Thanks, Luke (if you were referring to me, there's, like, 10 James' around here) and I think you meant answer #10.  I can't confirm or deny the answer as I don't have either copy, I'll leave that to Warthur was it?

No, what gets dodgy for me are answers like the following (I'm going to include the question for easier reference):

Quote from: Abyssal MawHas anyone encouraged the most obnoxious elements of the forgies from within to... just shut up?

Quote from: luke3. You may have noticed that we can be pretty critical about each other's work.

I'm sure it's true, but it doesn't answer the question.

I seem to recall...Clinton Nixon, I think...distanced himself for a while as he was not pleased with the brain damage remarks.

But are people saying to the PTB - Mr. Edwards - that he does not help the idea of small press empowerment by mixing it up with Theory? If not, why not? If so, why?

Quote from: J ArcaneCongratulations.  You illustrated your ability to miss the point most adequately.  

There's no objective "refinement" or "better" in a subjective medium.  YOU may like it better, but that means fuck all for the rest of humanity.  

It really is a simple concept, but given your stated allegiances I'm not surprised that it escapes you so readily.

Wow, J.  You're sounding positively Pundy! :eek:

No matter how much I agree with your point.

Quote from: James J SkachWow, J.  You're sounding positively Pundy! :eek:

No matter how much I agree with your point.

Sometimes the shoe really does fit.  The confusion of the subjective and the objective is one of the hallmarks of Forge theory, and one of it's core flaws.  

It's not exclusive to them, but it's certainly unsurprising nonetheless.

Luke - Do you think that the Forge would benefit from more robust debates and less moderation?

Regards,
David R

Here's another question:

One of the more interesting criticisms of Burning Empires is that its lifepath system is not as versatile or diverse as many would like. Specifically, it can often be difficult to realise certain character concepts that seem like they would fit well into the world (two quick examples I've personally had trouble with: Vaylen demagogues and Church theologians/scholars). Do you have any plans to revise, supplement or change the lifepaths, or recommendations about how to do so?

Here are the sample chars from my PbP to illustrate the point:

Wencelas Nam, Vaylen infiltrator, was originally intended to be a demagogue, but I found it difficult to realise that concept and switched him over to being a more militant character with good social skills: http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=116609&postcount=118

Cormyn Bane, Inquisitor, was originally intended to be a theologian and intellectual who worked behind the scenes to manipulate church doctrine and operations. I found myself unable to realise the concept without either making him a high official of the church (Dregus or higher) or an inquisitor. I settled for Inquisitor: http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=116308&postcount=109

The thread for the PbP itself: http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6315

These are specific examples from my game, but the complaint is actually something I've heard from others. As is, the lifepaths seem to need some patching. Any plans for that patching?

So first let me thank you to those, who are actually asking questions and to luke, who is answering them. The rest of you... make your comments in a different thread. Please!

Now for the new set of questions...

15) What do you think influences the outcome of the game more? The particular players, the system used or something else?

16) Did you noticed that some of the gamers (Forgies or not) are able to express their love their game only by denouncing some other game against which they claim, theirs is superior? Might there be the roots of "the war" and some bad blood recently? And if so, how to cure it?

17) Some claim, that GNS theory is primarily intended for game design. As a game designer, did you benefit directly from the theory? If so, can you be specific about some concepts derived from it?

All for know, I guess...

My apologies folks. The war and elitism thing seems so silly I couldn't stop the sarcasm. I'll stay out of the rest.

Edit- Actually I'd like to try to be a good citizen, I feel bad....

Luke,

Why do you think there exists a significant group of people who seem to be angry about story/indie games? What do you find on target about their position? What do you think is based on misunderstanding?

Quote from: Thanatos02I think maybe it'd be a good idea to put a self-imposed halt on the questions until Luke gets around to answering them again. Otherwise they'll just build up and we'll end with a typical flame-thing.

I didn't have anything to do with this Q&A session, or anything, but because I'd prefer to see healthier relations (and because I like Burning Wheel), I'd prefer to see questions asked in good faith (and continue to hope Luke returns in kind). Please don't try to bait, trap, or ask leading or barbed questions. I'm thinking more of Clyde and less of Maw, though I'm leery of some of Maw's questions, myself. (Though would love to see others answered, so.)

