Actual Play questions

Burning Empires General Questions
1

As they say, a plan never survives first contact with the enemy. :slight_smile:

So I’m finally hunkering down to get playing BE. I feel like I have a fairly good grasp of the actual mechanics of play, but I’m still scratching my head over some issues that are probably more intent/design philosophy in nature. Following the board is hugely helpful but I can’t rely on my other 4-5 players to bother doing the same.

Issue 1: The PC population, with several followups

Okay, so at the end of world burning the group comes up with 3x FoN for the human side (by default) and 3x FoN for the Vaylen side. Everyone works out their beliefs and whatnot in public, yes? So the players are aware of each other’s beliefs and have free access to this information later in the game, right? It appears there really is no “secret information” at all in the game other than the GM’s maneuver action.

At some point in the book there’s an explanation of the GM’s starting artha (p.128), which is based on the total # of LPs on the player side. Elsewhere in the book there’s an implication that the players can make up more characters than simply the Figures of Note and whatever extra characters are required to give everyone something to play. Ie in a 4 player game you’ll have 3x FoN and 1x regular Joe.

Now I’m seeing several implications: the players could make even MORE characters than the bare minimum required to give everyone something to play, but the consequence of this is that you’ll probably give the GM even more artha. Is this correct?

I’m also wondering about actual in-play procedure for what happens when a FoN gets turned in a conflict scene or aced out as a result of a phase intent. Do you recalculate the GM’s artha by reducing the # of LPs the dead/converted FoN had and then add in the LPs of the new characters? Is there a formal procedure for adding a new PC that I just haven’t seen in the book yet?

I have the sense this may be an exploitable loophole as well, but I haven’t quite put my finger on why – maybe the idea that you could convert one FoN into several regular Joes and keep the threshold JUST below what’s needed to give the GM additional artha.

I’m also fuzzy on what happens when a FoN gets whacked or turned. The player makes a new character, but is that new character now a new FoN? Can the Vaylen systematically hunt and kill every FoN in the first phase and leave the players with no way to boost their dispo in later phases? Yes, I’m on p. 404-407 and I’m still feeling fuzzy on this point. I can’t remember a section on adding characters mid-game.

Issue 2: Masturbatory color/interstitial scenes and narrative authority

I’m getting a strong sense that there will be many cases where the players and the GM will have little scenes (strategically speaking, setting up color precedent) in which they will have stuff going on entirely on “their side.” The three Vaylen FoN get together over salad and goblets of blood to conspire against the humans. A bad guy NPC goes and meets with a merc. A villainous psychologist congratulates himself and his crew on their cleverness. Etc.

Conventional wisdom says the GM simply narrating stuff the players aren’t involved in is bad play. Is there less of this in practice than it seems? Does the game’s structure make this more “okay”?

Same goes for the players. I’m concerned they won’t feel comfortable with this new level of narrative authority, as well. They’ve always deferred to the GM on what’s “okay” to introduce to a game: dropping in an as-yet-undisclosed elderly mentor might be okay according to the CW but dropping in an as-yet-undisclosed hangar filled with clones who can kill yaks with mind-bullets is not okay. Are the tech/circles/relationship/alien point-buy systems really airtight enough to make just about anything narratively “okay”?

Issue 3: The first maneuver

Anyone have any opinion on what the best first maneuver is for the GM? I’m looking at Flak because it’s the only attack that doesn’t require a prior Assess. Put the players on the defensive, get them reacting to my pace rather than waiting for them to find their own pace. Good policy or bad? I want to show them how the game works but at the same time I want them to, ultimately, be proactive in their play.

I think that’s it for now. I’m sure a few more issues will pop up as we actually get involved.

p.

2

Hi Paul,
Great bunch of questions. So far my group’s only played half* a maneuver, so I don’t have much experience, but I’ll try to field a few of your questions.
*note to self: when leaving for the game, make sure you don’t have your wife’s keys in your pocket as well as yours, or your game may be interrupted by irate phone call asking you to come home.

