[Torg] more NCI questions

[Benjamin Grant]

>>Technically, Torg always works with just the Actor making a roll -
>>unless the Target is aware of the attempt and wishes to make an Active
>>Defence (in which case, and KJ will be able to confirm, they presumably
>>get the usual minimum +1)

Hmmm...  what about meta-stuff?  By which I mean that the player can make decisions for the character even if the character is not aware of it?

For example, a player can choose to spend a possibility or not for another roll to help his character succeed.  However, in my games at least the choice of spending a possibility is a choice the *player* makes, not the character.  So the character may really want to succeed at a task attempt, but the *player* wants to save possibilities for later more tactical use.  If it was the *character* spending possibilities, he would.

Here's a specific example, the player says that his character will try to Charm the attractive lady at the table next to him.  The roll comes up a -10, and the player knows that if he let's that stand, the character will be greatly and publicly embarrassed - something the character desires greatly to avoid.

However, not only does the player want to save his resources for later, as failing this roll miserably isn't critical to the over goals of the player, and furthermore, he kind of wants to explore a little embarrassing scene for his character.

Therefore, the player chooses to refrain from spending resources, even though the character would do anything to avoid the failure that is now happening.

Equally, I find that whether or not an Active Defense is made may be more about not the awareness of the character, but the willingness of the player to sacrifice some options for others.  For example, in combat an Active Defense means either sacrificing one's Attack, or at least enduring multi-action penalties. In my opinion, this is a tactical decision for the player, that the player makes in the light of the player's overall story goals, both in the moment and long-term.

Said another way, I think the player's character is ultimately nothing more than the vehicle for the player to explore certain stories and story-goals.

On the other hand, to be meaningful, any player choices have to have downsides in order for there to be a reason to consider multiple options.  Performing an Active Defense to Persuasion in round-by-round has a downside in that you can't do anything else this round (without multi-action).  However, Charm is usually an action that occurs over time.  Therefore I am not sure if there is ever a reason for the player to NOT choose an Active Defense if he has that option, since he is guaranteed a minimum +1 Bonus Number.

What I think I may do is permit Active Defenses only in round-by-round action - at all other times, a PC gets to roll defense, but is not guaranteed a minimum bonus number.  In terms of whether or not one rolls defensively or simply uses the passive number, I would leave that up to the character that is defending.  For example, a PC being charmed (not in round-by-round) can choose whether or not he or she will roll - but if a roll is chosen, the player is stuck with the result, even if a -12 is rolled.  Obviously, PCs would tend to choose to roll in circumstances where they wanted to be sure of the outcome and were facing enemies that were strong enough that the PC's own passive defenses might not be enough - this would of course necessitate the possible investiture of player resources like possibilities and cards.  For NPCs the GM would make a similar call.

How does this sound?  Is it mechanically broken, or functional?

I still haven't ruled out using the awareness mechanic - that the limitation to Active Defenses is being aware of it.  On the other hand, how can one *not* be aware that someone is trying to charm one?  I mean, when people are charmed it's not that weren't aware that someone was trying to charm them, it's that they felt the charm to be irrestible.

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