I`m very undecided on buying Burning Empires, i love the stuff it promises but loathe the character centered stuff about issues and shmissues, well the thematic element.
Judd, would you care to "sell me on Burning Empires". Another thread maybe?
I think this game could be totally for me, but the actual play threads are mostly centered on character stuff. I don't grok it. Is there stellar empires or not? May I rule planets and civilizations and large fleets or not?
I was involved in the playtest of BE and so I played a bunch of sessions before it came out with my home group.
QuoteIs there stellar empires or not?
Yes, the first stage of the game is World Burning, during which the group sits down and creates their own world, ripe for alien invasion.
QuoteMay I rule planets and civilizations and large fleets or not?
Yes, you may certainly rule a planet with an iron fist while wearing Iron (think 40K Terminator Armor).
Firefight, the combat system absolutely supports fleet to fleet combat.
Other Questions?
I have one, if you don't mind. I understand that BE's rules and play are built around a specific, limited-period scenario, the Vaylen invasion of a planet. How well could BE translate into open ended play?
Is it Empires against each other, or single planets?
GM vs Players?
Players vs Players?
Where does the character centered stuff come in?
Hit me, James.
I'm sure its possible with some fiddling but the game is really tight and is designed to play out hard choices made in the battle with alien invaders.
I'd bet it would be pretty easy to take the survivors from one world and put them as refugees on the next if you wished.
So I can`t build my own sector, fleets and empires?
It's all only this Invasion of one planet?
Quote from: SettembriniIs it Empires against each other, or single planets?
GM vs Players?
Players vs Players?
Where does the character centered stuff come in?
The game is flat out about the Valen invading a planet and trying to take it over so they can put their children in your brain.
It is set up so that the GM and the players are competing for this planet, competing to take it over.
The character centered stuff comes in with the players' Beliefs. They are how they gain artha, which can make their roles better. Players are pushing to complete goals in their Beliefs and the GM is challenging their Beliefs.
Hope that makes sense.
Quote from: SettembriniSo I can`t build my own sector, fleets and empires?
It's all only this Invasion of one planet?
One planet at a time, chief.
QuoteHope that makes sense.
Not really. I thought it`s about an invasion. Invasions are decided by tactics and ressource management.
Now you are talking about personal beliefs of characters which are attacked. Is the invasion a simile/parable on what it is really about?
Quote from: SettembriniNot really. I thought it`s about an invasion. Invasions are decided by tactics and ressource management.
Now you are talking about personal beliefs of characters which are attacked. Is the invasion a simile/parable on what it is really about?
Okay, an example from the game I played.
The Valen are smugging their own kind into the planet, past the security measures. They have a worm in the head of a prominent politicial...so think President Kennedy with an alien sperm in his skull.
Cool.
The Valen were also controlling this religious zealot who had a fortification in the planet's northern pole. They send them in to kidnap this Kennedy just before the election, entirely for publicity and to get him alone and gain his intel if they can.
One of the players is Kennedy's doctor and another is the General of the planet's armed forces and Kennedy's bodyguard, neither of whom know he has an alien worm in his head.
Bam!
Character driven conflict that feeds into the greater conflict of the planet. When those zealots came for Kennedy, there was a vicious inter-squad Firefight in the street.
Hope that makes sense.
Does that make sense?
Quote from: Paka*snip*
Does that make sense?
It does for me. BE games are based around a "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" type situation, and how the PC involved figure into the escalating events.
It's sounds awesome for one-offs, but repeat play? hm.
Quote from: JamesVIt does for me. BE games are based around a "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" type situation, and how the PC involved figure into the escalating events.
It's sounds awesome for one-offs, but repeat play? hm.
Its somewhere between one-offs and ad infinitum play.
Picture the mini-campaign that goes for 5-10 sessions.
But I don't think when you get done with those 10 session you will really want to stop. You can play the next game from the alien side or make the world you are in entirely different, so instead of a game about politics and a sly invasion it is plasma cannons on the moon and space battles from the first game.
It ain't a one-shot engine is what I'm saying.
Buy it, don't buy it, like it, hate it, whatever but I just want to jump in and correct notions when posters who have never read nor played it try to define it.
Wow.
Big Let-down. I really had hoped for a highly political, strategic level Empire building/destruction game, all not in boardgame, but roleplay format, with plausibilities and "Grand Captainship" flying all over the table. I'd kill for such a game...
Thanks Judd! I think I have got an impression.
The subsystems still look very neat, maybe I can salvage them for my Traveller Campaigns.
