Re: [BNW] New game for me

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

>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.
>

How is that different than any other RPG?  I haven't had WotC stop by my 
house (yet... ;) ) and say, "Sorry, the book says you can't do that so we're 
going to do something about it!"

> > 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

I would disagree.  Batman isn't overshadowed in JLA (the best place to 
compare him and Superman).  That's because of the writers (or the GM, if 
we're talking RPGs).  If you build an adventure where deductive abilities 
and intimidation and tactical thinking are not relevant, then of course 
Batman would be overshadowed.  If you do, then IMO Superman would be 
overshadowed.

>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_").

Well, to think in DC Universe terms, merely set the deductive and 
intimidation and interrogation-required levels high enough that Superman 
(assuming he has any such skills) can't do them and Batman can.  This 
shouldn't be hard.  Granted, it's tricky to do, but it's by no means 
impossible...

>     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.

Agreed to some degree, but as my experience in GMing has increased 
since...oh, about '79 or so, I've found that happening less and less in my 
campaigns.

>     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.
>

Metal Men and Challengers of the Unknown (more or less) seems to be popular 
on and off, if we're talking those kinds of superhero groups.  But they 
don't have the staying power apparently, no.

> > 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

Well, the "value" of Patriot's speech is another matter entirely.  However, 
we reading the same book?  I've only got 7 pages of Patriot's speech in 
Defiants sourcebook (the same book as the Phaser, which we were talking 
about).  Ravaged Planet has about 40 out of 160, but much of what he says is 
useful background info (like what the non-jackboot Delta Primers do), not 
just speechifying.

And I still don't agree that the Phaser pages are useless just because I've 
created a "better" version.  If my version is "better," then it's probably 
over-balanced (and by no means "better").  I don't think I would necessarily 
just change "my" power back to the book version, but if I thought it 
necessary, I would start to tweak it down a bit. Powers, skills, whatever in 
a meta-plot setting are by they're very nature somewhat fluid, and it's also 
consistent with the genre that superpowers occasionally "fluctuate."

>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.
>

He does give a monologue in the back section of Defiants.  Other than that, 
though I don't understand your distinction. Now if you wanted to complain 
about _Truth_ making monologues...  there's one long-winded SOB (or 
whatever) that I think we've heard more than enough of a viewpoint from for 
now.

[snippage on complaining players]

> > 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

Honestly, that is very much a reflection on the caliber of the player.  And 
players of that caliber...if they're not complaining about one thing, 
they're complaining about another.  You can't win.

[various snippage of Rifts, etc.]

> > (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?
>

Stylistically with what is considered film-noir...quite a bit.  I suppose it 
could be.  It could be Three Stooges-style comedy, too  But just because 
nothing contradicts that doesn't mean what is presented easily fits into a 
particular genre.

[snippage of paragraph about point building systems being flawed]

> > 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.
>

I mentioned at one point that there probably _should_ be.  A Gadget system 
will almost certainly require it.  Personally, I think some kind of simple 
point system should be built, per power, to allow some redesign and 
alteration.  However, those statements in no way reflect anything "official" 
or should be construed as an official statement.

I don't think a Champions style point-system would be the answer for 
"fixing" BNW, no.

> > 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

Well, I noted it in an earlier post, but quite clearly characters in the BNW 
do _not_ know what some might think of as "obvious."  The assault by the 
Defiance or parties therein to rescue Patriot otherwise makes no sense!

"Ummm, doesn't New Alcatraz have some kind of power nullification field?  
And aren't we going into it to rescue Patriot?  And don't we know the exact 
specs for how far it extends?  And isn't it just possible they might boost 
it...?"

"Nah, never mind.  Charge!"

Alternately the problem you mention comes up in any RPG except those who go 
into the most excrutiating detail.  I haven't really seen games like that in 
over a decade, although they used to be at one time quite popular to a 
certain percentage.

>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."
>

That to me is a flaw on the Guide's part.  You're the storyteller.  If 
they're heading into something that could get them into trouble, and it's 
part of your story, then you should (and actually _have_ to) tell them the 
elements their characters would know.

In this case, the second the players said their plan was to hide out in a 
van to sneak out, I would note to them that they should take into account 
checkpoints.  Why?  Because I WROTE THE STORY and I know checkpoints are 
coming up.

Honestly, I would tell them (or remind them of) that even if the books were 
100% crystal clear that there _were_ checkpoints.  Because players do not 
have access to all character knowledge at every given moment.

This is, IMO, standard operating procedure for _any_ RPG.  They can have 
every sourcebook on the planet, but they're not going to know and actively 
remember stuff that their characters would know as second-nature.

As a Guide, you tell them the key points that their characters would know of 
your campaign setting, relevant to the point at the story they're in.  You 
don't bombard them with useless information ("Well, it's 16 blocks to the 
first checkpoint, 205' feet to the next.")  But you certainly acquaint, and 
keep reacquainting them, with the basic tenets of your campaign setting 
relevant to their immediate plans and the requirements of the story you and 
them are telling.

> > 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.
> >
>     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.

I'm not talking about his reputation or saying that you should accept what 
he writes because of his reputation and for no other reason.

>     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.

But he is in _near_ total control.  It's the same way that when folks talk 
about J. Michael Straczynski and B5 they often associate him and his 
thoughts and what he is trying to convey directly with what is on-screen.  
That's the price (and the benefit) you gain from being near-sole author.

Since Matt does occasionally read this list, it seems more courteous to 
refer to him as "Matt" then "Forbeck" and is a bit more casual (and requires 
less typing) than "Mr. Forbeck."

>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).

I think the credits of BNW dispute your assertion in this particular 
instance.  But then again, that might be why you think BNW has problems...  
:)

>     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?).
>

Agreed.  What the players ultimately know is what you the Guide convey to 
them in your campaign.  Only that.  Not what they read.

Do exactly what you as Guide would do if _none_ of them had read the book.  
In that case, the only impression that has to be conveyed is your own, from 
them to you.  If players have read the material and are making assumptions, 
well...that's their problem.  It's a bitch, sure, but it's the same problem 
with any RPG.  No background setting is interpreted "exactly" as written by 
a GM to his players.  And players always make such false assumptions.

Sounds to me like some folks as Guides are doing is _depending_ on the 
players to read the book, rather than do their own job and make sure the 
players understand the Guide-interpreted background and make sure that in 
specific instances the players understand what relevant information their 
_characters_ know.

>     Malcolm.


---

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