Josh-Free Topic, re: Burning Wheel

[Cam_Banks]

BW does do things that other games don't do. I agree that artha is similar to those systems Cam described, but I think it is a refinement and is better tied to the system. The fact that there are different kinds is an example of this. I would consider the life-path character creation innovative, and also scripted combat and duel of wits.

Everything old is new again. Scripted combat dates all the way back to the excellent if not commonly remembered GDW game, En Garde! which was also the first game to really highlight social status and out of combat actions as relevant. Lifepaths have been in games since Traveller, also a GDW game (there could be something to that), R.Talsorian's Mekton and Cyberpunk, and both versions of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

And I must stress that this isn't a bad thing. I don't see very much that's "original" in games these days; even FATE's Aspects have their genesis in games like 7th Sea, which (shock!) actually had you spend points to buy drawbacks since they generated the game's currency when they came into play.

I believe that looking into the origins and predecessors of the "new" generation of games is both enlightening and valuable, especially if you want to trace the development and adoption of ideas in design. It's also fascinating to see some players deliberately going back to older games almost as a reaction to the story game approach that's been taken by many small press companies. Clearly there is a market for the old school AD&D style of game, and I think 4th edition's developers knew that going in.

That said, it's not for everyone. If you want a game where the players contribute to the plot and where intrigue and social dynamics can be an integral functional part of the game, give it a try. Some people don't see a need to integrate these things via system and prefer to free form them into their games. I personally don't think that works.

Right. I think knowing it doesn't work for you is a big plus. Knowing it does work for others is even better.

Cheers,
Cam

[Zeke]

You Misunderstand me, I don't think it works at all. I simply make space for the possibility that I am wrong. I have yet to actually see fiat  solve problems.

[Cam_Banks]

You Misunderstand me, I don't think it works at all. I simply make space for the possibility that I am wrong. I have yet to actually see fiat  solve problems.

Nope, I think I was the one misunderstood there! What I meant to say is that knowing it works for other people would be even better than simply knowing it doesn't work for you.

Cheers,
Cam

[Cam_Banks]

Well, let me see if I can understand this a little better (because it makes up 90% of the pointless discussions I have with Josh.) Can you think of a problem the fiat isn't solving? For instance, has there been an occasion where the GM wants to bring intrigue and social stuff into a game and because there are no game mechanics for it, it's just not worked? I used to run campaigns like that all the time (intrigue and social-based ones) using 3.5 D&D and I really didn't have any special rules to handle it. They, and the Amber DRPG intrigue games I ran before them, were some of the best games I've been involved with.

Cheers,
Cam

[Bell]

Well, let me see if I can understand this a little better (because it makes up 90% of the pointless discussions I have with Josh.) Can you think of a problem the fiat isn't solving? For instance, has there been an occasion where the GM wants to bring intrigue and social stuff into a game and because there are no game mechanics for it, it's just not worked? I used to run campaigns like that all the time (intrigue and social-based ones) using 3.5 D&D and I really didn't have any special rules to handle it. They, and the Amber DRPG intrigue games I ran before them, were some of the best games I've been involved with.

Cheers,
Cam

I feel like what he might be saying, and let me know if I'm wrong, Zeke, is that while fiat may "fix" a problem, having to use the fiat in the first place sets a dangerous precedent, and creates more problems, which have to be "fixed" with fiat, which creates more problems, ad nauseum. So in reality, you've made things worse.

Actually, reading what I just wrote, that doesn't seem like what he was saying at all.  I guess that's just how I see it and I was projecting onto Zeke's posts. 

I think there are probably situations where DM fiat could be appropriate, so I won't just make a blanket statement to the effect of "don't do it", but I have personally never seen a situation where extensive use of free-form and fiat type rules would be better than simply using a different rules system.

I have never played BW, and don't think it would really be the game for me, but I have heard enough about it to know that it does what some people want very well.  My above statements are just in the sense of generic roleplaying.

[Cam_Banks]

I actually recommend reading Robin Law's "Robin's Laws of of Good Game Mastering" for more insight into the various gamer personality types and why some may strongly prefer rules to support and define their experiences, some prefer the rules to get out of the way and let them do their improv actor schtick, and some don't care either way. I think it's a mistake to suggest that one of these is superior to the other; each is a PoV put forward by a segment of the gamer population.

This is why I don't think that "put the game back into roleplaying game" is a universal necessity when many gamers prefer not to have intrigue and social encounters determined by dice, cards, or what have you.

Of course, I know of few occasions where people would be playing a game of their own preference where even general comparative guidelines for how the GM and players might fairly negotiate don't exist. It'd be like suddenly wanting to start killing orcs in Monopoly and wondering where those orcs are.

Cheers,
Cam