...and by "some folks" I of course mean me. <wink>

Over on the Harn Forum I have been engaged in an ongoing discussion about Burning Wheel's "Fight!" mechanics and the experience has prompted me to post some thoughts about why some people don't like combat in BW.  It goes without saying that this is highly speculative, so keep that in mind as you read.

Although I am new to Burning Wheel, I have been roleplaying for a long time (since the late 70s/early 80s when Runequest was in its heyday) so I have a good deal of familiarity with traditional systems. My experience so far with BW  is that for people with a lot of familiarity with traditional combat mechanics, BW can often present a considerable challenge and inspire some rather knee-jerk negative reactions.  Let me explain.

In many traditional roleplaying games (and Runequest and Harnmaster will stand in as representatives of traditional rpgs in this discussion), combat is modeled along the following familiar lines.  Initiative is determined in some way, the winner of initiative gets to declare her actions and then roll to determine the success of the actions, the opponent gets to make a defensive action, the effects of successful actions by the aggressor on the opposing player are determined, then the loser of initiative gets to declare and determine success and on and on it goes.  In short, this is the very familiar idea that the combat round is "an exchange of blows" between two opponents.

The assumption underlying this model is that in every combat exchange---barring extraordinary outcomes such as when the winner of initiative does so much damage to the opponent in a successful strike that it knocks the opponent unconscious and deprives her of her intended response action---all players are entitled to attempt at least one such exchange of blows and that, generally, very little stands in the way of a player making such an attempt in every round.

Indeed, this idea is probably so familiar to most of us that we come to think that it is the natural and inevitable way in which combat *ought* to be conducted and modeled.  It has become such a veritable shibboleth of most rpgs, that many come to think of it as a natural entitlement, the "birthright" of every player and character.

Needless to say, Burning Wheel does not gratify such an assumption as the game is built on a very different understanding of how combat should work and how it should be modeled. 

So if I have any complaints with Burning Wheel Revised it is this. (And Luke I hope you realize that this comes from a person who absolutely adores the game).  I only wish that it came with a disclaimer that was posted prominently at the head of the section on "Fight!" and read something like this:

"If you are a sentient being with any familiarity with roleplaying games, you probably recognize that most games have mechanics for modeling combat.  Burning Wheel is no different.  In many of the games you have played, you probably are familiar with the idea that combat involves "an exchange of blows" between opponents.  In most of these games, each combatant is practically guaranteed to be able to attempt at least one melee attack per combat round.  This notion of combat is perhaps so familiar to you that it hardly even needs stressing.  Its influence is perhaps so strong that you are thinking, "No duh! of course that is the way that combat works and that is the way it ought to work!" Be forewarned: Burning Wheel's "Fight!" mechanics are not built on this assumption.  You are not guaranteed your bare minimal single strike attempt in "Fight!"  You are not guaranteed that you will be able to accomplish any of the actions you intend in a single exchange in "Fight!"  "Fight!" does not care if you think this sucks and it will not tolerate your mealy-mouthed bullshit complaints that it has, as Jacob did to Esau, denied you your birthright.  "Fight!" also strongly advises that before you get indignant and start spouting inanities about how combat in Burning Wheel is "broken" because it does not preserve the fundamental right of every player (namely, the right to attempt at least one aggressive action in a round)...to repeat, "Fight!" that you consider the strong possibility that you are operating under the mistaken assumption that the model of combat with which you are most familiar is the ONLY or even MOST PREFERABLE way of modeling combat.  "Fight!" recommends that you come to grips with the fact that the enshrined notion of the "exchange of blows" is just another model, one that you may have good or bad reasons for preferring but that is a model nonetheless and not some cosmic constant like the speed of light.  Failure to heed the above disclaimer will cause us to impugn your good name and make all manner of jokes about your proclivities for porcine-buggery and such.  Thank you.  We hope you like "Fight!""