The problem is that Luke is a busy guy with a lot of projects and stuff from what I can tell and what he's said, and the unstructured nature of this Q&A thread is something that can just lead to infinite questions being asked, and too quickly for him to respond to adequately.  Though Luke himself can say if this is so, I do have a suggestion for you guys.

Why not start a separate thread called "The Twelve Questions for Luke" or some such and debate and decide what 12 of your Best, most pertienent and decisive questions are.   Then post them in a "Q&A: Luke Crane - Finale" or some such.   Then let him answer the 12 to his satisfaction.  When he gives the signal then you guys should come in and comment and counter question, etc.   That way you will get the best questions in, and get the best most complete answers from Luke, without this sort of running on ad infinitum.  

I hope this is a good suggestion.  If not, please ignore.

- Mark

J Arcane, James,
Do you feel like I'm being dismissive and insulting? Is now the time of the discussion when we can be dismissive and insulting? I would love to be dismissive and insulting, so you let me know. I promise you won't like it if I'm dismissive and insulting to you.

James,
As far as I know, we call bullshit on each other when we don't like what someone is saying. I don't have any specific examples. Slightly more specifically, some people agree with Ron, and some people don't. That's it. I get the feeling you think there's a secret order of hooded publishers casting spells. There's not. There's not much more than what you see on the internet.

David,
I think the Forge is an amazing effort. Ron and company have create a place where productive, focused dialog is the norm and sniping, trolling and flamewars aren't allowed. That's pretty cool in my book. I don't always agree with the moderation, and I've said so in the past, but on the whole I think it's much more positive than negative.

Pseudo,
The lifepaths are what they are. They're not 1000% universal. They're deliberately directed and focused. As for your two specific queries, I think they're handled in the basic text: Archivist, Custodian and Interpreter are three scholarly LPs in the Theocracy. I thought that Cult Leader and/or High Official would satisfy the requirements for Vaylen demagogues.

No plans of patching the lifepaths. They don't need it. All of my games ask that the players come to them and look at them for what they are, not for what they wished they'd be. I try to be as expansive as possible, but the nature of the lifepath system means I have to stay pretty focused.

Alnag,
15) Outcome can mean at least two different things. If outcome means "Had a good time with my friends," then obviously it depends heavily on the players. If outcome means, "built an intense story around killing sinners who sinned with murder" then the system is primary in fostering the outcome. In most games that I know, those goals are separate but intertwined. We want to have fun, but we want to tell a really fucking cool story, therefore I say those two halves -- player and game -- are equally important.

16) I think lots of people say stupid shit on the internet, Forgies, story-gamers, you, me, whatever. I think that maybe someone said that "my game's the best evar." Ok, hell, I've said it. I do not think that someone being excited about their game is the cause for war. Nor do I think saying stupid shit in general is casus belli. If it was, Uruguay would be a crater by now, trust me. The simplest to "fix" this is two fold: first, don't take it all too seriously. Laugh it off and return to playing awesome games. Second, if you encounter something you don't like on the internet, give that person the absolute most charitable reading you can muster. If it's still offensive to you, ask them about it. Declaring war doesn't foster dialog, promote understanding or help.

17) I have benefited directly from the work that Ralph, Ron, Vincent, Mike H, et omnes have done. The difference between BWC and BWR is marked. BWR is a tighter game and more fun to play. However, GNS in an of itself is a very small facet of all of the RPG theory work that they've done. But to answer your question, after bashing heads with Ralph Mazza for a couple of months, I was better able to express "conflict resolution" in my game -- task, intent, success and failure.

Clyde,
I think I addressed all this in answering Pundit's questions.

-L

Question for Luke: Have you ever considered coming up with a non-lifepath character gen system for Burning Wheel? I'd love to have a setup where I can just get a bunch of points and throw them into the skills and attributes I want my character to have and come out with a reasonably balanced character, and it would make it easier for me to convince people who are leery of the lifepaths to play - even better, the lifepath system will still be there as a handy reference for what to buy if you want your character to be competent at his job.

