[Torg] More shtuff: NPC levels

[Sam Frazier II]

>>>Torg has IMO essentially three ways of representing character ability or

effect.  First, Attributes, then skills, then (possibly) powers - which may
be linked to certain skills or may not be.<<<

Yep, this is pretty much what I would see as well

Ok, before you get into reading this, it is going to seem a bit harsh. I don't know the full extent to what the Merit and Knacks are in your game, and I tried to point that out. So don't be surprised if I missed some fundemental issue with Merits and Knacks. 

Prelude:

I like the concept, but it seems unfulfilled and not thoroughly thought out. Power-Gamers would love it.

Onto the review.

>>>This covers 90% of what one would want to design, but what if one wanted to
quantify an ability or advantage that does not fall within attributes,
skills, or main powers?  For example, one may want to quantify that one's
character is well Connected, that he knows someone who can get the job done,
whatever the job.  Or may quantify a Code of Ethics.  Perhaps the character
wants to be Famous or Rich or both.  Perhaps the character wants to be a
King or Emperor.  Or maybe the character has an Artifact.<<<

Fair enough, but what about Flaws/Disadvantages/Compensations? What about those annoying things that happen to characters because they are missing one eye, or are inately poor, or bad social status? Merit/Advantages are only half of it.


>>>So we came up with Merits (which we alternatively call Virtues when
confused.)  They are purchased separately from attributes, skills, and main
powers.  Unlike skills, the adds or "levels" of Merits do not generally get
added or applied to anything.  There are three levels of Merits with
accelerating costs. And as you might expect, you can't buy level 2 of a
Merit without having level 1, and you can't buy level 3 of a Merit without
having level 2:<<<

I would pick a name and stick with it. If everyone is calling them Virtues, call them Virtues, and eliminate Merit the term altogether. We found in our TORG game we had a problem with Corruption. There is Asyle Corruption and Orrorshian Corrutpion. Well we fixed that. Since Orrorshian corruption is so potent, we changed the name to Malevolence. The term fit better in our opinion, and eliminated the confusion. Be careful of that with two names.

>>>Level 1 Merit.  Costs 5 possibilities, or if purchased at character
creation, costs one attribute point from your starting total of 66.  This is
considered to be the "weenie" level, good for minor benefits.
Ambidextrousness, moderate income, a decent contact, a minor luck charm, a
supportive Code of Ethics, a minor independent supernatural gift or trick.

Level 2 Merit.  Costs 10 additional possibilities, for a total of 15 (or if
purchased at character creation, costs two attribute points from your
starting total of 66.)  This is considered to be average or significant
level, good for perfect balance, exceptional income, many good contacts, a
significant magic item, a Code of Ethics that permit Willpower rolls to be
skipped in certain circumstances, a useful and significant independent
supernatural gift or trick.

Level 3 Merit.  Costs 15 additional possibilities, for a total of 3015 (or
if purchased at character creation, costs three attribute points from your
starting total of 66.)  This is considered to be major or epic level, good
for +6 Dex (perhaps), extreme wealth, being well connnected to everyone one
would need, a superior magic item, an unshakable Code of Ethics that help
empower one, a major powerful independent supernatural gift or trick which
usually costs either one possibility per use or per scene to use.<<<

I'm confused on a few things here, perhaps you can clarify for me.

You state earlier you acknowledge that Attributes and Skills can be organized by the player, but Merits will be used to get that other 10%. Ok you don't exactly say that, but that is what understood and that makes sense. But your examples in these three levels tell me something else, so I'm confused.

EG. You state that you can pay X possiblities or Y attribute points. and in the Level 3 Merit  you state as an example a + 6 to Dex. This is muchkining. I swap 3 attribute points from my Dex to get a +6 in Dex? WTF? I'll do that with all 66 of my starting attribute points.

My point? Attribute points and Skill points should not be alterable by merits at all. Limits to Attributes and Skills, sure. Minimun/Max bonus numbers applied Sure. But to provide bonus's, extra, etc points to Attributes and Skills effectivly provides a "Work Around" for using the already existing definitions on how to apply Attribute and Skill points. This is a bad idea. I found that out while working on my own Adv/Comp system for TORG/SZ/MB. If the method exists in the system, then you don't need to add a second method. You'll create more of a problem than it is worth. 

