Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zak S" data-source="post: 6732246" data-attributes="member: 90370">Ron Edwards is no Isaac Newton. He isn't even Robin Laws.Phrenology isn't Newtonian physics. And games aren't nearly complicated enough to need a &quot;good enough&quot; tier of design and GMing rules.For Burning Wheel?1. People who do play it seem to be confused by the system and are always dropping parts of it or ignoring them or having to consult Luke to clarify them.2. The system, when not hand-sold or supported by the author, isn't very popular on its own. It isn't an ambassador for itself. This isn't bad by itself but it does suggest something's rotten in Denmark.3. The people who do like it don't tend to be real exciting or interesting people.4. Huge parts of it are explicitly (explicitly: the author said so) designed to prevent abusive GMing and play practices which should actually be dealt with interpersonally rather than trying to systematize them away. The game has a huge overhead of rules that merely exist because Luke's game group was/is disfunctional and he made rules to route around that rather than dealing with it.5. Played RAW it plays like the best comedy game ever written.Now you could say that 1 applies to D&amp;D but definitely not 2 or 3. And all 5 together? That's a thing.I could be nuts here but everything I've observed suggests BW is exactly as popular as the players are close to Luke Crane and his (massive and dedicated and long-running) personal advocacy for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zak S, post: 6732246, member: 90370"] Ron Edwards is no Isaac Newton. He isn't even Robin Laws. Phrenology isn't Newtonian physics. And games aren't nearly complicated enough to need a "good enough" tier of design and GMing rules. For Burning Wheel? 1. People who do play it seem to be confused by the system and are always dropping parts of it or ignoring them or having to consult Luke to clarify them. 2. The system, when not hand-sold or supported by the author, isn't very popular on its own. It isn't an ambassador for itself. This isn't bad by itself but it does suggest something's rotten in Denmark. 3. The people who do like it don't tend to be real exciting or interesting people. 4. Huge parts of it are explicitly (explicitly: the author said so) designed to prevent abusive GMing and play practices which should actually be dealt with interpersonally rather than trying to systematize them away. The game has a huge overhead of rules that merely exist because Luke's game group was/is disfunctional and he made rules to route around that rather than dealing with it. 5. Played RAW it plays like the best comedy game ever written. Now you could say that 1 applies to D&D but definitely not 2 or 3. And all 5 together? That's a thing. I could be nuts here but everything I've observed suggests BW is exactly as popular as the players are close to Luke Crane and his (massive and dedicated and long-running) personal advocacy for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification