PDA

View Full Version : Burning Wheel Revisited



Samurai Jill
2011-03-20, 06:19 PM
I recall that Glug visited (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150980) this topic before, but I thought it might help to lay out the basic principles more thoroughly.

Burning Wheel is not actually a wildly original system- to my understanding, it's the product a steady synthesis of good ideas from previous RPGs by someone who took the time to make sure they actually worked together, rather than cobbling together bits and pieces at random. However, it's still not particularly elegant, and it sure as hell isn't lightweight- Burning Wheel has a metric tonne of highly complex, gritty rules for adjudicating the outcome of combat, conversation, chase scenes, material strengths, skill progression, chargen and the like, so that getting to grips with the system as a whole is a pain in the ass. But those are, in a sense, strictly optional. The most important elements of the game are what I'd like to go over here.

BITs- Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits, and the Artha system.

This, in essence, is the core of the system, the rewarding-role-play mechanic. I'll start by saying what it is not.

* It is not 'role-play XP' (there is no XP in BW.) Whatever you reward players with becomes, by implication, the most important aspect of the game. XP, generally makes your character permanently stronger. Artha, generally, gives the player more control over the outcome of scenes, and hence story direction.

* It is not a straitjacket. Players are not only allowed, but actually encouraged, to break with their Beliefs and Instincts in ways that are dramatically appropriate. For example: Galahad the Paladin has sworn to obey his superiors and uphold the law- so what happens when his superiors ask him to break the law? Unlike, say, GURPS disadvantages, which basically short-circuit in crises like this, BW actually rewards players for rising to the challenge of situations like this- that is to say, character development.

Artha is earned for- and used to do- a number of different things, but the most interesting aspect of the mechanic is that you earn it for role-playing a particular belief, instinct or trait in situations where it is not convenient. Which, when you think about it, is the only situation where you can really demonstrate such motives. (This also accounts for an aspect of the system that some newcomers find very offputting- you have to pay for hobbling traits during character creation. But there is method to the madness- those traits are the easiest to milk for Artha.)

Let it Ride + Say Yes or Roll Dice + Advance negotiation of outcomes + Distinction between task and intent.

Unless something is obviously physically impossible, the players have a fair chance to accomplish just about anything. The 'Let it Ride' rule neuters one of the more subtle forms of railroading- i.e, roll vs. Streetwise until the players succeed, or roll vs. Hide until they fail. Not here. This of course applies to NPC reactions as well.

Before a standard scene is resolved, the GM and players work out exactly (A) what the players are ultimately trying to accomplish, (B) what rolls they need to make to get there, (C) what the target difficulty for those rolls will be, and (D) what the consequences of both success and failure will be.

The cumulative effect of these rules is essentially to make it impossible for the players to get railroaded. There are simply no 'chinks' in the armour of player autonomy where the GM can insert force techniques. What you see is what you get.

Of course, this kind of openness cuts both ways. Because players have to establish, in advance, what their larger goal here is, there is a constant focus on their characters' underlying motives. Why are they doing this and that? Why do they care? What is this scene really about? Because- the implication is- if the scene isn't about something, then there's no point to having it. Just skip over the boring crap and get to the critical moments that show something about the characters, that impact the flow of events.

It also makes sure that those motives are out in the open for everyone to see- any behind-the-back scheming is strictly between characters, and not between players.

An Improvisational World.

Basically, this means that a detailed and comprehensive state-of-the-world is not established in advance of play. There's no detailed geographical setting as an accessory to play (although there's a detailed social setting implied by the lifepath system used in character creation.) The characters don't just wander about in the world- in a sense, they actually create it. There are several ways in which this is realised.

* BITs. These aren't just a way of defining character-personality, they are also stressed as a channel for communicating to the GM what the players want the game to be about. If your character has a Belief about the injustice of slavery, you are eventually going to bump into places and situations which put that belief to the test (though how and when is of course highly contingent on where the story goes.)

* Wises. These are essentially knowledge skills that allow players to invent facts about the world, where the difficulty of the test depends on how plausible the fact introduced would be. Circles tests fulfill a very similar role, insofar as they allow you to 'invent' NPC acquaintances.

The upshot of this is that it's possible for players, as well as the GM, to create serendipitous 'coincidences' that help to further the emerging story and highlight it's underlying themes.

You may be getting the impression that I'm being very hard on traditional GM-ing roles here- but the key thing to bear in mind is that having less power means less responsibility, which often means less stress. When you don't- and can't- control the large-scale storyline, you don't have to worry about covering every minor factual detail or every conceivable contingency outcome. You can just play the NPCs as they would naturally react and attune scene framing to things the PCs care about. The players can take up the slack. They can look after themselves. They can own up to their own decisions- for better and for worse. They can even help to build the world that their characters inhabit. It's not all on you.


With all that said, as mentioned, BW has it's share of potential drawbacks- there's definitely a pretty steep 'learning curve' when it comes to it's more complex mechanics, which is a shame, because the 'core' that's outlined above is rock-solid and fairly straightfoward. Personally, I'd kill for a system halfway between Burning Empires and Mouse Guard in terms of complexity and scene allocation (plus, it's a lot easier to 'sell' people on Knights In Power Armour Kill Space Worms than You Are Plucky Vermin.) *sighs*

Anyways. I have rambled sufficiently for one day. Hope this was informative.

EDIT: On reflection, this might belong in the 'Other Systems' subforum. My bad.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-21, 07:35 AM
Really cool and informative post. I will interject that I find the system extremely elegant once you've locked all the pieces into place. However, it's true that getting the gears together takes a lot of time and effort. I've been playing and running BW games for about a year, and only recently feel like I've achieved comfort with the various mechanics. Once you have that, though, it's like melted butter on your croissant.

We run fights in fifteen minutes. We do resource cycles and emotional attributes. And every single piece serves to emphasize some aspect of the story or setting, make it real. Make it powerful.

Totally Guy
2011-03-21, 08:03 AM
Rock on. The trouble is that nobody seems to want to talk about how the design of a game can produce fantastic results. People often just want to hear about spectacle.

"What races can I play?"
"Can I wield 2 weapons?"

While the answers to questions like these are generally positive there are a lot of systems out there that also have races and weapons in them.

Britter
2011-03-21, 08:23 AM
I have very little to add.

I play with Obliged Salmon, and have been fiddling with the Wheel for a little longer than him. In general I agree with Samurai Jill, but like Obliged I also think that the "crunchier" parts of BW are fairly easy to run and add a lot to the "no predetermined outcomes, let the dice decide things" attitude that the game espouses. Edit: I should add that it took me about a year to be able to say that. The system DOES have a somewhat steep learning curve, that is very true.

And I do agree that it is not necessarily some sort of revolutionary system. Having recently read a few other indie games, including some of Vincent Baker's stuff, I don't think Luke Crane's design is something remarkable for it's concepts. I do think, however, it is remarkably well put together and very well designed.

So, while I agree that you can play, and play very succesfully and with a lot of enjoyment, using just the core parts of BW, I have found the rest of the system is as well thought through and adds quite a lot to the games I have been playing.

In line with Glug's comment about no one wanting to discuss mechanics and design, let me add that I never had any interest in system mastery in any RPG I played prior to Burning Wheel, because there were very few rewards that interested me in system mastery. I find that BW, on the other hand, provides me with immense rewards as I master the system. Every time I have added one of the subsystems (Fight!, Duel of Wits [I love me the Duel of Wits], Resource Cycles, you name the subsystem) I have found that it has made the gaming process more enjoyable, and given both the GM and the players more opportunities to be changed by the events of the story.

As an example, it wasn't until my most recent game that I was using the Resoruce Cycle for maintaining a PCs standard of living. I introduced it in a game where the player was a guard captain who needed to pay the salary and upkeep of his men. The characters low starting resources, combined with the high expenses of running the guard, drove the first two or three sessions almost without me having to put any real input in. At seven sessions into that game, and moving towards the next resources cycle, it is once again rearing it's ugly head, as the player has found himself taxed due to having to spend a LOT of money on a lady with a special skill set during the last game, it should prove to be the cause of a lot of fun and unexpected challenges.

I don't think I could have achieved the same effect without having used the resource cycle.

In short, I love how mastery of BW leads to more interesting and exciting story in game, without me having to do any particular palnning or effort as GM, beyond making the PCs fight hard for their Beliefs.

Edit: Also, Circles should really be considered part of the core BW stuff. Circles is immensely powerful for the players, and allows them to populate the world in ways that no other system mechanic I have personally played with does. Between Circles and Wises, the group can build an entire wonderful world to play in.

Delwugor
2011-03-21, 09:48 AM
I haven't played BW but at a recent open game day I was in a session of Burning Empire which uses the same core system (I believe). Never having played a narrative system I was extremely impressed with the control the players had, of the 5-6 scenes the GM only setup the fighter combat the rest came from us.

At first the structure of scenes was almost intimidating but once I saw a couple of examples it was easy to catch on and shape the session. The one negative I saw was too many scenes got confusing, everyone gets the opportunity and when 6 people use it in 4 hours alot goes on.

That narrative control even extended to the GM's scene. My character was the fighter pilot leader (think Apollo) and his hotshot pilot (think Strabuck) was ambushed when on patrol far away. In the usual d20 games I could not have gotten there to help her. But I had the "Backup her up when she is in trouble" Trait which I used to change the scene so that I showed up with a squadron of fighters to the rescue.

The Battle of Wits was something completely new to me. I'm big on character role-playing and actions based on personality but in a freeform manner. Actually having to think and plan an argument was very difficult to attempt, but I could see it see getting better with experience. Actually stating objectives was crucial to it suprisingly enough. My character got into an personal argument with the ship commander. The commander's goal was to affirm his authority after I called him out, my goal was not to argue his point but to show him his emotional involvment affecting his decision. Funny that I (personally) was extremely convinced by his arguments but since my character was shooting for a different goal I did not conceed and ended up winning the overall argument.

