1) You didn't acknowledge that
2) You appear to continue with the mindset

P.S. Were either of those video games you mentioned multiplayer? If not, "duh", it's hard to see a difference between the player interactions when it is a team of 1 and when it is a single person.

Immersion? This isn't the "well I'd change what I planned to do based on what happened there" thing? Because, you know, that's just years of playing games where you spend minutes micromanaging the split seconds screwing with your mind. Or in the case of DoW the years of experience encoding arguments with other players in the obscure double-language of "roleplaying".

Or maybe it is the fear of putting yourself out there, because BW makes you do that. You must risk to gain in BW, scripting and advancement and the basic skill mechanics are centered around that assumption. People that ardently avoid risk are very unhappy in BW and their unhappiness gets shared with everyone else as the player ends up engaged in a deathfight with the system, these people should not play BW. I'm at a loss as to why they should play RPGs at all, a game lacking any actual conflict is sort of like a story lacking any real conflict, but *shrug* you know, each their own.

Note that in Mouse Guard it isn't nearly the same as in Burning Wheel. In Burning Wheel combat is damn scary. Burning Wheel is BASE jumping. Mouse Guard is firing up a doobie and jumping on a snowboard to cruise some powdery slopes, you have to work really hard (or have a truly sadistic GM) to bring MG even close to the average day in BW.

Without seeing the table or you describing in detail my guesses, based on past experience of common issues, are:
1) incorrect identification of conflicts [that matter to the people at the table]
OR 2) incorrect selection of conflict mechanism, Rim or Spoke, for how much the conflict mattered (and therefore how much time people at the table wanted to see devoted to it)
OR 3) you ignored the advice in the book and tried to do Fight! right out of the gate first time you ran the game (and then didn't use my Fight! matrix that list what you actually roll, because I had trouble myself with how Fight! was presented and explained)
OR 4) the slowdown wasn't actually a slowdown, when you are new to something things can feel awkward and you get that spinning wheel sensation, likewise over time people tend ignore (and therefore underestimate) time lost in something they are used to

I had the sense of waste, too, at first till I actually very consciously watched what was really happening at the table, in Burning Wheel and not. Even before I had stuff down pat there was speeding up with BW in that more things of note were happening. Now I have a hard when time playing other games, even ones I've played before and know, in part because there is so little actually happening at the table. So...... Much......Dead.....Space. So maybe avoiding BW is good in that way?

They're multi-character, which is the point. It's just an analogy, anyway.

Incorrect. At least in the sense that you'd actually notice the difference compared to where there were lots of actual people, as opposed to lots of imaginary people.

Oh snap! I posit that your *face* would be wrong. It's my point, you can't say that I'm wrong about what my point *is*.

Anyway, are you or are you not talking about flanking? I can't get a straight answer. That is, a numerical bonus for some kind of specific multi-character maneuver?

It sure looked like it wasn't being used as an analogy. At least I'm willing to think enough of you that you aren't trying to argue from analogy. Analogy is a literary device for explaining things.

Right. I'm submitting explanations until I find one that lets my thoughts connect to yours. You can't say I'm not trying here.

Well it sure looked like it was being given as evidence. Very well then.

Here's where your analogy is flat busted. You aren't the characters. Of course you aren't going to a difference senses of being in a team, you were not in a team in either situation.....back to "duh". For the same reason. What team?

How is a group of characters not a team?

- They don't exist.
- You aren't one of them.

Unless you actually think that these characters had feelings and experienced being in a team? ((EDIT: And were really making sentient decisions.)) Because that an entirely different thing that you aren't going to get a fix for on the internet.

Wait, this *whole* time your definition of teamwork has been based on the players?

Sort of.

What matters here, in the design of the game? The experiences of the players, right?. Characters are just proxy constructions, what really happens at the table is that players (including the GM) are interacting while wearing masks (usually figuratively unless you're leaning to the LARP side). That's why I was suggesting you take some time to be self-aware of what decisions you were making.

Players matter orders of magnitude more than characters because characters don't exist.

So in this light the goal becomes to emulate a sense of teamwork for the players, for the players to feel the teamwork.

EDIT: What I believe you are describing, unwittingly, with the video game thing is just how tough it is to instill a sense of "teamwork" occurring to someone that isn't involved in any actual teamwork and where no real teamwork is happening.

Well, that explains that. Let's ignore the entire video game example, because I see it's not relevant.

You still didn't answer my flanking question. I'm dying to know if that's at least one solid example of what you're talking about.

What? I gave the short list of examples in Mouse Guard.

Ok, so what video games to do you play? Any multiplayer co-op/team stuff? How about Team Fortress 2? It's got more "team" happening than just the name.

