Quote from: blakkieSorry, that was a confusing way for me to lay that post out. The part you quoted was directed to Consonant Dude, not you.

Ah, that makes sense...still, it made me think about my position a bit more critically (not that it changed anything...it's still basically the same position).

One of the things that I was thinking - how much space out of the rulebook is devoted to this rule? Now, I already have a good inkling that The Burning Wheel is not likely to be a game that rules can be excised from easily, but how integrated is it into the rest of the system? The reason I ask is because if it's just like a paragraph or something, and it's easily ignored, who gives a shit if the rule is there or not? Especially if there are much more awesome parts to the game? I don't really give a crap about any editorial slant or agenda the game author might have as long as the game is good.

QuoteOne of the things that I was thinking - how much space out of the rulebook is devoted to this rule?

The rule proper is 3 sentences over 4 lines. The whole section for Let It Ride runs a little over one page including a couple examples and a little bit of artwork along the margin of a fisherman casting a net. But the book uses that smaller 8" x 5 1/2" format with generous margins and layout spacing so that isn't really as much text as it initially sounds like.

QuoteNow, I already have a good inkling that The Burning Wheel is not likely to be a game that rules can be excised from easily, but how integrated is it into the rest of the system?

Actually the game is built fairly modularly at the sub-system level. So things like Duel of Wits, melee combat, the different kinds of magic, and such can be pulled out (or not even put in) fairly readily. In fact the author recommends that you learn the game piecemeal while playing by starting with the basic dicing backbone and adding in the detailed sub-systems as you feel comfortable learning them. Which is good because, even though it moves smoothly in play, it is on the crunchy end of the game system spectrum.

For a lot of the detailed sub-system that you don't use, either generally or in a specific instance for pacing, you simply use an opposing roll test. For example if you don't want to bother dealing with the details of melee combat the opponents just roll their skills against each other once to see who wins, who conceeds, and what the damage done is. A second roll is made if the winner wants to force the issue and have someone die (but the loser of the second roll dies, no matter who it is).

However in the case of Let It Ride I think there are a number of reasons it would be a very, very bad idea to try hack it out:
1) That backbone of testing abilities was based heavily around Let It Ride.
2) Removing it would really screw with the capability of changing the scale used for distance and time and adapting to the table's desired priorities, which is a very strong point of the system (not just in this aspect, but it's a theme throughout the rules).
3) The advancement system I mentioned where your rolls are how you advance your stats/skills, so you can end up skewing advancement to a lot faster rate unless you add in a rule that basically reenacts the Let It Ride but only for detemining the frequency of rolls that count towards advancement.
4) It already has a lot of flexibility inherent in it, so it's hard to play counter to it without being an actively spiteful dick about it, or just coming off as a crappy GM/player.
5) It is a really good rule that works, and the alternative generally speaking full on sucks.

Based on reading and limited experience, I think you can be pretty flexible about application of the rule in practice. But it's still probably a good idea in BW to try to think in terms of "big chunks" of resolution, and using resolution to completely address the outcome of "important events" (instead of breaking them down into atomic steps which aren't very important/interesting in themselves)--except for the areas where there's a subsystem offering more detailed resolution like Duel of Wits, Range & Cover, and Fight!

At least that's my initial plan on how to run the game if I do.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt's still original if whoever wrote BW had never heard of MS.

Last I checked, that's not what the word meant. Original means "first"

Quote from: Elliot WilenBased on reading and limited experience, I think you can be pretty flexible about application of the rule in practice. But it's still probably a good idea in BW to try to think in terms of "big chunks" of resolution, and using resolution to completely address the outcome of "important events" (instead of breaking them down into atomic steps which aren't very important/interesting in themselves)--except for the areas where there's a subsystem offering more detailed resolution like Duel of Wits, Range & Cover, and Fight!

I like how you included "interesting" there because what is important is what is interesting.  Sure if you are going to build a campfire having wood or some other fuel supply is "important", an absolute requirement in fact. But is it interesting testing the character's stats to see if they have that supply of wood or can obtain it, or do you just say "yeah, you've got wood" and get to the parts that the table finds interesting? Whatever that is.

