[Burning Empires] one on one

[dsellars]

Hello,

I some how missed all the news about Burning Empires even when a friend of mine kept on talking about it.  I think I was thinking "hmm, yeah Sci-fi not really my cup of tea...." :)  So yesterday I found myself having a look for it online after he said he had ordered it...

Wow!  It looks a cool game.  Not sure what it is about it, but somthing is really getting me interested.  So basically my question is how well does it play with just one player and the GM?  Any special considerations to take into account?

The situatiuon is that my friend and I have both moved away from the usual circle we gamed with, coincidentally to the same city (he manages to get back for some already running games that I'm not really involved with but it is a far old trek).   

Any thoughts would be cool,
Dan.

[Mayuran]

Hi Dan-

The game is meant to be played with 3-6 players, including the GM. Certain mechanics, such as the ability for players to help each other, are integral to overcoming the obstacles that the GM and the Infection mechanics present.

I recommend that you and your friend try and get a group together in your new town, and make sure you like them are friends with them (this is important for the game). Findplay might be a good place to start, depending on where you live.

Burning Wheel, on the other hand, can be played pretty successfully one-on-one.

peace,

Mayuran

[Oddball]

Hi Dan, Mayuran,

(I am the other one who has moved to the same city as Dan)

I have not yet recieved my copy of BE but I have been looking at the PDF I bought with it.  I do see the problems with playing out a campaign as intended, however from what I have gathered so far I think we could get quite a lot of mileage from the game with just 2.  We could play with the world burning and the character generation, then set up a few scenes and play them through.  Maybe it would not play out as intended but I still think it would be fun running through the diferent types of conflicts and scenes.  Maybe in play we would find a way of making it a satisfactory campaign, probably by one of us taking up a more conventional GM role.

The suggstion that we play BW instead is a good one and we should consider that.  However I am suffering from the 'This new game looks so cool' synrome, and I also have a propensity or Science Fiction so I would like to give this a go as well.

Turning the question slightly on its head (and maybe this should be a seperate thread if it's not a daft idea), how do people think this would work as a Team vs. Team game?  Though the game clearly caters for treachery and backstabbing, might it work with (say) two teams of three taking on the two sides of the conflict from the outset with the GM in a moderating role?  I was reflecting that this might be an interestingway to play by email.

Cheers,

Oddball (aka Chris)

[Thor Olavsrud]

Hey guys,

I agree with Mayuran on this one. I'm not saying don't give it a shot, but the game is really built to support a group of 3 to 5 players (not including the GM). If you do give it a shot, make sure to let us know how it goes. None of us have attempted a one on one game with BE.

Chris, the same applies to team on team. I can see the potential for such game play, but we've never tried it and I don't know what the hitches would be. I'm interested in the idea though.

[Luke]

I was thinking about this.

Starting artha would need to be adjusted for the GM. Starting artha as it stands assumes three to four characters.

[dsellars]

Hello,

Thanks everyone for replying.

Chris wanted me to post and let you know that once he gets back from his honeymoon we have decided to try and rustle up for more players and play straight BE to start with.

Then maybe explore some other alternatives. :)

@abzu is this comment aimed at playing one on one or at the group vs group idea that Chris mentioned? I'm guessing at one on one.

Cheers,
Dan.

 

[eruditus]

Couldn't you fix it by having the one player play two characters?