I just wrote a long post in defense of D&D 4E. Then I saw that this thread is a good few months old. I'm having a few beers thinking about RPGs now and how GOOD Burning Wheel is. I game master Burning Wheel and Lacuna regularly and I'm a player in 4E games.
This is my original post - before I decided not to post it. That doesn't make any sense!
***
Wow! I'm sorry to dredge up an old thread - please delete this post if it is inappropriate or irritating. I just see no counter arguments and my love for the Geek Nights and their argumentative nature makes me want to post. I'm a listener of the podcast and an avid Burning Wheel fan. I also happen to play in a weekly D&D4E game.
I agree that Burning Wheel is a better game. Burning Wheel is definitely my favorite RPG, with Lacuna coming in a close second.
I play in a weekly 4E game and honestly, with all the new errata and classes added it doesn't feel very different from 3.5. I say this because of the vast amount of options available compared to the original core books. The only thing that 4E does that's different from it's previous editions (before 3.5, that book tells you to do this) is explicitly tell people that they must use miniatures to get the most out of the game and most of the time you play the game is going to be spent in combat.
Overall the way that traps work, skill challenges, encounter building, powers - there is so much more to the combat than in the previous editions of the game. It's so much easier now for a game master to make a balanced encounter and play hard against the players. I've game mastered a few times, and it's great to field enemies and play nasty. I never really felt like that in 2nd edition. That could be a sign of my own shortcomings as a game master.
In what way is 4E similar to World of Warcraft? Is it the At-Will, Encounter and Daily power system? Is it the way that characters are now limited to healing with Healing Surges? Is it the fact that they made their magical item classification exactly the same as World of Warcraft? This sounds way more defensive than I'm actually saying it in my head. I would like to know what about 4E makes it like WOW, specifically because I hear the argument a lot and don't really understand it.
I think the act of clicking on a power and watching the meter recharge (I hate WOW just for the record) is very different from being limited to using a power once per encounter and once per day. When you are playing 4E you are faced with the choice to use a power or save it for the next encounter. It seems maybe more like a board game than the previous editions.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that 4E is just D&D with more combat options and forced miniature combat. Maybe I've played too much of 4E and it's clouded my thinking. I recently joined a few games in a 1st ed. campaign and it felt just the same, but less combat options and a very different magic system. I prefer 1st edition magic. It feels much more powerful and a lot less like just another attack.
I remember hearing a great story of Rym making a pacifist character and leaving to play Counter Strike whenever combat came up. I love this story and it's a perfect example of why Burning Wheel is superior. For anyone who says Burning Wheel can't do dungeon crawl - they need to try Thelon's Rift.
The thing I hate about 4E is the artwork. It seems to be getting better with the Essentials line, but the weird anime inspired Dragonborn freaks.. makes me want to die.
I don't know why I typed any of this out because I agree that Burning Wheel is far superior and I'd rather play it any day of the week. I just think that people who boil down 4E to simply "They've changed it to WOW!" is missing the main point of 4E. 4E is a D&D edition that tries to make combat exciting by giving you more options in combat with miniatures. If I were you I wouldn't trust me though... I still play RIFTS for it's nostalgia and lame artwork.
Sorry for the long annoying post! I promise I'll stick to the point next time. Really love the forum and the podcast.
Rym and Scott - please interview Luke Crane and Justin Sorenson again. I've listened to those over and over. Luke Crane is such a punk in his first interview with you guys! I love it.
Your problem when analyzing 4E is that you are too close to it. You are concentrating on these minor and inconsequential details like the specifics of the magic system. Instead you need to change your zoom to just look at the fundamentals. D&D 4E is a game where you repeat a mindless process of fighting monsters to get more powerful to fight bigger monsters to get more powerful. WoW is a game where you fight more monsters to get more powerful to fight more monsters...
Just because you change the specifics of the magic systems, or the combat systems, doesn't make them fundamentally different games. What makes them really similar to each other, compared to say Final Fantasy, is that they are extremely streamlined. Every class and every power is useful in every situation. Everyone just always does maximum average damage all the time, if they're smart.
Burning Wheel is a game where you fight for your Beliefs to get Artha, which you spend to pursue your Beliefs to get Artha.
Being cyclical is not the issue.
It's not the fact that it's cyclical. It's the fact that it's the exact same cycle. You're making the exact same decisions in both games. 90% of the time that decision is "what attack do I use?"
It's not the fact that it's cyclical. It's the fact that it's the exact same cycle. You're making the exact same decisions in both games. 90% of the time that decision is "what attack do I use?"
And your decisions in Burning Wheel are, ultimately, "What skill do I test this time?"
