Quote from: Andy KBut still, the question remains, "What's the deterministic/bad thing about Burning Empires?(Burning Wheel?)"

From the context it sounds like a wierd use/misuse of the word "deterministic". The bad thing would be, if I'm reading into it correctly, that there are a wide range of the structured dice mechanics for determining the outcome in different kinds of situtations?

Quote from: SettembriniFor a funnier spin:

Tony actually wins!
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Tony+LB&word2=Luke+Crane

Only in a fair fight!

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Capes+RPG&word2=Burning+Wheel+RPG

Quote from: jenskotOnly in a fair fight!

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Capes+RPG&word2=Burning+Wheel+RPG

I unbanned you, the anti-spam software got ya.

I was sure when i first saw this thread that it said "licks Luke...." The front page doesn't show the rest, so i thought huh? Then on second look, all became clear.

EDIT: It does now. Wierd.

Hi, guys! Sorry I've been incommunicado--my internet usage was interfered with yesterday to a terminal degree. Multnomah County Library: 1, Joel: 0.

Also, apologiez* for the choice of forum. I honestly forgot that this site has a separate forum for AP. You got me on one count, though, Spike: I did want people to actually read the thread. I'm such a fiend.

On GMless play: this was one quality of the game that I especially thought bore examination. In my description I've tried to highlight aspects of play that particularly hinge on GM-less-ness, and how it worked out in actual practice. For instance, there are no "NPCs". Well, there are bystanders and bit parts and such, BUT: if a character is to have any significant impact on the story, they have to be run by a player. Hence, who takes up what role in a given scene is fluid, and discussion vital.

On that note:

Quote from: TonyLBJoel:Experience (both mine and that of others) indicates that the few minutes you spent talking as a group in advance about what you wanted the tenor of the game to be, and how everyone's characters would fit into it, is a crucial element of that success.  I'm constantly amazed at how much fuel a group stockpiles in just those few minutes, to keep them humming along together for the session ahead.

I wholeheartedly agree. It kinda felt like we were slow getting started, but once we got through it that prep made a rock-solid foundation for the rest of play. (Incidentally, I know you designed the Click-N-Locks, etc for "grab 'n go" play, but have you factored in the delay factor caused by two or more participants with encyclopedic Marvel and DC knowledge? )

I think the most serious issue with GMlessness may be the downside of "everyone takes up parts of characters as necessary." Which is, that who can be centrally involved in the story at any time is limited by the number of players. For instance, if we had played a "Super-team," what would we do if the whole team was on hand for a battle? Sure, you can spend tokens to play two characters, but wouldn't it be a little. . .wierd for the whole group to play both the heroes and their opposition?

The closest we came to this difficulty was our little "No one's playing the assassin" snag. Which we solved, sure. I'm not saying it's an insurmountable difficulty, but it is there. Any thoughts, Tony?

And as for everyone else, it sounds like the GM;ess concept has got a few folks scratching their heads. I've tried to lay out how it works in practice (for this game, anyway) and what makes it fun, but if anyone has any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Or Tony can, since he's got, y'know, a bit of expreience with this.



About BW and "Deterimistic"-ness: I thought it was an odd word to use, myself. I mainly included the remark about BW to highlight how one player, in particular a skeptic, liked Capes in favor of another system. Anyway, I asked him what he meant and he said something like, in BW there's a little system for everything (like DoW, I guess), that gives you very narrowly defined A or B outcomes. Bear in mind that I'm really not familiar with BW at all, but the contrast he seemed to draw was that Capes gives you a lot of interpretive leeway on describing an outcome, that BW specifically doesn't. I have know idea if that's true of BW, myself.

Whew! Better late then never. I better warn everyone that I'll be leaving for the weekend, so barring possibly getting online again later tonight, further replies will have to wait until Monday.

Peace,
-Joel


*WAY too awesome a typo to correct.

Quote from: MelinglorAnyway, I asked him what he meant and he said something like, in BW there's a little system for everything (like DoW, I guess), that gives you very narrowly defined A or B outcomes. Bear in mind that I'm really not familiar with BW at all, but the contrast he seemed to draw was that Capes gives you a lot of interpretive leeway on describing an outcome, that BW specifically doesn't.

