Edwards' crew are the equivalent of prog rockers--they develop an idea of where things are, develop a theory of what they need to break out of that and then make things with ideas according to those ideas. Then are embarassed about half the time that they don't work.

That's not the only way to experiment. The other way is to just try to make something that works for you, realize it doesn't exist yet, and then do whatever's necessary to make it exist, whether those moves you need are new or old or whatever.

Right -- the second way of thinking is more practical -- it's more focused on solving a problem than toying with abstract ideas for the sake of toying or discussing.  That's why I'm calling them intellectuals, since they're messing with lots of abstract (and potentially useless) ideas.  Maybe not what some would consider "good" intellectuals, but again, this is RPGs.

I think the problem is a problem you run into a lot with pseudo-intellectuals -- fundamentalism.  They started with the idea that things were broken rather than actually being concerned with an honest model of how RPGs work.  Cue myopia and a rejection of other modes of thinking about games.  Truth-seeking turns into "truth"-worshipping in order to support preconceptions.  I don't think it was all for naught, and I find some of the discussions interesting, but event V. Baker seems to have moved on from the Forge, so *shrug*.

That said, Luke seems a little more apart from the SG and Forge crowds, so I'm not sure where he stands on all of that.  But he certainly thinks about games a lot, has different ideas about games, and some of them will probably come off silly or eccentric to folks here and elsewhere on the web.  Here especially because this place harbors a little more of a reactionary fundamentalism.

I'd honestly like to see an AP-type review of Torchbearer, but considering I own it, I may as well just run it myself and see if it's actually fun, offbeat approach to "old-school" elements or no.  

Zak, I know you guys played Burning Wheel a little while back -- did the system rub you the wrong way and that's why you have your doubts about this one, or is your opinion here just based on the Torchbearer text apart from that experience?

Quote from: Peregrin;700827I think the problem is a problem you run into a lot with pseudo-intellectuals -- fundamentalism.  They started with the idea that things were broken rather than actually being concerned with an honest model of how RPGs work.

Yyyyyup.

QuoteThat said, Luke seems a little more apart from the SG and Forge crowds, so I'm not sure where he stands on all of that.  But he certainly thinks about games a lot, has different ideas about games, and some of them will probably come off silly or eccentric to folks here and elsewhere on the web.

Let's be clearly: someone who writes (as Luke has) that d20s produce results which are "no fun for anybody" is an insane person. Not an eccentric. Not an "outsider" not even a Forgie. Just a plain, straight-up, not-in-touch with reality lunatic who should never be listened to. There's not room for a difference of opinion there. You can't simultaneously believe that and be a rational person.

QuoteZak, I know you guys played Burning Wheel a little while back -- did the system rub you the wrong way and that's why you have your doubts about this one, or is your opinion here just based on the Torchbearer text apart from that experience?

Read 'em both, played 'em both.

They are both excellent systems for running comedy games--a million times better than Toon.

Quote from: Zak S;701129Let's be clearly: someone who writes (as Luke has) that d20s produce results which are "no fun for anybody" is an insane person. Not an eccentric. Not an "outsider" not even a Forgie. Just a plain, straight-up, not-in-touch with reality lunatic who should never be listened to. There's not room for a difference of opinion there. You can't simultaneously believe that and be a rational person.

This was said in seriousness?  I have a really hard time believing anyone could say that with a straight face, even if they were living part-time in Oz, and Luke is renowned for being uber sarcastic online.

QuoteRead 'em both, played 'em both.

They are both excellent systems for running comedy games--a million times better than Toon.

I see.  Just wondering, since I only ran BW for 3-4 sessions, but haven't played any of BWHQ's other games.  We found advancement tracking a little clunky but other than that it seemed OK.  I was actually kind of surprised at how much our group liked Duel of Wits, despite the fact that one of the players was our resident "I don't need no stinking social skills I'm going to roleplay the shit out of this" ham.

Quote from: Peregrin;701229This was said in seriousness?  I have a really hard time believing anyone could say that with a straight face, even if they were living part-time in Oz, and Luke is renowned for being uber sarcastic online.

This is the beginning of the dice section in BW.

Quote"
Dice used in Burning Wheel are standard six-sided dice. No other funny
dice are used. I know dodecahedrons are fun to roll, but they create ridiculous odds curves and do all sorts of wacky things to the game (that are no fun for anyone in the end). So we just use six-sided dice.
"

That is just one example of random comments Luke makes showing him being completely out of touch with life outside the Craneverse.

QuoteI see.  Just wondering, since I only ran BW for 3-4 sessions, but haven't played any of BWHQ's other games.  We found advancement tracking a little clunky but other than that it seemed OK.  I was actually kind of surprised at how much our group liked Duel of Wits, despite the fact that one of the players was our resident "I don't need no stinking social skills I'm going to roleplay the shit out of this" ham.

BW reminded me of an article written in Artspeak ( "It should be added that the subaqueous qualities of the facture makes resonant the inherent overspecificity. " ) .
The actually ideas may be good or bad, but the most obvious characteristic is a superstitious refusal to avoid doing anything in a simple, clear, direct way, not just in the language but in the actual rules.

Again, this is from the actual example of play in the Torchbearer book:

Quote"
Dro: Jared, what about you? Are you helping?

Jared: I don’t know what to do. I lost my sling.

