Hi all,

My friend and I sat down to try out Burning Wheel revised today and found it pretty frustrating. 

Some small questions:

If you are using the basic (non-scripted) combat system, do shields have any value/effect? 

Can you script an action for any of the three spots in a volley, or only in sequence?  Can you declare that your action will take place in action three rather than action one, even if you only get a single action?

Steel and pain:  "Make a Steel test".  Against what, exactly?  The number of dice of the injury? 

How do GMs typically handle scripting for, say, a dozen opponents?  Maintaining some control over all the details seems extraordinarily daunting. 

Thanks,

Jason

If you are using the basic (non-scripted) combat system, do shields have any value/effect?

Can you script an action for any of the three spots in a volley, or only in sequence?  Can you declare that your action will take place in action three rather than action one, even if you only get a single action?

Steel and pain:  "Make a Steel test".  Against what, exactly?  The number of dice of the injury?

How do GMs typically handle scripting for, say, a dozen opponents?  Maintaining some control over all the details seems extraordinarily daunting.

Thanks Rafial, that is very helpful.

You misunderstood this question, I think:

"Can you script an action for any of the three spots in a volley, or only in sequence?  Can you declare that your action will take place in action three rather than action one, even if you only get a single action?"

To clarify:  We're in Volley #2.  I have a single action to use in volley #2.  Must it be the first action, or can it be the second or third within the volley?  So if my opponent, for example, sets and Great strikes, could I script my single action to fall on the same action as his great strike rather than during the set?

Which raises another question - can you string out multi-part actions across volleys?

Hi Jason,

As far as I know, you can't script for a later action on the same volley- it's part of the price of being slow.  Tactically, you know most volleys the opposition can only do their "thing" on the first action, and plan accordingly, which also makes that 4th or greater action option a big deal.

You CAN script actions across multiple volleys, such as, "Trying to untie and free my buddy they were about to hang" is probably going to come out in several volleys. 

Finally, a very useful idea for canned script actions is to set up 3 or 4 canned scripts to work with, and have various characters use one.  For example, an aggressive script is going to be Strike, Block, Strike most likely, while a cunning one might be Counterstrike, Avoid, Strike.  You can label them A,B,C, or whatever works for you and give it to the NPCs and even have them switch options depending on their situation.  For example, an injured character probably will switch to a defensive script, or probably try to run away.

Chris

I'm not looking at the book but if you have an avoid in a volley and someone has Set, Great Strike, the Avoid counts against the Great Strike.

Hope that makes sense, I don't have the book in front of me but I'm fairly certain that I'm right and that's how I'd call it at home.

I'm not looking at the book but if you have an avoid in a volley and someone has Set, Great Strike, the Avoid counts against the Great Strike.

Thanks guys.  I hope you can see by the discussion my minor questions evoked why we feel a little overwhelmed by BW. 

The thing I'm observing is that one really needs to use the entire system - unlike, say, GURPS, which is the most complex RPG I've ever run, where you have a great degree of control over the granularity, even subsystem by subsystem. Would you agree with this? 

We're impressed with much of BW and are considering using it for a new campaign, but handling time is a huge issue and we're concerned with conflicts taking a long time to resolve. Even in our little test melee I could see things speeding up as we figured things out, but the bottom line is that you are scripting out every heartbeat.  Is this a valid concern? 

The thing I'm observing is that one really needs to use the entire system - unlike, say, GURPS, which is the most complex RPG I've ever run, where you have a great degree of control over the granularity, even subsystem by subsystem. Would you agree with this?

Even in our little test melee I could see things speeding up as we figured things out, but the bottom line is that you are scripting out every heartbeat.  Is this a valid concern?

rafial wrote:
My experience with classic was that the handling time of scripted combat was never any worse, and probably better than the typical d20 battle.

On a related note, how much information do you need to keep track of concerning NPCs?

Or can you just wing it?  Is that even possible?

Jason wrote: On a related note, how much information do you need to keep track of concerning NPCs?  All their stats, derived stats, skills, traits, instincts?  It seems like all that could come into play in a fight.  Or can you just wing it?  Is that even possible? 

