Re: [BNW] New game for me

["Malcolm Knight" <malcolm.knight@cableinet.co.uk>]

From: Steve Crow <crow_steve@hotmail.com>

> >Ahhh, the old "the rules say you can make up anything you want" line. We
> >don't need an expensive rule book to tell us that. But look at it from
the
>
> That is, of course, not all that the rulebook tells you, even pursuant to
> the "rules."  It is also not what they say at all.  They never say you can
> make up _anything_ you want to.

    Maybe not explicely, but I wasn't quoting anyway. The point is that you
can make anything up you want and no one can do anything about it. Saying
that the rules allow you to make up something under any situation isn't very
helpful.

> Superpower-wise, the rulebook gives you some examples of powers at the
> _specific_ power level (Deltas) indicated, rather than a point-based
design
> system.  I'm certainly not going to argue that they're "balanced" (and
> indeed, I've argued that they aren't on several occasions ;) ).
>
> On the other hand, define "balance."  Are Batman and Superman "balanced"?

    No, but Batman is an interesting character, and Superman is not. That
may not be relevant to this but I thought I'd say it anyway. What is
relevant is if you ran a role-play game with one player as Superman and one
character as Batman , the Batman player would be overshadowed by the
Superman character to the point where the actions of Batman are totally
irrelevent to the game. Superman can do almost anything. Short of Kryptonite
being pulled out of someones, erm, rectum, or magic being involved any
situtaion that arrises that can be dealt with by Batman can be dealt with
faster and more effectively by Superman. So unless Krytonite or magic is
used repeatedly in adventures (which will upset the Superman player because
he knows he'll always be reduced to a dying mortal during any important
scenes, making him mostly irrelevant) Batman doesn't get to do anything.
Except take Selina Kyle on a date ("If only I could tell Bruce the truth
about Catwoman..._swoon_").
    Admittedly that's an extreme example but I've seen games ruined by a
clever player (and I know quite a few of them) making a character which is
so powerful or so flexable that it blots out all the other characters, and
whether it truly is "better" or "can do the adventure on it's own" or not it
often psychs the other players out so much that they become quite
dis-heartened.
    You might comment that there is no such thing as party "roles", as you
had back in AD & D, and we certainly did when I started playing it ( I
actually thought the rules were good, with hind sight they suck, but I still
enjoy the game anyway). We'll I'd disagree, people are still happiest when
their character can do something which the others cannot. Have you ever seen
a comic where everyone in a super-hero group has the same powers? Probably
not, that would be boring.

> >But one will be better than the other, and the balance of power will be
> >shifted. Unless they are vastly different in style, and they probably
won't
> >be since they're meant to be the same thing, the players will gravitate
to
> >the more powerful of the two and squeeze out the weaker to be relegated
to
> >a
> >NPC only character type.
>
> Why will one be "better" than the other?  And even if that is the
case...so
> what?  So you don't get full value out of those 2-1/2 pages you paid for
the
> Phaser section of the Defiant sourcebook (although the suggestion above is
> to use them as NPCs, so you are getting some value).

    Because you've bought a book which is 2-1/2 pages of template (which you
can't use) and 100 pages of Patriot saying "It was the best of times, it was
the worst of time's...." The idea behind a role-playing game is that it's a
game, not a novel you could make a game out of if you're willing to invest
the time and effort. And don't tell me Patriot doesn't give any monolges in
Defiants, it's an example of situations in sourcebooks rather than a direct
quote.

> >     And if you keep the weaker and disallow the stronger, then the
players
> >will complain that "you had it wrong/you had it right the first time",
the
> >more powerful one was more in style with the came and that was the worst
> >call ever...blah be blah be blah. Alternately, the BNW supplements that
> >mention these
> >new character types can give you a template for them when they start
> >throwing them around and everyone will be happy from the start.
>
> Do you really have players that do this, or are we talking hypotheticals
> here?

    He he he, I didn't volenteer to run BNW, but I know lots of players like
this (and I've run games for them as well). People hate to lose, though
there are "no winners or losers in a role-playing game" so it would be
better to say people hate personal failures. Unfortuantly I tend to run
things as "what goes wrong..." rather than "Your plan was perfect [Editors
note: it was actually extremely flawed], you are an unbrideled success." In
my opinion no plan is perfect, experts make mistakes and one shot is all it
takes...
    Ha, I've just remember something from one of the Rifts games I ran,

Player [Demo Expert] - "Okay, We've set up camp and want to create a mined
perimeter"
GM - "Which kind? MDC or SDC?" (Note: MDC is 100 times more powerful than
SDC)
Player [Demo Expert] - "MDC obviously."
GM - "That will cause the trees around your campsite to colapse when
detonated."
Player [Officer] - "Okay men, use SDC only."
Player [Demo Expert to Officer]- "No, SDC is useless, we need MDC."
Player [Officer] - "Okay, set MDC."

    And the Demo Expert had the audicity to complain that the trees buried
the APC they were sleeping in when some poor sap set off a mine. They were
bloody lucky when they set them up that the PsiBattalion Officer pointed out
they wanted to set the mines (which had 100 meter radi) in a circle with _a
hundered meter radius_. The player's opinion was that as a demo expert there
was no way he could make a mistake like that, and my oppinion was I'd warned
them (after all they're not really people living in Rifts Earth, it's easy
to forget what MDC is mean't to do) so they got what was coming to them. The
situation wasn't realy serious, their APC was invinerable to the trees and
they could quickly uncover it with their power armour. It was the fact that
they'd made a mistake that really annoyed them, and I seem to recall it was
something to do with a difference in interpritation of what MDC mines do as
well.

> I'm certainly not going to say there are no such players of that kind.
> However, if they're the kind who argue with you over these kinds of
things,
> I suspect you have more problems with them than simply a Guide-created
> template not "balancing" against a supplement-created one...  ;)

    But 'Players like that' (note I've started to use qoute marks now!) have
valid points concerning a lot of situations like the one above. From my
point of view that was completely obvious what was going to happen, but one
of the players was a veteren of a lot more Rifts games than myself and
thought the mines would work differently (even though I'd said what they'd
do). In fairness the rules treat mines as any other grenade type device,
which is mostly because the Rifts system is terrible, but it lead to a
situation where a plan was set up using assumptions which seemed obvious to
some people and obviously the opposite to others.

> And like I said above, if players are really pulling this kind of stuff on
> you, you've got bigger problems, I suspect...

    Maybe...

> >     You keep on coming back to infinite template types, only limited by
your
> >imagination, etc, etc. Whilst this is all true the point is you can get
> >good
> >systems for free that allow you to make your own infinite variety
> >super-heroes/street-avengers/normal people stuck in film-noir. Your
paying
> >for stuff like the templates, so when you don't get very many your not
> >getting very much for your money.
>
> But the templates make up a very small part of what you're paying for.
> Which...is kinda Matt's point.  Heck, he says to use those point-based
> systems, and that you're paying mostly for background (see the Author's
> Notes section of the Defiant Sourcebook).

    Ah, this must be where I got the points based system thing from...(see
below)

> (Ummm, just as a note, "film-noir" is not particularly relevant to the BNW
> universe as I understand the term.  Femme fatales, dark rainy streets...)

    But it could be. I mean't that as a generalization, since they are
examples of genras for roleplaying games, but BNW could be film-noir, what
written contradicts it?

> > > Nor is there a convenient (or not so convenient) point system with
which to
> > > design them.
> >
> >     Whilst a point system is always useful for constructing
> >templates/vehicles/gears/whatever you always have to remember that they
> >don't quite work properly. You always seem to be able to make something
> >which is interesting, but very weak for the points used, and something
> >probably quite boring but incredibly hard for the same points. Thus you
> >always have to alter the cost based on your experience and judgement
rather
> >than blindly following the rules.
>
> I'm sorry is the paragraph above yours?  If so...I would agree entirely.
> Most point systems are flawed or yield "unbalanced" results in some manner
> or another (and never midning that "balance" is purely subjective anyway).
> So...ummm, why should Matt Forbeck have bothered including another
> inevitably doomed-to-be-flawed point system?

