|
All those RPG's are based on the Cortex system (Serenity, Leverage, etc). It's not a bad system, it's basically Savage Worlds with the wild die instead being the stat die and a changing target number rather than a static. Seems like a nice system and Leverage has a neat mechanic for using drama points to change the outcome of things/say "No, actually I planted this an hour ago so AHA!"
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
My group found Cortex to be clunky and unweildy. And we like SW. Strongly dislike the die types changing, and not crazy about the way damage works. The leverage game sounds neat though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 10:11
|
|
|
Things I learned about Leverage just now: Characters get Distinctions, "similar to aspects in that they are free form descriptors like 'Crazy' or 'Sterling Always Wins'". These can either help or hinder them, but the choice is always the player's. If it helps, they roll a d8, but if it hinders, then they roll a d4. Why would you choose a d4? quote:So, the basic mechanic is roll some dice, add together the best two. The base two dice are one for an attribute (Agility, Alertness etc,.) and one for a role (Hitter, Hacker etc.) with other dice being thrown in by props, distinctions and other circumstances. Pretty simple, and given that characters are quite capable, it's not had to succeed within your sphere. But there's a catch. In short, distinctions are Aspects, except they avoid the pitfalls of, say Spirit of the Century, where the GM has to keep track of every character's potential compels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 18:20
|
|
|
Rob Donoghue ran a complete game of Leverage at the Evil Hat dice-packing party (don't ask if you don't know), and has started blogging about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
I don't like cortex. However I should mention that leverage is actually a really good fit for D&D. The head writer plays, and even mentioned at one point that the leverage team owes a lot to the D&D adventuring party. On a different note, if I ran a PbP game of bliss stage so people could get the gist of it, a: would anyone here be interested? b: do you think the author would care if I did a quick guide to character creation and system concepts. Some of the authors of smaller games get peevish because the setting and mechanics are so tied that someone running it online might cut their already small market share?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 09:22
|
|
|
Funnily enough Ben Lehman just moved to a model of letting people pay whatever they want for his games, and if you write him an email and explain why you can't or don't want to pay him, maybe you want to try before you buy, you can get the PDFs for free. It's a really awesome idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 10:57
|
|
|
I don't much care for Cortex either because it takes the ease/quickness of Savage Worlds and seems to make it a little needlessly complex with hit point tracking and a shifting DC, but the Cortex system has the Serenity core book and splat books and anything that gives detailed descriptions of the verse and schematics for the starships in it is alright with me 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
CNN Sports Ticker posted:Funnily enough Ben Lehman just moved to a model of letting people pay whatever they want for his games,  Lehman posted:As an experiment, I’m trying a new pricing model for my eBooks. For right now and at least until the end of the month, Polaris and Bliss Stage are moving to a “pay whatever you like” model. To purchase, click the links on the right-hand side. To everyone in this thread: if you don't get both Polaris and Bliss Stage from this sale (unfortunately, those are the only ones on offer; I hear that Drifter's Escape is pretty cool), then you are a dumb. Polaris: http://swingpad.com/dustyboots/wordpress/index.php?page_id=243 Bliss Stage: http://swingpad.com/dustyboots/wordpress/index.php?page_id=244
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
Ben Lehman owns, he emailed me back, psyched about the idea, psyched we are in the same state, and let me know the only stipulation is if it goes well he wants to be able to link to it. Dude is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:
Isn't bliss stage that creepy rpg where you get powered up the more underage sex you have? Yeah no thanks don't need to read another FATAL but this time for pedophiles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 23:41
|
|
|
Teenagers who sleep with each other are pedophiles. Edit: Less snarky, better answer below this one. Bullbar fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Nov 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 00:22
|
|
|
Yeah, the characters are all between the ages of...15 and 18, I think? As well, the mechanic you're thinking of: your character's giant robot is powered by their relationships to others. Relationships have a Trust and Intimacy value that ranges from one to five. Intimacy specifically can only be raised to 5 if the relation-ees have sex. This is why, in practice, it frequently isn't, and when it is, it is in no way dwelled upon. But honestly, I understand your objections, and I think you should email the guy and explain them. He deserves to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
He doesn't have a way to pay for both books at once?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
Nthing the fact that 3:16 is amazing. I ran a campaign of it that never quite finished, but we had fun for a good ten sessions or so. I ran it as a silly mash up of Catch 22 and Starship Troopers, with commanding officers that were nearly totally incompetent, ridiculous mission objectives, and all sorts of other mindscrewery. It's a game that really expects you to mess with and push the players a little bit, and makes it very clear just how you should do that and how much you get to do that with the token system. It also seems to assume that the PCs will appropriately chafe at this and plot to screw over their commanding officers/each other. Eventually, the PCs will get stats high enough that they practically can't fail to kill something. That's when you want to start giving them missions that they don't want to succeed, full of stuff they don't want to kill. Another indie game I've had a lot of fun with is Ron Edwards's S/lay W/Me, which is a system set up to emulate classic pulp Conan stories. It's a two player game - one player is the hero, and the other plays the monster, who tries to kill the hero, and the lover, who tries to help him. It's very rules light, narrative, and minimalist. You each narrate, roll off, and then buy results at the end to see if the hero lives, the lover lives, the monster is killed, and the quest succeeds. The book comes with a list of inspiring characters and locations for them to adventure in. It's not reinventing the wheel or anything, and it gets old after five games or so, but it's an excellent pick up game and one of my go to options on game night if most of the group cancels. While I pretty much think Edwards is a knob and his articles on RPG design are usually misguided, I have to admit this is a very fun game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 09:15
|
|
|
Hey, want to play Bliss Stage? Go here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Have been having a blast playing Dungeon World with some friends on Skype. It's a hack of Apocalypse World, mentioned earlier in the thread, trying to recapture some of the feel of the old-school dungeon crawl along with some more contemporary ideas about degenerate story gaming. It's very simple to pick up and have a great time with, although we've drifted it a little more back towards some of the resource management in a way that not everyone might have fun with (a more complete equipment list with different light sources, 10' poles, etc.) Really can't recommend Apocalypse World enough if you want either to just play a great post-apoc game or be inspired by a bunch of cool ideas about games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
I hate you guys. Because of this thread, I bought Apocalypse World and Leverage, and now you want me to pick up 3:16? When will it ever end?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
Cyrai posted:I hate you guys. Because of this thread, I bought Apocalypse World and Leverage, and now you want me to pick up 3:16? When will it ever end? Never, now go buy Burning Wheel, FreeMarket, Mouse Guard, The Mountain Witch, Polaris, Dogs in the Vineyard, The Princes' Kingdom, Don't Rest Your Head, Cold City, Hot War, Sorcerer, Little Fears: Nightmare Edition, Diaspora, Polaris, Agon, Contenders...
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 23:49
|
|
|
And when you get Polaris (twice) get Thou Art But A Warrior.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
I will throw in a vote for moderation: unless they're fascinated with the design and development of RPGs, not every indie RPG is for everyone; that's one of the good parts of focused design! Don't buy everything, just buy things that sound, from play recordings or detailed reviews, like they support games of a sort you and your friends will enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 03:05
|
|
|
This is true. That's why I have so many unplayed indie games. I'm interested in all of them because I'm a wannabe designer and such, but my group didn't get into most of them. Anything that was about feelings or relationships didn't take hold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 03:18
|
|
|
I can buy all of the indie games, but can I afford to pay anyone to play them with me? Seriously, though -- I haven't been able to organize my friends for a game in month. Would one of the narrative driven games work better for some sort of play-by-e-mail campaign? We used to play D&D 4e via Maptool, and I know Gamma World would be too much of a cluster to try running by post...
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I will throw in a vote for moderation: unless they're fascinated with the design and development of RPGs, not every indie RPG is for everyone; that's one of the good parts of focused design! Don't buy everything, just buy things that sound, from play recordings or detailed reviews, like they support games of a sort you and your friends will enjoy. By now, I've come to accept the fact that I just like the concept and design of RPGs. I don't hardly get around to playing them, and I don't have any real desire to design or write an RPG. I just like to read them, for some crazy reason
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 05:40
|
|
|
No shame: lots of people study cars without building them, or sports teams without running one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 06:53
|
|
|
For some indie game actual play recordings, check out the Walking Eye Podcast. They've recorded Grey Ranks, Don't Rest Your Head, Misspent Youth, 3:16, Burning Empires, and Mouse Guard, and there are a couple of interviews with designers sprinkled throughout. No new content though. Looks like it went tits up about a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 00:59
|
|
|
Great timing for this thread. My group just finished burning characters for a BW campaign that I'm running set in a kind of French Revolution/Fable 3 setting. Our only experience with the game was running through the Sword so you guys might get a question or two if we get stuck on anything. And I'd love to say I'd be down for a skype one-shot, but between holidays, a vacation, and a girlfriend who's stressed to the max over school stuff I'm pretty well tapped out this month. In lieu of that, does anyone have any advice for a GM that's new to BW? Any common pitfalls or anything I can do to make the game shine? We're really bad at actual roleplaying in most games (4e turned into a kind of tactical fantasy simulator after a while) so I'm looking to shake things up a bit and change some mindsets. Thankfully it sounds like most of the players are on the same page.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 04:43
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:In lieu of that, does anyone have any advice for a GM that's new to BW? Any common pitfalls or anything I can do to make the game shine? We're really bad at actual roleplaying in most games (4e turned into a kind of tactical fantasy simulator after a while) so I'm looking to shake things up a bit and change some mindsets. Thankfully it sounds like most of the players are on the same page. The single most important thing you can do as a new BW GM is to really understand how the Beliefs and Artha Cycle work and to put them into practice in game. The Burning Wheel Forums are full of good advice about this issue, as is the Adventure Burner book. The cycle looks something like this: 1. A player wants to address something in-game. They write a Belief about this thing, usually with a concrete end-point which they will get a Persona point for if they achieve it. 2. The GM addresses that Belief in-game. They challenge it by making it require hard choices or conflicts. It's usually not Belief-worthy if it doesn't require breaking out the dice at least once, or making a tough decision. 3. The player engages the mechanics to resolve their Belief: they use their skills and attributes on the necessary tests. If those tests are important enough (and if they're in pursuit of a Belief, they are) then they'll probably spend Artha to up their chances of success. 4. As a reward for playing the Belief in a way that drives the game, the player gets some form of Artha: Persona if it's been resolved one way or the other, Fate if it's ongoing. Playing Instincts and Traits does the same thing, sans Persona since they can't really be "resolved." 5. The player writes a new Belief, possibly building on the previous one, and the process starts over. But having spent Artha in pursuit of their Beliefs, two things happen. First, that resolved Belief is eligible to become a Trait a few sessions down the line. Second, the skills / attributes they spent Artha on are that much closer to shade-shifting. As a Burning Wheel GM you are given a lot of explicit flags from the players about what they want to do or address in-game. Their character sheets are covered with them. Beliefs are the obvious ones, but Instincts are flags too: someone with an Instinct like "When my authority is challenged, cast The Fear" wants their authority to be challenged. Skill exponents are great flags because they show what the players want to be able to do with their characters. Traits are the same way, although they're arguably the most difficult thing on the sheet to directly target. These flags are your most important tools. When you're doing prep, spend some time with your players' character sheets. Get their Beliefs submitted before the session unless you're really good at improv. If you can, work with your players to make sure their Beliefs are sharp and directed. If you don't know what to do with a Belief within a minute of looking at it then it isn't working. On a non-BITs related note, when the core book says start off with slowly with the mechanics, it means it. A new group using everything in all the books simultaneously is a recipe for disaster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 06:01
|
|
|
