TheRPGSite

I get interested in Burning Wheel at times. But then no one can explain the game's mechanic to me, even by die-hard players, in a paragraph or two. They can't even tell what the gist of the game is after reading the entire book, which seems to be a mandatory thing before even playing the game.

So how have GMs convinced other players to read the entire book so that a game can be started?

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1066662So how have GMs convinced other players to read the entire book so that a game can be started?

You don't: ). When starting with new BW players, I would (and I think the book recommends this) start with just character burning (which is involved as it it), the "Spokes", and simple tests (i.e., Bloody Vs.). Oh, and sticking to Mannish lifepaths will help a ton to if you can work that.  It may be just me, but our campaign (now 11 sessions in) very rarely goes into the big systems.  In fact, my players tend to avoid them unless there is a lot on the line.  And as long as you keep the dice rolling, Artha chugs along just fine without pulling out the scripting sheets.  At least this is how I like to run it...

Quote from: Tyndale;1066670You don't: ). When starting with new BW players, I would (and I think the book recommends this) start with just character burning (which is involved as it it), the "Spokes", and simple tests (i.e., Blood Vs.). Oh, and sticking to Mannish lifepaths will help a ton to if you can work that.  I may be just me, but our campaign (now 11 sessions in) very rarely goes into the big systems.  In fact, they tend to avoid them unless there is a lot on the line.  And as long as you keep the dice rolling, Artha chugs along just fine without pulling out the scripting sheets.  At least this is how I like to run it...

So "burning" is a mechanic? Spokes? Blood Vs? Scripting sheets? You've already lost me and proved the OP's point.

Sorry, was assuming the OP has some experience with the book. But to your point, yes, BW does use a unique nomenclature. But that is nothing compared to the uniqueness of the system philosophy as a whole . It really turns some folks off.  : )

If you're interested though:

"Burning" is the process of character creation which is a lifepath system.  "Spokes" is the chapter that lays out the core mechanics.  "Bloody vs." is a simplified form of combat.  And the sheets are commonly used when "Dual of Wits" or "Fight" (the big combat systems come into play) because the interactions of actions are complicated.

I fully understand that BW is an acquired taste. But it really works for my preferred style to play. YMMV.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1066671So "burning" is a mechanic? Spokes? Blood Vs? Scripting sheets? You've already lost me and proved the OP's point.

How about this:

The book literally says: To start off only use the first 74 pages
(The first 74 pages are available for free at Drivethru)

As for the basic mechanics:

Roll d6 dice pools to beat a target number. A 4-6 on a die is a success against the target number. A 1-3 does not count.

That is the basics. Hope it helps!

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1066662I get interested in Burning Wheel at times. But then no one can explain the game's mechanic to me, even by die-hard players, in a paragraph or two. They can't even tell what the gist of the game is after reading the entire book, which seems to be a mandatory thing before even playing the game.

So how have GMs convinced other players to read the entire book so that a game can be started?

Oh god this game...

Okay, so I read every word of the burning wheel gold... Well, it's a bible, for lack of a better term. I also joined their forums and read the intro adventure "the sword". Additionally, I ran my wife and best friend through character gen and a single, ill-advised session of the thing, in addition to crating various lifepath builds to satiate my curiosity.

So I'm no expert, but I've tussled with it considerably.

Here's the game; imagine the most heart-breaking decision you've ever made in an RPG; choosing life or death between favorite NPCs, or giving up an irreplaceable treasure to save yourself from an unbeatable monster, or just losing one of your favorite characters in a last act of heroism and self-sacrifice. Okay, this game wants every goddamn role to be that, all the time.

That's the game. It's emotional thumbscrews the RPG.

It's the kind of game where you're not guaranteed two shoes (although you do get one.... Adventure for the other!) when you lifepath up a character. The player's job is to have very clear, very inflexible goals for their characters, and the GM's job is to make all of these come into conflict and get tested as much as humanly possible.

The system doesn't care about things like position, or movement; it doesn't have any time for measuring and counting, it's too busy making sure that you know that if you don't get this horse, you'll miss your window of opportunity to accomplish your heart's desire but that you have to surrender something you love and can't replace to get the horse in time.

Combat is a skill check. Until the players actually get creative, then it's a slightly more sophisticated version of rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock. It's not agony, but it is both really clunky and really deadly.

There are a lot of neat ideas floating around in it (like flotsam...); you level up skills by testing them doing extremely hard things, and you need a certain number of failures to level. Combine that with the "every roll is life or death" mentality and you've got a system that's built to enmesh you into a deep web of your own shortcomings. Granted, it's literally not possible to avoid this, so it loses some impact.

Your character will never be good at things. If they get good at something, the game gets dull fast, so it twists itself into noodles to keep that from happening. There's a set of emotion mechanics that essentially forces you to retire a character before they reach that point.

Uhm... You don't track gold or encumbrance or anything that involves math. The game operates on pure emotional logic, so if you don't run in the exact way it expects (but never explains) you won't be able to figure out what about 90% of the mechanics do.

Oh I forgot that wounding is on a grid, which complicates it for absolutely no discernible reason. Seriously, it's like, almost entirely just a health tract and should be linear. But it's not; you plot wounds. Enjoy that.

Yeah it's... Okay, so I like clear, direct, and specific communication. This game is "Insinuation: the Expectation-Cloudening". The game insinuates it's goals to you. The players insinuate what they want their characters to be doing (but don't tell you). Every mechanic insinuates it's purpose, but never, ever explains it's actual function, leaving you scratching your head at the needless evasiveness of it all.

And this wouldn't be intolerable, but the community of people (including the creator) that boasts about this game online communicate elusively in this indirect, insinuation-laden, condescending "Oh, youuuuu'll get it, someday! *wink*!" kind of way, making the sole clear and unambiguous truth of the game that [strike]it's a total waste of your time and energy.[/strike] EDIT: Okay no, plenty of enjoyment can be had. I'm just cranky.

Quote from: Azraele;1066681Oh god this game...

Okay, so I read every word of the burning wheel gold... Well, it's a bible, for lack of a better term. I also joined their forums and read the intro adventure "the sword". Additionally, I ran my wife and best friend through character gen and a single, ill-advised session of the thing, in addition to crating various lifepath builds to satiate my curiosity.

So I'm no expert, but I've tussled with it considerably.

Here's the game; imagine the most heart-breaking decision you've ever made in an RPG; choosing life or death between favorite NPCs, or giving up an irreplaceable treasure to save yourself from an unbeatable monster, or just losing one of your favorite characters in a last act of heroism and self-sacrifice. Okay, this game wants every goddamn role to be that, all the time.

That's the game. It's emotional thumbscrews the RPG.

It's the kind of game where you're not guaranteed two shoes (although you do get one.... Adventure for the other!) when you lifepath up a character. The player's job is to have very clear, very inflexible goals for their characters, and the GM's job is to make all of these come into conflict and get tested as much as humanly possible.

The system doesn't care about things like position, or movement; it doesn't have any time for measuring and counting, it's too busy making sure that you know that if you don't get this horse, you'll miss your window of opportunity to accomplish your heart's desire but that you have to surrender something you love and can't replace to get the horse in time.

Combat is a skill check. Until the players actually get creative, then it's a slightly more sophisticated version of rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock. It's not agony, but it is both really clunky and really deadly.

There are a lot of neat ideas floating around in it (like flotsam...); you level up skills by testing them doing extremely hard things, and you need a certain number of failures to level. Combine that with the "every roll is life or death" mentality and you've got a system that's built to enmesh you into a deep web of your own shortcomings. Granted, it's literally not possible to avoid this, so it loses some impact.

Your character will never be good at things. If they get good at something, the game gets dull fast, so it twists itself into noodles to keep that from happening. There's a set of emotion mechanics that essentially forces you to retire a character before they reach that point.

Uhm... You don't track gold or encumbrance or anything that involves math. The game operates on pure emotional logic, so if you don't run in the exact way it expects (but never explains) you won't be able to figure out what about 90% of the mechanics do.

Oh I forgot that wounding is on a grid, which complicates it for absolutely no discernible reason. Seriously, it's like, almost entirely just a health tract and should be linear. But it's not; you plot wounds. Enjoy that.

Yeah it's... Okay, so I like clear, direct, and specific communication. This game is "Insinuation: the Expectation-Cloudening". The game insinuates it's goals to you. The players insinuate what they want their characters to be doing (but don't tell you). Every mechanic insinuates it's purpose, but never, ever explains it's actual function, leaving you scratching your head at the needless evasiveness of it all.

And this wouldn't be intolerable, but the community of people (including the creator) that boasts about this game online communicate elusively in this indirect, insinuation-laden, condescending "Oh, youuuuu'll get it, someday! *wink*!" kind of way, making the sole clear and unambiguous truth of the game that it's a total waste of your time and energy.

For what it is worth (and it might not be worth much) I did not experience the game this way at all.

Or, to be more accurate, much of the description from the quote above does sum up the game (for example, the game does focus more on the emotional life of the character over tactical elements), but it caused me no gnashing of teeth.

If you do not want something like that do not play it! But if you are interested in such a game, it does it in spades.

As a comparison, I might say similar things about Pendragon or original Dungeons & Dragons... the games are designed to provide specific kinds of play experiences. If you do not want those experiences you will be frustrated.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1066662I get interested in Burning Wheel at times. But then no one can explain the game's mechanic to me, even by die-hard players, in a paragraph or two. They can't even tell what the gist of the game is after reading the entire book, which seems to be a mandatory thing before even playing the game.

So how have GMs convinced other players to read the entire book so that a game can be started?

The easy answer is don't start with BW.  Start with Mouse Guard instead.  It's a much more streamlined, cleaner, shorter, organized, and accessible version of what is essentially the same engine.  The subject matter is anthropomorphised mice instead of Tolkien-ish characters, but you can't have everything.  If you enjoy the flow of MG, BW might be worth your time.  Otherwise, it probably isn't.  

The gist of the engine is it's "reward cycle".  To advance much at all, you must push yourself and risk serious failure.  Almost every roll is consequential.  If you try something easy, the GM gives it to you, so you get no advancement.  To get the tougher successes, you need special points, and there are only a few ways to get them in game.  It's defined for 2-5 people to go all out with their characters.  Everything else in BW, MG, Torchbearer, etc. is commentary on a particular style of game built around that engine.  

Finally, almost all of the "modification" levers in the BW engine(s) are in a few odd places.  It's not that you can't hack the game.  Changing the setting and conceits of the setting is simply changing the window dressing (life paths, particular skills, creatures, etc.)  What you can't really change much is the engine itself.  The engine isn't brittle, but it is very narrow and specialized.  There's no good way, for example, to scale it to 7 or 8 players.  There is no good way to tweak with the combat system.  That "every roll is important" is really embedded deep into every assumption in the engine.  If you are gonna fight that, might as well play something else instead.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1066691For what it is worth (and it might not be worth much) I did not experience the game this way at all.

Or, to be more accurate, much of the description from the quote above does sum up the game (for example, the game does focus more on the emotional life of the character over tactical elements), but it caused me no gnashing of teeth.

If you do not want something like that do not play it! But if you are interested in such a game, it does it in spades.

As a comparison, I might say similar things about Prndragon or original Dungeons & Dragons... the games or designed to provide specific kinds of play experiences. If you do not want those experiences you will be frustrated.

Got to say, you're the single best representative of Burning Wheel I've ever encountered online. It takes some stern stuff to take that depth of lambasting about your favorite game and then compliment the asshole that did it.

Quote from: Azraele;1066699Got to say, you're the single best representative of Burning Wheel I've ever encountered online. It takes some stern stuff to take that depth of lambasting about your favorite game and then compliment the asshole that did it.

To be clear:My favorite games is King Arthur Pendragon. (It is the game I want to run next for my Monday Night Group.)

I like Burning Wheel.

Games I love are Classic Traveller (Books 1-3), Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Sorcerer & Sword, RuneQuest: Roleplayimg in Glorantha (though I wish the text was better written).

I'm thinking about using the OD&D rules ro run Barrowmaze against the backdrop of Dolmenwood at some point. And I'd also like to run some Fate of the Norns as well.

So, just so you know, BW isn't really near the top of my RPG list. But it is on the list!:)

Quote from: Tyndale;1066670You don't: ). When starting with new BW players, I would (and I think the book recommends this) start with just character burning (which is involved as it it), the "Spokes", and simple tests (i.e., Bloody Vs.). Oh, and sticking to Mannish lifepaths will help a ton to if you can work that.  It may be just me, but our campaign (now 11 sessions in) very rarely goes into the big systems.  In fact, my players tend to avoid them unless there is a lot on the line.  And as long as you keep the dice rolling, Artha chugs along just fine without pulling out the scripting sheets.  At least this is how I like to run it...

You mean using just the first 75 pages, or so, of the rules? Your players would only need to care about them to get a game going?

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1066707You mean using just the first 75 pages, or so, of the rules? Your players would only need to care about them to get a game going?

In terms of mechanics, yes.

You would need the chapters for the life paths to create characters. Or use pregenerated characters. But in terms of playing the game, the first 75 pages is all you need.

And, again, these pages are available at Drivethru for free.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1066707You mean using just the first 75 pages, or so, of the rules? Your players would only need to care about them to get a game going?

The biggest thing missing from that first 75 pages that matters during play is a tutorial on how to write Beliefs, Instincts, and Goals that work inside the game.  Get those wrong, and the game will be very flat.  The players are supposed to both roleplay the "BITs" AND game the hell out of them.  Thus, they are also the hardest thing to get right with pre-gens.  

You could, with players that took it in the spirit intended, have a trial period where the players got to monkey with their "BITs" until they were working properly.  They are allowed, and even expected to change, but not usually during a session.  But better to tweak them than having a session that frustrated everyone because the players didn't have the hang of it when they put in the first attempt at the "BITs".

Quote from: Tyndale;1066675Sorry, was assuming the OP has some experience with the book. But to your point, yes, BW does use a unique nomenclature. But that is nothing compared to the uniqueness of the system philosophy as a whole . It really turns some folks off.  : )

If you're interested though:

"Burning" is the process of character creation which is a lifepath system.  "Spokes" is the chapter that lays out the core mechanics.  "Bloody vs." is a simplified form of combat.  And the sheets are commonly used when "Dual of Wits" or "Fight" (the big combat systems come into play) because the interactions of actions are complicated.

I fully understand that BW is an acquired taste. But it really works for my preferred style to play. YMMV.

I'm sorry, but you know what this reminds me of? A tech manual for a piece of equipment that was written by a guy with an engineering degree who has never and will never actually work on the piece of equipment that the tech manual is for, but who does have a publisher who also has never and never will work on the same piece of equipment that the tech manual is for yet needs to be impressed by the language with which the tech manual was written in order for it to get published. Language (the nomenclature) gets used to create more of a barrier than a bridge to allow this game to be played. It is a form of tribalism.

Quote from: jeff37923;1066750I'm sorry, but you know what this reminds me of? A tech manual for a piece of equipment that was written by a guy with an engineering degree who has never and will never actually work on the piece of equipment that the tech manual is for, but who does have a publisher who also has never and never will work on the same piece of equipment that the tech manual is for yet needs to be impressed by the language with which the tech manual was written in order for it to get published. Language (the nomenclature) gets used to create more of a barrier than a bridge to allow this game to be played. It is a form of tribalism.

Not quite.  More like the engineer had his own private vocabulary when he tested the tool, and didn't bother to translate that into even normal engineer lingo, let alone something more useful to a regular user.

One of the reasons that Mouse Guard is a much more accessible game is that this kind of thing is much reduced in MG compared to BW.  There is still some of that--and almost has to be given the odd nature of the system--but they at least put a lot of effort into cutting out most of it.

I'm reading this thread and BW has me entirely confused. I'm too stupid to play it. I'll stick with CoC and BRP doing everything.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1066677How about this:

The book literally says: To start off only use the first 74 pages
(The first 74 pages are available for free at Drivethru)

As for the basic mechanics:

Roll d6 dice pools to beat a target number. A 4-6 on a die is a success against the target number. A 1-3 does not count.

That is the basics. Hope it helps!

I read the entire Burning Wheel book a couple years and couldn't understand wtf it was trying to convey. I figured out D&D on my own when I was in junior high. It's pretty obvious to me these sorts of "games" are mental exercises, not actually meant to be played in the sense we understand games are played. Even the rules for fucking Magic Realm aren't 74 pages long, and that game is insanely complex.

I'm filing Burning Wheel into the same category as stuff like Dungeon World and Nobilis: just nonsensical bullshit people insist makes sense.

Great game, few opportunities I've had to play were online which tends to dull the experience but overall definitely a game to add to your stable.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1066677How about this:

The book literally says: To start off only use the first 74 pages
(The first 74 pages are available for free at Drivethru)

As for the basic mechanics:

Roll d6 dice pools to beat a target number. A 4-6 on a die is a success against the target number. A 1-3 does not count.

That is the basics. Hope it helps!

Chris, do these pages include the Belief, Instincts, Artha thing? Because from what I've read, it's one of the most distinctive things about the game.

Care to talk a bit about those, btw?

Quote from: Brad;1066776I'm filing Burning Wheel into the same category as stuff like Dungeon World and Nobilis: just nonsensical bullshit people insist makes sense.

Dungeon World is actually pretty simple, specially compared to more mainstream games like D&D or Pathfinder. So I'm not following you here.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1066748The biggest thing missing from that first 75 pages that matters during play is a tutorial on how to write Beliefs, Instincts, and Goals that work inside the game.  Get those wrong, and the game will be very flat.  The players are supposed to both roleplay the "BITs" AND game the hell out of them.  Thus, they are also the hardest thing to get right with pre-gens.  

You could, with players that took it in the spirit intended, have a trial period where the players got to monkey with their "BITs" until they were working properly.  They are allowed, and even expected to change, but not usually during a session.  But better to tweak them than having a session that frustrated everyone because the players didn't have the hang of it when they put in the first attempt at the "BITs".

Also: grab a copy of the sword (https://www.burningwheel.com/wiki/images/Ab_Sword.pdf) and read through it. It does a very good job of selling Burning Wheel on it's own terms. Granted, it's an "adventure" that is entirely the party bickering over who has the strongest claim to the magic sword they're all questing for (and start the game with). But, that's what you're getting in to with Burning Wheel.

If you love that, you'll love the system. If that sounds tedious and awful, give it a pass.

Found this explanation (from here (https://rpggeek.com/thread/613232/bringing-bw-style-beliefs-dnd)) about the dynamics of Belief-Instincts-Traits. Interesting and kinda similar to Pendragon? (with the Virtues and Passions working as "Flags" and also as important things to be challenged during play) and some PbtA games:



"Remember that Beliefs are Player Flags. In other words they are player-set priorities for what they want out of the game, not character emotions, ethics or points of view. Albiet the best Beliefs are written 'in character' to maintain the fictional premise.

That said:
Write one Belief about the situation at hand that can be achieved this session (the reason the player is interested in the premise of the game.)

Write one Belief about another PC

Write one Belief about a long term goal or aspiration.

Make sure each belief has a standpoint statement and an action statement. 'I think this, and will prove it by doing this.'

Make sure you reward players achieving Beliefs: pure XP, AP, bonus dice, whatever, so long as there is a feedback loop for chasing the priorities you listed on the character sheet!

Challenge the Players Beliefs in play. Don't design encounters suitable to the PCs levels and power, design encounters that challenge their Beliefs. Give them the play they are asking for. If that means no combat, or all combat, so be it, just don't try and 'fit' your players beliefs to your concept of how the story should play out, nor the carefully prepared plot you designed earlier. Prepare NPCS, foils to Beliefs and situational possibilities that cause conflict between the players and within their ideals. Design encounters that make difficult choices for the players (based on their Beliefs) and see where the story goes."

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1066677To start off only use the first 74 pages...

That tells me what I need to know, for sure! The number of players I'd attract with such a ruleset is the same as, well, zero.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1066677The book literally says: To start off only use the first 74 pages
(The first 74 pages are available for free at Drivethru)
 

Quote from: Zalman;1066825That tells me what I need to know, for sure! The number of players I'd attract with such a ruleset is the same as, well, zero.

As a side note, the book is physically small.  Those pages are 5.5x8.5 inches, not 8.5x11.  Then consider the margins are almost an inch all around, a couple page filling art pieces and the title/credit pages.

The 74 pages in the free PDF probably wouldn't fill 30 pages if they were re-edited to be in a normal book size.

I expl

Quote from: Zalman;1066825That tells me what I need to know, for sure! The number of players I'd attract with such a ruleset is the same as, well, zero.

I explained the core mechaknic in that same post in one sentence. That can get the game going.

I understand nonsensical, counter-reality-exaggerated arguments are the norm around here, but clearly we all often play RPGs that have at least a few dozen pages devoted to the players that the players never read.

I am going to be running Pendragon for my group in January. There are dozens of pages that it would be great for my players to read so they could grasp the mechanics of play clearly. They will not be reading them. Somehow we will still play.

When it comes to BW - going back to the question in the OP - no, you do not have to read or master the entire brick of a book to play it. The first 74 pages of rules is all you need. Which is a distinctly shorter set of rules than many other RPGs.

Quote from: Brad;1066776I read the entire Burning Wheel book a couple years and couldn't understand wtf it was trying to convey. I figured out D&D on my own when I was in junior high. It's pretty obvious to me these sorts of "games" are mental exercises, not actually meant to be played in the sense we understand games are played. Even the rules for fucking Magic Realm aren't 74 pages long, and that game is insanely complex.

I'm filing Burning Wheel into the same category as stuff like Dungeon World and Nobilis: just nonsensical bullshit people insist makes sense.

^This. I also picked up Torchbearer to give it a read through, even though I heard it was similar to BW. Another waste of time and money. More of the same confusing and convoluted nonsense.

I played in a year-long campaign of Burning Wheel within the Harn setting. It was definitely fun, but also definitely had a steep learning curve that took a lot of buy-in for us to get into. I don't think I'd go back to it at this point, but it was fun to try as a change of pace.

Burning Wheel is a rules-heavy system - at least comparable to Hero System or GURPS, with the added hurdle of some greater difficulty in learning because it's significantly different from other systems. Azraele's summary wasn't completely off-base, but it's a negative spin on a system that a lot of people enjoy.

I'd agree that looking over The Sword scenario or playing Mouse Guard are good introductions to the system and style of play - though Burning Wheel is both more flexible and more involved than Mouse Guard. It's good at making die rolls dramatic, and in making failure costly though not necessarily deadly. Our campaign was low-combat and we didn't have any PC deaths, but it would easily have been possible.

Quote from: jhkim;1066859I played in a year-long campaign of Burning Wheel within the Harn setting. It was definitely fun, but also definitely had a steep learning curve that took a lot of buy-in for us to get into. I don't think I'd go back to it at this point, but it was fun to try as a change of pace.

Burning Wheel is a rules-heavy system - at least comparable to Hero System or GURPS, with the added hurdle of some greater difficulty in learning because it's significantly different from other systems. Azraele's summary wasn't completely off-base, but it's a negative spin on a system that a lot of people enjoy.

I'd agree that looking over The Sword scenario or playing Mouse Guard are good introductions to the system and style of play - though Burning Wheel is both more flexible and more involved than Mouse Guard. It's good at making die rolls dramatic, and in making failure costly though not necessarily deadly. Our campaign was low-combat and we didn't have any PC deaths, but it would easily have been possible.

Yeah I'm starting to regret the venom I poured into it. It is something I intensely dislike, and the attitude of a lot of its fans rubs me all kinds of the wrong way. But hey; who am I to judge your fun? FoRK your skills and burn your Artha wheelheads, don't let my cranky ass stop you.

Apparently I am not the best ambassador for BW : ).  Will leave it at that.  I totally gronk that the system is unique, and the underlying assumptions are different, but that is what it is.  I don't wish to present it is anything different than a game that will ask one to change their gaming "language" and gaming mechanics.  Again, each to his own. It works for me.

Quote from: jhkim;1066859I played in a year-long campaign of Burning Wheel within the Harn setting. It was definitely fun, but also definitely had a steep learning curve that took a lot of buy-in for us to get into. I don't think I'd go back to it at this point, but it was fun to try as a change of pace.

Hi John! Hear you, and miss gaming with Jim : )

Quote from: jeff37923;1066750I'm sorry, but you know what this reminds me of? A tech manual for a piece of equipment that was written by a guy with an engineering degree who has never and will never actually work on the piece of equipment that the tech manual is for, but who does have a publisher who also has never and never will work on the same piece of equipment that the tech manual is for yet needs to be impressed by the language with which the tech manual was written in order for it to get published. Language (the nomenclature) gets used to create more of a barrier than a bridge to allow this game to be played. It is a form of tribalism.

No apology needed. But, to push back, BW is no different of a language change than Dungeon World or FATE IMHO, but this may be its own damnation : ) FWIW.  

This said, I appreciate the new verbiage in the sense the it alerts everyone that the rules and underlying mechanic assumptions are completely different.   #NotInKansasAnymore

The fans for BW remind me of Vampire fans in the 1990s. A lot of pretentious garbage about how avant-garde and edgy they are. Insert one-way truism here.

I'm in the odd position of admiring BW while no longer wanting to play it.  It does what it sets out to do very well.  I just don't want to do it.

Quote from: Jason Coplen;1066869The fans for BW remind me of Vampire fans in the 1990s. A lot of pretentious garbage about how avant-garde and edgy they are. Insert one-way truism here.

I'll see that, and raise with an open invitation to anyone who wants to join us in the outskirts of Boston to see how we run BW.  We are not Vampires, not edgy (except for the one in the Pikachu hat), and we are certainly not one-wayism.  Just a bunch of fellahs who like gaming together, laugh, play other games than just BW, and have an affinity for pretending that they are Dwarves who are on a mission to reclaim Moria during the 4th Age of Middle Earth.  Nothing pretentious or strange in that. Oh, and this was photos was when we went off the rails with a session of Mafia (I was the the Doctor) - great game BTW!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3077[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3079[/ATTACH]

Fixed that for you

Quote from: Azraele;1066877Fixed that for you

Snort - well played.

Quote from: Tyndale;1066879Snort - well played.

Fair play: here's a picture of me as my alter-ego, "The Beautiful Butterfly"

Spoiler

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3081[/ATTACH]

Say, if you want, I could "Burn" that character up for you.  The first Belief would clearly be, "I am majestic. Others will worship my beauty".  Oh, and your first Instinct would be, "When confronted, strike a pose". And the Trait would be: Boots!

Quote from: Tyndale;1066883Say, if you want, I could "Burn" that character up for you.  The first Belief would clearly be, "I am majestic. Others will worship my beauty".  Oh, and your first Instinct would be, "When confronted, strike a pose". And the Trait would be: Boots!

Alarmingly accurate

Quote from: Tyndale;1066883And the Trait would be: Boots!

You can have boots ... if you're willing to sacrifice the feet of your firstborn child. You can walk in comfort if your offspring never walks again! Until then, you get only socks and sandals.

My primary experience with Burning Wheel is Burning Empire, though I did buy the BW books at some point, the 'lets make up a new language for basic concepts' makes the BW books worthless to me. Spokes? Seriously?

I love all this talk about how complex and rich and deep and whatnot the game is.

No.

Its a small dice pool system with an embiggened Rock-paper-sissors element that was much better handled in Pelgrane Press's Dying Earth.


All that 'depth' and 'richness' and 'complexity' or other glowing adjectives of choice comes from the BITs crap.

And every single element of that relies entirely on Emergent Play.  Its entirely subjective, and if you 'do it wrong'... meaning you and your group didn't get the same awesome emergent experience as some other group, its always said you didn't understand the rules.  

Ultimately, however, BW... or at least the BE incarnation... is an RPG designed to play like a board game.  If the rules are remotely robust it comes at an utter lack of flexibility, which is why it is so very polarizing. If you don't get that emergent play experience, the game has nothing else to offer.

Quote from: Spike;1066892My primary experience with Burning Wheel is Burning Empire, though I did buy the BW books at some point, the 'lets make up a new language for basic concepts' makes the BW books worthless to me. Spokes? Seriously?

I love all this talk about how complex and rich and deep and whatnot the game is.

No.

Its a small dice pool system with an embiggened Rock-paper-sissors element that was much better handled in Pelgrane Press's Dying Earth.


All that 'depth' and 'richness' and 'complexity' or other glowing adjectives of choice comes from the BITs crap.

And every single element of that relies entirely on Emergent Play.  Its entirely subjective, and if you 'do it wrong'... meaning you and your group didn't get the same awesome emergent experience as some other group, its always said you didn't understand the rules.  

Ultimately, however, BW... or at least the BE incarnation... is an RPG designed to play like a board game.  If the rules are remotely robust it comes at an utter lack of flexibility, which is why it is so very polarizing. If you don't get that emergent play experience, the game has nothing else to offer.

So not for you then? Or to badly paraphrase, everything you just said was wrong.

Don't get me wrong I get not liking a game, I think D&D and it's various generational incarnations are shitwank,  it the crap that if I don't like it because it's emo, or board game or rules too strange wah is typical of this site.

*you do manage to put one or two criticisms in, that whilst still wrong, are better than the norm.

Quote from: HorusArisen;1066905So not for you then? Or to badly paraphrase, everything you just said was wrong.

Don't get me wrong I get not liking a game, I think D&D and it's various generational incarnations are shitwank,  it the crap that if I don't like it because it's emo, or board game or rules too strange wah is typical of this site.

*you do manage to put one or two criticisms in, that whilst still wrong, are better than the norm.

That was a very generic response.  Tell me, in what way was my criticism wrong?  

Is it, or is it not, a small dice pool system?

Does it, or does it not rely on a system of hidden choice trumps, a la Rock-Paper-Scissors?

Does it, or does it not, have an incredibly rigid structure of turns and actions covering every possible level of action, and a specific form of adversarial play,  very much like a board game? *

Does it, or does it not, rely on utterly rewriting the standard use jargon of game terms in order to dress itself up, for example: Burning instead of Character Creation? Or Mannish instead of 'man' or 'human'.

Does, or does not, the BIT system rely entirely on Emergent Properties rather than hard coded rules, to produce the desired outcomes?

Is it or is it not true that the Emergent Property elements of game play are the parts of the game that are most thoroughly praised, and most criticism of BW are focused on how the nay sayers 'don't get it', meaning that they didn't use said Emergent Play element (BIT) properly?


You are correct that BW/BE isn't for me. I prefer sandboxes, but you seem to be thinking that I don't understand or 'get' this style of play, just as you assume that D&D is my go-to system, which it is not.  But I listed some very hard, verifiable  descriptions of the system, and your vague counterargument consists of 'nah, brah, you're wrong'. **

Please, How? I've even made it easier for you, since you seem to want to make a case. Make it.



*If this is only accurate to Burning Empires, mea culpa.

** I was sorely tempted to claim you accuse me, in not so many words, of being a One-True-wayist, but that would be a stretch.  None of my initial comments rose to making a subjective claim about the game, but describing it mechanically. If you don't like how a cold description of the mechanics sound, that isn't my concern.  I reserved my complaints for the attitudes of defenders, in which case I can rest my case with your response. Thanks for that.

Spike is giving his honest assessment without offending anyone. Kudos for that.

The problem I see around here is that a lot of people appears to take pleasure in offending or insulting fans of games they don't like. That's something I honestly can't understand.

By Spike's line of argument, no game is all that and a bag of chips.  They all depend on emergent play.  A person might prefer dice pools or not dice pools, but the alternatives are nothing special, either.  Rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock is nothing special; neither are mild bonus/penalty modifiers attached to a descriptive action.  

That might even be correct, but it hardly makes BW unique in that respect.

I own a copy of Burning Wheel, and while I love the idea, I doubt I'll ever actually get to play or run a game of it.

Quote from: Itachi;1066921Spike is giving his honest assessment without offending anyone. Kudos for that.

The problem I see around here is that a lot of people appears to take pleasure in offending or insulting fans of games they don't like. That's something I honestly can't understand.

You can't comprehend sadism?

I was blowing off steam in my criticism up there: the attitude surrounding BW was something I found odious. My vitriol is an emotional release valve for the frustration I experienced with the evasiveness of the text and the condescension of some of it's more obnoxious fans.

Since literally every fan who's responded here has been a paragon of restraint, candor and earnestness, though, it really de-fanged my attitude and made me come off like a jerk. Thanks, you gentlemanly bastards.

I even edited my post to reflect my current shame. Bathe in it, you delightful pricks.

Quote from: Tyndale;1066866No apology needed. But, to push back, BW is no different of a language change than Dungeon World or FATE IMHO, but this may be its own damnation : ) FWIW.  

This said, I appreciate the new verbiage in the sense the it alerts everyone that the rules and underlying mechanic assumptions are completely different.   #NotInKansasAnymore

I'm not that impressed with Dungeon World or FATE, either.

I'm fine with agreeing that Burning Wheel isn't to a lot of people's tastes, but some people really like it.


One complaint that Spike and Azraele had was how Burning Wheel isn't very up-front with what play is supposed to be like, and instead relies on emergent properties of play. On the other hand, I've run into an awful lot of rule systems that were explicit about "play should be like X" - but in practice the rules don't facilitate that well. I definitely prefer the former.

Quote from: jhkim;1066972I'm fine with agreeing that Burning Wheel isn't to a lot of people's tastes, but some people really like it.


One complaint that Spike and Azraele had was how Burning Wheel isn't very up-front with what play is supposed to be like, and instead relies on emergent properties of play. On the other hand, I've run into an awful lot of rule systems that were explicit about "play should be like X" - but in practice the rules don't facilitate that well. I definitely prefer the former.

Okay, dammit, I've got to concede that too: I hate what burning wheel does, and I hate that it's cagey about it, but god damn it succeeds at doing it.

Quote from: Azraele;1066967You can't comprehend sadism?

I was blowing off steam in my criticism up there: the attitude surrounding BW was something I found odious. My vitriol is an emotional release valve for the frustration I experienced with the evasiveness of the text and the condescension of some of it's more obnoxious fans.

Since literally every fan who's responded here has been a paragon of restraint, candor and earnestness, though, it really de-fanged my attitude and made me come off like a jerk. Thanks, you gentlemanly bastards.

I even edited my post to reflect my current shame. Bathe in it, you delightful pricks.

If it makes you feel any better, some of its fans annoy the hell out of me.  I know exactly where you are coming from on that.  Some of them, if they posted here, would stick out as being particularly strong in the "asshole" department, which is really saying something. Heh.

Quote from: jhkim;1066972One complaint that Spike and Azraele had was how Burning Wheel isn't very up-front with what play is supposed to be like, and instead relies on emergent properties of play. On the other hand, I've run into an awful lot of rule systems that were explicit about "play should be like X" - but in practice the rules don't facilitate that well. I definitely prefer the former.

I'm actually less down with the Boardgame elements.  I think trying to build your game around coding Emergent Play, which includes all those fuzzy rules (or in BE at least, including something like one third of the skill list being 'non-playable' skills, included so you could color your character) is a flawed experiment to create that EP, but it doesn't actually bother me, any more than WW's Nature and Demeanor 'rules' bother me.

Tyndale,

Okay, I over-generalized. Some fans. Not all. My apologies if what I posted was taken poorly.

Quote from: Jason Coplen;1067080Tyndale,

Okay, I over-generalized. Some fans. Not all. My apologies if what I posted was taken poorly.

All good, and no apologies needed.  I partly understand - some BW fans are...zealous(?).  Just wanted to leave some space for us normal ones too.

Burning Wheel is hard, no doubt about that. But I have had some good play with it. I've also had some crappy play with it, but I've had that with most games I've played.

While soul wrenching angst is one way to play the game (and is better supported than many games that people like to play characters torn by angst - and is how one blog I used to read really pushed the game), it's not the only way to play.

In fact, I suspect if players approached the game NOT as some edgy game, and instead just wrote BITs about going adventuring, and the GM presented things to challenge those beliefs, really not that differently than one stocks an OD&D dungeon, a fun game would ensue. The interesting part is that if a player did wind up in a position to make an angst ridden decision, the game would support that, and play might enter a whole new dimension.

I haven't really played Burning Wheel in years, but it has earned a place in my "If I could only take this briefcase with me for gaming stuff" bag.

Frank