Scaring away Players

Burning Empires General Questions
1

I have gotten my book (which is incredible btw, has “Incredible” been use to describe the book yet?) and started telling my gaming group about it.

Well I actually scared 2 players away from trying the game. I told them what I know about the rules, World Burning, Character Burning. I said that the game is set up where the GM plays the other side but is limited by the rules as to abuse his position. I think that was too much.

There are traditional RPG’ers how have played a long time but have a hard time with the collaborative storytelling idea I think. Actually a lot of my players are giving me funny looks about this game, but most of them trust me enough to try it.

Any suggestions on how to sell this game to people who have never played anything else but D&D and White Wolf? I am trying to read through the rules as fast as I can (did a marathon reading session yesterday and read about 150 pages which is huge for a slow reader like me.) I only understand the basic idea of the game but not Infection Mechanics very well and I think that is where communication is breaking down.

For those of us that are trying to get player interest is there a good sales pitch for Burning Empires. I know the setting is great and that is easy to bring everyone up to speed on it (I have the graphic novels). What I need is a quick and dirty summation of the rules and why they are so cool. Any help will be welcome. :smiley:

2

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=281114&page=12

Check out this conversation between Petri and our own Skywalker. Pretty informative.

-L

3

Also, be sneaky and don’t proclaim it to be collaborative! Just show up and start asking them questions. Shanghai 'em!

When I think collaborative, I think of games like InSpectres. I don’t know where the line is drawn, but I can’t group BE with suich games.

4

Yeah, I do have to agree with Kublai on this one. A few years ago when our gaming group veered away from “traditional” fantasy RPG’s, our GM Wuxing and I got in a lot of fights about concepts. Who knows what baggage people have about certain words? One player could have a totally negative connotation about the word “collaborative”, etc. Somebody else could think that it means that you don’t roll enough dice and that everybody gets to vote or some other (as Yag likes to say) hippie shit.

Its best to let the game kind of speak for itself. People get scared trying to get their heads around concepts which seem to much of a departure. I see it in project deployment at the work place all the time. You have to leak it to them a little at a time OR put it in terms they understand, concrete examples which come from their world/experience. Talk about things that they wanted to do in their D&D game but couldn’t do to rules and how they WOULD be able to do it in BW. Give them some real life foundations for all the theories getting slung around.

Just my .02

5

Thanks for the reply Abzu :slight_smile:

So what this is talking about is the strength of the collaborative storytelling rules of BE. I appreciate what was being said about the thought you but into this game, I think that was dead on.

But to get back to my question. It is best to sell this as a collaborative game in which both player and GM have equal roles to fulfill in telling the story. But how exactly does this conflict between GM and player work? I see the Vaylen and the humans getting these points in the world burner but haven’t found out what those are for yet (I guess I am just impatient to get whole picture). I would like to be able to say “You burn a world and this side gets this many points, and that means…”

I guess I was hoping for a quick run down of what BE is rules wise…

6

Talk about things that they wanted to do in their D&D game but couldn’t do to rules and how they WOULD be able to do it in BW. Give them some real life foundations for all the theories getting slung around.

Wow thanks that is useful. I really like the Technology Burner section (I jump a head when I got to resources), the idea of just coming up with what you need for the moment I think is something that will appeal to my players.

I keep getting hooked on GM vs. player thing but from what I am getting (and the times it takes to get through my thick skull) is that that is not a very important element. In fact the impression I am getting is it is a misnomer, sort of a overly simplified way of explaining what is really going on, is that correct?

I was thinking about he scale of the game, how you slide up to planet wide strategies down to role-playing your character and I remember what one of my players told me when I was trying to explain it to them. They said “Wow sounds cool kinda of a wargame/role-playing mix.”

Is that a more accurate assessment of what is going on?

Thanks for the posts everyone, keep em coming they are helping a lot.

7

Describing it as a mix of wargame and RPG is quite apt! When it comes to martial conflicts, it’s very easy to get swept up by the tactics and numbers making it feel very much like a wargame.

8

The wargame analogy is cool but could also scare other players away.

I think the best way to describe it is that BE is a traditional style RPG where the players have a much greater ability to directly contribute to the game play and set up their own plots. Ask them if they have ever played in an RPG and said to themselves “I would really love to see my PC do X?” but the GM never did. If any say yes, say that BE is for them.

The next stage to point out is that as there is now greater ability to input into the story from all the players, it is important that this be coordinated by a few rules that govern things like how much screen time each player gets. These rules will also guide the GM from making sure that the players have some certainty as to when and how they can contribute to story as a whole.

That’s all BE is really tring to do. Its not about restricting people, its about freeing the group from needing to decide a whole bunch of boring ground rules that will allow this greater colaborative play.

As an aside, after setting these ground rules, the GM is freed up to provide a much more engaging level of antagonism to the players as his discretion and power is now guided by a system agreed by all. No more dry soliquys that you are forced to listen through whilst you are waiting to shoot the guy in the chest. Now the bad guys will know and use your PC’s deepest darkest secrets :slight_smile:

9

Cool,

So I think I am getting a jist here. Now I have a question, I am getting the feeling there is not a lot of GM preparation needed as most of the game is agreed upon during World Burning, Character Burning, etc… I also am seeing a trend towards one type of story, that is fight for survival.

