Re: [BNW] I'm so confused

[The White Crow <whytcrow@io.com>]

>Now, I can accept the notion that some packages are just plain better
>than others, though all have some usefulness in any given situation.

Yes, and that's reminds me of something else I'd wanted to say.  Trying to 
make all powers equal when creating new ones will drive you nuts.  THere 
are going to be variations.  There are some that it is great to know are 
there if you need them, but really would't be good PCs in most campaigns 
(or even for a few, *all* campaigns).  SOme of them I outright don't like 
the way they are done, and thus, they don't exist in my world or are 
radically different.

>Someone commented earlier that the +5 Gunners get makes a real
>difference. But is it that different from what someone with an
>equivalent level of skill can do? Granted Gunners get Tricks, but is the
>+5 bonus really enough to let them stand up against other Deltas?

True, the +5 isn't much compared to Bob's 5 skill....but the Gunner's +5 to 
initiative, then her +5 bonus to shooting, then her 5 (or more, later on) 
skill, well she's adding around 10 to her roll.

I have found that the powers that are the hardest to convey the feel of 
powers are the ones that just add to the roll.  Sure, they succeed most of 
the time -- they'll probably *never* fail completely (unless they botch), 
but yeah, whatever.  No one can fly or shoot beams from their hands or 
shapeshift or walk through walls *just* by taking enough skill in it.  The 
GUnner and the SNeak etc have a skills arms race -- while they have a 
headstart on it, anyone can catch up to them in the numbers.

That's something I know I need to work on -- and have no easy ideas 
for.  You need to be very careful with the description, making it very 
clear that *this* is due to a super power and *that* is due to luck/high 
skill ("Man, she shoots like a GUnner!")

Of course, in BNW there really may be no difference.  It is just these 
people are naturals, prodigys....with no training they can easily succeed 
and they kick butt when they do have training.  However, I know at least 
one of my players was irritated by the fact that his Sneak was just better 
in the numbers -- I was lax on description that lent the aura of mystery 
(of course, the argument was that he could have provided it, but I'm the GM 
so the final responsibility lies with me).

>Total aside here, but why do the werecreature packages have a major
>vulnerability to silver? They don't gain any armor or damage reduction
>ability. Is an extra point or two of size really so good it needs to be
>offset by a vulnerability this nasty?

The were packages were one I didn't like, so I can't answer this.  None of 
these exist in this form in my game.

>The question is, is the Covenant package an aberration or can there be
>similar delta packages? For example, I could easily see a martial artist
>package, also lifted almost straight out of Deadlands, with a bunch of
>chi powers. Or a mentalist package with a bunch of low-level mental
>powers (say Hell on Earth brainburners only less powerful). Or a more
>"pure" mage with a selection of spells to chose from? Are these
>"legitimate" packages within the design philosophy of the game?

Well, I have my own take on the Covenant that's radically different from 
canon (same with Bargainers and Gadgeteers), so what I say might not help.

But I think that there is a lot more range between Covenant and Bargainers, 
and in my game world, while the PC may be convinced they know the source of 
their powers, they are going on faith and interpertation, not the word of a 
higher power.  So there might be Covenant powered folks who have a 
compeltely different view of where their abilities come from (heck, the 
difference even between a Baptist and a Catholic and a Jehovah's Witness, 
all Christian denominations...not to mention Jewish or Muslim or Buddist 
believers.  Think of the cool cults built around a miracle worker...)

I take it completely out of the realm of "I know what's going on" and put 
it in "Well, I have these powers and these voices speak to me, and 
well....I don't know for sure."

And I would feel free to make up my own variations on historical magical or 
completely made up magical power packages.

>And I realize its my game and I can do what I want. What I want,
>however, is to avoid unbalancing a system I'm not terribly familiar with
>as yet. I've got ideas for some new packages I'd like to use in my game,
>but like to keep things fairly equitable. For example, the whole skill
>bonus as power idea still seems a bit weak. And then you've got vampires
>who are supposedly just another type of delta, but with a variety of
>powers far beyond what anyone other than an alpha (supposedly)
>possesses.

Well, I don't think the vampires are supposed to be PCs....

It can be hard to not overbalance things.  The one thing to tell your 
players is that you will modify things in play if you've screwed them 
up.  I had two examples of problems in the home made packages.  The Archer 
required way too much in the way of dice rolling, and was slowing things 
down.  THe Absorber wasn't powerful enough and seemed lame compared to 
everyone else.  I think I've fixed both problems, but it was tweaking 
required during the game.

The skill bonuses don't seem like a lot until you see them in 
practice.  When most things require an Easy result for completion (hitting 
someone you shoot at, as long as modifiers aren't coming into play), and 
you have someone who has not only a +5 bonus but also their 5 skill, then 
they will automatically (not withstanding botch) get not only a success but 
also an *extra* success, and with the right Tricks, that's nasty.  Not to 
mentino that any halfway decent roll on their probably decent Attribute 
dice, and they'll get yet another success.

>How broad can or should a package be? Would weather control be too much?
>We have a ratmaster, so individual animal control is okay but someone
>who can control all animals would be too much?

I'd say weather control would be too much at the level of Storm ala Xmen, 
but perhaps being able to do one aspect of it (make high winds, make it 
rain in a small area) wouldn't be.  I'd stay away from the things that 
other people can already do, like lightning bolts, but other than that, you 
can go wild.  (I suppose in essence, you break it down into bits.  Rather 
than "weather control" you have each aspect a seperate power).

>Most powers are very set in their effects, they're either on or they're
>not, with the exception of shrinkers. What about growth? Density
>increase?

Growth seems to be taken up by the Goliaths -- if you want to make a Grower 
(ala the Shrinker), you could, but you'd have to make sure it didn't 
eliminate the need for the Goliath (unless you wanted to).  Figure out what 
you want to do with Denisty Increase and do that -- you could have them 
roll a certain type of roll (Spirit, Strength) and then each success 
increases their density by 1.  Treat them as if they were one size bigger, 
and have one point of armor.

Hmm...I like that.  I think that's going on the web site in some form.

>How would you distinguish between a delta who can turn his skin to stone
>and one who can become steel? It would seem the latter should be better
>in pretty much every way (more Strength and armor), but that seems to
>undercut the philosophy of the game. Or does it? (I'm so confused) :)

You could treat it as special effects and have the mechanic be the 
same.  Or you could give each one a certain type of benefit or flaw (stone 
isn't as strong as steel, but it doesn't conduct electricity and heat quite 
so nicely either).

Jennifer

--
The White Crow
Author of The Deryni Roleplaying Game
Coming in November 2001 from Grey Ghost Press
My RPG pages:  http://www.io.com/~whytcrow/