TheRPGSite

I've been thinking about running this game, and have some questions before I set out.  Specifically, I'm wondering about how to handle character generation, since this game doesn't have a clearly defined idea of what a "default" starting character looks like.  Do you set a standard number of lifepaths (like, 4 or something)?  Is it a problem that this can produce anything from an indentured servant to a thousand-year-old elven prince, or do you consider things balanced by the fact that anyone can choose any path -- or do you not worry about balance at all?

I haven't run it yet, but I think most people set a number of lifepaths. I'm not sure that balance would be a problem if you left it open.

Quote from: droogI haven't run it yet, but I think most people set a number of lifepaths.

Okay, but what number?  (Even if the answer varies, I'm looking for a GURPS-style "this number for a campaign of this level, this number for a campaign of that level" answer.)

Here we go: Chr Burner p14.

Two lifepaths is a novice, five is a veteran. It suggests 3-4 for a starting character.

Quote from: droogHere we go: Chr Burner p14.

Two lifepaths is a novice, five is a veteran. It suggests 3-4 for a starting character.

D'oh!  I can't believe I missed that.  Thanks for telling me.

As for balance... I guess the premise is that since the players can pick whatever they want, it doesn't matter if some choices have wildly disparate competence levels?  (Since presumably, the players won't pick anything they don't want to play?)

I'd say so. We should have more of these discussions – I'm just feeling my way around the rules myself.

As well, I don't think the game is intended for an old-skool "here's the scenario, now defeat the opposition" play-style. I.e., I think it's supposed to be very character-centric, with the in-game challenges arising either from PC decisions, or from the character's Beliefs.

I can see things going too far in that direction (at least for my tastes) but as I consider how to run the game I'm working on a somewhat "characters first, campaign second" sort of model.

Quote from: droogI haven't run it yet, but I think most people set a number of lifepaths.

I gather that this is what the author suggests. IIRC, the recommended number of lifepaths for a newbie game is anywhere from 3-5. I haven't played BW: R yet, but I very much want to. Oddly, I played Classic and thought it far over-hyped. I intensely disliked it. BW:R looks like a whole different game, though -- and I like what I see. Oink.

4 lifepath characters seem to be standard for most BW games. You end up with well-rounded competent characters.

3 lifepath characters are usually pretty decent at one (and I mean one) thing, have crappy equipment, few Relationships, Reputations, and Affiliations, and piss-poor Resources. They advance really quickly, though, and can still be a lot of fun.

Burning Wheel characters aren't really balanced as far as personal power is concerned. Elves and dwarves range from slightly to extremely more powerful than their human counterpoints, depending on the particulars of the lifepaths taken. If you're GMing a group of BWers, it's a good idea to judiciously use your veto power when it comes to characters, otherwise you can end up with a situation where one player constantly outshines the others.

The whole Belief, Instinct, Trait reward cycle works best when you've sat down with the players and worked up the theme of the campaign together and made sure that everyone has addressed the theme through their Beliefs. (when I say theme I just mean "what the game is about") If you don't do this, you are most likely fucking your game up before it ever gets off the ground.

Tim

Quote from: jdrakehBW:R looks like a whole different game, though -- and I like what I see. Oink.

Do you (or does anyone, for that matter) know what changed between the original and the revised?  or know where I could find the info?

Thanks..

Quote from: rcsampleDo you (or does anyone, for that matter) know what changed between the original and the revised?  or know where I could find the info?

Thanks..

The biggest change is, of course, the introduction of the Duel of Wits mechanic -- a resolution system for tactically plotted parley. Honestly, without these rules, the Burning Wheel isn't much more than Yet Another Fantasy Game. The Duel of Wits rules set it apart from nearly all other fantasy games currently published, with the notable exception of Exalted 2e -- and BW:R manages to do social combat much better than Exalted (IMO).

The other changes that I'm aware of are the excision of the pace counting method used in melee combat to determine distance, and the introduction of abstract weapon lengths. It makes the highly simulationist Fight! rules feel a bit less "gamey" which, for me, makes them more attractive.