It's really no different. In BW, you pursue your Beliefs using a set of skills. A good player creates a scene where they test exactly the skill that they want to test at any given moment. It's really no different than positioning your wizard to cast a fireball.
Everyone just always does maximum average damage all the time, if they're smart.
You make a very good argument. I like criticism of the concept of killing more monsters to get more powerful and it really being the whole point of the game. Game design wise the only behavior players are rewarded for are killing monsters, disarming traps, doing skill challenges and completing quests. I like Burning Wheel better because the mechanics support making a shared narrative and a cohesive drama that supports players acting in character and roleplaying difficult decisions.
Not sure what you mean by every class and every power being useful in every situation - that is just not true. My striker character is very weak in certain situations. (Oh god! Even the names for the roles of the characters are taken from MMOs - I should just give up at this point!) Do you mean that when you build a party you fill every role so that your party can do everything? Sorry the booze may be making me a bit thick.
I guess what I'm having trouble with is criticizing the pen and paper RPG for being too much like the video game. I guess the feeling I have is that the fundamental nature of an RPG and it's limitless boundaries on what you can do as a player make it much better than any video game could ever be. This is all assuming you have a game master who is into building a cooperative narrative. If you are being rail roaded you might as well be playing WoW with a pen and paper.
I think the argument that Burning Wheel and other RPGs with game design aimed at shared narrative and playing in character are much more suited for building interesting drama. D&D; is good if you want to sit down and be heroes kicking the crap out of a lot of monsters and disarming traps.
One thing the creators of 4E have commented on is that combat in 4E lasts too long. Recent monster design has been leaning towards making everything hit harder and die faster. Also the Essential builds for all the characters are really simple. Probably trying to capture a younger audience. I think 4E has been out over two years now.
It's funny to think that video game RPGs were inspired by D&D; and now it's the other way around. My favorite video game RPG is and will always be NetHack. It feels like the ultimate AD&D; simulator. (Did that just make my entire argument invalid - or was it the random ramblings of a drunk on the net... probably both!)
BTW - I'm super stoked to be arguing with you guys about 4E. I love listening to you guys argue with each other on your podcast. Ha ha! Another beer Mr. Jake. YES, sounds like a great idea!
I gotta say the one thing 4 Edition does pretty well is making the powers not about just straight up damage. There are very little spells that just do a certain amount of damage without doing some other type of effect. I've found that aspect to be really fun in the combat sense. That being said, everything outside of Combat kinda sucks.
I gotta say the one thing 4 Edition does pretty well is making the powers not about just straight up damage. There are very little spells that just do a certain amount of damage without doing some other type of effect. I've found that aspect to be really fun in the combat sense. That being said, everything outside of Combat kinda sucks.
Yes, I do like all of the new status effects. It's pretty cool when you have a guy that can pull enemies too him and another one who marks enemies making them weak against anyone but him.
We have this one fighter who grabs enemies with gauntlets and pulls them around the battlefield. It's pretty awesome sometimes when he pulls out a daily and drags all the dudes around and our wizard does a ton of area effect blasts on them.
My striker just died so I switched to a defender with a striker subclass. I'm learning all about keeping the enemies near and away from our squishy members.
I guess the more I talk about it the more it sounds like an MMO...
D&D 4E has no good mechanism for rewarding individuals. Any substantive reward makes individual party members more powerful and more useful in encounters. By the nature of the system, a low-powered character is less effective in combat and basically just has far fewer interesting or meaningful things to contribute. Their failures don't drive the story, it just frustrates them.
As such, there is a great mechanical discouragement for rewarding individual players over others, as it breaks the fundamentals of the game in the long run (i.e., the combat).
Their failures don't drive the story, it just frustrates them.
This was a great point in your 'Beyond D&D;' panel/podcast. I think Wizards of the Coast has been trying address this. All of their book have a section on "Saying yes.." They still have a long way to go. I've incorporated 'Let it Ride' in a few Rifts games I ran last month and it worked SO much better than just rolling a skill over and over again or Take 10 from D&D; third edition. Whenever a player failed their skill role I introduced further complications that drove the story forward. I will use it with every game I GM from now on.
The concept of failure driving the story forward in Burning Wheel is amazing. I remember the first time a player failed a Symbology roll and I had a wise old wizard (of course EVIL) appear next to him and helped him read the symbols - it was a revelation. Failure can propel the story forward!
In D&D; if your party is wiped out the DM has a few options. The nuclear option - TPK or you wake up in a prison cell all bloody and bruised. I love the fact that Burning Wheel is designed to be crippling and not deadly. You spend months in the hospital recovering from a mortal wound and then can do challenging tests when you are recovering and have it help your skill, stat and attribute advancement.
I love the fact that Burning Wheel is designed to be crippling and not deadly.
Funny enough in our games (at least the ones I've been in) of burning wheel are either extremely deadly or everyone tries to avoid being in harms way like it's going out of style....
It's really no different. In BW, you pursue your Beliefs using a set of skills. A good player creates a scene where they test exactly the skill that they want to test at any given moment. It's really no different than positioning your wizard to cast a fireball.
Think about it in terms of what skills are being tested. Not skills in Burning Wheel, but skills of the actual player. What skills does Scott Rubin are tested by Burning Wheel? D&D4E;? WoW? Mario?
D&D4E; and WoW both test the same skills. Do you have the ability to make basic tactical decisions while making a simple calculation of which ability is optimal?
In Burning Wheel, those skills might help you in a Fight!, but even then it's more rock paper scissors. If you want to get artha, math and basic rid tactics aren't going to help you. Instead, your skills of risk tolerance and creativity are what is really being tested. Burning Wheel only rewards players who don't play it safe, so you have to be willing to lay it out on the line to succeed. More importantly, you will only succeed and advance if you can be really creative. Whoever is better at creating plot elements and scenes that match up with the mathematical parameters will do well.
Remember, when figuring out what a game is all about, the first thing to look at is what skill is being tested. D&D4E; and WoW test basic and trivial tactics. BW tests creativity and courage and rock paper scissors once in awhile.
Their failures don't drive the story, it just frustrates them.
Then you're playing with a shitty DM.
My character got a full quest based around him because I decided that my Monk should beat the shit out of a monster that was all mouths. He lost an arm. Then, while trying to escape from the dungeon, one of the big characters set off a weight trap, which ended up with us falling down a pit, and me breaking my other arm, making climbing out of the trap near-impossible, which crushed almost all my bones. So, they dragged me to an alchemist, who gave my character the wrong potion, so I had gelatinous cube bones. They party decided to tear off all the doors in the area to build my character an exoskeleton. After all that was done, we got into a fight and I was almost dead, so they took me to a hospital. As per my Monk's wish, they went on an adventure to help the blacksmith so he could make me an iron arm, and since I chose to be a miner as a side-job, I could put gems I find into my iron arm to beef up attacks with elemental powers or just bonuses, instead of getting ki focus or clubs.
All that because of some rolls that were not in my favor.
Their failures don't drive the story, it just frustrates them.
Then you're playing with a shitty DM.
It's amazing how a good game master can make all the difference. It's also amazing how a badly designed roleplaying system can ruin an entire evening.
There are bunch of arguments on The Forge forums whether system even matters. That's kind of where this conversation is leading. Which is a pretty different from whether or not 4E is good or bad or like WoW.
The 'Beyond D&D;' panel/podcast was the first time I heard major complaints lodged against D&D; as a game system. My brother recommended I try InSpectres and it really opened my eyes to what roleplaying could be as far as a tool for a cooperative narrative game instead of a group of players following the game master's vision.
But if the DM is the primary key to success or failure of a session, then what does the system used matter? Why pick one over the other?
The fact of the matter is that D&D; 4E has particular mechanical incentives that hinder many styles of role playing. Getting around that with a good DM means that you have a good DM who himself is getting around the mechanical limitations of the system.
A good system assists both good and bad DMs in achieving their goals.
My character got a full quest based around him because I decided that my Monk should beat the shit out of a monster that was all mouths. He lost an arm. Then, while trying to escape from the dungeon, one of the big characters set off a weight trap, which ended up with us falling down a pit, and me breaking my other arm, making climbing out of the trap near-impossible, which crushed almost all my bones. So, they dragged me to an alchemist, who gave my character the wrong potion, so I had gelatinous cube bones. They party decided to tear off all the doors in the area to build my character an exoskeleton. After all that was done, we got into a fight and I was almost dead, so they took me to a hospital. As per my Monk's wish, they went on an adventure to help the blacksmith so he could make me an iron arm, and since I chose to be a miner as a side-job, I could put gems I find into my iron arm to beef up attacks with elemental powers or just bonuses, instead of getting ki focus or clubs.
All that because of some rolls that were not in my favor.
We've said this a thousand times. This is the last time I'm going to say it.
Here's a complete game I just made up.
Any number of players sit around a table. Everyone has a D6. Everyone takes turns in clockwise order. On your turn you must attack another player. Attacker and defender both roll their die. If the attacker rolls equal or higher, they hit. If they roll a 1, they themselves are hit. Any other result, the hit is blocked. If a player is hit three times, they are out of the game. Oh yeah, and you should role play while playing this game.
Now let's say some people play this game and role play an awesome story. Some other people play this game and are shitty at role plaing. The first group says the game is awesome. The second group says it sucks. The first group says that the game is awesome, and the second group is just shitty role players. Who is right?
