This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Burning Empires  (Read 5077 times)

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
Burning Empires
« on: December 06, 2006, 02:40:30 AM »


I went into this project with skeptecism and doubt. I have very specific tastes in games and what little I knew had me suspecting that I had wasted my time worrying about whether or not to purchase any Burning Wheel games.

I was wrong, dear readers... but only half so. 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. On the other hand there are a thousand glittering gems scattered throughout it, each worthy of praise. Presto, a conflict is born, lets change scenes.

My normal, and frankly less than stellar, review practice is to break the book down into chapters and cover what is in them. It is methodical and when done properly allows a certain judgement nil perspective.  Burning Empires is frankly too damn big and too damn complex for me to do that without doing it a great disservice.

Physically the book is roughly 5x8, hardbound, and thick like a brick. Its heavy, full color, lots of art from the graphic comics that provided the setting.  It is, despite the smaller format, huge.  The binding is subpar. I've had my copy less than a week and I've treated it carefully and still the pages threaten to break free and run from it.  They seem both sewn and glued in, and the glue is the problem, it's already lost its cohesion.  That is the physical book, what about the contents?

Let me start with this: Many things about the setting are poorly, if at all, explained.  Stentors, Coeptir and a dozen other terms in the lifepaths. Other things, mostly rules and gameplay are over explained.  I suspect a good hundred or more pages could have been excised simply with a cleaner organization and less time spent going over the same ground. Of course, those hundred pages might have been spent actually detailing the little things that make a setting come alive.  Who knows.

What I do know is that after an introduction explaining the basic premise of the setting (invasion of the pod people in a fallen galactic empire) the designer gets off to what I think is the greatest failing of the game: World Burning.  It starts with an unusual proclamation: the GM is an adversarial player out to win, and goes downhill from there.  The primary purpose of worldbuilding, you see, is to limit the player's feild to a single world, and the nature of the campaign to staving off an invasion of the pod people. The players can be either side, which is a nice concession.

Remove the idea of limiting the game to a single world, and the forced adversarial play and this setting would open wide. What good are starships if you are trapped on a single world?  Mind you, this is a significant portion of the book, 10% of it actually.

There is hope here. Burning Empires begins with the premise that the characters are 'Important People' and seems to mean it. This is a very cool thing. Too many games seem to focus on starting small and working up to being powerful, Empires starts you powerful (if not actually excessively competent) and moves the play to DOING STUFF with that power. You'll need it.

There is a serious layout issue. A huge number of concepts are thrown at the reader with promises of future clarification. Luke goes on, and I feel like I can invoke his name freely, after all he starts off with himself as the example GM and later moves to using 'I' in his examples of play, about a great deal of stuff, much of which could be ignored until later, causing greater confusion to outsiders. He also stresses competetive play, backstabbing and all sorts of practices that most gamers avoid... all in the name of intensity.  For an internet gamer, the Forge-Speak gets heavy, though I doubt less 'informed' gamers would notice. Spotlight time, gauranteed 'scenes' and 'conflicts' abound.  

For all it's flaws, I wanted desperately to get into a game, however. Characters are cool, they are the shit if you will, and what you can attempt with them seems nigh infinite.  If you will, Luke seems to have captured the heart of the game, and it even if the style of play leaves me cold... well...

For those unfamiliar with Burning Wheel, the game is a dice pool mechanic with a fixed target number using D6's. Count your successes, with variables in adding dice and in target numbers.  Characters are generated via lifepath choices, with a fair degree of genericness and freedom. They are defined largely by their stats, skills and traits, though many traits have absolutely NO mechanical effect on play.  Characters chose beliefs and instincts, which are actually sort of cool, self written statements about who you are and what you want to do. I find, personally, that 'color' traits are wasted ink and paper. If I want to declare my character is a 'rat bastard' why can't I just do it? Why waste time telling me I can? Bah.

In many ways, Burning Empires strips out a lot of stuff from the game. In a good way. Most things become 'color', diceless things there to add, well, color to the game. This isn't giving away the store, as if it ever becomes important you have to pay for it, and color has no real effect on the game play. A great deal of time is spent dwelling on ordinary uses of game time and game play. Two characters talking without dice is now an interstistal scene, while a showy interlude is a 'color scene'.  Repeated several times throughout the book.  However, the effect is what works... make the important stuff important and ignore the trivial. No one wants to get bogged down 'playing' while a character negotiates for the embrodiery on his saddle.  Here it's color and hand waved, player describes it and the action moves on.   If anything, I suspect it would make the games move a little TOO fast sometimes.

