#glowinthedark
I’m almost done my first custom playbook for my Mad Gamma Max Fallout World hack, “Glow in the Dark”. I’ve got a question though.
I’ve got a playbook that could have a power armor suit (while not necessary to the concept, it’s a staple of the source media), and another playbook that doesn’t make much sense without a car. Would you expect these benefits to take a special ability dot? Be an option in the items list? Be given freely? A combination? Something else?
I’m not sure I have an equivalent to these assets for all the playbooks I have in mind, either, so there is that.
If it’s important, give it to them. Figure out what move it opens up, and balance that way.
I would probably make the car a special ability that is selected as your first choice automatically. If the suit it important but not necessary I’d make it a special ability that they can choose when they want.
If it was me, I would give them the power armor and the car. Strings attached. The West End Games Star Wars d6 let groups start out with a ship, but the ship was mortgaged to a loan shark.
Similarly, if you have a car, you may own it, but it also owns you. You’re responsible for spare parts, fuel, etc. Also, you now have something people will organize themselves to kill you to take for their own. And, the car came from somewhere, so there are likely obligations that come with it.
For power armor, it is a powerful symbol, more a burden than a help in most social situations since people will factor in your incredible wealth or violence capacity when calibrating how they barter with you and what they expect you to do.
It may be worth noting that those characters are signals that the group wants a certain kind of game, and serve as anchor characters for a play style.
I do think you want to avoid a situation like in Robotech where three players make Veritechs that fly, and that one stubborn dude insists on playing a destroid, that walks. So you can’t really keep the group together doing the same sorts of things without complex bend-over-backwards scenario setups session after session.
You may list out a number of campaign styles, from “Wandering the Wastes” to “Protecting the Settlement” to “Guns for Hire” to “Questers” etc. and note that the group should agree on a style before making characters, and focus on characters that can fit what the group expects to be doing, at least to begin.
If it was me, also, I would make power armor and vehicles something that a playbook could do, but by no means the only thing (and in fact maybe even make them general abilities any playbook could pick up) because it is more difficult to require specialized big-ticket gear just to function. However, if you’re going to build playbooks around gear, yeah; give the gear to the playbook characters. Just load it up with expectations. =)
I would look at the Hull. It’s a playbook that works differently from the ‘normal’ ones, and necessarily has a sort of vehicle or suit which is customizable at character creation and beyond.
Personally I shy away from putting possessions down as things purchased with experience. If it blows up, then you’ve cost the character experience points that would be safe if they had been assigned to actions or other abilities.
I don’t want to make player character gear safe, and I don’t want to single out certain playbooks to be vulnerable to losing experience when they lose equipment.
Special abilities to do things with gear, yes. Special abilities to own gear, ouch. Your mileage may vary.
Make powered armor special gear that takes up loadout slots. Hard to imagine powered armor on a “light” load, so it takes up 4 slots (or maybe 6 slots, and it has its own weaponry/armor built in). You balance it against that many slot’s-worth of gear.
The car is just free, with the understanding that it’s circumstantial, like the Hound’s pet.
You might consider a character who’s thing is they have a piece of special gear (suit, car, whatever) and the workshop/skills to maintain it.
Sorta like the savyhead.
Andrew is right that you don’t want the gear to be safe, but if, as you say, the playbook doesn’t make sense without the car, then you’re hosed even if it’s not a special ability.
Lots of things to think over, thank you guys. Where I was before I posted was:
1. I had “Cars” as a crew upgrade, with the intent that it would not only represent having access to a vehicle or vehicles but the space and capability to maintain it. I could see giving out a car without that upgrade, but then you’re on the hook personally to keep it running (using Andrew’s idea). The Driver playbook would also get to add some customizations or features, analogous to the Hull playbook’s frame. I think having a good way to balance out the initial advantage, before the Crew gets access to vehicles, is key here.
2. The power armor I currently had as a special item for 3 load, provides 2 armor, and can’t be worn with “mundane” armor. Then you could choose 1 or 2 benefits and an equal number of flaws.