The fact is that the first group did have a lot of fun playing the game, but does that mean the game itself is good? The fun of the game came from the role playing. So whatever caused that great role playing is responsible for having a fun time. The game itself is a paragraph of text. Was that paragraph of text responsible for the good role playing? No, no it was not. It was the players who were responsible. Those players could have had awesome role playing with absolutely any game whatsoever.
Think about it. We could grab shitty old Monpoly and decide to role play.
And on a dark and stormy night on the seas of New Jersey the mighty battleship laid siege to Atlantic City. The deafening blast of its mighty deck guns rang out across Park Place. Kapow! Kapow! Double fives landed upon Saint James Place. A jail break was afoot! The escaped criminals raided the community chest and stole all the money from the beauty pageant. It was time for the top hat to leap into action...
Somehow because we, the players, are awesome, we managed to have a fun time playing Monopoly. Does that mean Monopoly is a good game? If someone else has a bad time playing Monopoly will we tell them they were just playing with shitty players? Hell no. Even the shittiest of games can be fun if the players make it fun.
Thus, when you judge a game, you have to take the players out of the equation. When you judge D&D;, you can only judge what the game brings to the table. That is, the words in its books. The same goes for Monpoly, Burning Wheel, Jungle Speed, or WoW. You can only judge the quality of a game based on the contents of its rule book or, in the case of a video game, source code.
Any role playing game in the world can be fun with a good GM. So saying D&D; is good, you just have a shitty GM, is complete bullshit. D&D;, to my knowledge, still does not have any significant role playing instructions in the book, and any role playing you do has absolutely no mechanical in-game effects. I hope I don't have to explain why house rules don't count. Meanwhile games like Inspectres or Prime Time Adventures or Dread have the role playing directly integrated into the rules. It matters much less if the GM is sucky. The game will produce awesome role playing and creativity through mechanism design, no matter who the players are.
It's amazing how a good game master can make all the difference. It's also amazing how a badly designed roleplaying system can ruin an entire evening.
There are bunch of arguments on The Forge forums whether system even matters. That's kind of where this conversation is leading. Which is a pretty different from whether or not 4E is good or bad or like WoW.
I agree with this. Given any PnP RPG, the right GM can mold the game session into something either fun or frustrating for the players. So to a degree, system doesn't matter.
However, if you take the GM's skills out of the equation, what tools does the system at its core provide to generate fun and advancement? That I think is where the original topic was started. 4th edition DnD appears to be geared toward the same sort of tests and rewards that MMOs like WoW are offering. These rewards tend to focus on monster combat and dps number-crunching. Whereas systems like Burning Wheel offer tools that lead toward character role-play and beliefs/skills number-crunching. So the system that is going to feel more 'fun' to an individual is the one that lends itself easily to the rewards that you prefer to get out of a game.
Personally, I see 4e as a RPG-miniature hybrid. It does focus quite a bit on combat tactics with only a smattering of role-play opportunities tossed in. This is fine if that is the kind of game you want to play.
So saying D&D; is good, you just have a shitty GM, is complete bullshit.
Except, in my experience so far, Burning wheel is Exactly the fucking same. Shitty or unskilled GM? Bad Game, damn near every time. Good or at least skilled GM? Good game is most likely. Hell, we've had quite a few bad games at my occasional gaming group, as we slowly rotated through everyone who wanted to GM - some people were just not good GMs, and without exception, it resulted in a shitty game.
Look, I'm rather less against BW than I've previously been - I'm vaguely positive about it when used correctly, despite my strong disinclination to brown-nose Luke Crane(however, that's another issue) - But it's not a fucking magic wand that turns everything into awesome. If the mechanics of the game automatically produces awesome role-playing and creativity, then why did Luke drop all those little hints, tips, and clues throughout the book - You know, many of them being tips to help you have a better game, and not fuck up and have a shitty game? Surely, they're not necessary, if BW produces Awesome Role-playing and creativity through the sheer design of it's mechanics? I mean, Luke Crane, from pretty much most interviews and the like I've heard him in, is a Patronizing, supercilious douchebag(DISCLAIMER - I've never met the guy, and this opinion is very changeable - if I meet the guy sometime, and he's not a dickhead, I'll be sure to say so, but carrying on) - Despite that, I don't think he'd quite go to THAT much effort just to get his Patronizing jollies.
Scott just a quick question have you read any of the books?
Also
You can only judge the quality of a game based on the contents of its rule book or, in the case of a video game, source code.
Why? Surely a game is for enjoyment. If someone enjoys a game then it is good for them. What does it matter that you don't like it.
D&D; always struck me as an entry drug to role playing games.
Edit; Oh playing Dark Sun at the moment. Got is it so much fun! Our DM added the rule that if you role a 1 your weapon brakes, it has lead to many amusing situations.
I mean, Luke Crane, from pretty much most interviews and the like I've heard him in, is a Patronizing, supercilious douchebag(DISCLAIMER - I've never met the guy, and this opinion is very changeable - if I meet the guy sometime, and he's not a dickhead, I'll be sure to say so, but carrying on) - Despite that, I don't think he'd quite go to THAT much effort just to get his Patronizing jollies.
Wow. I've listened to every podcast I can get my hands on with him on it and read all of the Burning Wheel books. I found his tone to be enthusiastic and energetic. It's funny that he rubbed you the wrong way. I found his enthusiasm for gaming and game design a bit refreshing. It's probably what happens when someone listens to a politician they agree with.
then why did Luke drop all those little hints, tips, and clues throughout the book
Because compared to most other RPGs ever, Burning Wheel is really fucking complicated. Even after playing it for years, we still get rules wrong sometimes. You can' say X is a bad game if you have never played it by the rules. That's why it's really not an entry level game. It's basically hard mode RPG. I hear there might be some streamlining in the future.
Why? Surely a game is for enjoyment. If someone enjoys a game then it is good for them. What does it matter that you don't like it.
Taste != quality. See 1000 other forum threads discussing this.
D&D; always struck me as an entry drug to role playing games.
This, I think is the fundamental problem and the primary source of our geek rage.
Look at comic books. For most people, superheroes and comic books are synonymous. That's a problem because there are comics in all genres. That creates quite a bit of nerd rage. However, it's not full nerd rage because at least there are choices, Spider-Man, Batman, Marvel, DC. Right now most average people don't realize there are comic books without super heroes.
Imagine a world where most people didn't realize there were comic books that weren't Spider-Man. Imagine if the very idea of there being a Batman comic instead of a Spider-Man comic blew people's fucking minds. To make it worse, it's not just normal people. Even comic book nerds, the biggest comic nerds in the world, also think that all comics are Spider-Man comics. If you even suggest that there could be a Batman comic book, they freak out positively or negatively because it's such a new idea to them.
That's the problem we have in tabletop RPGs. Most people, even tabletop RPG nerds, don't realize that any other tabletop RPG exists other than D&D.; If you even suggest to them something like L5R exists, they get a little shaky. If you let them know about Paranoia, a little poop starts coming out. If you tell them about Dread, they jizz in their pants.
99.9999999% of all tabletop RPG playing in the world is D&D.; No other single geek property, not Batman, not Magic: The Gathering, not Settlers of Catan, has that level of completely dominance over its market. It's a fucking crime.
Why is it then that people do not move on and play other games? (genuine question) Surely people can not exist in a bubble of ignoring other games that are available? I know that sounds naive, but is it possible that people enjoy playing D&D and don't see the point of moving on. That it for fills the requirements they look for in a game.
Although not a D&D fan boy I find that D&D fills a comfortable niche for me (In that if I don't want as heavy RP and the chance to enact more encounter driven stories). I know there are other games out there and I play them when I'm in the mood for a game of that style. For instance I recently took Mouse Guard to my RP club. Having never played it they found the back story you built for your characters to add an extra level of immersion. Is it not then a matter of different tools for different jobs?
Wow. I've listened to every podcast I can get my hands on with him on it and read all of the Burning Wheel books. I found his tone to be enthusiastic and energetic. It's funny that he rubbed you the wrong way. I found his enthusiasm for gaming and game design a bit refreshing. It's probably what happens when someone listens to a politician they agree with.
Oh, I don't deny he's enthusiastic, intelligent, and energetic, and really does care about gaming and game design. It doesn't change my current opinon one Iota, but it is nice to see - and he's got a good handle on self promotion, and really interacting with fans.
Comments
This is my original post - before I decided not to post it. That doesn't make any sense!
***
Wow! I'm sorry to dredge up an old thread - please delete this post if it is inappropriate or irritating. I just see no counter arguments and my love for the Geek Nights and their argumentative nature makes me want to post. I'm a listener of the podcast and an avid Burning Wheel fan. I also happen to play in a weekly D&D4E game.
I agree that Burning Wheel is a better game. Burning Wheel is definitely my favorite RPG, with Lacuna coming in a close second.
I play in a weekly 4E game and honestly, with all the new errata and classes added it doesn't feel very different from 3.5. I say this because of the vast amount of options available compared to the original core books. The only thing that 4E does that's different from it's previous editions (before 3.5, that book tells you to do this) is explicitly tell people that they must use miniatures to get the most out of the game and most of the time you play the game is going to be spent in combat.
