[Torg] more NCI questions

[Phil Dack]

--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Benjamin Grant <benn at 4efix.com> wrote:
> 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.

Personally, i don't see it that way. If a player makes a decision to save the ppoint for later, I don't see there being a conflict in the character also making that decision - altho it does depend on how aware of ppoints characters are. One way of playing would be to have characters vaguely aware of possibility energy, but to narrate it in such a way that the exercise of ppoints is unconcious. My view is that characters eventually become well aware of it, the fact that it is a finite resource, and the tactical ways they can use it. In the latter case, there's no difference between the character and the player; both can make that tactical judgement.

> 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.

Yes, now that is true metagame playing. But that doesn't conflict with anyone. If you think it will be interesting to be charmed, you can always opt to put up no defence. Same effect.

> 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.

Perhaps so. That's more of a game philosophy point which I won't debate with you. I'm more of a gamist myself, but I enjoy the story too, while with some game systems I become a violent simulationist who gets frustrated at any lack of verissimilitude!

In its design, Torg is very gamist. Take, for example, the fact that it's a rare game where PCs are affected by NPC interaction skills (altho I'm sure some people don't actively play that way).

> 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.

That point I agree with. I think KJ is probably right that defence in this instance is probably better reflected by adjusting the Attitude level. Although there may be a roleplaying negative in that a character who actively defends is probably a clear antagonistic signal toward the other party.

> 
> 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. 
[...]
> 
> How does this sound?  Is it mechanically broken, or
> functional?

Sounds workable to me. It's akin to d20 system and "taking 10".

Phil