I'm sure that there are several other, more subtle changes, though my experience with the game in actual play is limited so far. . .

Everything that Tim says, especially this part.

Quote from: TimThe whole Belief, Instinct, Trait reward cycle works best when you've sat down with the players and worked up the theme of the campaign together and made sure that everyone has addressed the theme through their Beliefs. (when I say theme I just mean "what the game is about") If you don't do this, you are most likely fucking your game up before it ever gets off the ground.

Also make sure the Beliefs are very concrete and very action orientated, or at least the main one that is the tie that binds between all the PC. They make things a lot easier for new players than abstract concepts.

"The wizard Jenkins is my mortal enemy, I will gut him like the slimy fish he is." - good
"I don't like wizards." - not so good

The BW forum has really good support. Once you have the full slate of Beliefs toss them up there in their Clinic sub-forum and you'll get some good tips on any potential problem spots.

Re:Changes from BWC; I never played it, but my understanding is that it didn't have Circles which contains my most favourite rule from any RPG. The Emnity Clause.  Oh, and apparently they didn't have the different flavours of Artha which tended to lead to people milking one type of artha source and ignoring the others. :(  All in all I'm not sure I would have thought that much of it either.

That's funny about the number of default lifepaths. Burning Empires was pretty good at giving the guidelines for number of paths, but it's much higher.... seven or so I recall, with the possiblity of going to, er, ten? If you like starting with no Artha...

Quote from: SpikeThat's funny about the number of default lifepaths. Burning Empires was pretty good at giving the guidelines for number of paths, but it's much higher.... seven or so I recall, with the possiblity of going to, er, ten? If you like starting with no Artha...

Well, I think the assumption for Burning Empires is that you're going to be playing movers and shakers: planetary governors, fleet commanders, 5 star generals, and the like. Plus the short lifepath times reflect the relative social mobility of a more modern society.

In Burning Wheel, at least for the very medieval humans, you're looking at old age by the time you're in your mid-30s, and the lifepaths tend to take 5-7 years.

Quote from: TimWell, I think the assumption for Burning Empires is that you're going to be playing movers and shakers: planetary governors, fleet commanders, 5 star generals, and the like.

Bingo! There is actually a section in the Character Burner near the front that talks about LP and how many. I'd give a page # but I've lent my book out to a friend.

Going from memory the upper range they talk about is 8. Even a 6 LP character is quite powerful compared to 4 LP, although the power is usually more in breadth than peak.  When you get up to 8 LP you are talking about real movers and shakers. Could easily play the concept of a rich Baron for example if you concentrate in the Noble LPs. Throwing 5 or 6 Grey dice for Resources (or B10 if the shade shift was nixed...booo :p ), and literally Circling up small armies. Plus have a personal platoon bodyguard at all times (for 10 rp take a 6 LP cohort focusing in the Military LPs and make him the Platoon Commander).

EDIT: Almost forgot, in BW the guidelines for starting Artha go up the more LPs a character has. So the suggested starting Artha (for non-stingy campaigns) for LP 8 is F 4 P 3 D 1. If you actually went up to 10 LP they'd start with 2 Deeds Artha, which is nigh unholy.

Quote from: SpikeThat's funny about the number of default lifepaths. Burning Empires was pretty good at giving the guidelines for number of paths

BW is a general use game with lots of parts to flip in and out and use in all sorts of different settings.  BE is a tightly focused because it's a licensed product that is ment for playing an archtypical Iron Empires specific campaign for the life of a planet (or it has been postulated a large spaceship that is traveling planet to planet).

P.S. I read your BE review, pretty good....excepting the totally baffling paragraph where you are gnashing your teeth about the campaign superstructure being embedded as part of the rules.

Are you saying it was no good because it was baffling, or was it baffling because you disagree?  

I think the basic campaign structure is very heavily embedded in the rules. While I could ignore it completely, it viturally invalidates half the subsystems in the book, such as world burning, when I do.  I would prefer that world burning be more generically useful a tool, than so utterly tied to the campaign model provided. Ditto the 'big picture' conflict.

If it was just poorly written, let me know how and I'll try to revise it.

