[Torg] Possibility Spending

[Jon Woodman]

First thing:  when I signed up for this group, Jim said there wasn't much talk back and forth.  I'm delighted to see that's not the case.  I've been quite entertained by all this banter.

Second:  Don't get too worked up about it.  We each have to run our game the way it seems right to us.  I've always felt that as GM you bend the rules to fit your game.  

Third:  I totally agree with Phil's statements.  I've always run it, from the NPC's perspective, that I don't cancel a possibility spent by a player until he's marked it off his sheet and its gone.  One chance, one spent, too bad.  And I try to encourage my players to do it this way also.  I felt that's what the rules were saying.  That said, I can certainly see where it could be played as that possibility was just canceled and not spent.  

At the end of the day, you gotta do what you feel is best.  I'm going to continue to run it the way I do.  It works and my players have always been happy with it.  

Thanks for the debate guys.  It really has been enjoyable and I hope to see many more.

Jon Woodman

>------- Original Message Follows -------
>From: "Phil Dack" <philipdack at yahoo.co.uk>
>To: <torg at justintimeadventures.com>
>Subject: RE: [Torg] Possibility Spending
>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:18:33 +0000 (GMT)
>
>--- On Mon, 10/11/08, Benjamin Grant <benn at 4efix.com>
>wrote:
>> The rules clearly say that "No more than one Possibility may 
>> be spent on any one action".  Not only does that clearly in 
>> black and white rules as written directly say to me that 
>> only possibilities spent ON the action count, after checking
>> with other people I know, both gamers and non, every person I 
>> asked read it the exact same way - that unless the possibility
>> that is spent is permitted to generated a dice roll, it is not
>> being spent ON the action.
>> 
>> That's because that is simply what it says.  
>
>Ok, two things guys. Firstly, you're arguing about nothing. It really doesn't matter. Secondly, I dislike the tone he's using, but in terms of balance of evidence, I agree with Travis (Yeah, that's a good idea - stoke the fire immediately after trying to put out the flames!).
>
>The reason I say this is because the chain of events is as follows:
>
>1. Person 1 declares an action
>2. Person 1 declares the spending of the possibility. 
>3. Person 1 marks off the possibility. I.e. at this point it is spent. The reason it is spent is because of the action. It is therefore spent ON the action.
>4. Person 2 declares they counter the possibility. 
>5. Person 2 marks off their possibility. They have spent their possibility NOT on the Action (which still goes ahead) but on the Possibility. Hence only 1 possibility has been spent on the action. 
>
>But, I stress, it doesn't matter! It's your game, do as you will!! We can all get a little too hung up at times on the why's and wherefore's. Yes, even me ;-)
>
>Phil
>
>
>      
>
>_______________________________________________
>Torg mailing list
>Torg at justintimeadventures.com
>http://www.justintimeadventures.com/mailman/listinfo/torg