That's where the BITs come in to help out. They are the guide, which the GM must explicitly approve and typically the players build together, for what the players would enjoy seeing their characters tested on. Plus there is good old fashion talking and listening.

So maybe the wood is the interesting part, indirectly. It's been raining for days and the only place you can find suitably dry wood within leagues is that bear cave and you've sworn not to hurt or even disturb the sacred furry brothers, or you are some sort of D&D druid type that thinks that he's one with nature. Well time to put that Belief to the test by putting a grumpy bear and the stipulation to keep the encounter non-intrusive and non-leathal between the character and the wood.  EDIT2: Oh, and no need to have the PC roll to see if they know this.  Because they are masters of the woods, and they should figure it out shortly? Well maybe somewhat, but mostly because what happens if you have them roll and the PC fails that roll? An opportunity for coolness blows by you is what. Unless of course the idea hadn't occured to you first but instead came about because the player activated the rules and called for a Forest-Wise or Survival-Wise roll to locate some wood....which makes them a cool player that is using the rules for their ultimate purpose, to make things happen!

EDIT: Oh, and scaling above DoW or Fight! or R&C if the brievity of an Opposed Test is the right fit at the right time is more than acceptable, it's the right call.

Quote from: jdrakehLast I checked, that's not what the word meant. Original means "first"

Well I heard that "3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else" can be found under "original" in some dictionary somewhere. Sure it's way down the list at #3, but that is above "5. created, undertaken, or presented for the first time".  Where did I hear about all this? Why in this great thread debating "the meaning of original" that you can find, over here. You really should check it out. Make sure to say "Hi!" to Spike for me. :cool:

Quote from: blakkieWell I heard that "3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else" can be found under "original" in some dictionary somewhere.

Hmm. . . well, at any rate, my primary concern is that the Burning Wheel has been widely (and erroneously) credited with pioneering the idea. Which it didn't. Even if Luke wasn't aware of Maelstrom beforehand. Fact is, somebody else set the precedent and denying them the credit due is crap.

Quote from: jdrakehHmm. . . well, at any rate, my primary concern is that the Burning Wheel has been widely (and erroneously) credited with pioneering the idea. Which it didn't. Even if Luke wasn't aware of Maelstrom beforehand. Fact is, somebody else set the precedent and denying them the credit due is crap.

Well it certainly wasn't me. I never even considered whether it was the first or not, because it didn't/doesn't much matter to me. It just seemed like a really good idea that I was glad was there. Probably because it was an idea that wasn't particularly new to me I guess I had assumed it was pretty common defacto house rule. I'm actually kind of sad that noone has come up with more than one reference to something like it in an RPG (other than I guess in some ways Amber, but it's easy to not reroll when you never roll to start with ).

The Circles sub-system, and in particular the Emnity Clause? Those I have on occation wondered if any RPG had something approaching that before. Probably because that's not something that had really occured to me before to have as a rule, certainly not to the scope that BWR has, but I think the rule is a real gem. EDIT: Not that it really matters to me that much whether or not it was "first". The practical aspect of whether or not it works would be the important part, the triva factor of the other would be secondary at best. Maybe as a pointer to something that i'd like to check out is about the only draw I can see.

Quote from: James J Skach

Quote from: jhkimHm. Do you actually prefer a long series of climbing rolls, or is this hypothetical?

Depends on the situation. if I thought about it, I guess I prefer whatever best serves the set of issues at hand - including emulation, pacing, etc.

I mostly play D&D, though I'm starting to look at some newer systems. I can tell you that when I read systems, what floats my boat first is how well it instantiates emulation without getting too crunchy.

Does that help?

Or were you really attempting to say that I can't talk because I'm somehow unqualified to speak about the subject due to lack of playing this or that way?

Cause that just smacks of elitism - which, from my experiences reading your stuff, is not your style.

