Monte Cook buys Burning Empires, does not plan to play it [Archive]

Aramis

08-14-2008, 02:40 AM

As someone who has been paid to do layout and editing (not in the games industry, tho'), as a piece of literature, BE is pretty well done. Looking at it as an Elementary Teacher, it's vibrant writing, well suited to the tone and style implied by the setting. Consistent editing, tone, style, and spelling. Good word choice, very cogent writing overall; the subject matter and jargon-heavy writing did reduce readability somewhat.

As a game, it's a head trip on first read. Getting BE first resulted in a lot of "Wow, I'm not cerain I get this" moments. (Not due to poor writing, due to the non-standard approach to RPG play.) Getting BWR made it make a lot more sense. BWR takes more space to explain the base engine and approach.

I'm rather certain I would have trouble running BE "as written," too, simply due to player inertia towards traditional play-styles. It would take some tweaking, some simplification. By not using the metaplot modality, at least at first, one can probably ease into it.

But I bought BE to read, to examine the BW mechanics via a PDF purchase. I liked what I saw; it lead me to examine the PDF of Jihad. Jihad lead me to buy BWR and BW:MoBu.

I am intrigued by what I see, and as literature alone, it's all excellent work, if jargon heavy. As games, the proof is in the play... and the trials I've put it to so far have been quite nice. But that's still not "Real Play"... and at the moment, real play will have to wait.

Dwight

08-14-2008, 08:47 AM

I'm rather certain I would have trouble running BE "as written," too, simply due to player inertia towards traditional play-styles. It would take some tweaking, some simplification. By not using the metaplot modality, at least at first, one can probably ease into it.
Klingons do not house rule. Our games do not coddle the weak. ;)

If must take your time it'll take months before they "get it" and it'll be counter productive in that you'll create further confusion. Better to run BW (at first using only DoW, probably Faith, and the spokes) if your players are steeped deep in "the GM drives the bus and tells you went you get off, when you get on, and where the figgin' stops are.".

Trithemius

08-14-2008, 11:43 PM

Klingons do not house rule. Our games do not coddle the weak. ;)

House-rules aren't weakness, they are more like masochism I think. I think people get so used to rulesets that border on self-abuse that they might start to perusade themselves that they like it.

I can't recall anything I'd do to change BE; unless it was to strip it back and reconfigure it for some other sort of 'conflict-game'.

cathexis

08-15-2008, 02:52 PM

House-rules are weakness, they are more like masochism I think. I think people get so used to rulesets that border on self-abuse that they might start to perusade themselves that they like it.

I can't recall anything I'd do to change BE; unless it was to strip it back and reconfigure it for some other sort of 'conflict-game'.

I'll second this. The current fad of houseruling games so that they are playable is indicative of us getting too comfortable with games that simply do not work properly out of the box. That it is understandable and accepted that someone would look at a game and saying "no, I wouldn't run this as written but if I made a few changes it would be all right" is a sign that we have accepted that games are poorly tested and broken by design.

I had a long and protracted argument with a few people in my gaming group a while back about rampant houseruling in an SR4 game that we were playing (mostly different treatments of armor and stun effects, the problem was that we had dramatic changes every week or so) and while there wasn't any real conclusion to this argument it illustrated the point that we expect games to need tweaking in order to be playable. At one point it was so nuts that we were making house rules for house rules because our house rules broke other parts of the game.

buzz

08-15-2008, 02:55 PM

The current fad of houseruling games so that they are playable is indicative of us getting too comfortable with games that simply do not work properly out of the box.
Current fad? Dude, this has long been deeply ingrained into gamer-dom. It's half the reason for the entire indie RPG scene's existence.

Dwight

08-15-2008, 03:11 PM

I had a long and protracted argument with a few people in my gaming group a while back about rampant houseruling in an SR4 game that we were playing (mostly different treatments of armor and stun effects, the problem was that we had dramatic changes every week or so) and while there wasn't any real conclusion to this argument it illustrated the point that we expect games to need tweaking in order to be playable. At one point it was so nuts that we were making house rules for house rules because our house rules broke other parts of the game.
The crazy thing is that SR4 is entirely "playable" out of the box. There are only a few bad loopholes that set a tone out of place with the the rest of the game. The rest of the complaints I've seen bear little fruit if you follow back from them. Nearly any houseruling actually begets house ruling.

