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

[profitofrage]

There's one specific type of kinda-metagame mechanic that I like, and that's one that represents the character's inner reserve and the ability that even real-world people sometimes demonstrate to do remarkable, unpredictable, even unbelievable things... like the old man lifting a car off someone, or the mother who makes it out of a sinking car to save her kids, or the running back who somehow pushes 10 other large angry men backwards to get into the endzone. Willpower points in oWoD, or the like.

The metagame mechanics based on "narrative elements" are like nails on a chalkboard.


But again, you see him presuming that because I don't like how Burning Wheel or similar games in particular handle description of action/events, and I don't like mechanics based on negotiated stakes or on conflict resolution, and I don't like disassociated mechanics -- that means that supposedly "I like roleplaying, but not the kind where you describe whats happening, Or have to describe whats happening. Or describe how your character might be acting. All that should be rolls and numbers only."

Because evidently, not liking how a particular style of games has tried to make roleplaying part of the mechanics, means you don't like roleplaying or character-driven RPG campaigns at all, and you're just a dirty die-roller. Evidently, before games like Burning Wheel came along, no one ever concentrated on character over build efficiency, or role-playing over pure stereotypical gamism.

No, your misrepresenting what has been said entirely.
The mechanics are not dissociated from your character decisions anymore then your examples were. Thats why that thief door guard thing KEPT going around and is STILL going around.

I didnt say what I said because im upset you dont like a particular style of game. Im saying that because at every turn I explained to you how it functions, how you have either been misrepresenting it e.t.c and ALL that is left is that you dont like that actions and consequences are described first THEN rolled.

you can keep misrepresenting what im saying but at the end of the day you are just a random complainer in the thread offering little to nothing of value.

The first part of this paragraph is the closest you have come all day... and low and behold its a mechanic that is in BW in the form of Artha almost word for word.

[RedWarlock]

Okay, I think part of the issue is that you're over-interpreting my usage of the term 'failure'. I'm talking about any non-successful action, not just "losing" a combat by being beaten to within an inch of one's life (keep in mind, healing isn't being counted against this total). I'm trying to represent...

Never mind. Maybe this system isn't for you. I need to make this work, but explaining obtuse terminology and metaphor over the internet is obviously not going to win you over to helping me craft this idea.

No offense intended there, I'm just not seeing how I can explain this properly to you. My loss. Sorry for taking the explanation too far.

[AMFV]

Okay, I think part of the issue is that you're over-interpreting my usage of the term 'failure'. I'm talking about any non-successful action, not just "losing" a combat by being beaten to within an inch of one's life (keep in mind, healing isn't being counted against this total). I'm trying to represent...

Well part of it was that I was on-board until you explained your in-combat interpretation, which I wasn't at all on-board with. I think that you can learn from failures. I've been trying to suggest things that could be done to handle it differently. For example, you could have the failures guide how the characters develop later, not just the amount they've been hit, but everything. Of course, the bookkeeping would be a pain.

The thing I was getting at, is this: "It isn't the failure that causes the learning, it's the practice." So in those terms actually getting hit and almost getting hit are similar. A person who gets hit in fights a lot is either going to get tougher (by necessity) or faster to avoid getting hit. But they aren't necessarily going to get better at punching if that's not a problem for them. Somebody who sucks at punching and gets into fights is likely to work on that.

The issue I had was that your combat example is only taking one metric, and then applying it to everything. When it might not be the most fitting metric for advancement. If you're going for a system where failure teaches people, you can't have half-measures, then you wind up with something that's awful. Since again, people will want to game the system, and that will suck, particularly since they'll always be almost dying, and then death is going to be frustrating.

My suggestion is to separate out skills (which would be onerous bookkeeping, but it would work for your aim), so if a character gets hit a lot, then they learn not to. If they miss a lot then they learn to hit better. That way it's not just one thing (combat) and not just one difficulty. So you'd track misses and times you got hit in combat, and that would influence the end result.

[profitofrage]

My suggestion is to separate out skills (which would be onerous bookkeeping, but it would work for your aim), so if a character gets hit a lot, then they learn not to. If they miss a lot then they learn to hit better. That way it's not just one thing (combat) and not just one difficulty. So you'd track misses and times you got hit in combat, and that would influence the end result.

Are you not just essentially suggesting BW's advancement system then?

[AMFV]

Are you not just essentially suggesting BW's advancement system then?

I'm suggesting something very similar to it. I did say I liked the concept, and didn't like the execution though, so you can't really fault me for that. I personally don't think that's the best way to do things. But for what Warlock is suggesting I think that having a more discrete skillset to improve would be better than one large XP bank. The things that I disliked most about Burning Wheel's version (the need to get specific difficulty rolls and what-not), and the the non-discrete failure set (where you could somehow learn to be a better lockpick by being surprised by the guards), are still issues I would have with the system, but conceptually, the root of it doesn't bother me, it's the execution in Burning Wheel, combined with the several dozen paragraph rant about why anybody who does it differently is a fool, which has far too many hints of Gygax for me to be entirely comfortable with.

[profitofrage]

I'm suggesting something very similar to it. I did say I liked the concept, and didn't like the execution though, so you can't really fault me for that. I personally don't think that's the best way to do things. But for what Warlock is suggesting I think that having a more discrete skillset to improve would be better than one large XP bank. The things that I disliked most about Burning Wheel's version (the need to get specific difficulty rolls and what-not), and the the non-discrete failure set (where you could somehow learn to be a better lockpick by being surprised by the guards), are still issues I would have with the system, but conceptually, the root of it doesn't bother me, it's the execution in Burning Wheel, combined with the several dozen paragraph rant about why anybody who does it differently is a fool, which has far too many hints of Gygax for me to be entirely comfortable with.

you dont need specific difficulties to improve. Its Weighted towards challenging. I.e do nothing but difficult tests and youll lvl up that specific skill.
Do you mean that you dont like that you cant lvl up with only preforming easy tests? (i.e if you had in theory an infinite amount of easy tests you should be able to become a grandmaster in the game e.t.c)

Likewise with the non-discrete failure set, is the problem that your improving through failure? because if its just that example your talking about you could come up with a dozen reasons why in character. Generally the failing of the test doesn't preclude the notion you did something spectacular in that skill its just likely the go to for GM descriptions.

as for the way the book is written, I cant say I noticed it. There might be more of it in the recent editions but surely that is just a case of ignoring the guy :P and using his rules should they work for what your trying to do.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'm suggesting something very similar to it. I did say I liked the concept, and didn't like the execution though, so you can't really fault me for that. I personally don't think that's the best way to do things. But for what Warlock is suggesting I think that having a more discrete skillset to improve would be better than one large XP bank. The things that I disliked most about Burning Wheel's version (the need to get specific difficulty rolls and what-not), and the the non-discrete failure set (where you could somehow learn to be a better lockpick by being surprised by the guards), are still issues I would have with the system, but conceptually, the root of it doesn't bother me, it's the execution in Burning Wheel, combined with the several dozen paragraph rant about why anybody who does it differently is a fool, which has far too many hints of Gygax for me to be entirely comfortable with.

Torchbearer/Mouseguard's simplified version where you need a certain number of successes and failures to level up a skill might suit you better.

You need the successes to prove that you have a clue what you're doing and aren't just bashing your head into a door and calling it lock picking. You need the failures to prove that you're pushing yourself to improve and aren't just cruising along with no effort.

[profitofrage]

Torchbearer/Mouseguard's simplified version where you need a certain number of successes and failures to level up a skill might suit you better.

You need the successes to prove that you have a clue what you're doing and aren't just bashing your head into a door and calling it lock picking. You need the failures to prove that you're pushing yourself to improve and aren't just cruising along with no effort.

That sounds extremely palatable. as a fan of BW I really should get a hold of Mouseguard, I hear its fantastic.

[Koo Rehtorb]

you dont need specific difficulties to improve. Its Weighted towards challenging. I.e do nothing but difficult tests and youll lvl up that specific skill.

I don't know if this was the case in Revised. It certainly isn't in Gold, though. You can't substitute difficulties for any reason. 1-4 needs routines + difficults or challengings. 5+ needs difficults and challengings.

[Koo Rehtorb]

That sounds extremely palatable. as a fan of BW I really should get a hold of Mouseguard, I hear its fantastic.

Personally I prefer Torchbearer, but it comes with a whole lot of "this is a brutal misery simulator" baggage.

[AMFV]

you dont need specific difficulties to improve. Its Weighted towards challenging. I.e do nothing but difficult tests and youll lvl up that specific skill.
Do you mean that you dont like that you cant lvl up with only preforming easy tests? (i.e if you had in theory an infinite amount of easy tests you should be able to become a grandmaster in the game e.t.c)

I do, because easy tests and perfect repetitions are as useful to real improvement as challenging things. If I do nothing but shuffle cards all day long, I'm going to get good at it, even if I very rarely drop the cards all over the floor. If I sit and play Czerny exercises on a Piano with a metronome, I'm going to improve, those are easy (many of them are), but that doesn't matter, what matters is that you're using the skill.

Also as many people have noted, requiring difficult checks can mean that a skill gets ignored when it's the easy option. Or the most sensible one, depending on how the players are feeling about advancement. The example of somebody trying to talk their way in, when they really should be picking a lock came up I believe. That's going to be a very natural result of the way that people treat the system, and it's an unintended consequence, which is mostly bad. Now there are probably people that don't think that way, and they aren't going to be affected or bothered by that.

Likewise with the non-discrete failure set, is the problem that your improving through failure? because if its just that example your talking about you could come up with a dozen reasons why in character. Generally the failing of the test doesn't preclude the notion you did something spectacular in that skill its just likely the go to for GM descriptions.

Which isn't something I really like, as I mentioned. I like to have things be more tightly focused. But that's just me again.

as for the way the book is written, I cant say I noticed it. There might be more of it in the recent editions but surely that is just a case of ignoring the guy :P and using his rules should they work for what your trying to do.

I'm not entirely sure which version, it was the one with the angry faces used to denote "rants" by the author, and various other faces used for different tones and suggestions and what-not.

Torchbearer/Mouseguard's simplified version where you need a certain number of successes and failures to level up a skill might suit you better.

You need the successes to prove that you have a clue what you're doing and aren't just bashing your head into a door and calling it lock picking. You need the failures to prove that you're pushing yourself to improve and aren't just cruising along with no effort.

As I said, I like the concept of individually improving skills. If I were designing it, I wouldn't tie it to specific failures or successes but to practice. Although that isn't what RedWarlock was asking about, for his system I would tie things to specific skills. But generally it's not really successes or failures that cause improvement, but practice overall. I would perfect practice is even better than practice with a lot of muddling. But that isn't here nor there. It isn't when we're challenged that we actually improve, but it's that we're challenged that let's us know we have to.


I did like the Mousegaurd/Torchbearer system somewhat better. But I think that experience comes from usage, rather than success or failure, so as far as the whole system it doesn't really feel that real to me, and since it's designed to better simulate certain aspects of reality, that makes it fall flat, at least in my case.

[profitofrage]

I don't know if this was the case in Revised. It certainly isn't in Gold, though. You can't substitute difficulties for any reason. 1-4 needs routines + difficults or challengings. 5+ needs difficults and challengings.

Its mentioned right alongside it. He says that you cant trade in easy tests for difficults e.t.c but goes on to say that trading down is an acceptable idea.

Likewise, even if for some reason I am wrong, this incredibly easy to implement change fix's the issue entirely.

I do, because easy tests and perfect repetitions are as useful to real improvement as challenging things. If I do nothing but shuffle cards all day long, I'm going to get good at it, even if I very rarely drop the cards all over the floor. If I sit and play Czerny exercises on a Piano with a metronome, I'm going to improve, those are easy (many of them are), but that doesn't matter, what matters is that you're using the skill.
Also as many people have noted, requiring difficult checks can mean that a skill gets ignored when it's the easy option. Or the most sensible one, depending on how the players are feeling about advancement. The example of somebody trying to talk their way in, when they really should be picking a lock came up I believe. That's going to be a very natural result of the way that people treat the system, and it's an unintended consequence, which is mostly bad. Now there are probably people that don't think that way, and they aren't going to be affected or bothered by that.
Which isn't something I really like, as I mentioned. I like to have things be more tightly focused. But that's just me again.
I'm not entirely sure which version, it was the one with the angry faces used to denote "rants" by the author, and various other faces used for different tones and suggestions and what-not.
As I said, I like the concept of individually improving skills. If I were designing it, I wouldn't tie it to specific failures or successes but to practice. Although that isn't what RedWarlock was asking about, for his system I would tie things to specific skills. But generally it's not really successes or failures that cause improvement, but practice overall. I would perfect practice is even better than practice with a lot of muddling. But that isn't here nor there. It isn't when we're challenged that we actually improve, but it's that we're challenged that let's us know we have to.
I did like the Mousegaurd/Torchbearer system somewhat better. But I think that experience comes from usage, rather than success or failure, so as far as the whole system it doesn't really feel that real to me, and since it's designed to better simulate certain aspects of reality, that makes it fall flat, at least in my case.

if you want easy tests e.t.c to eventually make you a grandmaster then a really easy to implement change would be to convert difficult tests to 3 challenging to 4 and easy as 1 "MARK"s to the test. get the required marks either in successes or fails (or just successes if you want?) and it improves.

that said, the idea that your avoiding a skill because the tests involved are difficult doesn't sound like an issue for just BW. If you came to a door that was really hard to unpick in DnD your character is just as likely to avoid it as in BW. the difference is that in BW it makes you take the challenge if you want to get better at that skill. TO be the thief that can unlock any door you have to have unlocked (or at least tried) to unlock thought to be unbreakable locks.

Yea revised had those faces as well. but I didnt see anything particularly wrong with them. This could just as likely be because I agreed with him so I skimmed over them.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Its mentioned right alongside it. He says that you cant trade in easy tests for difficults e.t.c but goes on to say that trading down is an acceptable idea.

It's on page 45.

What if my character is one routine test from advancing his skill, but has tons of difficult tests? I can just convert a test, right? No. Hard and fast rule; Players cannot convert or substitute tests, ever.

[profitofrage]

It's on page 45.

then its well and truly moronic and should be totally ignored or flat out changed. My concern is more that I swear I read what I did, so either I saw what he wrote and presumed he was not crazy and made up my own mind on it :P or im just going crazy.

That said, I think it would be incredibly ill advised to follow that particular rule as it has little to no benefit and creates all the problems mentioned prior in the thread.

[Koo Rehtorb]

If you like. It means that skills will advance to exponent 5 very quickly, though.

[profitofrage]

If you like. It means that skills will advance to exponent 5 very quickly, though.

You only exchange "down" so you would still need to get in a fair number of tests in plus a few difficult tests e.t.c
Plus if its a skill they have not purchased they still need a few extra tests just to be able to start trying to improve it.

Overall in all the games I have played (and ive always played it this way) I have not seen advancement happen overly quickly (more or less on par with any other system)

[ImNotTrevor]

Just as an idea along the Individual Skill Levelling, you could probably modify some of the XP gain stuff from Apocalypse World to suit this need.

In AW you only roll Stats, not skills.
Two of your Stats (out of 5) are Highlighted.
If you roll a Highlighted stat, you get xp. Success/failure are irrelevant to the equation.

You could have a system where skills are highlighted as ones the character is specifically trying to improve, and this may have a limited/long duration according to needs. If that skill is used, it gains points towards improving, probably at a flat rate or very slowly increasing rate. (Use the skill a number of times equal to [current lvl]x2 or something.)
If only highlighted stats go up, then the practice is implied without needing to roleplay it. Those stats are the ones being practiced, and eligible to go up. The rest would just be used. (One only has a finite amount of time to practice, and it is often better to practice a few things in a dedicated way than many things all at once.)

The specifics and how/when to highlight would need to be tweaked, but it might be a good pathway towards something more palatable.

[BayardSPSR]

I find "You don't pick the lock, try something else." to be kind of a toothless result of a failed roll, personally.

Fair enough - I find that "you succeed" is pretty toothless as a result of failure too, though, even if you add other events.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It doesn't have to be that. Maybe you fail at picking the lock and get the complication instead. It really comes down to group preference. The system doesn't demand anything in this case. For reference the actual paragraph in the book:

When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication.

"You can try to pick the lock, but you don't have much time. It is highly likely that the guards will return before you finish."

Try not to present flat negative results- "You don't pick the lock." Strive to introduce complications through failure as much as possible.

[Lorsa]

I explain further down why "The GM needs to present appropriate challenges that provide meaningful XP" is functionally identical to "The GM needs to present appropriate challenges that provide required skill checks," but that should already look pretty samey. So the GM dependence is basically the same. The criteria for being "GM-Dependent" would be "Is the final arbitrator of your getting xp or not the GM? If yes, it's GM-Dependent."

That's not really a defense of BW, I like it but I think it has definite flaws. But so long as we're making a temporary shift here to this topic, we might as well debate it honestly instead of trying to feel like none of our favorite systems are tainted in the same way BW is. (Which is what this... kiiinda feels like.)