Quote from: SpikeI think the basic campaign structure is very heavily embedded in the rules. While I could ignore it completely, it viturally invalidates half the subsystems in the book, such as world burning, when I do.  I would prefer that world burning be more generically useful a tool, than so utterly tied to the campaign model provided. Ditto the 'big picture' conflict.

It is ironic that the game very much invokes the license it is built under, something that is sadly rarely accomplished, and for that you rip it for that.

The point of the game is the fate of a planet in the Iron Empires, whether the Vaylen hull everyone on it or not. Within that scope it provides a really wide range of options, including having the planet outside of the Iron Empires proper, or potentially the 'planet' as a ship with a large crew/passenger capacity. The specifics of the planet, and even the system they exist in (think twin inhabited planet systems or even binary stars systems) quite widely too.

So it is a generic game, but flexs (and doesn't flex) in ways that others don't.  Just like some settings would dictate, say, the makeup of the magic system or the tech level in BE the Iron Empires setting sets the type campaign.

All of which is definately something that belongs in the review, because it helps people decide whether they want to play the game or not. It lets them know the abilities and limitations. Even put your preference about whether or not you are interested in being in a campaign like that, that's cool. But to instead to just sum it up as unless "trash"?

Then this line here: "Sadly, I don't think the game designer belongs at the game table, unless he's there in person." :confused: That's the most baffling part of the paragraph. What does that mean?

You have to understand that I had never heard of Iron Empires prior to reading the book first of all.  While I appreciate the value of emulation of source material: IE the hulling of a planet, what I don't like is the way it artificially limits you to playing out the fate of that single planet, and only that.  Once you try to push the scope to more of an intergalactic campaign, say uniting the Iron Empires to face down the vaylen threat, you immedeatly have to abandon that mechanic... and with it everything that depends upon it.

Call it a case of too closely following the source material, like a Star Wars game that only allowed you to play out the game as if it were a homage to the movies.

As for the comment: In reading the book, and in subsequent discussions with people this was verified, I got a very strong impression of how Luke runs his games.  I am not Luke, and he doesn't game with me or my friends. I don't particularly care for the hyped-up-sorry-can't-talk-must-rush-to-next-critical-scene style of play that he apparently does, nor would I structure the campaign the way he does. Yet here is this book written in a way that very much pushes a single style of play.  Great if you agree, annoying if not, and potentially harmful if a GM who is naturally more laid back actively tries to follow it and screws up his own games.  So, if Luke isn't at my table, preferably behind the screen, he should try to write as if he were.  Should I follow this with YMMV, IMHO and all those other meaningless sentiments?;)

QuoteYou have to understand that I had never heard of Iron Empires prior to reading the book first of all.

If it is important that I understand that [as a reader] then it is something that likely should have been brought up in the review. ;) Both that it is using the Iron Empires license and that you'd never heard of the Iron Empires before (I hadn't either before BE).

Although I thought it gave a pretty good treatment to the overview background at the front of the book. *shrug* I do agree though that it would've been nice to have a larger glossary of IE terms that covered all the LP names, a pile of that setting material available including extended glossary and more detailed tech background on the web is OK but still not ideal from a complete product POV.

QuoteWhile I appreciate the value of emulation of source material: IE the hulling of a planet, what I don't like is the way it artificially limits you to playing out the fate of that single planet, and only that.

As I mentioned there is a bit more flexibility there than that. Not a huge amount, but some. Of course you can handwave that this is the planet that is a key defense in the protection of several others, and up the stakes that way. Then your FoN are either higher ups from off planet or have really good connections off planet that can bring in resources into play that way. Of course this is a bit of a stretch but....

QuoteOnce you try to push the scope to more of an intergalactic campaign, say uniting the Iron Empires to face down the vaylen threat, you immedeatly have to abandon that mechanic... and with it everything that depends upon it.

