Is Burning Wheel dead? What systems do YOU think should be played more!

[Max_Killjoy]

OK, there's been a lot going on in this thread, and I need some clarity.

1) Does Burning Wheel have skills like "lockpicking" or climb? Or not? I'm seeing conflicting statements, or perhaps unintended conflation with another system.

2) Does Burning Wheel do task resolution, or scene / chunk resolution?

[kyoryu]

1) Does Burning Wheel have skills like "lockpicking" or climb? Or not? I'm seeing conflicting statements, or perhaps unintended conflation with another system.

I'm pretty sure it explicitly has those two skills.

2) Does Burning Wheel do task resolution, or scene / chunk resolution?

It's not full on "scene" resolution. But, yeah, the assumption is that you'll boil a series of "do I pick the lock? No? Okay, does a wandering monster show up? No? Okay, I pick the lock again..." sequences into a single roll. It's definitely what I would call "conflict" resolution, as you try to answer the question "do I pick the lock before the guards show up?" rather than the atomic 'do I pick the lock?'

I only hesitate on the task vs. chunk designation because all skill systems I've seen operate at some level of abstraction (picking a lock is a series of distinct actions, yet is almost always handled as a single roll, etc.).

[Airk]

OK, there's been a lot going on in this thread, and I need some clarity.

1) Does Burning Wheel have skills like "lockpicking" or climb? Or not? I'm seeing conflicting statements, or perhaps unintended conflation with another system.

Yes, it absolutely does. They are called "Locksmith" and "Climbing" respectively. The BW skill list is extremely traditional in many respects.

2) Does Burning Wheel do task resolution, or scene / chunk resolution?

I believe it is generally task resolution, though I'm much less certain of this one than the previous answer.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm pretty sure it explicitly has those two skills.



It's not full on "scene" resolution. But, yeah, the assumption is that you'll boil a series of "do I pick the lock? No? Okay, does a wandering monster show up? No? Okay, I pick the lock again..." sequences into a single roll. It's definitely what I would call "conflict" resolution, as you try to answer the question "do I pick the lock before the guards show up?" rather than the atomic 'do I pick the lock?'

I only hesitate on the task vs. chunk designation because all skill systems I've seen operate at some level of abstraction (picking a lock is a series of distinct actions, yet is almost always handled as a single roll, etc.).

When I refer to "chunk resolution", I mean something like FFG's Star Wars does; each roll represents a "chunk" of the scene, not the entire scene. In combat, you roll attack and damage, but it's not a specific attack, and the damage can be very abstracted across multiple possible targets. These chunks of time are "narrated".

I very much prefer a system in which each attack roll represents an actual discreet attack, where each roll to pick a lock represents the attempt to pick the lock, and nothing more / else. I prefer task resolution to conflict resolution.


Picking the lock is justifiably resolved with a single roll, to represent the attempt (that is, the task) -- let us not get fixated on every-increasing granularity or the meaning of "action".

[Airk]

Picking the lock is justifiably resolved with a single roll, to represent the attempt (that is, the task) -- let us not get fixated on every-increasing granularity or the meaning of "action".

You are dangerously close to straying into the realm of baseless opinion here. Why is picking a lock "justifiably" a single action while "killing the orc" is not? (I actually have an answer for this already, but I want to know what yours is, because while my answer answers the question I have asked, it doesn't answer the question of why you would need every discreet attack to be resolved independently.)

[Max_Killjoy]

You are dangerously close to straying into the realm of baseless opinion here. Why is picking a lock "justifiably" a single action while "killing the orc" is not? (I actually have an answer for this already, but I want to know what yours is, because while my answer answers the question I have asked, it doesn't answer the question of why you would need every discreet attack to be resolved independently.)

Because things that are important to the character's experience, and are part of the decision / consequence / new situation loop between the player and the game, occur during the details of that combat. Decision points can be reached in the middle of a deadly encounter, and every swing of the weapon is a potentially deadly question. When there are several characters involved in a close combat, it also becomes a question of how they might decide to support each other or not, try to switch opponents or "gang up", etc.

Conversely, I do not see every little twist and push of the tools during an attempt to pick a lock as requiring that level of detail, attention, and "drama"; nor do I see it as so deeply fraught with branching / interwoven decision paths.

[Lorsa]

Burning Wheel does both. For example, you can either abstract the entire fight scene into one oppossed roll, so that the outcome of the roll represents the outcome of the entire fight (which could take however long you want). On the other hand, if you use he Fight! rules, each roll represents a very specific task (swinging a weapon or dodging).

[Airk]

Because things that are important to the character's experience, and are part of the decision / consequence / new situation loop between the player and the game, occur during the details of that combat. Decision points can be reached in the middle of a deadly encounter, and every swing of the weapon is a potentially deadly question. When there are several characters involved in a close combat, it also becomes a question of how they might decide to support each other or not, try to switch opponents or "gang up", etc.

Conversely, I do not see every little twist and push of the tools during an attempt to pick a lock as requiring that level of detail, attention, and "drama"; nor do I see it as so deeply fraught with branching / interwoven decision paths.

Great! But I don't actually think that requires one-to-one mapping of roll to attack. You really only need to map one roll to one decision. And if the decision state hasn't changed any (for example, someone attacked and missed) then there isn't any value in asking "So what do you do now?"; So I think one roll to one attack actually generates a bunch of superfluous "decision" points. It could also be argued that a lot of the time, a combatant doesn't have the opportunity to make a decision between attacks, even if the decision state hasn't changed.

[Max_Killjoy]

Great! But I don't actually think that requires one-to-one mapping of roll to attack. You really only need to map one roll to one decision. And if the decision state hasn't changed any (for example, someone attacked and missed) then there isn't any value in asking "So what do you do now?"; So I think one roll to one attack actually generates a bunch of superfluous "decision" points. It could also be argued that a lot of the time, a combatant doesn't have the opportunity to make a decision between attacks, even if the decision state hasn't changed.

1) I think that's where the matter of opinion comes in, because to me there are decision points between the attacks, parries, dodges, etc.

2) My preference is for actual defensive moves to be available, and for me, many of the "chunk of time" systems enter an area of disconnect when one roll represents a series of attacks, but then there's an active defense (or multiple) that's rolled or applied as if the attack roll had been for a discreet action.

3) There's a still difference between resolving a discreet section of combat that might involved multiple moves with a single set of rolls; and resolving an entire combat in a single roll. One still allows for some granularity and multiple decisions points, the other does not. I have no time for systems which rely on a single "fortune start" or "fortune end" roll, and then metagame-negotiate the inputs and/or the outputs.

[kyoryu]

I think that's where the matter of opinion comes in, because to me there are decision points between the attacks, parries, dodges, etc.

So, there's two basic things.

In teh detailed systems (Fight, Range and Cover, Duel of Wits), you choose three actions you're going to do, and then resolve them agvainst your opponent's three actions. These actions are pretty atomic.

Outside of that, you have rolls. A roll could resolve an entire scene, or it could be a fairly short amount of time. In general, the presumption is that the roll represents you working on the task until something changes that's significant enough that you'd reconsider working on the task.

So, to use my earlier example, in D&D you roll to pick a lock. If it succeeds, yay! If it fails, you might do a random encounter roll. If nothing comes up, there's really no reason not to continue picking the lock. And if you fail again, you do another random encounter roll, and so on and so forth.

In games like Burning Wheel, the assumption is that you just figure what would make you stop attempting to do the thing (whatever the thing is), and roll directly for whether you accomplish the thing before the terminating condition occurs.

Perhaps another way of answering the question is that Burning Wheel actions do not progress forward at a set amount of time, however, the time that a given action takes can vary from very short and atomic to fairly long.

[Airk]

1) I think that's where the matter of opinion comes in, because to me there are decision points between the attacks, parries, dodges, etc.

Like what? Why would you ever pick a non-optimal choice here? I don't think I've ever seen a game with a defensive option system that didn't just quickly boil down to "I use my best defense that works against this attack" so I'm curious what you've done here.

2) My preference is for actual defensive moves to be available, and for me, many of the "chunk of time" systems enter an area of disconnect when one roll represents a series of attacks, but then there's an active defense (or multiple) that's rolled or applied as if the attack roll had been for a discreet action.

This is only an issue if you think there's some reason to change your defensive choices. I've yet to see this in action.

3) There's a still difference between resolving a discreet section of combat that might involved multiple moves with a single set of rolls; and resolving an entire combat in a single roll. One still allows for some granularity and multiple decisions points, the other does not. I have no time for systems which rely on a single "fortune start" or "fortune end" roll, and then metagame-negotiate the inputs and/or the outputs.

Definitely! This is the difference between task, chunk, and 'scene' resolution, as you mentioned earlier. I think your last sentence is sortof divorced from the rest of this however.

[Max_Killjoy]

Like what? Why would you ever pick a non-optimal choice here? I don't think I've ever seen a game with a defensive option system that didn't just quickly boil down to "I use my best defense that works against this attack" so I'm curious what you've done here.

Those were just a non-complete list of actions in combat -- the point was that, in my opinion at least, there are enough decision points in combat that it's not fair to the players, or conducive to maintaining the feel of a combat, to gloss over them as scene or chunk rolls.

This is only an issue if you think there's some reason to change your defensive choices. I've yet to see this in action.

That comment wasn't about decision points, it was about the divergence between attack rolls representing a chunk of the combat, being countered by active defenses as if it were a single discreet attack being represented.

Definitely! This is the difference between task, chunk, and 'scene' resolution, as you mentioned earlier. I think your last sentence is sort of divorced from the rest of this however.

Many systems that use chunk or scene resolution have the roll (the "fortune") at the the beginning of that extended time period, after which the outcome is narrated by some combination of GM and player, or the roll at the end of the expended time period, after a negotiated or conflicted set of "stakes" is laid out.

As far as I'm concerned, this runs a high risk of restricting player agency (ironic, in many cases), by reducing the player's available decision points.

[CharonsHelper]

I'll leave this here - http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/blueroom/five-elements.htm - especially how it talks about Combat.

From what I understand, Burning Wheel is a bit weak on Fellowship.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'll leave this here - http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/blueroom/five-elements.htm - especially how it talks about Combat.

From what I understand, Burning Wheel is a bit weak on Fellowship.

That part on combat is pretty much in line with what I was talking about regarding the need (IMO) to have granular combat mechanics.

[CharonsHelper]

That part on combat is pretty much in line with what I was talking about regarding the need (IMO) to have granular combat mechanics.

That's kind of what I figured, but it says it better than I could.

[Airk]

That comment wasn't about decision points, it was about the divergence between attack rolls representing a chunk of the combat, being countered by active defenses as if it were a single discreet attack being represented.

I don't follow; Surely, if you are chunking or abstracting multiple attacks into one roll, then you are chunking or abstracting defenses against those multiple attacks into one roll. I don't see what difference this makes at all.

Many systems that use chunk or scene resolution have the roll (the "fortune") at the the beginning of that extended time period, after which the outcome is narrated by some combination of GM and player, or the roll at the end of the expended time period, after a negotiated or conflicted set of "stakes" is laid out.

As far as I'm concerned, this runs a high risk of restricting player agency (ironic, in many cases), by reducing the player's available decision points.

Once again, I don't see how you are getting from your starting point to your ending point in your reasoning. Fortune First and Fortune Last are completely independent of chunking. Even on an individual action, you have to roll ("Call upon fortune") at some point, and that point is either before or after various circumstances are determined. (Technically you can also do Fortune in the Middle by some reckonings, but the point stands.) This has nothing to do with chunking - you can do Fortune First single attacks or Fortune Last chunking, or Fortune First Chunking, or Fortune Last single attacks.

You are right that it is reducing decision points, but that's usually because the games don't consider those decision points important, and don't want to spend 45 minutes on a combat when they have decisions they do think are important to get to. Agency is not reduced in this case, unless you consider every GM who doesn't make their characters give left/right/straight dungeon style directions when they say "I want to go to the tavern" to be reducing player agency.

That part on combat is pretty much in line with what I was talking about regarding the need (IMO) to have granular combat mechanics.

In that it doesn't address any of my points about decision points, it is exactly what you are saying. :P

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't follow; Surely, if you are chunking or abstracting multiple attacks into one roll, then you are chunking or abstracting defenses against those multiple attacks into one roll. I don't see what difference this makes at all.

