People come up with some clever ass shit to incorporate skills into a roll that would otherwise seem completely unrelated.
Honest question - I can see your point on this, but is there a point where this just becomes Rules-lawyering, munchkining or gaming the system? I mean, just because, for example, a player CAN display the physics as to why The Flash(while they're playing the character) conceivably could whack off and ejaculate with such speed and power as to permanently blind their opponent, that doesn't mean that it's going to make for a good game, or that it should necessarily be allowed.
Well, for example, let's say you are a merchant. Thus, you have very high skills in appraisal and haggling, that's what you are good at. So in a meta-game rules lawyer way, you want to use those high skills for the best chance of success. So you come across a situation where some bandits attack your caravan, a very typical fantasy role playing encounter.
In D&D;, you would fight and stab the bandits, because that's what you do. Heck, even being a merchant isn't an option in D&D; unless you're also a fighter, cleric, paladin, etc.
In Burning Wheel, I would probably try to cleverly convince the bandits that a particular worthless sword they were stealing was very valuable, so they would take it and flee, or fight amongst themselves over it. I would also look at my other skills, hmm, eleven runescript... Yes! the elven runescript on the sword says it was used in King Foobar's coronoation, +1d and another +1d because that FoRKs nobility-wise. I just got +2d for writing a line of in-character flavor text about a sword. My meta game twinking enhanced the game. That's intentional, that's why the game gives me +d for doing it.
The more this argument develops the more I learn that because D&D is a team game which is designed for the TEAM to win the encounter with no one really saying it's all about themselves individually. Where as Scott likes Burning Wheel because he feels he can exceed past the party and dominate the game....It's all about Scott... (though fortunately Scott much like myself really sucks at role-playing ;-p)
I would also look at my other skills, hmm, eleven runescript... Yes! the elven runescript on the sword says it was used in King Foobar's coronoation, +1d and another +1d because that FoRKs nobility-wise
See, now, as the GM, it's my job to adjudicate these FoRK's. I'd look at everything you're trying to FoRK and determine whether or not you're reaching for some of these.
In this case, the Elven Runescript FoRK is kind of munchy. The runes themselves aren't actually helping you, it's the Nobility-wise that's helping you.
Now, if the NPC's were favorably disposed towards Elves, or maybe really liked stuff with elven runescript, then you'd have a valid FoRK.
If the NPC's hate all things Elvish, I'd give you the FoRK and +1 Ob to the roll.
In D&D;, you would fight and stab the bandits, because that's what you do.
You seem to have this problem where you think that "An option you find less interesting or desirable in play that a GM and Players might do that you can take out of context" is automatically what D&D; is like according to the rules and there is no other option because the rules MUST say so because they just MUST, okay.
So, yeah, you might fight and stab the bandits. Or you can run the fuck away. Or, if you have a rouge in the party, it might end up being his little brother leading the bandits, or he worked with them in the past. You might notice you're being trailed by bandits, and stop when they're not expecting you to, before trying to intimidate them. You could go stealth, and dodge the bandits. You could Ambush them, or you might have WANTED them to attack you, and have been working undercover with the city guard to capture them, but you don't want to kill them. Or maybe you're also bandits, and you're baiting them so you can beat them down and rob them. Or any number of things, depending on the party. Just because your scenarios lack imagination and you don't like them, doesn't mean that's a problem with D&D;, it's a problem with how you're playing.
After all, The rules don't explicitly explicitly state that if you're attacked by bandits, that you have to fight them or stab them, even a little bit, or that this is necessarily what you do in all situations.
To put it another way which might make sense to you -
In Burning wheel, you would fight and stab the bandits, because that's what your particular party does. Filthy brutes, they all chose to be more combat oriented characters.
In D&D;, I would probably try to cleverly convince the bandits that a particular worthless sword they were stealing was very valuable, so they would take it and flee, or fight amongst themselves over it. I've got High charisma, and I'm pretty good at Bluff and appraise, so it's an option for me. I would also look at my other skills, hmm, eleven language... Yes! the elven runescript on the sword says it was used in King Foobar's coronoation, +1 bonus and another +1 bonus because I can also apply my Knowledge(history) skill. I just got two tokens for writing a line of in-character flavor text about a sword(But that's just something my GM does, the reward or lack of is up to him to allow or deny). My meta game twinking enhanced the game. That's intentional, that's why the game gives me bonuses for doing it.