Conventional wisdom says the GM simply narrating stuff the players aren’t involved in is bad play. Is there less of this in practice than it seems? Does the game’s structure make this more “okay”?

When you say bad practice - because it’s not interesting, or because the characters wouldn’t know what you’re showing the players? Color scenes, and interstitials where no other players are involved, aren’t going to take much time. And they can be really fun for the players to see what’s going on behind the scenes. As for what the characters would and wouldn’t see, BE assumes the players are mature enough to understand the difference between player and character knowledge and to use it appropriately. That includes using out-of-character knowledge to make decisions for your character, as long as everyone thinks it’s cool. Stuff like having your guy go to the same party that the enemy FoN just got invited to in the last GM color scene.

Same goes for the players. I’m concerned they won’t feel comfortable with this new level of narrative authority, as well. They’ve always deferred to the GM on what’s “okay” to introduce to a game: dropping in an as-yet-undisclosed elderly mentor might be okay according to the CW but dropping in an as-yet-undisclosed hangar filled with clones who can kill yaks with mind-bullets is not okay. Are the tech/circles/relationship/alien point-buy systems really airtight enough to make just about anything narratively “okay”?

I was a little worried about this too, but the world-burning session really sets the tone for the game. Since all the players have as much input as the GM in creating the world from scratch, that feeling of authority carries over to the actual play. It’s brilliant, really.
As for the systems being airtight enough, I think they are. The distinction between color and hard tech, and the rule that it’s not a conflict until someone says it is, are what do it. If you don’t like something they narrate, then they have to roll for it (and use a building scene)! Also, the group can veto any color that they have a problem with.

I’m looking at Flak because it’s the only attack that doesn’t require a prior Assess.

Flak is definitely a great first maneuver. It’s what I chose!
I actually have a question of my own though: when does the GM reveal his maneuver? I figured it’s best to wait until the end of the maneuver, but once the players have chosen theirs it doesn’t really matter that much, right? Or does it give away too much of what you’ll be doing in the scenes?

Cheers,
Mike

3

The player makes a new character, but is that new character now a new FoN? Can the Vaylen systematically hunt and kill every FoN in the first phase and leave the players with no way to boost their dispo in later phases? Yes, I’m on p. 404-407 and I’m still feeling fuzzy on this point. I can’t remember a section on adding characters mid-game.

You should take a look at this thread. It answers much of your questions. I do like the rules on assuming control of your second in command.

Conventional wisdom says the GM simply narrating stuff the players aren’t involved in is bad play. Is there less of this in practice than it seems? Does the game’s structure make this more “okay”?

It might help to read this thread. There’s some decent replies in there from someone with similar issues.

4
  1. BE is setup for three to five players; if you have only three players, most people believe that you should have all three play FoN (but that is not required, just smart, you do have to have one FoN be a PC). If you have 4 players at least one player will not be a FoN. BUT… three players should not be making a “Fourth PC,” though they should have subordinates, and allies that they can cal upon. These guys don’t get their own scenes or anything (unless the Player gives up a PC scene to feature that PC’s subordinate).

Once the starting Arthra is set it is there forever (until spent or more is gained through play), there is no recalcucation.

If a FoN i wacked, there is no effect except that that side gets to FoN Roll at the begining of the Phase. The FoN is dead (or turned) and there is no replacement. The new character is just a new character, though you should likely play one of the FoNs Subordinates for continuality’s sake, but that character is still not a FoN.

  1. Color scenes should be quick, just an aside really to highlight some aspect of the conflict. There should not be long monologues that drone on forever. Just points that drive the conflict forward, cause worry int he players, and may even be a bit cryptic. “Why did we see the Chancellor of Finance visiting the Cathedral of the Unspoken?” And that is all it might be, a glimpse to give a hint at what is going on.

The players scences should be the same. players put these scenes together ALL the time in my non-BE gamers (too often sometimes):

“I call Beth on the phone and tell her the plans” - Interstitial
“I drop by the office to pick up my messages” - Color
“I take an hour and meditated to prepare for the oncoming conflict” - Color
“I call our contact up and get the low down on the VPs whereabouts during the night of the Murder” - intersitial

All the Time, now just limit how often they can do that and those scenes become currency.

