Yeah, GURPS is definitely a game system I´d avoid.

Quote from: SettembriniSo what?

So what? This part: "You end up with it being boring as paste drying." I'm not talking about the getting into a random character element. I'm talking about rolling dice for combat in an adversarial situation that's over before it starts or just keeps going and going without getting anywhere in particular.

QuoteThat´s what I want from BE: a low prep randomized pick up strategic RPG experience, where the DM is an adversary instead of the facilitator for some kind of character centered endeavour.

There be the rub. If the GM is in an adversarial position they are no longer in the position to do all the riggery-jiggery that gets a random character generation into the playable range.

As well I'm confused about this "pick up" aspect? The 'strategic' is multiple maneuvers, no? Are you suggesting attempting 'strategic' without multiple Maneuvers?  There was some offical playtesting done trying to just use Firefight (and of course the commonly shared bits like Circles, DoW, and so on) in the Burning Sands setting (I think?) without the macrolevel Infection rules and it flopped hugely because Firefight is tied so tightly back into those maneuvers.

P.S. In my experience corpses make terrible playmates. Sure they don't talk back but they don't seem to listen much either and to get them to do anything requires a lot of heavy lifting on your part. The eviscerated especially have poor social manners, bleeding all over your furniture and such. :deflated:

Don´t know what you are talking about.

Quote from: SettembriniDon´t know what you are talking about.

:confused:

Your whole post, I don´t know what you are trying to tell me.

I´m boring and gaming with corpses?
Random ressources make for stupid games?

That´s what you are saying?

Even if so, you just say so without giving substance to it. But you state it like it is clear for everybody to see.
And some comments are just enigmatic to me.

Right now, there is neither a constructed challenge, nor a real conflict in the game. The DM has to play along, and even doles out Heropoints for "good roleplaying". That only works if he´s trying to generate text.

I want conflict, not story.

It´s all about beliefs and the player characters right now, I want it to be all about the conflict. And there´s quite a lot of crunchy stuff and general procedures that support that in the book.

Theme vs. Adventure all again.


I´m actually fed up with this. I´m one milimeter from digging up my +12 Swinebane Tomahawk again.
This is the exact shit I tried to avoid.:mad:

Quote from: SettembriniYour whole post, I don´t know what you are trying to tell me.

It certainly seems like it. Those 3 questions. No,no,no.  Given this:

Quote from: SettembriniI want conflict, not story.

....I don't think you even know what you are talking about.

Quote from: SettembriniRight now, there is neither a constructed challenge, nor a real conflict in the game.

OK, now I KNOW you are just flapping in the water.

QuoteI´m actually fed up with this. I´m one milimeter from digging up my +12 Swinebane Tomahawk again.
This is the exact shit I tried to avoid.

You tried to avoid it???   Is this one of those moments David R talked about where you aren't being an "honest or honourable poster"?

Definitely not. But either we are talking about totally different things, or you are insulting me.

I don´t see where your corpses and combat that is over before it started go. I just really can´t wrap my brain around your last posts.

And you dont like random chargen, very good. The game already has a point buy system.

No need to "convince me" that I really don´t want one. I have been gaming wih random chargen, random tables very long and always to my satisfaction.

I don´t need anybody to point out the "fallacy" in random characters and ressources.

So either you have another point, or we have nothing more to talk about in this issue.

QuoteOK, now I KNOW you are just flapping in the water.

Care to elaborate?

Quote from: SettembriniCare to elaborate?

Sorry, it is an expression coming from an injured duck flailing about in water as they try to take off.  In this case you can take it to mean "clueless".  The example you follow it up with is like saying "there is no challenge in D&D because if I roll high enough on an attack the rules say my PC hits the target".

Total.

Freakin'.

Gibberish.

QuoteAnd you dont like random chargen, very good.

You totally miss this. I'm not saying that. I'm saying you undermining the occurance of conflicts by putting in random determination in at that point in the game.

Without the GM power to totally at will make up and properly scale conflicts, which that level of randomness requires. A power which is removed in Burning Empires to remove a huge conflict of interest, making way for adversarial play. For the GM to challenge the PCs on nominally level terms.

Set, my reading is that Blakkie was trying to point out some genuine pitfalls that in his view introducing random elements would create.

Since then, the whole conversation has gone south and I think if you guys want to discuss it at all you should start with new posts, not continuing the current line of dialogue, but my reading is his original intent was to help you by pointing out likely pitfalls from the changes you are proposing to make.

Blakkie, if the likely pitfall you see is that the game will be an awful mess because structurally it is peculiarly ill suited to the introduction of random chargen, I think it's worth saying just that and bowing out if Set chooses to continue regardless.  If he notes that but thinks it worth trying anyway, there's probably not much more you can do to contribute, unless you have some specific issues to mention to him that might not be obvious and that he might want to give further thought to.

