New roleplaying games
In the last year I've bought a few new roleplaying games. Now I want to talk about the more indie games: Reign, Burning Wheel and Burning Empires. The first two games are more traditional RPGs, so I'll talk first about them. I'll save Burning Empires for another post, as it's getting late and this text is already long.
Both Reign and Burning Wheel are fantasy roleplaying games. I haven't played BW at all, just read it. I started a Reign campaign a couple of weeks ago and we have played one session. Reign is the more traditional of the two as a roleplaying game. It has character generation, rules and a somewhat detailed world. The rules are simple and easy to grasp, which is good. The basic system has some quirks, like it is impossible to hit target's feet with powerful spells, but these quirks haven't yet bothered me enough to change the rules. There are also many additions to the basic system which seem good. The game seems to play well without them and one can add the more complicated things when the rules are more familiar.
The main 'new' thing in Reign are the company rules. There are simple but usable rules for handling bigger units, like business companies, criminal gangs or empires, and they give the game a good focus. In my test campaign the players control the export-import guild of a city. The ability to try and make big decisions with rules supporting it feels good to me as a GM and I'd like to try them out in other games. The company rules are easy to insert into other games as they're written as an almost separate module for the game.
The other good thing about Reign is that Greg Stolze, the author, has written about the ideas behind the game. He discusses the ramifications of the system to character generation and how points should be distributed for a good and nice game. This is good as many rpgs seem to have some idea behind the system but it's never explicitly spelled out. He also writes about creating a game world. There is a nice world in Reign but it's by no means the only one possible and it's good that he gives advice on creating new ones. I like that the game is more like a toolbox instead of a straitjacket for one style of gaming, even though it means more work for me.
Reign also has personal goals for the characters and the characters get bonuses for trying to accomplish them and penalties for acting against them. This gives some control over what the game should be about for that character, and it's good that they are written out.
Burning Wheel is also a fantasy game. It doesn't have any explicit setting whatsoever, although the text gives very good material for playing in Third Age Middle-Earth - I'd rather play this than MERP any day, if I wanted to game in Middle-Earth. The system and the character generation are much more crunchy than in Reign. The system is basically simple but there are multiple sub-games which are quite involved. There is also a system called Duel of WIts for social combat and it seems workable. I'd say that somebody must learn the systems well before playing, or the play will suffer.
The nice idea in the game is to put more stuff into the hands of the players. There are lots of mechanisms for the players to create and add things to the gameworld, with approval from all people on the table. This sounds good and will probably need more involved players. There is also discussion about creating as little as you need before the game and try to create a nice story by playing. One mechanism for this are the beliefs of the characters. They are beliefs about the world and the characters get mechanical bonuses for trying to accomplish them. This has the effect of creating characters that want to have conflicts where the player wants them which again makes the players more involved. The author, Luke Crane also discusses the points behind his ideas.
In both of these games I like the explicitness: both in trying to tie the players besides the GM to trying to have a big stake in creating the game and discussing the ideas behind the rules. Also the GM advice on how to run games are good in these games - I feel like most games have just the basic idea of 'what is roleplaying about' but it's good to see that there are also games for the mature rpg audience. Also these are both relatively new games, so there is good chance that games will get even better in the future. Of course they are both small games compared to D&D, and even that isn't very big a business, but in a way I'm happy if I get one book and if maybe some of my friends get them too so we can play better.
So, there are good new games and I recommend both for at least the ideas they present, even if you wouldn't play them as they are.
Both Reign and Burning Wheel are fantasy roleplaying games. I haven't played BW at all, just read it. I started a Reign campaign a couple of weeks ago and we have played one session. Reign is the more traditional of the two as a roleplaying game. It has character generation, rules and a somewhat detailed world. The rules are simple and easy to grasp, which is good. The basic system has some quirks, like it is impossible to hit target's feet with powerful spells, but these quirks haven't yet bothered me enough to change the rules. There are also many additions to the basic system which seem good. The game seems to play well without them and one can add the more complicated things when the rules are more familiar.
The main 'new' thing in Reign are the company rules. There are simple but usable rules for handling bigger units, like business companies, criminal gangs or empires, and they give the game a good focus. In my test campaign the players control the export-import guild of a city. The ability to try and make big decisions with rules supporting it feels good to me as a GM and I'd like to try them out in other games. The company rules are easy to insert into other games as they're written as an almost separate module for the game.
The other good thing about Reign is that Greg Stolze, the author, has written about the ideas behind the game. He discusses the ramifications of the system to character generation and how points should be distributed for a good and nice game. This is good as many rpgs seem to have some idea behind the system but it's never explicitly spelled out. He also writes about creating a game world. There is a nice world in Reign but it's by no means the only one possible and it's good that he gives advice on creating new ones. I like that the game is more like a toolbox instead of a straitjacket for one style of gaming, even though it means more work for me.
Reign also has personal goals for the characters and the characters get bonuses for trying to accomplish them and penalties for acting against them. This gives some control over what the game should be about for that character, and it's good that they are written out.
Burning Wheel is also a fantasy game. It doesn't have any explicit setting whatsoever, although the text gives very good material for playing in Third Age Middle-Earth - I'd rather play this than MERP any day, if I wanted to game in Middle-Earth. The system and the character generation are much more crunchy than in Reign. The system is basically simple but there are multiple sub-games which are quite involved. There is also a system called Duel of WIts for social combat and it seems workable. I'd say that somebody must learn the systems well before playing, or the play will suffer.
The nice idea in the game is to put more stuff into the hands of the players. There are lots of mechanisms for the players to create and add things to the gameworld, with approval from all people on the table. This sounds good and will probably need more involved players. There is also discussion about creating as little as you need before the game and try to create a nice story by playing. One mechanism for this are the beliefs of the characters. They are beliefs about the world and the characters get mechanical bonuses for trying to accomplish them. This has the effect of creating characters that want to have conflicts where the player wants them which again makes the players more involved. The author, Luke Crane also discusses the points behind his ideas.
In both of these games I like the explicitness: both in trying to tie the players besides the GM to trying to have a big stake in creating the game and discussing the ideas behind the rules. Also the GM advice on how to run games are good in these games - I feel like most games have just the basic idea of 'what is roleplaying about' but it's good to see that there are also games for the mature rpg audience. Also these are both relatively new games, so there is good chance that games will get even better in the future. Of course they are both small games compared to D&D, and even that isn't very big a business, but in a way I'm happy if I get one book and if maybe some of my friends get them too so we can play better.
So, there are good new games and I recommend both for at least the ideas they present, even if you wouldn't play them as they are.