  1. Don’t know. Try and find out!

Edit: Man cross posted out the wazzoo.

5

Yes, thats how we do it.

It appears there really is no “secret information” at all in the game other than the GM’s maneuver action.

Each player has 1 PC and that PC’s LPs determine the GM’s artha levels. Only stentors are the only NPCs the players burn up as full characters and their LPs don’t factor into GM artha levels.

No. Once the game starts artha flows normally.

No. The game assumes the number of players remains the same throughout. If you did add new PCs they would be to replace dead PCs and this would occur only between phases.

This is a very rare event. Turning a FoN is normally the phase intent, so that’s a maximum of 1 per phase. If it does happens the main impact is that the FoN doesn’t roll for any future phase in which we was the featured FoN. Otherwise, it has no impact on artha. It continues to flow.

Color scenes tend to be short. They are about getting across character description and action. The GM only gets up to 1 per FoN and the players get 1 too. It isn’t too bad and considering build and conflict scenes tend to be focussed on doing stuff is a necessary way to get out the more subtle character elements.

On saying that as a GM I often play out NPCs (as do other players) if the player whose color scene it is, is OK with that. It is often not that much different from a normal RPG scene.

The rule system is very robust. There is still some pressure on the GM in making adjudiciation and I recently wrote about this on my LJ (http://grandexperiment.livejournal.com). However, encourage your players to use their authority as it will be well worth it.

Have a lot at your NPCs and decide what is the one thing that each needs to do immediately to achieve their aim. List those three things and look at the maneuvers available. If you have a definite conflict this would suggest a Flak. If you have no definite conflict then this would suggest an Assess. Also, be mindful of what you expect the players to do.

6

First off, thanks to everyone for their thoughtful replies. I’m going to hit the ones I still have questions on – please don’t think I’m being confrontational. Just trying to patch up my understanding before applying it to a game.

Because it’s wankery in a more traditional RPG. Here’s my super-cool NPC doing cool shit you’re not doing. Here’s my even cooler NPC being heroic. And so on. But I think I was giving the color/interstitial scenes too much weight based on what you say next…

I’ve never actually used a “meanwhile, back at the ranch…” type scene before in my GMing – absolutely everything the players know the characters know, so therefore there are scenes they CANNOT know about because the players will act on the knowledge. This is a stylistic/immersion thing on my part. I don’t see anything philosophically wrong or challenging about being a bit pulled back from the YOU ARE THEREness we’ve been using; should be an interesting experiment.

That’s a really interesting point. I’ve got a couple players who are brilliant strategists, and I was keeping an ear open during world burning for little setting traps they might have been setting. This time around I think they were worldburning in good faith (i.e. what is cool) and not necessarily strategically (i.e. how do we hamstring the GM’s side?).

I have some scenarios running in my head I’d like answers for before jumping into the first scene. Mostly they have to do with the PCs taking out every FoN before they get off the ground. My understanding is that a) you can only undermine one FoN’s disposition roll per phase but also b) if you kill them they’re also not around for their dispo roll. I may be wrong on b) but I don’t think so. It also sounds like there should be plenty of time during the color and building scenes to see what’s coming and prepare accordingly.

Here’s where I’m getting this idea from: Page 128, starting Artha, there’s a line that’s a bit confusing. “If a player has two characters – due to a bodyguard/assistant relationship – factor artha based on the main character. The player may divide his starting artha between the two characters.” I’m scratching my head because I thought all you could do was give yourself a Relationship (i.e. NPC). The entry on p. 118 doesn’t say anything about actually playing this bodyguard or assistant. If it IS a “player character” as the second paragraph implies, that also implies you add in the bodyguard/assistant’s LPs when determining the GM’s artha.

Everyone else, great comments, again. Thank you!

p.

7

Paul,
I’m going to let Jason and Luke answer your questions (since they’re on the ball), but I also wanted to ask if you’ve read the Iron Empires comics. If you haven’t, I strongly recommend it. The game mimics how those stories are told.

-L

8

No probs. We are all friends here :slight_smile:

Think of colour and interstitials as simply ways for you to show the players what your NPCs are up to. Otherwise, the GM can simply throw out some random stuff in scenes with no explanation to undermine the players. This would undermine and not give proper impact to the story authority the players are given.

These scenes allow you to do minor stuff to create a coherent narrative between your build and confronation scenes. Its not wankering, its exhibitionism :slight_smile:

As noted above, in order to give proper effect to the greater player authority, you need to show the players what is going on behind the scenes.

It is normally very difficult to kill a FoN. Not only would there need to be a lot of building scenes to get the resources to acheive it but the way the system works (use a Persona Artha to avoid death) allows most FoN to be taken out of the game for a few maneuvers only as they recover.

I also note that if the players devote all their PCs energies to this type of action, as a GM I would focus on what’s really important i.e. attacking their disposition. If the GM is pushing hard at where it counts, the players will have little choice but to follow. They may kill a FoN but they will loose the war.

All of what the books says here is correct. A bodyguard/assistant is not a PC. However, they can be played by the player in some scenes as if they were a PC (normally when the PC is elsewhere). Think of it like a GM with many NPCs. As BE gives a limited story authority to the players too, they can create their scenes showing their bodyguard doing something for their PC. In that scene, they play their bodyguard as if it were a PC.

9

Yup. Read them, avidly trying to avoid running BE as a Christopher Moeller Simulation. I guess I’m more interested in the emergent behavior the game will produce than I am in trying to pretend to be Chris (since he’s so very good at it!). :smiley:

p.

10

The comics are good, right? An entertaining read to say the least. Check out how the story is structured within them. Note how the villains are given equal air time – you, the reader, gets to see what they are up to. You get to see the nefarious plans and the dastardly deeds – all manner of things that the protagonists would not and could not see. It’s a great device. It informs us, grounds us and heightens the tension.

The GM’s scenes, the open book on the starting conflict and the players’ “wankery” are what creates the same information and tension in Burning Empires.
-Luke

11

Yeah, they’re a very good read but there’s nothing fundamentally novel about how Chris tells a story. It’s a good structure, very tight, fast paced, etc. I could call out many, many other contemporary comic book writers doing the same thing (and so could Chris, I’m sure). It’s standard-issue storytelling. I’m not sure I can extract much else from reading the graphic novels besides setting color.

When I talk about wankery I’m talking about the GM, in a traditional RPG, giving airtime to NPCs at the expensive of getting the players in on the action. Lengthy scenes with lots of description. Bad GMing in anyone’s book. Now I’m looking at the prospect of every player having a shot at this as well, having their PC and bodyguard off doing cool stuff. I guess if I feel like they’re getting away with too much during their color scene, I stop them and turn it into a die-rolling scene, yes?

I don’t get, from reading your chapters on the different scene types, that a color scene is intended to be very quick. I’m seeing that, according to practical experience, it often works out that way. But that’s not really implied in how you wrote that section (I’m looking at p. 289-290). What I DO get is that you need color scenes, tactically speaking, to set precedents in the setting so it’s not jarring later on to hang a building or conflict scene off some piece of scenery that hadn’t been discussed in advance.

I’m envisioning, from a player’s POV, a real concern about coming up with all this fancy storytelling and having it be “okay” for the other players and the GM. Democracy is less efficient than a dictatorship, right? :wink: The last thing I’d want my players doing is fluffing out the setting with stuff they can’t use and isn’t interesting, filled with “I do this, and then I do this, and then I look across my, um, vast estate at my harem of comely wenches and my 25 vintage hovercars” and so on.

I’m also very wary of having setting traps set for me in the course of a color scene! I know this is a part of the shared-narrative philosophy, but it’s causing me a bit of anxiety. I guess I could always attempt the same tactic (but it’s just me vs. 4 whip-smart players and a lot of applied brain power).

Again, I’m looking forward to seeing what the players actually do once they come in contact with the game. My concerns may all be for naught.

p.

