[Torg] Possibility Spending

[Travis James Hall]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com 
> [mailto:torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com] On Behalf Of 
> Benjamin Grant
> Sent: Monday, 10 November 2008 12:56 AM
> To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
> Subject: RE: [Torg] Possibility Spending
> 
> Actually, you need to quote the rule that states that the 
> possibility is
> considered spent *on the original action* even when no affect 
> on the value
> of the original action attempt results.

"When attempting an action, you may spend one Possibility and roll the die
again, adding the number rolled to the final die roll. No more than one
Possibility may be spent on any one action." This passage would seem to
indicate that a Possibility spent in this manner is spent on the action. If
it isn't, of course, then this expenditure may be repeated as much as a
player desires on the one action. You obviously disagree with that.

So there we have the situation, before any countering occurs - the acting
character has spent a Possibility *on the action*.

Then another character counters. This has the effect as indicated by my
earlier quotation - it prevents the extra roll of the die. And that's all
the rules say it does.

> Otherwise, it seems quite clear
> that in plain English that we are given no reason in the 
> actual rules as written to consider the possibility actually
> *spent* "on any one action".

But are we given reason not to?

And furthermore is it reasonable to believe that we must be explicitly told
that the original expenditure remains associated with the action, when A)
the expenditure was associated with the action before countering, and B) the
countering rule provides no reason for the original association of
expenditure with action to be changed?

If the rules stated that the countering results in the Possibility not being
spent on the action, I'd agree with you. In that case, the rule could well
be ambiguous. But the rules do not state so.

> We both
> seem to believe that our interpretation is clearly accurate.  

Yes. However, as I believe you to be incorrect - not merely holding to a
different viewpoint, but incorrect - I'm perfectly happy to present my
arguments demonstrating so, in order that others will have access to my
reasoning and can judge for themselves what position is correct.

Travis