[Torg] Possibility Spending

[Benjamin Grant]

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com [mailto:torg-
>>bounces at justintimeadventures.com] On Behalf Of Travis James Hall
>>Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 9:23 AM
>>To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
>>Subject: RE: [Torg] Possibility Spending
>>
>>> -----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.

Yep, I do disagree.  The passage seems to indicate that the possibility is
spent attempting the action, NOT that the possibility is spent ON the
action.  If the possibility does not have an effect ON the action (because
of the extra roll being cancelled) then clearly (to me) the possibility is
not spent ON the action.  Seems a case of one following the other.

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

Again, the character has spent a possibility *attempting* the action, but
not *on* the action.  That's not an observation based on rule text, that's
an observation based on my understanding of basic English.

>>
>>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?

In my opinion, that is the meaning of the words as written.

>>
>>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

Of course - just as I share similar beliefs that you are the incorrect one,
and presenting my arguments and reasons why.

However, after we both have done so, what is the next step?  It does not
appear to me that either of us has offered anything that seems to be chaning
the other person's mind on this.

-Benn Grant
eFix Computer Consulting
benn at 4eFix.com
603.283.6601