12

When you play BE you will find that you won’t have enough scenes to do all the stuff you want done. You only have time to do the most important thing you need. So there in practice, there will be ery little wastage unless you want your side to get hosed and as a GM short impacting scenes tend to earn you more artha.

As for the GM issue, I point out that in 1 session all the GM gets is 3 interstitial and/or color scenes. Assuming a rough distribution of both that means that in a maneuver you will get just 1.5 color scenes. It is is not that much at all. To be honest, I have had more issues with Building scenes (where you are gathering forces or resources) in practice and to avoid this I try as a GM to work out all rules elements before the game so I can run these relatively smoothly and swiftly.

13

Also, look at the real world time currency of Burning Empires. You’ve got to get through at least one maneuver a session. Assuming four players, that’s 3 builders, 1 conflict, 4 color and 4 interstitials for them. 12 scenes for their side alone. Add in 4 GM FoNs and you’ve got 3 more builders, another conflict and four more scenes (color and/or interstitial). 20 scenes per session minimum. At that necessary rate, any player that is hogging screen time for ANY of his scenes is being a dick. It is against the rules to be a dick to other players in Burning Empires.

-Luke

PS Most of your worries are going to dissolve in play. As Luke mentioned, there are other pressing concerns once play starts.

14

Our first maneuver took 5 hours with just 1 conflict. Our next took 4 hours again with just 1 conflict. Keeping scenes focussed and fun for other to watch helped this 20% reduction in time and the maneuver was much better for it. When deciding between fun or wankery, fun pwnd wankery :slight_smile:

15

.sigged! :smiley:

p.

16

Actually, according to p. 429 you get get 1 each of color, interstitial and building/conflict PER MANEUVER. Ditto for the GM per maneuver per FoN.

I’m curious: what are your issues with building scenes? What issues have you run into that you’ve come up with plans to foil?

p.

17

Check out page 428 which reads:

<i>The GM also may take one color scene <b>or</b> interstitial per figure of note, per maneuver. Building, color and interstitials are optional for the GM.</i>

I agree its a little contradictory to pg 429 and I think this was intentional. A GM should not always consider taking all the scenes available to him just because he can. Keep the spotlight on the players. Luke Crane clarlified that a GM should only really be taking 1 color or interstitial and 1 build or conflict per FoN per maneuver. In play, I found this advice to be bang on.

Your issue with color scenes is that as a GM you may be narrating a scene in which no PCs are present. Imagine a build scene in which no PCs are present. For example, say you want a build scene to gather troops and scout out a possible battlefield. That’s a Circles test, a Resource test and then an Infilitration test all by yourself (though the last was a Versus test with a PC). As a GM, sitting there setting “fair” Ob for these types of actions feels weird when you first encounter them. As a GM in a traditional RPG you just create this stuff off screen and then pull it out when needed. In BE, this sort of build up is done in the open.

In summary, gaming with yourself is more difficult than simply roleplaying with yourself YMMV :slight_smile:

18

I’m having a brain fart right now because I totally don’t get how what you just said is any different than what I just said. In your previous post it sounded like you were divvying up scenes across the entire SESSION (hence the 1.5 color scenes/maneuver comment). Did I completely misread that?

Based on both p.429 and your quote here from p.428, the GM has a budget of (up to) 3x color OR interstitial scenes, and (up to) 2x conflict (because the GM can pull the trigger twice) AND 2x building scenes per maneuver. A session might have two maneuvers, in which case you reset the scene budget. Yes? No?

I’m parsing the rule to mean each FoN gets its own mini-budget of 1x each color, interstitial, and building/conflict, and each FoN gets to act in the maneuver just like each PC FoN gets to act in the maneuver.

p.

19

Wanted to quote this in a separate post, because I’m really getting what you’re saying here. Maybe turn Ob setting over to the players when it’s the GM’s turn? (We did this in Exalted for setting stunt payouts when the GM stunted, and it was very fair – if they ganked the GM, the GM would gank them back later).

p.

20

My bad. We currently play one maneuver per session, so for me the terms are interchangeable.

Yes, those are the total scenes a GM will get per maneuver.