Talk:Burning Wheel

--Ethicalthief 08:44, 2 July 2012 (MST)

0) I had a good time.

1) It feels like you're conflating a couple things. BW's assumed setting is medieval in outlook, and its character generation supports that. The game design is less modern than I like. It feels like it's far more concerned with getting things right than making things fun.
1.1) I have a modern outlook, yes, but I don't think that's causing me a disconnect with the medieval nature of the setting. Instead, my modern outlook on game design makes me wonder why the system obscures the fun.
1.1.1) See 0); I had a good time. But at some points it felt in spite of the system instead of because of it.
1.1.1.1) I just like doing this.

4.6) Persuasion in general. When the Obstacle is set at a target's will, and then potentially increased for disadvantages and other things, it is automatically at least 3 and probably 4-5.
4.6.1) When a character with Exponent 5 (mine) is supposed to be an expert, exponent 4-5 means I fail ~50% of the time. That number is frustratingly high.
4.6.2) Yes, I can FoRK and find Advantages, but that's not the point. If Exp 5 means I can make a good living at whatever it is because I'm an expert, the basic example of a roll, the lowest Obstacle of a roll, shouldn't be causing me to fail half the time.
4.6.3) It's possible that the Duel of Wits makes Persuasion less frustrating.
4.6.3.1) Though that should only occur when you want to have a debate or something. Not when you want to lean on an innkeeper.
4.6.3.1.1) I still just like making these.

5) You need to remember to give out Artha. I don't know whether you consciously thought there were no moments that merited it at game, or you were caught up in herding us cats and managing the system.
5.1) I would totally have been too busy herding cats to remember.

7.1) I wouldn't worry about explosive character growth right now. This is a test of system, not a long-term campaign you need to balance.
7.1.1) Even if it were, you would get your stride on roll this, don't roll this before we gained more than, likely, one point of something.
7.2) I think the sandbox is working fine so far.

--Dieter the Bold 12:06, 2 July 2012 (MST) I don't disagree with your (1) points. More examples and explication of its philosophy would help in finding the fun, but the system doesn't do itself many favors in helping towards that goal. I'd appreciate more from you on what in the system is "pre-modern" compared to modern.

Your (4) points reveal a flaw?/exception? in the skill level system. Most Social skills are either Versus (meaning variable Obstacle) or Obstacle=Target Will (which is default 3). Which means that any rolls you make require exceptional luck, a master level skill, or detailed plotting (Help + Advantage). This definitely seems like a disincentive unless you're making a full-on schemer or diplomat. While the game classifies B5 vs Ob3 as a Routine/Easy test, it's definitely on the high end.

5.1 was for sure the situation, and as I've evaluated how the game went, you were good for a Fate point or two.

You're right on (7). I'm not sure whether I'd pick this back up where we left off or if I'd start again from the beginning.

--Ethicalthief 13:38, 2 July 2012 (MST)

The distinction that is forming in my head between Burning Wheel and what I'd call a more modern game system is roughly... Burning Wheel is more concerned with making things within the game world work accurately than making things within the game play work smoothly. It's kind of like having a really powerful and flexible database system but a UI that makes eyes bleed; it can do the job really, really well if you're willing to suffer for it. Another analogy is Dwarf Fortress, a game of incredible detail and flexibility, but one that makes no effort to help you play it. You sink or swim based on your willingness to read scores of wiki help pages made by fans, and to experiment and fail over and over again.

I feel like a more modern game system (and modern isn't exactly the right word, as Burning Wheel is certainly a contemporary of nWoD, Fate, D&D 4E, etc.) understands that in order to make gameplay enjoyable, it has to provide an enjoyable interface between the players and what the players are doing.

All that said, I'm not done trying out the system.

--Jason 20:55, 3 July 2012 (MST) I think the point 1 is irrelevant, the game may be written about a medieval setting, and maybe even trying to simulate it, but it is meta-medieval at best. The writers and designers are also modern thinkers.

Point 2 is also an inaccurate statement. The characters are not medieval characters. It does allow you to have a medieval upbringing, but few if any characters will be peasants and serfs, the majority of the medieval. And also, I might add virtually all non-peasants had lots of time on their hands as well. Medieval people did not have the impatience we have today, plus travel took so long that it lent itself to lots of leisure.

Point 3 is only tangentially correct. Yes, you can get some every man skills...some. Not nearly as many as a real person might have. The breaking of skills into meaningless minutiae adds little if anything. Broader skills allow greater flexibility, and in a system that really forces your hand on which skills are available, it only makes sense. Another major point is that the doubled obstacle thing is incredibly poorly conceived. If I have 3 in Dex, and I buy the skill, I get one die in it vs the standard difficulty. If I do not buy the skill, I get 3 dice vs double the difficulty. It is always better to use a skill untrained if you have an odd attribute. It is not any worse to use a skill untrained than trained, unless you buy more than 'opening'.

In point 4 I think its pretty clear the opposite is true. An average medieval person needs to be self sufficient in a variety of situations. The average person does not meet many specialists, and therefore can do pretty much anything he needs to survive. The average medieval person is much more of a generalist than a specialist.

Point 5 is used in a few other games, and its a terrible idea. Under the guise of better story or drama the character is punished. You can either buy a skill or trait that is always positive (or potentially positive) in its use, or buy something that requires you to punish yourself and hope for a reward. Can it build good drama? Yes, and it absolutely should be encouraged, but the player should not be mechanically punished for choosing to make good story decisions.

Point 6, no comment.

Point 7 is something I also have a pretty strong opinion about. I dont think 'sandbox' style games work at all except in very limited circumstances that we do not have here. For a sandbox to work the players need to know the environment (the sandbox) well, have a strong bond between the characters that brings them together and have a motivation to drive the plot forward. All games are at their best when the players are in the drivers seat, be it sandbox or not, but it is very rare when a game can be sandbox from the beginning and actually work well.

I am ready to spend another session trying this, but like you mentioned, a couple more encounters would really help us be engrossed from the beginning.