See, you are jumping another notch in scale there. The state of still large, just not stunningly so, sprawling Iron Empires is they don't want to be united, that no human or group can unite them. It's like saying "why doesn't Xxxx come with rules for running armys". Or more appropriately "why doesn't Xxxx come with rules for a planet wide struggle where I'm a member of elite, all it has is heaps of mechanics for personal skills like riding a horse and shooting weapons and climbing up the side of the building". The obvious answer is that Xxxx isn't a game designed to work at that scale.

That said having an armada sized Firefight! isn't out of the scope of the rules. You can have battles in space, and not all the resources have to come from the planet nor do all the scenes have to occur on that planet (given a high enough Tech Index or outside equipment brought in), you can have ships travel to neighbouring systems or potentially even further if you manage to generate enough Downtime.

If you wanted to you could run a series of linked campaigns stretched into a larger arc. But you might consider making them single phases otherwise you are talking about a total arc running weekly sessions for RL years.

QuoteShould I follow this with YMMV, IMHO and all those other meaningless sentiments?;)

How about just writing that in in something understandable to start with? Like "If anything, I suspect it would make the games move a little TOO fast sometimes." ;) Which seemed like a fair comment.  Hey, I think that "This game is not for everyone... in fact I submit to you that the average gaming group might not know exactly what to do with it." is a fair comment, or more like fair warning. Because it operates at a scale that a lot of people don't associate with an RPG. It's pretty rare for RPGs have rules even handling battles involving 20 to 100 individuals (I can think of one off the top of my head, Black Company). So it'll take a little bit to get their head around it even if it is a scale they are interested in.

The other part about not writing like you are there? Still not getting, because a game designer is always there. The 'natural' pace of the game is written right into the rules. It's the same as the games always work as the way they are built....unless you change them.  Or do you mean the wordings which have a much more personal feel than a disembodied textbook feel to them?

P.S. Is that what is behind this other sentence in the review that struck me really oddly, where you sound like a greyhaired church lady talking about what you can hear when you play a Crazy Train record backwards:  "For an internet gamer, the Forge-Speak gets heavy, though I doubt less 'informed' gamers would notice."  Because as it is that statement makes me feel kind of like I'm 'less informed'. :(

Quote from: blakkie"For an internet gamer, the Forge-Speak gets heavy, though I doubt less 'informed' gamers would notice."  Because as it is that statement makes me feel kind of like I'm 'less informed'. :(

Snipped for brevity.

To start with, conquering/uniting all of human territory is a built in assumption when dealing with stories told about humanity.  It's what people, ambitious powerful people do.  Alexander the great had no business in India, yet there he was.  Saying that the Iron Empires shouldn't support that is stupid. You are dealing with powerful, ambitious people with politics and military. Not everyone is going to be staring at the mud beneath their feet, but looking at the stars.  


As for your above comment:  A year and a half ago I'd never heard of the forge. less than a year ago, I could have read this game and never realized the volume of buzzwords that were in it, or the design philosophies in it.  Having learned by participation in internet fora, and curiousity, I could not avoid the glaringly obvious use of said buzz words and deliberate philosophies when reading the book.  Then again, I have a knack for seeing patterns, so maybe it was more obvious to me.  The point is, a number of readers here know what I talk of when I say forge stuff, a number of people looking randomly for reviews of the game might not. So I put in the fact that if you know what it is, it's obvious, if you don't then I don't think you'll care.

Quote from: blakkieHey, I think that "This game is not for everyone... in fact I submit to you that the average gaming group might not know exactly what to do with it." is a fair comment, or more like fair warning. Because it operates at a scale that a lot of people don't associate with an RPG.

Burning Wheel's mechanics can trip up even an experienced gaming group.  Throwing Burning Empires at them (not literally because that brick could kill them) could be cause for a steel test.

Quote from: SpikeTo start with, conquering/uniting all of human territory is a built in assumption when dealing with stories told about humanity. It's what people, ambitious powerful people do.  Alexander the great had no business in India, yet there he was.

I must have skipped class where he made it to North America/South America and conquered all of humanity to 'unite' it? :cool:

The fundamental core fact of humanity in Iron Empires is the entire species is on the downturn. These are dark ages. They have technology without the science to further develop or even completely understand the technology. They are stagnet, they are diseased, they are petty, "And so bitter are we—are all of us!—that we say ’tis better to watch our neighbor gutted by the enemy than support him against a common foe."

