Sell me on this game, Veeky Forums. Why should I bother to check it out instead fantasy game X instead? And which part of the game should I check out/read/glance over to see if the game is for me? What is must-not-miss?
hard mode: I am a (genre-)simulationist type of gamer
Other urls found in this thread:
mediafire.com
twitter.com
>Why should I bother to check it out instead fantasy game X instead?
Are you one of those guys who actually wants really fucking good quality crunch you can actually sink your fucking teeth into in your game on top of having all the FATE-style mechanics that promote the kind of roleplaying storyfags get all up in arms about despite having depthless sacks of shit for systems?
Then check out Burning Wheel
>Which part of the system should I check out to see if the game is for me?
The Duel of Wits system. It embodies what BW tries to do; use dice to move the game forward and make interesting conflicts actually interesting by making the mechanics *behind* them actually interesting
Why is the wheel burning? That can't be safe.
How much of the interesting mechanics are in the free version, versus the paid one? Is it worth picking up the free version, or is it gutted in comparison?
Duel of Wits is great; each round has three actions, everyone writes down their three actions, then reveals them one by one in a more complex rock paper scissors dice pool thing.
Also the 'let it ride' rule; if the circumstances haven't changed, you only get one roll.
No sitting in front of the lock and picking until you pass. No constantly rolling a knowledge skill until you pass. You get ONE roll. But on the plus side, no constantly rolling until you fail either. Riding a horse? One roll, then if you need to test Ride again, you use that result until the modifiers have changed enough to need to roll again.
>FATE-style mechanics
Like what? Aspects? What narrative mechanics does BW have?
>Duel of Wits
Alright, will check it out.
>'let it ride' rule
Nice, this is also part of the philosophy of the RPG I am developing. But I am seriously hoping that the system has more on offer than that, mechanicswise.
Where does BW fall on the GNS scale? Is combat tactical or streamlined, cinematic or realistic?
>Like what? Aspects? What narrative mechanics does BW have?
Like read the fucking PDF lazyass.
>Where does BW fall on the GNS scale? Is combat tactical or streamlined, cinematic or realistic?
It falls on "stop meming the GNS theory."
>Like read the fucking PDF lazyass.
There are dozens intriguing games out there and threads like this are meant to filter/pre-select which to take a closer look at.
>It falls on "stop meming the GNS theory."
It's incredibly useful, so you can bet your ass off that I won't.
>Why should I bother to check it out
I honestly struggle to think of a reason, even though I sort of liked the system. If you want to run a political fantasy game, A Song of Ice And Fire is better. If you want to run any kind of dungeon delving, adventury game, there are tons of better options.
It's only real selling point is the extreme attention to mundane detail. Like if you wanted to actually run a game of common townsfolk doing entirely ordinary things, where the characters were a black smith and a farmer and a bar wench, it can do all that in a highly detailed and probably pretty realistic way. So if you're the sort of person who gets really bothered by people's character art portraying them in a Renaissance era hat when this is clearly the High Middle Ages, it's probably for you. It is the most obnoxiously detailed and historically accurate fantasy game I've ever seen. Which also has elves and giant spiders, for some reason.
Or if you are just an absolute crunch maniac. If you're the kind of guy who thinks GURPS is absurdly simple, and you want to have a hundred pages detailing the specific body motions and facing rules related to the thirty unique ways to swing a sword. If you feel like thirty minute combat rounds are too fast paced and not simulationist enough. Then I guess you'd probably like it, because it is insanely, pointlessly detailed about the minutia of everything.
>No sitting in front of the lock and picking until you pass. No constantly rolling a knowledge skill until you pass. You get ONE roll. But on the plus side, no constantly rolling until you fail either. Riding a horse? One roll, then if you need to test Ride again, you use that result until the modifiers have changed enough to need to roll again.
So it's a rule to dictate what every game master worth a shit already does anyway? How innovative.
>So it's a rule to dictate what every game master worth a shit already does anyway? How innovative.
yep because not every game master is worth a shit
If there is something which everyone should be doing, just make it a rule
>It's incredibly useful, so you can bet your ass off that I won't.
