Re: [BNW] white House Snuffer Fields

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

> > But keep in mind that basically, a PC Gadgeteer is intended to have one
> > Gadget active at a time.  Okay, so he's got an anti-snuff suit.  He 
>wears
>it
> > and...what?  His ability to create an anti-snuff suit is now impeded.  
>Or
>he
> > can loan it out to one of his fellow Defiants (or whatever) and he
> > does...what?
>
>although he can only have one gadget at a time, it can do more than one
>thing. powersuits that shoot-fly and have armour for example. now I imagine
>that this persons gadgetteer pc wants to add and antisnuff feild to his
>powersuit, preventing himself + mates from beinging caught by such
>devices/deltas or inorder to sneak into a gaurded compound.
>

I was under the impression that a PC Gadgeteer having multiple powers was 
(currently, barring the release of the Gadgeteer rules) at the Guide's 
discretion, as long as it is roughly equivalent to the (one) example 
provided.  However, the current criteria (as established in the material 
you've presumably bought to date) establishes that there is no such thing as 
an anti-snuff "field," but that even with all of DP's resources, the best 
they can do is build one suit that protects one person.

> > >AND SINCE I have NO #$)#$(@)ing clue as to how/why the suppression 
>field
> > >works. AND no #)$(#)(ing clue as to the 'source' of delta powers. I am
>left
> > >hanging in the wind, and making a ruling in absence of information from
>the
> > >"META-PLOT" which could torpedo my future use of any product put out.
> >
> > *yawn* And again, so what?  Why do you need to know _how_ Delta powers
>work
> > to figure if you can suppress them.  Run suppression fields whatever 
>works
>
>
>I agree he could just add an anti-supresion field you can make rule.or say
>that nope you cant do it without x y and z... but wait a sec didnt we just
>by a osource book on that exect topic?? why yes I remeber handing over some
>cash for it. I have an idea insterad of spending lots of time making up a
>rule whjy dont we just look up what the author has to say on the 
>matter.....
>hmm mok ... yes....right...... nope look like im going to have to make up a
>new rule about this.. I suppose that inorder to make sure that my new rule
>works and is balenced I should runa few hours of playtesting with a large
>and repersentavive gfroup of roleplayers. *sigh* if only this had been
>prepared for me.. ho hum
>

Ummm, which book did you buy that is the "source book on that exact topic?"  
The Gadgeteer book hasn't been released yet as far as building (and the 
limits on building) power-simulating devices.  If you're talking about the 
Delta him- or herself, Snuffers don't have "fields" of effect, so why would 
an anti-Snuffer?

> > 1) Vampire.  In the first year, there was a mention of werewolves as
> > opponent.  No specific rules were provided for them, and basically the
>brief
> > guidelines for NPCS that were provided...well, sucked
>
>umm yeah? but that game is about playing vampires not werewolves.
>

Exactly!  You've grasped the essence of my analogy.  BNW is about playing 
Deltas, NOT ALPHAS.  So why are folks (not necessarily you, Ewan) 
complaining that the Alpha rules aren't described, or that what they came up 
with may be contradicted down the road??

> > 2) Torg.  In the original sourcebook there was a brief blurb on Orrorsh,
>the
> > Realm of Horror.  Basically, you got some vague background, a couple of
> > Victorian character templates, and some average horror "monsters."  It
>took
> > them a _year_ to get out an actual Orrorsh sourcebook
>
>yeah so? whats your point? did the source book have detailed material in 
>it?
>are you saying that becasue it was late that means that it ok for all
>roleplaying games to release late or vague supplements?
>
>

Yes, the sourcebook had detailed material in it, more extensive rules for 
playing a previously unexplored aspect of the meta-game that was 
deliberately left vague early on.  Just like...BNW and eventually Alphas.  
Or BNW and eventually Gadgets.  Or BNW and "fill-in-the-blank."

I'm also saying the nature of the meta-plot beast _requires_ that you 
release what folks seem to feel are "vague" supplements (although actually 
in this case and with Torg, and with Vampire, we're talking a "vague" basic 
set of rule and more specific supplements later).  That, again, is par for 
the course in a great many RPGs.  Whether it is "ok" is a subjective 
viewpoint, but it hardly seems fair to criticize BNW as if it is the only 
RPG on the planet that has ever taken that approach, or that it is 
impossible to play using this approach.

The approach is similar to that taken by other RPGs, and they have survived 
and prospered.  The implication throughout this thread is not that, 
"I-the-speaker don't like this style of RPG" (a totally valid viewpoint) 
but...that "This style of RPG is basically flawed and unplayable."  It's 
not.

> > Rules, background info, source material, etc., evolve, change, and adapt
>in
> > any RPG.
>
>yes? so? whats that got to do with the price of fish?
>

Folks seem unhappy in many cases that the basic, somewhat vague rules of BNW 
(conerning anti-Snuffers, or Alphas, or Gadgets, or whatever) are going to 
evolve, change and adapt, throwing off people's decisions that they have 
made and resulting in campaign-death.  Or that somehow purchasing the 
supplements that evolve, change and adapt the rules is a waste of money.  Or 
that buying the earlier vague stuff was a waste because of more specific 
stuff later.

> > I think I asked Mr. Davis earlier and never heard his response
> > (although a couple of others weighed in), but how specifically does
> > ignorance of the true "source" of delta powers impact his campaign?
>Again,
> > we've been told what the "problem" is, but not _why_ it is a problem.
>
>it wasnt the source of the delta powers thats the problem, the fact that it
>isnt clearly stated what event causes people to become deltas in this case
>near death experences was an example of the vagune and generaly undetailed
>background. the critisim that I and others are voicing is not that we arnt
>told enough about some wierd metaplot its that there is not a lot of detail
>in the source books
>

Mr. Davis specifically referred to the source of delta powers, although you 
may have not.  As far as origins, we're agreed on that - Matt should have 
been more specific.  Although once again...so what?  So you have origins in 
different ways than Matt eventually "officially" says is the case.  What 
difference does it make?  Again, folks are saying this is a "problem," but 
what specific problem is this causing you (or Mr. Davis, or whoever) in your 
campaign?

>I feel that we have made this point abundantly clear. I dont want to go on
>about it becuase I can see that sooner or later someone is going to say 'if
>you hate it so much then just look on it as a bad buy and dont get any 
>more'

I understand the reasons stated as to why folks might play the game anyway, 
and don't plan on saying that.  It just strikes me that some folks here are 
buying it for the wrong reasons (more below)...

>1: I dont hate it that much, its just a critism of the game 2: the idea
>about discusing things like this on a newsgroup or mailing list is to try
>and work through possible solutions to these problems. not just say well X 
>Y
>and Z did this so it must be ok or Just make something up cant you?
>

Exactly!  So what is the SPECIFIC problem?!?  You want possible solutions 
but don't put up a specific problem.  I've asked this repeatedly and have 
yet to get an answer.  Great, so (going back to Mr. Davis) you have one 
character in your group who had an origin that wasn't based on a near-death 
experience.  What problem is this causing in your campaign?  Why does the 
fact that Matt (may) eventually says "Origins always come from near-death 
experience" possibly harm that character, or your campaign?

What problem are _you_ having as far as suppression and anti-suppression 
fields in your campaign?  You're posting on the issue, so I assume that this 
actually _is_ a problem for you.  But...what is the problem?

No one can present a possible solution until you detail what the specific 
problem is.  Since yours and others criticisms of the game have been 
non-specific and seem to be general bashing of BNW because of the 
(relatively standard) approach it has taken, all I can do is note that, 
indeed, yes, "X, Y, and Z did this (standard approach) so it must be okay."

*shrug* Get more specific, and people will be more specific in response.

>I say let you gadgeeter make a one use anti nulifer field handgrenade type
>device that lasts for a couple of miniutes, enough to break in or escape
>from somthing but not enough to make them permanatly immune to the effects
>of nulifiers
>

Fair enough, although you get into a kinda sticky and not-yet-defined area 
of the fact that hand grenades and one-shot devices don't seem tobe in sync 
with the current Gadgeteer stuff you cited above.  And again, the Gadgeteer 
rules to date are rather vague.  Again, this is typical of RPG meta-plotting 
and we should have a more thorough explanation later.  If we don't...well, 
then that's a problem for then.

But...the above demonstrates one thing that seems to be defeating the point 
of BNW.  As Matt notes (page 171 of the Basic Rules) it ain't about who can 
fly in circles, or rip a car apart with their bare hands.  If the example 
above is indicative, folks are worrying more about powers, and anti-powers, 
and anti-anti-powers, then about the characters and the background and the 
immediate story.  Which was the whole rationale behind the simplified 
power-package approach in the first place!

It's quite frankly the major flaw of a power-design type system - your 
characters are simply walking power packages (more often than not designed 
for maximum point efficiency).  Obviously, many folks prefer this approach, 
but from a role-playing point of view it strikes me as a flaw, or at least 
an obstacle to overcome in the way of better and more expanded role-playing.

>Obvioulsy the main problem with these defvices is if yuou have a snuffer in
>your party. in which case you will want to assume that DP can get its hands
>on similar devices. make them realy expenisve so that its reasonable that a
>DP force wouldnt be issued them unless absolutly nessasary
>
>Ewan
>

Well, in this fact I would suggest that BNW is a bad buy for you...because 
BNW is not a game that emphasizes powers, and anti-powers, and 
anti-anti-powers, and anti-anti-anti-powers, and...well, you get the idea.  
:)  That seems to be an issue for your campaign (I guess, although you 
haven't really gone into specifics...)

And again, you don't seem to be talking about _specific problems_.  You say 
above, "IF you have a snuffer in your party..."  If you do, okay, it's a 
specific problem - tell us what it is and someone here will try to help.  If 
we're just talking hypotheticals and may-bes and coulda-wouldas here, it 
seems like a waste of band-width to me...your mileage may vary.  Nobody can 
address every possible situation that will come out of your hypotheticals or 
even knows exactly what you have in mind.  Again, specific problem on your 
part = specific answer from someone else.

---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

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

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com