Most descriptions I've read of systems that regard attack rolls as determining the outcome of an entire sequence of combat will remark that the roll represents the maneuvering, feinting, abortive attacks, glancing blows, clashes, parries, dodges, etc, of the entire time period, and that the attack roll(s) represent the openings that the attacking character finds or creates. Meanwhile, if the defender is allowed a roll to counter, it's a specific roll against the attacker's roll, and in addition to all that abstraction of assumed action during the time period.

Once again, I don't see how you are getting from your starting point to your ending point in your reasoning. Fortune First and Fortune Last are completely independent of chunking. Even on an individual action, you have to roll ("Call upon fortune") at some point, and that point is either before or after various circumstances are determined. (Technically you can also do Fortune in the Middle by some reckonings, but the point stands.) This has nothing to do with chunking - you can do Fortune First single attacks or Fortune Last chunking, or Fortune First Chunking, or Fortune Last single attacks.

You are right that it is reducing decision points, but that's usually because the games don't consider those decision points important, and don't want to spend 45 minutes on a combat when they have decisions they do think are important to get to. Agency is not reduced in this case, unless you consider every GM who doesn't make their characters give left/right/straight dungeon style directions when they say "I want to go to the tavern" to be reducing player agency.

Whereas what I want from a combat system is "fortune immediate", for lack of a better term.
And those decision points are important; I think the link that CharonsHelper provided says it well:

Nothing's very dramatic (or funny, or scary) without some kind of conflict, and RPGs thrive on every sort. But the specific value of combat depends as much on game-structure as the visceral appeal of a fight scene. In gameable terms, most forms of conflict are best defined as a single instant (sneaking past a guard, casting a healing spell) - we gain nothing by breaking the action down into its component steps, because the steps themselves are seldom infused with drama without forcing the issue. But in a fight - whether it's swordplay, a tavern brawl, a superhero slugfest or a psychic showdown - every swing of fist or sword, every blast of energy, is something dangerous and potentially important. That packs a fight with a series of choices and consequences, providing fertile ground for enjoyable game mechanics. What's more, it provides a stage on which the PCs can cooperate and act as a team. Only a few other kinds of action can rival this under the right conditions, and none can trump it with any consistency.

Edit:

In that it doesn't address any of my points about decision points, it is exactly what you are saying. :P

I'd say it does -- the decision points in a fight ARE important, and diluting them down to "you fight the orc" with a roll at the beginning or end does the game a disservice. What happens between one attack and the next is literally life and death in a swordfight or superhero brawl. Even in real life, people in combat report strange distortions in their perception of time and distance.

I'm not sure how it DOESN'T follow that you're taking away both player agency and character immersion by saying "well you might be stabbed or shot between these rolls, but instead let's just gloss over it with some narration."

[kyoryu]

Whereas what I want from a combat system is "fortune immediate", for lack of a better term.

...

I'd say it does -- the decision points in a fight ARE important, and diluting them down to "you fight the orc" with a roll at the beginning or end does the game a disservice. What happens between one attack and the next is literally life and death in a swordfight or superhero brawl. Even in real life, people in combat report strange distortions in their perception of time and distance.

And the Fight! system in BW handles this. Glossing over a fight as a simple roll ("Bloody Versus") is supported for those times that you don't want to use the full Fight! system. If you think of the times in a movie or something where the heroes just have a quick throwdown with a couple of mooks that we know aren't a real threat? That's pretty much where you'd use the single roll variation.

[ImNotTrevor]

Also Burning Wheel tends to favor a little bit more set-up and pre-work, whereas PBtA is completely against that (it's actually against the design goals of the system).

I don't think you've read any PbtA systems, because one of the most important parts of them is the Fronts system, which is inherently prep-based. So... not sure how prep is against the design goals. >_>

I've spent upwards of an hour prepping to MC an Apocalypse World session. There is prep involved, and encouraged. (Otherwise why would the Fronts system be there?)

The only time this doesn't apply is the 1st session. After that you're supposed to prep.

Most descriptions I've read of systems that regard attack rolls as determining the outcome of an entire sequence of combat will remark that the roll represents the maneuvering, feinting, abortive attacks, glancing blows, clashes, parries, dodges, etc, of the entire time period, and that the attack roll(s) represent the openings that the attacking character finds or creates. Meanwhile, if the defender is allowed a roll to counter, it's a specific roll against the attacker's roll, and in addition to all that abstraction of assumed action during the time period.

