Quote from: lukeI think the Forge as a faceless group is an entirely benign entity. I think that group has made and is in the process of making roleplaying games better and more fun.

Here's a hint: The "better" part is Why They Hate You.  It is the assumption of superiority; if Forge games are "better", it means current games are "Worse".  If Forge Games are "more fun", it means current games, the games people love, are "less fun".  Its got nothing to do with shadowy conspiracies, your conspiracy is right out in the open: to make what you consider "better" games, attacking and condemning current games in the process.
Its that superiority complex that creates the reaction against the Forge.

RPGPundit

Question for Luke:

At the back of my copy of BW (Revised Edition), there's two lists of games credited as influences. For the first edition, they are all classic, old-school things, from D&D to Runequest to Cyberpunk. For the Revised Edition, they're all Forge games. Glancing between my copy of the core rules and the Monster Burner (which, if I'm right, isn't Revised Edition material), I can't see that there's much of a difference in the rules sets. In fact, I find the Burning Wheel rules to be very "traditional" in their approach (but in a good way).

So, cheeky question: is it the case that the first set of influences are the games that actually influenced the design, and the second set are games written by people who helped your PR?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineLuke> Have you considered releasing a toolkit addendum to Burning Empires that would let players bust open some of the more setting-specific details (for example, the bonuses given to either side during the world burner or the skill list) to make it a generic sci-fi RPG?

I'd buy a copy of Burning Vampires (specifically, the faction warfare thing from burning empires retooled for white wolf).












Oh look, its already been done!

http://www.burningvampires.com/

no, wait I don't think... er... what is that?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineHave you considered other setting-specific applications? For example, you have Burning Wheel for fantasy and Burning Empires for sci-fi, but have you considered a modern detective (or espionage or whatever) version?

Pseudo,
Well, I've done Herbert-esque space opera, apocalyptic present and Heian era Japan, so I'd say anything's possible. There's no plan for those setting books. It's really whatever captures our imagination in between other projects.

Hgjs,
Burning Empires really is a competitive game in which the GM is supposed to push the players hard and try to win. It's intended to be a very gentlemanly and sportsmanlike competitive. You're supposed to shake hands, root for your opponent and help him up when he's down. The one flaw in it, which I think you can perceive, is that the GM still sets the difficulty for many tests. He could feasibly set all his obstacles low and the players' high. But that violates the spirit of fairness that I described above. And there are guidelines for setting obstacles, so if the players think he's fucking around, they can call him on it. And, hell, if someone's just being downright mean, you can always walk.

Sett,
If I'm not mistaken, I played a 24th level Barbarian named Oswald, and an 18th level Cavalier named Domidor, but my favorite character ever was a 9th level assassin/9th level illusionist named Sleer played in Lanhkmar. I probably still have the character sheets.

Alnag,
10) We're a community. We look out for each other. Aside from that, I don't understand why folks are so threatened by a group of people chiming in to talk about stuff they love. Boosters of small press and obscure games are vastly outnumbered both in real life and on the internet. I think the perception comes from the cliquishness of the gaming community. MY type of fun is ok. But LARPers, they're the worst. Or german boardgamers or small press types or whatever. No one's under threat, but we all like to point fingers.

11) I'm not scared about competition. If I help spur a better game into production, that's good for everyone. There's very little competition at this level. Jake Norwood and I proudly sold Riddle of Steel and Burning Wheel alongside each other at Gencon 03 and 04.

12) Some big and small. Most stick to traditional modes for RPGs, but there's definitely been innovation and experimentation on all levels. Esoterrorists leaps to mind.

13) I can't really answer this one. It's not up to me to say. Paranoia 1st Ed, Marvel Superheroes, WEG Star Wars and Shadowrun 1st Ed probably had the biggest impact on my designs.

14) Sure, anything's possible. But my games are designed for gamers, for hardcore rp gamers.

Pundit,
I understand why you might be angry about that, but no one's attacking. Any perception of attack or denigration is on your side. I never mentioned "more fun" or "less fun" (in this context). I simply believe in progress and, that by learning from our mistakes and triumphs in the past, we can produce better designs in the present. I'm ashamed to admit that I'm an optimist in this part of my life.

