[Torg] Trimming player decision-making

[Kansas Jim]

Phil writes:

> 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.

It can slow things down, but I think the important question is if
everyone is still having fun with it. Some players like the 'game'
aspect of having all those various options to choose from, others
don't.

> I was contemplating removing ALL combat options. No more
> autofire, no more vital blow. Nothing.

I've seen a couple of RPGs that take an approach like that. Instead of
saying what you're doing in detail and then rolling to see if you
accomplished it, you say very basically what you're doing and roll and
then the details come entirely out of the result.

For example, instead of saying "I'm running up to point blank range
and firing full auto at his head for a vital blow" and then seeing
if that's indeed what you do you'd say "I'm shooting him" and then
if the result was good enough the GM would tell you something like
"okay, you unload your clip into his head from a few feet away and it
explodes like a ripe melon." In some games the player is the one who
interprets the result so in a game like that after you shoot the
guy the GM would say "okay, you do enough damage to kill him" and
then the player would say "I unloaded my clip into his head...".

> 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

I'm not sure I follow. Instead of doing a vital blow and getting
an -8/+4 I'd play one card from my hand? If I was doing a point-
blank-full-auto-vital-blow I'd play three cards from my hand?

> 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.... :)

I've considered modifying the Law of Action to allow for 'less
realistic' action stunts and scenes to become more commonplace in
the Nile but have never really settled on an approach.

-- 
Kansas Jim, Torg guru (ksjim (at) sdc (dot) org)
Torg website: http://www.sdc.org/~ksjim/index.html