Its' just something your GM does. It's not in the rules of D&D; at all. If you do that, you are not playing D&D.; You are playing a mod of D&D.; One could argue you're actually not playing D&D; at all. You're playing some other game that has a lot of rules in common with D&D.; That game may be a good game, but D&D; it is not.
Its' just something your GM does. It's not in the rules of D&D; at all. If you do that, you are not playing D&D.; You are playing a mod of D&D.; One could argue you're actually not playing D&D; at all. You're playing some other game that has a lot of rules in common with D&D.; That game may be a good game, but D&D; it is not.
All of those scenarios presented are talked about in the players handbook and DMG........I mean why would they have a skill list except to do things in combat? Granted it's a much tighter list of skills, but all of those Churba listed are able to occur in D&D..;.
And damn near every example you come up with of why D&D; is bad is nothing more than what a player might do, or what a GM might do. In this round of discussion, Damn near the only two points you made which were not just player or GM gameplay decisions was firstly "Resurection is trivial and doesn't really cost you much" and then when informed otherwise, "Resurrection costs a huge amount." The other part of that in both cases was entirely GM/player actions, not mechanics.
Also, I will admit, I made a mistake, here - I had a comprehension fail, and thought the +2 bonus was an extra GM awarded bonus, on the GM's initiative, which was his choice, and not in the rules(I checked) - for some reason, it didn't connect in my head at that moment that the +2 was from the Two +1s you got from the Runescript and Nobility skills.
However, with that failure corrected, your point also falls apart - because by applying the Elven language skill, and the Knowledge(History) - though you could also use other knowledge specialties, such as Knowledge(Nobility) and so on - you get the exact same bonus for essentially the same reason.
All of those scenarios presented are talked about in the players handbook and DMG........
Considering my handbooks are all stuck in a box of books in storage from when I went overseas, I'm tempted to just torrent a copy of the books I own while I don't have access to my hard copies, so I can check these things and remind myself.
And damn near every example you come up with of why D&D; is bad is nothing more than what a player might do, or what a GM might do.
You really don't get it. Scott made some poor points, but you fail to grasp the fundamental argument.
As I noted, D&D; mechanically has no good way to reward one player (as opposed to the group), as any tangible reward (within the system) will inherently unbalance the party. We already know that unbalanced parties don't work, causing underpowered character to disengage.
Everything you've said in favor of D&D; has been nothing more than saying something in favor of having a good DM. If you remove all consideration but the mechanics of the rules in the book, D&D; has a clear lacking, noted above. Does it have any way to reward individual players mechanically without breaking the game or rendering said rewards meaningless?
I do this very often. It's my way of tempting the players.
Of course, I can also adjudicate that roll in a completely different way. Your Intent is to convince the bandits to take the sword and not kill you. Cool. However, your task speaks more to an intent like, "Convince them that the sword is valuable." So, your FoRK's are drifting away from your original intent.
You could turn it into a linked test, and possibly get +1D to convince them not to kill you. However, that's also close to a Duel of Wits, and I might decide to pressure you by saying, "They're not interested in talking. No duel for you. One roll or bust."
This is how the GM handles a powergamer in Burning Wheel. The GM can frame the scene differently to present the challenge in a way that is actually challenging.
In both D&D; and BW, a poor GM will let one player run away with the game. Burning Wheel gives the players rules to control narrative input, and gives the GM tools to limit narrative abuse.
This is a bit of a tangent, but fuck it. I'm starting up a Call of Cthuhlu campaign for my friends and I'll be the GM (keeper). I've never actually been a GM before and there has been a lot of talk on here about quality GM'ing. I know this is sort of a tired question, but as a new GM, what should I be doing to help make the game quality?
This is a bit of a tangent, but fuck it. I'm starting up a Call of Cthuhlu campaign for my friends and I'll be the GM (keeper). I've never actually been a GM before and there has been a lot of talk on here about quality GM'ing. I know this is sort of a tired question, but as a new GM, what should I be doing to help make the game quality?
Use Inspectres to run the game rather than the Cthulhu system. Makes GMing cake. ;^)
Use Inspectres to run the game rather than the Cthulhu system. Makes GMing cake. ;^)
No insanity meter.
Also, I'm going to give some GM advice that nobody else gives.
Just don't worry about GM advice so much, and keep doing it. I sucked, and I knew I sucked at GMing. I still suck, but I suck less. I suck less because I just kept doing it and doing it and getting practice. Practice is going to help you more than anything anyone can tell you.
Also, you need to know the rules of whatever game you are playing really well. Really well.
Just don't worry about GM advice so much, and keep doing it.
Here's my advice, from an experienced GM to a novice GM: it's not an either/or situation. Do both. Listen to advice and run lots of games. And listen to player advice too. Players will tell you what they like in a GM.
Best advice: learn to be flexible. It'll make you a much better GM than being a top-heavy control-freak storyteller.
Try not to fill in too many details. Keep a loose framework and fill it in with player ideas.
In D&D;, I liked to overtly steal ideas from the players. Set up a vague, mysterious circumstance. Players will banter around the table formulating ideas. Good groups will get about 1.5 ideas per player. Pick one of those ideas, put a spin on it, and make it the right answer. Then, spend the rest of the game weeding out "wrong" answers while keeping the "right" answer shrouded in mystery. Hint at it. Take further player ideas from subsequent sessions, spin them, and tack them on to the "right" answer from the first session.
By the time you're done, you'll have created something so epic that the players might not even realize that they're the ones who did it. At that point, I like to tell them that it was all them. This makes you look magnanimous and, more importantly, keeps them coming back for more.
By the time you're done, you'll have created something so epic that the players might not even realize that they're the ones who did it. At that point, I like to tell them that it was all them. This makes you look magnanimous and, more importantly, keeps them coming back for more.
You really don't get it. Scott made some poor points, but you fail to grasp the fundamental argument.
Scott Fails to make a competent argument, so far. Your own argument about unbalanced parties, I already agreed with, so I doubt you're going to try and argue the toss on that point. Do you actually have anything else? Because you're just talking shit now, and this was just getting to be an enjoyable discussion.
Everything you've said in favor of D&D; has been nothing more than saying something in favor of having a good DM.
I love how you conveniently ignore that most of what I'm doing is actually just correcting Scott, and less often, yourself, on your incorrect assertions about D&D;, the most common example being how you both seem to automatically assume that the least interesting thing you could possibly do, that results in the most boredom possible, is exactly what will be done and is done, every time, because The Rules - when this isn't the case.
Of course I'm saying "That's not the case, if you have a good GM" a lot, because apart from your imbalance argument, yours and Scott's arguments tend towards "XYZ thing someone who is a bad DM would do, which isn't in or mandated by the rules, and therefore, D&D; is bad." What, you want me to just go and talk about something else, because it's inconvenient that between the two of you, You've made two arguments, and only one of them was actually of any worth? Try again, Rym.
If you remove all consideration but the mechanics of the rules in the book, D&D; has a clear lacking, noted above.
Interesting way to put it. Your characters level and stay roughly even, despite progressing along different paths. Generally, they will acquire different items, but that's a GM thing. The problem is, you're asking for something that the game is explicitly designed to avoid - the game is designed to reward you for actions, and when you are performing your role as DM competently, then characters ALL have some opportunity to use their skill sets, which means all get rewarded, and all will advance to some degree - because you're working as part of a team. But, it's not impossible, it's just hard to do, because the rules are geared towards parties that are roughly equal in level. Sometimes, individual members will suffer setbacks, and different characters have different strengths - for example, if you push your mage into physical combat, you're an idiot, and don't deserve a reward for getting predictably massacred, because you chose to roll up a squishy, distance-loving character, instead of an in-your-face fighter - and as a GM, if you're not appropriately challenging your characters, then you're doing it wrong - but that's a GM choice, not part of the rules, though let's conveniently ignore that it's the same way in Burning wheel - if your GM is incompetent at designing and creating a world for his players, that challenges them appropriately, he's also doing it wrong, despite it being outside the explicit Mechanics of the rules. If in burning wheel, you enter your Magic-less courtesan into a duel of magic with a wizard, and you get toasted and die, you don't deserve a reward for toasting your character with your poor judgment calls either.
This might shock and stun you, trendsetters, but to achieve a good game with uneven party members in D&D;, you need some skill, experience, and judgment, because Luke Crane isn't going to hold your itty bitty hand and tell you everything's okay because he's better than you. It's not all in the rules, you actually have to use - gasp - Common sense, intelligence, and logic, all without being explicitly told.
Does it have any way to reward individual players mechanically without breaking the game or rendering said rewards meaningless?
Absolutely. Every player is rewarded individually. If one person is in an encounter alone, that XP isn't shared. If the party is in an encounter together, the experience is shared, as the party tends to back each other up, and have an even claim to all dispatched enemies. Players will individually be rewarded with improved items that suit them, though that's a GM decision as to exactly what it is, as the GM is the worldbuilder, arbiter and referee, as well as being one of the Storytellers along with the players - though they tell the story of the world, as they have no character whose story they are telling.
This is a bit of a tangent, but fuck it. I'm starting up a Call of Cthuhlu campaign for my friends and I'll be the GM (keeper). I've never actually been a GM before and there has been a lot of talk on here about quality GM'ing. I know this is sort of a tired question, but as a new GM, what should I be doing to help make the game quality?
Just don't worry about GM advice so much, and keep doing it. I sucked, and I knew I sucked at GMing. I still suck, but I suck less. I suck less because I just kept doing it and doing it and getting practice. Practice is going to help you more than anything anyone can tell you. Also, you need to know the rules of whatever game you are playing really well. Really well.
Also, Be sure to listen to your players - if they're not enjoying the game, or at least, having a good time in general, then that's something that you should try to correct. If they keep wanting to go counter to the plan you had in mind, roll with it if it's good, and use it in the greater story, either by creating a new tangent, or by using it to guide them to your conclusion. If a player is feeling like things are to easy, challenge them. If they think it's too hard, maybe cut a little slack or give them a little attaboy that might help them if they use it right. And, Know when to throw out the rules - It's very rare, but eventually you'll come across a situation where you just need to make some shit up and roll with it.
The people who are meant to be enjoying the game is you and your players. That is the primary goal of the whole thing, no matter the system or setting - if you'll excuse me for reminding you of what you already know.
In D&D;, I liked to overtly steal ideas from the players. Set up a vague, mysterious circumstance. Players will banter around the table formulating ideas. Good groups will get about 1.5 ideas per player. Pick one of those ideas, put a spin on it, and make it the right answer. Then, spend the rest of the game weeding out "wrong" answers while keeping the "right" answer shrouded in mystery. Hint at it. Take further player ideas from subsequent sessions, spin them, and tack them on to the "right" answer from the first session.
A great example of this comes from the Critical Hit Podcast - One of the characters had a mechanical arm - no bonuses, just as a cosmetic touch - and his justification was that he was an explorer and artificer, and came across a lost machine city inhabited by a race of Sentient Machines called the Exilarchy of Cogs. This went from being flavor-text in a description about a cosmetic feature with no effect on the game-play mechanic, to being a large part of the campaign.
Actually, I recommend subscribing to Critical Hit, too. Sure, It's that dreaded Barbarian game, Dungeons and Dragons (Oh my, I'm nearly sick at the thought of the name, I may need to retire to my fainting couch) but it's a pretty good show, and you can pick up a lot about how to be a pretty decent GM from both the example set in the actual game, and by the listener question sessions they start having after a while.
Philosophically I have a problem with D&D 4th edition in that it views the player characters as "Hero's" you are always an exceptional person from the start and you are leagues better then a "non-hero" at start. I enjoy systems that take what should be a "normal" person and lets them achieve great things.. That's my big problem with D&D 4th ed. Minion class monsters are cool having their one hit point but it's kinda lame to think some goblin spent 10 years of his life just to get killed by falling 10 feet. (Has anyone read that goblins comic?)
Philosophically I have a problem with D&D; 4th edition in that it views the player characters as "Hero's" you are always an exceptional person from the start and you are leagues better then a "non-hero" at start.
See, I actually like this aspect of 4e, because that's the direction that D&D; has been heading for a long time.