Quote from: SettembriniWow.
Big Let-down. I really had hoped for a highly political, strategic level Empire building/destruction game, all not in boardgame, but roleplay format, with plausibilities and "Grand Captainship" flying all over the table. I'd kill for such a game...
I plan to use Burning Empires some time precisely as you describe.
But Paka is right, that's not the focus of the game as printed. All the sub systems and lifepaths and mechanics can easily support what you describe - but the structure would need looking at if you change the premise.
Our first game however will be Vaylen worm invasion..!:cool:
Quote from: SettembriniWow.
Big Let-down. I really had hoped for a highly political, strategic level Empire building/destruction game, all not in boardgame, but roleplay format, with plausibilities and "Grand Captainship" flying all over the table. I'd kill for such a game...
While I have to defer to Paka since he's been lucky enough to actually
play the game, instead of just read the book like I have so far, I think that that game you describe is very much inside the scope of BE. It is all set against the general backdrop theme of, well Body Snatchers is probably not the worse analogy. But other than that, actually because of that, a planet in civil war is very much what you have. At least on the surface. Because that is how the worms invade. Rot a planet from the core out to drop the defenses so they can bring in shiploads of worms and convert the remaining humans.
There is a blog that is has 6 or 7 very lengthy entries, numbered in roman numerals, written by someone that was involved directly in the development. Unfortunately the blog seems down right now, but you can check back later. http://urdwell.blogspot.com It is a very lengthy read, but it is also quite extensive. And most importantly free. :win:
Another suggestion is just go over to the official Burning Empire forums and give as full a description as you can of what you are looking for. That forum has, as can be expected, a very heavy fan-boi tone that is a bit of a turnoff for me. But I don't think you can go wrong asking the question of 'abzu', the owner/developer. I've found him quite forthright. If, from your description, he doesn't think it is what you are looking for he'll tell you flat out. I've seen him say it to others before, even when they are already to pull out their wallet and send him cash.
P.S. One word of warning though. You'll likely have much better results playing BE if you try to shed what you
know works and doesn't work in an RPG. Because that knowledge is ultimately rooted in the context in which you learned it. Burning Empires does enough things fundamentally different that the context makes a lot of the knowledge more akin to baggage.
Not to suggest you don't know nuthin', because that just isn't the case. But that what you have learned tends to come with a lot of unspoken and often unrealized assumptions that often don't apply in BE. It is by far the highest hurdle I've seen to overcome for an experienced RPG player coming to BE or BW.
Thanks! I will ask the developer then.
In regards to "dis-learning":
I want to game the way I know these days, cause it's cool and everybody seems to like what I do as a GM. I'm just looking for more toys. BE could have new toys.
Quote from: SettembriniIn regards to "dis-learning":
I want to game the way I know these days, cause it's cool and everybody seems to like what I do as a GM. I'm just looking for more toys. BE could have new toys.
But getting re-educated is fun (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/1974/pictures/pictures/aco_picaco5.jpg)! :) I hear that you are having fun now with whatever you are doing. I guess what I'm suggesting is playing the game you get out of the box, and then changing things around later once you get a handle on things. Because there is a lot of new stuff to get a handle on, and how you GM that works well could easily go very poorly because it is built on a number of assumptions about the game that are likely not true. I'm guessing you'll have a lot better luck transforming it into something in your particular grove if you learn it by playing it in it's original form first.
EDIT I certainly don't limit this advice to Burning Empires. If you really don't want to change what you are doing and you are basically going to rearrange a game immediately into what you already have on your bookshelf then why bother go out and buy a different game to start with?
EDIT2 There is easily room for improvement in
everyone. Think of this as cross-training to expand your range of abilities to ultimately create an even better game table. Growth is a pretty good test to sort the living from the dead.
In case you, or anyone else is still interested it looks like that blog is back up now. I was also off on the number of entries, it was only five. Here is a link to the fifth one, links to the first 4 are in the column on the right side of that page.
http://urdwell.blogspot.com/2006/08/burning-empires-from-inception-to.html
EDIT Even if you aren't interested in the game I think those blog entries provide an interesting look at the inside of the creation of a small self-published game.
QuoteI guess what I'm suggesting is playing the game you get out of the box, and then changing things around later once you get a handle on things.
Well, so much is assured, that's undeniably true. I'll have to muddle through the RAW. I want to know if it's worth it, even if I never play it afterwards with the RAW again.
QuoteIf you really don't want to change what you are doing and you are basically going to rearrange a game immediately into what you already have on your bookshelf then why bother go out and buy a different game to start with?
