and after a couple of scripted combats these things come very easy to one.

Quote from: Peregrin;393992The same way Exalted combat is tactical without minis -- lots of meaningful choices (maneuvers) during combat as well as depending heavily on anticipating your opponent's moves while trying to work the situation to your advantage.

If figured that, but I don't remember Burning Wheel as being especially tactical. I only have an early edition and never played it, so I was curious what I missed. I wondered if it was scripting that made it tactical or something else...

Seanchai

I bought it and eventually sold it on ebay.

I liked the writing style.  I thought the lifepaths were great.  The complexity and crunch killed me though.

Also, it said to read the first 77 pages and then run it a little, using "Bloody Versus" tests instead of the combat rules while you got the basics down pat.

Bloody Versus rules weren't in the first 77 pages.  That irked me.

But that wasn't the real issue, just an annoyance.  The issue was the crunch.  It just plain defeated me.  Way too rules heavy for my personal needs.

I hope whoever it was who bought it from me plays the hell out of it.

Did you just sell it in the last couple of days? :D

Quote from: Werekoala;394111Did you just sell it in the last couple of days? :D

A while back :-)

I may sell my copy of PTA shortly though.

Actually, I have a bunch of stuff coming up soon.  Some are good games I also have in pdf, some are ones I think I won't run, some I like but won't run again.

I'm getting increasingly brutal.  So, the Mars book for SW goes (good as it is) because I've run a sword and planet game recently using S&W and it went fine.  Aces & Angels goes because if I run an air combat game (and I may) it will be WWI, not II (Aces in Spades stays therefore) and anyway I have it in pdf too, and so on.  I don't have any games left I don't actually like, but I have plenty that aren't really necessary.

Quote from: Seanchai;394069If figured that, but I don't remember Burning Wheel as being especially tactical. I only have an early edition and never played it, so I was curious what I missed. I wondered if it was scripting that made it tactical or something else...

I find the full combat rules too unwieldy for me too. People who don't seem to like BW combat usually seem to be cranky about the scripting, which I don't mind at all. It's the positioning rules and the Mortal Wound/damage rules that get me confused.

The combat system in Mouse Guard is definitely a simpler, more elegant version of the BW combat system. Comparing stuff in that game is actually kind of a fun "game-ish" thing, instead of work.

I thought it got elves and orcs better than any other game I've seen.  It definitely had some seriously cool ideas.

I'd play it, I wouldn't run it.

Ok, so I’ve been reading the core book for the Burning Wheel, up to page 77, and have some impressions.

Started out with the basics; dice mechanics, stats, etc. I’m pretty cool with it so far – fairly standard “roll handful of dice, count successes, some dice can explode for re-rolls” etc. Then we get to the area of using what are essentially “action points” to affect die rolls and outcomes. Cool, so far no problem.

But then the deeper I get into the rules, I start to notice something. I think the system itself is wonky-for-wonkiness sake. Some things I like, such as tracking successes to determine advances in skills or abilities, and I like the "shades" (black, grey, white) for skills and attributes, to grade the levels of expertise or effectiveness rather than relying purely on numbers. Other thngs strike me as decidedly story-gamish, like spending Artha to change outcomes you don’t like mid-game (and as usual, the GM isn’t supposed to say no…).

Speaking of “Artha”, that’s where the wheels come flying off, if you’ll pardon the expression. My comprehension took a bit of a hit, but I still managed to read through to the end of the section. I think I have a handle on the mechanics, but it crystalized what I was having the hardest time with:

What the FUCK is up with all of the re-naming of traditional gaming mechanics in this game?

You don’t make a character, or build a character, you “burn” them. Failed dice in your dice pool are not failures, they’re “traitors”. Artha is a SANSKRIT word, for god’s sake, that based on the definition provided in the book has nothing to do with how it is used in the game itself.

And something that didn’t even hit me until I was almost done reading the chapter – why is the game called “The Burning Wheel” to start with? Why the whole conceit of calling the sections the “hub” (core rules), the “spokes” (basic mechanics) and the “rim” (advanced rules, I’m assuming). Why is it on fire? What the hell?! Does this come into play as part of the setting for the game, or is it just for “flair”?

That’s really my biggest problem so far – it’s like Crane decided to design a game using fairly standard mechanics in many areas, and make it all edgy and such by renaming everything. All it has done so far is cause my brain to lock up and try to mentally translate the “cool” names for things into standard gamer language. This is why (I already know) it’ll never be used for my gaming group, because they’ll have the same problem. “So, Artha is LIKE action points, but it has up to 8 or 9 uses and levels and can only be used in certain situations and… fuck it, let’s play 3e.”

So, I’m not usually much for the Swine-Wars, but in this case I think the game was made intentionally Byzantine and hard to translate into “normal” game terms simply so that it’d make people who actually grasp the game as-written feel superior to “regular” gamers. I think if someone were to take the book and translate it into plain English, it would probably be pretty playable. That’s my impression, but as usual, YMMV.

