The Burning Wheel: First Pass

[Bill Cook]

I was skipping around, reading each part within the book that pertained to the idea I was interested in, not really making good progress.  Then I had a chat with a friend of mine about a book he'd finished.  That gave me the idea to read through without trying to understand.

That was the trick.  I finished my first pass of the first book.  And I've got some impressions to share.  This may sting a bit.  I'll try to be balanced.

Things I don't like

[*]There are a lot of similiar terms and concepts that become a wash (e.g. agility, speed, reflexes).  Another example is the chain of exceptions affecting advancing or using skills.
[*]Spots of unbreaking conceptual exposition can be inaccessible.  I find the presentation of the martial action lexicon particularly opaque.
[*]The microcosm of combat experience becomes a crowded room that can't be easily traversed.  I'll bet it scales to further detail so that you could stop short if you wanted.  I just wish the drilling layers were more clearly apportioned.
[/list:u]

Things I like

[*]The fixed vocabulary of martial actions.  It's like the chess of rock, paper, scissors:)
[*]Shield rules!  Armor rolling to shrug off successes!
[*]The graded character of concept capture.  (e.g. PTGS, sequence of damage quality, combat stance, action cost aggregates.)  It's very duel-ish.
[/list:u]

Personally, I prefer thumbnail characters and scaling up (e.g. the Battle of the Five Armies), so I'm at odds with your direction.  But I take it for what it is.

I'm looking forward to reading about lifepaths and racial aspects.  It looks like you've arranged a clever set of backdrops in these regards.  Those and by-race magic sub-systems.

[Luke]

hi Bill!

thanks for posting your thoughts on BW.

Spots of unbreaking conceptual exposition can be inaccessible. I find the presentation of the martial action lexicon particularly opaque.

Are you talking about the defintions/descriptions in the melee chapter itself?  If so, I am terribly sorry it's unclear. I did labor long to make those definitions and examples as explicit as possible.

*   The microcosm of combat experience becomes a crowded room that can't be easily traversed. I'll bet it scales to further detail so that you could stop short if you wanted. I just wish the drilling layers were more clearly apportioned.

You lost me completely on this one, could you elaborate?

thanks!
-Luke

[Bill Cook]

Are you talking about the defintions/descriptions in the melee chapter itself? If so, I am terribly sorry it's unclear. I did labor long to make those definitions and examples as explicit as possible.

No worries.  I'll probably get it on the second or third pass.

You lost me completely on this one, could you elaborate?

Sure.  I imagine a hierarchy of combat detail.

[list=1]
[*]Nothing but strikes with hand weapons and armor rolls to prevent successes.  Assume an indistinct striking distance.
[*]Add damage/wound types and corresponding penalties.
[*]Add stances for gross modifiers.
[*]Add sub-ranges within striking distance, and add movement types.
[*]Add fencing aspects, including weapon and shield blocks.
[*]Add time segment rating per action.  Limit count to declare by character speed.  Extend the window of exchange to accommodate an aesthetically complete sequence.
[*]Extend action range to include martial functions; include coloration by stance.
[/list:o]

And so on.  They're layers you drill into.  You can stop with stances, if fencing and calculating action counts isn't your thing.

[Luke]

again, terribly sorry the organization of the martial maneuvers, obstacles, wounds and armor didn't gel for you, bill.

i'll try to look at the book with new eyes next time i read through it.

thanks for your comments!
-L

btw, the best way to understand any game is to make a character. I'm sure some of the points will clear up once you put pencil to paper.