...that's a very strange way of saying "you get xp for killing stuff" which relies on the GM to present you with challenges that grant a meaningful amount of xp (one goblin per room is not a meaningful amount of xp to an epic level character)

Which sounds eerily similar to relying on the GM to present challenges that allow for your character to make certain skill checks. Just replace "make certain skill checks" with "Kill sufficiently strong critters" and you have the same kind of GM dependence BW has. So... >.>

D&D by RAW only gives you xp for killing stuff. If you're getting xp for other things, that's technically homebrew (and probably entirely arbitrary). Even if the system says "Hey, you could try something like this," if it doesn't provide rules, it's just telling you to fix its problems for it.



Something something, How much xp you get for completing Act 2 is not on any xp table, something something.

And remember, Player-dependent was on that list, too. So it's still sitting pretty in that all-encompassing list. (The point of its being pointed out was that it was a poor argument because all systems could be defined in such broad terms unless they were very, very strange.)



This might be the only one that actually stands the chance of not meeting this criteria, but with all the metagaming complaints this would not exactly a great example of systems that don't involve the metagame to raise level. I'm not implying that you're attempting to do so here, but these sorts of XP freebies are indeed very metagamey since you could, in theory, have a character level up by hiding in his room organizing his belly button lint by size and color, and eventually he would get better at punching.

But it is Player Dependent so it stays within the umbrella of the way-too-broad list


Exactly this thing is in Burning Wheel. Just thought I'd point that out. Also, still Player Dependent and still on the list.


With the exception of that last thing, which exists nearly 1 for 1 in Burning Wheel, you're describing entirely different mechanics that are Player-centric rather than GM centric and saying they occupy a different place on the GM centric spectrum.... wut?

I mean, like what you like and have fun however you want, but that's not arguing honestly.



This last point assumes verisimilitude is the goal, which it may not be. The system you recommend is good, though might be book-keeping heavy in the long run, depending on how the diminishing returns are modeled. Does it stay at a fixed XP amount given but the amount of needed XP grows so much that it becomes a smaller percentage, or does the amount of XP given literally decrease? The former would be a bit more user friendly, but the second would be pretty annoying unless you were working with XP amounts that never went above double digits.

But again, you're assuming a system goal that may not be the system goal. Walking up to a game that doesn't value versimilitude and rather wants to make a playground for cool stories to happen without worrying about how much lantern oil wieghs or precisely, mathematically how great you are at opening a locked doors, and complaining that its rules don't make sense in versimilitude terms... is a little bit like walking into an italian restaurant and complaining about the lack of sweet and sour chicken.

The proper response is not "the italian restaurant is giving you what you want, it has chicken, sour things, and sweet things, so shut up and eat!" Like profit has been arguing (more or less), it's "Oh, you will want to eat at the chinese place down the street, instead."

No system is perfect.

Allow me to repeat that for effect.

NO SYSTEM IS PERFECT.

No system is all things to everyone, and if people don't want to get mechanical rewards for narrative actions then they don't need to and aren't wrong for not enjoying that. To the degree you try to tell people they're wrong for liking/not liking a certain way a system does something, step off. That goes for everyone, everywhere.

And, if you're going to debate something, debate honestly. Try to get to the truth, not your correctness being held aloft for all to see. (To sorta quote Captain Picard... I hope I spelled that right lest the trekkies be angered.) The former has the chance to make for good, positive discussion. The second is annoying to read through and looks like a bunch of people being pompous nerds.

Did you read and understand what I was saying before? It seems like you didn't, or you didn't take your own advice to debate honestly.

In many systems, all the GM has to do is to provide interesting adventures, situations or problems that the players have to solve. If they do this (i.e. playing the game the way it's meant to be played), the player characters will progress naturally through the system suggested method of advancement. The GM doesn't have to think about advancement in specific, the players don't have to think about it, it will happen anyway through just engaging with the intended game.

The same, however, is NOT true for BW. It's not enough for the GM to provide adventures, situations or problems that are in line with the character's explicitly stated beliefs. The GM ALSO has to provide adventures, situations or problems that can be solved by skills of the exact right difficulty that the player needs in order to get advancement. Alternatively, the player has to do this himself. Or you can be lucky. The point it that character progression doesn't happen naturally through simply playing the game as intended like in just about all other games. Events and problems in the game have to be tailored specifically for progression.

I mean, obviously ALL games are hinged on both GM and players to have character progression. If you don't have a GM, you don't have a game therefore no character progression. Similarly, if you don't have players, you don't have a game etc...

That's not what this discussion is about, and taking an argument out of context, or misrepresenting the viewpoint, isn't doing anyone any good.

Point being is that character progression happens naturally in basically all other game I've played (except for the swedish game Eon), whereas in BW it requires an added meta-game in order to exist (or being lucky). Do you have issues with understanding the qualitative difference between these two types of progression or what's the issue? If so, can't you think of it as a quantitative difference instead and move on? Whichever way, they're really NOT functionally identical. The don't play the same way.

Obviously no system is perfect. This thread got into discussion about the ways in which BW was flawed, which is sort of relevant to the "is BW dead?" question.

[BayardSPSR]

It doesn't have to be that. Maybe you fail at picking the lock and get the complication instead. It really comes down to group preference. The system doesn't demand anything in this case. For reference the actual paragraph in the book:

That makes sense; thanks.

[Lorsa]

then its well and truly moronic and should be totally ignored or flat out changed. My concern is more that I swear I read what I did, so either I saw what he wrote and presumed he was not crazy and made up my own mind on it :P or im just going crazy.

That said, I think it would be incredibly ill advised to follow that particular rule as it has little to no benefit and creates all the problems mentioned prior in the thread.

Are you finally starting to see what I was talking about? If I had a BW copy I could've quoted that rule long ago. But I didn't, so I was only working from memory (which turned out to be correct).

If you like. It means that skills will advance to exponent 5 very quickly, though.

You only exchange "down" so you would still need to get in a fair number of tests in plus a few difficult tests e.t.c
Plus if its a skill they have not purchased they still need a few extra tests just to be able to start trying to improve it.

Overall in all the games I have played (and ive always played it this way) I have not seen advancement happen overly quickly (more or less on par with any other system)

Usually at exponent 1-4, the issue isn't to get difficult or challenging tests. It's pretty easy in fact. The problem is to get routine test, as the Ob requirement is so low that it... well... almost never happens (unless with tailored situations).

Then once you get to exponent 5 or higher, it actually becomes a bit troublesome to get those challenging tests, so now you need to tailor situations for that.

I remember this well when the GM asked me how I could've made the almost the exact same amount of total rolls (he actually kept track of those) as the other player but only advanced one skill, whereas the other player had advanced in six. I showed him my character sheet with all the tests scribbled down, to show him what I was lacking. He glanced at it, looked over the obstacle suggestions for those skills and reached the conclusion that he couldn't really be bothered to tailor problems exactly for the tests I needed (nor should he need to). Thus, I realized I had to do this myself, which is the exact moment that BW became dead to me (even though I still played it a little longer).

[BayardSPSR]

I remember this well when the GM asked me how I could've made the almost the exact same amount of total rolls (he actually kept track of those) as the other player but only advanced one skill, whereas the other player had advanced in six. I showed him my character sheet with all the tests scribbled down, to show him what I was lacking. He glanced at it, looked over the obstacle suggestions for those skills and reached the conclusion that he couldn't really be bothered to tailor problems exactly for the tests I needed (nor should he need to). Thus, I realized I had to do this myself, which is the exact moment that BW became dead to me (even though I still played it a little longer).

Yeah, that suggests a counterproductively intricate system.

[profitofrage]

Are you finally starting to see what I was talking about? If I had a BW copy I could've quoted that rule long ago. But I didn't, so I was only working from memory (which turned out to be correct).






Usually at exponent 1-4, the issue isn't to get difficult or challenging tests. It's pretty easy in fact. The problem is to get routine test, as the Ob requirement is so low that it... well... almost never happens (unless with tailored situations).

Then once you get to exponent 5 or higher, it actually becomes a bit troublesome to get those challenging tests, so now you need to tailor situations for that.

I remember this well when the GM asked me how I could've made the almost the exact same amount of total rolls (he actually kept track of those) as the other player but only advanced one skill, whereas the other player had advanced in six. I showed him my character sheet with all the tests scribbled down, to show him what I was lacking. He glanced at it, looked over the obstacle suggestions for those skills and reached the conclusion that he couldn't really be bothered to tailor problems exactly for the tests I needed (nor should he need to). Thus, I realized I had to do this myself, which is the exact moment that BW became dead to me (even though I still played it a little longer).

Yes I totally see what you mean, if you are not allowing more difficult tests to count for lower test then you absolutely run into your issue. Frankly, the idea this is the actual design makes me think the publisher was on drugs.

However, that said... with such an easy fix most of your problems and the meta goes out the window. Suddenly all the DM has to do is put in challenging situations... which is rather easy to do and satisfies everyone.

Likewise, the idea that your GM essentially looked at your character and decided its not worth his time is absolutely his fault... BW is literally about the characters and THEIR story... thats why they have beliefs e.t.c in the first place.

[Lorsa]

Yes I totally see what you mean, if you are not allowing more difficult tests to count for lower test then you absolutely run into your issue. Frankly, the idea this is the actual design makes me think the publisher was on drugs.

However, that said... with such an easy fix most of your problems and the meta goes out the window. Suddenly all the DM has to do is put in challenging situations... which is rather easy to do and satisfies everyone.

Likewise, the idea that your GM essentially looked at your character and decided its not worth his time is absolutely his fault... BW is literally about the characters and THEIR story... thats why they have beliefs e.t.c in the first place.

Reading through the rulebook, I didn't get the impression that the publisher was on drugs, more that he was very upset with certain specific things and was creating rules to make those things impossible.

It may be an easy fix, but I am not sure how it would upset the rest of the system. I don't know what sort of skill progression the author had envisioned for example, so I don't know if that fix will end up ruining something else. It's a very complicated system after all. If he had mentioned something like "I expect an average of 1 skill increase per two beliefs fulfilled", it would've been easier.

Perhaps I will try it again with your suggestion. We'll see. I don't have much time to play roleplaying games these days, and all the people I used to play with lives in cities 6 hours away from me.

[ImNotTrevor]

Did you read and understand what I was saying before? It seems like you didn't, or you didn't take your own advice to debate honestly.

In many systems, all the GM has to do is to provide interesting adventures, situations or problems that the players have to solve. If they do this (i.e. playing the game the way it's meant to be played), the player characters will progress naturally through the system suggested method of advancement. The GM doesn't have to think about advancement in specific, the players don't have to think about it, it will happen anyway through just engaging with the intended game.

The same, however, is NOT true for BW. It's not enough for the GM to provide adventures, situations or problems that are in line with the character's explicitly stated beliefs. The GM ALSO has to provide adventures, situations or problems that can be solved by skills of the exact right difficulty that the player needs in order to get advancement. Alternatively, the player has to do this himself. Or you can be lucky. The point it that character progression doesn't happen naturally through simply playing the game as intended like in just about all other games. Events and problems in the game have to be tailored specifically for progression.

The difference here is that perhaps what you get in BW is exactly how the game is meant to be played. *shrug*

I don't think it is, but that's a pretty decent hurdle to overcome in this line of reasoning. The other problem arises in that games like D&D also require the DM to tailor things to the specific classes, party level, etc. If there is no rogue, then they probably ought not include an onslaught of traps. If there's no wizard, a trial of magic will also be inappropriate, etc. Not to mention CR calculating for encounters (legitimate math) and etc. That's not a unique feature of BW. (Perhaps that's not your argument but it appears to be, kinda?)

Though as I've said before, a lot of my post didn't come across as intended. I agree with a lot of the criticisms.

I mean, obviously ALL games are hinged on both GM and players to have character progression. If you don't have a GM, you don't have a game therefore no character progression. Similarly, if you don't have players, you don't have a game etc...

That's not what this discussion is about, and taking an argument out of context, or misrepresenting the viewpoint, isn't doing anyone any good.

Not my intention, though I don't think this part of my post was feedback for you.

Point being is that character progression happens naturally in basically all other game I've played (except for the swedish game Eon), whereas in BW it requires an added meta-game in order to exist (or being lucky). Do you have issues with understanding the qualitative difference between these two types of progression or what's the issue? If so, can't you think of it as a quantitative difference instead and move on? Whichever way, they're really NOT functionally identical. The don't play the same way.

The tone reads a little hostile here.
Metagaming exists in all games to various degrees. And I don't personally find it bad.

You obviously disagree, but I made no statements stating that they were functionally the same and a good deal of the feedback in my post was not for you, friend.

Obviously no system is perfect. This thread got into discussion about the ways in which BW was flawed, which is sort of relevant to the "is BW dead?" question.

Indeed. And I agree that it is littered with its fair share of flaws.

[Lorsa]

The difference here is that perhaps what you get in BW is exactly how the game is meant to be played. *shrug*

I don't think it is, but that's a pretty decent hurdle to overcome in this line of reasoning. The other problem arises in that games like D&D also require the DM to tailor things to the specific classes, party level, etc. If there is no rogue, then they probably ought not include an onslaught of traps. If there's no wizard, a trial of magic will also be inappropriate, etc. Not to mention CR calculating for encounters (legitimate math) and etc. That's not a unique feature of BW. (Perhaps that's not your argument but it appears to be, kinda?)