I also like the digest-sized layout and font of the books. It makes it look like an old-timey notebook or something.

I think anyone who is on the fence (or even curious) about Burning Wheel should give this a listen. (http://podgecast.com/archives/campaign-recap-kingdom-the-next-generation-episode-1)

Its the beginning of a campaign recap (not an actual play, I loathe actual plays) of a high-intrigue, noble house game that the hosts of the Podgecast ran. I think it gives a pretty good sense of the strengths and weaknesses of the system.

Personally, I ran and enjoyed a very fun Burning Wheel campaign (not to say the game doesn't have its problems). I think the game runs intrigue very well and, in our game, the Duel of Wits scripting mechanic was used far more often than Fight! was.

The key to relaxing and enjoying running BW in my experience was keeping it simple whenever possible and only busting out the complex systems when things get heavy.

Bloody Versus is great for less important, fast paced combat. Fight! is amazing for a highly dramatic duel that is going to end with someone dead or wishing they were so...

Quote from: Peregrin;393940You only really want to get into the really detailed stuff for conflicts that matter...

How do you know which ones actually matter?  For instance, that five hit points your character is down may be the five hit points that would have saved them in the next combat.

Just to focus on that one issue of Bloody vs. instead of using the full-on combat mechanics--not only isn't Bloody Vs. found in the first 77 pages of the rules (according to D-503), it isn't really explained anywhere exactly how to run a combat with it. Not that I could find. Closest I think was a probably a forum post that (IIRC) basically said the loser dies, or suffers whatever fate the winner wanted to impose. What's important is: weapons, armor, etc. become pointless if you use Bloody Vs.

As for the full-on combat mechanics, they're not only fiddly as all get-out, and rather poorly explained/edited (I remember the section on weapon length was very ambiguous, and a good answer was very hard to come by even when I asked directly on the forums)--in addition to all that, they just don't make any sense at all when you have more than two combatants. You have to resort to a kludge found somewhere on the forums and/or wiki. Otherwise you might have a situation where A is next B, B is next to C, but A is miles away from C, or something like that.

This is a pity, because really I don't have a great deal of interest in detailed dueling rules (mostly because I don't think I can get players to pay attention to them), and the game as a whole holds some interest for me, but neither the simple nor the complex combat systems really seem to work for group play, unless a lot of handwaving or errata are thrown into the mix.

Quote from: Werekoala;395504That's really my biggest problem so far – it's like Crane decided to design a game using fairly standard mechanics in many areas, and make it all edgy and such by renaming everything. All it has done so far is cause my brain to lock up and try to mentally translate the "cool" names for things into standard gamer language. This is why (I already know) it'll never be used for my gaming group, because they'll have the same problem. "So, Artha is LIKE action points, but it has up to 8 or 9 uses and levels and can only be used in certain situations and... fuck it, let's play 3e."

I finished reading the book, cause it does have some interesting ideas, but yeah, you hit my thoughts exactly with that. It could be a great game, but I'll be fucked to find anyone willing to play it in my normal gaming circles.

Quote from: StormBringer;395554How do you know which ones actually matter?  For instance, that five hit points your character is down may be the five hit points that would have saved them in the next combat.

Bloody Vs. are discouraged from having outright deaths unless certain criteria are met or the group really wants to risk it.

In otherwords, most simple one-roll conflicts result in one side gaining an advantage, not slaughtering them.  Even in detailed martial conflict, it's much more about disabling your opponent from being able to fight than it is outright cutting their head off.  That doesn't stop people from drying from serious wounds or infection afterward, though.

What you do with them after the fight and how that plays out...well...that's up to the party.

Quote from: Peregrin;395563Bloody Vs. are discouraged from having outright deaths unless certain criteria are met or the group really wants to risk it.

In otherwords, most simple one-roll conflicts result in one side gaining an advantage, not slaughtering them.  Even in detailed martial conflict, it's much more about disabling your opponent from being able to fight than it is outright cutting their head off.  That doesn't stop people from drying from serious wounds or infection afterward, though.

What you do with them after the fight and how that plays out...well...that's up to the party.

Nonetheless, how do you know which conflicts really matter?

That was me saying that, not the game.

The short answer is that you use detailed martial conflict whenever the group feels like it.  Whenever it would seem most fun or dramatic.

As to my comment of battles "mattering" it's not a concept isolated to BW or story-games, though, as Fantasy Craft also has "Dramatic Encounters" which tangibly affect how things play out.

*edit*

Just got back from work, and managed to skim through my copy.  Bloody Versus is mentioned in the Spokes, detailed in a few paragraphs in the Rim.  It's based on weapon skill.

For a simple test, it's weapon skill vs weapon skill, success dealing damage to the other side.  The book suggests that if a player wants to kill a character, they should use the detailed rules (so in "mattering", I guess this would mean knocking a PC or NPC out of the game forever).  

