As one who has played Burning Wheel, and has DM'd MANY D&D campaigns, as well as other systems, and as one who currently plays D&D with those crazy podcasting bastards, I figured I'd chime in.
Burning Wheel reinforces something that every DM knows but doesn't quite comprehend: it reinforces the concept of using a roleplaying game to collectively tell a story. The game reinforces the idea that right or wrong, successful or unsuccessful, you character motivations drive the story forward. A lot of the actual Burning Wheel system is hideously unbalanced (elves and dwarves are just better, armor is a bastard, etc), but none of it matters because you're telling the story.
This lesson can lifted and applied to ANY gaming system whatsoever; when applied to D&D, you can really see what the game is intended to do. I'm not one to impugn D&D, or any system for that matter; if you aren't getting what you want out of your RPG, just change it. Burning Wheel provides some very interesting ideas as to how to change those things. Really, I think BW represents a collection of ideas about how to roleplay, rather than presenting a complete roleplaying system.
Everything I've heard about Burning Wheel really makes me want to give the system a shot at some point. However, everything I've heard about it also leads me to believe that the system is specifically geared towards the fantasy genre, which is a limitation-within-the-system I personally find just as annoying as class- and alignment-based character creation, and only slightly less annoying than rules sets encouraging roll-playing over role-playing. I've found that GURPS solves the second problem completely, and is as good an attempt at solving the first problem as any (and better than many *coughd20cough*). True, the system still suffers from the last problem, but then I've been lucky enough to mostly play with people who value role-playing over rules-lawyering, so the problem hasn't been as apparent.
I find Burning Wheel intriguing, but with the group I have I honestly value systems that don't railroad GM's into specific genres more than I value systems that specifically encourage staying in character (though I'll readily take either over a system that at times seems almost antagonistic to true role-playing).
If you don't like the fantasy genre of Burning Wheel, you can get Burning Empires which is sci-fi. Also, the upcoming book I already mentioned allows a feudal Japan setting. Actually, while Burning Wheel might seem like it is locked into a genre, it is actually broader than you think due to its lifepath character creation system. We are actually planning a Burning Wheel campaign set in a Horatio Hornblower setting. Also, because the system is so low-magic, it can easily be used for all sorts of settings that do not involve lots of high-powered magic or tech. In fact, one of the demo games that we played is actually set in a den with a bunch of rats trying to get cheese.
Burning Wheel bothers me only because it sounds like there are rules for role-playing where there should not be. Sort of like adding the thought police to your game.
Every game I run has always been character driven. If the characters fail then life goes on and they have to deal with that failure. I don't play in the style Scott talked about where if you can't pick the lock the plot stops. That is nothing more than railroading and bad game mastering.
When I GM a game I expect to have to ad lib most of the game. My players do not follow what a module lists as the plot and I don't railroad them into it. If the adventure (as outlined) has the orcs raiding a given caravan and they choose not to take the job as caravan guards then they have deal with the real (fantasy) world consequences.
See, though the game is character driven the game world does not revolve around the characters.
It sounds like Rym and Scott just have a bias against dungeon crawls and have played under some bad GMs in the past.
In the last HackMaster session I ran the players tried to fight there way through a difficult encounter without thinking. Later, one of the PCs happened upon an alternate solution and they were able to accomplish there mission with no combat taking place. No one felt left out and everyone had fun.
Burning Wheel bothers me only because it sounds like there are rules for role-playing where there should not be. Sort of like adding the thought police to your game.
Burning Wheel bothers me only because it sounds like there are rules for role-playing where there should not be. Sort of like adding the thought police to your game.
I can assure you that is not the case.
You're description of a chase scene makes me think this. Just a die roll to resolve the chase? That sounds lame. It sounds like the game does not want to deal with things and instead gives you a "fast forward" dice roll to resolve things.
If you don't like the fantasy genre of Burning Wheel, you can get Burning Empires which is sci-fi. Also, the upcoming book I already mentioned allows a feudal Japan setting. Actually, while Burning Wheel might seem like it is locked into a genre, it is actually broader than you think due to its lifepath character creation system. We are actually planning a Burning Wheel campaign set in a Horatio Hornblower setting. Also, because the system is so low-magic, it can easily be used for all sorts of settings that do not involve lots of high-powered magic or tech. In fact, one of the demo games that we played is actually set in a den with a bunch of rats trying to get cheese.
It's not really that I don't like fantasy settings, so much as I don't like being limited to a single genre in any given campaign. In one campaign I ran in a far-future setting, there was a great moment where they essentially ran into an alien mummy --- no robot mock-ups, no psychic powers standing in for magical effects, no super-science technology acting behind the scenes, just an honest-to-god reanimated corpse. And it was awesome. I like systems that support that kind of genre-bending without the need for a slew of supplemental rules or homebrew tweaking.
Having said that, it is good to hear that Burning Wheel is more flexible than it appears at first glance. I'm definitely going to have to pick it up sometime soon.
There's something I think you're not quite getting, Steve. DnD is like playing Pokemon(Andrew's Law). The immediate enjoyment is the battles, the stats, and such. The story is the long term enjoyment, it's in the background most of the time and is only there to give you a reason to have battles.
Burning Wheel, on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Instead of the story being an outlet in which to battle, battles are often outlets in which to progress the story. Everything is very much focused on the story, and it's the immediate enjoyment. Character stats and attacks are much more long term, they matter less.
Your idea of role playing, Steve, is not the kind of role playing Burning Wheel is. BW is more about the "role" and less about the "playing". I think that differing opinions on what role playing really is is what is causing the disconnect in this discussion. The only thing I can recommend is to read one of these systems like this, either Burning Wheel or Inspectres, to fully understand how this type of role playing works.
Burning Wheel has mechanics for giving in-game rewards for roleplaying your character as you've said you're going to. It DOES NOT force you to roleplay in a particular way, or even in accordance with what you outlined at all.
Give Burning Wheel a play. Get into it. REALLY play it. Trust me, it'll give you a new perspective on roleplaying games in general.
You're description of a chase scene makes me think this. Just a die roll to resolve the chase? That sounds lame. It sounds like the game does not want to deal with things and instead gives you a "fast forward" dice roll to resolve things.
What you aren't aware of, Steve, is that many people who play D&D; are utter bastards. They follow the rules to the letter in order to gain advantage over other players and rob them of treasure, XP and the spotlight. Which sucked. So, Luke created Burning Wheel, a system that states IMPLICITLY in its rules how the game should be played. It is an attempt to remove as much assumption and guesswork and ambiguity from the GM's job as possible. So in a chase scene, instead of being able to constantly roll dexterity until the chasers caught up to the thief, or the GM arbitrarily deciding that the chasers can have only X number of rolls before the thief gets away, or some horrible compromise where everyone feels cheated, or (worst case) everyone sits around for three hours while a player argues with the GM over a poorly worded rule, instead, there is only one roll. And that's it, move on. No matter the situation, one roll, move on.
And on the roleplaying side of things, again, there are explicit rules for playing a role. Your character gains the BW equivalent of experience points when the player makes his character act in a way that makes the game go in an awesome direction, good or bad. In D&D;, there are no rules-mechanical benefits for swinging from a chandelier during a bar room brawl. It is great fun for all concerned and makes for a memorable moment in the game, but that's it. In BW, if your character has the trait "obnoxious show-off" or something similar, there are rewards for swinging from that chandelier, or not swinging from it. Again, it comes back to the idea that there should be rules to encourage certain beneficial behaviour.
Now it sounds like Burning Wheel is the equivalent of an action movie where you skip over all the low parts in the story because the viewer only wants to see the action bits.
Cutting out the chase scene because some people think it takes to long is BS. It's all about the journey, not the destination.
When you think about it, every encounter, whether a weapon is drawn or not, is a battle. Because of this it makes perfect sense that games such as D&D would have a deeply thought out combat system.
