Burning Wheel is often cited as being one of the more popular Forge games out there. I've read it and I've found that it doesn't actually share the characteristics that this place tends to associate with Forge games.
There is a very definite split of responsibilities between the GM and the players - for starters, players control their characters, and GMs handle the rest of the world. Task resolution is very much not of the "try anything, and it will work!" model - the GM sets the difficulty ratings for the tasks the players want to attempt, and they succeed or fail based on those difficulties. Whilst the game exhorts you to "say yes or roll the dice!" it is very specific by what it means by this - "As soon as your character wants something - needs something - that he doesn't have, that he doesn't know, that someone else has, roll the dice."
In fact, the game has well-described subsystems for a good many things, from winning debates to combat to working out whether your character knows someone who might be able to help the party. (The "circles" mechanic is one of the bits I'm most enthusiastic about - it's a nice way of making sure that PCs have the sort of contacts and acquaintances that someone of their background really ought to have.) This is a crunchy system, but not overbearingly so.
The elements which let you use the system in a "Narrativist" manner are worth a mention. Beliefs, Instincts and Traits, as well as having interesting system-based effects, also define how your character earns Artha, which can be spent on all sorts of fun things (mainly bonuses to dice rolls). However, Artha points are not experience points - characters earn experiences by attempting tasks, whether or not they succeed, because even if you fail, you learn something. (Of course, random tasks which don't serve any useful purpose aren't counted towards this.) At the same time, I can also see them being of use in a more "traditional", less story-oriented game. Beliefs are a good way of flagging what sort of thing the player wants their character to get up to, traits help describe the character, and instincts are useful in defining how a character behaves "by default".
In short, this is not a narrow game - this is a very broadly-based game indeed, in which there is no predefined "core story" (that's for players and GM to decide together!) and can be used to handle a variety of situations and settings. The same is true of The Riddle of Steel and The Shadow of Yesterday.
Now for my point: if The Riddle of Steel, The Shadow of Yesterday and The Burning Wheel - three of the games most commonly mentioned when the subject of Forge games is raised - tend to follow the traditional model of RPGs (players have their characters, GMs run the rest of the world), doesn't that mean that there's something wrong with a lot of the rhetoric on this place about Forge games? There is very obviously a movement on the Forge towards narrow-focused games, and a movement towards games which share the GM's traditional responsibilities amongst the players, but there's a parallel movement which the Riddle, the Shadow and the Wheel all seem to be a part of. If I had to sum it up, I'd say that these are character games, which I'd define as follows:
A character game is much like a traditional RPG, but adds mechanics - such as the Spiritual Attributes of the Riddle of Steel or the Beliefs, Instincts and Traits of the Burning Wheel - which tend to make the interests, personalities and goals of the player characters the focus of the game.
This is distinct from a more world-based game which concentrates on presenting a nice, consistent gameworld for the characters to explore, or a story game which is all about narrating a thematically appropriate story, and in which the characters are just means to that end.
BW was produced outside the Forge, and adopted into the Forge. The author was not a Forge member when he designed it.
-clash
In fairness, Luke wrote the revised edition after coming into contact with the Forge, and it explicitly references ideas from a Forge game or two. (Like "say yes".)
I think TRoS has a similar history, though the pre-Forge version had even less circulation. (And Ron Edwards has decried later development of the game, away from his ideas of what made it good.)
Quotethere's a parallel movement which the Riddle, the Shadow and the Wheel all seem to be a part of.
But the "parallel movment" isn't very strong, and as noted, it mainly consists of games which have either gone to the Forge for fine-tuning, or in the case of Hero Wars/Heroquest, were "adopted" because they'd serendipitously hit on mechanics which could be interpreted in a Forge-ish fashion.
None of the games you mentioned are the "most mentioned" games of the Forge; they are certainly NOT the ones that most people think of first when they think of the Forge.
That Unholy Trinity would be Sorcerer, Dogs In The Vinyard and My Life With Master. Fuck, most people would think of the Shab Al-Hiri Roach and the Mountain Witch before they thought of the games you mentioned.
Now, what I really want to know is: Did you and Sethwick agree about coming here to fill up Theory with talk about Forge Games and GNS theory in a blatant and desperate effort to try to subvert this forum, or did you both just decide to do it on your lonesomes?
