[Torg] Trimming player decision-making

[Phil Dack]

--- Kansas Jim <ksjim at sdc.org> wrote:
> Some players like the 'game' aspect of having all 
> those various options to choose from, others
> don't.

I guess this is the rub. My group - or some of them - enjoy
having gamist options to chose from, making combat a tactical
metagame. Those players wouldn't be happy with a more narrative
approach of describing their action and letting the GM interpret
the game mechanics. So I guess my issue is allowing them to have
some option but not too many!

> 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." 

That's certainly one option: reasoning from results, rather than
from intent.

> > instead of combat options, players can play one 
> > card from their hand each combat round
> 
> 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?

No, what I mean is instead of playing Vital Blow you play a +3
Effect card and call it vital blow. Call it lucky strike. Call
it whatever you will. Or introduce new cards to reflect the
combat maneuvers: the idea being not to get rid of the maneuver
but to get rid of that stage of decision-making.

But as I said, the big issue here is how would non-PCs then be
able to do anything other than just plain Attack or Defend?! I'm
a big one for NPC/PC consistency, so I'm not sure I can
reconcile this one, alas...

Phil


      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com