[Torg] Trimming player decision-making

[Benjamin Grant]

We employ this as well, although we do not forbid the use of the tactics
listed (Vital Blow, et al.)

-Benn Grant

>-----Original Message-----
>From: torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com [mailto:torg-
>bounces at justintimeadventures.com] On Behalf Of Morgan Nash
>Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:56 AM
>To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
>Subject: Re: [Torg] Trimming player decision-making
>
>My solution to that sort of thing (in any game, not just Torg) has
>usually been to replace rules with "referee creativity". It might not
>work where you don't know the players well or where they need the
>rules as something of a controlling influence but I would tend to dump
>combat options like vital blow and just mentally modify the result
>based upon what the player wants to achieve.
>
>eg: "I'm emptying the clip into the gospogs" or "I'll try and
>kidney-punch him". Don't go through the number-crunching of working
>out full auto + this + that, etc. Just make the dice roll, spend the
>possibilities, play the cards and trust the ref to take your
>description into account.
>
>It's fast and loose, certainly, but it's usually worked for me.
>Dice-rolling, possibility spending and card playing are fun - opening
>a book and running through all possible combat options to find that
>extra +1 that guarantees success is a bit dull (IMO).
>
>Morgan
>
>
>On Dec 17, 2007 2:57 PM, Phil Dack <philipdack at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Another quick post, as I'm procrastinating.
>>
>> My group managed to let combat grind to a halt with their
>> contemplation of various tactical options. Its good to hand the
>> players some tactical control, but when every round you're
>> asking them to decide on what action to take (and the use of
>> interaction skills in combat, plus Approved Actions being
>> rewarded with a new card complicates this decision), how to take
>> it (multiple actions?), what options to take (vital blow etc.),
>> to play cards or not (and if so, which cards). Then the question
>> of spending a possibility once the roll has happened - it's a
>> lot of points each of which could potentially slow things down.
>>
>> I was contemplating removing ALL combat options. No more
>> autofire, no more vital blow. Nothing.
>>
>> Instead, I was thinking of upping card play. It only cuts out
>> one stage admittedly and may simply replace one level of
>> contemplation for another of course. But instead of combat
>> options, players can play one card from their hand each combat
>> round. Trouble is, this changes rather a lot. It messes things
>> up at a metagame level, because only PCs have cards. Do NPCs
>> still use the old maneuvers? Or do they gain surrogate cards? It
>> may also upset, if slightly, the balance of cardpools making
>> them less potent in general.
>>
>> Any other thoughts on how this decision-making process can be
>> trimmed. And in particular, I *am* quite keen on getting rid of
>> the combat maneuvers which add a level of 'realism' that I don't
>> necessarily need for a cinematic game. Now there's a thought -
>> allowing them in some realities, but not others! Nile Empire
>> pulp judges on the results, Core Earth is more interested in the
>> process. Oh dear. That could get very messy.... :)
>>
>> Phil
>_______________________________________________
>Torg mailing list
>Torg at justintimeadventures.com
>http://www.justintimeadventures.com/mailman/listinfo/torg