You are right Balbinus, other than he doesn't seem to have understood a word of it. *shrug* That he doesn't see any sort of challenge existing in the game as it is should clue me that my posts here were a total waste of time and effort, and continuing would be likewise.

Quote from: blakkieYou are right Balbinus, other than he doesn't seem to have understood a word of it. *shrug* That he doesn't see any sort of challenge existing in the game as it is should clue me that my posts here were a total waste of time and effort, and continuing would be likewise.

blakkie, I could work out your intent, but to be honest I'm struggling to understand either your posts or his.  I don't understand what you thought the issues were or what he sees as the existing issues, but I could see that you had been trying to make a positive contribution that had then gone south in a welter of miscommunication.

I'm reading this thread, and at first, Blakkie, you look helpful. Now? It's starting to look like you're just hounding the guy. I happen to think Settembrini is wrong about how some parts of BE work, too. And yeah, he's not exactly Mr. Charming half the time. But sometimes you've got to just say your piece and then let it go.  

Besides, you guys are obviously not talking about the same thing here, half the time, anyway. When he says there's no conflict, he means he doesn't think BE can hold up to serious competitive play because of the way Artha is awarded, among other things. He's not expressing it particularly well, but he's communicating in a foreign language, after all.

He said it's a "theme vs adventure," "story vs conflict" issue. So he's after competitive play, and he thinks the cooperative nature of world and character burning, and the thematic elements of of play like Artha compromise competitive play. That's the justification for introducing randomness -- it's to circumvent cooperative elements of game prep. Maybe you guys actually do disagree but it's for substantial reasons, rather than just because one of you is smart and right and the other one is dumb and wrong.  

Rich

Quote from: Balbinusblakkie, I could work out your intent, but to be honest I'm struggling to understand either your posts or his.  I don't understand what you thought the issues were or what he sees as the existing issues, but I could see that you had been trying to make a positive contribution that had then gone south in a welter of miscommunication.

Well you have gotten the gist of it.

Have you read any of the BE rules? I'm tossing around a lot of references that are very specific to the rules. I'm trying to mix in metaphors too but metaphors have inherent inaccuracies themselves. Plus yup, I do come at things a bit sideways at times so it can be a long trip. But oh the sights you'll see.

But the thing about "challenges" has little or nothing to do with my posts. It is just so freaking far out there.  Especially when Luke explained how to run the game very combat-conflict centric.

Quote from: blakkieWell you have gotten the gist of it.

Have you read any of the BE rules? I'm tossing around a lot of references that are very specific to the rules. I'm trying to mix in metaphors too but metaphors have inherent inaccuracies themselves. Plus yup, I do come at things a bit sideways at times so it can be a long trip. But oh the sights you'll see.

But the thing about "challenges" has little or nothing to do with my posts. It is just so freaking far out there.  Especially when Luke explained how to run the game very combat-conflict centric.

No, unlike BW the premise didn't appeal to me at all and the mechanics as described didn't grab me.  I could be missing greatness, but you have to take a view on what inspires you you know?  I'll check out Luke's next game, he's obviously got a talent for this stuff, but BW interested me and BE not so much.

I think you guys mean different things by challenges, as richforest explains.

Edit:  On the inspiration thing, I remember once RE talking about this runequest game he was running, and all the juicy thematic issues and how they spoke to issues that were central to the players as people.  He seemed to think that they were themes which would resonate universally (and plainly had in his group).  To me it was kind of meh, I just didn't care about the themes in question, they didn't speak to me.  That doesn't make his a bad game or anything, but thematic stuff has to resonate at the player level if it is to work as intended.

Quote from: richforestHe said it's a "theme vs adventure," "story vs conflict" issue. So he's after competitive play, and he thinks the cooperative nature of world and character burning, and the thematic elements of of play like Artha compromise competitive play. That's the justification for introducing randomness -- it's to circumvent cooperative elements of game prep. Maybe you guys actually do disagree but it's for substantial reasons, rather than just because one of you is smart and right and the other one is dumb and wrong.

Hrrrmm, that could be it Rich. Is that it Settembrini?  Maybe you don't realize just how much random is already in there? I suppose never having seen Circles in action, for example, you don't realize how indeterminate the outcome is? I figured that would come out of reading actual play?

To really get a feel for how far this can go you can look through BW AP too, because this is something very different what you are used to running.  This one and and #2 of 4 give a lot of insight into how much unknown there really is at the start of a senario.  In that forum too check for the umpteen vastly different results you get from the very simple BW con demo The Sword.

The pretedermined characters line up the conflict. The dice and player choices in using the rules add a world of random during play.