I don't see why that doesn't make sense.
"I roll to see how well I did in my attempts to stab this Grabthar, feints and all."
"Ok, this Grabthar is rolling to see how well it managed to not he stabbed, feints and all."

I don't see how those are entirely different. Maybe I'm dumb.

Whereas what I want from a combat system is "fortune immediate", for lack of a better term.
And those decision points are important; I think the link that CharonsHelper provided says it well:

Nothing's very dramatic (or funny, or scary) without some kind of conflict, and RPGs thrive on every sort. But the specific value of combat depends as much on game-structure as the visceral appeal of a fight scene. In gameable terms, most forms of conflict are best defined as a single instant (sneaking past a guard, casting a healing spell) - we gain nothing by breaking the action down into its component steps, because the steps themselves are seldom infused with drama without forcing the issue. But in a fight - whether it's swordplay, a tavern brawl, a superhero slugfest or a psychic showdown - every swing of fist or sword, every blast of energy, is something dangerous and potentially important. That packs a fight with a series of choices and consequences, providing fertile ground for enjoyable game mechanics. What's more, it provides a stage on which the PCs can cooperate and act as a team. Only a few other kinds of action can rival this under the right conditions, and none can trump it with any consistency.

But that's not really true, the drama bit. Not in all cases, at least. If a lvl 20 Fighter (as a wise example) is being confronted by a lvl 1 commoner, i don't want to bother with initiative and the full combat on the off chance that the 1 in 8000 Chace triple-crit instakill happens, because that's the only way this bozo presents a threat. Not every aspect of every combat is actually all that dramatic. In movies, battles are not treated equally. Random mooks are not given the time of day because they aren't a legitimate threat to our heroes. Translating that same idea into TRPGs saves time, which is why its done, usually.

If someone actually is a threat, then do the full combat by all means. But I don't want to do the whole song and dance for a group of schmoes.

I'd say it does -- the decision points in a fight ARE important, and diluting them down to "you fight the orc" with a roll at the beginning or end does the game a disservice. What happens between one attack and the next is literally life and death in a swordfight or superhero brawl. Even in real life, people in combat report strange distortions in their perception of time and distance.

That depends entirely on the system. Even D&D abstracts to a degree, since it acknowledges that it doesn't quite deal with individual swings because real combat doesn't involve waiting your turn for the other guy to attack you and then you can attack him once his buddy finishes fireballing your cousin, assuming you don't die.

I'm not sure how it DOESN'T follow that you're taking away both player agency and character immersion by saying "well you might be stabbed or shot between these rolls, but instead let's just gloss over it with some narration."

Because the player agreed that they don't want to do detailed combat so their agency has been used to agree to this version of combat and they obviously don't mind or they'd not be here, for the agency.

For the immersion, that's making a rather big assumption that the proper way to be immersed is to draw yourself out of the story and into the rolling of dice and doing math As Much As Possible during combat, rolling being a break in the narrative where we have to pause, do some dice rolling, do some math, interpret, and then return to the action.

As opposed to rolling once, and then describing the action all in one go without needing to stop multiple times, or just flat-out reducing the amount of times you stop.

So yeah, I don't think immersion is harmed by stepping out of the narrative less often.

[Knaight]

When it comes to the question of "Is Burning Wheel Dead" I think I know why now, I think that certain view points have given it a bad impression. That certain misunderstandings (some the systems fault, case in point easy tests) has left it in a limbo where people think having lots of skills means the skills must be narrow, or that talking about consequences somehow means nonsensical situations arising out of nowhere or giving PC's meta knowledge.
I would love to play mouseguard since apparently its similar but without the stigma.

People think the skills are narrow because the skills are narrow. There's read and write as two different skills, as just one of many examples. BW is a heavy game, and while that's not a problem it's also not something that can be ignored about the system. It will pull some people in, and push others away.

[AMFV]

I don't think you've read any PbtA systems, because one of the most important parts of them is the Fronts system, which is inherently prep-based. So... not sure how prep is against the design goals. >_>

I've spent upwards of an hour prepping to MC an Apocalypse World session. There is prep involved, and encouraged. (Otherwise why would the Fronts system be there?)