I rather enjoyed the duel of wits mechanics, and finally learned what scripted combats were.  This is hardly new, the idea of writing down your 'attack' befor revealing to the other side what you are doing.  Reasonably elegant execution, even with the somewhat needless concept of doing it 'three at a time'. This mechanic is used for all conflicts in the game, just about. From the campaign conflict of the Pod Person invasion, to duels of wit, to major firefights... all of it.  To work as elegantly as it does, you only have seven choices to chose from, with a fair degree of overlap.   Personally, I think the scripting adds only a little to the game, but stripping it out would be more effor than it's worth.

I have two major problems with this, however. The first is that the combats are strictly unit based. There is a supposedly stripped down one on one, but given the depth of the 'battle' combat presented first, the half page or so given over to one on one seems hollow. It is, in fact, hollow, to the point of being disempowering if you aren't commanding a unit. While this supports the conceit of the game, that Characters are Important People, it provides an artificial limitation, moreso when you hear that Burning Wheel, the father game of this, allows far more depth to one on one conflicts.

The second problem is more important in some ways. You see, the campaign, as outlined, is run as a massive conflict spanning several game sessions, as campaigns do, and uses these scripted combat rules to resolve themselves.  However, the actions of the players in the game have NO EFFECT on the campaign rolls. None.  Only the rolls for the campaign itself have any impact.

To clarify: One 'campaign scene' has the players assaulting a pod person genetics lab. The scene is run both as an assualt with the players vs the pod people AND as a 'Take Action' Manuever in the ongoing conflict. The players can be slaughtered to a man and win the Take Action, they can take the lab, reveal the 'worm' or Pod People threat and otherwise have a sterling night's gaming... and still fail their Take Action maneuver. The two don't affect each other at all.  A major disconnect, if you ask me. It is not an accident, as we are told this is a possible outcome, then told to figure out 'in character' why... and make it awesome sounding.  Hollow advice.

The Tech Burner is a 'new thing', and is in place to allow players to 'make' their gear, which is then purchaced via resource dice.  Normally I dislike abstracted money, but here I'll make an exception. I like how it makes the game flow. Sci Fi games are rarely about the hardscrabble hunt for chests of treasure, and in a game where building a factory to manufacture weapons is a viable, even laudable activity between fights, counting cash seems a bit silly.  That said, I don't like 'high tech' settings where the average technology seems to be 'modern era' with fancier guns and armor... or in this case mostly armor.   Overall, however, the tech burner seems to do it's job just fine, though like so much else in the game, only in the limited lanes provided by the Designer.

The Alien Burner, on the other hand, seemed less useful. Unlike everything else, the Alien burner seems to be simply lists of abilities your aliens can have, with very little guidance on how to 'build' anything.  This is a failing, as it is perfectly feasable for players to have access to alien burning if they play the Pod People.

Social Circles provide about as much cool factor as anything else in the book, which is to say a lot. Given the power level of the game, social circles give you access to thousands of NPC's, whole armies or churches, they provide reputation and a host of other useful things. This is high power political gaming done right... with or without the politics.

Over all I am as torn as I ever was.  About half the game I love dearly and want to steal.  Things like the Social Circles, the life paths, the often clever mechanics. Even the World Burner has some interesting bits.

The other half of the book is pure trash. I don't need, nor do I want, Luke Crane to tell me how to structure my campaign. Not as advice, and certainly not enforced by rules. I do not care for the limited scope of the scripted combat (as pure unit based, with a crappy throw away for one on one).   The game is at it's best at the macro scale, handling the scope of the campaign, and at it's weakest when dealing with the micro scale issues of single players.  Sadly, I don't think the game designer belongs at the game table, unless he's there in person.  

So, in the final analysis, I want to rip out all the awesome and fill the resultant holes with even more awesome... but if I were to do that, I'd have to practically write my own game.   Still, if you like preprinted campaigns and leader based characters, this just might be the best Sci Fi game on the market.  
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

luke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • l
  • Posts: 195
    • http://www.burningwheel.com
Burning Empires
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2006, 02:00:01 PM »
Thanks for the review, man!

-L
I certainly wouldn't call Luke a vanity publisher, he's obviously worked very hard to promote BW, as have a handful of other guys from the Forge. -- The RPG Pundit

Give me a complete asshole writing/designing solid games any day over a nice incompetent. -- The Consonant Dude

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
Burning Empires
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2006, 03:42:01 PM »
No problem Luke.  I actually enjoyed reading it quite a bit, and even may have learned a few things, and I hope I conveyed that in the review.
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

Z-Dog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Z
  • Posts: 9
Burning Empires
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2006, 09:55:34 PM »
1. Most of the background/setting information is intentionally left vague to let players create their own.
2. What's wrong with limiting it to one world? Was Dune a lame sci-fi book because the majority of the story took place on Dune?
3. Star ships are good to keep the bad guys off the planet when they try to invade in phase 3 of the game.
4. How could the game move too fast if you cut out fluff? Do you think it'd be too short? A complete campaign would last about 18 weeks.
5. "...the actions of the players in the game have NO EFFECT on the campaign rolls," you mean, like how the actions of players in other games have an effect on what the gm decides to do next? GMs traditionally have total authority to decide what happens next. If they feel like handing the players a victory, they can...if they don't, he can deny it.
 

arminius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7270
    • http://ewilen.livejournal.com/
Burning Empires
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2006, 10:32:55 PM »
Quote from: Z-Dog
5. "...the actions of the players in the game have NO EFFECT on the campaign rolls," you mean, like how the actions of players in other games have an effect on what the gm decides to do next? GMs traditionally have total authority to decide what happens next. If they feel like handing the players a victory, they can...if they don't, he can deny it.
Well, maybe. It depends on whether you trust the GM to interpret the influence of player actions on the macro scale. You obviously don't.

I see it as doable but difficult. And it's disappointing to read that BE doesn't try to do it mechanically, given the overall design philosophy. In my opinion, it'd be better to give the players' actions an exaggerated weight by having the outcome of the character-level scenes give a bonus to the campaign system, than to have no linkage at all.

RPGObjects_chuck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 754
Burning Empires
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2006, 11:13:28 PM »
Spike, I thought this was a very good review. You gave me a much firmer grasp on this book and have (along with Paul Tevis) helped get me interested in it.

Thanks for telling us about it.

Chuck

Z-Dog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Z
  • Posts: 9
Burning Empires
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2006, 11:40:33 PM »
Quote from: Elliot Wilen
Well, maybe. It depends on whether you trust the GM to interpret the influence of player actions on the macro scale. You obviously don't.

I see it as doable but difficult. And it's disappointing to read that BE doesn't try to do it mechanically, given the overall design philosophy. In my opinion, it'd be better to give the players' actions an exaggerated weight by having the outcome of the character-level scenes give a bonus to the campaign system, than to have no linkage at all.


It's not that I do or do not trust the GM, what I'm saying is that, in most games it is entirely up to the whim of the GM to make those decisions. There is no mechanic. He simple makes the decision.

"You successfully assault my alien's secret base? Fine, there were two more you didn't know about..."

I'd also like to point out that I think the reviewer is mistaken in saying there is NO connection between the results of the maneuvers and the player's actions:

1. The players set their own objectives for the phase (one of three chapters in the game) based on beliefs/relationships/goals.
2. The players decide on their maneuver for the phase (like Assess, Gambit, Take Action, etc.).
3. Players play out the scenes...at the end of each Maneuver, players use their skill to roll for the success or failure of the Maneuver.
4. Everyone describes how the Maneuver's results effect the world.
5. When one side's (players' side or GM's) disposition is reduced to zero, the Phase is over (and winners get a chance to describe how their win effected the world).

Note this mechanic works both ways: if the players totally botched an assault on the alien's secret base (to use the reviewer's example), they could still have "won" the Maneuver by other means (and for those of you saying the players don't have any effect on the bigger picture, please note number 3 above...it's the PLAYER'S skill roll that determines the success or failure of the Maneuver...).
 