However, it offers a simplified version for handling duels where the players want to kill someone, but want to resolve the conflict quickly.  You split your weapon skill into a defense and offense pool (as you see fit), the GM may add one or two bonus dice for helping and/or armor on each side, and then you roll those, successes in defense negate the opposition's offensive successes, and vice versa, with successes translating to damage.

Those are the "Versus" combat systems as I understand them.

Quote from: StormBringer;395565Nonetheless, how do you know which conflicts really matter?

Maybe this is one of those things that seems really obvious to some people, and genuinely perplexing to others.

In my last BW game, the two PCs were tracking this mysterious evil-doer through the city. At one point they were trying to get something (I forget what), and they made a Circles roll* that brought up this shady witch-lady-type and her thuggish son. The ensuing conversation went south and weapons were drawn.

Not a "planned encounter" in, say, the D&D sense, and not a fight with the main bad guy or one of his henchmen or a "named" NPC. So that seemed like a conflict that didn't matter much.

Is that what you mean?

* Another non-traditional, but cool, BW mechanic, where you can roll to find a contact that you need - the more likely you'd be to find someone, the more dice you get to roll. If you succeed, you get to say who it is. If you fail, you don't find the contact you wanted, or the GM gets to decide you found and why they are your enemy (which is way more fun).

I agree with Werekoala on his take. I thought the same things when I read BW. Lots of cool ideas made complicated as all hell due to the writer's choice of terms.

Quote from: BWA;395576Maybe this is one of those things that seems really obvious to some people, and genuinely perplexing to others.

In my last BW game, the two PCs were tracking this mysterious evil-doer through the city. At one point they were trying to get something (I forget what), and they made a Circles roll* that brought up this shady witch-lady-type and her thuggish son. The ensuing conversation went south and weapons were drawn.

Not a "planned encounter" in, say, the D&D sense, and not a fight with the main bad guy or one of his henchmen or a "named" NPC. So that seemed like a conflict that didn't matter much.

Is that what you mean?

Largely, yes.  You more or less knew ahead of time that it was an interaction with an unimportant NPC, whereas in a 'traditional game' it would simply be another encounter that the players wouldn't know is or isn't connected to the 'plot'.  And of course, a good GM would make sure they think it is both.  ;)

I'll admit that sometimes I feel the urge to want to just blow through an encounter, especially if I have the inkling that it's not tied to the main story, and wish that there was a quick way to resolve it.

Of course, that can be attributed to two things, mostly (for me, at least):

a)  The GM is guiding the game via the "adventure path" mode of design that most mainstream RPG GMs have fallen into, and they're not really giving the party much freedom or incentive to follow their own plans (d20, White-Wolf, Dark Heresy, etc.).  The battle is not one of my or the party's choosing, it's merely a set-piece purposefully put there by the GM for their own ends, sometimes to push the party in a particular direction, and so I don't have any interest in it.  I partially blame this on the adventure design most use as a basis for constructing their own campaigns.

b)  The time a single battle consumes.  Since most modern RPGs put more crunch and blow-by-blow detail into a single combat, combats tend to drag on unless you're in a group that really gets into it and keeps things moving at a military step.

So while Bloody Vs may not be satisfying (or even necessary) for sandbox style games with reasonably paced combats, I find it to be an interesting solution for games that focus less on site based exploration and more on where the narrative/conflicts of the adventure leads.

Different sort of flow, different sort of game.  If I'm playing in an old-school game where the objective is to clear out rooms, steal treasure, etc., then I'll gladly accept encounters as part of the deal, especially since most minor ones can be resolved quickly (or avoided).  If I'm playing in a game more focused on the "narrative", whether it's an adventure-path sort of game or a story-game, I'm going to want to get to the "good stuff", since I signed up for a game that focuses creating some sort of "story."

Quote from: Peregrin;395636I'll admit that sometimes I feel the urge to want to just blow through an encounter, especially if I have the inkling that it's not tied to the main story, and wish that there was a quick way to resolve it.

Of course, that can be attributed to two things, mostly (for me, at least):

a)  The GM is guiding the game via the "adventure path" mode of design that most mainstream RPG GMs have fallen into, and they're not really giving the party much freedom or incentive to follow their own plans (d20, White-Wolf, Dark Heresy, etc.).  The battle is not one of my or the party's choosing, it's merely a set-piece purposefully put there by the GM for their own ends, sometimes to push the party in a particular direction, and so I don't have any interest in it.  I partially blame this on the adventure design most use as a basis for constructing their own campaigns.

b)  The time a single battle consumes.  Since most modern RPGs put more crunch and blow-by-blow detail into a single combat, combats tend to drag on unless you're in a group that really gets into it and keeps things moving at a military step.

So while Bloody Vs may not be satisfying (or even necessary) for sandbox style games with reasonably paced combats, I find it to be an interesting solution for games that focus less on site based exploration and more on where the narrative/conflicts of the adventure leads.

Different sort of flow, different sort of game.  If I'm playing in an old-school game where the objective is to clear out rooms, steal treasure, etc., then I'll gladly accept encounters as part of the deal, especially since most minor ones can be resolved quickly (or avoided).  If I'm playing in a game more focused on the "narrative", whether it's an adventure-path sort of game or a story-game, I'm going to want to get to the "good stuff", since I signed up for a game that focuses creating some sort of "story."

Fair enough.

The whole "conflicts that matter" concept is one that truly defines a Narrative viewpoint.

I'm sure commandos who are going to blow a bridge just want to cut to the chase and get straight to the goal, but there's a small inconvenient matter of crossing through 50 miles of enemy occupied warzone first.  Compared to what they have to do to get there, actually blowing the bridge may be boring.

It just comes down to..
Do you want to play a character in a heroic fashion, like a novel, comic book, or movie?

or Do you want to play a character in a world consistent with the reality of the setting, where every battle could be your last, not just the Boss-Mob?

FantasyCraft was mentioned earlier, it's a bad example of a Traditional RPG, as it incorporates many Narrative mechanics, some foundational.  It's pretty close to that line, even being a d20-based game.

Any RPG with "Mook Rules" has very little claim to being a game focused on in-character, setting verisimilitude based Immersion.

Quote from: CRKrueger;395654The whole "conflicts that matter" concept is one that truly defines a Narrative viewpoint.

I'm sure commandos who are going to blow a bridge just want to cut to the chase and get straight to the goal, but there's a small inconvenient matter of crossing through 50 miles of enemy occupied warzone first.  Compared to what they have to do to get there, actually blowing the bridge may be boring.

It just comes down to..
Do you want to play a character in a heroic fashion, like a novel, comic book, or movie?

or Do you want to play a character in a world consistent with the reality of the setting, where every battle could be your last, not just the Boss-Mob?

FantasyCraft was mentioned earlier, it's a bad example of a Traditional RPG, as it incorporates many Narrative mechanics, some foundational.  It's pretty close to that line, even being a d20-based game.

Any RPG with "Mook Rules" has very little claim to being a game focused on in-character, setting verisimilitude based Immersion.

Burning Wheel has no mook rules and bloody versus can easily mess you up as the outcome will often leave you wounded and wounds are very bad news in burning wheel.
However I agree burning wheel focuses on the conflicts that matter to the character and the player if you just want to play some bought module it is the wrong game, but if you want a game driven by nothing but the gamemasters imagination and goals of you/your characters then it is an excellent game.

Quote from: StormBringer;395632Largely, yes.  You more or less knew ahead of time that it was an interaction with an unimportant NPC, whereas in a 'traditional game' it would simply be another encounter that the players wouldn't know is or isn't connected to the 'plot'.  And of course, a good GM would make sure they think it is both.  ;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;395654Any RPG with "Mook Rules" has very little claim to being a game focused on in-character, setting verisimilitude based Immersion.

I think these are totally valid points. It comes back to play-style. I think lots of people - myself included - like games that emulate genre. In a gritty spy game, it's awesome if every encounter is fraught with possible meaning. But in a wuxia demon-fighting game, I want my guy to mow through the entire palace guard, and I don't really want them to be able to take me out with a lucky blow.

As Saphim points out, BW has no "mook" rules. In fact, of all the games I've ever played, BW is the closest to that "gritty reality" thing where a single knife blow can injure or kill a bad-ass warrior.

If D&D combat is The Lord of the Rings (movie version), BW combat is the Thieves' World series.

Another thing that kinda made me go "huh" was the concept of everyone announcing the goals for their characters at the beginning of the session, then the other players are supposed to take an active part in achieving everyone else's goals?

Really? Did I misread that?

That is a huge departure from RPGs in my mind. The GROUP might have goals, and that is what everyone is trying to accomplish. Individuals might have goals, but a) rarely announced to the entire party and b) might be actively against the goals of the group, or individual members.

...

Quote from: Werekoala;395696Another thing that kinda made me go "huh" was the concept of everyone announcing the goals for their characters at the beginning of the session, then the other players are supposed to take an active part in achieving everyone else's goals?

Really? Did I misread that?

That is a huge departure from RPGs in my mind. The GROUP might have goals, and that is what everyone is trying to accomplish. Individuals might have goals, but a) rarely announced to the entire party and b) might be actively against the goals of the group, or individual members.

...

Yes, that is how it works. Like I said above or alluded above, if character driven is not gonna float your boat, then BW ain't the right game for you.
As a fan, I of course enjoy it, some players in my groups don't, we play different games together and I play BW with those who like it.

Quote from: Saphim;395707Yes, that is how it works. Like I said above or alluded above, if character driven is not gonna float your boat, then BW ain't the right game for you.
As a fan, I of course enjoy it, some players in my groups don't, we play different games together and I play BW with those who like it.