The only time this doesn't apply is the 1st session. After that you're supposed to prep.

I have read them, I would say that if you're categorizing prep time at "upwards of an hour" as being a large amount of prep then you've probably not played that many really prep-heavy games. I would say around an hour is probably the very low end of average for most games.

[BayardSPSR]

I have read them, I would say that if you're categorizing prep time at "upwards of an hour" as being a large amount of prep then you've probably not played that many really prep-heavy games. I would say around an hour is probably the very low end of average for most games.

Also, it may be useful to distinguish between mechanic burdens placed on the players and those placed on GMs.

[ImNotTrevor]

I have read them, I would say that if you're categorizing prep time at "upwards of an hour" as being a large amount of prep then you've probably not played that many really prep-heavy games. I would say around an hour is probably the very low end of average for most games.

That still doesn't make preparation in advance and forethought contrary to the design goals of PbtA, as you asserted. This is a different argument, and not really my point other than to curb the idea that 5 minutes of prep time doesn't count as prep time, but that still doesn't help the assertion the PbtA systems are against prep. Quite the opposite. Again, a different kind of prep (since stats aren't part of your workload but narrative progression very much is) but still preparation and forethought.

[AMFV]

That still doesn't make preparation in advance and forethought contrary to the design goals of PbtA, as you asserted. This is a different argument, and not really my point other than to curb the idea that 5 minutes of prep time doesn't count as prep time, but that still doesn't help the assertion the PbtA systems are against prep. Quite the opposite. Again, a different kind of prep (since stats aren't part of your workload but narrative progression very much is) but still preparation and forethought.

Well they are against a certain kind of prep, as you stated. And there's an encouragement (at least on the MC's part) to not prep as much as they might in other games, certainly not a campaign in advance. Which is mostly what I was referring to, that sort of lengthy pre-planning, which is something that PBtA avoids, deliberately, I believe. Which means that if that's your thing, it's not for you.

[ImNotTrevor]

Well they are against a certain kind of prep, as you stated. And there's an encouragement (at least on the MC's part) to not prep as much as they might in other games, certainly not a campaign in advance. Which is mostly what I was referring to, that sort of lengthy pre-planning, which is something that PBtA avoids, deliberately, I believe. Which means that if that's your thing, it's not for you.

You probably should have made the difference clear between "Pre-planning a whole campaign" and "preplanning the several ways that various powderkegs throughout the setting might move towards blowing up and the signs and signals of such developments and how the characters who compose these powderkegs will behave and what sorts of moves they'll use and what their goals are, and what sorts of things they're planning to do in reaction to what the PCs did last session."
(Don't think I'm trying to make the second seem more intense. It isn't quite, but it does detail out a lot of the things PbtA systems want you to work out.)


As opposed to saying almost exactly
"BW requires pre-planning and PbtA systems are entirely against it."

Because the former is actually a true thing, the latter is not. Literally the ONLY kind of prep PbtA systems tend to frown on is Pre-session 1 planning, and that's it.

[AMFV]

You probably should have made the difference clear between "Pre-planning a whole campaign" and "preplanning the several ways that various powderkegs throughout the setting might move towards blowing up and the signs and signals of such developments and how the characters who compose these powderkegs will behave and what sorts of moves they'll use and what their goals are, and what sorts of things they're planning to do in reaction to what the PCs did last session."
(Don't think I'm trying to make the second seem more intense. It isn't quite, but it does detail out a lot of the things PbtA systems want you to work out.)


As opposed to saying almost exactly
"BW requires pre-planning and PbtA systems are entirely against it."

Because the former is actually a true thing, the latter is not. Literally the ONLY kind of prep PbtA systems tend to frown on is Pre-session 1 planning, and that's it.

Well they're also against other kinds of planning, as well. But that's not really the point. I was mostly trying to showcase a specific difference between the systems that might be objectionable to somebody who likes Burning Wheel. Of course, they could just play it and then see what they think. But it is an important difference. Also the difference in style of crunch is pretty significant.

[profitofrage]

Oh my threads move quickly when your asleep.

I like how the "converts fallacy" is brought up despite the fact that not once did I ever state that only BW has solved these problems :P I have simply been defending it against peoples criticisms over aspects of the system I personally think it does WELL in. I think thats totally justified, people are just getting bent out of shape for disagreeing with them / pointing out that there not making much sense.

Ill concede the "narrow skills" point. I usually think that narrow skills mean that if you dont have the skill you cant preform that task well i.e no overlap. In BW skills overlap something chronic. For E.G you do have read AND write as separate skills, but its also not impossible for you to pick up the "literacy" skill in a custom lifepath which would cover it.
For example they do not state weapon proficiencies, just that you should pick ones that you want. I.e the skills are descriptive not specific which to me isnt "narrow"


ImNotTrevor, you suggested a few systems, tell me more :P what do you think there strengths are?

[kyoryu]

(Don't think I'm trying to make the second seem more intense. It isn't quite, but it does detail out a lot of the things PbtA systems want you to work out.)

In practice, it's a lot less intense. But, yeah, PbtA games aren't anti-prep. They're low prep. "Draw maps, leave blanks" and all that, though countered by "play to find out what happens". If you've got the whole session planned out, you KNOW what happens, right?

I also don't really see BW as a high-prep, "plan the campaign out" type of game. A big thing in BW is supposed to be challenging the PCs Beliefs - and if you're doing that, you don't really know which way they're going to go, do you?

Because the former is actually a true thing, the latter is not. Literally the ONLY kind of prep PbtA systems tend to frown on is Pre-session 1 planning, and that's it.

And even that depends on the specific game. Pre-session 1 planning is totally a thing in MotW, ferinstance.

[ImNotTrevor]

Well they're also against other kinds of planning, as well. But that's not really the point. I was mostly trying to showcase a specific difference between the systems that might be objectionable to somebody who likes Burning Wheel. Of course, they could just play it and then see what they think. But it is an important difference. Also the difference in style of crunch is pretty significant.

I am entirely unaware of any other sort of planning being frowned upon other than railroady-style planning, which as far as I know BW doesn't espouse, either. And that's GM-side exclusively. (Though I dunno many GMs who hate the idea of being able to prep faster.)


As for the systems I recommended, just anything Powered by the Apocalypse. They are very, very fiction-first games, and tend to abstract things quite a lot. You won't find a table of how many bandages it takes to cover a gunshot wound, but the Angel has a med kit with 5 "stock" and each stock they spend allows them to do a bit of healing, with potential complications. (Such as the woud being worse than it seemed, requiring an addtional stock expenditure.)

Players and GMs are given Moves rather than skills, which are used due to Narrative triggers rather than the specific individual task. For instance, the Act Under Fire move applies to any situation where you are doing something and there is a potential Hazard. (Sometimes, literal gunfire. Other times, being caught, being discovered, getting trapped, etc)
So it gets used for making it across a battleground, sneaking through a bandit camp, leaning out the side of your speeding jeep to steal a can of gas from a rival gang's moving truck, etc.

Apocalypse World is very much focused on a situation that gets progressively worse on many fronts, and scenes/campaigns that become very intense very quickly until they boil over/explode.

Prep is limited but the GM is given a wide toolset with which to react and improvise for nearly any situation. (Including an invasion by otherdimensional beings, memory loss, and Wendigos all in the same campaign, running without a hitch.)

So yeah... I recommend Apocalypse World as reading material because it's actually a joy to read, and if you like fantasy you'll probably enjoy Dungeon World or World of Dungeons.

[BayardSPSR]

As for the systems I recommended, just anything Powered by the Apocalypse.

I want to second this recommendation as a reading exercise at minimum - the PbtA family is pretty revolutionary in RPG-design terms, and changed the way I think about a lot of things as a GM, a player, and a designer. The family is also reliably thematically-grounded, which makes imagining play pretty intuitive. I recommend also examining Fate Core, for contrast, as a "generic" system (if "generic" means "centered on the actions of larger-than life people with the feel of movie characters") that can be picked up as-is and applied to an enormous diversity of premises without any need to hack it.

Neither game is actually to my taste as a GM or player, but both have been wonderful sources of paradigm-shifting stuff to think about for me. As has BW, to an extent.