Quote from: boulet;394142Just curious, what are the similtude you see between Reign and BW?

Essentially, both games have a set of, um, "attributes" that are narrative in scope but do mechanical things for the benefit of the player if they come up in play.

For BW, it's the BITs - if they manage to come up during the game, or you make them come up through roleplay, you get mechanical advantage in the form of more Artha to spend. There is also the narrative reward side in that the character changes in response to what happens at the table. Also, more than likely, following your BITs gives you tests on your skills, so eventually you get better at things. One of the Beliefs can even be set up on purpose as Fate mill, if you make a long term goal you can always narrate yourself trying to achieve every session.

For Reign (and this is totally subjective) the system of Passions fills a similar role. In-game, Passions give you bonus dice to do stuff that fits that Passion (or penalty dice if you break them). It also let's you get better, since you gain XP for fulfilling your Passion in game (in fact, the "Mission" Passion is pretty much an XP mill, since you reset it each session. Your Duty and Obsession, not so much).

Does that make sense? It's the part that makes me so...sad? about BW. Alone, the Artha cycle would be awesome. Alone, even Fight! might be okay, or Duel of Wits. But all of these together (plus Range and Cover, and the shared authority thing at different times) creates a gestalt of stuff that I just don't think my group can handle. Having run the game for two mini-campaigns (about 7 sessions total) I DO know what I mean. I even had a 101 Days thread on RPGnet about it.

Forgot to say: this is different than GURPS, in which there's no real mechanical/narrative hookup. The only one is where you LOSE XP for not roleplaying your Disadvantages. Otherwise, you don't necessarily get anything extra for playing them, say, really well or at a critical moment. In fact, in GURPS, you're supposed to make a Control roll to see if it occurs anyway (though they do say you should play them as it's good roleplaying). Not a fault, just a difference. (For the record, my last campaign - 6 sessions all told - was a GURPS 4e Supers game. Players loved it).

Well actually, I don't think Reign's passions have any impact on XP (my book is at home but I'm almost sure about it). And funny enough that's one mechanic of Reign that I felt like homebrewing. Maybe make them more like The Shadow of Yesterday's keys, of FATE aspects?

I mean Passions bring bonus dice (or penalty dice at times) and it's interesting but not a tremendous impact on tasks resolution.  Then there are those disads that bring XP every time they complicate a PC's life (and that's quite subjective). And I feel there should be a trait that combine those two concepts and make them more significant.

Quote from: boulet;394280Well actually, I don't think Reign's passions have any impact on XP (my book is at home but I'm almost sure about it). And funny enough that's one mechanic of Reign that I felt like homebrewing. Maybe make them more like The Shadow of Yesterday's keys, of FATE aspects?

Oops, you're right. I forgot a term - Problems. You get XP for those, not for the Passions (though they still give you bonus dice). In a way this is still BW like - Artha only affects advancement directly in terms of Epiphanies, as I remember. Problems however are direct - but you only get XP if they are an issue though.

As for your houseruling idea - well, of course, go for it if you're inclined. For me, adding on rules to it is just another set of things that either I or my players will be asked to keep track of, which was my point about a certain level of rules becoming too much. If I wanted lots of extra work, I'd stick with BW - at least that trouble was playtested.

Quote from: Soylent Green;393735As for more specific examples in which I've done a complete 180:

Fudging dice:  When I first started it never even occurred to me a GM would fudge dice rolls. Later, I bought into the "dice have no sense of story" learned how to occasionally fudge dice results for all the best reasons. Now I see fudging dice as disenfranchising players so I always roll dice in the open, avoid asking for dice rolls if I'm not prepared to live with consequences and favour systems in which the player can legitimately fudge their dice through Fate points or similar resource.

Using OOC information: When I started roleplaying, the firewall, the ability to draw a line between IC and OOC information was the hallmark of good roleplaying. I think this notion came very much in reaction to perhaps younger players who may felt tempted to use OOC information unfairly just to "win at the roleplaying game". These days I trust my players and I find that being liberal with OOC information helps them appreciate the game better and make choices for their character which in enhance everyone's enjoyment at the table.

Random Encounters: When I first got started in many quarter random encounters and random tables were poster children of everything that was wrong with the hobby - slavish subservience to the rules, lack of imagination and stories which were just strings of fights which made no sense. I now have an entirely new respect for random encounter and such as interesting pacing device and way to break out of safe, predictable GMing patterns.

I've gone pretty much the same way, particularly as a GM. I found it rather refreshing to play a dungeon in the open, showing the players where they are on the map, and letting them use OOC information as they liked (not surprisingly they got themselves into trouble that the map should have warned them of). I also roll all my dice in the open, although rather than fudge I prefer to just make liberal interpretations of the results.

This also came along with pretty much all the advice in the AD&D 2e DMG being completely wrong (and interestingly, the DMGR1 supplement that followed, mostly right).