Simple: More toys.
Quote from: SettembriniThanks! I will ask the developer then.
In regards to "dis-learning":
I want to game the way I know these days, cause it's cool and everybody seems to like what I do as a GM. I'm just looking for more toys. BE could have new toys.
Yeah, Luke's ("abzu") a straight shooter. He'll be straightforward about things with you, I'd say.
While it is not directly on the topic of selling Burning Empires the game, I can say that after reading about BE on this forum I went to the local comics store and picked up the Iron Empires graphic novels...
:eek: They are FUCKING COOL! I am almost done with "Faith Conquers" and will be starting the second as soon as I am finished. Great art, great characters, and some nice pacing to the story.
Really, even if you end up not liking the game but are into gothic sci-fi with a military twist I would highly recommend checking them out! The quality of the work has seriously increased the chance that I will take a chance on it and buy the game.
TGA
Quote from: SettembriniWell, so much is assured, that's undeniably true. I'll have to muddle through the RAW. I want to know if it's worth it, even if I never play it afterwards with the RAW again.
I think I mentioned in another thread that a lot of the basic concepts are in a bit purer, more general form in Burning Wheel. The basis of the World Burner apparently originated in Burning Sands:Jihad extension download. But if you play it then I think you'll walk away with the same benefits of the basic ideas, which is well worth the price of admission. Plus with a cool toy that'll look good on the shelf. See Assyrian's post above about the original art, which is all throughout the RPG book.
QuoteSimple: More toys.
That's cool. But pay attention to the instructions and warnings that come with that Red Ryder BB Gun. Don't point it at your face or you'll shoot your eye out kid. :cool:
Quote from: The Good AssyrianThe quality of the work has seriously increased the chance that I will take a chance on it and buy the game.
It helped me make up my mind. That and the fact that Christopher Moeller was involved in the game (had approval, did some art, wrote the forward) and feels the game really captures Iron Empires. "Luke and his crew have brought the Iron Empires to life. They totally understand it's quirkiness, it's dark undertones, it's sense of heroic fatalism, and I can't wait to see how it grows once it's out in the wider gaming community."
Quote from: The Good Assyrian:eek: They are FUCKING COOL! I am almost done with "Faith Conquers" and will be starting the second as soon as I am finished. Great art, great characters, and some nice pacing to the story.
Not surprising you feel that way given that you share a love of Traveller with Moeller. He wrote the Forward to Burning Empire, along with input on the rest of the book too, and in the Forward he lists a youth spent playing Traveller as one of the three major influences that brought him to initially write the two Iron Empires books.
P.S. Not sure what ate Paul Watson's post? Did he get pulled over and his post tasered into submission by the Automated SPAM Gestapo?
EDIT: Ah, it's back now.
So Settembrini asked me to rezzer this thread and sell him on Burning Empires.
Well, Settem, if you want to play a hardcore strategic RPG and use tactics and resources to win the day for your world, Burning Empires does it and does it hard and real. The Infection mechanic is a strategic game you overlay atop your regular roleplaying game sessions. You use maneuvers like Conserve, Take Action and Gambit to destroy your opponent and get what you want. Skills like Strategy and Logistics and Psychohistory are very important.
But Burning Empires is not an adventure game per se. Or if it, it's at the farthest extreme of adventure gaming. There's a group of characters nominally striving toward one goal, but there's a lot of other forces at play.
Burning Empires play is intensely character driven. If you want to conquer that planet, you're going to have get in the trenches and play it out. There's no hand-waving and a die roll. You've got to slog through that war and win it. Not every battle of course, but the character's fate is tied to his world's. So he must persevere.
Also, in Burning Empires, the GM is just another player with a special set of duties. He does not have unlimited powers and cannot make use of fiat. And there's a reason: Burning Empires is competitive. GM and players each represent one side of the conflict. And both sides are trying to win. To give one side the power of fiat ruins the competitive part of the game.
The scope of play is defined collaboratively during the first session. The players and the GM build a world and the conflicts present on that world together. They make a rough sketch of the important elements of the setting and the fault lines that are likely to appear. They set initial goals for their characters. Once play begins, those plans begin to unravel and spiral out of control and veer off in unexpected directions. That's the core of play -- that's part of what makes it a roleplaying game.
Lastly, the characters are explicitly protagonists in the developing story. They are the center of all the action. Nothing else is important to play except their fate (and the fate of their world).