We only did the one mass fighter combat but it was very tactical without the tactical placement. I actually started by wanting to split the squadron so that there was a delayed timed flank and hopeful pincer movement. The GM stopped me and said "This works differently", she gave me the combat sheet and with the help of the hotshot pilot player (who knew BE) walked me through it. The sheet helped with planning and organizing the tactics without necessity of a battle map. I still ended up doing doing what I wanted to with great success. And both me and the pilot contributed - my character handled the tactics and the pilot handled the details and we wiped the Vailen out of space.

That's the good parts, the worst thing was it being extremely intrusive. We didn't cover all of the system but what I saw was too heavy, too much lookup (luckily the GM was quick on that) which tend to slow play down. Combat and BoW sheets where good for organizing but again extremely intrusive and hard to adjust, I also felt at times I was playing the combat sheets. So the scenes where freeform the actual mechanics was not and felt a bit constraining.
One other note is players really need to be involved and proactive. I'm a very proactive player but there are times I want to sit back and react. What happens when I have one of those lazy player nights? Do I end up sitting around bored - that happened to one player.

I wasn't convinced about the system but was for narrative style and am now planning my own campaign using FATE, well that is if I can convince my players to do something different.

Britter
2011-03-21, 10:00 AM
That's the good parts, the worst thing was it being extremely intrusive. We didn't cover all of the system but what I saw was too heavy, too much lookup (luckily the GM was quick on that) which tend to slow play down. Combat and BoW sheets where good for organizing but again extremely intrusive and hard to adjust, I also felt at times I was playing the combat sheets. So the scenes where freeform the actual mechanics was not and felt a bit constraining.
One other note is players really need to be involved and proactive. I'm a very proactive player but there are times I want to sit back and react. What happens when I have one of those lazy player nights? Do I end up sitting around bored - that happened to one player.

I wasn't convinced about the system but was for narrative style and am now planning my own campaign using FATE, well that is if I can convince my players to do something different.

To address your second point first, I don't think BW is actually a narrativist system (and please, no one beat me up, I am not trying to invoke GNS or anything, and I don't want to derail the conversation). From my conversations with Luke Crane, and from attending several of the Crane/ Jared Sorensen panels on game design, I think that they are both pretty excited by system and mechanics, presuming that the systems and mechanics are well designed and reward the desired behavior.

I think Burning Wheel and it's relatives fall in a middle ground between very narrative games and very rules-crunchy games. The Wheel is more crunchy, Mouseguard more narrativst. I have yet to play empires, so I can not comment on it.

Re: The intrusiveness thing. Yeah, that is one of the most common responses I have gotten from my group when I have introduced BW to them. Personally, I think that it does go away as the players master the game. No matter what the system, when you are unfamiliar with mechanics there will be a disconnect when you have to use them, and that disconnect remains till you are familiar with the mechanics. Every new guy in a DnD game gets the "deer in headlights" look when he first has to pick up the die and do something. It passes.

Now, that being said, because the Burning Wheel etc. have a lot of subsystems, it can be very easy to get wrapped up in them to the detriment of actual play. It is one of my major challenges right now, honestly.

I have found that the real trick there is to practice a lot. After about 9 months or so I was finally at the point where I was starting to let the role-play go and only stop and interject mechanics when something was at stake.

Duel of Wits/Fight!/Firefight! become much smoother once the player understands them and can see how the rules and the fiction mesh together. They stop intruding on the game, and start informing it, in my opinion.

I have also found that the players in a BW game need to know the game better than players in DnD or Shadowrun etc. The greater everyones rules knowledge, the more transparent the subsystems become.

Delwugor
2011-03-21, 11:34 AM
I don't know about definitions of narrative style but for me it seemed narrative since the players dominated the game with their ideas. Whether that was because of good (IMO) GMing or the system didn't matter to me.


I have found that the real trick there is to practice a lot. After about 9 months or so I was finally at the point where I was starting to let the role-play go and only stop and interject mechanics when something was at stake.
The lady who GMd took this approach and she was very good at it. As above that might have been where I got the narrative feel from. I could see a GM difficulty in keeping the flow going without intruding on the player's interaction.


Duel of Wits/Fight!/Firefight! become much smoother once the player understands them and can see how the rules and the fiction mesh together. They stop intruding on the game, and start informing it, in my opinion.
Yep Duel of Wits instead of Battle of Wits thanks for the correction. I signed up for the BE game because it was a different system and wanted to try something new. When others where doing their scenes I sat back and was paying attention to the system. So my feeling of intrusion could be colored by that, well the sheets added to it also.

valadil
2011-03-21, 11:36 AM
Burning Wheel is at the top of my To-Play list. Just haven't gotten around to it yet.

I did get to play a 4 hour game of Mouse Guard at a con. It was awesome, but I'm not sure there was enough crunch for me for a longer game. I gathered that MG is a very light implementation of BW. Just how much more complex is Burning Wheel?

Britter
2011-03-21, 12:07 PM
Burning Wheel is at the top of my To-Play list. Just haven't gotten around to it yet.