Warthur,
I stole linked tests from Sorcerer, positioning from Riddle of Steel, the clarifications about conflict resolution from Inspectres and Dogs, and general awstruckedness from Master. I designed the Duel of Wits for Jason Roberts, of FVLMINATA, for a game he was producing that never got made. I stole it back and published it.

Eric,
All yours if you want it!

-L

Quote from: lukeWarthur,
I stole linked tests from Sorcerer, positioning from Riddle of Steel, the clarifications about conflict resolution from Inspectres and Dogs, and general awstruckedness from Master. I designed the Duel of Wits for Jason Roberts, of FVLMINATA, for a game he was producing that never got made. I stole it back and published it.

That's actually quite interesting, because it's not the elements which I'd have guessed you'd have taken from the Forge games; the only part of Burning Wheel I can point at and say "That's a Narrativist innovation" are Beliefs, Instincts and Traits, and the Artha rules, and even then they're only weakly Narrativist.

So your answer here is the same tired Forge standard: "It is entirely the Regular Gamers' fault if they hate us, we haven't done anything wrong at all and shouldn't do anything about it, they just "hate our freedom"".

If most people here wouldn't believe President Bush saying those things about muslims, why would anyone believe you saying that about the Forge's detractors?

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Where there's hundreds of people pissed off at you for years, odds are there's a justification for that beyond "they just don't get us".  Maybe its YOU who don't get US.

I'm trying to say this to you in a calm and friendly fashion, just this once, to respect the spirit in which this thread was intended, Luke. As a piece of honest advice to you and the entire Forge: you guys need to engage in some serious introspection, and then some serious cleaning up of your act, if you want to stop being so despised and mistrusted. You need to look at your own arrogance, and the way that your (pseudo-)intellectualism has managed to make you non-communicators with the regular gamer.  

If, IF,  your goal really is to make "better games" that ANYONE can enjoy, and not just to be a mutual appreciation society of sycophantic poseurs, then this is something you really want to address. Because what would be the point of making all these "great leaps forward" with your games if the WAY you make these games, and the image you all project to the gaming public at large is one that makes them want to reject you and anything you do?

RPGPundit

Luke, why do you think there are so few Forge games like Burning Wheel?

Campaign-grade games that plant myriad roots in a game world by way of extensive lifepaths and setting-specific subsystems, and so give people something to do for more than an evening or two?

Once upon a time there was RoS, and that's it. A road not taken--why? Deliberate design choice? People too lazy? Flimsy McNar games all they can come up with?

Answers along the lines of "Can't speak for others" or "But there's this guy in Idaho who's been running a MLWM campaign for a millennium now" will be scoffed at as Phony Tony-style evasiveness.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityLuke, why do you think there are so few Forge games like Burning Wheel?

Campaign-grade games that plant myriad roots in a game world by way of extensive lifepaths and setting-specific subsystems, and so give people something to do for more than an evening or two?

I know it's against the spirit of the thread to throw in my own thoughts, but I've thought about this for a long time.  

Many of the Forge games are small because that's the untapped market, so to speak.  Forge games are incredibly well tied to a system, and in effect, are supposed to work like board games: we play it for a night, and put it on the shelf.  This is so we don't have to play the same game over and over when we really want to play something else for a night or a few nights.

Quote from: joewolzForge games are incredibly well tied to a system, and in effect, are supposed to work like board games: we play it for a night, and put it on the shelf.  This is so we don't have to play the same game over and over when we really want to play something else for a night or a few nights.

This should, in theory (hee), be a license to print money. Pay out RPG prices for a game that you only play in one offs or a few times before moving on. Even better if the buy-in for the players is so great that it is better for the players to get copies of the books as well (i'm looking at you BE!) and you should be made. If they appealed to enough people...Jury's still out on that one innit!

Edit: Shit. Just realised this is alnaq & Luke's q&a thread. Apologies for the threadcrap. Please ignore.

I know that, Joe, and that is the problem right there: the huge dissonance between the claim to thematic depth on one hand, and the practice of discard-after-use on the other. Can you do justice to the experience of Vietnam in one night? Yep, according to Carry, you can.