If that type of play sounds interesting to you, I urge you to get the book. Personally, I love it. For me it produces intense, focused and dramatic play. If it sounds like it's not your thing, that's cool, too. Sounds like you have plenty of games to keep you busy and happy.
-Luke
PS: I'd like to thank Blakkie and everyone who went to bat for me in this thread. Very kind and generous of you gentlemen.
First let me thank you for the clear and complete answer!
Quotebut the character's fate is tied to his world's.
This is were I snap out. I cannot imagine this to be fun for me. I never liked Superheroes and the underlying mindset. I like Traveller for representing modern, complex societies, where the characters are just as important as anybody else.
But:
Quoteif you want to play a hardcore strategic RPG and use tactics and resources to win the day for your world, Burning Empires does it and does it hard and real. The Infection mechanic is a strategic game you overlay atop your regular roleplaying game sessions. You use maneuvers like Conserve, Take Action and Gambit to destroy your opponent and get what you want. Skills like Strategy and Logistics and Psychohistory are very important.
Sounds like way too much coolness and awesomeocity-generating stuff to pass.
I'll buy it.
QuoteHe does not have unlimited powers and cannot make use of fiat.
If I can piggy-back on here...if this is so, how far does BE differ from a board game? In Burning Wheel for example you've laid out some great guidelines on the use of Circles, but I still see those rules as requiring considerably more discretion and judgment than, say, Risk. And that seems to raise problems for a competitive game--not unlike the tired old Cops 'n' Robbers "shot you in the gut, no you didn't, you winged me" argument.
Settembrini,
I'm glad I sold you on it. I suspect you'll like it. It's a technical and deep RPG. Thor and I figure there's about 10 years of play in that one book -- based on all of the options provided by the World Burner and Character Burner (and the way the compromise mechanics work).
But if you don't mind, I'd like to dispute your superhero comment. Burning Empires is not a superhero game. The characters are mortal, fragile and fallible. The issues behind them do not relate to justice, identity or (usually) the ethical use of power. Neither does the game concern itself with the "man and the mask" dialectic that runs through most of the superhero genre. Burning Empires is based on Chris Moeller's Iron Empires comics and seeks to emulate them in feel and atmosphere: Chris' stories deal with heroic fatalism, honor, faith, conviction and the soul-crushing inevitability of fate.
But in order to truly emulate the feel of Chris' comics, the characters must explicitly be protagonists. They must be the center of the story and forced to make difficult decisions in harrowing situations. And their decisions must ramify through the whole story. If they are not protagonists, the player's decisions are futile -- both success and failure become a shadow of what they could be. The mechanics of the game acknowledge and enforce this. The setting may be in upheaval and the world ending, but it's the players' actions which will truly decide its fate. Which is, in my opinion, how it should be. Even if you're playing out a bloody, dirty fight for a neighborhood bar (which you can do in this game), that ugly dust up is the center of the story, the characters involved are antagonist and protagonist and that's what the game is about.
Elliot,
Burning Empires is a roleplaying game and not a board game. First, there's no board. But more importantly, players take on the role of characters and must channel all of their actions through the actions and behaviors of their characters in the setting. One player is the GM. It is his job, once play begins, to play the antagonists to the players' protagonists. It is his job to present difficult and challenging situations that play into and off of the players' characters' beliefs. He does not set the pace of the game nor act as an arbitrator. The game has a built-in pace and we hope that the rules are explicit enough to be fair and clear to all sides. The GM does not single-handedly develop the "plot" either. With the other players he sets up a world in peril at the beginning of the game. Then he uses his antagonist characters to infiltrate, usurp and eventually invade that world -- simultaneously colliding with the players who are striving to protect their world or at least best the antagonists. "Plot" and "story" are generated as a result of these conflicts and collisions. We certainly don't know how the game is going to end when we set it up.
Does that answer your question?
-Luke
@Superheroes: You took it too literary/I was unclear: The whole concept of one person as a placeholder for entire societies is a thing I dislike. I call it "Superhero", maybe wrongly. To me a good example would be Babylon 5; wherein the characters each stand for whole organizations and societies, even races. And this is not my cup of tea, it's too artificial to make the decisions involved worhtwhile.