OK, so we generated characters and set up a big combat to introduce the system.  Character generation (5 players, 2 GMs) took two hours, and six seconds of combat took another two hours.  I'm assuming this will get faster with familiarity.  Somebody please tell me it gets faster with familiarity.

One PC got hit hard and failed his Steel test, resulting in 5 hesitation.  At this point he had to run screaming or stand there and get butchered - or am I missing something?  His opponent had a strike scripted, and would have the leisure of scripting more strikes or great strikes for the next set of three, during which there would be no active opposition to his actions.  Right?  It didn't feel right.

There seemed to be a death spiral of guys getting tagged, made less effective, then as a result getting tagged again until they were functionally useless due to obstacle penalties.  Either that or killed with a single blow, which happened twice.  Is this how it is supposed to be?

I feel a real sense of desperation, because I can see some really positive things about BW, but my players were not happy with the way our test turned out, and I found myself saying "just give it time, it'll get better."  And that sucks, because I hate being in that position and I don't know for sure that it is true.

--Jason

Hi Jason,

How many people were in the combat you ran?  All the PCs + 1 NPC for each?  Definitely a rough way to start, as I assume everyone was having to learn all the new manuevers and go through a decision tree if that was the case.  Yes, it does get much faster, especially if the players can script their own without having to look up each manuever as well as know the basic mechanics for most of them.

Hesitation does hurt- and the usual (best) response is to run.

There seemed to be a death spiral of guys getting tagged, made less effective, then as a result getting tagged again until they were functionally useless due to obstacle penalties.  Either that or killed with a single blow, which happened twice.  Is this how it is supposed to be?

Bankuei wrote:
How many people were in the combat you ran?  All the PCs + 1 NPC for each? 
Did anyone use FoRKs?  Stances?  Also, what kinds of weapons, armor, and stats did the characters have? 

An easier way to do this would be to try out a Duel of Wits (possibly using one of the scenarios on the BW site) and have the players take sides.  While only two players may be dueling, depending on the sides they take, the other players can throw in helping dice to the arguments they support.  It might be an easier way to introduce the idea of the scripting system (and it applies to Fight! as well...  those helping dice are really useful there).

Hi Jason,

The PCs were built with 8 lifepaths and no exponent cap - our plan is to make these guys the heroic ancestors of the eventual player characters.

My co-GM and I ended the evening thinking the whole introduction had been a huge mistake.  We reasoned that combat is so hellaciously complicated* that if we got that down, the rest would be gravy.

hi Jason,

to answer your question about Steel: Yes, that's how it works. It's also why fights in BW are so short. You're not ablating HP, you're going for a crippling injury that causes your opponent to be knocked out of the fight.

With such experienced characters, you likely have a lot of dice to play with and it's probably pretty easy to score killing blows. That's fine. But when those failed Steel tests come up, STOP THE FIGHT. It's over. Ask the player if they run or surrender, but either way the conflict is over. It's not a video game where you're locked until the clock runs down.

Speaking of videogames, you jumped in pretty deep. You went against just about everything I recommend for starting off with BW. If you want to back off and try again -- with equally powerful characters under a more controlled circumstance -- run the Gift.

But, as Chris said, a 5 on 5 fight in BW is a big deal. That'd be the climax of most of our games.

J/c what kind of game are you running? What are the players' Beliefs?

-L

OK, all good to know.  We'll all have to wrap our heads around the notion that in an evenly-matched fight, you stand a good chance of having to retire your character.  I like that - fights should be scary.  It does leave me a little adrift as a GM, though, knowing that the line between a minor scuffle and a total party kill is so slender. 

Last Wednesday's session was just to try the system out.  Next week we'll begin the campaign in earnest.  The setting is pseudo-mythic Summer and Autumn period China, with the players starting as emissaries for the King of Ba.  No characters yet, so I don't know their BITs, but we want to stress themes of loyalty and sacrifice.  We're going to start off with a duel of wits and some mellow role-playing. 

A question on the "let it ride" rule - let's say the challenge at hand is crossing a raging river.  If I understand it, you either succeed or fail, and if you fail, you have to change the circumstances to try again, right?  How would this work with a static challenge?  Would the player have to narrate looking for a better ford, or waiting for the water level to go down, rather than just wading in to give it another try?  Or would failure mean a complication, like being swept downstream?  What if he wanted to try again with help?  I'm a little thrown by the blurring of task and conflict resolution. 

--Jason

Jason wrote: A question on the "let it ride" rule - let's say the challenge at hand is crossing a raging river.  If I understand it, you either succeed or fail, and if you fail, you have to change the circumstances to try again, right?  How would this work with a static challenge?  Would the player have to narrate looking for a better ford, or waiting for the water level to go down, rather than just wading in to give it another try?  Or would failure mean a complication, like being swept downstream?  What if he wanted to try again with help?  I'm a little thrown by the blurring of task and conflict resolution.

Jason wrote:
OK, all good to know.  We'll all have to wrap our heads around the notion that in an evenly-matched fight, you stand a good chance of having to retire your character.  I like that - fights should be scary.  It does leave me a little adrift as a GM, though, knowing that the line between a minor scuffle and a total party kill is so slender. 

Last Wednesday's session was just to try the system out.  Next week we'll begin the campaign in earnest.  The setting is pseudo-mythic Summer and Autumn period China, with the players starting as emissaries for the King of Ba.  No characters yet, so I don't know their BITs, but we want to stress themes of loyalty and sacrifice.  We're going to start off with a duel of wits and some mellow role-playing. 

Thor wrote:
What was the Intent? What were the stakes? How did the story change because they didn't cross the river?

Jason wrote:
Not sure about "what's at stake?" - I don't know what that means in BW. 

abzu wrote:
Fights are dangerous, but there's just not going to be a TPK in your BW game. As the GM, you have WAY too much control for the game to slide into that morass. Not only can you control the exponent of your villains (Have you read the Burning Rogues section in the Burning Wheel?),  you control their every move.

Also, I might have misread your last post, but I thought you said you had 8 LP characters for all the players? Don't tell me those were just test characters!

Hi Jason,

Fights are dangerous, though the dice are rarely what does people in- it's almost always bad choices in scripting or bad luck in how you chose to script them.  For instance, mostly you will miss a roll by a success or two, which usually doesn't end up in taking a heavy blow- but minor one.  But if you failed to script a Block or an Avoid when someone else scripted a Strike- then you take a full on hit with no defense!

As far as "Stakes" to put it in context of the game you're suggesting, "Crossing the river" doesn't mean jack, "crossing the river to tell Duke Wen that Chu is going to betray him during the next battle", that has stakes.  When people ask what's at stake- you ask yourself what happens if the player fails.  If you say "nothing", and the person can try again, no cost, then there's nothing at stake and no point in rolling the dice.  If there's nothing to really be gained or lost in serious context, then you might as well not roll the dice.  "Say yes or roll the dice".

Chris

Hi Jason,

this is slightly off-topic, but can you explain what "nerf" means? I don't understand.

-L

Sorry Luke.  Nerf:  To arbitrarily underpower something for "game balance" purposes. 

"Oh crap, I've got these cool badass bandits that are going to own the road.  They ought to have stats and skills in the 4-5 range, because they are badass and that level of competency makes sense, but they will make mince-meat of the PCs.  So I'll make their stats 3's instead.  And they won't strike too much, just sort of avoid and block, even though they'd be down with killing these interlopers at the first sign of resistance."

Force/Illusionism in action, I guess. 

Bankuei wrote:
Fights are dangerous, though the dice are rarely what does people in- it's almost always bad choices in scripting or bad luck in how you chose to script them.  For instance, mostly you will miss a roll by a success or two, which usually doesn't end up in taking a heavy blow- but minor one.  But if you failed to script a Block or an Avoid when someone else scripted a Strike- then you take a full on hit with no defense!

"Say yes or roll the dice".

Hi Jason,

I used "Say yes or roll dice" specifically in regards to your question about stakes.  Rolling dice to cross the river is pointless as rolling dice to tie your shoelaces- unless something else is happening if the PCs don't make it across the river (being chased by bad guys, need to get somewhere in time), then don't bother.

Second, with regards to combat, a great deal of effectiveness depends on a person's skill in scripting.  Assuming you're the guy with the rulebooks, and had time to read them over, you have a significant advantage over the players with dealing with scripting.  It's not like you have to make the NPCs stupid or anything, but you do have to give the players a chance to learn the system.