Warthur,
All of those elements were in the original Burning Wheel. We definitely cleaned them up and focused them in Revised though. Revised is the game that BW should have always been.

Pundit,
I'm not saying it's anyone's fault. But, my friend, feelings aren't facts. Just because you're angry, upset or lonely doesn't make your statement true. Pointing fingers and leveling blame accomplishes what? Nothing but perhaps letting you rest on your own false sense of superiority. You want change, then work for it. I actually respect the fact that you had to will to start a forum site for like-minded souls. It's an accomplishment.

And if there are hundreds of people frothing with hate, that's their problem. They should go play games they enjoy. Because there are thousands of people who have found these games and enjoy them.

But more than that, I'm out among the gamer community a lot. I do between 6 and 10 conventions a year. I personally interact with hundreds of gamers a year. I run panels at nearly every con I go to including Origins and Gencon. The reaction that we get is far from a pitchfork-wielding frothing mob. It's much more like Mark's reaction. And if people don't like what we're saying or selling, that's fine. They're free to go their own way. I'm certainly not going to label them "swine" and declare war on them.

Pierce,
I think Joe's right. I think the greatest innovation of the small press stuff was creating games that can be learned and played in their complete form in one night. The vast majority of RPGs pre 2000 were designed to be played over multiple sessions, even if they were relatively light. I think rigorously paring a game down so it can be enjoyed in a single sitting is an attractive and worthy goal. It's a new and fresh idea.

But for me, like I said, I built BW for hardcore gamers. I look for people who want more from their games, not less. And I suspect we'll be seeing a return to longer term play. I know of two games in development from noted small, focused game author's that are designed for long to midterm play.

One Horse,
I think that Burning Empires is a good bargain for the money, even if each player in the group buys a copy. If you only play once, you've probably played for 36-45 hours. That comes to $1.00 to $1.25 an hour for fun. It's hard to find fun that cheap these days. Movies in NYC are $11. That's over $5 an hour!

-L

Quote from: lukeBut more than that, I'm out among the gamer community a lot. I do between 6 and 10 conventions a year. I personally interact with hundreds of gamers a year. I run panels at nearly every con I go to including Origins and Gencon. The reaction that we get is far from a pitchfork-wielding frothing mob. It's much more like Mark's reaction. And if people don't like what we're saying or selling, that's fine. They're free to go their own way. I'm certainly not going to label them "swine" and declare war on them.

QuoteTis true enough.  I had a great time.  Frankly, I didn't enter DexCon with a predisposed concept about Indie games.  I went there to learn more about it and to try them out with an open mind.  I was, I'll admit, somewhat skeptical in fact because I'm more of the traditionalist GM myself.  But since people are into Indie games I figure it behooves me to expand my horizons and see for myself what the hubbub is about.   The guys at DexCon 10 - Indie Explosion! were, as I said, fun to be around, and 'crackling' with creativity and enthusiasm.  To me, that's a really great.  Even if I don't necessarily agree with the thrust of their philosophy, I can still respect them for their zeal and joy of the art.  And at this point I think the Indie guys are actually onto something with their games - for people who want to play that style.  There's nothing wrong with it per se, and the games I played and witnessed were indeed really fun, and great role playing.  If I might say so as well, I thought Luke's performance as a gamesmaster, honestly and not to kiss ass here, was magnificent.  He's a real talent who obviously loves what he does.  It was great to watch.  Ok, nuff said on that.  I'm hoping you guys won't kill me with 'sychophant-butt-kisser' accusations for saying so.  It was my experience, that's all.  

However, there is the question of the fledgling market of Indie Games and the fact that they in competition for the players of traditionalist RPGs.  This is a real world fact about Market Share, and the Indies guys are trying, as they should, to increase theirs.  No doubt about it. Nothing wrong with that, per se.  