Luke, thanks, but no, that doesn't answer my question. Of course I know that BE doesn't have a board; what I meant was to draw a distinction between games with formally defined procedures and games with freeform procedures that require adjudication. E.g., even Charades has clear enough rules that there's no need to have a judge; at worst I think you might have to restrict the range of possible books, movies, etc. that each team can put in the hat. Among RPGs the game that's most like this, that I've seen, is My Life With Master--the only real discretion required in the overall procedures is whether to award Intimacy, Desperation, or Sincerity dice. That discretion is put in the hands of the GM, and thus presents an opportunity for bias, but actually you could play a game with one GM, one Master, and a bunch of players. Would a similar division of labor do anything for BE?
Settembrini
I think Burning Empires is a big grittier than Babylon 5 -- I'm not a fan of cultural stereotypes either. At the same time, I do recognize the limitations of the rpg medium: there are only 5 players at the table, the book can only contain so much information and the GM can only process so much. I think the key (and maybe this is revealing too much behind the veil) is to create an illusion of depth and multiplicity.
Elliot,
I'm sorry, I don't think I follow. Burning Empires requires that one player strongly play the opposition and push back hard against the players. In order to make that process a bit more fair -- because it's a competitive game -- we put the burden of arbitration on the rules and it is necessary for all of the players at the table to know the rules.
BE doesn't need a referee. It needs someone to play the bad guys to the hilt (and thereby play off the players' Beliefs and create situation in the game). Just like in My Life with Master. I think you underestimate the role of the GM in that game. His job isn't to hand out cookies and consult the rulebook. His job is to entice and induce the players into doing horrible, dastardly things with their characters -- so in the end they can't hope to confront him.
-Luke
QuoteI do recognize the limitations of the rpg medium
There is no limits in RPGs. That's what's so ultra-awesome! No budget too high, no cast to large! Go for it!
You should have played in my last Traveller campaign...complex societies and Psychohistoric Manipulation totally without placeholder PCs of the grandest order! Ah, the memories...
Must-buy-BE.
Must-salvage-subsystems.
Must paint sci fi minis
Must revise ground combat rules
Must play out FFW.
So much to do until the follow up campaign can start.
Quote from: lukeElliot,
I'm sorry, I don't think I follow. Burning Empires requires that one player strongly play the opposition and push back hard against the players. In order to make that process a bit more fair -- because it's a competitive game -- we put the burden of arbitration on the rules and it is necessary for all of the players at the table to know the rules.
BE doesn't need a referee. It needs someone to play the bad guys to the hilt (and thereby play off the players' Beliefs and create situation in the game). Just like in My Life with Master. I think you underestimate the role of the GM in that game. His job isn't to hand out cookies and consult the rulebook. His job is to entice and induce the players into doing horrible, dastardly things with their characters -- so in the end they can't hope to confront him.
Er, don't you mean that they can't wait to confront him? (BTW, where in the
world did you get the impression that I thought the GM's job involved handing out cookies? Though if you can point me to a GM who does, I'd appreciate it because I love cookies.)
Anyway, I might be underestimating MLwM's GM but really my point is that the relative lack of discretion available to him in terms of available resources and interpretation of the rules does make it possible for him to push really hard. On the other hand, the bit of discretion left for him, in judging Intimacy/Desperation/Sincerity, means that "reasonable people can disagree" how the mechanics should be applied. That's not the case in Bridge, or Chess, or Panzerblitz, which allows them to be played fully competitively. Baseball can mostly work among adults using the honor system, but with occasional breakdowns, thus the need for umpires.
So basically I'm wondering where BE stands on the burden of arbitration scale, if you put Chess at one end and a freeform GMed game at other the end, with MLwM somewhere in the middle, though closer to Chess than most RPGs.
Edit: I
have noticed how both MLwM and BW also take some of the burden of arbitration off by, essentially, reducing the importance of a niggling difference in a ruling. E.g., the dice mechanic of MLwM means that the GM's failure to award Sincerity can still be overcome by good dice rolling. I think BW has some similar characteristics at least some of the time.
Elliot,
I don't think my opinion on that scale will really be relevant to your question. The game should really speak for itself. I don't have the book or pdf in front of me at the moment, but when I get home tonight I'll post the text for the Role of the Players and the Role of the GM.
thanks,
-Luke
Quote from: Burning Empires pages 620-623GM's Authority
All of the GM's points, pools, figures of note and characters serve one purpose: to provide opposition, create adversity and foment conflict for the players. The GM, whether playing human or Vaylen, is the foil to the other side. His role is to get in their way and challenge them.
The GM is not the sole arbiter of the rules. He may not disregard rules as he sees fit and may not add others as he chooses. The rules are meant to stand on their own. Both player and GM abide by them—and call each other on breaking or bending them. Nor is the GM's role to "create the story." The story will emerge on its own as the GM challenges the players and as both sides push toward their respective objectives.