Overall the way that traps work, skill challenges, encounter building, powers - there is so much more to the combat than in the previous editions of the game. It's so much easier now for a game master to make a balanced encounter and play hard against the players. I've game mastered a few times, and it's great to field enemies and play nasty. I never really felt like that in 2nd edition. That could be a sign of my own shortcomings as a game master.
In what way is 4E similar to World of Warcraft? Is it the At-Will, Encounter and Daily power system? Is it the way that characters are now limited to healing with Healing Surges? Is it the fact that they made their magical item classification exactly the same as World of Warcraft? This sounds way more defensive than I'm actually saying it in my head. I would like to know what about 4E makes it like WOW, specifically because I hear the argument a lot and don't really understand it.
I think the act of clicking on a power and watching the meter recharge (I hate WOW just for the record) is very different from being limited to using a power once per encounter and once per day. When you are playing 4E you are faced with the choice to use a power or save it for the next encounter. It seems maybe more like a board game than the previous editions.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that 4E is just D&D with more combat options and forced miniature combat. Maybe I've played too much of 4E and it's clouded my thinking. I recently joined a few games in a 1st ed. campaign and it felt just the same, but less combat options and a very different magic system. I prefer 1st edition magic. It feels much more powerful and a lot less like just another attack.
I remember hearing a great story of Rym making a pacifist character and leaving to play Counter Strike whenever combat came up. I love this story and it's a perfect example of why Burning Wheel is superior. For anyone who says Burning Wheel can't do dungeon crawl - they need to try Thelon's Rift.
The thing I hate about 4E is the artwork. It seems to be getting better with the Essentials line, but the weird anime inspired Dragonborn freaks.. makes me want to die.
I don't know why I typed any of this out because I agree that Burning Wheel is far superior and I'd rather play it any day of the week. I just think that people who boil down 4E to simply "They've changed it to WOW!" is missing the main point of 4E. 4E is a D&D edition that tries to make combat exciting by giving you more options in combat with miniatures. If I were you I wouldn't trust me though... I still play RIFTS for it's nostalgia and lame artwork.
Sorry for the long annoying post! I promise I'll stick to the point next time. Really love the forum and the podcast.
Rym and Scott - please interview Luke Crane and Justin Sorenson again. I've listened to those over and over. Luke Crane is such a punk in his first interview with you guys! I love it.
Just because you change the specifics of the magic systems, or the combat systems, doesn't make them fundamentally different games. What makes them really similar to each other, compared to say Final Fantasy, is that they are extremely streamlined. Every class and every power is useful in every situation. Everyone just always does maximum average damage all the time, if they're smart.
Being cyclical is not the issue.
It's really no different. In BW, you pursue your Beliefs using a set of skills. A good player creates a scene where they test exactly the skill that they want to test at any given moment. It's really no different than positioning your wizard to cast a fireball.
Not sure what you mean by every class and every power being useful in every situation - that is just not true. My striker character is very weak in certain situations. (Oh god! Even the names for the roles of the characters are taken from MMOs - I should just give up at this point!) Do you mean that when you build a party you fill every role so that your party can do everything? Sorry the booze may be making me a bit thick.
I guess what I'm having trouble with is criticizing the pen and paper RPG for being too much like the video game. I guess the feeling I have is that the fundamental nature of an RPG and it's limitless boundaries on what you can do as a player make it much better than any video game could ever be. This is all assuming you have a game master who is into building a cooperative narrative. If you are being rail roaded you might as well be playing WoW with a pen and paper.
I think the argument that Burning Wheel and other RPGs with game design aimed at shared narrative and playing in character are much more suited for building interesting drama. D&D; is good if you want to sit down and be heroes kicking the crap out of a lot of monsters and disarming traps.
One thing the creators of 4E have commented on is that combat in 4E lasts too long. Recent monster design has been leaning towards making everything hit harder and die faster. Also the Essential builds for all the characters are really simple. Probably trying to capture a younger audience. I think 4E has been out over two years now.
It's funny to think that video game RPGs were inspired by D&D; and now it's the other way around. My favorite video game RPG is and will always be NetHack. It feels like the ultimate AD&D; simulator. (Did that just make my entire argument invalid - or was it the random ramblings of a drunk on the net... probably both!)
BTW - I'm super stoked to be arguing with you guys about 4E. I love listening to you guys argue with each other on your podcast. Ha ha! Another beer Mr. Jake. YES, sounds like a great idea!
We have this one fighter who grabs enemies with gauntlets and pulls them around the battlefield. It's pretty awesome sometimes when he pulls out a daily and drags all the dudes around and our wizard does a ton of area effect blasts on them.
My striker just died so I switched to a defender with a striker subclass. I'm learning all about keeping the enemies near and away from our squishy members.
