Quote from: SpikeThat's funny about the number of default lifepaths. Burning Empires was pretty good at giving the guidelines for number of paths

BW is a general use game with lots of parts to flip in and out and use in all sorts of different settings.  BE is a tightly focused because it's a licensed product that is ment for playing an archtypical Iron Empires specific campaign for the life of a planet (or it has been postulated a large spaceship that is traveling planet to planet).

P.S. I read your BE review, pretty good....excepting the totally baffling paragraph where you are gnashing your teeth about the campaign superstructure being embedded as part of the rules.

Are you saying it was no good because it was baffling, or was it baffling because you disagree?  

I think the basic campaign structure is very heavily embedded in the rules. While I could ignore it completely, it viturally invalidates half the subsystems in the book, such as world burning, when I do.  I would prefer that world burning be more generically useful a tool, than so utterly tied to the campaign model provided. Ditto the 'big picture' conflict.

If it was just poorly written, let me know how and I'll try to revise it.

Quote from: SpikeI think the basic campaign structure is very heavily embedded in the rules. While I could ignore it completely, it viturally invalidates half the subsystems in the book, such as world burning, when I do.  I would prefer that world burning be more generically useful a tool, than so utterly tied to the campaign model provided. Ditto the 'big picture' conflict.

It is ironic that the game very much invokes the license it is built under, something that is sadly rarely accomplished, and for that you rip it for that.

The point of the game is the fate of a planet in the Iron Empires, whether the Vaylen hull everyone on it or not. Within that scope it provides a really wide range of options, including having the planet outside of the Iron Empires proper, or potentially the 'planet' as a ship with a large crew/passenger capacity. The specifics of the planet, and even the system they exist in (think twin inhabited planet systems or even binary stars systems) quite widely too.

So it is a generic game, but flexs (and doesn't flex) in ways that others don't.  Just like some settings would dictate, say, the makeup of the magic system or the tech level in BE the Iron Empires setting sets the type campaign.

All of which is definately something that belongs in the review, because it helps people decide whether they want to play the game or not. It lets them know the abilities and limitations. Even put your preference about whether or not you are interested in being in a campaign like that, that's cool. But to instead to just sum it up as unless "trash"?

Then this line here: "Sadly, I don't think the game designer belongs at the game table, unless he's there in person." :confused: That's the most baffling part of the paragraph. What does that mean?

You have to understand that I had never heard of Iron Empires prior to reading the book first of all.  While I appreciate the value of emulation of source material: IE the hulling of a planet, what I don't like is the way it artificially limits you to playing out the fate of that single planet, and only that.  Once you try to push the scope to more of an intergalactic campaign, say uniting the Iron Empires to face down the vaylen threat, you immedeatly have to abandon that mechanic... and with it everything that depends upon it.

Call it a case of too closely following the source material, like a Star Wars game that only allowed you to play out the game as if it were a homage to the movies.

As for the comment: In reading the book, and in subsequent discussions with people this was verified, I got a very strong impression of how Luke runs his games.  I am not Luke, and he doesn't game with me or my friends. I don't particularly care for the hyped-up-sorry-can't-talk-must-rush-to-next-critical-scene style of play that he apparently does, nor would I structure the campaign the way he does. Yet here is this book written in a way that very much pushes a single style of play.  Great if you agree, annoying if not, and potentially harmful if a GM who is naturally more laid back actively tries to follow it and screws up his own games.  So, if Luke isn't at my table, preferably behind the screen, he should try to write as if he were.  Should I follow this with YMMV, IMHO and all those other meaningless sentiments?

QuoteYou have to understand that I had never heard of Iron Empires prior to reading the book first of all.

If it is important that I understand that [as a reader] then it is something that likely should have been brought up in the review. Both that it is using the Iron Empires license and that you'd never heard of the Iron Empires before (I hadn't either before BE).

Although I thought it gave a pretty good treatment to the overview background at the front of the book. *shrug* I do agree though that it would've been nice to have a larger glossary of IE terms that covered all the LP names, a pile of that setting material available including extended glossary and more detailed tech background on the web is OK but still not ideal from a complete product POV.

QuoteWhile I appreciate the value of emulation of source material: IE the hulling of a planet, what I don't like is the way it artificially limits you to playing out the fate of that single planet, and only that.

As I mentioned there is a bit more flexibility there than that. Not a huge amount, but some. Of course you can handwave that this is the planet that is a key defense in the protection of several others, and up the stakes that way. Then your FoN are either higher ups from off planet or have really good connections off planet that can bring in resources into play that way. Of course this is a bit of a stretch but....

QuoteOnce you try to push the scope to more of an intergalactic campaign, say uniting the Iron Empires to face down the vaylen threat, you immedeatly have to abandon that mechanic... and with it everything that depends upon it.

See, you are jumping another notch in scale there. The state of still large, just not stunningly so, sprawling Iron Empires is they don't want to be united, that no human or group can unite them. It's like saying "why doesn't Xxxx come with rules for running armys". Or more appropriately "why doesn't Xxxx come with rules for a planet wide struggle where I'm a member of elite, all it has is heaps of mechanics for personal skills like riding a horse and shooting weapons and climbing up the side of the building". The obvious answer is that Xxxx isn't a game designed to work at that scale.

That said having an armada sized Firefight! isn't out of the scope of the rules. You can have battles in space, and not all the resources have to come from the planet nor do all the scenes have to occur on that planet (given a high enough Tech Index or outside equipment brought in), you can have ships travel to neighbouring systems or potentially even further if you manage to generate enough Downtime.

If you wanted to you could run a series of linked campaigns stretched into a larger arc. But you might consider making them single phases otherwise you are talking about a total arc running weekly sessions for RL years.

QuoteShould I follow this with YMMV, IMHO and all those other meaningless sentiments?

How about just writing that in in something understandable to start with? Like "If anything, I suspect it would make the games move a little TOO fast sometimes." Which seemed like a fair comment.  Hey, I think that "This game is not for everyone... in fact I submit to you that the average gaming group might not know exactly what to do with it." is a fair comment, or more like fair warning. Because it operates at a scale that a lot of people don't associate with an RPG. It's pretty rare for RPGs have rules even handling battles involving 20 to 100 individuals (I can think of one off the top of my head, Black Company). So it'll take a little bit to get their head around it even if it is a scale they are interested in.

The other part about not writing like you are there? Still not getting, because a game designer is always there. The 'natural' pace of the game is written right into the rules. It's the same as the games always work as the way they are built....unless you change them.  Or do you mean the wordings which have a much more personal feel than a disembodied textbook feel to them?

P.S. Is that what is behind this other sentence in the review that struck me really oddly, where you sound like a greyhaired church lady talking about what you can hear when you play a Crazy Train record backwards:  "For an internet gamer, the Forge-Speak gets heavy, though I doubt less 'informed' gamers would notice."  Because as it is that statement makes me feel kind of like I'm 'less informed'.

Quote from: blakkie"For an internet gamer, the Forge-Speak gets heavy, though I doubt less 'informed' gamers would notice."  Because as it is that statement makes me feel kind of like I'm 'less informed'.

Snipped for brevity.

To start with, conquering/uniting all of human territory is a built in assumption when dealing with stories told about humanity.  It's what people, ambitious powerful people do.  Alexander the great had no business in India, yet there he was.  Saying that the Iron Empires shouldn't support that is stupid. You are dealing with powerful, ambitious people with politics and military. Not everyone is going to be staring at the mud beneath their feet, but looking at the stars.  


As for your above comment:  A year and a half ago I'd never heard of the forge. less than a year ago, I could have read this game and never realized the volume of buzzwords that were in it, or the design philosophies in it.  Having learned by participation in internet fora, and curiousity, I could not avoid the glaringly obvious use of said buzz words and deliberate philosophies when reading the book.  Then again, I have a knack for seeing patterns, so maybe it was more obvious to me.  The point is, a number of readers here know what I talk of when I say forge stuff, a number of people looking randomly for reviews of the game might not. So I put in the fact that if you know what it is, it's obvious, if you don't then I don't think you'll care.

Quote from: blakkieHey, I think that "This game is not for everyone... in fact I submit to you that the average gaming group might not know exactly what to do with it." is a fair comment, or more like fair warning. Because it operates at a scale that a lot of people don't associate with an RPG.

Burning Wheel's mechanics can trip up even an experienced gaming group.  Throwing Burning Empires at them (not literally because that brick could kill them) could be cause for a steel test.

Quote from: SpikeTo start with, conquering/uniting all of human territory is a built in assumption when dealing with stories told about humanity. It's what people, ambitious powerful people do.  Alexander the great had no business in India, yet there he was.

