Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8998934" data-attributes="member: 42582">My thought about this is that we need to split the two apart. (So on that I think we're ad idem.)I think it's possible to talk about how some techniques are well-suited to some motivations/&quot;creative agendas&quot;. Sometimes it even makes sense at least tentatively conjecture someone's motivation based on the techniques they're using.But there is no necessary one-to-one correspondence here, and so those conjectures have to be provisional until confirmed by more direct evidence of motivation (eg testimony, or fuller examples of play). Apart from anything else, &quot;vanilla narrativism&quot; is a thing. (I know because I've done it.)As someone who has a lot of experience with this (mostly in Rolemaster) I think there are challenges that those techniques pose. I think part of the genius of Burning Wheel is that PCs have RM-esque skill lists and rankings, and the combat can be RM-esque in its visceral nature (with injuries, and armour, and positioning, etc), but it (mostly) avoids some of the problems with RM. (I say mostly because there are still some rough edges, like the way recovery times and spell durations are specified - I think it's no coincidence that in the Magic Burner/Codex, enchantment durations are specified in terms of units of play rather than in-fiction time periods.)Something like (say) Agon 2e is more or less at the opposite end of the spectrum, with all conflicts resolved in a single roll, and the details narrated after the event having regard to the outcome.They're different experiences. I enjoy both. I've never been a player (in the strict sense, ie a Hero player) in Agon, but strongly suspect that I would not enjoy it as much as BW, which is my pinnacle for player-side RPGing. I think I'm a better GM of Agon than of BW, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8998934, member: 42582"] My thought about this is that we need to split the two apart. (So on that I think we're ad idem.) I think it's possible to talk about how some techniques are well-suited to some motivations/"creative agendas". Sometimes it even makes sense at least tentatively conjecture someone's motivation based on the techniques they're using. But there is no [I]necessary[/I] one-to-one correspondence here, and so those conjectures have to be provisional until confirmed by more direct evidence of motivation (eg testimony, or fuller examples of play). Apart from anything else, "vanilla narrativism" is a thing. (I know because I've done it.) As someone who has a lot of experience with this (mostly in Rolemaster) I think there are challenges that those techniques pose. I think part of the genius of Burning Wheel is that PCs have RM-esque skill lists and rankings, and the combat can be RM-esque in its visceral nature (with injuries, and armour, and positioning, etc), but it (mostly) avoids some of the problems with RM. (I say mostly because there are still some rough edges, like the way recovery times and spell durations are specified - I think it's no coincidence that in the Magic Burner/Codex, enchantment durations are specified in terms of units of play rather than in-fiction time periods.) Something like (say) Agon 2e is more or less at the opposite end of the spectrum, with all conflicts resolved in a single roll, and the details narrated after the event having regard to the outcome. They're different experiences. I enjoy both. I've never been a [I]player[/I] (in the strict sense, ie a Hero player) in Agon, but strongly suspect that I would not enjoy it as much as BW, which is my pinnacle for player-side RPGing. I think I'm a better GM of Agon than of BW, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification