| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 01:42:29
|
Hi,
Because I know that the majority here despise 4E and more importantly the Realms under 4E, I'll suggest another way.
Recently, Burning Wheel's creator has announced that the Magic Burner (covering different magic systems) will be released at GenCon 08.
With this, BW becomes a really appropriate game to run many different kind of campaigns in FR.
Using the game's implied setting, Waterdeep, Western Heartlands, Cormyr and such would be easy to do. Menzoberranzan could be a great setting, but much more work would be necessary.
I would also recommend to avoid some "flashy" fantasy of both 2e and 3e era.
Some things to consider :
Being open-minded would be for example to use "LoTR"-ish elves, dwarves and orcs of BW "as-is" in FR. BTW, Elaith would be a perfect Dark Elf in BW.
BW is a very different kind of RPG than D&D is. While D&D is built around the idea of challenges setup by the DM that the players have to overcome, BW is based on players making heartbreaking choices when their believes come into conflict. (In few words, tactical choices vs thematic choices)
In BW, the GM shares much of his "narrative rights" with the players. The "canon nazi" mindset MUST be avoided; players and GM should bring existing lore and create new one when it is needed. Also, forget the idea of "secret lore" or "things that players shouldn't know", instead, push your players to read "lore" so they can choose what to bring up during play.
Heavy details in combat (verbal or physical), skills, character creation, etc. will fit the taste of many scribes around here. (e.g. there is more than one skill dealing with working leather IIRC)
Forget about the kind of balance found in D&D, BW offers a way to have players playing "Elminster" and "Danilo" in the same party. Spot-light balance isn't based on power, but on conspicuousness (Danilo having as many way to get the focus of a scene than Elminster).
Some sub-systems (Fight! and Duel of Wits) are tactical in nature, even if they are very different than anything d20.
Still here ? It's time to read this.
Your feedbacks are welcome.
|
Edited by - Skeptic on 31 Jul 2008 02:20:13
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 07:16:39
|
I don't like the website. There should be an intro' page giving new visitors a quick overview of what Burning Wheel is and why they should be interested.
For other scribes I recommend you go straight to the Wiki' following the link from the logo page.
Thanks for the link to the pdf. I've downloaded that and will read it soon to garner a better flavour of the setting. I'm not opposed to the concept of using Burning Wheel instead of $E but I need to get more information first and neither the website nor the Wiki serve that function very well. Maybe the pdf will.  |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
 |
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 07:21:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
I don't like the website. There should be an intro' page giving new visitors a quick overview of what Burning Wheel is and why they should be interested.
For other scribes I recommend you go straight to the Wiki' following the link from the logo page.
Thanks for the link to the pdf. I've downloaded that and will read it soon to garner a better flavour of the setting. I'm not opposed to the concept of using Burning Wheel instead of $E but I need to get more information first and neither the website nor the Wiki serve that function very well. Maybe the pdf will.
My link points to a preview chapter of the book that is available on the Wiki.
Sadly, there is no online text clearly introducing the game.
For example, that preview chapter doesn't show how beliefs are the most important feature of the game.
For the hardcore "lore-mongers", BW will seem to be a total nigthmare, but I expect that for many of you, it may deliver what D&D never succeeded to deliver in actual play.
|
Edited by - Skeptic on 31 Jul 2008 07:27:44 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 14:13:58
|
| I'm just curious... For those that don't like 4E, what is the benefit of learning a new system, and changing things to fit that system, rather than sticking to 3.x or even 2E? Sticking with an older form of D&D leaves very little having to be changed, and most D&D players already know at least one of the older systems. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 16:36:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm just curious... For those that don't like 4E, what is the benefit of learning a new system, and changing things to fit that system, rather than sticking to 3.x or even 2E? Sticking with an older form of D&D leaves very little having to be changed, and most D&D players already know at least one of the older systems.
I must agree. Even though I am currently working on a revised system for 3.5 (yes, I know that Paizo is doing this too, but I do not agree with all of their changes...no one really ever agrees with another 100%, 100% of the time), I still plan to keep the Realms in the off-shoots from OGL rules sets (Paizo being another great one, and I need to check out Monte Cook's Books of Experimental Might) rather than a whole new one. That seems as bad as trying to move it to 4e (which I have not problem with as a PnP system, it is just not one that I prefer to invest in). I think that you will find that most of the opposition in this library stems from the changes made to the Realms to fit it's "square peg" into 4e's "round hole," the vast amounts of illogic with which they applied the changes, and the extreme prejudice (can also be read as: hamfistedness) in which they applied the changes more than the 4e rules set itself. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 18:57:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm just curious... For those that don't like 4E, what is the benefit of learning a new system, and changing things to fit that system, rather than sticking to 3.x or even 2E? Sticking with an older form of D&D leaves very little having to be changed, and most D&D players already know at least one of the older systems.