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
Burning Empires
« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2006, 12:52:27 AM »
Quote from: Z-Dog
1. Most of the background/setting information is intentionally left vague to let players create their own.
2. What's wrong with limiting it to one world? Was Dune a lame sci-fi book because the majority of the story took place on Dune?
3. Star ships are good to keep the bad guys off the planet when they try to invade in phase 3 of the game.
4. How could the game move too fast if you cut out fluff? Do you think it'd be too short? A complete campaign would last about 18 weeks.
5. "...the actions of the players in the game have NO EFFECT on the campaign rolls," you mean, like how the actions of players in other games have an effect on what the gm decides to do next? GMs traditionally have total authority to decide what happens next. If they feel like handing the players a victory, they can...if they don't, he can deny it.



1: Fine, but when you include arcane terminology, that is a defined part of the background that the average reader doesn't get.  I can GUESS what a Stentor is based on context, but the Coeptir? Not a fucking clue, not one. It may involve violence of some sort.

2: Dune was limited to one world, sure enough.

Not.  The action moved around quite a bit, the characters slightly less so. If you get into the actual series, the action was very mobile.  Nothing is wrong with hanging out on one single world, but BE all but removes the option to leave all together.

3: I'll conceed this point. Starships do fill military roles. That wasn't what I was driving at, but you are correct, sir.

4: Not everyone wants to spend every session at a breakneck 'squeeze out the non-conflict scenes' sort of pace. I wouldn't have much trouble with it, but plenty of gamers I know enjoy the 'Color' and 'interstistal' scenes as much, if not more than the conflict scenes. Thus, the cheerleading drive to GOGOGOGO can mess up the groove of more laid back players.

5: ???  To adress your slightly more cogent statement later, the actual actions in a conflict scene related to the 'phase manuevers' is in fact pointless. Either way it goes. Yes, they DO affect the manuevers, but only in the actual maneuver rolls, not in teh related scenes. Those only affect the 'color' of the maneuver results. That shows a lack of causality, and futher, disempowers the players in a way that is in direct contradiction to what the game is trying to promote.  Thus, it strikes me as a serious design flaw.
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

luke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • l
  • Posts: 195
    • http://www.burningwheel.com
Burning Empires
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2006, 01:03:49 AM »
I don't want to step on Spike's review, but I'd like to respond to Elliot.

In BE, your player character actions and successes hugely affect the macro (as Z Dog has pointed out in many cases). Some are die-mechanical, like the helping rules, others are "story-mechanical," like the sequels and epilogues. Those are all very, very important. But what's not connected are myopic views of victory and failure. What happens on the ground may seem like a success, but in the big picture it might take on a different color. I understand that it takes a certain perspective to see that. To directly mechanically link micro and macro victory really, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of having a separate macro mechanic. Why bother? Why not have the micro victories directly equate to the fate of the world? And that, to me, is not as interesting. I like complex stories, and I love big picture in my games.

This "disconnect" between your desires and successes and the fate of the world also ties into the theme of the comics -- that we fight against our predestination, fight the hand the fate has dealt us. Think of the macro mechanics literally as the Wheel of Fate turning. Who can say how the Wheel will turn?

I'll admit that appears strange, but I submit that Burning Empires simply presents a different view of the situation and a different way to play. I don't think it is broken or wrong.

thanks for the comments, guys!
-L

Crossposted with Spike
I certainly wouldn't call Luke a vanity publisher, he's obviously worked very hard to promote BW, as have a handful of other guys from the Forge. -- The RPG Pundit

Give me a complete asshole writing/designing solid games any day over a nice incompetent. -- The Consonant Dude

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
Burning Empires
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2006, 01:56:10 AM »
Quote from: luke
I don't want to step on Spike's review, but I'd like to respond to Elliot.

In BE, your player character actions and successes hugely affect the macro (as Z Dog has pointed out in many cases). Some are die-mechanical, like the helping rules, others are "story-mechanical," like the sequels and epilogues. Those are all very, very important. But what's not connected are myopic views of victory and failure. What happens on the ground may seem like a success, but in the big picture it might take on a different color. I understand that it takes a certain perspective to see that. To directly mechanically link micro and macro victory really, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of having a separate macro mechanic. Why bother? Why not have the micro victories directly equate to the fate of the world? And that, to me, is not as interesting. I like complex stories, and I love big picture in my games.