This may be an obvious question but can run different types of stories using this system? Something like the war on a planet between the Mundus Humanitas and local cult? How but things on a smaller scale? What about everyone being spacers on the same ship going from place to place and just trying to make a living (can anyone say Firefly?)

These are questions I know that will come up and I would love to hear the experts opinions :wink:

10

Cooperative style RPGs tend to need a definite narrative arc so you know when various parts of the game apply i.e. when it ends, and to give context to these narrative elements i.e. what disposition loss means.

On saying, I note the following:

  1. The BE framework is incredibly loose and flexible. I think you could tell stories of politics and espionage as well as decent takes on wider ideas like Aliens and even Neon Genesis Evangelion :slight_smile: Even Luke mentions the idea of a family drama during an invasion (like War of the Worlds) in the main book.

The only really constraints is that you have two opposing sides centred around an agreed setting. The fact that the Vaylen are shadowy villains who may not even be present shows that you can handle a myriad of ideas. Of course you may want to avoid bending to norm too much on your first game.

  1. If the above is not enough, then you can always look to redefine several of the elements. Change the World Burner so it defines an entire setting (which is what it is doing in any case). Define a different meaning to disposition loss. This will require some work but is doable. Again the only constraints that would be difficult to remove is the fact that you have two opposing sides. Then again what good story doesn’t have this :slight_smile:

  2. A final option would be to remove the larger story elements, like Infection, prequels, sequels and epilogue. You may also want to remove scenes being currency and give over to traditional GMing. What you end up with a sci fi version of BW. I do note that this does remove something that makes BE awesome and I would recommend trying out the cooperative style play first.

11

Sure. You can run any kind of story your group agrees on up front. You might have a player that says, “I really loved my Spelljammer character from D&D and I think it’d be cool if we all played the crew of a spaceship.”

Then you conflict is only as big as the things that affect that spaceship. As color, you might have a war going on in the galaxy but unless the crew decided to get involved, it doesn’t effect the group’s story. That’s really the beauty of declaring what people want out of campaign up front. So if you, as the GM, think that the war might be interesting, you can put it out there in the world. If the players dig it, they get involved. If they don’t, they pass.

You’ll find that the model really works because if they (for example) dig the war and decide to get involved, EVERYBODY’S INTO IT. The GM’s into it because they dreamt it up, and the players are into it because they decided they were. No railroading. By using that example, you can see how everyone at the table is contributing to the idea pot equally but no single party is driving…DING collaborative. Players and GM’s might have different jobs at the table but everybody’s throwing cool stuff out into the “world”

12

I have to admit, that’s the way I’m going. Having never really been exposed to narrative/cooperative style games (I’m old skool :slight_smile: ), a number of the ideas and concepts in BE really did my head in. So I’ve decided to take elements from BE and BS:J to build a simpler setting, something more akin to what I’m used to running games in, to allow me to become familiar with the rules and the ideas. I also bought the BE books to help me understand the rules better, as they seemed a little less intimidating.

Now I prepare myself for what looks like it’s going to be an long and interesting ride…

  • Neil.
13

You could run the crew of a spaceship as critical to saving a world, if you wanted. Star Trek did, all the time, and there’s a fair amount of other SF with that theme. Kinda depends on if that’s what the players are into.

In fact, that could be pretty cool. Lay up the ship for repairs (make it a high-index ship on a zero-index world, probably) and have the Vaylen working to keep it there as a prize, and then one of your conflicts is between the PCs that want to just slap down the Vaylen sabotage and get out of there, and those who want to save the world.

14

Zab,
that’s an awesome world concept!

-L

15

A final option would be to remove the larger story elements, like Infection, prequels, sequels and epilogue. You may also want to remove scenes being currency and give over to traditional GMing. What you end up with a sci fi version of BW. I do note that this does remove something that makes BE awesome and I would recommend trying out the cooperative style play first.

I hadn’t planed on changing the game around I was just trying to get a feel for other peoples perceptions of what was possible.

You could run the crew of a spaceship as critical to saving a world, if you wanted. Star Trek did, all the time, and there’s a fair amount of other SF with that theme. Kinda depends on if that’s what the players are into.

In fact, that could be pretty cool. Lay up the ship for repairs (make it a high-index ship on a zero-index world, probably) and have the Vaylen working to keep it there as a prize, and then one of your conflicts is between the PCs that want to just slap down the Vaylen sabotage and get out of there, and those who want to save the world.

This is very cool, but I am thinking of saving this for a second game. I was thinking (and let me know what YOU think) that for the first game to get the players into it, I need to pretty much stick to a standard planetary invasion game. I think showing the basics and then showing them what can be done with the game is a better way to go.

The wargame analogy is cool but could also scare other players away.

That will not be a problem most of my players they are war gamers. We pretty much play all types of games, the ones that were scared off by my description of BE are the exception (maybe that is why)

To be honest (getting a little off topic) I do not understand why most gamers only role-play or only board game but me and most of mine group waste (sorry loving spend) $$$ on lots of different types of games. It is just most of them are new to RPG’s and while they get the traditional model these news ways of playing are baffling to them.

I would think get while they are green into BW & BE would work best since they don’t have a ton of preconceived notions but it does present other problems of them not knowing how to take control of game when they are suppose to, or not understanding they can create an tech they want on the fly, etc…

Anywho your suggestions are helping a great deal with crystallizing the concepts of BE so any other suggestions are welcome.