Well, you get the idea.  I suppose I am just burned that a good number of otherwise intelligent people can't see that the "exchange of blows" model is just a model, nothing more or less.  I suppose I am also just spouting steam about the tendency of many of the above mentioned intelligent people to bandy about words like "broken" when what they really mean is, "I don't like BW because combat doesn't adhere to my more or less unexamined assumptions about how combat *ought* to work."  To which I can only say, "Yeah, well tough shit.  Don't play the game and don't insist that every game operate in exactly the same way and with exactly the same assumptions."

Okay, that's enough spleen for one evening.

Cheers,

Eric

Oh yeah, to be inserted in between the Jacob and Esau sentence and the one that follows:  (damn, I hate that editing has been turned off)

"Fight does not make any promises that any scripted intentions will become actualities in combat.  It also never promised you a rose garden."

Eric

Hi, Eric!

I understand your point, BW's combat is really different than the classical standards. Ok. But I would say it is different in a similar way as most games discussed in The Forge are different from the classical RPGs. Do you think reasonable to include a disclaimer at the beginning of every game, like PtA, MlwM, Sorcerer, etc.? Well, Sorcerer was written long ago, in a more chilly age, and I would say its text includes many bits of advise for gamers used to classical RPGs ;-)

First of all, take my words with a pinch of salt. I have not yet play-tested BW's positioning+fight+everything mechanics, and I would even say I also don't like it "enough" for my own reasons. But I'm sure it produces much more interesting, narrative and even realistic combat dynamics than the exchange of blows.

Let me use a simile. It is not fair to complain because you are used to play the typical old strategy video war-games, where each player has a turn with stopped-time to think and move every unit on a hex-grid, and then you discover Warcraft II, where everything moves in real time. Of course it is a little difficult to get used to it; in your first tries, if you are not clever and quick-thinking you will get no chance even to get prepared for your foes attack. But I cannot imagine the Warcraft designers begging your pardon for the new feature to those used to the old stopped-time turn-based war-games.

Ok, don't pay too much attention to my jokes. Seriously, I would suggest you to burn half-dozen fighting characters and play some spare fights to learn how to exploit it. Until you get a clear idea of the opposing effect of the combinations of different maneuvers and stances you will not enjoy a BW's fight. The learning curve is high, but I think it may compensate a lot.

Cheers,
Arturo

Eric, I hope you don't mind me saying that your post makes me smile.

-Luke

I don't often chime in here, but I'm currently playing in a Burning Wheel game (which is creating some smashingly good player and character dynamic changes.. For probably the first time since I was a beginning gamer playing with veterans, I'm not central to the driving plotline.) and this is a topic near and dear to me, so to speak, I'll break habit somewhat.

My reasons for disliking burning wheel combat are not the above. As a matter of fact, from what I've seen of it so far, I mostly like it. I'm totally cool with declaring an action, and suddenly realizing it was the wrong one (unless, like our first foray into the social combat mechanics, it was the wrong one because I didn't know better, having not had a chance to read the rules on the various social maneuvers and their interactions..) and getting nailed for it. The single breaking point in the combat mechanics I've got is the three rounds in advance scripting.

My reasons for disliking this are based on my actual combat experience. I've fought for three years now in the SCA, I've taken some level of martial arts, and served for 8 years in the military. The only thing I've seen where you "pre-script" your actions in advance like this is beginner level martial arts, which only works if your partner is working with you, rather than against you. Frankly, anyone who plans out their moves three moves in advance is going to die really quickly in the clash unless they're really, really good at predicting their enemy's choices.

Do I think the combat system is broken? Not at all. I simply don't like this one aspect. It's a matter of preference, and overall, what Burning Wheel experience I've had has been positive.

The single breaking point in the combat mechanics I've got is the three rounds in advance scripting.

Listen, I have nothing to contribute other than one of my favourite quotes of all times is one I nicked off my mate for my personal game,

Bad Guy to Hero: 'Your death is imminent in three moves, are you prepared to die?'

I now realise that the bad guy is straight out of BW! Classic! lol

Regards
Rob

Wolfen wrote:
My reasons for disliking this are based on my actual combat experience. I've fought for three years now in the SCA, I've taken some level of martial arts, and served for 8 years in the military. The only thing I've seen where you "pre-script" your actions in advance like this is beginner level martial arts, which only works if your partner is working with you, rather than against you. Frankly, anyone who plans out their moves three moves in advance is going to die really quickly in the clash unless they're really, really good at predicting their enemy's choices.

See Ralph, I can follow with that, and I can see that it's there.

But what I don't see is how 3 volleys of pre-scripting is necessary to cause that effect.

I'm totally cool with pre-scripting one volley and seeing how it turns out. If I scripted a feint, expecting them to defend and they instead attack and my feint basically just goes away and I'm boned, I'm okay with that. What I'm less okay with is the fact that, in addition to the penalty for getting nailed which can be pretty nasty, I'm going to have an additional penalty if I want to change my subsequent actions because the results of the first volley negated my later choices.

I mean, sure.. It's going to happen that you're not going to always get what you want. Sometimes your intent is going to go out the window, and you're not going to get a chance to do anything. What I see as unrealistic from the side of me that cares about that, and overly harsh from the side that cares about that, is that any failure to guess the correct action is going to reduce your later chances of doing something in the combat, which already stand under the same chance of negation as the first.

Ach, crap. Meant to append this to the previous post.

I'm leaving for Estrella War (the aforementioned SCA stuff) this afternoon, so I won't be around to continue this conversation, and I expect it may be dead when I return. I will certainly read it, and if anyone makes any good points, I'll consider them fairly. I don't really want to turn this into a debate, and I'm certainly not saying Burning Wheel sucks. I enjoy the game, there are just some aspects I dislike. I simply wanted to provide an alternate reason why people may dislike the Fight! rules, other than the frankly one-sided reasons put forth by Eric. It's not that I don't understand the rules, and certainly not that I'm married to some concept of combat from years of other games. I just don't like it because I feel it's unrealistic (which is important to me) and a little too harsh to be particularly fun due to one single aspect.

I agree with Ralph. That's exactly my feeling. But also I think that 3 volleys in advance may create a lot of uncertainty. And frustration when you discover your moves are wrong planned from the first volley. In a system where there are so many choices and combinations it is an added complication for the player. That's mainly what I didn't like in my first reading.
I surely need to playtest it to really know. I want to do what I said to Eric. Just give it a real full try before deciding.

But what do you think about that uncertainty? Do you like that level of it?
Moreover, is it part of the game interest? Does it try to simulate real combat chaos?

Arturo

Keeping in mind that the above is only my own interpretation and may be completely disavowed by Luke...isn't some of the concern of the randomness of plotting 3 moves alleviated by the ability to abort maneuvers?  And doesn't the penalty for aborting maneuvers decrease with character skill? or am I misremembering that?

isn't some of the concern of the randomness of plotting 3 moves alleviated by the ability to abort maneuvers?

And doesn't the penalty for aborting maneuvers decrease with character skill? or am I misremembering that?

Hey Arturo,

Were you under the impression that *I* don't like Burning Wheel's "Fight!" mechanics?!?  If so, I'll have to be sure to dial my irony meter down in the future.

I freaking love "Fight!"  I was just bitching about the people who can't seem to grasp that *perhaps* one reason they express initial dislike for or opposition to BW is that they have been brainwashed into believing that any combat system that departs from that hoary old chestnut called "the exchange of blows" must be "broken."

My recent experience over at the Harn Forum has convinced me that there are at least some people out there who can respond to lots of the other cool stuff in BW, but when it comes to combat its "Whoah there Tex!  You mean my guy might not actually be guaranteed to get in a strike if I fuck up the scripting?!?"

