Quote from: lukeSpike,
I never said BW was superior to anything. I personally like games that give me tactical choices. I don't enjoy the "I go, you go -- hit/miss" style conflicts any more. BW/BE conflicts are tactical and tense and they force the players to engage in the game and think.

-L

I'm not suggesting you said that BW was superior or not. I'm suggesting you felt that the scripted combat was superior to other methods of combat, else you wouldn't have gone with it.  I still want to know why, but you attempted to answer so I'll address it.

Y'see, to me, scripted combat isn't really all that tactical. In BE its obviously more abstracted, because you are dealing with units rather than individuals and the 'corner him and stab him in the face' rule was an utter cop out in its simplicity.  If anything it feels like a card game, only you only get eight cards and so does the other guy.  Very limited.  Sure, it may force people to think, but more than other types of combat rules? Not so sure.

Mind you, this is a big issue for me, one of my many unfinished projects is an attempt to bring in the sort of dynamic action you see in anime and kung fu movies to the actual table, so I've been putting thought into the subject quite a bit.

Quote from: lukeJames,
Perhaps I misread your comment, then. Regardless, I think BWC is objectively better than BWR, but that's because I've seriously studied them both. In passing, I think D&D 3.X is objectively a better game than AD&D. It's cleaner, more cohesive and gets to the core of what D&D is about in a more efficient fashion. I also think that Inspectres is better designed than most games out there. It's mechanics interface perfectly with its stated intent. There's nothing missing and there's nothing extraneous. It is a completely functional game in every respect.

I do believe that game design is an art and also a skill. There are films and books which are formally and technically better than other films and books. This doesn't speak to how people enjoy art, simply how a piece of work is built.

A damn fine answer.  I don't agree with it one whit, but a nice direct answer. Thanks!

Can I followup on something you said to someone else? In answer to Spike, you said:

Quote from: lukeI never said BW was superior to anything. I personally like games that give me tactical choices. I don't enjoy the "I go, you go -- hit/miss" style conflicts any more. BW/BE conflicts are tactical and tense and they force the players to engage in the game and think.

Do you think GURPS forces players to engage in the game and think?  D&D? Amber?

Ok, it's really three questions...

Quote from: lukeWarthur,
The answer to your first question is: That's why I published the Monster Burner. Seriously, if you don't want to use the LPs, just use the Monster Burner.

Excellent! (And obvious, now I come to think of it.) Thanks for that.

QuoteAs for your second, I believe you can do exactly that. You only have to open your required skills, you don't have to advance them. You can use your other points to focus on secondary skills or skills from some oddball lifepath you took.

Hmm, perhaps I should look at the lifepaths more closely too.

Spike,
Don't know what to tell you. It is tactical, in so far as it demands decision making based on imperfect information and provides a series of choices that are substantively different.

I'm sure as you work on your designs you'll see that you've got to limit people's choices, but limits also provide ground for hard choices and imaginative play.

As for Close Combat in Burning Empires, I was just trying to represent what goes on in the comics. Firefights are huge tactical affairs, close combat is quick and dirty.

James,
One of my absolute most favorite things about this medium is that is a thinking man's game. It engages the brain in ways that most other game media do not. This applies to D&D or GURPs or whatever. Burning Wheel simply takes a different approach to the tactical elements of the medium -- it requires that the user operate on imperfect information and make his best guess for the moment, much like poker.

-L

QuoteIn passing, I think D&D 3.X is objectively a better game than AD&D. It's cleaner, more cohesive and gets to the core of what D&D is about in a more efficient fashion.

And yet there's a fairly vocal group of people who prefer the older editions and think the latest one is crap.  I'm not one of them, mind, and I tend to find that group annoying.  

You're using muddled language here.  Either you THINK it's better, or it's objectively better. Those are not the same thing.  You have an opinion on the matter, one I happen to share, but that's not the same thing as an objectively proven fact.  

There's no such thing.  It's a subjective medium, and your and my opinion have more to do with our personal tastes than any objective measurement of quality.  

However, the difference between you and I, is that apparently I'm actually capable of recognizing this, while you are either unwilling or unable to do so.  

Indeed, from an objective standpoint, I am forced to concede that there are aspects of the older editions that could be appealing to some, such as quicker character generation, or a more independent nature to the rules that makes houseruling and modification easier.  I may not find those traits appealing, but plenty do, and neither of us are objectively correct in any sense, it's all a matter of taste.

I have seen enough new editions and new game fads and darlings in my time to realize that for every new development you or I might think are great, there's plenty of others who think it sucks.

The failure to recognize this fact has more to do with the general hostility levelled at the Forge than any other element of it's behavior.  It is the fundamental root of that dissatisfaction, and the failure to understand it will doom that dissatisfaction to continue.

So I say again, RPGs are not technology.  There is no objective "progress" in the medium of RPGs.  There is new, there is different, but there is never a proven better.  Ever.  And never will be.

Luke-

Any game more complex than a coin toss will by nature involve some measure of tactics.  The scripted combat is as simple as a this :you and your opponent each have eight cards numbering from 1 to 8. Each even numbered card is red.  Each turn you throw down a card, high numbers win, black cards beat red cards, draws are 'no winner'.

that's about it. Lots of room for thinking and strategy, but it also can lead to people drawing more or less at random. Its an imperfect analogy, sure. You can, for example, throw down the same card time after time, and obviously the best card to throw in the card game is the black 7, which isn't obviously the case in the RPG.

I've seen 'blind declare' combat before, but I don't think they did 'three turns' which could theoretically make you a remote observer, much like a playstation game I once had where you sent out preprogrammed robots.. the goal being to make good programs, but the fights were deadly dull. Watch two stupid machines duke it out with no direct input. Its theory, of course, as I haven't seen it play out yet.

As for the cornering rule: Emulation is a fine goal as far as I can tell, but this might be a case of taking it too far.  I think if I gathered each reference to 'corner him and shoot him in the face' together they would be longer than the actual rule.   I imagine that even the huge tactical firefights don't take up that many actual panels if the focus of the comic is on the characters, but if you reduced all combats down to a single opposed dice pool check more people would howl.

As for my own work: Its here more or less. I've focused on freeing up options as much as possible, possibly too much, but hey, its a fun mental exercise to figure out how to make it work.  How do you make options meaningful when  you can do almost anything?

Quote from: lukeJames,
One of my absolute most favorite things about this medium is that is a thinking man's game. It engages the brain in ways that most other game media do not. This applies to D&D or GURPs or whatever. Burning Wheel simply takes a different approach to the tactical elements of the medium -- it requires that the user operate on imperfect information and make his best guess for the moment, much like poker.

Thanks Luke!

Since I don't own BW and BE, I'm curious how it does what you say, that is, require the user operate on imperfect information and make his best guess.  I'm wondering if you can help me by contrasting it with something (with which I'm familiar) like D&D. Honestly curious.

Quote from: James J SkachThanks Luke!

Since I don't own BW and BE, I'm curious how it does what you say, that is, require the user operate on imperfect information and make his best guess.  I'm wondering if you can help me by contrasting it with something (with which I'm familiar) like D&D. Honestly curious.

I can help out at least with the BE side of things, which I don't think is THAT different.

Scripted combat means you have for combat (or social combat) eight options, your opponent has the same eight.  These options interact with each other in various ways, some are more powerful against others, some are weaker. You don't know what your opponent (the GM usually) picked until the turn resolves.

Each sides pick three moves in a row, which I think is mixed. Some good, some bad.

If it's not too specific, how is Scripted Combat supposed to work. I read Burning Wheel, but just couldn't figure out how a combat was supposed to go operating like that.

(If someone else knows, I can accept a PM or another thread could be started. Scripting is a major issue behind me halting a Planescape modification - besides the amazing amount of work I found it to be.)

Quote from: Thanatos02If it's not too specific, how is Scripted Combat supposed to work. I read Burning Wheel, but just couldn't figure out how a combat was supposed to go operating like that.

(If someone else knows, I can accept a PM or another thread could be started. Scripting is a major issue behind me halting a Planescape modification - besides the amazing amount of work I found it to be.)

Well, Burning Empires has, as I recall offhand, a checksheet with three columns on it. each participant marks one item off of each list and then everyone 'turns them over' and resolves.

After everything is resolved, start over.  Luke, I'm sure, was the target of that, but I'm bored and stuck working late... so Nah!:p

Quote from: SpikeWell, Burning Empires has, as I recall offhand, a checksheet with three columns on it. each participant marks one item off of each list and then everyone 'turns them over' and resolves.

After everything is resolved, start over.  Luke, I'm sure, was the target of that, but I'm bored and stuck working late... so Nah!:p

I was just trying to figure out how combat would be accomplished by anything except guessing.

Quote from: Thanatos02I was just trying to figure out how combat would be accomplished by anything except guessing.

If you still need help with it I can explain next time you're over.  Paul and I ran through a few test combats one evening, which really cleared things up for me.

Hey, I didn't want this to turn into a BW lovefest, but here goes:

All major conflicts in BW and BE use this method:

A "round" or exchange is divided into three segments called volleys.

In each volley, the player has a series of action options available to him.

Actions are Strike, Countestrike, Point, Close, Suppressive Fire, Take Cover, Feint, Dismiss, Withdraw, etc.

Each player in the conflict chooses one or more action in each of the three volleys at the start of the exchange. The volleys are announced in order, one at a time. Actions for each volley are then revealed and resolved simultaneously.

On paper, it seems like a guessing game. It's not.

In play, there are myriad details which help you guess what your opponent's next choices will be. Factors include:

1) Pure predictability -- people tend to act in predictable manners and make choices in patterns.

2) Skills/abilities limit choices and favor others -- certain characters will just be better at certain actions than others, so players can be relied upon to choose what benefits them most.

3) Certain actions chain -- certain actions favor a follow up with another specific action. Aggressive Stance is usually followed with Strike, for example. And an attacking maneuver is usually placed following a defensive one.

4) Equipment limits options -- weapon speed, ammunition and other factors influence choices. So if you're paying attention to what your opponent is doing, you can see that if he's out of ammunition, he's probably not going to be shooting.

All of those factors can weigh into the decision of what actions to choose. The information is imperfect because, despite all those factors, a player may do something less effective or risky, but unexpected.

J Arcane,
You're right. You are smarter than me and better than me because your opinion is more right than mine. Clearly.

-L

I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of the scripted combat either. I can live with the general idea, but the implementation didn't quite grab me.

So, Luke, anyone ever tried variants to the current version? Two phases would be one of the most obvious ones. This could take some influences from the TRoS game.
Or a different granularity of combat, replacing the current maneuvers with shorter or longer combat actions. Maybe it would be fun turning up the scale to the old D&D one minute combat round... Or even shorter stabs, punches, making the scripted phases into rather fast combos.

Alternative systems would be nice for some kind of companion (or to emphasize the style of add-on games). The nice thing about the rules is that due to the toolkit approach it wouldn't looked to artificial. That's what I liked about Spycraft 2.0 and what I like about Burning Wheel, although as I said before, I'm not too happy about the implementations. (Not to speak of my general distrust of social interaction rules)

Well Sosthenes, Jake Norwood, designer of Riddle of Steel, recently said this to me about BW:

Quote from: Jake NorwoodI've physically fought with swords for a pretty long time now. I've seen the worlds absolute best living swordsmen in action, and BW does a remarkably good job at modeling the relationship of speed, positioning (footwork), and the chaos of thinking a few moves ahead. It's got it's gamey bits, but it's also shockingly accurate. A lot more goes into a fight other than "being good at it," oddly.

I like Burning Wheel and Burning Empires. I like the way they work. I have no plans on changing them any time soon.

-L