Basically, D&D; stopped pretending to be The One System and decided to be its own thing. I like that about it.
Honestly, plain ol' Dungeons and Dragons is still one of the best games for that sweeping, epic progression. In Burning Wheel, it's sort of tough to figure out what "level" you're at; I mean, that's kind of the point of the game. One thing that I've always liked about a level-based game is that it gives you an immediate, accessible reading of where you're at right now. "If I can just get to level 5, I can get Fireball." That sort of thing. In Burning Wheel, going from B4 to B5 is sort of "meh" from a system standpoint. The Trait Vote is really the closest thing it has to that epic "FUCK YES NEW LEVEL" feeling.
EDIT: This is part of the reason that I'm jonesing to play Old School Hack. That, and the economy of success.
This is part of the reason that I'm jonesing to play Old School Hack. That, and the economy of success.
Fuckin' yeah, son! I get the itch every time this discussion comes up - I might give a one-shot a run with my occasional gaming group.
EDIT FOR THE ABOVE - Ooooh, or I might run a rocking little Old school DM and Dungeon VS players one shot, light on story and monsters, but heavy on cunning, traps and puzzles. Time for you boys and girls to re-learn a few things, you've gone soft.
Deeds points are not nearly as awesome as you think. They're awesome, but they're not a total game-changer. They're more of a situation tide-turner.
Aristea, similarly, is a temporary thing.
There's something very satisfying about acquiring the new, permanent ability to wreak lots and lots of havoc. Traits are really the best way to accomplish that sort of thing. Deeds and Aristea are fleeting; Traits are permanent facets. Well, semi-permanent, anyhow.
That thread on the Story Games forums just taught me about Perfect 20, a free and lightweight d20 system. It's incredibly lightweight and completely themeless, so you can roll it into just about any setting. You have to tack on lots of stuff if you really want to flesh out the system, but it's a good base with which to mess.
Comments
In D&D;, you would fight and stab the bandits, because that's what you do. Heck, even being a merchant isn't an option in D&D; unless you're also a fighter, cleric, paladin, etc.
In Burning Wheel, I would probably try to cleverly convince the bandits that a particular worthless sword they were stealing was very valuable, so they would take it and flee, or fight amongst themselves over it. I would also look at my other skills, hmm, eleven runescript... Yes! the elven runescript on the sword says it was used in King Foobar's coronoation, +1d and another +1d because that FoRKs nobility-wise. I just got +2d for writing a line of in-character flavor text about a sword. My meta game twinking enhanced the game. That's intentional, that's why the game gives me +d for doing it.
In this case, the Elven Runescript FoRK is kind of munchy. The runes themselves aren't actually helping you, it's the Nobility-wise that's helping you.
Now, if the NPC's were favorably disposed towards Elves, or maybe really liked stuff with elven runescript, then you'd have a valid FoRK.
If the NPC's hate all things Elvish, I'd give you the FoRK and +1 Ob to the roll.
So, yeah, you might fight and stab the bandits. Or you can run the fuck away. Or, if you have a rouge in the party, it might end up being his little brother leading the bandits, or he worked with them in the past. You might notice you're being trailed by bandits, and stop when they're not expecting you to, before trying to intimidate them. You could go stealth, and dodge the bandits. You could Ambush them, or you might have WANTED them to attack you, and have been working undercover with the city guard to capture them, but you don't want to kill them. Or maybe you're also bandits, and you're baiting them so you can beat them down and rob them. Or any number of things, depending on the party. Just because your scenarios lack imagination and you don't like them, doesn't mean that's a problem with D&D;, it's a problem with how you're playing.
After all, The rules don't explicitly explicitly state that if you're attacked by bandits, that you have to fight them or stab them, even a little bit, or that this is necessarily what you do in all situations.
To put it another way which might make sense to you -
Also, I will admit, I made a mistake, here - I had a comprehension fail, and thought the +2 bonus was an extra GM awarded bonus, on the GM's initiative, which was his choice, and not in the rules(I checked) - for some reason, it didn't connect in my head at that moment that the +2 was from the Two +1s you got from the Runescript and Nobility skills.