Except GNS was created to describe players, not games, so you are using it fundamentally wrong in the first place.
So Let It Ride promotes people starting without any advantages for the first roll then gradually adding more so that the situation has changed and they get another shot?
>he doesn't know game systems that allow for retries or even rerolls
lel, newfag
Except GNS was created to describe how GAME SYSTEMS can meet the needs of the 3 player types. So, in the end, you're just a little faggot after all.
>doesn't know game systems that allow for retries
>newfag
Nope. Thanks for playing.
That space station looks unsafe as fuck. Unless you're a lawyer, in which case it's a gold mine.
theoretically yes but only if you 1. can keep coming up with ways to gain a significant bonus and 2. are ok with the problems raised by all your failures up until you succed. Generally you're better off just making your first roll as high as possible
Download blocked. Got another link?
well, if the GM thinks that a player deliberately held back bonuses (like "oh, I have a +5 lockpick set, I want to try again, this time with the set"), then just don't grant a re-try.
The Duel of Wits system is why I dislike Burning Wheel. It's the example I use when I'm talking about systems that are bad because the mechanics get in the way of the game.
I was excited about it when I first tried it, but in practice, I can't stand it. You need complicated rules for having swordfights, because players aren't going to stab the GM. You don't need complicated rules for arguments, because you can actually talk to each other! You don't need offense and defense stats for different conversational gambits and thirty dice rolls to see which way the conversation goes. You can understand why I was interested in something like that, I like complex systems, but all the dice-rolling interrupted and detracted from the roleplay.
Social-combat mechanics are more trouble than they're worth. Just roleplay. Maybe make one roll at the end to see if the character delivered it better than you did.
>Maybe make one roll at the end to see if the character delivered it better than you did
that's how 99% of social situations are resolved in Burning Wheel
The Duel of Wits is only for very important extended arguments, situations where the constant point and counterpoint makes sense
Idem for the Fight! rules.
You break ought the highly granular mechanics when something very important is at stake, like something related to a PC's Beliefs
Just want to say I was thinking about my favorite RPG, The Burning Wheel, and wanted to come on Veeky Forums and talk about it, and lo and behold here it is.
My favorite part is the lifepath-based character creation. It's a deep, satisfying, flavorful, narrative, AND crunchy system that does point-buy right.
I was actually thinking about taking TBW and bootlegging it into a modern-day setting, would take a lot of work but I see the potential.
That's interesting. Normally I am inclined to agree with but I'd really like hear one or two scenarios in which you'd consider the use of this subsystem fully justified.
Do you know the Heroes of Legends/Tomorrow/Now! series, user? Old, generic character lifepath/background splatbooks. They have more of a simulationist than a narrative bent but they're really fun nonetheless.
>I'd really like hear one or two scenarios in which you'd consider the use of this subsystem fully justified.
In my opinions one of the situations it works best in is when you have two people trying to convince a third party, instead of each other, so a debate between two politicians or preachers trying to sway and audience. Also for more formal discussions such as legal discussion or business negotiations where there usually is more of a back-and-forth before a conclusion is actually reached
So, like a PC on trial or the party and the main villain lobbying the foolish king for support? It's basically a mini-game in this case, isn't it?
Yeah, I could see that. However, for me the rules then would be just a template to make the ensuing mini-game tailored to the very specific situation oin the campaign.
And you're right: in this game, a single die roll for social interaction is not enough.
For another example, consider a player trying to convince the king of some country to not go to war because of the devastating consequences while his most trusted advisor wishes for war so he can profit from it. This would be a situation where I feel like Duel of Wits is justified. You don't have to do it. You could just have one roll and be done with it, but if this could potentially be a big deal for the PCs then why not give more weight to the discussion?
If i remember correctly you can also use Duel of Wits to settle player conflicts.
Suppose two players are arguing about how to solve a certain problem, like rescuing the king. Well instead of spending an hour talking and getting nowhere you can pull out Duel of Wits and have them "fight" it out IC. They don't have to agree afterwards, but someone is the winner and one the loser, and the game can move on.
It's also worth noting that Duel of Wits usually ends in some kind of compromise, since you have to give up part of your side of the argument the more "damage" you take in the duel.