Hmm.  I'm not sure I would classify that as "character driven."  It's really more player driven for everyone else but the one player.

When I have my character do something to help Pete's character achieve his goals, not because my character wants to help him, but because I want to help him, that's player-driven, by definition.

Quote from: BWA;395692As Saphim points out, BW has no "mook" rules. In fact, of all the games I've ever played, BW is the closest to that "gritty reality" thing where a single knife blow can injure or kill a bad-ass warrior.

Burning Wheel and Riddle of Steel are games that both tried to do the same thing.  Take a very crunchy engine and base it on Narrative mechanics as the foundation.

The thing that sold me off of BW was the scripted combat and the abstract ranges.  The whole "how I pick and use my character's personality traits tell the GM my goals for the character" stuff I can do without as well.

Other then that, the game is very good.  The Grief, Greed, and Hate mechanics were perfect for modeling Middle-Earth races, although Faith was weak for humans, Hope would have been better.

I think the point I was trying to make is that anouncing the goals of the characers OUT OF CHARACTER, and then taking actions IN character to help them achieve those goals sounds a bit wonky.

As an example (if you know American Football), that'd be like the wide receiver announcing to the team before the game that he wants to get 150 yards receiving and two touchdowns, and the running back wanting 135 yards and a touchdown, and the quarterback wanting to go 15-20 for 325 yards and four touchdowns, and then everyone agreeing to do their part to try to make that happen...

Instead of you know, just playing the game and trying your best to win.

It just seems a bit off to me for some reason.

Quote from: CRKrueger;395723Hmm.  I'm not sure I would classify that as "character driven."  It's really more player driven for everyone else but the one player.

When I have my character do something to help Pete's character achieve his goals, not because my character wants to help him, but because I want to help him, that's player-driven, by definition.

Luckily that is not how it works, there is no reason to help another character actually achieve the goal if your character is opposed to it, but you should work together to make a fun evening out of it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;395723Hmm.  I'm not sure I would classify that as "character driven."  It's really more player driven for everyone else but the one player.

When I have my character do something to help Pete's character achieve his goals, not because my character wants to help him, but because I want to help him, that's player-driven, by definition.

Well, I think I will have to jump in here and say you are kind of splitting hairs, there.  There is a difference, to be sure, but it is very nuanced.  At some point, everything your character does is because you, as the player, want to do that.

With that in mind, I think 'plot driven' might be more what you are going for here.

Quote from: CRKrueger;395654The whole "conflicts that matter" concept is one that truly defines a Narrative viewpoint.

I'm sure commandos who are going to blow a bridge just want to cut to the chase and get straight to the goal, but there's a small inconvenient matter of crossing through 50 miles of enemy occupied warzone first.  Compared to what they have to do to get there, actually blowing the bridge may be boring.

I think the problem here is that many RPGs have gone down the path of complexity in combat; occasionally in other situations as well (e.g. duel of wits). Once you do that,  you can either slog through, or you can reserve the full-on system for selected moments. In BW, in order to manage a wide scope and "keep the story moving", the latter approach was chosen. In simpler games, you can sacrifice overall detail for the ability to not prejudice the importance of any given event, because situations are much easier to prep on the fly, and much faster to play out. (Compare running into band of orcs in Basic D&D--where, mechanically, each monster is basically just a number of hitpoints and the weapon they carry--to the same in BW.)

QuoteFantasyCraft was mentioned earlier, it's a bad example of a Traditional RPG, as it incorporates many Narrative mechanics, some foundational.  It's pretty close to that line, even being a d20-based game.

Incidentally, where are the dramatic conflict rules for FC? I thought they were cut out, and I sure don't see them in my copy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;395654It just comes down to..
Do you want to play a character in a heroic fashion, like a novel, comic book, or movie?

or Do you want to play a character in a world consistent with the reality of the setting, where every battle could be your last, not just the Boss-Mob?

Totally, absolutely and unquestionably like a novel, comic book or movie. I don't even understand why someone would want it any different. The games I like to play are all genre games based directly or indirectly on novels, comics and movies. The only knowledge or experience I have about adventure, fighting let alone turely exotic things like magic and space travel is through novels, comics and movies.

Quote from: CRKrueger;395731The thing that sold me off of BW was the scripted combat and the abstract ranges.  

Scripting gets lots of hate on RPG.net (Is it kosher to mention that here? If not, my apologies). The first time I *read* about it, I was all "Bwuh?". But in practice, it's fun, and it creates the fast-paced chaos of combat well ... but it does so retroactively. (Like, when you look back on the round of combat you just finished).

The other aspects of BW's full combat rules (position and stances and what-not) are complex enough that I dislike the system. But when you use scripting in the simpler, more elegant combat rules of Mouse Guard, it's fun.

(Plus the Mouse Guard combat rules map to ALL forms of conflict - chases, duels, arguments, etc., which I really like a lot).

Quote from: CRKrueger;395731The whole "how I pick and use my character's personality traits tell the GM my goals for the character" stuff I can do without as well.

Really? I don't understand that. Do you not like the CONCEPT, or just BW's implementation or explanation?

The most traditional GM in the world should still have some way of figuring out what the players want to do in the game. If a player always says "I don't care, I just want to play", but always always plays a dwarf assassin, well, that dude wants to play a game with some dwarves and some assassinating. And since that dude is your friend, and you're gaming together, throw some dwarves and assassinating in! Everyone wins.

That idea - in whatever form - is one of the things that has most improved my gaming over the years.

Quote from: BWA;395773The most traditional GM in the world should still have some way of figuring out what the players want to do in the game. If a player always says "I don't care, I just want to play", but always always plays a dwarf assassin, well, that dude wants to play a game with some dwarves and some assassinating. And since that dude is your friend, and you're gaming together, throw some dwarves and assassinating in! Everyone wins.

That idea - in whatever form - is one of the things that has most improved my gaming over the years.

Exactly, and a good GM does it because...he's a good GM, not because there's a certain three lines on the character that specifically say "Hey Jim, I want my character's current story arc to be about these three things."   Why don't I like that?
1.) Narrative structure.  Player focused not character focused.  Mechanical instead of organic.
2.) Ties in to the whole Forge philosophy of forcing good gaming through mechanics.

Quote from: Soylent Green;395762Totally, absolutely and unquestionably like a novel, comic book or movie. I don't even understand why someone would want it any different. The games I like to play are all genre games based directly or indirectly on novels, comics and movies. The only knowledge or experience I have about adventure, fighting let alone turely exotic things like magic and space travel is through novels, comics and movies.

Right, but there's Saving Private Ryan and then there's Die Hard.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;395756Incidentally, where are the dramatic conflict rules for FC? I thought they were cut out, and I sure don't see them in my copy.

No dramatic conflict rules, but...

Mook rules.
Narrative Control Perks where players can control the story through metagaming.
Breakdown of time into Scenes, etc...
The way the book itself reads.

As I said, it is a Traditional RPG, but one with a very strong Narrative slant, and thus a bad example of a strongly traditional RPG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;395845Exactly, and a good GM does it because...he's a good GM, not because there's a certain three lines on the character that specifically say "Hey Jim, I want my character's current story arc to be about these three things."   Why don't I like that?
1.) Narrative structure.  Player focused not character focused.  Mechanical instead of organic.
2.) Ties in to the whole Forge philosophy of forcing good gaming through mechanics.

i would definitely disagree with some of the stuff you're saying here. In a nutshell, I agree that a good GM runs a game the players want to play, but a) not everyone is good at explicitly and verbally communicating what their preferences are, and b) rules and mechanics that help you run that game are always welcome.

But! I shall refrain from going on and on, lest I derail this Burning Wheel thread.

To tie it back in, though, BW is a game that really helps a GM understand what the players are interested in, through lots of specific mechanics (Beliefs, Traits, Instincts, Relationships and Lifepaths). If you like that sort of thing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;395845Exactly, and a good GM does it because...he's a good GM, not because there's a certain three lines on the character that specifically say "Hey Jim, I want my character's current story arc to be about these three things."   Why don't I like that?
1.) Narrative structure.  Player focused not character focused.  Mechanical instead of organic.
2.) Ties in to the whole Forge philosophy of forcing good gaming through mechanics.

It is about making it easier for the gamemaster and more fun for everyone.
And your distinction of player focus vs. character focus in regards to Beliefs is a strawman. My character wants what I want him to want. Nobody creates a character with goals the player finds boring and doesn't want to achieve.

Quote from: Saphim;395875your distinction of player focus vs. character focus in regards to Beliefs is a strawman. My character wants what I want him to want.

Really?  Your character willed his sister into being and had her killed so he could develop a strong belief for the God in the Sky to test him on?  C'mon, seriously, you know BW uses Beliefs as a means of narrative control, which has nothing to do with your character, even though the Belief itself is believed by your character.

Quote from: Saphim;395875Nobody creates a character with goals the player finds boring and doesn't want to achieve.

True, the difference is, with Beliefs as they are presented in BW, they follow the Narrative Control concept.

If a player and GM just sit down either before the game starts or soon after, and come up with some background of the character without mechanics involved, you get the exact same thing built organically, no mechanics, no Narrative Control agenda, just a fleshed-out character with some in-depth history that can be used to increase in-character immersion.

Beliefs are just good GMing turned mechanics.  Far better to just teach people how to GM with a section giving tips and tricks about how to get your players to think more in depth about their character.

"Better GMing and Role-playing through Mechanics" is one of the worst ideas to come out of the Forge (although I think they may have lifted that from Robin Laws).

