Blakkie, I'm getting a slight vibe that maybe you think he's playing it wrong.  After he's bought it though, that's his right surely?

Maybe, maybe not.

I concur with richforests post, but I don´t follow what your post is trying to say.

I´ll read the APs and come back later. Don´t know nothing about BW.

EDIT: My whole point is that I want to play it "wrong". I don´t want no collaborative story. But there´s cool shit in the book, and I´m going to use it.

Quote from: BalbinusNo, 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?

Oh no, no need to explain. I was just curious because a lot of the terminology is really going to throw you.

QuoteBlakkie, I'm getting a slight vibe that maybe you think he's playing it wrong.

In the sense of going solo parachuting without out wearing a parachute is "wrong", I suppose. I'm not saying in anyway he can't do this. I'm just saying "an incredibily high chance you are going to do a 200 mph face plant into a field".

There is no story and no fucking collaborative! It's a freaking competitive roleplaying game, ferchrisssakes. World and Character Burning set up the conflict so that you can fight like wolverines with knives and don't have to worry about "finding it."

Imagine, if you will, a game of Burning Empires as a duel at dawn. There are rules, there is winning. However, there is a sportsmanlike and gentlemanly attitude about the affair. You give your opponent every consideration you can muster and wish him the best of luck. But once the steel is drawn, there is no other thought but winning!

-L

EDIT: grammarorz

Quote from: lukeThere is no story and no fucking collaborative! It's freaking competitive roleplaying game, ferchrisssakes. World and Character Burning set up the conflict so that you can fight like wolverines with knives.

Imagine, if you will, a game of Burning Empires is a duel at dawn. There are rules, there is winning. However, there is a sportsmanlike and gentlemanly attitude about the affair. You give your opponent every consideration you can muster and wish him the best of luck. But once the steel is drawn, there is no other thought but winning!

-L

I think Set wants something more like poker, where skill matters but so does the hand you get dealt.

Other than that comment, I would merely note my general aversion to the introduction of relevant facts to internet debate, which in my view rarely adds to the entertainment value of any given discussion.

Quote from: blakkieIn the sense of going solo parachuting without out wearing a parachute is "wrong", I suppose. I'm not saying in anyway he can't do this. I'm just saying "an incredibily high chance you are going to do a 200 mph face plant into a field".

If we had them here I'd give you a laugh point for that.

Quote from: SettembriniI don´t want no collaborative story.

DON'T play it as a collaborative story. I sure as hell don't intend to. Any story there is comes out of the play.

The word "conflict" is used nearly 4 times as often in the book as the word "story".  After the first session the "collaboration" is over (the word "collaboration" never actually comes up BTW, I love the PDF) and the gloves are off and the battle is just begun.

As GM if in the first session you have one of your characters pull a I Corner Him And Stab Him In The Face trying to kill a PC, meaning that player would have no [main] PC for the next however many sessions? I mean really, really try pulling no punches and then the player looks at you and say "WTF are you doing?" Just tell him this ain't no kindergarden, because you are doing it "right".

P.S. This is why it is highly recommended that the player buy a second in command contact. If they don't have one and their PC dies then they are a spectator till the next phase starts.

There is no playing for win if the DM has to dole out Artha for playing the beliefs. If he wants to win, he doesn´t give out Artha.

And the players have no reason to chose a bad setup for them. The only reason to do so is for story reasons. EDIT: Or for campaign reasons, but right now there are no infos on what worlds exist and what invasion routes the vaylen take.

And the advice in how to build characters also states that one shouldn´t minmax. If the players were really suposed play hard to win, they´d coordinate so they get maxed out skills for the maneuvre rolls.

This thread has stopped being informative for me.
Please DM as you see fit, I´ll DM as I see fit, thank you very much.

By folks.

Quote from: SettembriniThere is no playing for win if the DM has to dole out Artha for playing the beliefs. If he wants to win, he doesn´t give out Artha.

That isn't playing for the win.  That's just being a dick and breaking the rules. Being a rule breaking dick is against the rules.

QuoteAnd the players have no reason to chose a bad setup for them.

Other than having shown up for a challenge?  This is addressed right in the World Burning example play in the book.

Bye. Good luck.

Quote from: BalbinusI think Set wants something more like poker, where skill matters but so does the hand you get dealt.

