So, I been working my way through Burning Wheel Revised and really digging it. Made a character and everything (she's up on my blog).

But, then I got to the Resources chapter. They make no sense. THEY MAKE NO SENSE! HEAD A SPLODE!

OK.

First, on page 85:

"Test Resources against the obstacle as if it were any other skill or stat. All of the rules apply - helping, FoRKs, artha and advancement."

ONE PARAGRAPH later:

"Players may _not_ FoRK their skills into Resources."

(My friend Thomas just told me that the first one is a lie, the second one is true. OK. I'll assume he knows what he's talking about.)

But then, it just gets bizarre. Resources advance like any other skill, but only *successful* tests count for advancement. Resources are only drained when you *fail* a test.

So... The way to get more Resources is to spend Resources. Everything in the entire game will be free (you lose nothing) as long as you keep making successful Resources tests, and your Resources Exponent will continue to rise.

But, the only way to *drain* Resources is if you fail the test. That is, you only lose money if you *don't buy anything.*

Things are especially strange because it's very hard to get a Resources of more than 2 if you use the default LP limit (four lifepaths). That means that you have like a 50% chance of going bankrupt every time you buy a basic weapon, or some adventuring gear.

I've got a Resources of 2 (I had to stretch a little to get that). I want to go buy a _sumptuous_ meal, or maybe some traveling gear. This is an OB2 task. I stretch my imagination so that running down to the corner Ye Olde Gear Shoppe involves taking out loans, calling in favors, and so on.

If I succeed, I have some food that I eat. Or maybe a tinderbox and some snowshoes to carry around.

My new snowshoes (or my digested meal) is supposed to give me enough financial leverage on future purchases that I don't lose any dice now?

OTOH, if I fail, Ye Olde Gear Shoppe is all out of snowshoes that day (darn!) but that's too bad for me, because I've already called in my favors, taken out my loan. I lose my dice, and have nothing to show for it.

I am completely flabbergasted. Not that the Resources rules are bad, but that a game that has been this logical, consistent, and downright freakin' cool can go stark raving bizzare in the space of like two pages. Someone, please tell me I'm missing something.

Hi Paganini,

"Test Resources against the obstacle as if it were any other skill or stat. All of the rules apply - helping, FoRKs, artha and advancement."

ONE PARAGRAPH later:

"Players may _not_ FoRK their skills into Resources."

Hi Pagininni.

So... The way to get more Resources is to spend Resources. Everything in the entire game will be free (you lose nothing) as long as you keep making successful Resources tests, and your Resources Exponent will continue to rise.

It's also important to note that Resources is only rolled when you've got a dramatic conflict. You don't roll for the day-to-day stuff. That's handled under the Maintenance Cycle, which you'll find under the Lifestyles, Obligation and Maintenance header on page 89 of the system book.

In our experience, this stuff works extremely well in play (we've been playtesting Resources for more than a year). For one thing, it creates an avenue for actual, mechanically-supported dramatic conflict in play. When the Count of Monte Cristo starts throwing his incredible wealth around to further his vengeful plot, Burning Wheel can handle it now, without resorting to dull bean counting.

Through the Gift of Kindness rule, it also means that players can push their characters to go beyond their means when they REALLY need it -- but at a very real price.

Believe it or not, it also satisfies simmy priorities in my experience. You actually get the feel of a real economy and loans and taxes and whatnot. And actual, honest-to-god work skills, like Estate Management, blacksmithing, brewing, and so forth REALLY mean something because they help you recover Taxed Resources. One of Luke's players a month or so back had his knight go out and levy taxes in order to boost his Resources to pay his lifestyle Maintenance. And he realized that he NEEDED an Estate Manager and Accountants to help him recover his Taxed Resources.

If your fear is that characters will advance their Resources too quickly, I assure you it doesn't happen. Because Resources requires successful tests to earn tests for advancement, Challenging tests become a real impediment to increasing your wealth. You will need to spend serious Artha and make big purchases to win those advancements. And it is entirely possible to lose your entire nut with a Challenging test.

Also, don't overlook the fact that Resources is one of the only Stats/Attributes/Abilities in the game that can actually be reduced. If you Tax your Resources to zero, you lose 1D of Resources permanently.

Hi Luke,

So of the two references, you still can't FORK into Resources, but you can do a linked test? I'm thinking of situations where someone really wants to get something, applies a -wise or two to get a better deal, or find a used version or otherwise cuts a deal. Because they're using more dice, they're more likely to get the object/service, but less likely to get a good test from it.

