Re: [BNW] The Nature of Tricks (was Glory Days Questions)

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

>I'm going to start with this disclaimer ... this is an opinion response 
>based
>on the large number of other responses about the Translator package, so 
>read
>at your own risk or boredom if you don't give two hoots about this 
>discussion
>line on the listserve.
>

Ditto...

>I'm a little surprised to hear you say that you think the power packages in
>BNW are not very loose in their definitions.  I think compared to other

I thought I said the _Tricks_ were not very loose in relation to the powers 
they tie to.  I didn't really speak to the Power Packages one way or 
another.  Some are, some aren't.

[snippage of comments about TK being "loose", which was never an issue as 
far as I was concerned...]

>>In my opinion, the Translator package appears to be centered around
>languages, specifically "speaking, writing, and understanding" them.

Well, any Trick, and any rule, and any RPG, is based on the opinion of the 
GM and players.  :) In this case, however, I would have to agree, but note 
also that the effect is "centered" on the user, and only the user.  If he 
wishes to scramble his own speech centers, I don't see a problem with that.  
However, nothing in the existing power or tricks indicates he can have an 
"invasive" effect and scramble a language with a single trick.

Even the non-official Trick I proposed is more a matter of sharing what the 
Translator has, rather then forcing it on another individual.

However, as always any Trick is subject to the opinion and ruling of the 
Guide for that campaign.  If another Guide feels that invasive use of 
Translator is okay, that's their choice to make.

>Typically one thinks of Tricks designed to facilitate this process, e.g.
>speaking, writing, and understanding languages better.  But why must the
>Translator go only in that direction.  Why not allow the Translator to
>inhibit that process, e.g. speaking, writing, and understanding languages

If you're asking my opinion...?  :)  Because Tricks don't take Powers in a 
different direction.  They augment or enhance what is already there, or 
redirect it slightly.  Such a Trick to me would be akin to, say, a Goliath 
developing a Trick to force someone else to grow.  (Unless he had a comrade 
with AP rounds and was a poor shot, why he'd want to use this is anyone's 
guess, but that's how it goes...  :) ).

>worse?  It's still just dealing with languages, which is what their power 
>is

No, their power is letting _them_ deal with languages.  Even the proposed 
Share Translation is merely a (at best) minor extension on that.  The 
Translator "deals" with the language, then shares that knowledge with 
someone else(s).

>supposed to allow them to do.  It's not at all a stretch from the other
>Tricks already given for the package.  The Codebreaker Trick allows the
>Translator to sift through an unknown code and make sense of it.  Why not
>turn it around and develop a trick that allows the Translator to start with 
>a
>language or "code" that she knows quite well, and then jumble it up instead
>of making it more understandable?  In my opinion, these two activities are
>expressions of the same power (dealing with the speaking, writing, and
>understanding of language); it's just that they have a different goal.

It migth be doable, but would involve two things.  A) The knowledge is still 
self-contained, and B) the Translator is essentially creating a "new" 
language from scratch.  Nothing wrong with the latter, IMO, but again I'm 
not seeing how the invasive transfer of it to another person is in sync with 
other Tricks in the game.

>Translators "do" languages ... I think it is that simple, and any variation
>on comprehension and communication with language is fair game to them and

Again IMO, I would agree that _them_ performing any variation on _their_ 
comprehension and communication with language is fair game.  Music, 
mathematics, whatever.  I don't believe giving the Translator some kind of 
telepathic/invasive effect on someone else is in accord with the previous 
established versatility of Tricks.  It actually sounds like more of a 
Commmunicator effect, or a power package ("Scrambler") in and of itself.  At 
least, for a Delta-class power package like Translator in the BNW setting.  
I'd give it as an Alpha-class power in a second.  :)

>within their delta power; just like Defender controls her force field and 
>any
>variation on that is fair game.   I disagree that my trick ("Babble")

But would a reasonable Trick be for a Defender to "loan" her power to 
someone else without them voluntarily choosing to accept it, in a way such 
as to be harmful to them?  Or a Goliath (see above)?

>"changes the power" of the Translator; it just describes the flip side of 
>the
>typical way the power is used.  She is still dealing with languages, she's
>just now dealing with mixing them up rather than making them more
>understandable.  I never said the Translator is altering the target's

And if she wishes to scramble her own understanding of language (to protect 
against Communicators, maybe, as a kind of Mind Blank?), that works for me.  
But the Trick proposed does _two_ things:  it creates a new, scrambled 
language, AND it imposes that on someone else against their will. That's one 
thing more then a single trick Trick seemingly does.

Now, if you wanted TWO Tricks that accomplished that single effect (a 
"Create New/Scrambled Language" and the Share Translation trick I created), 
I'd probably allow it.

But basically to me, IMO, Tricks are one-effect expansions on an existing 
power.  Seems to me that you're trying to get two Tricks for one.  Take it 
as two Tricks, and if you were in my campaign I'd probably okay it.  Fair 
enough?

>As far as handling the necessity to have an NPC say something to the
>Translator and have the Translator translate it to the other PCs, I don't 
>do
>this.  I treat it the same way as I do in a dungeon crawl in a D&D or other
>fantasy adventure.  If you are close enough to the character with the
>lantern, you can see what's going on.  If not, then you can't.  If the
>Translater is around, then everyone can understand each other and there is 
>no
>reason to painstakingly role-play this translation process out.  Similarly, 
>I

I agree with this, but do it anyway whether a Translator is present or not.  
Most GMs I have seen do so as well, although yours and other's mileage here 
may vary.  There's nothing wrong with using the language barrier as an 
_occasional_ challenge.

>don't make the character without the lantern say "hold the lantern a little
>to the left so I can see."  It's understood that in due time all characters
>who are around the individual with the lantern will be able to see.  It is
>indeed identical to the Star Trek example you provided about the universal
>translator ... the Translator character functions in my game the exact same
>way.  In the play of the game, we all speak English at the table even 
>though
>the characters may not be speaking English, and we all speak to each other
>rather than go through another person.  It is assumed that the Translator 
>is
>the cause of this without having to go step by step through it.  But, if 
>the
>Translator is not around, then they must resort to nonverbal communication,

As you like.  But at that point the Transatlor becomes a lantern, not a PC.  
Who wants a PC whose primary function is a Babel Fish?  :)

Now, if you've got someone who wants to do this, more power to you.  I can 
only state that in a great deal of campaigns I've played in and run, no 
player I've seen has worried about languages to that degree.  They prefer 
the translation to be an invisible mechanism (just as you note), and they 
themselves don't want to be the person who has to deal with it.

Also, I have found for what it's worth, and the players I've worked with 
over the decades, that while limiting players to nonverbal communication is 
certainly useful as an occasional challenge, it should not be an "entire 
night of gaming" _continual_ thing.  What do you do if your group doesn't 
_have_ a Translator in the first place?  What if the Translator is 
incapacitated in the first few minutes of a session?

>The Translator has a real "game effect" but it is not one that has to be
>acted out in every detail.  So no, I don't make all the other characters
>transfer all of their conversations through the Translator PC because yes, 
>it
>would get quite tedious to do so.  But because I don't do that AND because
>this ease of communication wouldn't be possible without the Translator hero
>there, it is very obvious how valuable the  Translater character is to the
>group and to the adventure.  Just like the other delta powers, having the
>Translator around allows the characters to do things that they wouldn't
>normally be able to do without her.
>

But here's my point:  without a Translator around, nobody could do the thing 
normally.  Having a Translator PC just emphasizes an invisible mechanism and 
requires you to explain how folks function without one.  Well, either 
explain it, or make the world less "realistic" from a PC standpoint.

Anybody out there who can answer, go ahead, to the following question:  When 
running "foreign"-type campaigns where language is an issue for everyone in 
the group, how do you handle it?  Do you require them to:

1) go through every session involved in non-verbal communication and all the 
awkwardness and slow-down of game play that requires?

2) Give them a guide NPC who does all the translating for them? Or

3) Just assume they have a basic understanding of the language and can 
communicate and interact with all the NPCs you crafted for them?

Again, all my personal experience _only_ but I have found 3 to be the best 
solution, AND the one desired by every player I have ever interacted with.

2 is okay, but basically this makes the Translator a NPC-class character 
much of the time.

1 has never been a desired outcome by anyone I've everplayed with.  On the 
short-term, sure.  But for an entire night's gaming session, possibly 
spanning several nights...the feedback I've always been given on this is 
"Forget it."

>Just my 2-cents,
>

Much appreciated.  Thanks!  Hopefully all sides of this discussion are 
useful to someone, somewhere.  I don't mean to argue that nobody should 
never run a Translator.  If you've got a player that wants to be a 
linguistic guru, or a campaign where you want to make language an ongoing 
issue as opposed to an occasional challenge, go for it!  I've just never 
seen a player that wanted to be such a linguistic guru, or anyone who wanted 
to deal with the "mechanics" of translation.  Others' mileage, of course, 
may vary.  Since it apparently does, more power to you!  :)

>Guide Matt


---

Steve Crow

"Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority."

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.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.