Odd, the world-burning suggestions I'm aware of usually involve large generalizations or common-knowledge that any inhabitant of the world would know.  The GM is also allowed "secret notes" that the players cannot tap into or contradict.

Maybe the players knowing eachother's beliefs and stuff would cause a problem in a closed-book type game, but I've always done chargen as a group, anyway.  Most of the surprise comes from how I as the GM tie in char backgrounds, not necessarily knowing or not knowing if I will.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;396160My main complaint though, is one that applies to many games that currently exist, which is that to play it as written makes it much harder to surprise DMs or PCs. There's a lot of declaring one's goals and desires, and writing them down for others to keep track of. The DM's job is to cater to or activate challenges only on the fronts that the PCs have indicated they're interested in pursuing.

I think that is a BIG thing, and goes back to a major divide in play-style, maybe even the core difference between "traditional" and "not-as-traditional" RPGs. (Certainly more important than much of the razor-thin, marginal differences that are often raised).

To me, a game that is about what we, the players, have decided we want to focus on, with mechanical support, is a great thing.

If I want a game about political intrigue among the clans, and the GM wants a game about hunting for an ancient fortress in the goblin-infested mountains, I like a game that helps us reach an agreement. As a GM, which I often am, I'd rather run the game the players want than the one I may have envisioned.

I think this point is very easy to get riled over. So, you know, whichever approach interests you is cool by me (giggly hippie collaborative vs tyrannical auteur), but speaking personally, I have a clear preference for the former. (I don't think this is a "rules" issue, either. You can play D&D or The Mountain Witch both ways).

Wow. Seems the game has really changed since the edition I have...

Seanchai

Quote from: BWA;396166I think that is a BIG thing, and goes back to a major divide in play-style, maybe even the core difference between "traditional" and "not-as-traditional" RPGs. (Certainly more important than much of the razor-thin, marginal differences that are often raised).

To me, a game that is about what we, the players, have decided we want to focus on, with mechanical support, is a great thing.

If I want a game about political intrigue among the clans, and the GM wants a game about hunting for an ancient fortress in the goblin-infested mountains, I like a game that helps us reach an agreement. As a GM, which I often am, I'd rather run the game the players want than the one I may have envisioned.

I think this point is very easy to get riled over. So, you know, whichever approach interests you is cool by me (giggly hippie collaborative vs tyrannical auteur), but speaking personally, I have a clear preference for the former. (I don't think this is a "rules" issue, either. You can play D&D or The Mountain Witch both ways).

Yeah. I'm not some rabid Forge-game hater, so my preference for surprise is just that, rather than some declaration of how all games at all times must be played.

The jargon thing did slightly annoy me.  As so often though, it annoyed me more when used by fans than when used in the game.

In the game, it is what it is.  Where I got irritated (and this is no fault of the game's) is when I was trying to discuss it online and people would talk about burning characters instead of creating characters.  Frankly, it's just poor use of English.

Other than that, I prefer character driven play but there's more than one way to achieve that.  My personal preference is for systems which avoid conflict resolution, as I find the metadiscussions required for conflict resolution unfun and anti-immersive.  Put simply, discussing what the stakes are takes me out of the zone, out of the flow, and that kills a lot of the fun.

Others find it works for them, that's fine and I hope games continue to come out which meet their preferences.

My main issue with BW was nothing to do with indie elements or the Forge or any of that.  It's just too rules heavy for me.  No more, no less.  My objection to it is essentially the same as my objection to Hero.  For my personal tastes it's just all too much.

Others like a robust game system and get great results with it.  That's great and I have no doubt for those fond of more robust games then stuff like BW or Hero or whatever can deliver a lot of fun.