So, yes or no, D&D flanking is an example of a 'baked-in' teamwork mechanic?

Yes, coop games are the best. Maybe that's an example: Battlefield Bad Company 2 gives XP bonuses for helping your squadmates, while Modern Warfare 2 (having only 1 'squad') basically does not. Is BC2 more team-oriented or team-friendly than MW2 (assuming no FFA mode)?

BTW Mooncrow, on Mouse Guard scripting keep in mind that a given player is often only rolling, and thus their mouse the primary acting character, once (or twice if you are playing 4 players + GM) for the entire script. It's not like BW where Duel of Wits has a single primary acting character for each side or Fight! and R&C where you normally have individual scripts for each PC.

It's been a while since I played 4e and don't have the books, so I don't recall specifics. However that doesn't jump out at me, I recall 4e going well past just flanking (something that was in 3e, and which I found less teamish). I could go looking for the pirate PDFs but that would be Wrong™.

EDIT:You asked if it was just because of flanked and I guess I could have been more explicit; No not just because of flanked. In the same way as no, not just because of niche protection (and it turns out you don't actually [i]need[/i] niche protection to impart a sense of teamwork, but it's a way to try force players down that road when you are weak with supporting teamwork elsewhere).

I don't play those, couldn't say.

I guess that's a 'no'?

I think I give up on my good-faith attempt to see your side. My position is that any game with cooperating players is equally 'teamish', regardless of mechanical incentives/disincentives. Thanks, though; you tried. (I think, hehe.)

No, I put in an EDIT to explain it more. It's sort of like niche protection. An example but a weak one.

LOL. Ok, I see where you are now. Mired deeply in the "rules? you don't need no stinking rules" fallacy.

Psh, you're very negative. Apparently I'm all kinds of stupid over the course of this thread, simply for not agreeing. Anyway, it's fine. We gave it a shot, agree to disagree.

Dwight and I have a similar bashing of heads on what constitutes a "skill" so your not the only one he calls stupid or in this case I am a wall of ignorance IIRC for not agreeing. It sorta reminds me of a bunch of guys over at the Forge

My worst experience with Burning Wheel was at a con table with Luke. So, chalk that up to whatever you want.

Stupid? Meh, that's pretty harsh. Closer to ignorant but only in the uninformed sense, that word's pretty much a poisoned Red Word so I wouldn't use it.

If you what the long explanation why it's a fallacy, go here. If you want the short explaination why it's a fallacy, listen deeply to yourself explain why you don't use D&D to play Shadowrun (or maybe why you do use D&D to play Shadowrun, if you do). Still don't get it? Then switch to explaining why you don't use Monopoly to play Shadowrun (or why you do use Monopoly to play Shadowrun, if you do).

If you still don't get it, yeah maybe you are pretty slow . If so my bad. But I'd still guess probably just as bad at listening to yourself, or deep in denial.

That's interesting, I'm really really interested. Which scenario? Details!

P.S. I've never met the guy. The only person that I have met in meatspace that has met him in meatspace thought he was a dick. Although the more I talked with this guy the more I got the sense it was circumstance plus something else going on.

Rules are not necessary for Team Work to be viable and represented in a roleplaying game.

No rules are actually /necessary/ for a roleplaying game. It's just the foundation we've come to use for allowing gms and players a common ground from which to create stories.

And Dwight, your post is so laced with self-righteous importance. I'm kinda impressed.

You hang out there? Are you nuts?

I'm told that and thank you.

I laugh a lot at my posts.....

<stupid double post>

Is it teamwork if several PC act together to shoot the same target? Does the fact a team mate contributes to reducing the opponents remaining Damage Value count as team work and is it a core mechanic of the game?

Or is this hot flaming thread about the fringe cases which are covered about the teamwork mechanic?

<ok, now this double post thing is really pissing me off>

Something I already mentioned. It's pretty flat, there is little texture there for decisions and thus interaction.

Degrees on a scale. Just like the flanking and niche protection.


I think it is about whether "team" is fringe in the mechanics or not.

Or maybe it's about Luke Crane now? Fuck, I hope not. I wouldn't want him to get a big head like Jason Morningstar.

I don't remember to be honest, I can look it up if you're really interested. The main problem was that I arrived at the table rather excited to see how the game was supposed to be played, since at our table it was a clunky pile of kludge. We were about 10 minutes into play when I realized that BW was not a game meant for my group. To be fair, the rolls did go faster, but we rolled for at least twice the amount of things than I did when running it solo.

There's just a basic disconnect - I believe, "if you don't have to roll the dice, then you shouldn't", whereas he believe any time there's something going on, dice need to be rolled.

It just slows down the game for me, and breaks immersion too much to use.