This "disconnect" between your desires and successes and the fate of the world also ties into the theme of the comics -- that we fight against our predestination, fight the hand the fate has dealt us. Think of the macro mechanics literally as the Wheel of Fate turning. Who can say how the Wheel will turn?

I'll admit that appears strange, but I submit that Burning Empires simply presents a different view of the situation and a different way to play. I don't think it is broken or wrong.

thanks for the comments, guys!
-L

Crossposted with Spike



By all means, Luke, feel free to comment or debate your decisions here. I welcome the input and even the insight.  I can see your point pretty clearly, in fact I sort of guessed you were driving at that when I was working my way through the macro rules.   On the other hand, I would rather see SOME effect on the macro level, after all it's supposedly the actions of these heros that are altering the course of events, right?  

I should think a victory in a micro level scene should either count as a success on the macro roll... as you count up total successes not as in 'a victory', while a failure would negate a success. This doesn't eliminate the macro game, but gives the players a reason to care about the microgame scenes, and ties the two together mechanically.
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

Z-Dog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Z
  • Posts: 9
Burning Empires
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2006, 10:05:03 AM »
Quote from: luke
To directly mechanically link micro and macro victory really, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of having a separate macro mechanic. Why bother? Why not have the micro victories directly equate to the fate of the world? And that, to me, is not as interesting.


 I was thinking about the Dnd supplement Heroes of Battle that has, if I remember correctly, the option or assumption that your little battles push the victory or defeat of the bigger battle and how I'd seen that before in games. In my opinion, it's a fun mechanic at first (cool, we blew up the bridge, now they can't re-enforce and we'll win this big battle, yeah!) but then it starts to get (for me) boring after awhile. We won? Cool, we won big too, didn't we? Oh, we lost? Must have lost big too..." and then it becomes...why bother with the big picture at all? You know what the ultimate outcome is....

I know there are people who would say that this isn't very heroic and it might not fit into their style of play (but please read the rest of Luke's post...the scenes and player's actions/objectives really do effect the big picture...it's not either/or).

Having said that, would you feel pointlessly frustrated by a game set during the Vietnam war? If your the US, you know you're going to lose, eventually, but does that bum you out when you successfully capture a village? Or turn back the Tet Offensive? Burning Empires isn't as dark: you can eventually win the war (or not).

So, for me, at least, the vague and loose connection between the grand scheme and the player's scenes isn't a deal breaker on whether or not the game works (for me, I understand if it is for you).

Also, in the example you gave in the review: what was the enemy doing while the players were attacking their base? I saw it as: Players were doing Take an Action (destroy alien base) but what was the Maneuver for the aliens?

'Cause there's no "Sit back and let Players kick me in the balls" Maneuver for Burning Empires (or sit back and let them take my base).

You say they took the base, but lost the Maneuver...but what were the aliens doing? If their Maneuver was, "Kidnap every single one of the Players families and send ransom notes..." then yeah, I can see how the players failed..."OK, you guys get back after you stomp the alien base flat...and each of you gets a picture of your loved ones w/ a gun to their head."

So sure, they stomped the base...but what were the bad guys doing? That's what I love about BE...it doesn't set up static bad guys who say, "OK, here's my plans...now I'll sit back and let the good guys mess it up." It says, "Stick it to the other guy, blackmail him, kick 'em in the face, and when he's trembling at your feet, stick a freakin' worm in his brain."
 

luke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • l
  • Posts: 195
    • http://www.burningwheel.com
Burning Empires
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2006, 11:21:04 AM »
Quote from: Spike
On the other hand, I would rather see SOME effect on the macro level, after all it's supposedly the actions of these heros that are altering the course of events, right?  

I should think a victory in a micro level scene should either count as a success on the macro roll... as you count up total successes not as in 'a victory', while a failure would negate a success. This doesn't eliminate the macro game, but gives the players a reason to care about the microgame scenes, and ties the two together mechanically.


Hi Spike,

On the surface, this seems like the logical choice, right? Well, after extensive playtesting, we found that it's just not the case. First, one success or one die isn't going to give you the victory. So then you're stuck in the same boat -- won the micro, lost the macro. But giving dice or successes for the macro based on victories and successes then changes play. It becomes a scramble for bonus dice, rather than a focus on dramatic play. So I changed up the currency. You can get bonus dice into the macro, but just not based on victory or failure. The dice are granted on different criteria -- was their teamwork in play? then there's bonus dice.