Next: Your explanations are too arbitrary and costs low. 

While I understand you didn't publish your entire list of merits and their descriptions of game play because of space, I must point out they seem too simplified. After all some of things should only really cost 1-3 starting possiblities, or possibilities per adventure, like say moderate income. while others, Powerfule Independtant Supernatureal gift/trick  should cost variaing to what that specifically is and how it effects the game. I mean if it is a damage value 25 fire blast, one possibility per use may be justified, but per scene is way too cheap. Honestly though the worse one is the connections a player may have.

I found, while working on Adv/Comp for Shatterzone, that a player may want/need/deserve a contact from Joe the skeptical mildly trustable bartender, to Close Trustworthy Brother who runs the largest multi-conglomerate with resources that rival a 1st world power. 5 is too much for the first, and 30 way to small for the latter. It doesn't fit the 3 level system you have defined. Your defined Merit system is too rigid in this case, and those like it.

30 possibiltites or 3 attribute points for an epic level Merit is way tooo low.


>>>We have been using Merits for over a year now, but recently a player asked
if there was a way for him to be especially good at Intimidation even though
he never took a good Spirit.  <<<

As I commented before, I would have a Merit, that represented a specific skill at a certain level, and was unrollable, unincreasing, and purely natural. In the level's described above, I'd set the intimidation  12 -15-18 for levels 1-2-3. He wouldn't have roll them, he'd just have an intimidation of 15 because that was his inate ability. 

Of course considering your game has been using it for over a year shows the method in which your game implemented the system shows it is workable. Or at least you haven't mentioned any abuses, problems, or re-writes to the Merit system. Congratulations.

>>>I initially thought that it would be simple - perhaps each merit level could
give +1 or +2 to the underlying skill, or perhaps each Merit level made each
skill level cheaper to buy

However, after spending a day modeling it in an excel spreadsheet, I
realized that neither approach could work mathematically, not with the Merit
system. There were two reasons for that.  First, the Merit levels scale up
is cost so quickly that getting the Merit Levels at level 2 and especially 3
cost so much that it was hard making a bonus that would be worth it.  After
all, why buy a level 3 Merit of 30 total possibilities when you can spend
those possibilities on the skill in question itself?  And changing the costs
of the three level of the Merits was not an option because too many other
pre-existing uses already were in place

Secondly, any system that one can invest in to get a higher skill add (or to
make skill adds cheaper to buy) would exist in direct competition with the
existing standard method of getting skill adds.  Result:  it was impossible
to balance another potential system so perfectly that it either wasn't
significantly more expensive or less expensive than the standard method of
buy skill adds Conclusion:  If I went down this road, it would either add
a more expensive system which no one would use when they could use the
standard one, or it would add a less expensive system which everyone would
use instead of the standard one..<<<

The system has something in place, you seem to identify that here. *thumbs up*

I>>>had a super powered character, and one of his powers was that he had
downside protection.  At a certain level of his ability, the minimum bonus
number he could roll was a -2 on any skill or attribute roll.  So that's
what gave me the idea for the Knack.<<<

This minimum bonus number just sounds like a certain level Merit in my book, but let's read on.

>>>When you purchase a Knack, you choose what skill the Knack is for.

The level 1 Knack Merit gives you a +3 to your Bonus Number, up to a max
improved Bonus Number of 0, to your specified skill.  So, if you roll a 4,
which is a -8 BN, you get to use a -8 +3 = -5 BN instead.  If you roll an 8
which is a -2, you add -2 to +3 to get a +1, but your max improved Bonus
Number is 0, you don't get the BN of 1, you get the BN of 0.  If you roll a
15, which is a BN of 2, you are already over the max improved Bonus Number
of 0, so you just keep the 2 and can't improve it.<<<

As I mentioned, this reads like a Min Bonus Merit, nothing more. I'm not sure why you added Knack in front of it.