I’m a long-time Mutants & Masterminds player and am normally okay with easily replaced custom equipment, but given this is a post-apocalyptic thing, it seems odd to have that here, so I think I agree with Andrew that paying XP for stuff that can be stripped from you isn’t cool. However, if it took a downtime action or something, like if you lose your thing, you could start a LTP or acquire an asset to replace it. That begs the question why can’t anyone do that?
And so that leads me to think hey, maybe anyone CAN do that, so it probably shouldn’t be an ability.
Idea soup right now, but it’s better than being out of ideas. Again, thanks!
Yeah, the trick with items bought with XP is that they can be more easily replaced when destroyed (old HERO and M&M players are used to this). A downtime action or LTP to recover it is a fine approach.
But, as you say, why can’t anyone do that? It depends on your genre and style. Maybe anyone can, but the Driver does it more easily or to greater effect. Maybe it’s semi-mystical, even. “That driver, man… it’s like she’s got the knack, you know? I’ve scrounged just as many ruins, but she finds the stash with the fuckin police cruiser…”
If it’s an ability, anyone can take it for a Veteran advance. I think the car problem is sorted on my end. I’m waffling still on putting the power armor access behind an ability vs. making it an item and having an ability that makes you better when you’re in the suit. I think I’m going to go with “item, with linked optional ability” and let playtesting sort it out. 🙂
Adam Schwaninger I think for something as powerful as power armor COULD be it may be worth thinking through a paragraph or so of fictional positioning.
Maybe use factors to seriously reduce the effect of attempts to harm it, instead of giving it a few ablative armor levels.
Maybe sketch out roughly what its strength and mobility are, and attach suggestions for what it can attempt that people can’t, and what factors (quality for sure, maybe scale as well) come into play.
If it is really good armor, that’s one thing. If it is more like Warhammer 40K space marine armor, then your knives and pistols aren’t going to do much, and it will be able to shoulder check an incoming car and give better than it gets.
Good thoughts. Probably it warrants a special section like the Red Sash styles. Something like a +1d to resist small arms and primitive weapons should theoretically help mitigate their damage without making the suit impervious, which, while kind of awesome for the player with the suit, sucks for everyone who isn’t in one. My group calls this the “robot bears problem”.
Adam Schwaninger I don’t know. It sure sucks if combat is the focus of the game and everybody feels like they should have some level of rough parity in a fight. Having a suit that really concentrates effective violence in one player’s hands isn’t as big a problem if they don’t resort to violence to sort out all their issues.
Also, they don’t have the only suit of power armor out there. Or the only mega damage sniper weapon.
If all your problems can be solved by a power armor beat down, you don’t have very interesting problems. =)
Plus, this way it can get injured and need custom repairs, power cells, etc. etc. etc. and the maintenance schedule might dictate some terms of play to the group.
There could also be more than one suit in the group.
I would make “a jury rigged beater” a piece of gear for your driver. So it’s fiction is functional but potentially problematic when the shit hits the fan. Also, if a crew of Smuggler types go to select a vehicle as an upgrade, then it’s still better than the beater their driver already has, or they could do a LTP to fix up the shitbox..
Power armor could be technically gear, but functioning like a cohort mechanically – with a type or specialty, health track, and edges (limited flight, reinforcements, self repair, etc) and flaws (lousy lemon, noisy as hell, etc). So, different armors based on the fiction: one, a reinforced but noisy armor, might carry added special armor plus the health track to soak hits, and another might have uber weapons systems and a condition track, but no special armor. The upgrade of a power armor would function as the Improve Cohort upgrade, removing flaws or adding edges. And again, LTP option for this in play sounds like it should be a lot of fun
Screw it. Both vehicles and power armors could be cohorts. But I think the distinction will be its desired importance in the mechanics as appropriate to the fiction players need. So a crew of mechanic-scroungers might want the LTP to have it be a cohort, and the other crew of savage raiders might it want it to be a simple crew advance where they select Vehicle (it gets a condition track if it’s improved to a cohort). They get out of it what they put in, in other words, although I think the fiction would be assumed for some playbooks (i.e. Smugglers)