Chris

I think others have  answered the question of the river much as I would have. I was using stakes as shorthand for: what is the conflict and what are the agreed upon consequences for failing?

I think that framing the conflict as simply crossing the river, with the consequences merely being that you don't cross the river, means there just isn't a conflict here. The group should narrate crossing the river and move on. Say yes or roll dice.

Think of it this way (and pardon me if this seems esoteric): When you decide to bring out the dice in Burning Wheel, you have made a decision to move something out of the realm of color into the realm of central importance to the narrative. Ideally, each test in Burning Wheel exists to put a character's Belief, Instinct, or Trait in opposition with a risk of some sort, a consequence. And this means that each test in Burning Wheel will ideally require a player to make a choice about the importance of that Belief, Instinct, or Trait in relation to that risk.

With that in mind, what purpose is the river serving in the SIS?

Jason wrote:

"Say yes or roll the dice".

OK, that I get, big DitV fan, maybe that is why this all seems so bizarre to me.  But in Dogs when you use that phrase, you really can go for broke - try your hardest to win a conflict.  Anything less isn't fun.  I'm not getting that here.  I think what Luke was saying was "as GM you are in control, so have your NPCs back off if they are going to utterly hose the PCs."  Am I misinterpereting that?

Thor wrote:
And this means that each test in Burning Wheel will ideally require a player to make a choice about the importance of that Belief, Instinct, or Trait in relation to that risk.  With that in mind, what purpose is the river serving in the SIS?

Well, let's explore that a little. I agree that you get to go all out in Dogs. But. You ALWAYS choose when.

Bankuei wrote:
Second, with regards to combat, a great deal of effectiveness depends on a person's skill in scripting.  Assuming you're the guy with the rulebooks, and had time to read them over, you have a significant advantage over the players with dealing with scripting.  It's not like you have to make the NPCs stupid or anything, but you do have to give the players a chance to learn the system.

Hi,

Things I have found work rather well in general-

Charge/Push- if you knock someone down, that's a world of extra problems they have to deal with in terms of being able to maneuver (not really) or fight back (with add Ob).  Then you hit them.

Counterstrike- Even if you only raise the Ob by 1, it makes a big helping, especially when you have armor and can afford to take little hits.  Plus you still get an attack off.

Throw- if you get inside, most weapons become terribly difficult to use, and you can still throw the foe (off things, into sharp, burning things, or other people).

Those 3 alone make a big difference.  Controlling the distance at which you fight and eating up as many of your opponent's actions as possible is the key to success.  If they have to spend an action getting up, that's one less action they can spend hitting you. 

If you Strike-Push-Strike, you are on a continous offensive, or you could even go Counterstrike-Push-Counterstrike for a defensive option.  You could Close & Push, and if you can make the Close, your opponent is at a big disadvantage to hit you.  You could Withdraw, knowing your opponent is going to script a Close, and Close at the same time with a Charge...

Just like a fighting videogame, if you don't know what you're doing (button-mashing), it seems pretty random.  If you know how to do the moves, the distance and the timing, it's not random at all.

Chris

Jason wrote:

Force/Illusionism in action, I guess. 

Jason wrote: OK, that's pretty clear.  Weird, but clear.  "So you're all standing on the banks of the river, you gotta tell the Duke about those Chu bastards or it'll be disaster, and ... everybody make a swimming roll.  Anybody make it?  OK, one guy did, so the Duke knows.  The rest of you show up later - it doesn't matter any more how you got across."  Is that correct?

Well, let's explore that a little. I agree that you get to go all out in Dogs. But. You ALWAYS choose when.

You force tough choices, right, like "do you smack the grandmother to the ground?  Because that's what it'll take to shut her up in front of the congregation.  You will?  A grandmother? How about now?"  What's the parallel in BW?

My bandits own the road the PCs desperately need to travel.  They are widely feared.  The PCs are stopped and shaken down, they refuse to give over because, hell, they are the PCs.  Fight ensues, bandits have no reason to give any quarter.  So is this about arrogance, with the result that the PCs are cut down like wheat?  Or am I supposed to not have bandits in the first place, since arrogance isn't what my game is about?