The more you guys talk about Burning Wheel the more I see it as an acting class. If that is what you are going for that enjoy away! I just prefer a system with a bit more meat on it's bones and options for the players.
PS: HackMaster has things like your "obnoxious show-off" trait. It is called quirks and flaws and players get bonus points for properly playing those quirks and flaws. Coupled with the honor system which rewards good role-playing (based on your character's class/alignment) takes care of that as well.
Steve: You're absolutely right, BW is a lot like an acting class. The system itself is fairly meaty, given that it's an indie RPG and that it's rather small, but it's nowhere near as meaty as, say, D&D or Hackmaster or whatever.
However, you should still play BW and take its lessons into your gaming system. Trust me on this one, it's worth your time.
Steve: Certainly, BW does cut out a lot of the in-between stuff. Some of us find that rewarding, others (Burning Wheel players) would rather cut to the climactic showdown, the tense court drama, or the desperate chase, and minimise time spent on the slower stuff. That's not to say every scene has to be all exploding oxcarts and knife fights with Turkish sailors. Some amazing moments have come out of events as simple as a bar room debate (Duel of Wits-style).
Another point that needs to be made - the chase example may flawed, now that I think about it. Most conflicts in BW can either be resolved simply with one dice roll, or in a more complex manner. Even combat can be reduced to one simple, winner-takes-all toss of the dice (Bloody Versus FTW). This helps to avoid protracted encounters. For example, in a Dune-esque BW game I played, my nobleman simply Bloody Versus'd his way past a guard who was barring his way into the royal palace. Rather than spend half an hour to set up a complex combat against an enemy who had no name and hardly mattered in the grand scheme of things, I decided to simply make one roll and move swiftly on to the more interesting Duel of Wits with the loyalists inside the palace. Because I wanted to. As a player, I felt the best move would be to get on with the larger conflict. You may have thought otherwise, and that's totally valid. But back to the chase scenario, you can run it as a single roll, a series of rolls (complex action - D&D has a similar mechanic, if I remember correctly) or with the ranged combat rules. Again, it's up to the player as to how it is handled.
And yes, TWS is right, BW can be meaty. But it's that nice and healthy lean meat, like chicken.
I've tried to play D&D several times, but found the rules very hard to follow, especially since the group i was part of had no previous experience with such games, it seems that to play D&D you really need someone who has played before to explain the system to the others.
I am curious about how the learning curve of Burning Wheel compares to D&D for people who have little experience role playing.
I am curious about how the learning curve of Burning Wheel compares to D&D; for people who have little experience role playing.
It's not much better. If you don't have an experienced role-player in your group, you need to start with a simpler game like InSpectres, Kobolds ate my Baby, Dogs in the Vineyard or Prime Time Adventures.
Now it sounds like Burning Wheel is the equivalent of an action movie where you skip over all the low parts in the story because the viewer only wants to see the action bits.
Just for redundancy, that's almost exactly what it is. Burning Wheel was created to make the high and and most intense points of role playing games happen all the time. It may seem like a minimalist system when we describe it, but it is much more complex in reality. You really need to just read the books.
So, Burning Wheel is the equivalent of taking 5 seasons of Yug-i-Oh and condensing them into a short hour long feature that only includes the last card played in each duel.
So, Burning Wheel is the equivalent of taking 5 seasons of Yug-i-Oh and condensing them into a short hour long feature that only includes the last card played in each duel.
No, it's more like Pokemon if the only battles you actually fight are with the gym leaders, the rival and the elite 4.
So, Burning Wheel is the equivalent of taking 5 seasons of Yug-i-Oh and condensing them into a short hour long feature that only includes the last card played in each duel.
No, it's more like Pokemon if the only battles you actually fight are with the gym leaders, the rival and the elite 4.
That makes Burning Wheel sound like a game designed for people with ADD or ADHD.
Also, Burning Wheel has an incredible combat system. Firstly, it can be scaled between a very simple, brutal, quick system, and a much more complex system depending on the game, style, and players. Second, for small to moderate-sized conflicts, it's VERY fast compared to D&D. Third, and most important, it doesn't seperate you from your character. I said it in the show, but I have to reiterate: D&D combat's tactical decision making exists entirely outside of the character, and is from the player's perspective. Burning Wheel combat's tactical decision making presents itself largely from the character's point of view. It's much more intimate, and much less prone to meta-thinking.
Also, Burning Wheel has an incredible combat system. Firstly, it can be scaled between a very simple, brutal, quick system, and a much more complex system depending on the game, style, and players. Second, for small to moderate-sized conflicts, it's VERY fast compared to D&D.; Third, and most important, it doesn't seperate you from your character. I said it in the show, but I have to reiterate: D&D; combat's tactical decision making exists entirely outside of the character, and is from the player's perspective. Burning Wheel combat's tactical decision making presents itself largely from the character's point of view. It's much more intimate, and much less prone to meta-thinking.
I wouldn't say that it is necessarily from the perspective of the character; in fact, you can meta-game the combat quite a bit, fighting against the other players rather than the other characters. Remember "Feint. Feint. Feint. Wow, do you guys know each other or something?" That was probably as much meta-gaming as it was in-character gaming.
However, BW is much more condusive to in-character combat, I will agree. I think a lot of that has to do with the emphasis on choices and consequences in the game; if you're really into it, you won't fight unless you mean it.
I think the really innovative thing in BW is the duel of wits; it's not innovative in execution per se, but it is very innovative in concept. Constantly throughout BW, Luke Crane tells us that it's the conflict and drama that drive a story; he simply took social interaction and gave it the intensity of a combat system, which takes things to a whole new level.
One thing to note: I think BW's combat system would bog down at a certain point. In the interview you did, Luke did say that you get the one-off 3-hour long BW combat, but most take no more than an hour, tops. I have a feeling that large-scale battles would become incredibly bogged down.
I just have to say the "Albion hates freedom" link if from my local BBC page. As the kid mentioned in that article was killed in my city. When that happened I actually "spoke" to his mother at a protest she was doing at my local Game store. She did nothing but shout for 10mins at me. Impossible to win an argument with facts (Like this). Whilst I was sorry her son was killed, it was not linked to the game (as mentioned in that article).
A fun one for me, talking about the way rpg systems are set up for combat, was to bring a bunch of not inexperienced but mostly D&D players into one of my Vampire games. You see, my games are politically driven. There are fights, sure. In fact there's often a climactic battle. But there are weeks of build up to that battle where people are manouvered into position by the other elements of the game.
So I let them make their characters however they want. Oh look, lots of focus on combat. Just what I wanted. It means what fights there are are over quick but how easy was it to manouver the pawns? None of them had the abilities, in character, to figure out the end-runs that were being done around them. Basically I used the social/political system of the game to rail road them for a campaign then gave them a massive xp increase (to represent time passing) before the next campaign and watched the characters balance out a bit.
Oh and as for the scholar. If it was 'Rym knows this *GM reads what Rym knows*' no wonder it wasn't fun.
I always take the 'scholar' character aside and tell them and only them what they know. How they express that to the party, or what they choose to keep back, is entirely up to them. Unless I blow their outright lies by bursting out laughing, which has happened once or twice.
In the short of it, I agree wholeheartedly but there are ways and means. We're heading into our 3rd annual Vampire campaign with this group in a couple of weeks and after the last two years I don't know if they have any idea what to expect. I certainly hope they don't.
If you like Burning Wheel and the western genre, I'd recommend another indie RPG called Dogs in the Vineyard, a game about Mormon Gunslingers making Hard Choices in a West That Never Was. I particularly like how the combat system works on raising stakes, so that in order to injure an opponent you risk injury, and in order to kill someone, you have risk your own death. There are a bunch of other really neat ideas in this little game, and if you're interested I'd recommend reading this review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10742.phtml
I was actually going to bring up Dogs in the Vineyard. Anyone who wants a game that both promotes role-playing, and is able to be used in pretty much any genre, should check this one out. I had the pleasure of playing it for the first time at KublaCon last month, and it was fantastic. The GM changed the setting from the Mormon West to the corporate office, and the game still functioned perfectly, even though there was no physical combat for the six hour session.
Comic Geek Speak just did an episode where they interview the creator of the Choose Your Own Adventure books. Not only is the guy very smart, but he has a lot of interesting things to say about role playing simulation games. Many of the things he says really fit well with Luke Crane's ideas. Definitely worth a listen.
Comments
Burning Wheel reinforces something that every DM knows but doesn't quite comprehend: it reinforces the concept of using a roleplaying game to collectively tell a story. The game reinforces the idea that right or wrong, successful or unsuccessful, you character motivations drive the story forward. A lot of the actual Burning Wheel system is hideously unbalanced (elves and dwarves are just better, armor is a bastard, etc), but none of it matters because you're telling the story.
This lesson can lifted and applied to ANY gaming system whatsoever; when applied to D&D, you can really see what the game is intended to do. I'm not one to impugn D&D, or any system for that matter; if you aren't getting what you want out of your RPG, just change it. Burning Wheel provides some very interesting ideas as to how to change those things. Really, I think BW represents a collection of ideas about how to roleplay, rather than presenting a complete roleplaying system.
I find Burning Wheel intriguing, but with the group I have I honestly value systems that don't railroad GM's into specific genres more than I value systems that specifically encourage staying in character (though I'll readily take either over a system that at times seems almost antagonistic to true role-playing).
Every game I run has always been character driven. If the characters fail then life goes on and they have to deal with that failure. I don't play in the style Scott talked about where if you can't pick the lock the plot stops. That is nothing more than railroading and bad game mastering.
When I GM a game I expect to have to ad lib most of the game. My players do not follow what a module lists as the plot and I don't railroad them into it. If the adventure (as outlined) has the orcs raiding a given caravan and they choose not to take the job as caravan guards then they have deal with the real (fantasy) world consequences.
See, though the game is character driven the game world does not revolve around the characters.
It sounds like Rym and Scott just have a bias against dungeon crawls and have played under some bad GMs in the past.
In the last HackMaster session I ran the players tried to fight there way through a difficult encounter without thinking. Later, one of the PCs happened upon an alternate solution and they were able to accomplish there mission with no combat taking place. No one felt left out and everyone had fun.
Having said that, it is good to hear that Burning Wheel is more flexible than it appears at first glance. I'm definitely going to have to pick it up sometime soon.
Burning Wheel, on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Instead of the story being an outlet in which to battle, battles are often outlets in which to progress the story. Everything is very much focused on the story, and it's the immediate enjoyment. Character stats and attacks are much more long term, they matter less.
Your idea of role playing, Steve, is not the kind of role playing Burning Wheel is. BW is more about the "role" and less about the "playing". I think that differing opinions on what role playing really is is what is causing the disconnect in this discussion. The only thing I can recommend is to read one of these systems like this, either Burning Wheel or Inspectres, to fully understand how this type of role playing works.
Give Burning Wheel a play. Get into it. REALLY play it. Trust me, it'll give you a new perspective on roleplaying games in general.
And on the roleplaying side of things, again, there are explicit rules for playing a role. Your character gains the BW equivalent of experience points when the player makes his character act in a way that makes the game go in an awesome direction, good or bad. In D&D;, there are no rules-mechanical benefits for swinging from a chandelier during a bar room brawl. It is great fun for all concerned and makes for a memorable moment in the game, but that's it. In BW, if your character has the trait "obnoxious show-off" or something similar, there are rewards for swinging from that chandelier, or not swinging from it. Again, it comes back to the idea that there should be rules to encourage certain beneficial behaviour.
Cutting out the chase scene because some people think it takes to long is BS. It's all about the journey, not the destination.