I must have skipped class where he made it to North America/South America and conquered all of humanity to 'unite' it? :cool:

The fundamental core fact of humanity in Iron Empires is the entire species is on the downturn. These are dark ages. They have technology without the science to further develop or even completely understand the technology. They are stagnet, they are diseased, they are petty, "And so bitter are we—are all of us!—that we say ’tis better to watch our neighbor gutted by the enemy than support him against a common foe."

But sure you can attempt to unite humanity. Play Alexander the Great, and cut a swath of knee-deep blood. Remember that Alexander the Great wasn't in India on some selfless hippie love-circle quest. He was there to conquer and claim for Greece. He left a wide trail of blood, slaughtering virtually every soilder he captured or that surrendered, that wasn't at that moment in time in that spot the betterment of humanity. What if there was this large enemy of both India and Greece at that moment in time? An inhuman enemy. Exactly! This interloper enemy would have the opportunity to exploit Alexander The Great's bloodlust. Now you see? The Worm is using that uniting-by-force instinct against humanity!  And that'll play out in your game, because not all FoN on the Vaylen are Vaylen or even aware of the Vaylen.  It is that very infighting to establish a 'united front' that the Vaylen exploit.

So go ahead and have your game be about trying to bring humanity under a single banner. Give it a shot, let's see this great man/woman in action! Human on human conflict is a very normal aspect of the game. But The Vaylen are going to be there as interlopers, even if neither side is aware of it initially, trying to leverage the chaos and infighting to their advantage.

Now playing in the Iron Empires is not going to appeal to everyone. It's pretty damn dark if you dwell on it, rather than on your character being a hero for a single planet of billions of people. Of course dwelling on your character being a hero is fairly natural, and that's exactly what is happening with the humans of the time as a whole. Unable to grasp and act upon the scale beyond just a few billion of people.

QuoteAs for your above comment:  A year and a half ago I'd never heard of the forge. less than a year ago, I could have read this game and never realized the volume of buzzwords that were in it, or the design philosophies in it.

Then they aren't actually buzzwords, as used in the book. That's English that is comprehendable by a vast swath of people.  Unlike those sentences I'm pointing out in your review.

QuoteHaving learned by participation in internet fora, and curiousity, I could not avoid the glaringly obvious use of said buzz words and deliberate philosophies when reading the book Then again, I have a knack for seeing patterns, so maybe it was more obvious to me.

I think what you are seeing is the source English where people started from and turned it into jargon. The Burning Wheel is, IIRC, the best selling game associated with The Forge so a lot of people have read it there, so that's the jumping off point where it was coopted from eventually stripping out the plain English meaning an using the words as idioms. Therefore confusing it with parts of the jargon used at The Forge would be easy....if you were looking for it.

It is like the medical student that has started taking classes suddenly diagnosing themselves with a huge list of diseases.

QuoteThe point is, a number of readers here know what I talk of when I say forge stuff, a number of people looking randomly for reviews of the game might not. So I put in the fact that if you know what it is, it's obvious, if you don't then I don't think you'll care.

I put it to you that you are complaining about jargon [that isn't there] using jargon [that has perhaps an even narrower audience]. Pretty damn ironic, huh?

P.S.  Luke seems to me pretty aware of jargon, and actively fights it. I've seen it on more than one occation. He probably realizes just how insular and counterproductive it is. Even when it's done by people that are proponents of his game, especially when it is done by proponents of his game.  Here, listen to this second part of an podcast interview of him by a couple of guys that I'd say definately fall into the 'cheerleaders' catagory ('cheerleaders' being the civil term ) Starting at the 2 minute mark see how aggressively Luke calls out the jargon "narrative control".

Quote from: GunslingerBurning Wheel's mechanics can trip up even an experienced gaming group.  Throwing Burning Empires at them (not literally because that brick could kill them) could be cause for a steel test.

Agreed. And it is their experience that is working against them.  I've got this idea in my head, a hypothesis if you will, that an experienced RPG player going into Burning Empires thinking "RPG" is a mistake.  Because the flipside of experience is prejudice, and prejudices are an impedence to learning a new way of looking at something old.

I'm going to see how this hypothesis works. I'm going to pitch BE as a "game", and purposely not mention it's RPG nature by name. We'll see how that works.