And lastly, I can't stress enough that while it may seem strange upon reading it -- you can win but still lose -- it works in play. Players affect the world and the various mechanics very significantly with a host of levers from the game, just not the ones you would normally expect.

thanks!
-Luke
I certainly wouldn't call Luke a vanity publisher, he's obviously worked very hard to promote BW, as have a handful of other guys from the Forge. -- The RPG Pundit

Give me a complete asshole writing/designing solid games any day over a nice incompetent. -- The Consonant Dude

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
Burning Empires
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2006, 11:51:50 AM »
Quote from: luke
Hi Spike,

On the surface, this seems like the logical choice, right? Well, after extensive playtesting, we found that it's just not the case. First, one success or one die isn't going to give you the victory. So then you're stuck in the same boat -- won the micro, lost the macro. But giving dice or successes for the macro based on victories and successes then changes play. It becomes a scramble for bonus dice, rather than a focus on dramatic play. So I changed up the currency. You can get bonus dice into the macro, but just not based on victory or failure. The dice are granted on different criteria -- was their teamwork in play? then there's bonus dice.

And lastly, I can't stress enough that while it may seem strange upon reading it -- you can win but still lose -- it works in play. Players affect the world and the various mechanics very significantly with a host of levers from the game, just not the ones you would normally expect.

thanks!
-Luke



Interesting.  I understand a single success might not have an effect on the actual outcomes, but I was thinking more on the psychology of the players.  While I don't think the 'Dramatic Play' angle is nearly as important, or as impacted, as you found it is a worthy angle.

Maybe I've watched too many WWII movies, where the actions of that one desperate band may not affect the entire war, but certainly the BATTLE (manuever if you will) is utterly dependent upon their success.  To me, that creates dramatic tension in the conflict.  The Micro conflict, while only a small part of the overall maneuver, becomes representative of the conflict as a whole... which is how it's used in movies and literature.

Right now it's like you have two seperate games running concurrently, which is why I have the disconnect with it. As is stands you can run the Macro game entirely independently of the micro. Did you try it by having the micro scale conflicts replace the dice rolls of the macro game? That is, players pick their maneuvers, but the 'successes' are dictated by how fully they accomplish their goals in the micro scale conflict?  It may not be as 'big picture' as you seem to want, but given the focus of the rest of the conflict mechanics it seems like it would fit right in.
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

luke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • l
  • Posts: 195
    • http://www.burningwheel.com
Burning Empires
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2006, 11:58:08 AM »
I understand that a little sop like a bonus die might soothe the players' in their quest for herodom, but to this I shrug. Burning Empires cuts a different path to herodom.

The WW2 movies you're describing fit quite well in the BE paradigm. The catch is, of course, in our games we don't know who's going to win the war.

Quote from: Spike
Right now it's like you have two seperate games running concurrently, which is why I have the disconnect with it. As is stands you can run the Macro game entirely independently of the micro. Did you try it by having the micro scale conflicts replace the dice rolls of the macro game? That is, players pick their maneuvers, but the 'successes' are dictated by how fully they accomplish their goals in the micro scale conflict?  It may not be as 'big picture' as you seem to want, but given the focus of the rest of the conflict mechanics it seems like it would fit right in.


All I can say to this is that you'll have to try it in play. The Infection seems strange at first, but it works mechanically, thematically and game-istically.

-L
I certainly wouldn't call Luke a vanity publisher, he's obviously worked very hard to promote BW, as have a handful of other guys from the Forge. -- The RPG Pundit

Give me a complete asshole writing/designing solid games any day over a nice incompetent. -- The Consonant Dude

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
Burning Empires
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2006, 12:41:42 PM »
Quote from: luke


The WW2 movies you're describing fit quite well in the BE paradigm. The catch is, of course, in our games we don't know who's going to win the war.



-L



True... I just think you should be able to predict the battle. ;)

If I ever head to gaming cons again, I might keep my eye open for this, but as I pointed out in my review: My problems with the games conceits are deeper than this one thing, and possibly a matter of 'how I play' than anything else.  

I just find it a bit funny that the only thing that is being discussed from the review is this one, relatively minor, point.
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https: