So my first question/topic of my first post goes directly to Clinton. "Tell me about my 'cruft'".

-L

There's nothing like waking up on Saturday morning and finding out you've been put on the spot. I said the Burning Wheel has cruft? That seems somewhat familiar. Hmm...

Flipping through the rulebook (and searching to see if I could find where I said that), I'm not seeing it. If I said it before, chalk it up to a first reading of the rulebook, which can be a bit intimidating for people not used to the game. There are several mechanics - damage, for example - that work quite differently than other role-playing games.

I'll tell you what sold me on the first reading, though:
- The Wheel of Magic. Incredible stuff, there.
- The damage system, once I figured it out. One of my tests for a fantasy RPG with a lot of crunch is this: how hard is it to kill with a dagger? The Power, Add, Speed system in Burning Wheel lets me get in several dagger hits before a sword can swing, and while they are weaker, they improve quicker. It's an elegant way to do it, and in a little sample combat I ran, the fast guy with a dagger was able to slaughter a swordsman.
- Traits, Instincts, and Beliefs - these really add a lot to the game. For someone who enjoys Narrativist role-playing, Burning Wheel might not seem like the first choice. These three things add a nice undercurrent, though.
- Like everyone else, I think the Orcs are great. On them, though: I'm especially fond of the fact that life-paths don't have any description. In my own head, I can picture exactly what a Goblin Sun-Blotter does, and a description probably wouldn't live up to it.

The only down side in the game: your essay about "Don't Use This Game." I'm going to guess that you know the system so well after years of running it that it seems like you're not using it: it's second-nature. I have to admit, I can't quite tell if you're being sarcastic. I bought it up until the last paragraph, where you say "This system will inject such a fierce drama into the game that the players might come to enjoy it. They might look forward to rolling the dice - to seeing their ideas accurately represented in those little cubes. And we wouldn't want that!"

You're either taking system-less lovers to a pointed and funny task, or proving yourself wrong. Either way - I like Burning Wheel, and am looking forward to Using This System.

CRN,
Sorry to put you on the spot, but I thought i'd start off with a bang!

I was browsing the forge a couple of weeks ago and i saw this quote from you:

The Burning Wheel, an independent fantasy RPG that I deem 75% of the way to greatness, with 25% of cruft that wouldn't let go.

The only down side in the game: your essay about "Don't Use This Game."

Hi Luke,

I guess this is what I am saying in that last paragraph: You have a story, let it guide you; but let the system guide it and you will be pleasantly surprised.

i gotta disagree with you on this one, ron. Whether or not it is well written, I think it is pretty clear that the end of the last paragraph is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. The essay says, Dice Suck, don't use'em. But if you do "the system will inject such a fierce drama into the game that the players might come to enjoy it. ...And we wouldn't want that!"

Come on! It's meant to be cheeky. Again, whether I really succeed or not is up to the reader. So my defenses are of little use. If you didn't find it amusing and enlightening, then I have to hit the drawing board again. The great thing about author's notes/intention and stuff is that they don't really mean jack. The work really can and does exist independently of them. The story, the system, or movie always takes on a life of its own in the mind of the reader. A life usually quite different than what was originally intended. Which is a good thing.

This essay has been quite controversial. I probably should have just let the system stand on its own without further comment from me. Ah well, there will be a next time.

-L

abzu wrote:
The great thing about author's notes/intention and stuff is that they don't really mean jack. The work really can and does exist independently of them.

Well, there was an infamous intro to an Aberrant product called "This Is Not The Superfriends" which was an incoherent rant about how you could play superpowered chefs or semi-catatonic XWF wrestlers. Pretty much everyone went, "You go over there and play your superchef. I'll be in the cloud of brick dust over here, hitting people with a lamppost. "

I mean, regardless of how you TELL people to use your system, they're ALWAYS going to hit each other with the sharp things. At least until they figure out how much it hurts. Which in BW, is a lot.

I love BW for the lifepaths and the damage system. There are a lot of things the Wheel does differently than any other game I've seen, and they WORK. On the other hand, I'm not sold on the scripting system, though I haven't used it much, and we're actually playing with slightly different Steel rules and damage penalties.

And those are REAL RULES, not semi-coherent rants from the author. Abzu knows where I live and he can't stop me. Nyah.

Hi,

I've been trying to figure out what it was that bugs me so much about the BITs rules, and its just occurred to me that BITs effectively are, "Don't Use This System!" As you put it, you want BITs to be "above the rules, above the dice", in which, I sense cool stuff happening. Then there's no real solid guidelines about how and where they are allowed to violate the system or by how far.

As I see, there's been great rules to cover almost every situation, but no real solid guidelines about how this aspect is used, despite being put as "More important than your Mortal Wound". That's the part that's been nagging at me.

And here's the reason why- When I buy a game, I see it as a Social Contract document. Yeah, it gets drifted, altered in play, but just the same, its a starting point. Important questions like "How do things get done?" get answered by it. And the biggest cop-out I've ever seen is "Ignor these rules", is a fairly pointless statement without guidelines of WHY to ignor rules.

Consider these differences in ignoriing rules or fudging:
-You don't like 'em(slow, boring, broken whatever)
-"Unrealistic"
-"Unfair"
-"Gets in the way of story"
-The GM feels like calling in GM fiat, based on one of the above, or maybe feels like railroading or punishing one of the players, or some other metagame reason
-or something else...

All of these are very different reasons to ignor rules, and result in very different play styles when you do that. Ignoring the rules for realism and ignoring the rules for story happens a lot with D&D3E, and results in different styles of play. In fact, you can get vastly different play experiences this way....

Bringing it back to BW, which is where I get lost. We've got a great set of rules based on what some folks would call "realistic" so we don't need to ignor the rules too much based on that. Then we've got a whole essay on not getting caught up in the system, instead using it as a vehicle for what I'm going to argue is expressing (Exploration of) character at the very least, and perhaps intended as a means of telling meaningful stories. And when it comes to BITs, its just short of giving solid guidelines.

It seems to me that the Cruft of BW is the willingness to give us lists of skills, detailed combat rules, but shying away from the dangerous ground of establishing Social Contract guidelines about goals that may be different than simply "realism" or "leveling up".

Maybe that's just my Narrativist leanings reading too much into your game there, but especially reading DUTS, I can't help but think you're looking in the same direction...

Chris

but shying away from the dangerous ground of establishing Social Contract guidelines about goals that may be different than simply "realism" or "leveling up".