When you think about it, every encounter, whether a weapon is drawn or not, is a battle. Because of this it makes perfect sense that games such as D&D would have a deeply thought out combat system.
The more you guys talk about Burning Wheel the more I see it as an acting class. If that is what you are going for that enjoy away! I just prefer a system with a bit more meat on it's bones and options for the players.
PS: HackMaster has things like your "obnoxious show-off" trait. It is called quirks and flaws and players get bonus points for properly playing those quirks and flaws. Coupled with the honor system which rewards good role-playing (based on your character's class/alignment) takes care of that as well.
However, you should still play BW and take its lessons into your gaming system. Trust me on this one, it's worth your time.
Another point that needs to be made - the chase example may flawed, now that I think about it. Most conflicts in BW can either be resolved simply with one dice roll, or in a more complex manner. Even combat can be reduced to one simple, winner-takes-all toss of the dice (Bloody Versus FTW). This helps to avoid protracted encounters. For example, in a Dune-esque BW game I played, my nobleman simply Bloody Versus'd his way past a guard who was barring his way into the royal palace. Rather than spend half an hour to set up a complex combat against an enemy who had no name and hardly mattered in the grand scheme of things, I decided to simply make one roll and move swiftly on to the more interesting Duel of Wits with the loyalists inside the palace. Because I wanted to. As a player, I felt the best move would be to get on with the larger conflict. You may have thought otherwise, and that's totally valid. But back to the chase scenario, you can run it as a single roll, a series of rolls (complex action - D&D has a similar mechanic, if I remember correctly) or with the ranged combat rules. Again, it's up to the player as to how it is handled.
And yes, TWS is right, BW can be meaty. But it's that nice and healthy lean meat, like chicken.
Mmmm, chicken...
I am curious about how the learning curve of Burning Wheel compares to D&D for people who have little experience role playing.
[Edit] Just to clarify, this link is related because Scrym talked about guitars in this episode.
However, BW is much more condusive to in-character combat, I will agree. I think a lot of that has to do with the emphasis on choices and consequences in the game; if you're really into it, you won't fight unless you mean it.
I think the really innovative thing in BW is the duel of wits; it's not innovative in execution per se, but it is very innovative in concept. Constantly throughout BW, Luke Crane tells us that it's the conflict and drama that drive a story; he simply took social interaction and gave it the intensity of a combat system, which takes things to a whole new level.
One thing to note: I think BW's combat system would bog down at a certain point. In the interview you did, Luke did say that you get the one-off 3-hour long BW combat, but most take no more than an hour, tops. I have a feeling that large-scale battles would become incredibly bogged down.
So I let them make their characters however they want. Oh look, lots of focus on combat. Just what I wanted. It means what fights there are are over quick but how easy was it to manouver the pawns? None of them had the abilities, in character, to figure out the end-runs that were being done around them. Basically I used the social/political system of the game to rail road them for a campaign then gave them a massive xp increase (to represent time passing) before the next campaign and watched the characters balance out a bit.
Oh and as for the scholar. If it was 'Rym knows this *GM reads what Rym knows*' no wonder it wasn't fun.
I always take the 'scholar' character aside and tell them and only them what they know. How they express that to the party, or what they choose to keep back, is entirely up to them. Unless I blow their outright lies by bursting out laughing, which has happened once or twice.
In the short of it, I agree wholeheartedly but there are ways and means. We're heading into our 3rd annual Vampire campaign with this group in a couple of weeks and after the last two years I don't know if they have any idea what to expect. I certainly hope they don't.
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11444.phtml
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12746.phtml
If you like Burning Wheel and the western genre, I'd recommend another indie RPG called Dogs in the Vineyard, a game about Mormon Gunslingers making Hard Choices in a West That Never Was. I particularly like how the combat system works on raising stakes, so that in order to injure an opponent you risk injury, and in order to kill someone, you have risk your own death. There are a bunch of other really neat ideas in this little game, and if you're interested I'd recommend reading this review:
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10742.phtml