I'd be surprised if he disagrees with what you put in quotes. In fact that's pretty damn core to "Say Yes". On the later I'm pretty sure you misunderstand him (like I said Adventure Burner). It is more like: "Move quickly past things that don't matter, roll dice to decide the things that do matter." Now understand that "things that matter" is a short way of saying "conflicts where the people at the table care deeply about the outcome and there is disagreement between any of them about what the outcome is."

EDIT: Why roll dice? Because:
1) they represent the characters abilities, which is what the people at the table are questioning
2) people really suck at doing random, really REALLY suck, so it is extremely unlikely that you'll actually match the character's abilities by just making decisions, especially considering....
3) this is a turning point, BIG things are at stake here, character lives, and things even more important than that, are on the line! (yes, even if you are just making an Accounting roll)
4) the dice are not deaf to what's been said, that gets factored in

On the number of rolls, keep in mind that The Gift (4 Elves visit 4 Dwarves, Elven ambassador forgets to bring the Gift, blood-soaked hilarity ensues) and The Sword (a human, an elf, a dwarf, and a rat walk into a room with a PHAT LOOT sword, blood-soaked hilarity ensures) come pre-loaded with a lot of conflict all around the table. So shit be happening.

P.S. But yeah, maybe it's not for you. Know what breaks my "immersion"? People that don't play their actual character....which constitutes a metric fuckton percentage of players. They roll up with supposed mental and social attributes and the character's actions don't match that by the physics of the world (AKA mechanics of the game, or if the rules are really short the description of what these are suppose to represent). There are all sorts of rationalizations made to excuse this via "well that's not what my character would do" and "roleplay" and "background". But they aren't particularly aware of this or they don't actually give a damn....and my head hurts every time I come away from trying to interact with them/their character in a meaningful way from the beating over the head with their arguments (sometimes OOC, sometimes encoded IC) and out-stubborning if I don't cede. To them social conflict mechanics are poison, it directly attacks their tool set of social manipulation of the other players and/or their Mary Sue character's source of superness.

I might buy that if I hadn't played with him and watched him roll dice for every, bloody, thing.

It's not my only complaint with the system, it's just the biggest.

He might have been drinking?

Keep in mind if people were pushing the envelope, really hammering on the conflicts in the BITS, then yeah. Lots of dice happen, and more importantly lots of really important things should be happening. Also this is a Con setting, that's going to redouble the push to get through. Especially if it was one of those 30 minute slots I've heard game sellers do to get as many people through as possible.


EDIT: It could very well be what he thought was important conflicts didn't match with what you think were important conflicts.

EDIT: Fixed the link. ']' characters in urls is bad mojo.

Like I say, I've never met the guy (will Oct 10th though) so I've never played with him. Being a luddite :^), he refuses to do video of his group/playtesters playing. But skim through this. There is one point in post #3 where he and the player have a 1/2 hour prelude for two rolls.

On occasion I lurk and yes! Working in the I.T. sector has lowered my IQ by more than a few points by trying to comprehend things like "words are coming out of my screen but they are all black"

I also enjoy playing Malkavians because the apple is not far from the tree! (ok I lie, my love is with the Tremere but I was young!)




To threadjack my own thread, this is why I LOVE UBIQUITY! I can just sit there and say "I take the average"

Why not play just Amber and get it over with?

Because I'm not worthy of Amber or Nobilis

You sell yourself short...unless you can't actually afford a copy of Nobilis? I've never tried to obtain one but I've heard they are not easy or cheap to come by. Maybe that is an exaggeration?

Also, these appear to be English words but I swear they read like Greek. Probably because I'm not nuts....in such a manner that would lead me to hang out at the Forge. When someone types GNS I only see RED, and move on.

A decision the players and GM make, not something derived from the mechanics. People drive the game, not dice.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=32645

You keep linking that, and it's as useless each time as it was the first.

You're doin' it wrong.

"I don't think that post means what you think it means."

Well I suppose I could have linked to this. So he could have the short version.

"People drive the game" is about as meaningful as saying "people drive the vehicle". Well yeah, it's true and it's important, but the properties of the vehicle still matter a hell of a lot.


P.S. How is your listening project going, by the way? I can see not successful yet, I'm just curious if you've tried.

That still doesn't mean what you think it means Dwight.

You're basically arguing circles.
Characters can never be involved in teamwork, because they aren't real. The only way for teamwork to happen in a game, is if there are specific detailed rules on how teamwork is to be accomplished, that effect dice/dice pools/etc.

Well that'd be silly if I actually said that. Which I didn't.

Then maybe you need to work on what you're saying.
Cause that's the words coming out of your mouth.

Where?