Lianodel @ Lianodel @ttrpg.network Posts 1Comments 359Joined 2 yr. ago
Thanks for that! I'm just reading Burning Wheel (again) and yeah, the part that strikes me the most is the Artha cycle. Roleplay -> Artha -> Tests -> Advancement.
I think the author of the article, though, was pointing out things about Burning Wheel that are relatively easy to port to other systems. That tends to leave the stuff that's less mechanically specific, and more a matter of general design. You could use his three points in dang near any game, but the Artha cycle would be quite a bit more work, if doable at all.
The format of the review, where multiple people talk about it, reminds me of Shut Up & Sit Down's written reviews. (I'm not sure if that was done elsewhere before them.) I dig it!
So if you’re reading this and you’re like “I read the rules and???”, I think that’s maybe normal? Hopefully we can help you feel out if it’s worth exploring further.
Gosh yes. I backed the game because I like a bunch about it, but there's a lot I just don't get. I had a similar problem with Blades, and even after running it a bunch, I'm still not sure I know what I'm doing. (And, honestly, after sort of figuring it out, realized it didn't mesh with my table.)
The abstractness of how Trophy Gold seems to work is even more baffling, as well as how it can lean towards either more story game or more OSR. But I think I'm going to have fun trying to untangle that knot! Plus I can always just buckle down and listen to some of the APs.
Yeah. I guess it will vary from instance to instance, but from my personal experience, viewing "All" on Lmemy isn't noticeably more political than /r/all. There's maybe less diversity in the stories, and more memes, but still. It's not bad.
Reddit has absolutely been way worse at times, by the way. When T_D was allowed to run roughshod over the front page, and spez bent over backwards to not ban them despite clearly being a nuisance and breaking the rules.
I also had a point where I realized that I knew I wasn't going to get every game I owned to the table.
I was immediately fine with it. Playing is a hobby, collecting is a hobby, and just plain reading those books is a hobby. I realized I just like reading different RPGs, sometimes to pull stuff for my own campaigns/systems, sometimes for its own sake. So I don't mind if I buy some books I won't end up running, so long as I can budget for it. It also helps the people designing and publishing those games.
So I don't think there's really anything to answer the question, "What is going on?" We're just having fun, and that's enough. :)
Permanently Deleted
It's not a Lemmy problem, though. It's an internet problem. People just like going off half-cocked and feeling superior to others, especially people who actually do things.
The same thing happened with Sync, then people got bored and moved onto the next thing.
Burning Wheel is my favorite game I've never played.
I picked up the books at a local game shop, back when it came out as a two-volume set wrapped in a paper band. A lot of it was honestly the interesting form factor, and how neat the pages looked. Then I got Burning Wheel Gold, which I blame for my weakness for chunky, digest-sized, hardback RPG books.
Anyway! For all the reasons the article states, there's a lot of value in the system even if you don't run it. The BITs are great (and seem like a more fleshed-out version of 5e's BIFs), I've always kept "let it ride" in mind to keep games moving, and I try to clearly get the intent from your players before rolling dice.
I'd still like to get Burning Wheel proper to the table, though. :P
As another thought, I just considered that "let it ride" is sort of the opposite of the clocks system popularized by Blades in the Dark, at least when building towards a goal rather than triggering a consequence. I'll have to do some re-reading and flesh out my thoughts on that!
That's one of the things that bugs me about conspiracy theories. So many of them don't even have a point.
How can so many be people be so wrapped up in conspiracism, but never once have the though, "Oh, wait, why would anyone do this? It'd be pointless."
I was playing a monk, and we got engaged from afar by a hostile group, including archers. I got wrecked on the approach, and was downed multiple times.
...then after the fight, I realized I had Deflect Missles. :|
He commented on the YouTube upload that he's on a D&D podcast called Dragon Friends! I'm gonna have to check that out.
IMO, yes. When I want a modern D&D-type game (i.e., heroic high fantasy, somewhat crunchy, focused on set piece encounters) I'd reach for PF2e over D&D5e any day. It works as intended, give players more interesting choices, it's way easier to GM, and despite seeming way crunchier at first blush, the rules are much smoother in play. Plus, all the rules are available for free online, with the express permission of Paizo. It's ultimately a matter of personal preference, so you may or may not like it, but I'm at least confident saying it's a well-made system that's worth checking out.
