<I>Burning Empires</I> brings to the table a tactical system that brilliantly supports both the game and descriptive elements of RPGs. If you like science fiction, coming up with plans, and having the opportunity to shine then check out <I>Burning Empires</I>!
Re: [RPG]: Sci-Fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
While I didn't mention it in the review, if you're considering <I>Burning Empires</i> be aware that there is some excellent online support here. I especially enjoyed reading over one of the adventures, which provides setup for a few sessions of open ended play thanks to pre generated characters and a big relationship map to kick everything off.
Re: [RPG]: Sci-Fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
I said this in the other thread, but oh my word, I don't think I could ever play this and this (great) review sort of cements that.
My players rarely read rulebooks (or buy them, natch) and I'm simply not prepared to run something this complex.
__________________
Recent game industry work: Night Horrors: The Wicked Dead, Night Horrors: The Unbidden, Geist: the Sin-Eaters, Testament of Longinus, Mage Chronicler's Guide Buy MSG™ Executive Edition * Jet Pack
Re: [RPG]: Sci-Fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.W.Richeson
Thanks Wood, that's a great compliment!
It is indeed a complex game that, I suspect, is most fun when several folk have read the book and come in aware of all their options.
That's exactly what I mean.
My players don't (gasp) really care about rules all that much, or about options. The idea of "character builds" is an alien concept. We're all with pretty demanding jobs and we meet for two hours of a Tuesday evening to realx with our friends, and we just don't have the time to invest in stuff like that. They'd hate it; and I'd just find running it stressful, because I'd have the weight of the rules on top of me.
__________________
Recent game industry work: Night Horrors: The Wicked Dead, Night Horrors: The Unbidden, Geist: the Sin-Eaters, Testament of Longinus, Mage Chronicler's Guide Buy MSG™ Executive Edition * Jet Pack
Re: [RPG]: Sci-Fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wood
That's exactly what I mean.
My players don't (gasp) really care about rules all that much, or about options. The idea of "character builds" is an alien concept. We're all with pretty demanding jobs and we meet for two hours of a Tuesday evening to realx with our friends, and we just don't have the time to invest in stuff like that. They'd hate it; and I'd just find running it stressful, because I'd have the weight of the rules on top of me.
Yeah, I had that kind of experience. Don't even try, it will go horribly wrong and leave all of you feeling slightly guilty.
Nothing wrong with the players, they just liked something else in my case.
__________________ Lem's Law: Nobody reads anything; even if he reads something, he does not understand it; even if he understands, he forgets immediately.
Likes: Burning Wheel, Pendragon, Heavy Gear Currently enthusiastic about: Vincent Baker’s “Storming the Wizard’s Tower”.
Re: [RPG]: Sci-Fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
While this is a very good review, I had an utterly different take on the rules. Let me say from the outset that the players I have worked with over the past several years have no difficulty picking up a new set of rules, have no "system loyalty", and are quite willing to take on exotic locations and quest concepts.
First of all, the rules as written end up breaking one of the standard (and, for me, necessary) rpg conventions -- the Cooperative Party. Players end up, quite often, working against each other, even if they are on the "same side", due to the fact that they are more representatives of factions first and individuals second.
Another problem for me is the combat system -- in most instances, only one person per side will end up rolling, and thus being involved in, the combat. This means that the others may talk about what should take place, but have no real place in the combat itself. End result for many players: boredom and frustration.
The high social/political placement of most characters is also off-putting to many potential players. Players normally want to play a character, someone they can mold and understand; instead players in this game end up playing generals, bishops, presidents, dukes, people who are already highly placed, highly connected, and with lots of access to equipment, troops, and materiel. What is there to strive for? The abstract notion of saving the planet from an unknown and unknowable enemy.
Many terms are never defined in the rulebook -- coeptir, armiger, stentor, mandarin, duenna, ravilar, to name only a few from the lifepaths alone. How are we to know what these terms mean? We are supposed to find limited print-run, next-to-impossible to find graphic novels that came out several years ago. Lack of such definitions is lazy and unacceptable.
This book has some good concepts (I love the BITs notion, once I figured out how it worked), but it also has a large number of ragged edges, lack of definitions, and rules that simply do not attract players.
Re: [RPG]: Sci-Fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngusGM
How are we to know what these terms mean? We are supposed to find limited print-run, next-to-impossible to find graphic novels that came out several years ago.
The Iron Empires graphic novels are not required to run Burning Empires, but if you'd like to read them they are most certainly in print and available at Amazon and at fine comics stores everywhere.
Linear Mode
