Tylko czytałem podręcznik i to nie cały, ale ciekawi mnie jak w praktyce zagrałyby te wszystkie zasady, tj. czy w poniższym tekście jest dużo prawdy.
Once upon a time, I ran a three-month campaign using the Torchbearer rules. Torchbearer is a system based on the Burning Wheel system. To be fair, it’s the only Burning Wheel game I’ve ever played. And based on that experience, it’s the only Burning Wheel game I’ll probably ever willingly play. What killed me was what they called the “conflict resolution system.” Basically, whenever the players ended up in a conflict with anything, be it a combat, an argument, or whatever, there was a very mechanical process for resolving the whole thing. |
First, the GM would fit the conflict into a specific category. And then a conflict captain would be chosen by the players. The players and the GM choose specific categories of actions like maneuver, attack, and defend. Actually, the conflict captain assigns specific maneuvers to specific players. The actions are resolved using rock-paper-scissor comparisons (maneuver beats attack or whatever) and dice rolling. That happens over and over several times. And after things are resolved, the players and the GM decide what the f$&% actually happened in the world based on all the die rolling and mechanics.
One of the players, after our third session, described Torchbearer as a very well designed system for simulating a game of Torchbearer. And that about sums up my feelings too. You could literally skip the part where you describe what happens in the fictional world and conflicts would play out almost EXACTLY THE SAME. Now, I’m not saying that’s bad. Except that it is. It’s terrible. I understand some people might like that kind of thing. But some people also like orange shag carpeting. Those people are wrong.
Jest na to chyba nawet mądre słówko - dissociated mechanics