Chris

linked tests and help are fine.

the contradictory sentence in the rules is only meant to state that Resources acts like a skill in all respects. The line below is the exception.

Yeesh. I'm going to be answering this question for the rest of my days.

-L

Hey,

Totally cool. I missed that line, I had assumed you could FORK it until I saw this thread.

Chris

Hi guys,

First, lest it sound like I'm bashing, let me ephasize that I *like* Burning Wheel. I want to play it. The Hub and the Spokes are sheer beauty. The Steel Mechanics are great. The Range and Cover mechanics are awesome.

That said, I don't think that your comments fix Resources for me. I do think I've figured out a bit more about why they bother me, though.

You use the Resources mechanics to see if you can buy something *without noticing.* It's a mechanic for Bill Gates. It's not actually about what Resources you have, it's about "Will this make a dent in my finances if I buy it?"

If you succeed at the test, you get whatever it was you wanted without there being a dent - how exactly you paid for it (services, goods, money, favors) is swept under the rug.

If you fail at the test, you most likely still get it, but it does make a dent in your resources.

Would you say that this is an accurate characterization of the mechanics?


(Aside - Ranting about intent vs. actual textual clarity and consistency)

If you answer "yes" to the question immediately preceding this aside, then we have a textual clarity problem. The mechanics described in the book do not match the construct that I just described.

The way the Gift of Kindness is phrased, it seems like it's something that the GM can do every so often on a whim, if he feels like it - *not* a default mode that is only superseded when the player wants something outrageous. The GM "may choose" to consider it on a "case-by-case basis."

According to page 83, Resources represent the character's overall material wealth and potential influence, also his ability to borrow, barter, trade, and lend.

According to page 85: "If the player meets or exceeds the obstacle, he has acquired what he stated he was after. If he fails the test, his Resources are taxed, and he either can't find or can't afford what he was looking for."

According to page 86, on a failed Resources test: "Tax represents a loss of fluidity in the character's assets. Perhaps some cash was expended, but more likely is that favors were called or resources tapped that simply can't be called on again for a while. . . . In general, [on a failed Resources roll] the player does not achieve his intent (just like a normal failed test) and his Resources is temporarily reduced due to the expenditure."

!!! Buh? Wha? There *is no expenditure* on a failed roll. According to the rules, the character couldn't find, or couldn't afford what he was looking for. He *didn't buy it!*

The Intent of a Resources test is to buy something. According to this, if I fail a Resource test I don't buy it, and my Resources are temporarily reduced due to the expenditure of... not buying anything? If I don't buy anything, my Resources do not lose fluidity. The favor was called on, but not used. The loan was taken out, but not spent.

A couple of weeks ago I got pre-approval for a car loan. That car loan will be part of my resources, until I actually buy a car. If I can't find a car, or can't afford a car, that loan will not be used. Until I buy the car, I haven't spent the money. Until I spend the money, I still have my loan. No Resource tax.

(/Aside - Ranting)


My thing is:

The main problem has to do with the fact that it's possible to fail a Resource test, lose a die, and not have anything to show for it.

A Resources test answers the question - "Will buying this put a dent in my finances?"

A failed Resources test answers "no" to that question. At that point, you should either buy it and take the dent (i.e., lose a Resource die) or walk away (you don't buy it, but neither do you lose a die).

But the mechanics say "Nope, even though you didn't buy it, you still have to lose that die, because you might have taken out a loan, or called in a personal favor that can't be called in again."

This is terrible. In the first place, the game already has specific mechanics for loans that give you extra Resources dice. You can't have it both ways - on the one hand Resources is some abstract thing that includes loans, but on the other hand Resources is a concrete representation of finances where Loans give you extra Resources dice.

Maybe Resources doesn't represent loans after all - just cash, goods, and favors; that would be better.

But, mechanically, a low Resources character can, for example, go down to the docks and bankrupt himself *failing to buy a ship!* Apparently, the character had *no* actual cash or goods at all - his resources consisted entirely of one-shot favors, which he called in to no avail. No favors, no ship, no Resources.

It ends up just like D&D hit-points. You never can tell if it's actual health, luck of the gods, hero points, or what - so there are about a billion specific cases where it makes no sense at all.

Resources need to represent *Resources.* Stuff you can spend to get other stuff. The actual Loan mechanics give you more Resources dice. Why all this waffling about abstract "favors" and "loans?"

The Obstacle for the Resources test is specifically defined as the cost of whatever you want to get. That cost will be paid with cash or bartered goods. Calling in favors is a negligable part of this process. If the Obstacle is higher than your current Resources, it should mean that whatever you're trying to buy is just plain too expensive.

Besides, when you *do* call in a favor, wouldn't it be a good idea for that to be handled specifically, so you can role-play it accordingly?

* * *

Last night I made a 5 LP character. He's a 40 year old Noble Born -> Neophyte Sorcerer -> Rogue Wizard -> Zealous Convert -> Court Advisor. The guy has 181 resource points to spend! He's probably gonna own a manor, with a tower workshop, a town-house, maybe a library, etc. etc.

I'm wondering about the Get a Job mechanics for him. I don't see him having to Get A Job to recoup lost resources. Is there an option for fixed income characters that I missed someplace? Like, it seems that a Court Advisor who owns a private library should have his resources refresh automatically at some point, based on his stipend, rent, and such.

Can a "job" include just sitting around letting the wealth roll in from estates and so on? Like, what if I own an inn? I don't actually work there (I'm busy at court), but I get the money from it, out of which I pay the inkeeper, the cook, the barmaids, etc.

* * *

By the way, Thor:

Thor wrote: In our experience, this stuff works extremely well in play (we've been playtesting Resources for more than a year). For one thing, it creates an avenue for actual, mechanically-supported dramatic conflict in play. When the Count of Monte Cristo starts throwing his incredible wealth around to further his vengeful plot, Burning Wheel can handle it now, without resorting to dull bean counting.

Just because you "didn't buy it" doesn't mean you didn't waste time and money trying to get it. And as for failing a test and still getting it, I thought the Gift of Kindness took care of that.

Anyway, I don't know what to tell you, man. They work mechanically, and they make sense to most folks. Sorry they don't click with you. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this one.

As for your Court Advisor, he's still got to use the Get a Job mechanics when his Resources are taxed. He's got to administer his finances. Even if that means hiring and firing and signing off on invoices. Sounds like he needs the Estate Management skill.

-L

Hello,

My understanding was that if the DM gave you the Gift of Kindness, you could take back the purchase and not put a dent in your finances. I think this is maybe the next couple of paragraphs in the text or so? (I don't have the books with me. Will you check for me from there to the end of the section?)

If it is the case you can take back your purchases when offered tGoK, and tGoK is assumed to be the rule rather than the exception, does that fix this mechanic for you?

The explanation I make up in my head to be charitable is that the lost die or dice due to a failed Resources test is one buying an interest in a ship, but it sails away to become a pirate. Or you buy 20,000 cans of white paint, but needed glossy, not matte. The point is that you throw your weight around financially and you get shafted. And you don't learn anything from it, because the loss in your actual abstracted wealth exceeds your increased abstracted ability to handle money to the tune of the margin of failure.

I do think that the section wants rewriting. Even so, I appreciate Luke's choice to go ahead and give me the game. Besides, I don't think this will be the last printing for a game as good as this.

Best,
Will

Couldn't a failed Resource check simply be translated as "oops, I didn't have enough resources after all." That is, you might have spent more than you thought recently, perhaps some of it has been swindled away, or whatever. Paganini, I'm sure you can modify the system to do what you want it to do, but personally I think it sounds like a great system as is.

TTFN,

Yoki

Paganini wrote: A couple of weeks ago I got pre-approval for a car loan. That car loan will be part of my resources, until I actually buy a car. If I can't find a car, or can't afford a car, that loan will not be used. Until I buy the car, I haven't spent the money. Until I spend the money, I still have my loan. No Resource tax.

It seems to help play if Gift of Kindness is set to the default. I don't think I've seen it played any other way. Would this address your problem, Paganini? It sounds like it. You just don't want to lose money and not get anything in return. Completely understandable and I agree. It will just take more GM fiat to determine what is and what isn't worth a Resources test. For instance, a B2 Resources trying to buy a boat. He should just be scoffed at by the shipwright and sent packin' with no dice rolled.

I've read through the rules just recently, and they make sense for me--because of the existence of the cash-on-hand and property rules.

If your character has a lot of coinage, that's simple, he'll use them as bonus on the resources roll and spend the coin in the process.

When you *don't* have extra amounts of coin, you need to get it another way, based on your lifestyle circumstances. Maybe for favors, maybe as an advance on your regular income, whatever. And those things need to be paid back, hence the potential for Tax. The roll, coupled with Gift of Kindness, is more a question of "can I get it without using up some of my most basic resources" rather than "do I have the coin to afford this." It seems to me the Gift rule is there as optional simply to prevent abuse (buying a castle with a failed roll on low resources).

I thought more along Paganini's line of reasoning until I came across that cash bonus rule, and that made it all fall in line for me.

Of course, I hate coin counting.