Oh man, its still poker and you play with the hand you draw. But Settembrini's experience is Traveller, there a good deal of the cards are dealt during character creation. In Burning Empire the cards for finalizing the character and the world are drawn during play.  Circles is a gamble in so many ways that can really define the character and the world. Same thing with Wise skills and even Resources.

He's just looking in the wrong place for the cards getting dealt out and upon not finding it assuming it isn't anywhere in the game.

EDIT: Come to think of it that makes BE more like poker where your had changes depending on what you choose for discard/draw or gets added to your hand if you are one of them Texas Hold'em folks. So maybe he's not looking for poker at all? Although any game with dice you are still "drawing" till the end, just not necessarily on things that determine the initial starting point of your character or the world.

Quote from: blakkieOh man, it still poker and you play with the hand you draw. But Settembrini's experience is Traveller a good deal of the cards are dealt during character creation. In Burning Empire the cards for finalizing the character and the world are drawn during play.  Circles is a gamble in so many ways that can really define the character and the world. Same thing with Wise skills and even Resources.

He's just looking in the wrong place for the card draw and upon not finding it assuming it isn't anywhere in the game.

Fair enough, in that case I got nothin'.

Set's taking the game to rip out some bits he finds useful, you're talking about how to play the game, those are essentially different goals.

Quote from: BalbinusSet's taking the game to rip out some bits he finds useful, you're talking about how to play the game, those are essentially different goals.

Once again, my goal was to try explain that the world spanning battle isn't really a piece that is easily issolated to be used in a functional manner, and the pitfalls in attempting to do so.  (EDIT: As a side goal of pointing out where the stuff is that he's looking for and not finding.)

As for pulling bits out and reusing I'm definately not someone to say that is an ideologically bad thing to do with games.

I've myself pulled Circles out of BW and used it in Shadowrun to great effect. Similar with Resources. Although with the later there is one player that's having a tough time wrapping his head around the abstraciton, overall it's been a great success in running a non-standard SR campaign, 'standard' being having the meat and potatoes of the game be 'meet a Johnson, agree to a cash price, go do it, get paid.' Over a number of sessions now they've had only one 'cash' run so far and this isn't the runners being a team sponsered by someone with deep pockets and a generous heart.

Quote from: Christmas Ape[Dr. Weird]Bullshit![/Dr. Weird]

You'd miss out on Luke Crane and anybody else on the writing staff telling you how to play out that conflict. You could do it the way roleplayers have done it for decades, and make that shit up yourself.

Plus, GURPS character creation isn't random.

I don't think you have any concept of what you are calling bullshit on.  World Burning and BITs set up to make it easier on the GM by getting input on what the players want to do and the type of game and characters they want to play.  It's not telling you how to play out the conflict.  To me player input is good for a campaign, especially if I'm playing a game made for players to contribute.

Quote from: GunslingerI don't think you have any concept of what you are calling bullshit on.  World Burning and BITs set up to make it easier on the GM by getting input on what the players want to do and the type of game and characters they want to play.  It's not telling you how to play out the conflict.  To me player input is good for a campaign, especially if I'm playing a game made for players to contribute.

I'm calling bullshit on this bullshit, right here:

Quote from: GunslingerThe sad thing is you'd miss out on what made Iron Empires great, the individual conflicts of the characters while trying to stop the greater Vaylen conflict.

What you miss out on, stripping Burning Empires of its structured scene types and BITs and Invasion mechanics, is Luke Crane's system for playing out "what made Iron Empires great", while thousands of people with regular roleplaying games have been doing for a long time now, and playing out those twin conflicts in their favorite system, which might even be "no system but roleplaying, plus the GM's interpretation of the impact and consequences of PC decisions & actions". It's worked fine for a lot of people, and suggesting you need a gimmick to make it "valid" is a little insulting.

Then again, so much of these new play models are 'We made what we consider good GMing into the game rules", and while they're often right, making it a structured rule doesn't make it any better. In fact, by taking GM judgment out of it, I'd say it's actually weakened.

EDIT to head off nitpicking: I am not suggesting thousands of gamers have been playing Iron Empires inspired games for decades, you supercilious twat. I'm suggesting that the grand conflicts of the game setting do not necessarily require a mechanical handle for the players to interact with them. That's why we have GMs.

I'm calling double bullshit on your bullshit calling, no returns! :pundit: :rolleyes: