Re: [BNW] Brave New World in the bargain bin

[Theron Bretz <tbretz@mciworld.com>]

>The point here, which I'm not sure I agree with, is that you seem to
>consider power packages (and the rigidity therein) as "character creation."


I don't, in and of itself.  It's an easily quantified piece of the rules,
and frankly the only thing that sets it apart from a generic system for
creating a manon the street. Further, in the genre of superpowered
individuals, powers are the single most important distinction from other
character creation systems.

>But frankly, Defiants really told me very little about designing power
>packages.  IMO, you don't need it to design your onw power packages.
>
>Plus...designing power packages is very much a matter of personal balance
>anyway for one's individual campaign.  IMO, I wouldn't use the Bomber
>package in any campaign I run.
>
>My advice is if you're buying the Defiance SB for "character creation
>rules"...don't.  ;)


Which goes back to what opened this whole can o'worms in the first place,
the question of what provides the best "bang for buck".  And I agree with
you on Bombers.

>Either, IMO, I disagree with your definition of new power packages as
>"character creation rules," or you're comparing apples to oranges as far as
>DC Universe/Aberrant/whatever to BNW.


FWIW, I'm not the one who initially brought up comparisons to other rules
systems (that would be Daedelus), but once those apples and oranges were
already out of the bag, I felt it was fair game to examine the relative
"bang for buck" provided by the other systems.

>>In short, I can handle having the meta-plot spoon fed to me supplement by
>>supplement, but I don't like having it done with the rules.
>>
>
>Well, I guess that answers my earlier post about whether you like
>meta-plotting or not.  ;)


Let me try again on this.  With a meta-plot driven game, I as a GM can
either use it or discard it.  Fair enough, it's my game, I paid for it.
But, when I feel that I am not given sufficient tools in the core rule book
(or in this case books) to do the job, I can't help but feel a bit cynical
as new rules (power packages, tricks) creep into future supplements, rules
that are often useful, but also have to be retrofitted into my campaign
(sometimes with a crowbar).  The worst example of this, IMHO, are the
descriptions (sometimes vague, sometimes fairly specific) of Deltas (not
Alphas) who simply can't be created under the current rules (f'rex the water
projector from Patriot's memoirs).  Yes, I can simply make up a water
projector.  And maybe Matt will get around to publishing one some day.  And
then I get to make the decision whether to use my version or his.  But I
probably won't be able to make that decision without purchasing a $20
sourcebook first, because I'm an honest soul who doesn't believe in reading
books I haven't paid for.

With a merged setting/system, the problem becomes one of why should I
continue to spend money/effort running a game that no longer resembles the
original source material.  It becomes a bit like using a pair of pliers to
do a hammer's job.  Sure it can be done, but why not just use the better
tool for the job?  If I were a game publisher, I'd be terrified of the
phrase "if you don't like it, don't use it", because that rapidly becomes
"if you don't like it, don't buy our future products".

If that doesn't clarify things, well then we'll just have to agree to
disagree.

Theron
Houston