Re: [BNW] New game for me

["Malcolm Knight" <malcolm.knight@cableinet.co.uk>]

From: Steve Crow <crow_steve@hotmail.com>

> >     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!"

    Eh? My points got lost admit confusion here, I am saying that almost
all RPGs say that you can make anything you like up, and even if they did
say that you can't make something up, you could just make something up and
the TSR police won't be around ("Your nicked son!"). Therefore, saying that
Brave New World covers information and/or background buy stating that you
can make any x (for example, power packages) up off the top of your own head
is not much of a selling point. No one requires rule books or any purchased
materials to use that solution. If BNW were to offer suggestions for
different styles of campaigns then at least people would be re-assured that
future supplements would be designed to cover varying styles of play. But
this is not strictly the case, since there is a meta-plot, big secret, hide
all from everyone tone to the existing material which suggests to a lot of
people that lots of different types of campaigns will not be supported and a
lot of work will be involved in changing new products.

> >     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.

    But Comics are stories without any interaction, my point being that
whilst in the comics Batman is looked upon as the leader of the JLA and
whilst statistically might not be the most intelligent member of the group
through a combination of experience and force of personality is looked upon
to provide plans, leadership, etc. All PCs, however, are equals, and are
allowed the same amount of input to party decisions, get the same amount of
attention from the Universe, and on average will have the same reason powers
and experience as everyone else in your role-play group. Thus the Superman
character, whilst very boring, is far Superior to the Batman character in
game terms, and the boring background aspect of the character can be
compensated for by interesting role-playing on the part of the player.

> >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...

    As I said, the Batman player and the Superman player are intellectual
equals, if you are going to say that lots of Detective roles are required,
and Superman does not posses these skills (as he does not in Mayfair DC
Heroes), then the GM is effectively giving the Batman player clues as a
result of his Detective roles, which he then passes on to the rest of the
party (including Superman), and becomes not much more than a message reader
from the GM. Superman still gets to do everything better than Batman.

> 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.

    I've heard of them, but that's it. They're not even popular enough for
me to know what their powers are.

> 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.

    Truth? Patriot? "It was the best of times, it was the worst of
times...." I don't care who said it, but I think that a huge first person
monolog/speech/propaganda message is more of a novel than a role-playing
supplement, and thus not as useful (sure you can adapt it, but it takes
work).

> > > (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.

    No, but my point is that lots of different people have said what
impression they got from BNW about the DP police tactics/policy was, and
their was quite a lot of difference between them. Three stoodes comedy it is
then.....

> >    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!

    But I, in the real world, can judge the police presence in the city
which I live in by the amount of patrol cars moving about, and the response
times of the police from how long it takes them to arrive to break up fights
at closing times. Other people in the real world know this too, and
whether they think about it or not they have an idea of these things. In
BNW there is a serious terrorist threat (or is it serious? Maybe, maybe not,
depending upon whose opinion you ask). All rules of thumb like that go out
the window, the situation is too different. At this stage we expect the main
rule book to step in....Oh no, it's a meta-plot book so you going to have to
make that up yourself, but be careful! You don't want to contradict
yourself, kill other interesting possibilities, or have to patch
pre-written stuff up because something in your law enforcement policy then
makes it unfeasible as it stands. Humm... that's some work, maybe you should
just save some time and by some kind of game book on the subject?

> >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.

    Players often don't state their full intentions because they seem
obvious (at least in their own minds). You can't tell them everything that
you know on a subject, they can't explain everything they intend to do, but
the better described a background is the more chance you have of the
majority of the role-playing group reaching the same conclusions.

> 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.

    Exactly, but if the GM and the PCs have read some good, thought out
background they will get the same kind of impression on the major points
(usually) and will not assume incorrectly/discount good ideas because they
don't know what the background is like. Okay, you can spend ages explaining
everything or writing it down, but aren't you paying someone else to do
that?

> 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.

    As I said earlier, you don't know what there plan actually are, since
they probably won't explain them fully.

> 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.

    You don't understand. I don't know whether he has a reputation or not.

> 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.

    As an aside, I hate Babylon 5. Seemed like a waste of a good
opportunity to me.

> 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."

    Really? I'd rather call him Forbeck. "Your of the case Mancuso!" "Yer?
Your off _your_ case chief!"

> 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...
> :)

    Probably.

> 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.

    You guys have too much time on your hands...whilst it's a solution it's
too labour intensive for me. For me, the point of buying pre-written systems
is that they take a lot of the work and do it for you. Otherwise you could
get novels from the local library and convert them into one of existing
rules system you like (and the core system is probably available for free,
or you only need to own one role-play book _ever_, just to get a system). Ta
da, you then have to put in all the time and work listed above, but
everything is to your satisfaction and you don't have to pay anything for
it.
    Now, whilst I think this lot should clear up the points I was trying to
make, it's all a bit irrelevant since I've gathered from the posting to this
mailing list that the problem isn't that I've failed to find the references
in the main book I was looking for. The problem is that they _aren't there_.

    Malcolm.