Right, but an in-depth character background is much less useful in practical application when it comes to the reward system of BW (artha, etc.).  Distilling things down to 3 or 4 core beliefs creates a much more usable framework for the artha cycle.  The existence of beliefs doesn't preclude a detailed character background, it just brings the most important points about your character to the forefront for usability.  Less mud in the waters, less chance for misinterpretation or abuse by the GM or the player.

Also, certain things like Instincts have a tangible effect on play.  "I always have my sword ready" means that you'll never have to convince the GM you have to spend time drawing your weapon -- it's something your character will always do automatically.

Quote from: CRKrueger;395912Really?  Your character willed his sister into being and had her killed so he could develop a strong belief for the God in the Sky to test him on?  C'mon, seriously, you know BW uses Beliefs as a means of narrative control, which has nothing to do with your character, even though the Belief itself is believed by your character.

No, I willed his sister into being. As does every player whenever he writes a character background. What you want and what your character wants correlate with each other. And no, Burning Wheel doesn't really share narrative control (at least not in regard to beliefs) and if you played it you would know that. How Beliefs are tested is up to the gamemaster, no player can at any point in time demand how his belief is going to be tested.

I am not going to engage the second part of your post. You might think that way, I don't. I am going to assume your play experience is rewarding the way you play, so is mine, so about that we just have to agree to disagree.

;)

Quote from: Saphim;395922What you want and what your character wants correlate with each other.

Not always. If I was playing a character and wanted a movie-Conan type of beginning, I'd have my backstory read that my people were wiped out by Vanir raiders led by a mysterious priest carrying an unusual banner.   Fleshed out, this backstory has tons of hooks that the GM could use later.  Pretty sure though, my character didn't want to have his people wiped out.  It's completely player-driven.  Now my character has the desire for vengeance I want him to have and it's completely character-driven, a natural result from having his people wiped out.

There is a difference, which can be seen easier if you normally play from a deep in-character perspective.

Quote from: Saphim;395922How Beliefs are tested is up to the gamemaster, no player can at any point in time demand how his belief is going to be tested.

True, the GM could just not test Beliefs at all, but then why play Burning Wheel?  If you're not testing Beliefs, you're not getting Artha, etc.  Beliefs are more then a character description, they are a game mechanic.

Quote from: Saphim;395922I am not going to engage the second part of your post. You might think that way, I don't. I am going to assume your play experience is rewarding the way you play, so is mine, so about that we just have to agree to disagree.

Cheers :hatsoff:

P.S. Instincts are pretty cool, I'll give Luke that, although it's clear from the boards it's just to stop all the infighting his crazy players do at the table.

Quote from: CRKrueger;395933;)Not always. If I was playing a character and wanted a movie-Conan type of beginning, I'd have my backstory read that my people were wiped out by Vanir raiders led by a mysterious priest carrying an unusual banner.   Fleshed out, this backstory has tons of hooks that the GM could use later.  Pretty sure though, my character didn't want to have his people wiped out.  It's completely player-driven.  Now my character has the desire for vengeance I want him to have and it's completely character-driven, a natural result from having his people wiped out.

For me there is no difference. Let's assume I want to play the same kind of character. I will write the following beliefs.

B1: The honour of my tribe has been tarnished when we were defeated. I will wash our shame away by killing every last Vanir.
B2: The mysterious priest was behind the attack on my tribe, I need to find out who he is.
B3: free for one that ties in with the group.

How much fun these are will depend on the group and they will need some changing depending on the group and the situation the GM presents, but thsoe beliefs do the same as your backstory. They are about what I want from the game, what I want is what forms the goals of my character. For good or for bad ^^

I don't get the idea of a divide between what the player wants and what the character wants. The character doesn't want anything. He's not real. Anything you say he wants is just something you think is interesting as a player.

I mean, I understand the concept of making life hard and/or interesting for a character in ways that , were he a real dude, he would never choose for himself (assassin lizard priests! in your house!).

But how can any RPG be "character-driven" in a way that is NOT really, actually player-driven? The character didn't really make any choices. The player did, based on what he/she wanted to see.

Similarly, I don't get the idea that turning good GMing practices into mechanics is somehow a bad thing. (I can accept that it might be, but I don't see how.)

I've read the core and the Monster Burner a couple of times and played a session of it, and I'm gearing up for a possible BE campaign sometime soon (I've also tried to run BE a couple of times online, once with you, WK, IIRC).

What I like about BW:

Encourages strong characterisation with mechanical incentives to act in-character
Simple core mechanic (d6 dice pools)
Lifepath system is interesting and it's fun to generate characters
Good social combat mechanics that allow PCs to be socially effective w/o having to pander to the intellectual prejudices of the DM

What I don't like:

Most of the subsystems are fiddly and overcomplicated (Circles and Damage/Health in particular)
Rules are badly organised & hard to look up in play

My main complaint though, is one that applies to many games that currently exist, which is that to play it as written makes it much harder to surprise DMs or PCs. There's a lot of declaring one's goals and desires, and writing them down for others to keep track of. The DM's job is to cater to or activate challenges only on the fronts that the PCs have indicated they're interested in pursuing. IME, sitting down to play a BW game involves a lot of talking about what one wants to happen in the story with the expectation that it will eventually happen.