I agree that lots of other Forge games have broken the traditional mold by making everything that a player declares only Intent and by putting Fortune in the Middle to determine what actually happens.  Sorcerer was of course one of the first Forge games to do this, but remember all the go-arounds that Ron had with Jesse over some of these issues?  There is a classic thread on this that I would dig up if I weren't so lazy, but the jist of it was about the fact that in Sorcerer you can make all the declarations you want that your character A is going to do X before B does Y, but then the dice speak and they might tell you that B does Y first and that fucks up A's intended action entirely.

I'm preaching to the choir, here.  BW accomplishes the same thing in a very different way through scripting out volleys and resolving the positioning tests first (which in many cases can completely bollocks-up someone else's intended action).   I LOVE that about the system.  I think it is a good thing.  What irks me is that there are intelligent folks out there who insist on thinking that any system that permits such a thing must be "broken."

What are we to do with these cretins?!?  <smile>

Eric

Aargh!  I forgot to add this last point:

As I said, my only beef with the game is that I wish Luke had included some such disclaimer in the revised version of the rules in the hope that it might make the aforementioned offenders *hesitate* before they started making assinine complaints that the game is "broken."

I'll have nothing bad said about "Fight!" in my presence.  "Fight!" is all that and a bag of chips.

Cheers,

Eric

I dislike Fight 'cuz it's too cruchy for me. For Me.

As far as I can tell, it does what it's intended to do, and what it is intended to do is a worthy goal.

The system is not broken, as far as I can tell from a one hour demonstration. It is simply not for me.

-Lisa

Please don't debate whether or not Fight! is "realistic" in this post. (hint: it's not.) Eric's OP was an attempt at humor and irony. There's no need to defend or bandy. If you'd like add irony or humor, by all means. Otherwise, start a new thread.

-L

Ok Eric! I was taking you too seriously.

My recent experience over at the Harn Forum has convinced me that there are at least some people out there who can respond to lots of the other cool stuff in BW, but when it comes to combat its "Whoah there Tex!  You mean my guy might not actually be guaranteed to get in a strike if I fuck up the scripting?!?"

Hey Arturo,

I admit I should have made it clearer that I was not to be included in the group of folks I was complaining about.  Having cut my "indie" teeth on Sorcerer, I am very familiar with and fond of systems that essentially say "everything you declare is intent; we'll roll the dice and then determine what really happens."  I love that.  Even when your own character is getting hosed, I think you can take some kind of pleasure in just how fucked-up combat gets in games like BW.  But maybe I'm just a masochist of some sort.

Anyway, to answer your question about "Duel of Wits":  the guy over at the Harn Forum who I had in mind while I was writting my little diatribe doesn't like "Duel of Wits" either.  Of course, I should point out that he has had the game for approximately a week and confesses he hasn't played it yet (not even trial combat to get used to scripting)  But he's pretty sure that BW is "broken" given his extensive non-playtesting of the game and detailed 1-week study of it  (WARNING! Sarcasm has reached dangerous levels, please move to the nearest exit, being sure to first attach your own oxygen mask before fitting one on your child.  Thank you.)

Hey, the game might not be his cup of tea, but from the sound of it he isn't too likely to drop his treasured preconceptions about what rpgs *should* be like before he gives it a go.

Alas...

Eric

P.S.  Thanks to Luke for dropping in on the Harn Forum and being such a good ambassador for the game.  That was classy.

I hate when people become so stubborn that they don't want even to give something a try, especially something other people like a lot and recommend. Most of the times they miss things they may surely like. It always happens with games, food and many other things.
Ooopps!! I was doing it not so long ago. Come on, I'm still doing it many times!! Learning to avoid pre-judging not only things, but also people, is a hard path I'm trying to learn to follow.

When I first read the scripting idea I was not liking it. In my full read of BW I realized it could be much nicer than I though. Anyway, I was sure I was going to give it a full try sooner or later (now I have more games in the queue).

