[RPG]: Burning Wheel Revised, reviewed by Dan Davenport (4/4)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12746.phtml

Dan Davenport's Summary:

If you’ve ever wanted to combine the powerful emotions and epic grandeur of <i>Lord of the Rings</i> with the brutally detailed combat of <i>RuneQuest</i>, then boy, do I have the game for you…

Go to the full review for more information.

[C.W.Richeson]

Another great review, Dan! Glad to see you're back at it!

How necessary is the Monster Burner if I want to run a Burning Wheel game? How much GM support is there in this product? Can I start running it right out of the gate?

[Dan Davenport]

Originally Posted by C.W.Richeson

Another great review, Dan! Glad to see you're back at it!

Thanks, CWR! Yeah, I'm hoping to start cranking'em out a bit more quickly now. This one was a toughie.

How necessary is the Monster Burner if I want to run a Burning Wheel game? How much GM support is there in this product? Can I start running it right out of the gate?

Well, again, that depends upon how important monsters are to you. If you want more than a few token monsters in your game, then I'd say that the Monster Burner's going to be pretty vital.

[Old Scratch]

Monster Burner is, in my opinion, pretty integral. It's more than just a monster book, it's a peek behind the curtain to see what is going on in the system. It breaks the system down and gives you a means of creating or adapting nearly anything for the system. In fact, the first 90 pages breaks the system down, and I found it better to read and more explanatory than the Burning Wheel main books themselves.

In fact, I can't help but feel that this volume should have been sold as part of the set. It expands the lifepath system for Giant Wolves and Trolls and Spiders and gives them the same sort of treatment that the main book gives them.

[t_wanderer]

Dan,

I always enjoy your reviews, and was excited to see this one on Friday. Lately, I've been playing a lot of Burning Wheel, and would like to know more about what you thought made the system difficult to understand or explain. What about the books could you not envision as part of a table-top play experience?

Also, I've found the Duel of Wits mechanics really enhance roleplaying and provide a great structure on which to build a social conflict encounter into something more than unfocused discussion followed by a couple dice rolls (or adjudicated by GM fiat). Duel of Wits allows for a lot of freedom and creativity, and I've seen new players (myself included at one time) pick it up and enjoy it immediately. It's a lot of fun.

Thanks for your time.

--W

[Chelemby]

I find BW to be both wonderful and frustrating. Luke & the gang obviously have put this together as a labour of love. The problem is that sometimes matters are not fully explained because they understand them so well. The core mechanics are simple, elegant, and full of unexpected variations. The way that Artha, Beliefs, Instincts, and character advancement all interlock is a wonder to behold. Combat, on the other hand, feels a bit strained -- it's an okay, but far from brilliant system.

I like the game; I want to love it, but can't quite go there. I think a 4/4 is a decent rating for BW.

[Lars Dangly]

The combat system is what has kept this game a well-loved part of my 'read only' game shelf and off the active gaming table. I appreciate what Luke is trying to do, but it just didn't click for me. Combat is sufficiently important to my games that an unsatisfying combat system is sort of a deal breaker.

[Dan Davenport]

Originally Posted by t_wanderer

Dan,

I always enjoy your reviews, and was excited to see this one on Friday. Lately, I've been playing a lot of Burning Wheel, and would like to know more about what you thought made the system difficult to understand or explain. What about the books could you not envision as part of a table-top play experience?

Hi, t_wanderer. Thanks for the complement.

I guess the best way I can respond to your question would be to say that I can certainly envision BW as part of a table-top play experience -- just not one that I, personally, would feel comfortable running, or even, to some extent, playing.

And what made it difficult for me was trying to get a grip on the way that all of the various subsystems interact. As Chelemby says above, they <u>do</u> interact beautifully -- I can see that much. It's just that I can't handle the level of detail involved. The hardest part, I suppose, was the fact that the details steadily build upon other details, and the end result simply felt overwhelming to me. And even if I did get it, I know from experience that this level of detail would be too much for me to track during play.

None of which is to suggest that the game is flawed in that respect. Your own experience with the game illustrates that it serves its target market well.

Originally Posted by t_wanderer

Also, I've found the Duel of Wits mechanics really enhance roleplaying and provide a great structure on which to build a social conflict encounter into something more than unfocused discussion followed by a couple dice rolls (or adjudicated by GM fiat). Duel of Wits allows for a lot of freedom and creativity, and I've seen new players (myself included at one time) pick it up and enjoy it immediately. It's a lot of fun.

Thanks for your time.

--W

I'm sure it could be fun, and as I mentioned in the review, I appreciate the fact that it gives social PCs the chance to "duke it out" in their own way. I've just found that for me, interaction is so free-flowing that breaking it down into "blow-by-blow" mechanics wouldn't feel right.

[Old Geezer]

You may have just sold another copy of this game.

Curse you, Dan Davenport!

()

[Dan Davenport]

Originally Posted by Old Geezer

You may have just sold another copy of this game.

Curse you, Dan Davenport!

()

I should start collecting "publishers got their review copy money back" points.