The real deal breaker for me where BW was concerned wasn't that the sub-systems lock you into particular courses of action (i.e., they don't), but that there are so many of them (e.g., DoW has several sub-systems in and of itself, as does Fight!) that actual resolution often gets drawn out to unreasonable degrees.

Mechanically speaking, it's low on the efficiency end of things, which I think makes it suffer for use as anything other than a deliberate exercise in rule application. Granted, some professed roleplayers consider rule-jockeying to be the only form of roleplay and, for them, BW should be a hoot.

For anybody who digs story or drama during actual play, on the other hand, BW is about as far from transparent as RPG mechanics come.

How did I get involved in this? WHY drag me into this? You liked playing Capes, that's great! That has nothing to do with me. Unless, of course, you're asking me to demonstrate what you already know -- I'm a dick's dick.

Quote from: lukeHow did I get involved in this? WHY drag me into this? You liked playing Capes, that's great! That has nothing to do with me. Unless, of course, you're asking me to demonstrate what you already know -- I'm a dick's dick.

Well, then you belong here, judging by the present company...

-clash

Sorry, Luke, I didn't mean to "involve" you in any serious way. It was just a throwaway line which, once it had occurred to me, I couldn't resist using. It gave some people who really hate his guts an excuse to sound off. That's all.

Well, it also engendered a bit of discussion on how Burning Wheel works, based on my fellow-player's comment. Which I don't mind, I guess, as long as it doesn't crowd out whatever Capes-discussion we manage to get going. In any case, I think I'll send out word to my fellow-players about this thread, and maybe the guy who commented on BW can explain himself directly.

Peace,
-Joel

EDIT: On contemplation, if what Mark described isn't actually the way BW works, it may be that his impression was colored by the way it was demoed.

Quote from: MelinglorThe closest we came to this difficulty was our little "No one's playing the assassin" snag. Which we solved, sure. I'm not saying it's an insurmountable difficulty, but it is there. Any thoughts, Tony?

I generally do things like super-hero teams (or, for another instance, Nick Fury and his Howling Commandoes) by narrating them the same way I would narrate gadgets from Batman's utility belt.  They're part of the narration, and may even be the biggest part of the narration, but somewhere in there is some factor of the 'primary' character that is driving the story.

So:  "Sweeping from the shadows, Batman pulls his special Anti-Vermin-Ultrasonic-Batarang from his belt ... 'This will put a stop to your rodent plague, Piper!' " is a perfectly legitimate use of "Jump out of the shadows."

Likewise:  "Nick chews on his cigar ... 'Take him down, Dum Dum,' he says.  Dum Dum Dugan steps forward, cocking his bowler hat at a jaunty angle.  'With pleasure, Nick,' he says," is a fine narration for "Cigar" or "Leadership" or any number of other traits on Nick Fury.

If one player is particularly keen to bring in a whole team, there are ways to build a character that make it particularly easy to narrate such stuff (leadership-centered personality traits, and sometimes even group-effecting superpowers like the ever-popular "Patriotic Slogans" (Cap) or "Bitchier than humanly possible" (Jenny Sparks)), but even with a character not optimized for that stuff, it's totally possible to narrate it.

My mnemonic is this:  You're in the series that follows the characters who are mechanically represented.  Yeah, the Avengers can (and do) show up in the Fantastic Four comic book ... but every action the Avengers take begins and ends with something that the Fantastic Four do to motivate them.  The story's not about the Avengers the same way it is about the FF.

Likewise, the Justice League acts differently when they appear in Superman's book than when Superman is appearing in the Justice League mag.

Quote from: lukeHow did I get involved in this? WHY drag me into this? You liked playing Capes, that's great! That has nothing to do with me. Unless, of course, you're asking me to demonstrate what you already know -- I'm a dick's dick.

Bizarrely, and quite against your will, you seem to have become something of a local celebrity, albeit not a popular one I grant you.

Use of your name encourages readership, hell, I intend to use it now in all future thread titles (for example, "I want a new horror rpg, what would you and/or Luke Crane recommend?).  It guarantees attention to the thread in question.

Quote from: BalbinusBizarrely, and quite against your will, you seem to have become something of a local celebrity, albeit not a popular one I grant you.

Popular, unpopular. It's all the same to me! But it is a little creepy, I admit.

I hope people start using thread titles like "Luke Crane! Viagra! Penis Enlargement! Satisfy Yourself Tonight!"

But now, back to discussing Capes!

Flame ON!

Since my name has been invoked by Joel, I suppose I ought to respond to his comment about my comparison between "Capes" and "BW."

First, I did enjoy "Capes" immensely. I liked the conflict resolution system, the uses of the debt tokens, and the introduction of initial story elements. I would play the game again for all of these reasons.

That being said, the game does not address the issue of The Opposition, for lack of a better term. Because the game is GM-less, there is no individual responsible for defining and portraying the Opposition. The game virtually assumes that the players must engage in conflict with each other in order for the system to work. However, in true super-hero fashion, heroes fight *villains,* and if no one in the group is willing to play a villain, the entire story comes to a crashing halt. That is why I stepped into the breach to play the parts that *needed* to be played. I recognized that in order for the story to work, someone *had* to fulfill these roles (like the toadying assistant). It wasn't a question of enthusiasm; it was my recognition that this was a necessary and lacking element of the game mechanic. I proposed, later, that we distribute these roles to each of the players as seemed appropriate, but if one player does not claim "ownership" of these NPCs, you could find their personalities swinging wildly. So group ownership of NPCs doesn't make sense from a storytelling/narrative point of view.

Traditionally, it's the GM's role to "round out" the world, describing all the other characters and circumstances around the players. There was no one fulfilling this role in "Capes" and that was its greatest weakness. It seemed to get off to a good start with all the players contributing to setting the scene, adding to the mythology, etc. But once the scene was actually underway, there was no easy way to add in the "bit players," to add complications to the scene, etc. I understand that this would have been the role of the Story Tokens if we'd had an opportunity to use them. But since so few actions were actually opposed, there were few Story Tokens generated. And the one person who had a Story Token couldn't think of a use for it.

Now, as to my impression of "Burning Wheel." I've participated in two demos, and the second only reinforced my impression from the first. The system is *too crunchy.* The character sheet is a monstrosity, putting d20 to shame in its complexity. I liked the "Beliefs" and "Instincts" conceptually, but didn't see these as affecting play in a significant way, certainly no more than a clearly defined character concept and competent roleplaying would do in any other game.

And that's the crux of the issue. "BW" tries to substitute "systems" for roleplaying; to codify all the soft, squishy bits of character development that rightly belong within the province of the imagination of the players. The "Duel  of Wits" mechanics were absurd; laborious, tedious, pointless. They exclude for extended periods of time any characters that are not involved in the "Duel." In my day, these kinds of conflicts would be *roleplayed," not "scripted." If characters are incapable of resolving their interpersonal conflicts, then usually characters begin to take *actions* to assert their will, just like in the real world. The idea of cross-referencing verbal tactics on a rubrik to determine outcomes is just that - deterministic. It robs the players of choice.

I was willing to be more forgiving of the same system as applied to combat, but it still smacked too much of wargamer mentality, where orders must be written in advance. In actual combat, fighters are capable of adjusting to changing conditions; they are rarely "locked in" to a course of three actions at a time.

In summary, "Burning Wheel" did not provide the rich roleplaying experience that its adherents claim. It substituted systems, scripts, and determined outcomes for actual roleplaying. The character creation system, while interesting, takes too long without adding much dimensionally, and certainly nothing that competent players and GMs couldn't do on their own. The entire BW system seems to be a crutch for folks who can't manage these tasks on their own.

I have zero interest in playing "Burning Wheel" again. If "BW" is supposedly "da bomb," then it's definitely a dud!

Cheers,
Mark

Quote from: MrFantasticBut since so few actions were actually opposed, there were few Story Tokens generated. And the one person who had a Story Token couldn't think of a use for it.

Whuh?  Now I'm confused.  You had judgment, secrecy, all that stuff ... why weren't you guys opposing each other?  Your group, as a whole, generated only one story token?  More details, please!