It was hilarious on rpg.net earlier this week when someone posted complaining about a certain type of spell being too powerful and it was going to require some sort of houserule. But that was going to be OK because he had a good GM that would patch it all up. ((EDIT: He did have a concern that his mage would get caught in the crossfire. )) However digging down what had actually happened was they'd made a houserule, because one of the players was complaining his [entirely twinked mage] was getting shafted, that created the issue. :rolleyes:

buzz

08-15-2008, 03:18 PM

In all my D&D 3.x and HERO play, most of the house-rules I've encountered made the game worse. I find it's rare that GMs are aware of the non-obvious repercussions of the changes they make.

The only time house rules worked well IME was when, after years of play, an obvious issue was identified and the house rule served to correct it.

cathexis

08-15-2008, 03:56 PM

The crazy thing is that SR4 is entirely "playable" out of the box. There are only a few bad loopholes that set a tone out of place with the the rest of the game. The rest of the complaints I've seen bear little fruit if you follow back from them. Nearly any houseruling actually begets house ruling.

It was hilarious on rpg.net earlier this week when someone posted complaining about a certain type of spell being too powerful and it was going to require some sort of houserule. But that was going to be OK because he had a good GM that would patch it all up. ((EDIT: He did have a concern that his mage would get caught in the crossfire. )) However digging down what had actually happened was they'd made a houserule, because one of the players was complaining his [entirely twinked mage] was getting shafted, that created the issue. :rolleyes:
(Sorry, I'm at work, so my comments are a bit disjointed as I have to do other things in the middle of writing them). Anyway, if I remember correctly everything stemmed from the fact that stick-n-shock ammo is, as written, somewhat on the broken side (not how it works but that you can feed it through any weapon in the game, making light pistols all of a sudden awesome). So our intrepid GM, who was unhappy that half the group was running around with machine pistols (or something, can't remember the exact weapon) firing stick-n-shock and then boot knifing people when the fight was over, decided that the problem was with the handling of armor and stun damage. Which proceeded to break spells that do stun damage. So some spells with environmental stun effects got tweaked, which screwed up some other stuff, which... and so on.

After the afore mentioned argument (which did nothing to change anyones mind about houseruling) we threw out all the various houserules that had been made, made a new one that said stick-n-shock only fit in shotguns and other large caliber weapons (which had the added benefit of making gel rounds useful) and another one that made the drain on environmental effect spells not abusive (half drain instead of full drain which gave a reason to use them instead of your bog-standard power, stun, and mana bolt beyond being flashy).

And Buzz, I guess when I think of houserules as being the current fad, it is because in highschool we either played straight or with a few new things added because someone wanted to be able to do something that wasn't rule supported, and in college we, with the exception of our ever rules jettisoning Abberent game, played our games straight, so only in the last four or five years have I really seen major houseruling.

Dwight

08-15-2008, 04:33 PM

So our intrepid GM, who was unhappy that half the group was running around with machine pistols (or something, can't remember the exact weapon) firing stick-n-shock and then boot knifing people when the fight was over,
LOL, why you little Cheaters! :p Ammo in general is one place where I think they fell down. Though only a little bit (and mostly in the "WTF, that's opposite of RL" way). While stick'n'shock is somewhat a twink play, it helps keep the drones in check. ;) Plus just the occational run-in with security forces outfitted with [cheap] rubber undies helps keep the players on their toes ... and besides, so what if players have some successes in some special area. It's only an issue if it's just a campaign about things where that one special skill counts. If you do that in SR it's going to be a problem any which way. *shrug*

EDIT: Though I'll add that I did (after a year of play) change the ammo numbers around some. A bit like the second, much more localized change. It wasn't anything I found critical though, it was just a bit of polish. I suspect the experience with the system helped tell me were it was safe to screw with things. I was originally sort of pushed into considering the changes to the ammo because the GM of one game was going to go crazy with house rules around it so I thought I should be prepared. ;) Because it his comments lead me to believe it was going to end up something like your situation did ...

On the subject of trends, you should consider yourself personally lucky.

P.S. You guys kept ganking people after they'd been neutralized? Psychopaths!

cathexis

08-15-2008, 04:52 PM

Well, to be fair a) we were shadowrunners, and b) we'd have had to tie them up or something because that stuff doesn't last very long. Everyone (except for the main proponent of the auto-pistol zap gun) was totally ok with making it a large caliber round. A lot of the issue came from the way that particular ammo was written, so it was hard to have "challenging" engagements without either something silly ("these guards happen to have put on rubber long johns and environmental armor") or not actually being challenging ("I hose them down with my shocking Black Scorpion").

Of course, this is the same guy who in a Feng Shui game figured out how to kill three mooks per action and took an action per tick, so it isn't surprising that he found the cheesy really fast. And it wasn't that he was using stick-n-shock as a less than lethal alternative so much as a somewhat novel way of ending a firefight quickly.

Dwight

08-15-2008, 05:03 PM

I'm only joking about the "Psychopaths!", I've seen waaay worse. I've done worse (it involved civilians, a GL, and a downtown Seattle car/chopper/tank chase). :D

So how does that guy fair playing BW?

To get back OT ... I'm curious what Monte Cook would change, and why. He isn't exactly your average mook homebrewing in his mother's basement. EDIT: Although I'd be entirely disappointed if it involved neutering it to some more banal state.

cathexis

08-15-2008, 05:40 PM

Aramis

08-15-2008, 10:04 PM

Not all houseruling is munchkin, and not all is because it's broken.

Take, for example, Megatraveller.

When a task is defined in MT, you get two modifier components, usually one stat and one skill. Since they scale differently, attributes are divided by 5, so that they compare to skills. This is great for realistic play.

I use it when I want realistic play. But I also like more cinematic games... and when I do run MT cinematically, I alter stat modifiers to be att/3, instead, and up the task target numbers by 1. It changes the expectations and tone quite a bit, having an average stat carry a modifier equal to 2 levels instead of 1, when 3 is doctorate level.

It wasn't broken, and it isn't broken after the house rule, but it does make a big difference in the tone of play.

Good houseruling isn't to overcome bad game design. Good houseruling is to adapt a game for a different feel/tone/setting/style.

Many games are insufficiently generic for multiple settings; adapting them requires houserules. Take Dragonlance. It was not "playable" in AD&D. Then, Weis and Hickman aided the creation of a supplement, collating their house rules and some others' houserules, to make AD&D and Krynn compatible... once published, it was no longer houserules, but a setting option.

Houserules are not inherently the tool of the munchkin... despite most munchkins houseruling all to hell.

Dwight

08-15-2008, 10:36 PM

Houserules are not inherently the tool of the munchkin... despite most munchkins houseruling all to hell.
Who said they were the tools of munchkins? I've see far more houserules made because of a [over inflated] fear of something being "munchkin" or "broken". Or maybe that's just the language of excuse? The other one of the top three, "realism", is certainly a bugaboo. ;)

Aramis

08-16-2008, 01:20 AM

I felt it implied by your first post in reply to me, Blackie.

Far too many people do houserule for the wrong reasons.

I agree that good playtest reduces the number of houserules needed. I am, for example, currently running Dark Heresy. I've added once houserule, based pon retaining an initial misread: allowing XP to buy off corruption, not just insanity.

Oftentimes, I've found houserules to be a product of an initial mis-read, which happened to make for a fun game, and when discovered, were kept.

But, back on topic, since BE is so stylized, running the Rules As Written will be a major step away from traditional gaming; sufficiently far as to make one question if one is really reading it right. For example, extensive player knowledge of characters belonging to other players, player control over the setting via Wises, picking the next scene type, the almost boardgame-style invasion mechanics. Quite intriguing, to be sure, but not suitable for every group. For example, some might not want the Valen to be the enemy, but instead deal with a Lord-vs-Lord conflict.

Dwight

08-16-2008, 07:48 AM

I felt it implied by your first post in reply to me, Blackie.
Oh that, it wasn't the player that changed it though. It was the fool GM. :)

But, back on topic, since BE is so stylized, running the Rules As Written will be a major step away from traditional gaming; sufficiently far as to make one question if one is really reading it right.
Traditional gaming? More like RPGs. I still think RPG players are better off getting it in their mind that it isn't an RPG. Too bad Monte's too much a pussy to try it out as is. ;)

Aramis

08-16-2008, 09:18 AM

It's sold as an RPG. It is labelled an RPG.

Dwight

08-16-2008, 09:26 AM

It's sold as an RPG. It is labelled an RPG.
And I think it's confusing for people that bring along lots of 'RPG' baggage and have a hard time setting that down. *shrug* I'm not arguing "it's not an RPG". Foolishness down that path lies. ;)

Paul B

08-16-2008, 10:19 AM

It's sold as an RPG. It is labelled an RPG.

I wonder how many more years it'll be before the market realizes that "RPG" is a really, really broad description of game type.

p.

Aramis

08-16-2008, 12:00 PM

I wonder how many more years it'll be before the market realizes that "RPG" is a really, really broad description of game type.

p.

It's functionally "Improvisational Radioplay with Rules (and maybe a board)"

Now, many early RPGs, like TFT and pre 1976 D&D, and a scant few modern ones (*cough* D&D4 *cough*) are functionally board games with radioplay elements and out-of-combat options added.

If someone realizes their group won't like, can't handle, or won't understand some element of a game, then it's perfectly reasonable to note that one is playing a variant, and remove that element.

What isn't reasonable is to claim the variant is proof of bad design.