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditNone of the games you mentioned are the "most mentioned" games of the Forge; they are certainly NOT the ones that most people think of first when they think of the Forge.
That Unholy Trinity would be Sorcerer, Dogs In The Vinyard and My Life With Master. Fuck, most people would think of the Shab Al-Hiri Roach and the Mountain Witch before they thought of the games you mentioned.
Really? That's not been my experience; certainly, whenever I look at RPG.net TRoS, TSoY and BW are the Forge games that people are talking up the most.
You can probably gloat that the Forge-related games that have been most successful at grabbing the gaming public (heck, would a monstrous brick like Burning Empires have been publishable if Luke Crane wasn't more than making his money back on Burning Wheel?) are the ones which most resemble the sort of games you seem to like.
QuoteNow, what I really want to know is: Did you and Sethwick agree about coming here to fill up Theory with talk about Forge Games and GNS theory in a blatant and desperate effort to try to subvert this forum, or did you both just decide to do it on your lonesomes?
Er, no. You're just being paranoid.
Quote from: flyingmiceBW was produced outside the Forge, and adopted into the Forge. The author was not a Forge member when he designed it.
I know, but I still think it's relevant; after all, the Forge wouldn't have adopted it, or Heroquest, or The Riddle of Steel so wholeheartedly if those games weren't doing something that they liked. The Shadow of Yesterday, meanwhile, a) was developed entirely in the Forge, b) was developed after Burning Wheel and Riddle of Steel were adopted into the Forge, and c) seems to be closer to the BW/TRoS way of doing things than the RPGPundit's Unholy Trinity.
Also, Luke Crane lists a whole bunch of Forge games as influences in the back of the Revised Edition of the Burning Wheel. If the Forge says it's a Forge game, and the author says it's a Forge game, then I say it's a Forge game whether we like it or not.
Quote from: Elliot Wilenor in the case of Hero Wars/Heroquest, were "adopted" because they'd serendipitously hit on mechanics which could be interpreted in a Forge-ish fashion.
Pish. HeroWars invented most of it.
The forge is just part of the Robin Laws fan club.
Trouble is, some people don't know it.
Quote from: RPGPunditNone of the games you mentioned are the "most mentioned" games of the Forge; they are certainly NOT the ones that most people think of first when they think of the Forge.
That Unholy Trinity would be Sorcerer, Dogs In The Vinyard and My Life With Master. Fuck, most people would think of the Shab Al-Hiri Roach and the Mountain Witch before they thought of the games you mentioned.
Now, what I really want to know is: Did you and Sethwick agree about coming here to fill up Theory with talk about Forge Games and GNS theory in a blatant and desperate effort to try to subvert this forum, or did you both just decide to do it on your lonesomes?
RPGPundit
I work alone, baby.
Im in ur forumz
subvertin ur theoriiz
QuoteNow for my point: if The Riddle of Steel, The Shadow of Yesterday and The Burning Wheel - three of the games most commonly mentioned when the subject of Forge games is raised - tend to follow the traditional model of RPGs (players have their characters, GMs run the rest of the world), doesn't that mean that there's something wrong with a lot of the rhetoric on this place about Forge games?
I'm all for judging games on their own merits -- not deciding whether you'll like something based on the message board the designer posts on.
However...
A game designer that tries to follow the Forge theories is like a musician trying to play the piano with oven mitts on. Any eventual success will be in spite of this added challenge -- not because of it.
:huhsign:
What does it matter? I mean, who gives a shit where a game comes from? All I care about is: is it fun to play?
I don't care if a brain-damaged molested child wrote it, or Gygax, or Mother-Fuckin Teresa. Is it any good?
Apparently, some people enjoy Burning Wheel. I think it sounds stupid - writing out your moves like you're playing double-blind Diplomacy or some shit - but hey, people like it. Good for them.
Quote from: JimBobOzApparently, some people enjoy Burning Wheel. I think it sounds stupid - writing out your moves like you're playing double-blind Diplomacy or some shit - but hey, people like it. Good for them.
The writing-out-your-moves bit only happens with major conflicts - extended fight scenes, crucial duels of wits, stuff like that.
It also gives you more leeway than it's often given credit for - you can sacrifice 1 scripted action in order to change another scripted action, for example.