[Torg] Awards

[Benjamin Grant]

> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Benjamin Grant <benn at 4efix.com> wrote:
> > As a GM I think it very important not to be "abusive" the way some
> D&D GMs
> > can be, always trying to one-up the players and grant their
> adversaries
> > unreasonable bonuses and perks.
> >
> > In Torg, possibilities are obviously key.  An opponent with 30 of
> them will
> > be more of an issue than an opponent with 2.  However, let's say that
> since
> > each PC starts out with 10, a GM decides that each p-rated villain
> should
> > start out with 10.  Or even worse, a GM could say to himself that
> since the
> > villain is a mature character, maybe he has 15, or 20.
> >
> > Where this gets especially unfair to the players is twofold.  First,
> it
> > entirely possible for the players to be fighting different p-rated
> villains
> > every other session.  For example, a League of Villains, or possibly
> a
> > campaign that wanders.  Each each villain they fight has a new fresh
> large
> > pool of possibilities while the PC's possibilities take a hit each
> session,
> > so that as the adventures moves on, they PC's possibilities dwindle
> as they
> > keep finding new p-rated baddies with large fresh pools of possies,
> that's
> > not good or fair.
> >
> > The second way that this is a problem is the expectation that as
> players
> > increase their skills and stuff, the level of baddies they fight
> increases,
> > so that while the players start of fighting weenie baddies, they end
> up
> > later in their career fighting epic stuff.  However, the journey of
> the PCs
> > from weenie themselves to powerful costs them *tons* of possies.
>  Meaning
> > that they probably have far fewer to spend for things like rerolls
> and
> > damage mitigation and such.  However, since the players probably face
> a new
> > villain every arc with a fresh store of possies, the villains do not
> seem to
> > be held to the same limitation.
> 
> These are balanced in the game already by several factors: Only the
> players get Possibilities in the form of Hero, Drama, and Glory cards.
> Only players get group powers. Only players can tap Eternity Shards
> for Possibilities. With proper management on the players' part, these
> can compensate quite well against villains packing "4 Possibilities
> per Storm Knight."

Group powers and eternity shards are specific to one particular campaign,
therefore do not provide balance.  That the players have the edge in that
they can access cards/hero points is intentional.  Nothing else balances out
exorbitant villain possies, therefore they should be contained.  The
suggestion of 1 possibility per protagonist in the encounter for the
antagonist *side* in a standard scene, and 3 possibilities per protagonist
for the antagonist side in a villain scene is therefore well balanced.

> 
> > Another consideration is in being scrupulously fair, a GM must keep
> vital
> > track of his baddies possies - if the baddie spends possies this
> session,
> > those possies should not be available next session.  And for that
> matter,
> > how does the average baddie replenish, they certainly do not get
> session or
> > arc awards?
> 
> Sure they do. They get just enough to replenish. If the villain won
> the adventure, he most certainly should get some award. Others get to
> drink from the Darkness Device, improving that way. Even without that,
> it's certainly not out of line to assume that a villain who was
> defeated but escaped earned a few Act or Adventure awards on side
> projects while the heroes were away. They definitely should not regain
> during the adventure without a good reason, but why would I expect Wu
> Han to be "down 5 Possibilities" just because he spent five against us
> three adventures ago?

Again, Darkness Devices are specific to a particular campaign, and not
relevant to our discussion here about system mechanics.

The reason to expect Wu Han to be down 5 is simple fairness.  If you track
Wu Han possies then you must track his "awards" as well as his expenditures.
If he can spend possibilities but he starts off every scene with 12, that's
just cheesy - Wu Han has to have *some* incentive not to blow his was each
and every scene (or session) - or, his "wad" needs to be under a far tighter
rein, which the suggestion accomplishes.

Ultimately, there are only 2 fair ways to do this, a suggestion like the
original one, or creating a system by which the antagonists "earn" possies
based on certain criteria, but one in which the possies they spend are NOT
automatically given back to them.

> 
> > Finally, an auxiliary issue for those of us who permit not just
> antagonist
> > NPCs to have possies, but protagonist NPCs as well, how do we
> determine how
> > many possies an NPC ninja that travels with the group has?  Give them
> > session awards?
> 
> Give them what the story demands. In most of my cases, the story
> demands that the players be the main focus of the story, and as such
> traveling NPCs exist only to perform a necessary function not already
> provided by the players, and the players get the credit for
> "inserting" the NPC into the one place in the cosmverse where he can
> do his job. Such an NPC has enough Possibilities to stay alive if the
> players work to protect him, but no more.
> 
> Other groups have characters that are effectively a Storm Knight run
> by the GM. That character should be treated like a Storm Knight in all
> respects, including getting the same awards and penalties the other
> Storm Knights do.

Getting awards is an alright solution, even if it is a little cumbersome.
Simply giving out possies like candy with no guidance is lame, IMO - I never
treat NPCs mechanically better than I treat the PCs.  If I don't easily hand
out possies to PCs, I would never hand them out easy to NPCs.

> 
> > We are employing a simple system that solves ALL of the above.  Here
> it is:
> >
> > In a standard scene, the non-PC side should have a total of X
> possibilities
> > available to them, where X equals the number of possibility rated
> characters
> > on the hero's (PCs and protagonists') side.  In a full dramatic scene
> (which
> > should happen less than once per session at the start of an Arc, once
> per
> > session in the middle, and maybe a couple of times per session near
> the
> > Arc's end), the antagonists' side should get three times that number.
> >
> > Now whether or not you divide up the antagonists' possibilities
> evenly, or
> > unevenly, or perhaps even decide to keep them in a common pool that
> any of
> > the antagonists can draw from, is up to one's choice and the needs of
> the
> > scene.  Of course, only possibility rated antagonists can spend them.
> >
> > Furthermore, with these limits, you do not have to track the
> possibilities a
> > villain has from scene to scene - no matter how many they had last
> scene,
> > each scene is different and starts off with a fresh batch for the
> villains.
> > (Antagonists)
> >
> > Finally, I recommend that any possibility rated NPC protagonists
> follow a
> > similar scheme - they should start with 1 possibility each standard
> scene,
> > and 3 possibilities each dramatic scene.  Possibilities do not
> carryover
> > from scene to scene for NPCs.
> >
> > This works quite well.  For those who want a little more randomness,
> you
> > could also add a plus or minus based on a roll, but that's not
> necessary.
> 
> If that's the formula that fits your campaign style, have fun. I know
> that my players would devour such opposition without breaking a sweat.

You can keep the game challenging by simply creating better opponents (as in
better skills and abilities) - that should fix any problem you might have.
Unless you players are simply rolling in the possies for some reason?

> 
> > One other thing I should mention - how we handle possibility
> negation.  We
> > wanted to have that in our game, but have it also be limited, so it
> can be
> > used as a tactic, but cannot be abused.  If a character (PC or NPC)
> spends a
> > possibility for a reroll, any other p-rated character can spend a
> > possibility to cancel it out, after which the original character can
> choose
> > to spend one more possibility which cannot be cancelled.  So
> ultimately, the
> > first character tries to excel, the second character says "how badly
> do you
> > want to?" and the first character can spend another possibility. This
> means
> > that the original character spends 2 possies to the negator's 1.
>  This seems
> > sufficient as a downside and tactic.
> 
> One factor that was hinted at but only implemented in a few adventures
> was the concept that the villain side had Possibilities but only used
> them for certain purposes out of habit. So while a villain might have
> 50 Possibilities, only 5 of them might be available for negation, and
> those only to prevent Glory. My guess is that this didn't go over
> well, as I recall my personal reactions to such descriptions. This may
> work well for your game though.

Wow, a villain with 50 possibilities?  That makes me think one of three
things is probably going on:
1)  GM fiat - he simply decides that the villain allows himself to be
defeated, choosing not to use a possie to reduce damage or get a reroll or
block the party's rerolls - this is kinda cheesy because it means the GM
decides when (and if) the players gain victory.
2)  The party has oodles and oodles of possies so the villains has to have
50 to compete.  Of course, the party having oodles and oodles of possies is
the actual problem in this situation, and should be addressed.
3)  The villains' skills and attributes and powers are so weak and limited
that without the massive possibility gift from the GM, he has no chance.
Again, the problem is the villain being designed too weak to begin with.

Of course, there's always 4)  The GM is behaving like a D&D GM, trying to
make sure the deck is totally stacked against the players.  That one of
course deserves no comment.

> 
> I generally run villains as being willing to spend early in the
> Dramatic encounter to try to press their conflict line advantage, then
> conserving them for specific purposes once it's clear to them that
> they can't blow through the heroes. This has led to the best mix for
> me; do what fits yopur situation.
> 
> Dominick Riesland, aka Rabbitball
> Creator of the Cosmversal Grimoire
> "There are always possibilities, my sergeant told me. But he never had
> his possibilities torn away like wings from a fly."

Sounds like option #1 then - as long as everyone is having fun, more power
to you.

I am curious if your players know what going on though?

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