I’ve been browsing through the Burning Empires pdf.
What is the intent of the infection mechanics?
Is it supposed to feel like players are making
a difference or like a uncontrollable tide and
just provide ideas for adventuring?
Does run-of-the-mill adventuring take place at
all? Or, like the infection pacing goes as several
separate encounters after which status quo is
nominally restored?
Especially confusing since there seems to be
no mechanical link from roleplay to infection,
characters get their arses handed to them and
they still roll the same dice?
How about beliefs and infection? Characters that
really go and do something else than fight the
worm?
Are players of the game intended as omniscient or
do surprises take place?
The Infection mechanic is part of the overall structure of the BE game. Combined with the World Burner, it helps guide the campaign from conflict to conflict. In the game, it represents the big picture. I talk about that in a couple of places in the book.
What’s run of the mill adventuring? Dungeon crawls? Can you be more specific? Because status quo is definitely not one of the results of a BE game.
How about beliefs and infection? Characters that
really go and do something else than fight the
worm?
Hell yes! That’s what the game is about. Reread the intro again. One of the major fulcrums of the conflict is the decision to follow your vain ambition (or whatever) or to set aside your personal goals and fight the worm. If that’s not a difficult choice for the players to make in the game, you’re not playing right!
Are the players omniscient? Can you rephrase this question? I think I know what you’re asking, but I want to be certain.
As for “why” I think you should sit down and read the Face of Collapse, the Infection mechanics and the Playing the Game chapter. If those bits don’t answer your question, I certainly can’t do any better here.
The Infection mechanic is part of the overall structure of the BE game. .
I’ve read more and like it more as well.Kinda just occurred to me
that as a BE GM i’m not really about setting plots and providing
settings am I? I’m about playing characters and tugging the
beliefs?
What’s run of the mill adventuring? Dungeon crawls? Can you be more specific? Because status quo is definitely not one of the results of a BE game.
I mayhaps worded this badly. If, after a everyone has spend their
scenes for the manouver and characters are still in the field is the
setting intended to carry over to the next manouver?
Are the players omniscient? Can you rephrase this question? I think I know what you’re asking, but I want to be certain.
Is there a thing which GM knows but the player doesn’t?
Yes yes… I know. “Sit down and read the book”. But i’m having hard time
to stop jumping up and down because of it. Sorry.
Is there a thing which GM knows but the player doesn’t?
Sure. What his people will do next. What his maneuver is. Same thing for what the players know that the GM doesn’t. Though in both cases, foreshadowing can be fun.
A maneuver is a bracket around character actions. It is not otherwise part of the game or the setting. For example, you can be kicking through your opponent’s military installation and, due to an unexpected turn of events, not accomplish your mission before you run out of scenes. So you pause the game for a moment, roll for your maneuvers, refuel on artha, give a little “meanwhile” sequel and then dive back in. You choose your maneuver and pick up the action right where you left off.