[BNW] re: Death of a Campaign (and Defiance Sourcebook)

["Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

Well, picked up my copy tonight.  I'll review it when I've read the whole 
thing, but Matt's comments under "A Complaint Answer" on page 126 fall into 
the current discussion.

Matt notes:  "The biggest complaint so far has been from experienced 
roleplayers who don't like the way powers are handled in the game.  They 
find the power packages too limiting for their tastes."

Matt doesn't really provide much further explanation on this, but goes on to 
comment about other superhero games taking a long time and a calculator.  So 
I guess this is the problem he sees.

I can't speak for the other complaints Matt may have received, but my 
players' complaints are _not_ of this nature.  Their problem is not that the 
power packages are too limited (this is part of the BNW setting and a 
given), but that they limit the players' ability to make a Delta's power to 
their _taste_.

Matt then goes on to make an odd statement:  "Power packages also fit the 
world background better than any homemade hero ever could.  (Steve's note:  
says who?)  Left to their own, many people might never have come up with 
packages like those for the Bargainers or the Covenant, but they're both 
integral parts of the setting."

Well, first of all, if Matt wants those packages in, nothing prevents him 
from doing so. Even Champions has "group packages".  You merely take the 
system you use, build such a package, and say, "A member of such-n-such a 
group takes that package, and can't alter it."  This strikes me as very odd.

The other problem I have with this, other than the assumption that players 
can't read and understand the background better than Matt (which makes sense 
up to a point, but to a certain degree each group defines the background 
themselves anyway from the basic rules - many folks on here have noted their 
own changes, and Matt kinda tells you to do that anyway), is that the system 
is such that players can never come up with cool packages of their own, 
built to their "taste."  Well, they can, but said guidelines are pretty 
vague (see below).

Matt then once again says to go out and use another game to build your 
heroes if you wish!  In other words, ignore all those pages of rules you 
paid $30.00 for and just use the background stuff, which could have been 
published in a trade paperback for half the cost (at most).

To quote Bill Maher:  "Does anyone else have a problem with this?" :)

He does tell folks to "Just keep in mind all of those guidelines on coming 
up with your own packages as described in Brave New World."  Ummm, I 
double-checked.  For "all those guidelines" check out page 172 (not even in 
its entirety) and see exactly how many guidelines there are...

Heh.  In other words, don't build a package more powerful than Sneak.  :)

As I noted earlier, I have no problem with the idea of leaving the Guide 
with the "final word on what gets into her game.  Do your best to come up 
with a good fit, and you'll do fine."  But this is an attitude that, by the 
mere publication and use of power packages, tends to get steamrollered over. 
  Like I noted earlier, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but a Guide can best use 
his judgement if the framework is well-defined in the first place.

One over-powered package can really screw over a campaign.  And BNW is like 
most games one where this may not become immediately evident.

****

So after several posts of such rants, most folks are probably thinking, "So 
what does Steve think would be better?"

Well, for one thing, the die are already cast.  Matt's got the system he 
wants, some folks like it, some folks don't, there's very little that can be 
done right now.  The game doesn't seem to be setting the world on fire out 
here in the boondocks of Iowa, but your mileage may vary.

But if I had suggestions, and thought they might be acted upon, this is what 
I would suggest.

I would toss in some kind of optional system down the road.  It should 
probably be point-based, but it should be _simple_.  Rather than a Power 
Package, each "package" should have a certain # of points, and some options 
within those points.  One gets the impression this is how the 
revised/improved Gadget Rules will work anyway.

In other words, you take the Blaster package.  Instead of being told, "This 
is the way it is," you break it down.  You have 30 points to spend.  Maybe 5 
points buy a d6.  3 points buy a +1.  4 point buy a 5" worth of Range 
Increment."

Avoid multipliers and dividers, avoid "power disadvantages" and "power 
advantages," avoid all that crap.

Instead of Goliath, make a "Strongman" package, and have stuff like Size +s 
and stuff built in.  Provide a few Strongman-only Quirks that you can use to 
offset costs, being simple extra-point providers.  (Again, no multipliers or 
dividers need apply :) ).

And so on, and so on.  I think somebody already did this.  From what I 
recall, when I first signed on here, someone posted some optional Power 
Suit-building rules.  They needn't be any more complicated than that.

Crossroads may be the logical point to do this (and indeed, something like 
this or something else entirely may be what Matt has in mind - who knows?).

Such a system would take a bit more work and playtesting to design and 
fine-tune, but it doesn't have to be _complicated_ or allow min/maxing.

---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

Check out my website at:  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4991/

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com