(That, incidentally, is one of the big problems I have with the lifepath system as it stands: it automatically assumes that people are competent at their day jobs, which really isn't necessarily true at all. It would be nice to have the option of playing a character who'd had a bunch of jobs but dicked around during all of them and picked up a bunch of unrelated skills, like a soldier who sucked at basic training but ended up making crazy money gambling with his fellow NCOs...)

Personally, I'd rather see the backside of Scripted combat than lifepaths, it being the biggest bar to entry for me.  But I'm pretty sure that's not in the offering.

So, if I have a question at all its probably: Why in the name of the Seven Devils of Kimon did you think scripted 'only eight options' combat was a good idea???

Okay, scratch that: Why, in the name of the Seven Devils of Kimon, did you think rigorously regimented 'scripted combat' with such limited choices was superior to more traditional, more freeform combat?

 Mind you I only have BE so if the implementation is vastly different in BW you'll have to explain how/why.

Actually, luke, you give yourself too much credit if you think being dismissive and insulting will be felt.  I mean, my glasses, when I wear them, are silver.  So why should I care what some goof in red glasses thinks?

Please note, I'm calling J Arcane out about claiming allegiances - something very pundity. That's not dismissive. OK, so I said I agree with J's post; it would have been more accurate to say I agree with the underlying idea, perhaps not the delivery. I do agree that you seem to have..I dont' know, a blindspot?...about "better" and "progress." But in the spirit of the thread, I'll reposition it as a question.

Do you think it is possible to objectively say that the games that sprung from the "indie" movement (the quotes are not scare quotes, it's to indicate a rather fluid term) are better than what came before?

Do you think it is possible to objectively say that about any two games?

NOTE: please do not use the rhetorical approach, as I've seen here before (not necessarily from you that I recall), of bringing up repugnant games scrawled on a napkin as proof that one game can be objectively better than another.

If it's not too much trouble I do have two questions you can get around to when it suits you, Luke.

#1. Your games seem very professional, but I always wondered; ever since I heard the issue with the ashcan front et al., how does your publishing/organization situation effect your playtesting or final product outcome? (Are you satisfied with it, for example?)

#2. I had a second question, but I forgotted it.

Quote from: Warthurlike a soldier who sucked at basic training but ended up making crazy money gambling with his fellow NCOs...)

Nice!  That's pretty much exactly the character I'm playing in my current campaign

Warthur,
The answer to your first question is: That's why I published the Monster Burner. Seriously, if you don't want to use the LPs, just use the Monster Burner.

As for your second, I believe you can do exactly that. You only have to open your required skills, you don't have to advance them. You can use your other points to focus on secondary skills or skills from some oddball lifepath you took.

Spike,
I never said BW was superior to anything. I personally like games that give me tactical choices. I don't enjoy the "I go, you go -- hit/miss" style conflicts any more. BW/BE conflicts are tactical and tense and they force the players to engage in the game and think.

James,
Perhaps I misread your comment, then. Regardless, I think BWR is objectively better than BWC, but that's because I've seriously studied them both. In passing, I think D&D 3.X is objectively a better game than AD&D. It's cleaner, more cohesive and gets to the core of what D&D is about in a more efficient fashion. I also think that Inspectres is better designed than most games out there. It's mechanics interface perfectly with its stated intent. There's nothing missing and there's nothing extraneous. It is a completely functional game in every respect.

I do believe that game design is an art and also a skill. There are films and books which are formally and technically better than other films and books. This doesn't speak to how people enjoy art, simply how a piece of work is built.

Thanatos,
I talk about this a lot in the podcast interviews I do. I think I address it specifically here, but I'm not 100% sure.

In brief: I playtest my stuff as much as I can, but i'm never worried about getting it perfect. At some point you have to let go of your babies. Anyway, I have a good team here that really pushes me to make our books as tight as they can be before we go release them. We start with concept discussions, then I write them, then we playtest them, then they get edited, we test some more, then edited some more, and more editing and then we release them.

It's a learning process. I'm constantly modifying the way we do things around here so we can do more, better, faster.

-L