The GM's role in this game is quite fun. Since he doesn't have to worry about playing God, he's freed up to play the game. He gets to make a few characters, strategize his long-term plan and play the game to win.
That's right, win. If the GM doesn't play to win in this game, he's doing the players a disservice. Quite possibly, he's killing their fun. Does it mean he can just drop space rocks on the player characters, kill them and win by fiat? No. Are there any rules for winning by fiat in this game? No. The GM's got to see his plans made fruitful via the conflicts and the Infection. If he wants to bombard the planet with space rocks, that's a Gambit, Inundate or Take Action maneuver. The bombardment's effect is determined by the resolution of the action. But even being successful isn't enough. If he wants to win, he must reduce the players' disposition to zero. Then and only then does he win.
And what does he win? He stops the players from getting their objective, and he gets what he set out as his phase objective. So even then, winning is not total. Anything not covered in the phase objective isn't affected or is open to discussion as per the Epilogue guidelines.
Also, the GM is in a unique position. He can see the big picture—what the players are doing, as well as what the opposition is up to and plans to do. His perspective grants the power to hold off on one action while another player moves forward, so that the two pieces intersect dramatically at the table. More than any other player, the GM controls the flow and pacing of the game. It is, in fact, his job to keep the game moving. The best way to do this is by calling for a test. If the game is dragging, the GM should ask, "Is there a conflict here? What do you want?" He may not prevent a player from getting his scenes in a maneuver, but he can push a waffling player to move on. If there's a conflict or test to be made, he may demand the players roll for it and move on.
Most important, the GM is responsible for introducing complications to the story and consequences to the players' choices. Burning Empires is all about choices—from the minute you start creating a character, you are making hard choices. Once play begins, as players choose their paths, it is the GM's job to inject resonant and meaningful ramifications into play. A character commits a murder. No big deal, right? Well, there's justice and revenge to consider—that's the obvious stuff—but there's also big picture elements to consider: Whole provinces have risen in revolt due to one errant murder....
My Favorite Obstacle
Another duty of the GM does is to set the obstacles for tests or determine if a test is a versus or open test. It is his prime tool for challenging the players. And a lot of players cry foul that the GM can seemingly set an arbitrary difficulty for their goals. Well, tough luck, I say to them. Someone has got to make these challenges hard. In this game, the GM does that heavy lifting. His role is to challenge the players—setting obstacles is fundamental to that opposition.
[snip]
The GM's Special Powers: I Am Adversity
The GM's palette with which he can paint challenges consists of the setting, characters and situation established in the world burning and character burning process. He does not have unlimited reach or scope. He cannot just bring in whatever he wants; he can't do whatever strikes his fancy.
He's got to use the World Burner, Character Burner, Infection, Scenes and Conflicts, Duel of Wits and Firefight mechanics in the same fashion as the players.
He has a little leeway in the Infection mechanics: He doesn't have to give himself helping dice in the scenes to get helping dice for the maneuvers. His characters can help each other in the Infection mechanics so long as he features them in the scenes during the maneuver. It can be color or an interstitial; no dice need be rolled. Their presence in the scene is enough to get help for the Infection.
The most powerful special rules for the GM are his special Resources and Circles pools. He can spend Resource points during his scenes to bring hard tech into the game using the same rules for buying tech during character burning. Spend a point, get a gun, a ship or a fortress. Reduce the Resources exponent and carry on. No roll required.
Same goes for Circles. Forgot to bring in a bodyguard for a major villain? No problem. Just knock off two circles points and he's in the scene. The difference between Circles and Resources is that these points need to be set aside during character burning. The GM may not reduce reputations, affiliations or base Circles.
Using his freedom in the color and interstitials plus his ability to bring tech and contacts into the game without testing, the GM has weight in his favor with which he can test the players.
Elliot, there's the text straight from the game for the GM. There are two other similar sections. One for the group and one for the players. But I can't reproduce them here; they are too long.
Anyway, you can see how I outline the GM's special powers. BE is a very trad rpg in form, but inside that overall form there are some tweaks in order to make it run better with my design goals.
(You might also note that I contradicted myself here in regard to pacing!)
I do hope that helps answer your question!
-Luke
It does. There's a lot there that I really like, in fact it reminds me a bit of some ideas I had on designing an abstract mechanical substrate as an overall campaign framework.
I know a couple guys in my gaming group preordered BE; hopefully I'll get a chance to look it over and see the devils in all the details.