Dro: You can still help. You just have to tell me what you do. Nothing? Okay. Gerald isn’t helping on this one.
Joss grabs 4D for Karolina’s Fighter skill, +1D from her Heart of Battle trait, +1D from the Maneuver Jared led on the last action, +3D from the help offered by Megan, Thor and Luke, and +1D from Merrill’s I Am Wise. She rolls 10D in total for 6 successes, but subtracts -1s since she’s exhausted. Attacks are independent of other Attacks, thus Dro’s kobolds lose 5 points of disposition.
Dro grabs 2D for his lead kobold’s Nature, +6D from the help of the other kobolds and -1D from the results of the Maneuver on the last action. He rolls 7D for a rather improbable 6 successes. Since Attack against Attack is independent, the players’ team loses 6 points of disposition. They’re down to 1 point! Karolina has leather armor, so Joss rolls a die to see whether it deflected some of the damage. It comes up a 5, so it blunts the Attack by one success! That means the players’ team is down to 2 points, not 1.
Since Joss led the action, she discards her hit point stone first. They still need to discard five more stones. Thor was slated to have the next action, but Merrill tugs Thor’s sleeve.
"

That isn't a parody of the combat system, that's part of an actual attempt to explain the combat system used as an example in the book.

"Hit point stone."

Quote from: Zak S;701252That isn't a parody of the combat system, that's part of an actual attempt to explain the combat system used as an example in the book.

I ah... hmm...

Yup, shit yourself in public crazy.

This really is another example of the "baffle them with bullshit" credo which seems to pervade the "new wave" as represented by Crane et al. The only wonder, and it is a wonder, is how they managed to muster up enough support to a) win awards and b) raise sufficient money to put ink to paper.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

While Crane's system is cumbersome, let's not kid ourselves about the complexity.  Imagine, if you will, a session of D&D.

QuoteJoss rolls 1d20, +4 from her 18 Strength, +1 from her magic sword, +2 from flanking,  +1 from the cleric's bless spell, +1 for Weapon Focus, and -2 for fighting with her off-hand. She rolls 17 total, a hit.  Now she rolls damage: 1d8 for a longsword, +4 from her Strength, +1 from her magic sword, +2 for Weapon Specialization, +1d6 for sneak attack.  She rolls a total of 14 damage total, though the monster only takes 9 because has damage reduction 5/--.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;701281While Crane's system is cumbersome, let's not kid ourselves about the complexity.  Imagine, if you will, a session of D&D.

Not a bad point but this:

Quote"
Dice used in Burning Wheel are standard six-sided dice. No other funny
dice are used. I know dodecahedrons are fun to roll, but they create ridiculous odds curves and do all sorts of wacky things to the game (that are no fun for anyone in the end). So we just use six-sided dice.
"

This is a man who deeply, profoundly doesn't understand what he's doing. I'm not sure if it indicates insanity, but it certainly puts a floodlight on the ignorance.

If you're using a d6 your probabilities are sliced up into 16 and two thirds of a percent pieces. So presumably you build your stats around that, 1 being poor and six being great, or however you do it. The only difference between using a d6 and a d20 is that the d20 has greater granularity assuming you use a similar method - five percent slices, minimum stat 1, maximum stat 20, or however you do it. The randomiser is not an issue for similar methods.

Mostly though what he's saying is that any game which uses a d20 isn't fun for anyone. Which in fact surpasses ronnie's "brain damage" comment in terms of abusive stupid.

How, HOW did this clown ever gain any traction?

Quote from: The Traveller;701283How, HOW did this clown ever gain any traction?

Luck, placement and hard work.

Basically, he produced the first genuinely comprehensive Forge-game-for-kids-scared-of-D&D and hung out with that crowd and then--and this is why he sold waaaaay more copies than anybody else in that cohort--he hit the convention circuit hard for years personally explaining his game to every hippie he could find.

He also paid attention to how his books looked and got original illustrations that are pretty good--especially by Forge standards.

Lemme be clear: D&D isn't exactly the simplest game in the world, but Crane games seem doubly complicated because the opaque procedures are an elaborate attempt to avoid phantom game problems only Luke Crane can detect.

There are lots of good reasons to use d6s as a mechanic. But d20s being "no fun for anybody" isn't one of them.

There are lots of reasons to use elaborate combat procedures. Desperately trying to avoid triggering anyone by reminding them of D&D isn't one of them.

Quote from: Zak S;701252This is the beginning of the dice section in BW.

That is just one example of random comments Luke makes showing him being completely out of touch with life outside the Craneverse.

I guess I glossed over it since I'm bad with probabilities and I assumed he was saying "for my game."

That combat example was ridiculous.

Quote from: Peregrin;700820If I had to choose between a world with hipsters or no, people who think too hard or people who settle, I'll choose the former in both cases.  I'll always take more ideas, or re-examinations of old ones, even if it means wading through more mediocre stuff.

I perhaps was not clear enough in distinguishing between experimentation and masturbation.

Quote from: Zak S;700801Do you like Luke games because you can't get D&D to do what you want?

Nope. I like his games. I also spent lots of time getting D&D to do what I wanted. It's doable.

Wasn't sure if liking his games was enough to earn the title.

Quote from: Noclue;701341Nope. I like his games. I also spent lots of time getting D&D to do what I wanted. It's doable.

Wasn't sure if liking his games was enough to earn the title.

Not at all. There are many good reasons to like his (or nearly any) game.

When I say "aphasics" I am referring specifically to the people who like it out of frustration with D&D and, in particular, to the vocal contingent who seem to believe their own personal inability to make D&D do what they want it to is a universal condition of all would-be gamers caused by the game's design rather than simply a personal thing.