    I thought someone mentioned there will be points system in some
upcomming suppliment. Oh well. All I meant was if there is a points system
it can't (through no fault of it's own) be the prefect answer you might
think it would be.

< This bit is moved to here because I think it's relevant to the next bit >

> The problem here is that you're letting the players determine
> that Matt Forbeck is an absolute authority and that you-the-Guide are not
> when it comes to building power packages.  There are certainly some
writers
> and creators who have this attitude, but it strikes me as something Matt
> takes great pains not to do.

    The problem is more like different people get different impressions,
make conclusion based on those impressions, they get their cunning plans
screwed up not because the goal posts have been moved by the GM, but because
the goal posts where never there in the first place. But surely the
character should have known the truth on such an obvious matter? The problem
is both the GM and the players can't explain their reasoning on everything,
so your bound to come up with situations like, players want to skip town,
and drive to edge of Creseant City hidden in the back of a van to discover
that there are DP check points. "Eh? The book gave no indication of this,
America's almost the same!" cry the players, "Are you sure?" says the GM
"All the background implied to me that the States ran like this under the
Marshal Law." "No fair" say the players "Now we're busted because of
something our characters should have known but we could easy not have."

> What a strange comment.  Ummm, if folks aren't happy with the BNW books,
> then at least they should be familiar with the single person who is
writing
> them and is taking the full and sole responsibility for their contents.
>
> Matt is, of course, Matt Forbeck.  If you look not-so-carefully at the
cover
> of the main book folks kept citing, you'll see "by Matt Forbeck" at the
> bottom.  Granted, he's not as famous as Mark over at Storyteller, but
still
> it's pretty hard to read the BNW books and yet somehow miss his name.
>
> *shrug* I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.  Granted, he's not
> the most famous guy in the market, but if you have truly no clue who he is
> and you're reading his books and are subscribed to this mailing list, I
can
> only assume you're equally unfamiliar with a lot of the other contents of
> the BNW books.

    I personnaly could not care less who wrote BNW or any other role-play
game, having someone's name on the cover is totally irrelevent to me
(although his reputation might mean something to people who can remember who
wrote what). Since I don't have a copy of BNW or any of it's suppliments in
my possession at the moment I can't look at who the listed author is.
    So in answer to your last question, it wasn't sarcastic, but it was a
joke (which I'll explain in a moment), he could be the most famous
roleplaying author in the world and I probably wouldn't know it, and I've
only read the main book. But then, that should be enought, shouldn't it? I
subscribed to this mailing list because I hoped there would be some good
ideas/direction to missed material posted.
    The joke is, why do lots of people on this list talk about "Matt" as if
it's "Matt m' old mate, 'was discussing his latest book down the 'Vic last
night. Lovely bloke, had twelve pints with him." Surely it matters not who
writes it or what their intention was, but the impression which is conveyed
in the material itself. Also, whether he take sole responsibility for the
work or not, he can never be in total control of the impressions given.
People are already saying "The artwork implies" because there isn't any
detail on a particular subject. He probably thought the picture looked good,
and didn't think or care whether it gave the wrong impression about the
ratio of Powered Armour to DP Agents. If you followed logic like that I'd be
forced to conclude that Vampires like to kiss fish (Vampire: Dark Ages,
p.206, what _is_ he doing?). There must also be editors, play-testers, proof
readers and additional material written by other people, otherwise the game
would take an age to produce and would be hopelessly flawed (I believe that
most good novels do take a year or so to write, but if you did that with
role-play games I doubt you'd be in business).
    The point of that rant is I don't think saying things which sound
awfully like "Matt moves in mysterious ways", "He has a plan", "All will be
revealed" really cut the mustard when your trying to run a game without
having to write your own BNW supplement to allow the players the feeling
that they know what the laws (political/social/legal) of the society they
are playing in are. I mean the laws which would be _obvious_ (tanks on
streets, tanks not on the streets? Who knows?).

    Malcolm.