I did get to play a 4 hour game of Mouse Guard at a con. It was awesome, but I'm not sure there was enough crunch for me for a longer game. I gathered that MG is a very light implementation of BW. Just how much more complex is Burning Wheel?

I would say quite a lot more. The core of both systems is very similar, as are many of the play assumptions and the basic dice rolling mechanic. BW is nearly as rules intense as 3.5 core, in my opinion. The difference is that the rules, as Samurai Jill pointed out, are internally consistent. The rules are also serving a different function than the DnD ruleset.

You can be up and running a BW game after about 3 or 4 hours of reading and have a lot of fun. As you go deeper down the rabbit hole, the system opens up a lot of really neat things as you master the rules.


Delwugor, I am glad you had a good time with the Empires game. It sounds like you had a good GM for the demo.

Totally Guy
2011-03-21, 12:12 PM
I need to see Burning Empires in action... I'm not sure how I'd actually play it.

The only Burning Empires game at Luke Crane's party was the one that Luke was GMing. And the way game slot priority worked meant that I didn't have a chance of playing it.

Played some good Burning Wheel instead though.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-22, 09:13 PM
To address your second point first, I don't think BW is actually a narrativist system (and please, no one beat me up, I am not trying to invoke GNS or anything, and I don't want to derail the conversation). From my conversations with Luke Crane, and from attending several of the Crane/ Jared Sorensen panels on game design, I think that they are both pretty excited by system and mechanics, presuming that the systems and mechanics are well designed and reward the desired behavior.

I think Burning Wheel and it's relatives fall in a middle ground between very narrative games and very rules-crunchy games. The Wheel is more crunchy, Mouseguard more narrativst. I have yet to play empires, so I can not comment on it.

...Re: The intrusiveness thing. Yeah, that is one of the most common responses I have gotten from my group when I have introduced BW to them.

I think it's more than just a question of unfamiliarity, though. Y'see, a lot of players are used to this idea that large-scale outcomes should be, as it were (A) in line with outside observations, and (B) emergent properties of lots and lots of little small-scale system interactions (i.e, the quasi-determinist/ reductionist/ observe-and-predict paradigm that works so well in the physical reality we inhabit, and that lies at the core of a lot of Simulationist design.)

Unfortunately, in reality we also have imperfect information about the state of all the various little bits and pieces that constitute the natural world (which is why science is hard,) and the unfortunate conflation of in-character awareness with player-specific knowledge- based on the implicit assumption that players are malignant homunculi hell-bent on screwing eachother- has often led GMs to assume that the only way to get realistic behaviour on the part of the PCs is to limit player information to whatever their characters would naturally know.

Which has been a source of endless trouble, because this (A) is often impossible, given the players are sitting right there, listening to eachother, and (B) means there is no way to check whether the GM isn't deliberately distorting the outcome of small-scale interactions behind the cloak of the players' enforced or wilful ignorance (which of course has nothing to do with realism.) The result is often a deliberate policy of treating the players like mushrooms- keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em horse****.

Burning Wheel- and a lot of more dedicatedly narrativist games- have basically thrown out both the first and the second assumptions and assume that, as long as outcomes are at least plausible to some degree or another, on both a physical and psychological level, then what's really important is that the events are about something in a larger emotional or thematic sense as expressed through the choices of the protagonists and their consequences. Most or all the grittier mechanics in BW are concerned with maintaining that (pretty high) degree of plausibility, but the concern of strict determinism/reductionism is regularly trumped by story-ownership.

The sense of 'intrusiveness' therefore comes from having to discard both these fundamental assumptions. Large-scale outcomes are no longer side-effects of small-scale interactions, but in a sense, disputes to be mediated by them. Players have to engage with, and be responsible for, both in-character and out-of-character interactions that are both highly important and overtly regulated.

I should mention that I do love me the various subsystems of Burning Wheel- 'specially the Duel of Wits and the Lifepaths system, and all that other crunchy sim-style goodness. The Duel of Wits is particularly useful for keeping characters on the same page, story-wise, while still having divergent goals and beliefs (if you feel the need for that sort of thing.) I also absolutely agree that Circles are a key part of 'core' Burning Wheel.

Britter
2011-03-22, 11:10 PM
Your pretty much preaching to the choir here I think.

It's a paradigm shift. I have embraced the "reveal everything, hold nothing back, predetermine nothing, risk everything, put cross-hairs on the npcs" attitude that makes the BW rules work and eliminated the feeling of intrusiveness. Combine that with rules familiarity and buy-in to the model, for me it is no big thing.

Some of my players are not interested in making that shift, or have not yet made that shift. To them, the purpose behind the mechanics is murky or unclear. And no amount of explanation can change that. They have to either grok it through play, or grok it through reading about it. And some of them may never understand or, if they do understand, may never desire to shift paradigms.

Traditional gaming is a very safe place, a place where you can protect your characters from any and all possible avenues of change. Many gamers like that, and don't see the need to play any other way. Thats cool. It just feels limited to me. My Burning Wheel games are not like that. They are not safe. Your character will have to fight for what you believe. Your character will end up changed.

In other words, I trust the rules of the game to do what the game says they will do; that being allow you to play a game about how your characters are changed by fighting for what they believe in. Experience has born that out for me. But trusting the system is a big leap, especially for people used to very railroady DnD as their primary gaming paradigm.

I am really growing to love the subsystems in BW. I absolutely love the lifepath method of character generation. I find it establishes a lot more actual, usable framework for exploring a characters background through play than any other system I have used. I love how it forces you to make choices even in character creation. Good stuff.

jiriku
2011-03-22, 11:43 PM
I ran a Burning Empires game once for several months. I did find that the learning curve was very steep. I spent considerable time before the game boning up on rules and even created illustrated cards describing all of the options available in the larger turn sequence, the duel of wits, and the mass combat. Even so, my players really struggled to understand their options in the game and to grok the idea that they couldn't perform an action unless there was an intent behind it, and that the game world was largely up to them to flesh out.

Although I love the potential inherent in the system, it was a frustrating experience trying to run it with my group -- they were mostly low-involvement players who weren't interested in learning how the game worked to any great degree. It's definitely something that requires a group of skilled role-players who are interested in playing role-playing games for their own sakes, rather than just as a social activity.

Britter
2011-03-23, 08:28 AM
I ran a Burning Empires game once for several months. I did find that the learning curve was very steep. I spent considerable time before the game boning up on rules and even created illustrated cards describing all of the options available in the larger turn sequence, the duel of wits, and the mass combat. Even so, my players really struggled to understand their options in the game and to grok the idea that they couldn't perform an action unless there was an intent behind it, and that the game world was largely up to them to flesh out.

Although I love the potential inherent in the system, it was a frustrating experience trying to run it with my group -- they were mostly low-involvement players who weren't interested in learning how the game worked to any great degree. It's definitely something that requires a group of skilled role-players who are interested in playing role-playing games for their own sakes, rather than just as a social activity.

I started Burning Wheel using just the basic test and versus test, plus the Duel of Wits. I found that if I stuck to the mechanics I understood the best, things went smoother. It was hard to teach people things that I myself weas only marginally talented at.

Things that helped me were, playing (obviously) with another similarly motivated friend, practicing just different subsystems (priamrily Fight!), and reading the Adventure Burner. The AdBu may be the best "how-to" guide for any RPG I have ever read. Very good insight into how and when to us the systems moving parts.

But I do really sympathize with you, because it is a big system to learn and a challenge to get players interested to the level that they can understand what is going on behind the scenes.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-24, 06:15 AM
Your pretty much preaching to the choir here I think.
Yeah, little bit. Still, it beats preaching to the choir in the middle of the convent. :)

Traditional gaming is a very safe place, a place where you can protect your characters from any and all possible avenues of change. Many gamers like that, and don't see the need to play any other way. Thats cool. It just feels limited to me. My Burning Wheel games are not like that. They are not safe. Your character will have to fight for what you believe. Your character will end up changed.
I would argue that traditional gaming has often been far from safe, simply because of poor design, but yeah, even in the best case scenario BW ain't for everyone. No RPG is.

Speaking personally, I don't have an inherent problem with a fixed storyline being imposed as long as (A) the GM is honest about the fact this is happening, and (B) makes whatever the game is about sufficiently interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest).

Britter
2011-03-24, 08:40 AM
Yeah, little bit. Still, it beats preaching to the choir in the middle of the convent. :)


No worries. It is always good to get other perspectives on things, even from people you agree with over-all.



I would argue that traditional gaming has often been far from safe, simply because of poor design, but yeah, even in the best case scenario BW ain't for everyone. No RPG is.

Speaking personally, I don't have an inherent problem with a fixed storyline being imposed as long as (A) the GM is honest about the fact this is happening, and (B) makes whatever the game is about sufficiently interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroQuest).

I have had a lot of fun with fixed storyline games, but they do need to be interesting or fun. And I will admit to being interested in occasionally shutting down the old nueral net and just killing kobolds in a dungeon for a few hours with some good friends, some beer, and a pizza.

The real porblme I have now is going to back to running and playing more serious games in a system that doesn't give me the tools Burning Wheel and it's relatives give me. A friend just finished up a great little Dark Sun thing using 2e DnD, and I found myself ishing over and over for Cirlces as I was playing.

Name_Here
2011-03-24, 09:59 AM
Played a session of mouseguard which was a pretty much a disaster. I know I didn't do well running the system and I think everybody at the table was unsure of how exactly to progress with it.

I honestly think it was just too much outside our range of experiences.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-24, 10:06 AM
Care to elaborate the circumstances? Mouse Guard is tricky, so I'll give a little bit of my own insight into the process.

There's a GM turn and player turn locked into the system, which confused the heck out of me for a long time. When I went back and read the BW Adventure Burner, something Luke said in there opened my eyes about it. The GM turn is there so players have to finish what they start, if that makes sense. They may be broken, bloody, sick and tired, but when they finally save the village or root out the rebellion, it makes for even greater sense of accomplishment. Then the player's turn comes along so they can lick their wounds, in effect. Rest up for the next arc.

Does this help at all?

Thinker
2011-03-24, 11:28 AM
How easy is it to modify the basic assumptions of the setting for BW? If I have a setting primarily taking place in a region that has a medieval Mali culture, would I have a problem adapting BW to fit this? How much effort would it be to change the expected professions, social classes, equipment, monsters, etc.?

You say that a map of the world is unnecessary, but can the game work with one? How much does the GM need to know about the local region or the world in order to begin play there. How does the system handle an out-of-place character? To use the example from above, if I am using the Mali region and a foreign character from a Viking approximation shows up, how does this affect his BITs, Artha, etc.? Similarly, if a player decides that his character is from Mali, but keeps up an attitude of a Viking, is there any recourse for his decisions. To clarify, if someone's BITs don't match up with his actions, what happens with the character?

For Wises, what happens with knowledge that players remember that contradicts previously established information? A character named Sam remembers in one session that a temple to Danu containing the only copy of the engravings of her teachings and they're inscribed on the pillars there. The players are on a mission to reach this temple to take a rubbing of those engravings for some purpose. Three sessions later it turns out that they've been going in the wrong direction to reach the temple and another character, named June, remembers that another temple to Danu that's just over the next hill also has these engravings, which were previously established as unique. Does the game world just change so that it is no longer (and may as well never have been) unique?

I understand that this reduces the minutia involved in managing a world, but at the same time, it seems like it completely removes the purpose in even having a world. Does the world even continue to turn if the players aren't involved in the events? Say that as a GM you want to create some challenges and urgency for the players. Sam is from the village of Lughidon and swore an oath to protect her clan, but is currently on a mission from a local priest and is a three-day travel away. The area's ruler sends a messenger to meet Sam to try to get support for his battle against the invaders. Can Sam simply say "Yeah, but I remember my clan was supposed at a festival in Gervonum, which is on a fortified hill and is very safe" and thus remove all urgency from a return trip? Could June similarly say that she knows the attackers and had negotiated with someone of her circle to leave Sam's clan safe? I'm not trying to say that the GM should railroad them into returning to Lughidon, but is it even a choice at that point? Why would the players care about anything happening other than what they're doing at that moment?

This is not a complaint about the system as I have never played. I am looking for answers about the system because I want to play it, but want to know more about it first.

Totally Guy
2011-03-24, 11:58 AM
The setting is implied by the lifepaths the players choose at character creation.

To change to another culture it would be be best to suggest that certain lifepaths are unavailable for the player characters in that culture.

A character out of place in a culture would probably be run by a player interested in seeing that conflict play out. Seems like good belief material. The player might have a reputation as an outsider (or even notoriety) and probably has no affiliations or property in play. Being a long way from home will also affect your wealth but the character might have decent posessions for barter material.

As for maps... I play with a map. It is a living map as it changes regularly.

Wises follow the same rules as any other skill. They are bound by Task and Intent. If the player is contradicting something that is established in play then the Task will be inappropriate for the Intent and the GM can say no. They're a tricky area... There's a passage in the adventure burner about "Fatal illness-wise" - That was a player in my game.

Caliphbubba
2011-03-24, 12:03 PM
Just wanted to say thank you for this thread. I was just invited to a game that may possibly be using Burning Wheel as it's system and I knew next to nothing about it. In fact I assumed it was a campaign setting, rather than a game system.

This was very informative, and I must say it sounds like it would be a lot of fun. As a person that mostly ends up running games rather than getting to play in them, the added player contribution and narative-ish style seems like something I'd be comfortable with.

Britter
2011-03-24, 12:25 PM
Wises can not be used to cahnge esthablished facts about the game world. Once a fact is introduced, by the player or GM, then it is fact.

As far as adaptability, I think it is fairly adabatable. You may, however, need to work in specific lifepaths to accomadate your world's cultures.

Honestly, it would be very hard to answer all your questions without writing an entire essay Thinker. I would recomend checking ou tthe Burning Wheel forums, reading a few threads there, and maybe looking at the Burning Wiki to read some of the information contained therein. Burning Wheel is a good syste for running several different types of fantasy game, and a good jumping-off point for a few other genres and style sof game. It can't do everything, but it is very flexible in how different groups can approach and use it.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-24, 01:22 PM
The other questions have been well answered by other posters.


I understand that this reduces the minutia involved in managing a world, but at the same time, it seems like it completely removes the purpose in even having a world. Does the world even continue to turn if the players aren't involved in the events?

If you're asking can the GM make decisions about what happens in the world outside of play, then yes. If you're asking should world events completely unrelated to what's written in character BIT's should be a primary driving force for play (i.e. railroad plot), then no.


Say that as a GM you want to create some challenges and urgency for the players. Sam is from the village of Lughidon and swore an oath to protect her clan, but is currently on a mission from a local priest and is a three-day travel away. The area's ruler sends a messenger to meet Sam to try to get support for his battle against the invaders. Can Sam simply say "Yeah, but I remember my clan was supposed at a festival in Gervonum, which is on a fortified hill and is very safe" and thus remove all urgency from a return trip? Could June similarly say that she knows the attackers and had negotiated with someone of her circle to leave Sam's clan safe? I'm not trying to say that the GM should railroad them into returning to Lughidon, but is it even a choice at that point? Why would the players care about anything happening other than what they're doing at that moment?

I would totally allow uses of wises and circles to allow those things in play. Note that it's the GM's job to set stakes. For the first, I'd say failure of the wise test implies that the festival is held at a location outside of the main encampment instead, and will likely be the first place attacked by the invaders. For the second, she can't say she already negotiated with them via the rules of circles. She could circle up such a person and try to convince them not to attack Sam's clan. Sounds like great story! Just as valid as a return trip to Lughidon, eh?

Good questions!

Thinker
2011-03-24, 02:31 PM
The setting is implied by the lifepaths the players choose at character creation.

To change to another culture it would be be best to suggest that certain lifepaths are unavailable for the player characters in that culture.
That seems fairly straightforward.



A character out of place in a culture would probably be run by a player interested in seeing that conflict play out. Seems like good belief material. The player might have a reputation as an outsider (or even notoriety) and probably has no affiliations or property in play. Being a long way from home will also affect your wealth but the character might have decent posessions for barter material.
Yes, that makes sense. What of a player who plays in a different way from what is implied by his/her BITs?



As for maps... I play with a map. It is a living map as it changes regularly.

Wises follow the same rules as any other skill. They are bound by Task and Intent. If the player is contradicting something that is established in play then the Task will be inappropriate for the Intent and the GM can say no. They're a tricky area... There's a passage in the adventure burner about "Fatal illness-wise" - That was a player in my game.
As I elaborate later on, I think I misunderstood Wises and such mechanics a bit.


Wises can not be used to cahnge esthablished facts about the game world. Once a fact is introduced, by the player or GM, then it is fact.
Good to know.


As far as adaptability, I think it is fairly adabatable. You may, however, need to work in specific lifepaths to accomadate your world's cultures.
Thanks.



Honestly, it would be very hard to answer all your questions without writing an entire essay Thinker. I would recomend checking ou tthe Burning Wheel forums, reading a few threads there, and maybe looking at the Burning Wiki to read some of the information contained therein. Burning Wheel is a good syste for running several different types of fantasy game, and a good jumping-off point for a few other genres and style sof game. It can't do everything, but it is very flexible in how different groups can approach and use it.
I actually picked up the main book at PAX, but haven't had a chance to read through it yet. I have heard good things about the game and would like to run it. SamuraiJill's post prompted questions that I don't yet know are answered in the rules.



If you're asking can the GM make decisions about what happens in the world outside of play, then yes. If you're asking should world events completely unrelated to what's written in character BIT's should be a primary driving force for play (i.e. railroad plot), then no.
I was more asking about the former. In the short term it doesn't really matter if Tribe A attacks Tribe B, but if characters visited Tribe C in the past, which has now become overrun by refugees because of the conflict, it could become interesting. I was wondering if that would be totally irrelevant if the players simply could will the matter away with a Wise or something similar, i.e. "I remember Tribe C had an area completely fine for refugees so let's move on." It's not that I want to railroad players, but I would like to be able to make hooks that they may or may not pursue (and even if they don't pursue them, the world marches on).



I would totally allow uses of wises and circles to allow those things in play. Note that it's the GM's job to set stakes. For the first, I'd say failure of the wise test implies that the festival is held at a location outside of the main encampment instead, and will likely be the first place attacked by the invaders. For the second, she can't say she already negotiated with them via the rules of circles. She could circle up such a person and try to convince them not to attack Sam's clan. Sounds like great story! Just as valid as a return trip to Lughidon, eh?
Good questions!

I guess I was misunderstanding the use of Wises and Circles. I didn't know they were rolled for. I thought that they just happened based on what the players wanted. I can see how they could make things still matter. Would it be appropriate in the case of a successful Wise check to have the heavily defended main encampment be at future risk due to other events or should the game just move on, ignoring those events?

Thanks for your helpful responses. Thanks to SamuraiJill for the OP that prompted the questions.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-24, 05:16 PM
Thanks for your helpful responses. Thanks to SamuraiJill for the OP that prompted the questions.
Aw, shucks. *snubs shoetip and looks down bashfully*

On the general subject of making 'hooks' for the players- generally speaking, the characters BITs will give you more than enough material for that. The best approach is to create situations that actually tug the characters in several directions at once, depending on what BIT they go by. BW uses more of a carrot than a stick when it comes to promoting role-play, but I'll be honest- combat is SRZ BZNZ here, so if you don't have some Artha to hand, your character is not unlikely to die screaming. That's a strong incentive for characters to follow up on their BITs, and if you put them in situations that promote conflicted motives, they can role-play and have freedom at the same time.

As for modelling what happens in the world at large- if the characters ever come back to the same region, you can generally just do a double-take and fill in the events since they left retroactively. As long as it's plausible on the basis of prior information, that's fine. I can understand what you're driving at- I often kinda feel like the world is a character in it's own right- but it's difficult to get sucked into these considerations without filling in every corner of the map in the process.

Xefas
2011-03-24, 11:42 PM
Yes, that makes sense. What of a player who plays in a different way from what is implied by his/her BITs?

I dunno if this has been answered adequately yet (if it has, I'm sorry; I'm just confused, then).

But, uh, well, its interesting. BITs are a source of Artha. You say "my character is like this", and if you roleplay what you said, then you get Artha. You can then use Artha to modify rolls or whatever (bottom line - they're good to have).

If you play against your BITs in a way that is dramatic and self-hampering, then you also get Artha. If you have an Instinct of "Always lie if I feel I might get in trouble for telling the truth", and your character is brought before the Duke and he asks "Have you slept with my daughter?", which would definitely get you in trouble, and your character decides that love has motivated a change of heart within him, and he's going to cast off those chains of manipulation, and open himself up to the world and he says "Yes, I love your daughter with all my heart!", and then the Duke has you thrown in the dungeon with a public execution planned for next week, then you get Artha. You purposefully played against your BITs to make the story more dramatic. Now your character has to live with the idea that you should never tell the truth ever reinforced, but he is also in love (and he's going to die, but whatever - the love+lies bit is the good part).

Now, if you just have this Belief of "All puppies are evil; kill all the puppies", and your character just never does anything to that effect, then no, you don't get anything. There isn't a punishment specifically; you just don't get all that sweet, sweet Artha that you could be getting. And you've successfully reenacted that Saturday Night Live Celebrity Jeopardy skit where the contestants are asked to write down any question and then answer their own question, and then they all fail to do so.

Britter
2011-03-25, 08:26 AM
The best advice I can give you for understanding the way Burning Wheel plays Thinker, is to get your hands on the rules, get a few friends together, and run the demo scenario called The Sword, which can be downloaded on the Burning Wheel wiki.

It sets up a basic scenario, with a set of conflicting beliefs between the characters, and gives you and your players a pretty good test-bed to give the system a spin. Absolutely worth the effort, in my opinion.

I am certain that if you look hard enough, you can find some examples of play on podcasts or youtube where folks are playing the Sword at a convention. It is worth listening to. I learned a lot each time I saw Luke Crane run that demo, persoanlly.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-26, 12:44 PM
You purposefully played against your BITs to make the story more dramatic. Now your character has to live with the idea that you should never tell the truth ever reinforced, but he is also in love (and he's going to die, but whatever - the love+lies bit is the good part).
I would also say that the reason why the game permits/encourages this sort of thing is because acting against the belief really demonstrates the strength of the character's commitment to his daughter. It's pitting one motivation against another- which is the only way to really test that motivation.

Now, if you just have this Belief of "All puppies are evil; kill all the puppies", and your character just never does anything to that effect, then no, you don't get anything. There isn't a punishment specifically; you just don't get all that sweet, sweet Artha that you could be getting.
...And again, one should bear in mind that all that sweet, sweet Artha might just prove the difference between life and death. Jus' sayin'. Burning Wheel isn't a particularly deadly game, but your character shields are far from impervious.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-29, 02:57 AM
In closing, I'll just mention that the Duel of Wits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQNHBUqfLnM) is handled particularly well.

Britter
2011-03-29, 08:17 AM
Ah, the Duel of Wits.

My favorite mechanics in BW. And the one that gets the most push-back from players.

I love the Fight! and DoW, and am particualrly fond of good scripting, even when it is directed against me and I get owned. But I have had more than a little trouble introducing it to some of the folks in my group. Which is a real shame, because the unexpected possibilities that come from using blind scripting to play out conflicts is just wonderful.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-29, 03:16 PM
Ah, the Duel of Wits.

My favorite mechanics in BW. And the one that gets the most push-back from players.

I love the Fight! and DoW, and am particualrly fond of good scripting, even when it is directed against me and I get owned. But I have had more than a little trouble introducing it to some of the folks in my group. Which is a real shame, because the unexpected possibilities that come from using blind scripting to play out conflicts is just wonderful.
I think the resistance to the idea is based on the fear that social conflict mechanics can become a kind of fictional mind control, when a lot of players are used to games where the character's state of mind is their last haven of autonomy in a world that's otherwise controlled by the GM.

Of course, the DoW mechanics do, technically, allow for the possibility that your character could wind up doing stuff s/he didn't originally want to. But there are a couple of 'safety mechanisms'.
1. Your opponent has to offer something of comparable value- something you'll get if you win the debate.
3. You can always just walk away if you don't consider the terms acceptable, in which case the characters just do what they want and are physically capable of.
2. Anything short of a flawless victory mandates some degree of concessions to the vanquished.
4. You can resort to violence if you lost! Sweet, sweet violence!

Britter
2011-03-29, 03:19 PM
Yup, I agree.

I think for many players, having to use a game-emchanical system to get their way is frightening, since they are used to being able ot use their "real life" charisma and social skills to get their way in other games, and in those circumsatnces, they risk nothing. Being willing to engage the system and accept the results are an important part of enjoying DoW.