BE is very different from traditional play modes... combat by groups rather than individuals, lack of benefit to use of combat maps, bidding for scenes, the metagame invasion mechanics, the "let it ride" mechanic, the wises mechanic... but it still, fundamentally, is an improvisational radio play with rules.

And it's one that has been modified by several for very DIFFERENT use... one guy wrote up lifepaths for the Traveller setting. No Vaylen there...

Deckard

08-16-2008, 01:26 PM

The things that I could see people chaging are: making a more direct link between the micro and macro scale conflicts and removing or lessoning the restrictions on scene economy (anything from "Paul Tevis gives people more non-mechanics scenes" to "I don't use the scene economy because it cramps my roleplaying vision"). I could also see people throwing DoW away because of the same roleplaying vision BS. And, uhh, that whole "the players have narative control" thing that people knock BW with.

OK but i`ve got one question - why they don`t buy other game? Goddamn, if someone likes only setting of Iron Empires and all this hard-mechanic stuff dazzling him, he may play in IE on Savage, tri-stat or even Thousands Suns ;) Having BE rulebook is not neccesary to play in Iron Empires - and i think that reading all this few hundreds pages with rules, more rules and metagaming (ouch, my eyes!) can be harmful for those, who simply don`t want to change their minds and style of playing. I saw that here in Poland and i guess that`s just like also in US.

Traveller mode, huh? Well, i admire this guy - how many hours he must dedicated to his work with rewriting more than half traits, lifepaths...? Dozens? And what about playtesting that stuff?

Aramis

08-16-2008, 03:41 PM

Dwight

08-16-2008, 11:59 PM

Most of the traits need no rewrites; the human lifepaths work well enough for the baseline with only nominal changes.

There are striking similarities between the Iron Empires and the Traveller setting, both in terms of technology and culture. Nobles, battlesuit infantry, travel time limits communication speeds, overall technical limits. In some points in the Traveller timeline, the big empire fallen to pieces.
Iron Empires was very clearly influenced, in part, by Chris' playing a lot of Traveller in years long past. ;) I thought it was listed in the BE foreword, too? I can't remember if he mentions it in the IE books though.

Aramis

08-17-2008, 04:11 AM

Iron Empires was very clearly influenced, in part, by Chris' playing a lot of Traveller in years long past. ;) I thought it was listed in the BE foreword, too? I can't remember if he mentions it in the IE books though.

It's mentioned in Burning Empires on page 4, 3rd paragraph. The influence is VERY strong; strong enough to resonate with Traveller players.

Then again, Warhammer 40K is quite likely to be an outgrowth of the Games' Workshop crew's homegrown "Alternate" Traveller Universe as well.

Better Games' Era Ten setting is another "This was inspired by Traveller" battlesuits-on-infantry setting. I really wish that Red and Conrad would format up more of the Era Ten setting.

It is another setting where BW/BE looks like a great alternative to the stock system. (I happen to like the FreeStyle Role-Play engine used for Battle Born, G/Sol, Rogue Swords, and Arabian Sea Tales. It isn't, however, great, merely very good; it shares some elements with BW in approach to rolls.)

These settings all have high-end humans in power armor being the main power force in the setting.

Trithemius

08-17-2008, 09:40 PM

I'll second this. The current fad of houseruling games so that they are playable is indicative of us getting too comfortable with games that simply do not work properly out of the box. That it is understandable and accepted that someone would look at a game and saying "no, I wouldn't run this as written but if I made a few changes it would be all right" is a sign that we have accepted that games are poorly tested and broken by design.

Too right, except for that "current fad" thing - I'd been doing it for ages before I finally decided I couldn't be bothered.

I use the question "would you buy a car that is on fire?" when I talk about it with people who seem to think that house-ruling dodgy rule-sets into oblivion is something that "real" roleplayers will do.

For example, some might not want the Valen to be the enemy, but instead deal with a Lord-vs-Lord conflict.

I'd quite like to do this sort of thing myself - I'd like to make up some maneuvers that are appropriate some the Civil War or for the Urfan Crusade. However I think this is a bit different to saying outright that I would not play it without modification.

(In fact I am leery of tinkering with the overarching conflict too much for entirely superstitious reasons. I suppose I am a bit like the guys who maintain the castle-guns in Jack Vance's "The Miracle-Workers" - I am too scared of breaking some delicate mechanism that I don't fully understand...)

I wonder how many more years it'll be before the market realizes that "RPG" is a really, really broad description of game type.

p.

Who knows? Don't you play the role of a horrible capitalist in Monopoly? Doesn't that make Monopoly a game of playing roles?