I guess the more I talk about it the more it sounds like an MMO...
D&D 4E has no good mechanism for rewarding individuals. Any substantive reward makes individual party members more powerful and more useful in encounters. By the nature of the system, a low-powered character is less effective in combat and basically just has far fewer interesting or meaningful things to contribute. Their failures don't drive the story, it just frustrates them.
As such, there is a great mechanical discouragement for rewarding individual players over others, as it breaks the fundamentals of the game in the long run (i.e., the combat).
The concept of failure driving the story forward in Burning Wheel is amazing. I remember the first time a player failed a Symbology roll and I had a wise old wizard (of course EVIL) appear next to him and helped him read the symbols - it was a revelation. Failure can propel the story forward!
In D&D; if your party is wiped out the DM has a few options. The nuclear option - TPK or you wake up in a prison cell all bloody and bruised. I love the fact that Burning Wheel is designed to be crippling and not deadly. You spend months in the hospital recovering from a mortal wound and then can do challenging tests when you are recovering and have it help your skill, stat and attribute advancement.
D&D4E; and WoW both test the same skills. Do you have the ability to make basic tactical decisions while making a simple calculation of which ability is optimal?
In Burning Wheel, those skills might help you in a Fight!, but even then it's more rock paper scissors. If you want to get artha, math and basic rid tactics aren't going to help you. Instead, your skills of risk tolerance and creativity are what is really being tested. Burning Wheel only rewards players who don't play it safe, so you have to be willing to lay it out on the line to succeed. More importantly, you will only succeed and advance if you can be really creative. Whoever is better at creating plot elements and scenes that match up with the mathematical parameters will do well.
Remember, when figuring out what a game is all about, the first thing to look at is what skill is being tested. D&D4E; and WoW test basic and trivial tactics. BW tests creativity and courage and rock paper scissors once in awhile.
My character got a full quest based around him because I decided that my Monk should beat the shit out of a monster that was all mouths. He lost an arm. Then, while trying to escape from the dungeon, one of the big characters set off a weight trap, which ended up with us falling down a pit, and me breaking my other arm, making climbing out of the trap near-impossible, which crushed almost all my bones. So, they dragged me to an alchemist, who gave my character the wrong potion, so I had gelatinous cube bones. They party decided to tear off all the doors in the area to build my character an exoskeleton. After all that was done, we got into a fight and I was almost dead, so they took me to a hospital. As per my Monk's wish, they went on an adventure to help the blacksmith so he could make me an iron arm, and since I chose to be a miner as a side-job, I could put gems I find into my iron arm to beef up attacks with elemental powers or just bonuses, instead of getting ki focus or clubs.
All that because of some rolls that were not in my favor.
There are bunch of arguments on The Forge forums whether system even matters. That's kind of where this conversation is leading. Which is a pretty different from whether or not 4E is good or bad or like WoW.
The 'Beyond D&D;' panel/podcast was the first time I heard major complaints lodged against D&D; as a game system. My brother recommended I try InSpectres and it really opened my eyes to what roleplaying could be as far as a tool for a cooperative narrative game instead of a group of players following the game master's vision.
The fact of the matter is that D&D; 4E has particular mechanical incentives that hinder many styles of role playing. Getting around that with a good DM means that you have a good DM who himself is getting around the mechanical limitations of the system.
A good system assists both good and bad DMs in achieving their goals.
Here's a complete game I just made up.
Any number of players sit around a table. Everyone has a D6. Everyone takes turns in clockwise order. On your turn you must attack another player. Attacker and defender both roll their die. If the attacker rolls equal or higher, they hit. If they roll a 1, they themselves are hit. Any other result, the hit is blocked. If a player is hit three times, they are out of the game. Oh yeah, and you should role play while playing this game.
Now let's say some people play this game and role play an awesome story. Some other people play this game and are shitty at role plaing. The first group says the game is awesome. The second group says it sucks. The first group says that the game is awesome, and the second group is just shitty role players. Who is right?
The fact is that the first group did have a lot of fun playing the game, but does that mean the game itself is good? The fun of the game came from the role playing. So whatever caused that great role playing is responsible for having a fun time. The game itself is a paragraph of text. Was that paragraph of text responsible for the good role playing? No, no it was not. It was the players who were responsible. Those players could have had awesome role playing with absolutely any game whatsoever.
Think about it. We could grab shitty old Monpoly and decide to role play.
And on a dark and stormy night on the seas of New Jersey the mighty battleship laid siege to Atlantic City. The deafening blast of its mighty deck guns rang out across Park Place. Kapow! Kapow! Double fives landed upon Saint James Place. A jail break was afoot! The escaped criminals raided the community chest and stole all the money from the beauty pageant. It was time for the top hat to leap into action...
Somehow because we, the players, are awesome, we managed to have a fun time playing Monopoly. Does that mean Monopoly is a good game? If someone else has a bad time playing Monopoly will we tell them they were just playing with shitty players? Hell no. Even the shittiest of games can be fun if the players make it fun.
Thus, when you judge a game, you have to take the players out of the equation. When you judge D&D;, you can only judge what the game brings to the table. That is, the words in its books. The same goes for Monpoly, Burning Wheel, Jungle Speed, or WoW. You can only judge the quality of a game based on the contents of its rule book or, in the case of a video game, source code.
Any role playing game in the world can be fun with a good GM. So saying D&D; is good, you just have a shitty GM, is complete bullshit. D&D;, to my knowledge, still does not have any significant role playing instructions in the book, and any role playing you do has absolutely no mechanical in-game effects. I hope I don't have to explain why house rules don't count. Meanwhile games like Inspectres or Prime Time Adventures or Dread have the role playing directly integrated into the rules. It matters much less if the GM is sucky. The game will produce awesome role playing and creativity through mechanism design, no matter who the players are.
However, if you take the GM's skills out of the equation, what tools does the system at its core provide to generate fun and advancement? That I think is where the original topic was started. 4th edition DnD appears to be geared toward the same sort of tests and rewards that MMOs like WoW are offering. These rewards tend to focus on monster combat and dps number-crunching. Whereas systems like Burning Wheel offer tools that lead toward character role-play and beliefs/skills number-crunching. So the system that is going to feel more 'fun' to an individual is the one that lends itself easily to the rewards that you prefer to get out of a game.
Personally, I see 4e as a RPG-miniature hybrid. It does focus quite a bit on combat tactics with only a smattering of role-play opportunities tossed in. This is fine if that is the kind of game you want to play.
Look, I'm rather less against BW than I've previously been - I'm vaguely positive about it when used correctly, despite my strong disinclination to brown-nose Luke Crane(however, that's another issue) - But it's not a fucking magic wand that turns everything into awesome. If the mechanics of the game automatically produces awesome role-playing and creativity, then why did Luke drop all those little hints, tips, and clues throughout the book - You know, many of them being tips to help you have a better game, and not fuck up and have a shitty game? Surely, they're not necessary, if BW produces Awesome Role-playing and creativity through the sheer design of it's mechanics? I mean, Luke Crane, from pretty much most interviews and the like I've heard him in, is a Patronizing, supercilious douchebag(DISCLAIMER - I've never met the guy, and this opinion is very changeable - if I meet the guy sometime, and he's not a dickhead, I'll be sure to say so, but carrying on) - Despite that, I don't think he'd quite go to THAT much effort just to get his Patronizing jollies.
Also Why? Surely a game is for enjoyment. If someone enjoys a game then it is good for them. What does it matter that you don't like it.
D&D; always struck me as an entry drug to role playing games.
Edit; Oh playing Dark Sun at the moment. Got is it so much fun! Our DM added the rule that if you role a 1 your weapon brakes, it has lead to many amusing situations.
Look at comic books. For most people, superheroes and comic books are synonymous. That's a problem because there are comics in all genres. That creates quite a bit of nerd rage. However, it's not full nerd rage because at least there are choices, Spider-Man, Batman, Marvel, DC. Right now most average people don't realize there are comic books without super heroes.
Imagine a world where most people didn't realize there were comic books that weren't Spider-Man. Imagine if the very idea of there being a Batman comic instead of a Spider-Man comic blew people's fucking minds. To make it worse, it's not just normal people. Even comic book nerds, the biggest comic nerds in the world, also think that all comics are Spider-Man comics. If you even suggest that there could be a Batman comic book, they freak out positively or negatively because it's such a new idea to them.
That's the problem we have in tabletop RPGs. Most people, even tabletop RPG nerds, don't realize that any other tabletop RPG exists other than D&D.; If you even suggest to them something like L5R exists, they get a little shaky. If you let them know about Paranoia, a little poop starts coming out. If you tell them about Dread, they jizz in their pants.
99.9999999% of all tabletop RPG playing in the world is D&D.; No other single geek property, not Batman, not Magic: The Gathering, not Settlers of Catan, has that level of completely dominance over its market. It's a fucking crime.
Although not a D&D fan boy I find that D&D fills a comfortable niche for me (In that if I don't want as heavy RP and the chance to enact more encounter driven stories). I know there are other games out there and I play them when I'm in the mood for a game of that style. For instance I recently took Mouse Guard to my RP club. Having never played it they found the back story you built for your characters to add an extra level of immersion. Is it not then a matter of different tools for different jobs?