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

[MKirk2112@aol.com]

I won't put all the snips in because there are too many and if you aren't 
following this thread you won't care anyway.

I don't know Steve, the way I read it, it doesn't say anything about a 
Translator's powers being "self-focused."  Indeed the description may use a 
pronoun such as "any language he comes in contact with" but that is necessary 
for description.

There are other power packages that seem to be obviously "self-focused" that 
have tricks that are not.  The best example is the Phaser package which has 
the "phase friend" and "phase foe" tricks.  The hero's power description 
specifically says "he can become insubstantial."  It says nothing about other 
people becoming insubstantial, and yet there are two tricks that affect 
others.  And, he is likely to be using "phase foe" to phase someone who 
doesn't want to be phased ... that "invasiveness" is not in the general power 
description either, but it fits with the "spirit" of the power.  The 
Teleporter is another good example of this.  It doesn't say in either of 
these descriptions that these characters can only phase or teleport 
themselves, nor does it say that they cannot teleport or phase someone who is 
unwilling.  It says they teleport and phase ... those are their powers ... 
and tricks that go along with the theme of the power are fair game, even if 
it is against the will of another.

Now if you want a scientific, or even plausible, explanation for how any of 
these powers work, I can't give it to you.  I don't even think we should do 
that.  The game loses is "fantastic" nature if that is done, I think.  I 
would also not maintain that the Babble trick that I described works off some 
sort of telepathy ... it doesn't because that is not the package's power 
"theme."  It works by manipulating language, just like the Phaser's "phase 
foe" trick works off manipulating tangibility, regardless of "where" the 
tangibility is.  How these powers work, I have no idea.  But in a game sense, 
the analogy between these 3 packages fits in my opinion.

What I do when I read the power packages is I think about the powers in an 
abstract sense.  What does the package "do?"  But, this is just my way of 
doing it, not necessarily the right way.  I just think that if you interprete 
the Translator package as only being self-focused, you limit the 
applicability of the package in general (you are absolutely right, there is 
very little that a PC Translator could do in an adventure that would be fun 
for the player), and it limits the applicability of the Translator package in 
comparison to other packages (see Phaser and Teleporter above).  But, this is 
just my opinion.

As far as taking the Translator in a new direction, I still don't think the 
Babble trick does this.  If an individual Goliath character's powers were 
controllable rather than "always on" why not allow them to develop a trick 
that lets them make others grow?  The same goes for the Defender.  Why not 
allow the Defender to create a force field that others can throw?  The 
Defender creates the force field ... that's what their power does.  How they 
use it after that is very much open to interpretation and I don't see why 
this would be a problem?  It certainly is tangible (it stops bullets) and as 
long as the Defender hero is conscious and is spending a little time 
concentrating, why couldn't another person throw it, if it is ruled (as it 
was in the trick example I was mentioning) that the Defender herself could 
throw it?  Would I allow a "sphere" trick for the Defender that allowed her 
to create a sphere of force around a target (or themselves)?  Sure!  I 
already have!  The armor value is less (because the sphere is so much larger 
than the "typical" force shield created by the original power and therefore 
likely thinner), and it requires a roll against a resisting target, but why 
not?

I also don't see the Babble trick as two tricks for one.  The Bargainer has a 
spell called "Babylon" that does more or less the same thing as my "Babble" 
trick does for the Translator.  I don't think it is getting two for one when 
a trick functions the same as a spell ... if anything I think they are about 
equal.

This is all obviously open for interpretation, and I'm with you, I realize 
that there are some folks on here who are way tired of this thread, but I 
hope some people get something out of our discussion.

Guide Matt