I agree that there's tailoring of problems and situations for the specific characters in all systems. In D&D, as you say, the game is made for there to be CR-appropriate encounters, and you should be aware of what abilities the different classes have etc. If you do this, play the game the way it's meant to be played, the characters will progress naturally without you having to pay any specific mind to the progression as such.

In BW, the game tells you to tailor problems and situations based on the characters' beliefs. If you do this, you may end up with lots of character progression or none at all. It doesn't flow naturally from the game. Therefore, if you DO want character progression, you need to specifically take that into account in a way no other game I've played asks you to. Some people may not mind this, but I do. Some were arguing that the problem doesn't exist at all, which seemed weird to me. At this point however, I think (or hope) that the existence of the problem has been well established.

Though as I've said before, a lot of my post didn't come across as intended. I agree with a lot of the criticisms.

Alright, I had almost 3 pages to read that occurred while I was sleeping, so I did not respond to the latest issue.

Not my intention, though I don't think this part of my post was feedback for you.

Well, since I was the one that brought up the point that progression was very different in BW compared to most other systems, your post saying there were functionally the same made me read it as relevant to me, even if they were not.

The tone reads a little hostile here.

I apologize. I felt hostile, so if it only read a little hostile that's a mark of my restraint. Not that it's any excuse.

Metagaming exists in all games to various degrees. And I don't personally find it bad.

Yes it does. I find some degrees bad but not others.

As I mentioned above, it was rather weird that when I brought up the BW meta-game and said that this was something I didn't like the general response was "you're wrong, it doesn't exist!" rather than "ok, I don't mind it but I can understand why someone would be bothered by it".

You obviously disagree, but I made no statements stating that they were functionally the same and a good deal of the feedback in my post was not for you, friend.

Oh? Well, if we both agree that BW has a character progression that is functionally different from most other systems, then that's all good and well.

People can like if they want, I have no problems with that.

Indeed. And I agree that it is littered with its fair share of flaws.

That's the way with all systems, they have flaws. Some you find acceptable, some you don't. Some you can house-rule away without messing up something else, some you can't.

Some systems however, have such glaring deficiencies you can't really take them seriously.

[ImNotTrevor]

I agree that there's tailoring of problems and situations for the specific characters in all systems. In D&D, as you say, the game is made for there to be CR-appropriate encounters, and you should be aware of what abilities the different classes have etc. If you do this, play the game the way it's meant to be played, the characters will progress naturally without you having to pay any specific mind to the progression as such.

In BW, the game tells you to tailor problems and situations based on the characters' beliefs. If you do this, you may end up with lots of character progression or none at all. It doesn't flow naturally from the game. Therefore, if you DO want character progression, you need to specifically take that into account in a way no other game I've played asks you to. Some people may not mind this, but I do. Some were arguing that the problem doesn't exist at all, which seemed weird to me. At this point however, I think (or hope) that the existence of the problem has been well established.

I'll say this much: from everything I know about Burning Wheel, progression seems to take a far back seat compared to everything else. Progression seems to be intended to take a very, very long time.

So at this point I guess it being a problem is up in the air. If it's intentional, then I guess it technically works as desired. If not, then it's a problem.

I don't think BW's progression system is entirely foreign to all other progression systems, though it is certainly an odd duck. Dungeon World has a similar, though incredibly simplified version of this progression system. (One of the two creators is a big fan of BW, so that's not exactly a surprise.)

I think Dungeon World does a much better job, though.

*shrug*

That's about all I feel on that particular issue.

[kyoryu]

The requires successes and failures thing isn't too terribly uncommon.

What's annoying about BW advancement is that you have to track how many attempts (and failures/successes?) vs. *relative* difficulty, which is figured *after* you add in whatever traits, Artha expenditures, etc. you have. Which means you basically have to do this math on the fly, which is annoying as hell. Or, you can do the raw numbers and do your homework afterwards, which is also annoying.

[Max_Killjoy]

The requires successes and failures thing isn't too terribly uncommon.

What's annoying about BW advancement is that you have to track how many attempts (and failures/successes?) vs. *relative* difficulty, which is figured *after* you add in whatever traits, Artha expenditures, etc. you have. Which means you basically have to do this math on the fly, which is annoying as hell. Or, you can do the raw numbers and do your homework afterwards, which is also annoying.

This sort of system sounds like a lot of busy-work to avoid a "problem", when that problem has had far more made of it than it really is. Classic case of the cure being worse than the illness.