Like StarPupil said, there's a new revision coming out soon, so I'd wait until then. It's still 2e, and will still be compatible with everything, but they're making some minor tweaks, including some errata, and scrubbing any little bits that might still depend on the OGL. If you like PDFs (which Paizo actually makes and sells, unlike 5e!), you can also keep an eye out for Humble Bundles. There are occasionally some great Pathfinder 2e bundles, which tend to include the core rulebooks and a ton of other stuff, including full adventure paths.
I'm sorry, but you're just coming across very standoffish. I already explained that tracking ammo creates interesting choices, and I already explained that players and DMs can come to a compromise. I also explained that no one is obligated to play with anyone else, which is a clear difference from your comparison to your son. If you're going to gloss over what I have to say, I don't feel particularly inclined to keep saying anything.
But I'll give a little more benefit of the doubt.
Let's say I want to run a gritty, low-powered game. The players are down-on-their-luck, going into dangerous wilds and deep into forgotten ruins, in search of treasure to at least eke out a living, with a glimmer of hope that one day they'll strike it big and make their fortune. I want players to begin poor, where every bit of coin counts, and I want survivalism to be a big deal, so it's important what they buy and bring with them. Ammo would naturally be a part of that, and the tension of potentially running out—or what to do after actually running out!—is compelling. You think that's boring. And... okay. Infinite ammo would be kind of antithetical to the vibe I'm going for. Plus, if you have an issue with arrows, I don't expect you'd take kindly to tracking food, water, light sources... I doubt we'd see eye-to-eye. And that's it. I'm not willing to compromise on the kind of game I'm trying to start, and you're not willing to play in this one. Both are valid. I've been on both sides of this situation. And no one owes anyone a justification for their personal preferences.
And if you want to look at how other people manage inventory, look at "slot-based" solutions. A bundle of arrows would contain however many arrows, and take up one slot. No need to calculate the weight of each, just tick them off as you use them. Simpler, while still making inventory matter. And if some people like the bean counting of tracking individual weights... that's it. It's enough to understand that they like it, even if you don't.
Finally, if you truly want to understand other people's positions, you can't take such an aggressive stance, because that creates a framework where you're rewarding yourself for being obtuse. The less you're willing to consider another perspective, the stronger your position feels, and the better you think you're doing. That obviously falls apart when we're dealing with issues that have no objective answer and don't require a compromise, but even outside of that, you'll have a firmer grasp of any issue when you truly try to understand what other people believe and why. Repeatedly challenging people and not accepting their answers doesn't do anything but cause resentment as you appear hostile. A debate doesn't have to be a competition, it can be two people trying to understand, rather than win.
I already did. It's the experience they want to create at the table. Just like how lots of video games track ammo. That is a completely sufficient answer.
Why does it bother you so much that DMs who would never run a game for you are running those games a certain way? It's hard to believe you actually value the DM's fun, when the DM running a game that makes them happy causes you such confusion and consternation.
Preach. It's an attitude from top to bottom, from WotC to an unfortunate number of players.
People complain about a DM shortage, and that is a purely 5e problem. Outside of 5e, you've got lots of people eager to run games, because running a game isn't as difficult and thankless.
Again, and I cannot stress this enough: my main point is that the DM is also playing the game. They're not obligated to run the kind of game they don't want to run.
If you don't want to play in a game where you track ammo, that's fine. By the same token, the DM isn't obligated to play with you, so they don't have to change their game to suit your tastes—or anyone's. If the DM and players are willing to compromise on some things, great. If they aren't, and that means a game doesn't happen, so it goes.
The feeling I got from your comments—feel free to correct me—is that you think the DM should put their own enjoyment aside to just do what the players want. That's my issue. The DM isn't a servant, in the same way they aren't a social superior. To return to my first comment, they're just another player at the table, albeit in a different role, whose enjoyment matters just as much as anyone else's.
I guess I have a two part answer.
Firstly, why don't all video games give you unlimited ammo with no need to reload? Because that's part of the game. You may not like it, and you can have a good game without it, but that doesn't mean there's no value to it for certain people looking for a certain experience.
