Re: [RPG]: Sci-fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by Mechante_Anemone (4/2)
This is a very thorough and thoughtful review. I also commend you for playing the game before writing the review. Good job, Anemone!
That said, we must have played different versions of this game, as I don't see the Bean Counting or Inflexibility issues you mention at all. In the former case, all the things you say need to be "tracked" don't look like any I've had to "track" in play. It's like saying you need to "track" the grapple rules in D&D.
I also don't understand the critique about there not being enough setting info. Faith Conquers and Sheva's War are pretty much the entirety of the existing source material. Moeller helped BWHQ flesh things out, but obviously left room to people to play. What's missing?
I dunno. I just think that giving it a Substance 2 simply because you didn't think it could be easily ported to settings other than what it was designed for is a bit harsh.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Re: [RPG]: Sci-fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by Mechante_Anemone (4/2)
I have to second Buzz. BE is the Iron Empires RPG. And it does a good (maybe even great) job in this regard.
Giving the game a low substance rating, because it isn't generic, doesn't seem justified to me.
Re: [RPG]: Sci-fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by Mechante_Anemone (4/2)
I'm really surry you guys feels that way; it suggests that I failed to express myself clearly. I tried to explain what rating I would expect someone with different criteria and preferences to give; but this of course had to be my own rating.
I wasn't expecting BE to be generic, but although the book is definitely thick and plentiful, only a very small portion is usable if you do not use the system. By comparison, I can think of many books which, despite being written for systems I don't use (e.g., d20, GURPS, RIFTS, etc.) remain very meaty even after discounting for system. In a 650-page sourcebook, I would have expected to have enough material to run an Iron Empires game, even if I played another system.
It was not an easy decision to make. I really thought long and hard about the ratings, because I want to be fair but also had to be true to my judgment on the matter. In the end, I think that although simple ratings make it easy to digest reviews, they probably do a disservice to the books -- and to the readers. That's why I tried to give a lot of context for my scores, and hopefully enough information that readers can figure out whether this review is useful to them or not.
Re: [RPG]: Sci-fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by Mechante_Anemone (4/2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechante_Anemone
I'm really surry you guys feels that way; it suggests that I failed to express myself clearly. I tried to explain what rating I would expect someone with different criteria and preferences to give; but this of course had to be my own rating.
I did notice that part, but it seemed a little backwards to have the lower of the two ratings be the main one you gave the product, given it was based on a stricter set of parameters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechante_Anemone
I wasn't expecting BE to be generic, but although the book is definitely thick and plentiful, only a very small portion is usable if you do not use the system.
By that criteria, D&D, GURPS, HERO, WoD core, and a host of other RPGs would all similarly score poorly. That why I think it's an unusual, and honestly unreasonable, criteria for a review.
Also, the lack of a phat "setting bible" was an intentional design choice, as I understand it. The goal of the book was to give the reader enough info to understand the themes and hooks of the setting, and then leave room for the players to chart their part of the IE universe. That's what World Burning is all about!
On top of this, Moeller himself doesn't really have much more of his setting created than what's in the RPG and the TPBs. Heck, he hangs on the BE forums and will often look at an idea some player has posted and reply, "That's great! I should use it." Ergo, I'm not sure how BE can be seen as lacking in setting info. It's not like we know of material that's missing.
(Not to mention, I've toyed with porting IE to other RPGs, and I think BE and TPBs provide me with everything I need.)
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Re: [RPG]: Sci-fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by Mechante_Anemone (4/2)
On the contrary; I think it's a very good review - and the game was playtested thoroughly. And no, I don't think it's an unreasonable criterion.
All reviews are opinions; none are objective. Now BE was unsold to me a long time ago (even though I love Moeller's comics - I have both graphic novels and like them a lot), and very much because all the stuff people were saying about how great it was and why it was great ("It has 656 pages, and 620 of those are rules!" for example) were things that suggested to me that however good it was, it wasn't for me. This review (and also Christopher's, actually) has more or less cemented my opinion.
Not that Luke isn't to be congratulated - he deserved that award - but the thing with a game strictly designed to do one thing and only one thing very well is that people who aren't really going to have a good time doing that one thing are going to find it frustrating and not at all fun.
Game design's kinda like that.
To be honest, I'm going to be putting my money where my mouth is soon enough, so we'll see.
__________________
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 Mechante_Anemone (4/2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wood
On the contrary; I think it's a very good review...
FYI, I never said it wasn't a good review. It's a great review! I'm just pointing out some stuff I didn't agree with.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Re: [RPG]: Sci-fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by Mechante_Anemone (4/2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechante_Anemone
No, that's what I'm saying: they would still score well.
Maybe I'm not understanding you, then.
All the games I listed would have nothing left if you took away the rules. Doesn't that mean they'd score poorly if a criteria is "useful even when you take away the rules"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechante_Anemone
I really regret you feel that way.
Hey, I'm just some schmuck on the Web. You did a great job.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Re: [RPG]: Sci-fi Week: Burning Empires, reviewed by Mechante_Anemone (4/2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechante_Anemone
I'm really surry you guys feels that way; it suggests that I failed to express myself clearly.
Well, I admit I oversimplified things a bit. I understand your reasons for the rating (at least I hope I do ;-)). It's just that I prefer reviewers to judge a game more by the author's intentions. In this case, the game was designed to create Iron Empires type stories, using the Burning Wheel system as a basis.
But I don't have a problem when a reviewer takes a different point of view, if he explains himself as well as you did. All things considered, you did a great job.
In the former case, all the things you say need to be "tracked" don't look like any I've had to "track" in play. It's like saying you need to "track" the grapple rules in D&D.
Linear Mode
