[Torg] More shtuff: Skills and Knacks

[Benjamin Grant]

>>>>>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.

I actually purposefully left out Flaws/Disads, but they work the same as
reverse Merits, except that they never generate possibilities or extra
attribute points.

So at character creation, you could take one or more Flaws, at levels from 1
to 3.  You could do so either for story purposes - ie, not get compensated
for it, or you could do so to offset the cost of any Merits.  So, say you
wanted to be Ambidextrous and the GM says that's a level 1 Merit, but you
don't want to sacrifice one of your starting 66 attribute points.  So you
ask the GM for suggestions for a 1 point flaw to pay for it, and he maybe
comes up with something like Body Odor -2 to social rolls.

In a similar way, if you wanted to develop a Merit later on, but didn't want
to put in the possibilities, you could ask the GM for one or more offsetting
Flaws to make up for it - like a Duty to a group that compromises your
choices.

One other option where one can pickup a Flaw is earning it - one character
acted in an unheroic manner after several chances, and got a Flaw of
Unheroic, which was not permitted to grant any benefit to the character.  He
eventually earned his way out 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.

Makes sense.  I will poll the group.

>>
>>>>>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.

The idea of getting a +6 Dex isn't one we have actually used, I typed it in
off the top of my head trying to come up with examples - that idea is flawed
and I would ask you to pretend I never typed it in the first place.

The other thing I may not have been clear about is that if you pick up a
Merit during Character Creation, you pay with Attribute Points.  If during
play, you pay with Possibilities.

I hope that helps.

>>Next: Your explanations are too arbitrary and costs low.

I hope I have clarified that some of the examples were for the purposes of
illustration and have not been tested.  The costs however seem to work - by
definition - ie, the Merit effectiveness is tuned to the cost to get it.
Also, please keep in mind that all Merits have to be approved by the GM -
Merits are more of a framework.

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

Hmmm - I do not know why you say that because over the past year or so we
have found it to be just about right.  Of course, I refer back to the fact
that the GM has to be on board.  This means, among other things, that the
Merit should be justifiable and dramatically appropriate.

>>
>>>>>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.

I must confess I don't really get this?

>>
>>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.

It's a little more sophisticated than that.  A +3 BN, with max improved
bonus number of 0 means that you could still wind up with as low as a -9 BN
even with this Merit (if you roll a 1 = -12).  Alternatively, if you roll a
16 (a BN of +3) than this Merit for that roll does nothing at all.

Did you see that?  Am I explaining this clearly enough?

>>
>>>>>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.

I hear you, but I like it this way - it works for me, and makes sense to me
dramatically, that someone with a knack for electronics would be able to
hurdle the first initial cost more easily.  And nothing says that a Merit
can't have two effects - there is no rule that only get one benefit per
Merit level - just that the GM has to feel the effect(s) you do get are
balanced for the cost.

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

Yeah, I don't think you understood the basic idea (because you *can* get a
positive bonus number.)  Let me try to break it down:

Roll a d20.  Read the bonus number on the chart.
If the bonus number is 0 or higher, use it.  If however the Bonus Number is
lower than zero, use the bonus number+3, or zero, whichever is *lower*.
This means that if you:

Roll a 1, you get a -12.  Since -12 is less than zero, add 3 to that, it's
-9.  Use -9 or 0, whichever is lower, which would be -9.

Roll a 6, you get a -5.  Since -5 is less than zero, add 3 to that, it's -2.
Use a -2 or 0, whichever is lower, which would be -2.

Roll a 9, you get a -1.  Since -1 is less than zero, add 3 to that, it's a
+2.  Use a +2 or 0, whichever is lower, which would be 0.

Roll a 14, you get a +1.  Since +1 is not less than zero, you use it, which
would be a +1.

Make sense now?

Level 2 Knacks work the same way, but it's +6 instead of +3, and 2 instead
of zero:

If the bonus number is 2 or higher, use it.  If however the Bonus Number is
lower than +2, use the bonus number+6, or +2, whichever is *lower*.


>>>>>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.

I hadn't gotten around to ruling on this yet - I am leaning to a stymie
gobbles this up.

>>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!

I don't understand your objection here, I think you maybe operating off a
misread (or miscommunication) - I sure hope so.  I know for a fact that you
didn't have level 1 and 2 figured out, maybe this is related to that.  Does
my hopefully better explanation of level 1 and 2 above clear up this
objection too?


>>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.

I never thought so before. ;)  Define a TORG Power Game. ;p

>>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

So far (again probably because of the miscommunication about levels 1 and 2)
I personally feel the GM should allow it on any skill, aggressive or not -
but if you were to persuade why that shouldn't be the case, I would
certainly take that to the GM.

Looking forward to your reactions now that I have hopefully cleared up a big
miscommunication.

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