Arturo

Eric wrote:
My recent experience over at the Harn Forum has convinced me that there are at least some people out there who can respond to lots of the other cool stuff in BW, but when it comes to combat its "Whoah there Tex!  You mean my guy might not actually be guaranteed to get in a strike if I fuck up the scripting?!?"

My complaints fall into four main groups:  (1)  the complexity of the combat 'round', (2) some unusual aspects of how scripting can lead to annoying/silly results, (3) "Fight!" seems based on the assumption that all fights will be one-on-one-combats and doesn't really provide ready mechanisms for determining how to handle melees involving more than two combatants, and (4) the fact that scripting makes combat dependent on player abilities rather than character abilities.

Arturo wrote:

But have a look at this. This paragraph terrifies me. Because the duel of wits, the positioning, ... there are more mechanics in BW which follow the same concepts. Are these people liking for example the Duel of Wits, and not the Fight?

Eric wrote:
Of course, I should point out that he has had the game for approximately a week and confesses he hasn't played it yet (not even trial combat to get used to scripting). But he's pretty sure that BW is "broken" given his extensive non-playtesting of the game and detailed 1-week study of it 

Before I begin, though, I want to reiterate what I said in the prior thread: This is *NOT* a comprehensive or critical review of BW as a game system [...] It really just represents my immediately gut-level reaction to having read the BW rules through and a small amount of thinking about what they have to offer a Harniac and HM-user like me. [.....] I should give the following major caveat-- I have not yet actually tried *playing* the game using these mechanics... not even a simple 'practice' fight/duel. So, feel free to take this w/ a grain of salt. 

Hi Jim, I know that it looks like you're being singled out for just voicing your opinion, but I wouldn't sweat it.  I know there have been others with the similar objections to the same parts of the game as you.  A few have decided that there's no rectifying the rules with there own style of play, but a lot of people have tried out the system as is after learning more about and have ended up being a strong supporter of the game.  The concerns you have about multiple participants in the Fight! and DoW I know I remember being hammered out on several occasions, just do a search over on the BW Forum.

Durgil wrote:
Hi Jim, I know that it looks like you're being singled out for just voicing your opinion, but I wouldn't sweat it.

Durgil wrote: The concerns you have about multiple participants in the Fight! and DoW I know I remember being hammered out on several occasions, just do a search over on the BW Forum.

Hi Jim,

Since you seem to feel the need to defend yourself, let me take a minute to respond to some of what you wrote.

As for characterizing me as having stated BW as a whole was "broken," well, that also is inaccurate...

My reasons for disliking this are based on my actual combat experience. I've fought for three years now in the SCA, I've taken some level of martial arts, and served for 8 years in the military. The only thing I've seen where you "pre-script" your actions in advance like this is beginner level martial arts,

For what it's worth, we've been playing Burning Wheel with a small rules modification.. We declare actions 1 volley at a time. If we have more than 3 actions, we still have to declare ahead of time which volley(s) are getting the extra actions.

The last session, we ended up going up against a troll, or some similar critter. We kept going at it, but it kept making it's armor saves, so most of our hits were doing no damage. (I later found out that the GM mis-read it and was rolling an extra die every time..) The very last volley, I declared, I think, a great strike. My character was stupidly brave for even being in the fight at all, because he'd not had time to get his armor on before the fight happened, but he'd managed to guess right every volley pretty much, and avoid being hit. Anyhow, the troll also declared a strike.. Crap. The other character in the fight had a hellacious Faith score, and rolled for.. a minor miracle? I don't remember. Some miracle; He wanted the troll's armor rating to be negated for this one round. I rolled very well for my strike.. Unfortunately, the troll didn't roll too shabby, too. We crippled each other; I gashed it for a traumatic wound, and it spilled my brains for a traumatic wound as well. I had some really lucky (and artha-fueled, as I remember) medical and faith rolls, so I'll recover without any serious debilitations, given enough time. The troll wasn't so lucky.

My point, besides to share a pretty cool fight, is to illustrate that, even rolled back somewhat, the blind volley declaration can still be really, really nasty.