One extension of this is that also IME, most games of BW follow narrative patterns and steal liberally from other media. While not an intrinsically bad activity, I do find that geek pop culture supplies most of the models for the BW players I've played with. As someone who does not like most geek pop culture, I have actually left a BW campaign I was invited to join (thus the one session) rather than put up with some crappy pastiche of Hindu fantasy comics (The DM said "It's based on the Ramayana", and then drew out a bunch of pseudo-manga where Rama had some sort of cyber-arm or some shit to show me what he meant). Pastiche and imitation are the techniques one uses in building the setting for a BW campaign.

One thing I find very important in games, and that I strive to create a sense of when I DM, is surprise. I want my PCs to be surprised in the process of exploring and discovering the world around them, and for the information they attain to be meaningful and useful and interesting, both to them and to their characters. Because of that, I do try to avoid pastiche, and in my games, I avoid trying to imitate comics, movies and novels (though I do occasionally use language or ideas drawn from them, especially if I want to subvert PC expectations later on). I would find that almost impossible to do in a BW game and therefore have little interest in playing it.

Odd, the world-burning suggestions I'm aware of usually involve large generalizations or common-knowledge that any inhabitant of the world would know.  The GM is also allowed "secret notes" that the players cannot tap into or contradict.

Maybe the players knowing eachother's beliefs and stuff would cause a problem in a closed-book type game, but I've always done chargen as a group, anyway.  Most of the surprise comes from how I as the GM tie in char backgrounds, not necessarily knowing or not knowing if I will.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;396160My main complaint though, is one that applies to many games that currently exist, which is that to play it as written makes it much harder to surprise DMs or PCs. There's a lot of declaring one's goals and desires, and writing them down for others to keep track of. The DM's job is to cater to or activate challenges only on the fronts that the PCs have indicated they're interested in pursuing.

I think that is a BIG thing, and goes back to a major divide in play-style, maybe even the core difference between "traditional" and "not-as-traditional" RPGs. (Certainly more important than much of the razor-thin, marginal differences that are often raised).

To me, a game that is about what we, the players, have decided we want to focus on, with mechanical support, is a great thing.

If I want a game about political intrigue among the clans, and the GM wants a game about hunting for an ancient fortress in the goblin-infested mountains, I like a game that helps us reach an agreement. As a GM, which I often am, I'd rather run the game the players want than the one I may have envisioned.

I think this point is very easy to get riled over. So, you know, whichever approach interests you is cool by me (giggly hippie collaborative vs tyrannical auteur), but speaking personally, I have a clear preference for the former. (I don't think this is a "rules" issue, either. You can play D&D or The Mountain Witch both ways).

Wow. Seems the game has really changed since the edition I have...

Seanchai

Quote from: BWA;396166I think that is a BIG thing, and goes back to a major divide in play-style, maybe even the core difference between "traditional" and "not-as-traditional" RPGs. (Certainly more important than much of the razor-thin, marginal differences that are often raised).

To me, a game that is about what we, the players, have decided we want to focus on, with mechanical support, is a great thing.

If I want a game about political intrigue among the clans, and the GM wants a game about hunting for an ancient fortress in the goblin-infested mountains, I like a game that helps us reach an agreement. As a GM, which I often am, I'd rather run the game the players want than the one I may have envisioned.

I think this point is very easy to get riled over. So, you know, whichever approach interests you is cool by me (giggly hippie collaborative vs tyrannical auteur), but speaking personally, I have a clear preference for the former. (I don't think this is a "rules" issue, either. You can play D&D or The Mountain Witch both ways).

Yeah. I'm not some rabid Forge-game hater, so my preference for surprise is just that, rather than some declaration of how all games at all times must be played.

The jargon thing did slightly annoy me.  As so often though, it annoyed me more when used by fans than when used in the game.

In the game, it is what it is.  Where I got irritated (and this is no fault of the game's) is when I was trying to discuss it online and people would talk about burning characters instead of creating characters.  Frankly, it's just poor use of English.

Other than that, I prefer character driven play but there's more than one way to achieve that.  My personal preference is for systems which avoid conflict resolution, as I find the metadiscussions required for conflict resolution unfun and anti-immersive.  Put simply, discussing what the stakes are takes me out of the zone, out of the flow, and that kills a lot of the fun.

Others find it works for them, that's fine and I hope games continue to come out which meet their preferences.

My main issue with BW was nothing to do with indie elements or the Forge or any of that.  It's just too rules heavy for me.  No more, no less.  My objection to it is essentially the same as my objection to Hero.  For my personal tastes it's just all too much.

Others like a robust game system and get great results with it.  That's great and I have no doubt for those fond of more robust games then stuff like BW or Hero or whatever can deliver a lot of fun.