[Torg] more NCI questions

[Benjamin Grant]

>>> 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!

Yep.  I don't want to get too "Forgeish" but I approach RPGing from the perspective that each player is at the game for some goal that they have - there is a reason or motivation for a particular player to want to play a particular character in a particular game session.

Whatever they are looking to get out of the game - vicarious living, solving puzzles, beer-n-pretzels fun, exploring an imaginary world, or milking the human drama of the characters - the decisions a player makes are in the service of the reason that they showed up to game in the first place.  I try to never forget that - which means to me that the character they have in the game is but a tool to help them towards the accomplishment of whatever their reasons for being at the game is.

To put it another way - I like to make sure to focus on whether or not the *player* succeeds at *his* goals (whether those goals are conscious or not) and do not particular care whether the character the PC is playing is happy or not - except inasmuch that matters to the player.

>>> 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

As an aside, I created (I think its not in Torg proper) the concept of taking-0 and taking-6.

If you take-0 on an action and are able to succeed, then you don't have to actually roll for it, unless for dramatic reasons.  For example, if a take-0 allows you to drive from your house to the library, I don't make the player to roll for whether or not he gets in an accident on the way.

Of course, driving while the bad guys are chasing you is a dramatic use of the ability and would require a roll even though a take-0 may be numerically sufficient.

Take-6 actions are for doing something when time is not an issue.  For example, if you stole a locked toolbox and moved it to your house, you could spend all the time in the world to pick the lock.  I usually say that if the character is willing to spend 5-10 times the normal amount of time required for a check, then can forgo rolling and instead take a +6 for their Bonus Number.

Another example is busting down a door - where they might not succeed immediately, over time they could wear it down and weaken it, until they bust it down.

How does this sound?  Is 6 too high for such an action?  Should it be +3 or +5?

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