However, there are ways of competing for market share that are honest, friendly and cool, and ways that are sneaky, subversive and uncool.  I don't know how you could quantify the impression of coolness vs. uncoolness realistically, however, Luke, it seems that people here are saying "WE feel like your guys have been uncool."   That's legit.  Its the feeling they have.  And I agree with you, one can't necessarily account for or control other people's feelings.  But if there ever was a time to clear the air and really open hearts and minds, this is probably it.  That's my guess.   My suggestion is that the issue of market share and marketing styles be openned up for discussion because in a lot of ways I think that's one of the big bones of contention.  

Inreasing one's market share is an important underlying cause of both the tactics that have been employed in the past (according to and by some) and perception of those tactics by your actual target audience - other Gamesmasters.  I made this point before you arrived at the Panel so I'll repeat it again here:  The Indie RPGs target audience needs to be the GMs because GMs are the ones who most often bring the game to the table, not the players.  Marketing research would be required to prove that, and it is my hunch, but I think it makes sense and is something the Indie folks should give ample consideration to.   And pissing off the main target audience, even if you have Great Games, is not the best strategy in the world.  Just something to think about.  And I don't mean to be offensive, but to simply say it in plain engrish.  It's one of the reasons why I think it behooves the Indie guys to enage the traditionalists in just the manner you're donig here.  Reasonably and with an open mind to the problems and their possible solutions.

So on that point I agree with Pundit.  Now is your best shot for making people see past the smoke and fire to the heart of your intentions.  I believe those intentions are multi-fold.  1) make great games 2) have fun 3) make a splash in the market 4) win fame and honor for yourself and your community.  Nothing wrong with those goals.  

Perception may not be everything, but it is *almost* everything when it comes to getting yourself the good graces of those with whom you wish to collaborate.

These two communities, I think, have a lot to offer each other.  If only the hate would diminish.  We all, after all, love RPGs.  And it helps none of us with the wider world (our real target market) if people who might be interested in exploring RPGs come here and find a shooting war going on, constantly, with fire and brimstone falling from the sky.  Ya know what I mean?

I think there's been a lot of vitriol and bad stuff in the past, perhaps on both sides, perhaps mostly from one... I don't really know at this point since I'm new to the scene.  Based on my reception from theRPGNet crew however, my hunch is that the vitriol is coming from the few enormously vocal dissenters and that has actually managed to cause a schism that has drawn everyone else into the war, or made it seem so anyway.   However, I will say this, whomever started this shooting war and for whatever reasons they did, perhaps now would be a good time to put the nuclear-tomahawks down for a bit and talk.  That's why I'm excited about the spirit of this post.  Two days ago I would have told my pals that such a conversation was neigh on *totally impossible*.  Yet here you guys are, having a pretty reasonable discussion about your viewpoints and differences.  Lets hope it goes somewhere positive and creates some new ground for collaboration and engagement.  It would be good for all of us.

- Mark

Mark,
I appreciate your comments, but I really don't want this to turn into a general discussion thread.

-L

QuoteI understand why you might be angry about that, but no one's attacking. Any perception of attack or denigration is on your side. I never mentioned "more fun" or "less fun" (in this context). I simply believe in progress and, that by learning from our mistakes and triumphs in the past, we can produce better designs in the present. I'm ashamed to admit that I'm an optimist in this part of my life.

*sighs*

Please, for the betterment of all mankind, repeat after me:  

RPGS ARE NOT TECHNOLOGY!  RPGS ARE NOT TECHNOLOGY!  RPGS ARE NOT TECHNOLOGY!  RPGS ARE NOT TECHNOLOGY!  RPGS ARE NOT TECHNOLOGY!

They are a subjective medium for which "progress" is a useless term because it implies an objective rubric.  There is no objective advancement in the medium of RPGs.  If there were I wouldn't have to deal with so many RC fans telling my my version of D&D is crap.

Hi Luke,

I have some questions. Apparently there are folks who think a war is going on.

Can you explain; how helping and encouraging people to make their own games via seminars or personal discussions, explaining exactly what the financial landscape is so your competitors know how to price their games, working for free or cheap to get your competitors game on the market, is helping your side in the trenches? I mean couldn't people on the other side use this information to make their own games? Are you an Indie traitor? Also will you explain how you are able to take your personal time to do all these things to help people and still have time to foster your valuable elitism?

Thanks in advance.