However, with that failure corrected, your point also falls apart - because by applying the Elven language skill, and the Knowledge(History) - though you could also use other knowledge specialties, such as Knowledge(Nobility) and so on - you get the exact same bonus for essentially the same reason. Considering my handbooks are all stuck in a box of books in storage from when I went overseas, I'm tempted to just torrent a copy of the books I own while I don't have access to my hard copies, so I can check these things and remind myself.
As I noted, D&D; mechanically has no good way to reward one player (as opposed to the group), as any tangible reward (within the system) will inherently unbalance the party. We already know that unbalanced parties don't work, causing underpowered character to disengage.
Everything you've said in favor of D&D; has been nothing more than saying something in favor of having a good DM. If you remove all consideration but the mechanics of the rules in the book, D&D; has a clear lacking, noted above. Does it have any way to reward individual players mechanically without breaking the game or rendering said rewards meaningless?
Of course, I can also adjudicate that roll in a completely different way. Your Intent is to convince the bandits to take the sword and not kill you. Cool. However, your task speaks more to an intent like, "Convince them that the sword is valuable." So, your FoRK's are drifting away from your original intent.
You could turn it into a linked test, and possibly get +1D to convince them not to kill you. However, that's also close to a Duel of Wits, and I might decide to pressure you by saying, "They're not interested in talking. No duel for you. One roll or bust."
This is how the GM handles a powergamer in Burning Wheel. The GM can frame the scene differently to present the challenge in a way that is actually challenging.
In both D&D; and BW, a poor GM will let one player run away with the game. Burning Wheel gives the players rules to control narrative input, and gives the GM tools to limit narrative abuse.
Also, I'm going to give some GM advice that nobody else gives.
Just don't worry about GM advice so much, and keep doing it. I sucked, and I knew I sucked at GMing. I still suck, but I suck less. I suck less because I just kept doing it and doing it and getting practice. Practice is going to help you more than anything anyone can tell you.
Also, you need to know the rules of whatever game you are playing really well. Really well.
Best advice: learn to be flexible. It'll make you a much better GM than being a top-heavy control-freak storyteller.
Try not to fill in too many details. Keep a loose framework and fill it in with player ideas.
In D&D;, I liked to overtly steal ideas from the players. Set up a vague, mysterious circumstance. Players will banter around the table formulating ideas. Good groups will get about 1.5 ideas per player. Pick one of those ideas, put a spin on it, and make it the right answer. Then, spend the rest of the game weeding out "wrong" answers while keeping the "right" answer shrouded in mystery. Hint at it. Take further player ideas from subsequent sessions, spin them, and tack them on to the "right" answer from the first session.
By the time you're done, you'll have created something so epic that the players might not even realize that they're the ones who did it. At that point, I like to tell them that it was all them. This makes you look magnanimous and, more importantly, keeps them coming back for more.
Of course I'm saying "That's not the case, if you have a good GM" a lot, because apart from your imbalance argument, yours and Scott's arguments tend towards "XYZ thing someone who is a bad DM would do, which isn't in or mandated by the rules, and therefore, D&D; is bad."
What, you want me to just go and talk about something else, because it's inconvenient that between the two of you, You've made two arguments, and only one of them was actually of any worth? Try again, Rym. Interesting way to put it. Your characters level and stay roughly even, despite progressing along different paths. Generally, they will acquire different items, but that's a GM thing. The problem is, you're asking for something that the game is explicitly designed to avoid - the game is designed to reward you for actions, and when you are performing your role as DM competently, then characters ALL have some opportunity to use their skill sets, which means all get rewarded, and all will advance to some degree - because you're working as part of a team.
But, it's not impossible, it's just hard to do, because the rules are geared towards parties that are roughly equal in level.
Sometimes, individual members will suffer setbacks, and different characters have different strengths - for example, if you push your mage into physical combat, you're an idiot, and don't deserve a reward for getting predictably massacred, because you chose to roll up a squishy, distance-loving character, instead of an in-your-face fighter - and as a GM, if you're not appropriately challenging your characters, then you're doing it wrong - but that's a GM choice, not part of the rules, though let's conveniently ignore that it's the same way in Burning wheel - if your GM is incompetent at designing and creating a world for his players, that challenges them appropriately, he's also doing it wrong, despite it being outside the explicit Mechanics of the rules. If in burning wheel, you enter your Magic-less courtesan into a duel of magic with a wizard, and you get toasted and die, you don't deserve a reward for toasting your character with your poor judgment calls either.
This might shock and stun you, trendsetters, but to achieve a good game with uneven party members in D&D;, you need some skill, experience, and judgment, because Luke Crane isn't going to hold your itty bitty hand and tell you everything's okay because he's better than you. It's not all in the rules, you actually have to use - gasp - Common sense, intelligence, and logic, all without being explicitly told. Absolutely. Every player is rewarded individually. If one person is in an encounter alone, that XP isn't shared. If the party is in an encounter together, the experience is shared, as the party tends to back each other up, and have an even claim to all dispatched enemies. Players will individually be rewarded with improved items that suit them, though that's a GM decision as to exactly what it is, as the GM is the worldbuilder, arbiter and referee, as well as being one of the Storytellers along with the players - though they tell the story of the world, as they have no character whose story they are telling. Also, Be sure to listen to your players - if they're not enjoying the game, or at least, having a good time in general, then that's something that you should try to correct. If they keep wanting to go counter to the plan you had in mind, roll with it if it's good, and use it in the greater story, either by creating a new tangent, or by using it to guide them to your conclusion. If a player is feeling like things are to easy, challenge them. If they think it's too hard, maybe cut a little slack or give them a little attaboy that might help them if they use it right. And, Know when to throw out the rules - It's very rare, but eventually you'll come across a situation where you just need to make some shit up and roll with it.
The people who are meant to be enjoying the game is you and your players. That is the primary goal of the whole thing, no matter the system or setting - if you'll excuse me for reminding you of what you already know. A great example of this comes from the Critical Hit Podcast - One of the characters had a mechanical arm - no bonuses, just as a cosmetic touch - and his justification was that he was an explorer and artificer, and came across a lost machine city inhabited by a race of Sentient Machines called the Exilarchy of Cogs. This went from being flavor-text in a description about a cosmetic feature with no effect on the game-play mechanic, to being a large part of the campaign.
Actually, I recommend subscribing to Critical Hit, too. Sure, It's that dreaded Barbarian game, Dungeons and Dragons (Oh my, I'm nearly sick at the thought of the name, I may need to retire to my fainting couch) but it's a pretty good show, and you can pick up a lot about how to be a pretty decent GM from both the example set in the actual game, and by the listener question sessions they start having after a while.
My Top 10 Burning Wheel Mistakes
While it's BW-specific, many of the themes discussed carry over into other RPG's. Good read.
Basically, D&D; stopped pretending to be The One System and decided to be its own thing. I like that about it.
Honestly, plain ol' Dungeons and Dragons is still one of the best games for that sweeping, epic progression. In Burning Wheel, it's sort of tough to figure out what "level" you're at; I mean, that's kind of the point of the game. One thing that I've always liked about a level-based game is that it gives you an immediate, accessible reading of where you're at right now. "If I can just get to level 5, I can get Fireball." That sort of thing. In Burning Wheel, going from B4 to B5 is sort of "meh" from a system standpoint. The Trait Vote is really the closest thing it has to that epic "FUCK YES NEW LEVEL" feeling.
EDIT: This is part of the reason that I'm jonesing to play Old School Hack. That, and the economy of success.
EDIT THE SECOND: Relevant to this discussion: Why is d20 a Great System?
EDIT FOR THE ABOVE - Ooooh, or I might run a rocking little Old school DM and Dungeon VS players one shot, light on story and monsters, but heavy on cunning, traps and puzzles. Time for you boys and girls to re-learn a few things, you've gone soft. This seems like an interesting forum, after looking at some other threads. Might lurk there some more.
Aristea, similarly, is a temporary thing.
There's something very satisfying about acquiring the new, permanent ability to wreak lots and lots of havoc. Traits are really the best way to accomplish that sort of thing. Deeds and Aristea are fleeting; Traits are permanent facets. Well, semi-permanent, anyhow.
That thread on the Story Games forums just taught me about Perfect 20, a free and lightweight d20 system. It's incredibly lightweight and completely themeless, so you can roll it into just about any setting. You have to tack on lots of stuff if you really want to flesh out the system, but it's a good base with which to mess.