Re: [BNW] white House Snuffer Fields

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

>OK----
>
>My PROBLEM with no power source (and it has absolutely nothing to do with
>MAKING new packages or Alpha level powers)
>
>
>It is abundantly obvious ALL the powers have a common source. What that
>source is we have no clue. The source of the powers can have a major impact
>on the playing of the power. On the choice of mechanics for the power. On
>the house rules for dealing with wonky things that players throw at you.
>

It's not clear yet.  But moving along...

On the example coming up:  Is this a hypothetical, or is this situation 
actually coming up in your campaign?  Are you running a campaign?

I think I've made my opinion on hypotheticals and their relative usefulness 
clear before (more below).  But assuming you actually have players doing 
this (although your use of "Player A" makes that unlikely - don't your folks 
have real hero names? Is that like Citizen X?  I guess I'd think of a 
superhero named "Player A" being more of a Charmer than a Gadgeteer :) ), 
and moving right along...

>Player A is a gageteer. He flies his Delta designed and maintained power
>armor into New Alcatraz. Does it fail? Is his 'delta' power armor being

Well, first of all, this is a good example of why hypotheticals are useless, 
or at the very least cause you to miss the forest for the trees.  The 
important question to ask here is:  Do you _want_ your player breaking into 
New Alcatraz?

If you do, and it's important to your storyline, then whether his armor is 
normally nullified or not, give the poor guy a chance to temporarily "tweak" 
it to a different frequency.  Obviously the Defiance (and Deltas in general) 
aren't absolutely sure of the limits of a power-nullification field (or they 
wouldn't have tried to rescue Patriot in the first place!).  Your player is 
if she has any smarts going to take the precaution of "tweaking" anyway.

The Defiance assault to rescue Patriot failed due to dramatic reasons, not 
due to game mechanical reasons.  Do you think Matt (or any good Guide) would 
really say, "Well, gee, I guess I created or read about a mechanic somewhere 
that would make this dramatic scene that you wanted to succeed at fail - 
guess I'd better pitch it entirely or just kill you off!"?  On the other 
hand, if he wanted it to succeed (or you as Guide want your hypothetical 
Gadgeteer to at least get past the perimeter), wouldn't you give him some 
way to do it?  Heck wouldn't you do this even if the PCs didn't have a 
single Gadgeteer in the group?

So, if this is really a problem in your campaign (and apparently it isn't), 
if a player asked me, "Will my armor shut down when I go into New Alcatraz?" 
my answer would be, "Based on everything you've heard, which is by no means 
definite, assume it does - do you want to try to do something to bypass 
it?", let them go at it with a Tinkering roll, and take it from there.  Next 
time, and depending on the dramatic circumstances, their final result may be 
different. (Heck, I might even fudge the Tinkering roll and just assume they 
succeed.)

As a "rules" issue, this has already been answered.  See page 49 of Ravaged 
Planet (and Matt's subsequent clarification in the listserv rulings).  I 
used to have the clarification at my website, but deleted it when Allen 
picked it up for the accumulated rulings.

Alternately, if it's that great a concern for you...why not just ask Matt?  
I'm not the biggest fan of answers-via-internet (and yes, Matt was somewhat 
sloppy in that regard - he notes as much in the accumulated rulings), but if 
he emphasizes a dramatic approach over a nuts-n-bolts approach that you seem 
to want, then this seems a valid approach, and not necessarily one he is to 
blame for because he opted for drama and storyline and you want 
nuts-n-bolts.

>'constantly' supported by delta power which fades away. Hence needing
>maintenance. Or is it just wonky tech that needs constant 'tweaking' to 
>keep
>it running? Either answer is a MAJOR divergence. Delta powered, well the
>progression down that way is clear. Traditional scientist simply couldn't
>EVER make it work, or learn anything from it if they got a hold of it. It
>can be suppressed by standard equipment. Oh, yeah it took me about

Ummm, a delta-supression field is not "standard equipment."  It's something 
built by a Gadgeteer.

>10
>seconds to figure that if this is how it works... then why not design a
>device that can syphon the necessary delta energy off whoever is wearing 
>it,
>regardless of maintenance? However, if it is just science so far out there
>that it needs constant adjustment by the designer. Well, why can't he
>maintain more than 1 a day? It's not like there aren't 23 more hours left.
>And what about reverse engineering more basic items from the edged tech. 
>And
>the thing about the cutting edge is that it is always slicing forward.
>Leaving things in it's wake. When does "delta" tech slip into common
>science?
>

These are all details that, while ultimately may be useful (and certainly 
are to you), are not things that necessarily needed to be or even _should_ 
be answered in a basic rulebook.  And indeed, most RPGs don't when it comes 
to similar questions and down-the-road consistency, whether it be werewolves 
being mentioned in Vampire, or Orrorsh monsters in Torg, or Hexes in 
Deadlands.  You want, basically, a completely book devoted to all the 
ins-and-outs of Gadgeteering.  It actually seems to me that even if you 
"knew" the true mystery of Delta powers, half your questions (such as 
maintenance and how many items can be maintained) wouldn't be answered 
anyway.

Going back to that...it also sounds like you may not be happy with the 
"official" answers no matter what.  Just IMO and all, but if Matt says a 
Gadgeteer can only maintain one item a day, from the above it doesn't sound 
like you'll agree with him no matter _how_ "official" his rationale is, or 
what the answer to the Delta Powers/source mystery is.  You'll only accept 
his answer if it matches with your worldview of BNW.  And there isn't any 
mind-reading power in BNW for Matt to use to publish to your specifications, 
even if he wanted to...

>If you can't see WHY it is important to maintain at least an approximate
>line with the published materials in order to partake of the commercial
>product.....

*ding ding ding* And there's my point.  So far, Matt has remained (to put it 
charitably ;) ) somewhat vague.  Characters in your campaign (well, 
hypothetical characters in your hypothetical campaign, apparently) are not 
well-springs of all-knowledge.  Heck, the Delta Warriors or whatever they 
were who tried to rescue Patriot didn't have a clue as to the full extent of 
the government's suppression-field.

Because Matt is vague, you CAN'T GO WRONG!

A suppression field may not work exactly the same last week as it did the 
week before.  It's...well, vague.  It's portrayed as vague and inconsistent. 
  Gadgeteer science is (currently) unpredictable.  And anything you do, 
within this vague and inconsistent (but consistent within the 
published-to-date vague and inconsistent materials) will ultimately work out 
for you.

If Matt pins it down later in the Gadgeteer SB...great, then you can pin it 
down then, and note that folks understanding of gadget-science has improved 
(and you don't have to have everyone's improve at the same time and 
immediately anyway).  Or you can keep it vague and inconsistent and remain 
consistent with earlier published material.

You know what the total amount of space devoted in the basic rules book is 
to Gadgeteers and Bargainers?  9 pages (tops) out of 224 - 4%,  That's about 
$1.20 in actual value.  Don't know about you, but most RPGs that I buy these 
days, I feel I'm getting gypped out of a whole lot more money than that.  :)

And of course, the other question is, if you foresee such problems for 
Gadgeteers and suppression fields and just can't wait for the Techie Book, 
why the heck are you allowing them in your campaign?  Both myself and a few 
other who commented here noted they had the good sense simply not to use 
Gadgeteers in their campaigns until at least the Gadgeteer book came out.  
Just say no.

It reminds me of something Eric Wujcik said back in an Amberzine column.  A 
GM asked, "Well, what happens if a character fights a NPC with the exact 
same stats?" (Amber is diceless, has four stats, and basically, the highest 
stat relevant to mode of fighting wins).

Eric's response in essence was:  "You're the GM, why are you deliberately 
creating for yourself a situation that you can't answer?!?"

Sounds like that's what you're doing here, which is why hypotheticals are so 
misleading.  First you're allowing Gadgeteer PCs, even though you admit that 
within the official constraints you don't understand them.  Second, you're 
probably putting "Player A" in a circumstance where they feel they have to 
fly into a suppression field (and you admit that again, officially, you 
don't understand how that works either.)  And third, you're assuming that 
New Alcatraz is _only_ reliant on power-suppression fields for defenses, and 
you're insisting that that is the only defense you will use.

And if all else fails, and you absolutely for some reason HAVE to include 
stuff that wasn't necessary and hasn't been fully explained in the first 10 
months of publication and you self-admittedly don't understand or find 
consistent, you tell your players, "Sorry, but the earlier stuff was vague.  
I did the best I could with what there was, but now they've cleared things 
up  - the game is now improved so let's move along, role-play, and enjoy my 
stories."

I and many others have done this in the past with games such as Torg, and 
Vampire, and Deadlands (as apparently you yourself have to some degree with 
the latter).  Unless your Guide is horrendously anal-retentive, or your 
players are complete bastards, this should be sufficient.  Play along with 
me, and assume (hypothetically) that that criteria doesn't apply.  Does that 
answer your (apparently) hypothetical question sufficiently?

This kind of adaptation at its essence is Meta-Plot RPG 101.  There's no 
"pearl harboring" here.  Matt sold you the same thing you and/or many others 
have accepted, adapted, and worked with before from other companies.  He's 
trying to keep some aspects of the story a mystery, yes.  However, if you 
can't run 23 out of the 26 powers (and Snuffer becomes pretty clear once you 
drop Gadgeteer and Bargainer in the short-term) without having to have this 
perfect understanding of the "mystery" aspect of Delta Powers, I think 
you've got more serious problems than understanding the "true nature" of 
Delta powers.

---

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