Secondly... you don't really have to understand it. It's a matter of personal preference. It doesn't affect you even a little bit that other people enjoy a different kind of game. When I care about inventory, I use a slot-based system, but if someone decides to track the weight of everything... whatever, that's their decision. No one's obligated to play with any particular DM, and no DM is obligated to run a game they don't want to run.
As for the rest of your comment, I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand. But anyway:
Thats like a DM refusing to level up your players because mid and high level encounters are harder to plan.
That's literally what Wizards of the Coast does. The game is completely broken at higher levels, so they just avoid creating campaigns that go up that high. And if a DM prefers to run lower-level games... so what? It's valid. And even though you don't need permission to run that kind of game, the rules explicitly break down character levels into "tiers of play."
One time, my high level party whoop my ass when Insent them many wyverns. Did I debuffed them ? No. I changed which monsters to use instead.
Sure, the CR system is notoriously broken. It's another reason why it's a pain to run 5e. It shouldn't surprise you that it's something I dislike about 5e, because, again, I think DMs should have fun, too.
Seriously. It sucks that this is apparently a controversial opinion, but:
The DM is also playing the game, and their fun matters just as much as anyone else's.
Nice! I do love me some Pathfinder. When I want a superheroic high-fantasy game, I'd run Pathfinder over 5e without the slightest hesitation.
I decided to cut this bit for space (and I already ran long!) but part of the fallout of WotC's shenanigans was that other publishers got a LOT of business. Paizo sold out of something like eight months of inventory in a matter of weeks, Goodman Games had similar record sales, and tons of others noticed a bump. D&D was synonymous with tabletop RPGs for a lot of people, but the backlash to the OGL changes put a huge dent in that market domination. I've never seen so many people talk about branching out and trying something new.
Oh yeah, I had to make the same decision, and so did LOTS of other people. I had honestly been looking forward to SotWW for ages, because I liked the system of Shadow of the Demon Lord, but got burnt out on the grimdark vibe. I went with Dolmenwood, but it was a tough decision!
That might be surprising for developers that released a Unity game back in, say, 2015, when Unity CEO John Riccitiello was publicly touting Unity's "no royalties, no fucking around" subscription plans. Now, even developers who paid $1,500 for a "perpetual license" to Unity back then could theoretically be subject to additional per-install fees starting next year (provided their game is still generating sufficient revenue and installs).
This reminds me of a story from earlier this year from Wizards of the Coast, publishers of Dungeons & Dragons (and subsidiary of Hasbro). It hinged on exactly the same semantics.
The short version is that, in 2000, Wizards of the Coast released D&D under the "Open Gaming License (OGL)," which gave third parties explicit approval to make and sell their own material using most of the D&D content, under a perpetual license. Cut forward 23 years, and lots of major publishers got their start making D&D supplements, and continue to use the OGL because (a) it's a cover-your-ass license in case they tread into a legal gray area, and (b) allows them to open up their own content to third parties. Plans for an update OGL leaked, with predictably dogshit terms that I won't get into right now, but essentially killed the license as anything anyone would want to use. The malicious part was that they would be "de-authorizing" the OGL 1.0a, because while it was a perpetual license, that didn't make it irrevocable.
(IIRC, it's also a legal argument based on case law established after the OGL was written. Not a lawyer, though.)
Predictably, there was a huge backlash. WotC backtracked, and even gave up ground by releasing a bunch of stuff under the Creative Commons. However, the OGL is still dead, because third parties can no longer trust that WotC (or Hasbro) won't try this ratfuckery again. (Sound familiar?) Lots of products were subtly rewritten to no longer need the OGL, and several publishers worked on an industry license amusingly called the Open RPG Creative License, or ORC.
The thing is, D&D's going to survive this a lot better than Unity. The business model was to sell D&D and D&D supplements, they only indirectly benefited from third-party material, and people are still going to make D&D stuff because it's D&D. Unity's entire business model relies on licensing, so if people stop using it... that's it.
Oh for sure. It looks gorgeous, and I'm usually happy to read and collect rulebooks for their own sake. But I also just got charged for backing Dolmenwood, where most of my gaming budget went recently, so I figured I should slow down a bit. :P
But enjoy it! I'll probably pick up the PDF down the road. :)