Um?  As far as the last question, no.  I was asking if you really liked repetitive rolls, or if you're just arguing "Well, I don't like repetitive rolling, but someone somewhere must like repetitive rolling, therefore you shouldn't badmouth it."  I'm sure you're perfectly qualified to judge whether you like repetitive rolling or not.  

And no, I don't find that the first a helpful answer.  You're putting "best" as a choice, but that's what everyone wants -- they just have different ideas about what is best.  I mean, is anyone really going to say "No, I'd like what isn't best"?  

Can you suggest some examples of when you think it's best to make a bunch of repetitive rolls?  

Quote from: Elliot WilenJohn, I don't think comparing Let it Ride to a D&D rule that says to roll every 15' is quite getting at the difference. The D&D rule may be poorly engineered, but it's basically the same as letting a single roll "ride" all the way up the wall--in that there's a fixed probability of success you can calculate at the beginning of the climb. (I.e., chance of one success raised to the nth power.)

Well, comparing Let It Ride to D&D climbing is getting at the difference between Let It Ride and other systems -- which I thought was the topic.  And no, I don't think that sitting there rolling over and over again is the same as rolling once, because, well, you have to sit there rolling over and over.  That's the difference which I'm talking about.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf Let it Ride means anything then I have to think it's more along the lines of preventing the use of repeated die rolls to filter out results that somebody doesn't want, or to guarantee results somebody does want.

The problem here is that some people are so used to the idea of the GM steering a game in this fashion through iterative/extended resolution, that they don't trust games without explicit stakes and scene-at-a-time resolution.

I don't see that.  The Let It Ride rule means that you don't make repetitive rolls on the same skill.  That's what it is as a mechanic.  That has meaning.  You might have a problem with the attitude which someone takes when they talk about the rule, or who they trust or whatever -- but that's different from the rule itself.

Quote from: jdrakehLast I checked, that's not what the word meant. Original means "first"

Don't go trying to quote definitions to... dum-duh-duh-dummmmmm Dictionary Man!

Quote from: Dictionary.com3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/original

edit: Well poopie. I go and post a definition only to find that it's already been done. Ah well. I guess if blakkie wants I'll have to let him into the Legion of Super English Speakers.

Quote from: blakkieWell I heard that "3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else" can be found under "original" in some dictionary somewhere. Sure it's way down the list at #3, but that is above "5. created, undertaken, or presented for the first time".  Where did I hear about all this? Why in this great thread debating "the meaning of original" that you can find, over here. You really should check it out. Make sure to say "Hi!" to Spike for me. :cool:

Eh. Don't see how that is supposed to matter to me, Waldo.  I wasn't debating the meaning of original.   Let it ride isn't original because it is no more than a codification of how many gamers already play.  Therefore, by your OWN definition it did not arise or proceed independently of anything else.

Fuck you and your pet care shit.  I ate fluffy for dinner. :rolleyes:

You know this is retarded. If anyone claimed that the mechanic was "original" they're full of shit and if anyone claimed that the mechanic was invented 3000 years ago they're full of shit. It's there, in The Burning Wheel, and that is what is being discussed. Suffice it to say that the current incarnation of the rule in the Burning Wheel is most likely what gamers on this site are familiar with and anyone else has more important things to do than argue about rules anyway and leave it at that.

Quote from: SpikeEh. Don't see how that is supposed to matter to me, Waldo.

It wasn't for you, I had hoped against hope that you had already fucked off to find someone to talk to that cared about "original". :rolleyes:

Quote from: blakkieIt wasn't for you, I had hoped against hope that you had already fucked off to find someone to talk to that cared about "original". :rolleyes:

Well, don't invoke me by name then. :rolleyes:  Especially since I stated quite clearly that I DIDN'T care.  I'm not the one bandying around dictionary references.  Hmm... I wonder who is?

Quote from: SpikeWell, don't invoke me by name then. :rolleyes:

It was a reference to this.

QuoteEspecially since I stated quite clearly that I DIDN'T care.

Yeah, crystal clear!

Now shuffle along.