[Torg] Possibilities: Better Results Now VS Character Advancement

[winstoninabox]

>> But remember that these rule changes were suggested because
>> in Torg spending PPs from the pool in game reduces later
>> character advancement.
>> These changes are attempts to take away the indecision of
>> spend now vs. advancement later.
>
> Yes, and reiterating that does not negate the objections presented. The
> "indecision" results from a player having to make a difficult choice, and
> some of us want that difficult choice to be there. You can want differently,
> but your stating so does not mean that Sam is not also correct in his
> assessment of how best to meet his own desires.

My disagreement with Sam's statements from a few days ago have nothing to do with your above sentences.

Sam said:
It is very much a situtational rule you are discussing. I don't think there is a cut and dry way of laying a rule down like you are discussing that wouldn't lead to encouragment of poor character descisions.

I disagreed with that statement.

If you want to claim that some GMs and players enjoy spending PP knowing that later advancement will be hindered, then I'm going to agree with you.
It sounds like some do. It sounds like your one of them. Please continue to do so if you want to.
Benn didn't want to.

>> Excellent play can be rewarded in the Adventure awards with a role-playing
> bonus of PPs. It need not be part of the Act awards.
>
> So do you propose giving each player who loses the act awards by playing
> wisely and not spending Possibilities as a result the same award, at the end
> of the adventure, as he would have gotten from act awards? And also allowing
> him the same opportunities to earn additional Possibilities through other
> good play as those who regularly save their own butts with Possibilities, of
> course. If not, you're still taking away a bonus that such a player would
> otherwise have earnt.

Nothing is lost or taken away.
These awards only affect players, and only the GM hands them out.
The GM is free to compensate or penalize the awards as he or she sees fit.
Changing these rules alters very little else in the game.

If the GM is concerned about players losing advancement when they've spent PPs "well" then the GM could make a note of every PP the player spent that the GM felt was spent "well", and reward that PP back later in the Act or Adventure awards.

But Jasyn's proposal (I'm happy to forget mine) requires no additional booking by the GM, solves the problem (for those who think there is one) and so I feel it is a superior method.

> Really, a quick look at the maths is all that it takes to see that you still
> propose reducing the awards for smart play that removes the necessity of
> Possibility expenditure. You say 2-3 Possibilities per act (only if that
> much is spent) and 8-11 per adventure. In a one-act adventure (or a two-act
> adventure, if you don't give out an act award for the final act), if all of
> your end-of-adventure 3-Possibility bonus is given just to make up for the 3
> Possibilities that a character can earn through expenditure, the smart
> player gets his award back. Add even one more act, and he falls behind what
> he would otherwise be getting.

And if we sold as many records as the Rolling Stones we'd be as rich as they are.
It's pointless to compare the proposed rule changes vs the official rules vs the game where the GM handed out 75 PPs as an Adventure award.
No player will never "fall behind what he would otherwise be getting", because there is not otherwise.
Player advancement only matters vs other players in the same group.
And the GM controls all such advancement.
In an overly simplified form - Good players should be able to advance faster than bad players.
Jasyn's rule changes ensure that.

> So sure, you can reward excellent play in the adventure awards, but you
> haven't proposed a scheme that does so in a fashion that makes up for what
> the good players might lose. Me, I prefer to allow the system to do its
> thing and automatically reward players for smart use of cards, good strategy
> and such, and just concentrate on manually rewarding the other aspects of
> good play through bonuses, and conversely assessing penalties when such may
> be required (which happens more rarely, in my experience).

Then please continue to do so.

winstoninabox
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/