Maybe it is the attempt to make mechanically rewarding the act of playing a role that makes BE what we consider to be an RPG? I don't know... it sure is some fun though eh?

Aramis

08-17-2008, 11:37 PM

Trithemus:

One can not play the "Rules as written" if one is not doing the Valen invasion. Any other metagame conflict is a houserule.

Its not a bad thing, either, to houserule a different kind of conflict if the valen invasion is not to your player's interests, but the setting overall is.

Mr. Cook hasn't said enough to know why; several plausible valid reasons exist.

Trithemius

08-18-2008, 01:20 AM

One can not play the "Rules as written" if one is not doing the Valen invasion. Any other metagame conflict is a houserule.

Uh, yeah - I know. I'm not trying to "fix" the game in doing this though. I'm not saying "I wouldn't play this without modifying it" I'm saying "This game is great, what else can I do with it?". Didn't I make a point (and semi obscure SF reference) indicating how cautious I was about making such adjustments to something that works so well?

I think the players in our current (and our previous) game were pretty interested in the Vaylen-Human struggle; I just see really rich potential in the idea of a pre-established conflict situation that is tied to a mechanical pacing system.

Anyway, I still (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showpost.php?p=61781&postcount=3) wonder what MC meant by his "play as-is" statement.

buzz

08-18-2008, 08:14 AM

(*cough* D&D4 *cough*)
Girl, please. :rolleyes:

Aramis

08-18-2008, 07:33 PM

Girl, please. :rolleyes:

Girl? :confused:

Aramis always has been a masculine name... :rolleyes:
See also Dumas, Three Musketeers, The....

Trithemus:

I hope Monte does post more, so we can see what he feels is problematic and why.

I know what *I* feel is likely to be a problem in my group: scene budgets, combat scripting, and the Valen Invasion. But that has a lot more to do with knowing my players than reflecting the game. It still means that, should I run it, I'll not be able to play it "RAW" for at least a while. I'll need to teach them base mechanics first, including scripting, and then move up to scene budgets. Probably best done by starting with BWR...

buzz

08-18-2008, 09:08 PM

Girl? :confused:
Just me doing some sassy eye-rolling at the "D&D is a glorified wargame" comment.

Thor

08-19-2008, 08:18 AM

Hey guys, please don't get snippy with each other over a game that's not even the focus of this thread or these boards. It just isn't worth it.

Trithemius

08-19-2008, 09:10 PM

I know what *I* feel is likely to be a problem in my group: scene budgets, combat scripting, and the Valen Invasion. But that has a lot more to do with knowing my players than reflecting the game. It still means that, should I run it, I'll not be able to play it "RAW" for at least a while. I'll need to teach them base mechanics first, including scripting, and then move up to scene budgets. Probably best done by starting with BWR...

Hey Aramis,

It's not that hard in all honesty - we had a bunch of more-or-less unreconstructed trad gamers and I just chucked them in. We cocked a few things up at first, then ironed out the wrinkles in our grasp of the systems as we become more experienced (we have not got to the two maneuvers in a single night point yet but I have hopes!). I don't think there is any real need to prepare people - and I suspect that BWR is much more complicated than BE - I know that Firefight seems much simpler than Fight! to me; DoW seems about the same.

Cheers,

Trithemius

08-19-2008, 09:12 PM

Hey guys, please don't get snippy with each other over a game that's not even the focus of this thread or these boards. It just isn't worth it.

A midnight meeting at a pre-arranged location with the interlocutors both armed with a sock full of d20s is probably more useful.

Post it on youtube when you are done!

Dwight

08-19-2008, 10:14 PM

I'd urge you to use the scene economy, right from the very start.

The scene economy has a lot more influence on the GM IMO. It's actually pretty easy to deal with in play for the players in my experience, certainly from a limit POV since they are probably used to effectively having a limit of ZERO. ;)

The tough part from a "trad" POV is to grok how the micro-level and macro-level are linked. It's sadly quite typical to have players swear up and down it isn't at all, I've even had this fallacy persist after I explained it the first time. *shrug* Also the hoping back and forth from IC to OOC thinking required for successful linking of micro to macro is something that "trad" doesn't stress to the same extent that BE does. So this could be an entirely knew skill for someone (or at least new to them using it as a player instead of as a GM).

Somewhat less jarring than that is the scripting. Actually the laying out of the battlefield can be weird for folks first time through, since they are used to the GM just saying "this is what the terrain is". And this scripting of "roleplaying" can really stick in the craw of people that are really invested in doing that via free-form IC doublespeak/OOC arguing till resolution.

"Trad" sensibilities can also leave the players somewhat timid, though dealing with new rules is a complicating factor.