I believe The Burning Wheel can be used as an example of nearly every "bad game design principal" there is.Which, actually, is in of itself useful to understand. But more importantly is that there are people out there that have The Burning Wheel as their game of choice. I would like to hear from said people, on what parts they actually like. Perhaps I missed something...
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Burn Out
I know I was going to talk more about the Burning Wheel, but after getting the chance to play it, I'm not sure there's much to say. This week, I'm taking the easy way out and just leaving you with this:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I, for one, would like to hear an extended rant on this. I never got as far as trying to play it, just reading the rules left me exhausted.
ReplyDeleteHaha! Well crap. The idea was that no one was supposed to notice, and I was going to get away with not writing up a full rant. I will try to tackle some of the problems I faced, over the course of the week as my brain heals from the experience!
DeleteAnd thank you! It's encouraging both to know that you're out there reading the blog, but also that you shared some of the same experience from just reading the book :)
DeleteWhy I like Burning wheel:
ReplyDelete1. The rules evoke a concrete and non-arbitrary world. Tasks are difficult or easy due to the nature of the game world, not due to arbitrary whims of plot or pacing.
2. Characters are humane and fallible. This is both due to the character generation and the extended conflict mechanisms.
3. The rules are modular. The core rules are quite simple.
4. The game is brutal and dangerous. Actions have definite consequences. It takes time to recover from wounds.
5. The character is changed according to events of play (by advancement, trait and reputation votes, and wounding), not according to player whims.
Why someone might not like it:
1. The rules require constant attention; the decision to help, get help, FoRK related skills, etc. influences advancement and the game works better when you consider this.
2. You don't get to play exactly the character you want.
3. Writing good beliefs, instincts, etc. is hard. The game has a learning curve.
4. You need to fight for the beliefs of your character on both the story level and the mechanical level.
Hey Tommi, thanks for your thoughts! I believe this is going to come down to straight personal preference, but "for science", I'd like to discuss your points.
Delete1) The rules to me evoke a very arbitrary, randomly generated world. Through the book, it's clear there's a heavy Tolkien influence, but there's no actual concrete about setting, so it's largely up to the GM on how to manage their own version of this pure fantasy world. What rules do you speak of?
2) This I agree with. My issue is that there's nothing truly special about them... there's very few rules for the 'fantasy' in this fantasy driven world.
3) The core die mechanic is simple. The core rules for character building, skills, traits, beliefs, etc are not at all simple. They are so overly complex it hurts. And then they suggest adding more complicated health & battle systems... yikes!
4) Fair enough, and I also find that fun.
5) Agreed - this is by far the best thing I got out of the game. Changing beliefs, connections, resources, and reputations was definitely an engine that worked.
For your 'might not like it' ones, I agree whole-heartedly, and would like to add on that my least favorite system is the "use-it-to-get-better-at-it" skill system. Yes, it reflects real life... but no, it's not a good game mechanism.
1. The life paths (and to a lesser extent, steel and rules on recovery and magic) define how the setting works. They don't provide geography or names for non-player characters, etc.
DeleteThe setting is coherent - fairly realistic medieval fantasy setting with tolkienian races that conform to the same realism in their own way.
Why does the implied setting seem arbitrary or random to you?
2. There's sorcery and miracles, there's non-humans that are actually different from humans, there are monsters, and there are people succeeding at extremely difficult tasks (by artha). There is fantasy, but the default power level is not very high.
You can also play at higher power level, but it takes some skill on the GM's part and suitable characters.
3. Character creation is fairly slow before you learn the lifepaths, which takes a number of characters.
You are supposed to first only use the core dice mechanics and start using the more complicated subsystems only when the core rules are comfortable. Even then, add them to the game one by one as the situation demands.
n) Why is skills changing by use not a good game mechanic? I do like it and like how it brings another factor in deciding how much help to get, when to help others, etc.
1) Life paths were a really cool thing, for sure. It definitely grounds the characters into the world, and I appreciated that. But for me personally, it didn't do much to describe the actual setting. If I'm understanding correctly, there is no actual "BW Setting" per-say, it's more like D&D where you have to create your own (or go find one). I'm actually very interested in how Mouse Guard handles things, because that's an actual setting I could get behind.
Delete2) I can appreciate this too. Low-level fantasy is actually my preferred way to play things (e.g. Conan the Barbarian)... but with dwarves and elves and magic, I expected a bit too much I think.
3) I do like the idea of the system being modular. But with the initial bar of entry so high, I will likely never get there :/
N) Skills changing by use is a book-keeping nightmare. All of those little dots not only clutter the character sheet but the rules for resolving which dot to fill involve extra math behind each roll. For me, this completely distracts and derails the game with each and every roll. I apologize for saying that it's a "bad" game mechanic, when really what I mean is that personally, it slowed the game down more than was worth the benefit.
I really appreciate your reply; it has definitely gotten me to think harder about the specifics, and look past my initial distaste. So thank you!
Delete1) Yes, there is no traditional rpg setting. But consider: how many other roleplaying games define the social setting as carefully as the lifepaths do?
Deleten) I have little patience with rules that add complexity with no return. Burning wheel, to me, adds complexity but also rewards for it. But it does require almost every player and the GM to be okay with mechanically intensive play.