Thanks for the writeup. I had a glance through the AB which outlined a lot of the stuff you have here, but it's good to have it repeated. Honestly the player flags are what drew me to the system. I just got tired of having to come up with twist after twist in my D&D game with no input from the players. I think it's going to be a learning experience for everyone. It's definitely a different style of play. For instance, in D&D, you generally want your characters to be hyper-focused on doing what they do extremely well. In BW it seems like it'd pay off to be a bit more of a generalist. Not all of my players seem to be getting that. I've got one player with a sorcerer character who's got 6's in all of his sorcery-related stats but not a lot else going for him. How do you suggest dealing with that? Obviously by what you're saying he's telling me he wants to kick rear end at sorcery. But what about the other side of the coin? Is it kosher to kick him in his weak spots once in a while? Also, we actually ended up with a couple of moderately adversarial beliefs. They're all generally aiming for a successful revolution, but for instance, one character's Belief is "I don’t trust the dwarf, his motives are questionable and he has no business in our revolution", while one of the dwarf's beliefs is "All humans are the enemy" (we decided that his nation had been conquered and he was helping the revolution to win his kingdom back). Personally I think that's pretty awesome. I'm just hoping that people don't take things too seriously or get pissy once they start stabbing each other in the back. Or maybe they'll moldbreak themselves out of them. Either way it should be fun to watch. And yeah, I definitely get the thing about adding too many mechanics. When we did the Sword we broke out DoW. While it was awesome watching an actual argument take place at the table, it also pretty much ground the session to a crawl as we all tried to wrap our heads around the system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:For instance, in D&D, you generally want your characters to be hyper-focused on doing what they do extremely well. In BW it seems like it'd pay off to be a bit more of a generalist. Not all of my players seem to be getting that. I've got one player with a sorcerer character who's got 6's in all of his sorcery-related stats but not a lot else going for him. How do you suggest dealing with that? Obviously by what you're saying he's telling me he wants to kick rear end at sorcery. But what about the other side of the coin? Is it kosher to kick him in his weak spots once in a while? Most new BW players seem to do this regardless of their gaming background. Being hyperspecialized will come back to haunt you in Burning Wheel, but that's not immediately obvious. Characters without social skills are going to get demolished in Duels of Wits, for example, but this won't click for someone until they get bound into a nasty DoW stake with few or no Compromises for their trouble. I'd encourage them to at least open one or two skills like Wises, Histories, and profession skills for diversity's sake, but also so they can get FoRKs or give Help more readily. Regarding the sorcerer, absolutely kick him in the weak spots. He needs kicking there if he's ever going to shore up those weaknesses, after all, and there's a price to pay for specialization. Besides, you'll quickly find that sorcerers and priests need to be pressured a bit harder and from more angles mechanically speaking than other characters simply because of how powerful they are. His high Sorcery exponent means he wants opportunities to show that off, but it doesn't give him a free pass to avoid other challenges. By the way, are you using traditional Sorcery or Art Magic? quote:Also, we actually ended up with a couple of moderately adversarial beliefs. They're all generally aiming for a successful revolution, but for instance, one character's Belief is "I don’t trust the dwarf, his motives are questionable and he has no business in our revolution", while one of the dwarf's beliefs is "All humans are the enemy" (we decided that his nation had been conquered and he was helping the revolution to win his kingdom back). Personally I think that's pretty awesome. I'm just hoping that people don't take things too seriously or get pissy once they start stabbing each other in the back. Or maybe they'll moldbreak themselves out of them. Either way it should be fun to watch. Here's something they don't tell you about Burning Wheel: intra-party conflict is inevitable. It will start out as opposed Beliefs, move to entangled Duel of Wits compromises, and frequently leads to big blow-ups in-character when everything comes to a head. This has happened in every Burning Wheel game I've ever run or played in over multiple groups. It's great! The trick is to make sure that everyone is in agreement out-of-character about just how far things should really go - the social contract needs to be maintained. Those Beliefs are good seeds, but they need some fine-tuning. Writing good Beliefs is one of the hardest skills for players to master, but once it clicks the game really hums. If you don't mind, I'd like to workshop those two Beliefs a bit. #1: "I don't trust the dwarf, his motives are questionable and he has no business in our revolution." Good start, but where's it going to lead? As a general rule Beliefs should have a definable end-point for that sweet, sweet Persona. The exceptions are Beliefs specifically designed to be "Fate Mines" that you can hit on constantly for Fate, but Beliefs about other PCs rarely fall into this category. Ask this player what his character is going to do about this Belief. How is he going to act on something he feels this strongly about? If possible, get the two players involved to come up with something that will hit on each others' Beliefs. You're looking for something formatted like this: "<statement about situation / person / thing> <action I will take based on this statement>". For this Belief you might end up with something like "I don't trust the dwarf. His motives are questionable and he has no business in our revolution. I will make him swear a binding Oath of loyalty to our cause." Now he's doing something. #2: "All humans are the enemy." This could easily be one of those Fate Mine Beliefs I mentioned earlier. The player could tap this for Fate in all sorts of circumstances, and it doesn't necessarily need an end-point. If he wants to work through a character arc of xenophobia into acceptance and friendship he could use this Belief as a yardstick for that, changing the wording over time until he's come around entirely. I'd recommend pairing this with another more actionable Belief which either reinforces or contradicts it in some direct way. quote:And yeah, I definitely get the thing about adding too many mechanics. When we did the Sword we broke out DoW. While it was awesome watching an actual argument take place at the table, it also pretty much ground the session to a crawl as we all tried to wrap our heads around the system. Yep, that's what tends to happen. Make sure you're using the scripting sheets on the wiki with summaries of all the maneuvers and such. I laminated a bunch of them for use with grease pencils and dry-erase markers, and they've served our group well. Speaking of Duel of Wits, that's probably the first sub-system you should introduce given the game you're running. Also because it is amazing and the stakes and compromises that arise out of it can end up driving the entire story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:On a different note, if I ran a PbP game of bliss stage so people could get the gist of it, I was disappointed in Bliss Stage - it feels like it's only half finished. The mechanics are way too thin to cover what would be needed to run a satisfying game. I'm totally stealing the concept and welding another system to it at some point, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
Kestral posted:By the way, are you using traditional Sorcery or Art Magic? Also, he has the Force of Will spell. How do I handle that? Do people generally run away from and/or stab a spellcaster when they start chanting? Kestral posted:Beliefs 1) Belief about the situation that has a goal that can be accomplished in a session or two. 2) Belief about a party member or relationship. 3) Philosophical belief to mine for Fate and/or Moldbreaker For reference, here are the first character's other beliefs: 1) Obtain the Butcher's (evil earl who was just killed by the start of the rebellion) worldly possessions 3) I want to more fairly redistribute the wealth of the kingdom You make a good point that 2) should probably have a goal/endpoint as well. We already spent like 4 hours on these characters (a good chunk of which was belief-related) so I might not have much leverage to get them to tweak them more before the first session. I have a feeling that once they see these things in play they'll have a better idea of what they need to do with their Beliefs to make them work better. Kestral posted:Yep, that's what tends to happen. Make sure you're using the scripting sheets on the wiki with summaries of all the maneuvers and such. I laminated a bunch of them for use with grease pencils and dry-erase markers, and they've served our group well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Also, he has the Force of Will spell. How do I handle that? Do people generally run away from and/or stab a spellcaster when they start chanting? Oh god. Force of Will is... Rough. If it lands that person is utterly hosed and there's no turning back. This is a thread you need to read. Fortunately, Force of Will takes 133 actions to cast. It is impossible to cast in Fight! or Duel of Wits and next to impossible to cast in Range and Cover. You really have to grab someone, tie them to a chair and chant over them for a couple of minutes to get it to work. It also has a prohibitively high Obstacle, especially against characters with Will B5 or higher. quote:I tried to make sure everyone had at a minimum one Belief that was actionable now. The format I suggested looked like this: This is the best format, it really is. quote:For reference, here are the first character's other beliefs: #1: This is a good second half of a Belief. For the first half, why is it important to the character? What's the drive to do this? #3: Try to steer players away from using the words "I want" or "I should." They need to make definitive statements. "The kingdom's wealth belongs to the people," for example. quote:You make a good point that 2) should probably have a goal/endpoint as well. We already spent like 4 hours on these characters (a good chunk of which was belief-related) so I might not have much leverage to get them to tweak them more before the first session. I have a feeling that once they see these things in play they'll have a better idea of what they need to do with their Beliefs to make them work better. Quite possibly. First-session Beliefs can be rough even with experienced groups because of the "blank canvas" feel. Once the context of the situation starts accumulating, Beliefs get much easier to write.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
Kestral posted:"The kingdom's wealth belongs to the people,"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
Between Burning Wheel and Burning Empires, which is the better or most generic? I like my RPGs to be able to handle a wide variety of scenarios and situations without having to delve into specialized mechanics or subsystems for each possibility.
Cyrai fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Dec 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 07:48
|
|
|
Came here to say I ran Danger Patrol tonight with Communists as heroes instead of bad guys. It was functionally identical to the other times I'd run it, but I'm glad I did, just the same, and would probably prefer to do it again that way next time, especially for a longer running game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 07:52
|
|
|
Cyrai posted:Between Burning Wheel and Burning Empires, which is the better or most generic? I like my RPGs to be able to handle a wide variety of scenarios and situations without having to delve into specialized mechanics or subsystems for each possibility. Despite sharing similar core mechanics, Wheel and Empires are very different games. Of the two, Wheel is far more flexible and can handle most anything from Low to High Fantasy and historical fiction. Its baseline is either somewhere around A Wizard of Earthsea or the very best Tolkien adaptation ever produced, but I've used it to run games in Fantasy Not-Rome and an almost entirely magicless game in Not-Venice inspired by Noble House and The Lies of Locke Lamora. There's also a supplement for Heian-era (pre-samurai) Japan which is quite good, albeit difficult to actually play as intended unless you have a group of Japanese history buffs. Empires is very different. It was designed from the outset to produce a very specific kind of story: chronicling the infiltration, usurpation and invasion of a planet by what has to one of the most insidious and horrifying alien races ever conceived. It has an overarching structure which guides play toward a well-defined end-game, uses scenes as expendable resources, and puts the GM in an openly adversarial role against the players while forcing him to operate under strict rules. It's not for everyone - I've never been able to get my home group to try it - but if it clicks for your group I hear it's a very rewarding experience. A metaphor that gets tossed around a lot is "weight training for roleplaying games" because of the intensity of play and the way it forces you to make every scene count because of the scene economy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 08:34
|
|
|
Based on this thread I managed to convince my group to try Polaris. We shall see what comes of it. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 10:08
|
|
|
Kestral posted:Despite sharing similar core mechanics, Wheel and Empires are very different games. Of the two, Wheel is far more flexible and can handle most anything from Low to High Fantasy and historical fiction. Its baseline is either somewhere around A Wizard of Earthsea or the very best Tolkien adaptation ever produced, but I've used it to run games in Fantasy Not-Rome and an almost entirely magicless game in Not-Venice inspired by Noble House and The Lies of Locke Lamora. There's also a supplement for Heian-era (pre-samurai) Japan which is quite good, albeit difficult to actually play as intended unless you have a group of Japanese history buffs. Thanks. Those are really good summaries
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 15:20
|
|
|
Kestral: Are there big chances in Revised for Burning Wheel? I have the older one from 2003 or whenever the first edition came out. Is revised just errata/layout, or are there bigger changes? Also, have you checked out the Adventure Burner at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
DiscipleoftheClaw posted:Kestral: Are there big chances in Revised for Burning Wheel? I have the older one from 2003 or whenever the first edition came out. Is revised just errata/layout, or are there bigger changes? Adventure Burner is fantastic - if you go through a million threads on the official BW forums you can probably find most of the advice scattered around, but having all the best advice for how to play in one book is just great. The non-advice content is great too. Multiple pre-gen characters from every stock, cool intro adventures. I've bought all the BW books and I'd say they're all worth it for anybody running BW except the Magic Burner, which is great and all, but I can easily see why some people just wouldn't be interested. I'd still recommend it, just not to everybody.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 01:15
|
|