But sure you can attempt to unite humanity. Play Alexander the Great, and cut a swath of knee-deep blood. Remember that Alexander the Great wasn't in India on some selfless hippie love-circle quest. He was there to conquer and claim for Greece. He left a wide trail of blood, slaughtering virtually every soilder he captured or that surrendered, that wasn't at that moment in time in that spot the betterment of humanity. What if there was this large enemy of both India and Greece at that moment in time? An inhuman enemy. Exactly! This interloper enemy would have the opportunity to exploit Alexander The Great's bloodlust. Now you see? The Worm is using that uniting-by-force instinct against humanity!  And that'll play out in your game, because not all FoN on the Vaylen are Vaylen or even aware of the Vaylen.  It is that very infighting to establish a 'united front' that the Vaylen exploit.

So go ahead and have your game be about trying to bring humanity under a single banner. Give it a shot, let's see this great man/woman in action! Human on human conflict is a very normal aspect of the game. But The Vaylen are going to be there as interlopers, even if neither side is aware of it initially, trying to leverage the chaos and infighting to their advantage.

Now playing in the Iron Empires is not going to appeal to everyone. It's pretty damn dark if you dwell on it, rather than on your character being a hero for a single planet of billions of people. Of course dwelling on your character being a hero is fairly natural, and that's exactly what is happening with the humans of the time as a whole. Unable to grasp and act upon the scale beyond just a few billion of people.

QuoteAs for your above comment:  A year and a half ago I'd never heard of the forge. less than a year ago, I could have read this game and never realized the volume of buzzwords that were in it, or the design philosophies in it.

Then they aren't actually buzzwords, as used in the book. That's English that is comprehendable by a vast swath of people.  Unlike those sentences I'm pointing out in your review.

QuoteHaving learned by participation in internet fora, and curiousity, I could not avoid the glaringly obvious use of said buzz words and deliberate philosophies when reading the book Then again, I have a knack for seeing patterns, so maybe it was more obvious to me.

I think what you are seeing is the source English where people started from and turned it into jargon. The Burning Wheel is, IIRC, the best selling game associated with The Forge so a lot of people have read it there, so that's the jumping off point where it was coopted from eventually stripping out the plain English meaning an using the words as idioms. Therefore confusing it with parts of the jargon used at The Forge would be easy....if you were looking for it.

It is like the medical student that has started taking classes suddenly diagnosing themselves with a huge list of diseases. ;)

QuoteThe point is, a number of readers here know what I talk of when I say forge stuff, a number of people looking randomly for reviews of the game might not. So I put in the fact that if you know what it is, it's obvious, if you don't then I don't think you'll care.

I put it to you that you are complaining about jargon [that isn't there] using jargon [that has perhaps an even narrower audience]. Pretty damn ironic, huh?

P.S.  Luke seems to me pretty aware of jargon, and actively fights it. I've seen it on more than one occation. He probably realizes just how insular and counterproductive it is. Even when it's done by people that are proponents of his game, especially when it is done by proponents of his game.  Here, listen to this second part of an podcast interview of him by a couple of guys that I'd say definately fall into the 'cheerleaders' catagory ('cheerleaders' being the civil term :p ) Starting at the 2 minute mark (http://www.gamestas.net/downloads/The%20Whole%20Show%20(Episode%20-10%20Pt%202).mp3) see how aggressively Luke calls out the jargon "narrative control".

Quote from: GunslingerBurning Wheel's mechanics can trip up even an experienced gaming group.  Throwing Burning Empires at them (not literally because that brick could kill them) could be cause for a steel test.

Agreed. And it is their experience that is working against them.  I've got this idea in my head, a hypothesis if you will, that an experienced RPG player going into Burning Empires thinking "RPG" is a mistake.  Because the flipside of experience is prejudice, and prejudices are an impedence to learning a new way of looking at something old.

I'm going to see how this hypothesis works. I'm going to pitch BE as a "game", and purposely not mention it's RPG nature by name. We'll see how that works.