Because BW offers a totaly different experience of play than D&D 
Of course for some campaings, it would be necessary to create some stuff (e.g. there is no hobbit/halfling or gnome), but my suggestion would be to first play a campaign that use much of the existing stuff as-is to learn the game.
|
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 19:01:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
I think that you will find that most of the opposition in this library stems from the changes made to the Realms to fit it's "square peg" into 4e's "round hole," the vast amounts of illogic with which they applied the changes, and the extreme prejudice (can also be read as: hamfistedness) in which they applied the changes more than the 4e rules set itself.
I would say that using BW instead of D&D 4E would force you to make more changes, but different ones.
For example, there is no classes / levels / hit points.
BW is much about "getting to the essential" even if it is details-heavy.
I would do some kind of reboot, probably at the greybox timeset, and only add things as they are needed in play. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 31 Jul 2008 19:08:19 |
|
|
|
Pandora
Learned Scribe
Germany
305 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 22:30:12
|
People will simply have to come to terms with the fact that there can never ever be a set of roleplaying rules that appeals to everyone. True "socialism" like this only happens in MMORPGs, where all are playing by the same rules the game developers implement. So there are a lot of DMs out there who are adjusting the rules to suit their purposes. Is this a bad thing? Nope, simply because every DM who is thinking about the rules and how they affect the feeling of his campaign is actually thinking and will probably create a better result than the countless non-thinking-ruleslawyers.
The best option IMO is to have loads of "rules" (like feats, skills, gods, ...) and then let the DM throw stuff out. That is much easier than having to come up with stuff yourself ... which also makes sense. Thus 4th edition is a failure because they have "minimized" the amount of rules (fewer alignments, A LOT LESS deities, fewer skills, ...).
Oh and one more thing: You can NEVER EVER balance the power of a Wizard against that of a Fighter in D&D rules (apples vs. oranges) because the Wizard will always have more flexibility. You can only balance the "exposure" of these classes by designing campaigns, adventures, fights and rewards to give everyone an equal share of "15 minutes of fame" every gaming evening. 4th edition tried to do this and failed. |
If you cant say what youre meaning,
you can never mean what youre saying.
- Centauri Minister of Intelligence, Babylon 5 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2008 : 22:47:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
People will simply have to come to terms with the fact that there can never ever be a set of roleplaying rules that appeals to everyone. True "socialism" like this only happens in MMORPGs, where all are playing by the same rules the game developers implement. So there are a lot of DMs out there who are adjusting the rules to suit their purposes. Is this a bad thing? Nope, simply because every DM who is thinking about the rules and how they affect the feeling of his campaign is actually thinking and will probably create a better result than the countless non-thinking-ruleslawyers.
The best option IMO is to have loads of "rules" (like feats, skills, gods, ...) and then let the DM throw stuff out. That is much easier than having to come up with stuff yourself ... which also makes sense. Thus 4th edition is a failure because they have "minimized" the amount of rules (fewer alignments, A LOT LESS deities, fewer skills, ...).
Oh and one more thing: You can NEVER EVER balance the power of a Wizard against that of a Fighter in D&D rules (apples vs. oranges) because the Wizard will always have more flexibility. You can only balance the "exposure" of these classes by designing campaigns, adventures, fights and rewards to give everyone an equal share of "15 minutes of fame" every gaming evening. 4th edition tried to do this and failed.
First, you seem to put a lot of faith into DMs, I don't. DM abuse is probably one of the biggest problem in mainstream RPGs.
As I consider alignements and deities dogma the most stupid thing ever in D&D, I do think that 4E is going in the right direction.
I'm curious to hear why you think Wizard and Fighter aren't properly balanced in D&D 4E, but you are right that the most important balance in RPGs is the "exposure" one.
|
Edited by - Skeptic on 31 Jul 2008 22:48:00 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
For open-minded scribes who don't like 4E