>>>Another feature of the level Knack Merit is that when buying the first level
of the skill, which depending on whether or not you have a teacher and
whether or not it can be used unskilled, can cost as many as 5 or 10
possibilities normally.  With the level 1 Knack Merit in a skill, the costs
to buy the first add in that skill (if you haven't already) are cut in half,
rounded down.<<<

This is a separete Merit IMHO. I understand the side effect, but it doesn't make scense for an inate ability to provide a bonus to learning the skill. If anything there is more evidence to show the opposite. Meaning if you have an inate ability to do something, you have effectively unlearn your ability to learn how the skill actually works and how to improve on what you initially learned. I disagree with this part of the Merit.Have it be its own merit or remove it. It makes Knacks to powerful.

Also, the fact you can't get a positive bonus number should be a flaw/disadvantage/compensation and not part of the Merit.

Effectively you should have
Merit: + 3 to Bonus Number
Flaw: BN no higher than 0
Merit: Can learn skill as if it was taught by a teacher.

This is what I'm reading. Is it balanced? Mmmm depends on the skill, but I'd say no.

Never round down, always up. It is the TORG way. 

>>>The level 2 Knack Merit goes even farther, as well it should.  When using
the specified skill, it gives you +6 to your Bonus Number, up to a max
improved Bonus Number of 2.  This really protects you from many of those
horrible rolls.  It still doesn't help you make amazing rolls as any BN of
greater than 2 has to earned naturally, but it sure help one not suck as
much at the specific skill.  In addition, this level of Knack eliminates the
chance of botch or catastrophic failure with the specified skill.<<<

Again, this should be different merits and flaws. A level 2 Merit  for the + 6 bonus nubmer (This bonus number is way too high for 15 possibilities and to never have to pay for it again. Put this Merit on a Trained skill, and I think you'll see the math issue I'm pointing out, It has abuse written all over it). 

Let's see
Merit: +6 to Bonus Number
Flaw: BN no higher than 2
Merit: Rolls of 1 are ignored.<- I'm assuming this from your statment of eliminating botchedf failure.

This is at least a bit balanced with the BN limited to 2, but rather complexly written. It could be simplified alot. 

>>>The level 3 Knack Merit costs 15 possibilities on its own, and a total
investment of 30 possibilities, so what it offers has to be more than just
good - and it is.  If you have a level 3 Knack Merit in the specified skill,
then anytime you roll to use it, you get a free reroll as if you had just
spent a possibility, even though you haven't.  This of course leaves you
free to spend any possibilities, cards, or other resources in addition as
normal.<<<

I have a few characters who have spent 30 possibilites (more or less) in skills (trained an untrained). Even with bad rolls, they don't have much problems. Obviously those in the Untrained skills (E.G. Dodge or Melee) benefit more from this. Rolls of 1 when there is a contradiction is about the only issue they have. But onto your merit.

Merit: Free Re-roll on the skill. I assume a stymied character would lose this as their first re-roll? Or does this merit cause that to be ignored. I hope it isn't ignored.

Errr is there no limits to the BN? What the hell?!?!?! Why even bother having level one and two? The difference between the Level 2 and Level 3 are night and day. I mean really. Level 1 and Level 2 kinda made sense, even though I think they should be broken up into multiple Merits and Flaws based on the bonus/penalty you are appling to them. But Level 3 doesn't have any penalty. Geesshh. Give me that in a Melee Weapons and we'll have glory result once a dramatic scene. WOOT!


>>>So that's the Knack Merit as best as I can explain it.  Any specific
questions?<<<

Alot!! but my first one is, Do you guys play a TORG Power Game? If so, that is fine, and explains alot of what I've read.

>>>PS.  I ran it by our current GM and he has implemented the system with one
further caveat:  Any character can have at most only one skill with an
associated Knack Merit.  I figured that as expensive as they are, we
wouldn't need to add that limit, but he would rather be safe and cover that.<<<

Well I'd disagree on this, as a Level 1 and Level 2 really aren't potent and don't need to be limited at all IMHO. But a Level 3, yea, that makes sense. Also tell your GM not to allow this on an agressive skill like persuasion, melee/missle/unarmed, intimiation, or any trained skill or he'll have problems.

SDF II