[Torg] Improving Attributes in play: Edges

Sat Nov 15 14:24:58 EST 2008

I don't use pure mechanics to determine who and what the PCs face, it's a
bit more organic and custom fitted than that.  Not so much like the D&D
Challenge Rating model.

So far we just have humans.  I would imagine that a racial package would
involved different Merits and Flaws.

-Benn Grant

eFix Computer Consulting

benn at 4eFix.com

603.283.6601

From: torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com
[mailto:torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:34 PM
To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
Subject: Re: [Torg] Improving Attributes in play: Edges

The difference in game experience, in my opinion, of reducing a number by 5
rather 20 is that reducing the costs for early attribute increases is that
it makes the game that much easier. Have you thought of applying the edge
rules to any of the bad guys who have a load of possibilities? Are you
increasing the stats of the players early without increasing the stats of
the opponents they face, or the non-combat challenges? If you're increasing
the stats on the players earlier, the challenges they face should be
somewhat harder. Otherwise, they aren't getting the experience that was
meant for them, they are getting a watered down version. That is how I see
it. 

On a different topic, I don't recall if you ever mentioned how the edge
points work with race limits, and I'm assuming that you have either
completely swapped out the original method of increasing attributes in favor
of edges, which would make it simpler, but if you allow both, do edges allow
one to obtain a limit in their attributes and then have edges that push them
beyond (ie human with DEX 13 +4)?

Those are things that I don't think were mentioned, but being assumed by all
to be a certain way.

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Travis James Hall
<travisjhall at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com
> [mailto:torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com] On Behalf Of
> Benjamin Grant

> Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2008 3:16 AM
> To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
> Subject: RE: [Torg] Improving Attributes in play: Edges
>

> >>> >>Why? What is achieved, in terms of improving the experience
> >>> of the game
> >>> >>for
> >>> >>the participants, in allowing people to "do a little minor
> >>> tweaking"?

> [...]

> I thought it was pertinent,

It might become so, but not to that question. I say these things because
organising one's thoughts is important when performing analysis. Does
reducing a number on a piece of paper by 5 provide a significantly different
game experience from reducing a number on a piece of paper by 20? No, it
really doesn't - not on it's own. So leave that out. When discussing the
experience of the game for the participants, speak of factors that affect
the experience of the game for the participants.

> >>> I also think that only after playing a character for a bit
> >>> can one sometimes discover where the character stats are "soft".
> >>>
> >>> I think that's my motivation.
> >>
> >>Okay, so you recognise the issue of character concepts
> possibly being
> >>not
> >>fully formed at the start of play, and you wish to improve the game
> >>experience by allowing players to overcome this issue -
> keeping their
> >>characters not-quite-finished until they have at least a little
> >>experience
> >>playing them.
>
> It's not just about character concepts that aren't fully
> formed though, although that's part of it.

That's the part you gave. I can't work with anything other than what you
say.

> I guess I simply value the opportunity for some
> small character growth at the attribute level.

Game experience. Does which number on a piece of paper changes, when
isolated from everything else, affect game experience? No.

> Some interesting thoughts there, for which I thank you.  Idea
> 2 would be
> fine and is more or less numerically equivalent to what I am
> doing now,
> although what I would actually do is grant them an extra
> attribute point and
> the end of each Arc, not session, for the first two.

So why aren't you doing it? It is definitely easier to do, and you haven't
identified any cons. Or is this analysis incorrect or incomplete?

> Idea 3 off the top of
> my head seems like overkill - 50 extra possibilities, wow?

Hence the "personal criticisms" you snipped. A Torg PC has an average
attribute of just over 9, so the cost of increasing an attribute by 1 is
about 30 Possibilities. Thus, 50 extra Possibilities is actually less than
what Idea 2 gives out. You seem to see "50" in an email and find the idea
shocking. You need to do the maths to understand just what such a number
means.

> 4
> and 5 are a
> little too front loaded for my taste, though creative - what if the
> character realizes only later in its life that it wants to buff, say,
> Spirit?

Then none of the five ideas helps. As noted, your players aren't dumb enough
not to spend their earliest Possibility awards on the ultra-cheap attributes
if you use your edges. So, the cheap edge won't be available later in the
character's life.

> What about something like this

What about it? I asked you for the analysis, and I don't intend to do it for
you now. There's a reason for that.

Travis Hall

_______________________________________________
Torg mailing list
Torg at justintimeadventures.com
http://www.justintimeadventures.com/mailman/listinfo/torg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.justintimeadventures.com/pipermail/torg/attachments/20081115/050f4d70/attachment.html>