NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="niklinna" data-source="post: 9251804" data-attributes="member: 71235">And in a world where it's been established that magic isn't completely gone, just very rare, again, this isn't such a problem. Maybe the last mage, on dying, transfers their spark to another PC (if they want it). Whatever works for the group.There is room for more than one main character in tabletop RPG play, particularly of the Burning Wheel variety. Just as there's room for people to play supporting characters if they want to.Of course it's a binary question. The GM laid out a condition and explicitly framed the question as in or out—no negotation or discussion. Not all RPGs have to be done that way, and Burning Wheel is very much among those other RPGs. The question a Burning Wheel GM would ask is much more likely to be, "I've got this idea for a no-magic game, what do you think?"As phrased, it clearly isn't a suggestion. And the implication is that it's the only thing she'll enjoy, her mind is already well made up.Again, not in games like Burning Wheel. Or if the GM has mulled over possibilities, that is what they remain, until the group as a whole agrees on what and how to play.If the players don't want to play in the game then there's no game. Again, she isn't proposing, she's dictating. "No magic. In or out?"It can, and it has robust tools for handling it. It doesn't have to, though.[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.indiegamereadingclub.com/indie-game-reading-club/im-just-playing-my-character-alibis-in-play/[/URL]This is a huge assumption, especially for games like Burning Wheel. In the Torchbearer 2e game [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] ran (same core engine and approach as Burning Wheel), he gave us all a sketched-out map and asked us to fill in towns, notable sites, and the like, and we discussed the suggestions like reasonable adults. After that, it remained open for anybody, GM or player, to suggest new additions where there was open space.The table includes the GM.I get that you don't prefer this approach to roleplaying where the group as a whole hashes things out collaboratively before play begins (and often after, too). But it's a legit approach, with its own distinct premises from the approach where the GM is authoritative and solely burdened with developing all aspects of setting and story. Denying the viability of the Burning Wheel approach by rejecting its premises isn't going to get you very far. Just say "Yeah, that approach isn't for me" instead of applying authoritative-GM presumptions exhaustively to every single aspect of the collaborative-group approach.</blockquote>

Verification