[Torg] Any ever thought of or tried reversing/altering Torg's Metapower vs Advancement struggle?

[Benjamin Grant]

I replied to the bulk of your message in the previous reply, as both replies to my post were similar, but I wanted to address this bit:

 

“I see your approach in your alternate systems, as proposed, but I do not see how they contain within them either (1) the philosophy of playing to the long-term and/or (2) the necessity of forcing players to cooperate for basic survival and ultimate victory.  The past and existing TORG games, to me, seem to encourage long-term investing and team-building/team-cooperation.  Your alterate systems seem not to encourage long-term investment (2nd proposal) and also seem to encourage individuals and provide little reason for team-building and -cooperation (1st proposal).”

 

The two main overall thoughts were:

A: investing into success with skills advances those skills (or, Metapower leads to Advancement)

And

B: award two separate kinds of points – one kind for possibility use as in rerolls and such like, and the other kind for raising stats and skills.

 

In terms of the long term, Idea A says that over the long haul, you get better long term at what you strive to do well short term.  There is a sensibility about that proposition which is not really supported in the as-is Torg way.  Idea B also has the ability to raise stats over the long term – with skill points instead of possibilities, which in the example I gave arrive at the end of each Arc.

 

So that’s the long term dealt with.

 

In term of inter-player cooperation, it is my experience that the as-is Torg system actually is worse on that regard.  Consider: I can spend a possibility to get a success now in helping another player, or I can refrain from spending possibilities to help the other PCs because I am saving up for a shiny new skill for myself.  Under Idea A, the players would be actively encouraged, not discouraged, to get in and mix it up, as that would be the only way to advance.  With Idea B, the player’s at least does not have the disincentive of giving up advancement in helping a fellow player with an issue – the possibilities he has (under Idea B) cannot be spent on advancement – so he has a much greater chance of spending them more freely.

 

I understand you like Torg as-is, and am not seeking to change your mind.  However, the quote reply above seems to be the opposite of what you think it is, right?

 

-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 Michael Jason Teegarden
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:17 PM
To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
Subject: Re: [Torg] Any ever thought of or tried reversing/altering Torg's Metapower vs Advancement struggle?

 

Howdy, Benjamin,

 

While I agree with your friend's perception, I disagree with his emotional reaction to it.  Indeed, I believe the point of TORG is just that.  The idea is to deliberately be forced to choose between personal advancement or on-the-spot metapower (or a slightly less effective middle-ground road).  One can choose to be the shining star, the great hero, _better_ than the other player characters, but at the expense of growth later.  I think that the actual intended idea is to _invest_ in one's character.  The longer one spends time at being not as heroic, not as great, then the more great and heroic one will be _later._  This basic concept is at the core of TORG thinking.  (In essence, playing a Possibility to be more heroic is cheating.  One's character spends the Possibility energy in order to break the normal rules, to make an exception, to be better than everyone else.  For balance, there should certainly be something that the player gives up in order to thusly cheat and succeed.  The thing given up is the character's "experience points" or Possibility points.  If the character does not have to give up something precious in order to be so special, then the player has no aesthetic hook or cause to feel the "special" is worth it, valuable, wanted.)

 

The byplay of the cards in most situations works similarly.  Initially, especially in dramatic play, the situation is terrible, the heroes are at a disadvantage, and the villains come on strong and make an initial impact.  But later, after the heroes get knocked around a bit, they save up cards.  They then work together, plan their card play, throw in a judicious Possibility or two (1 each from a team of 7 is far more effective than one character spending 7 possibilities, in my experience), and ultimately win against the villains, winning the situation.  As you pointed out, it's a "short-term" vs. "long-term" choice.  The short term leads always to satisfaction, but will never break out of the normal mold and into true heroism.  On the other hand, the long-term choice is the stuff that all our great stories are made of.

 

I think part of your friend's negative reaction is that in TORG, players must be prepared to lose on occasion.  The game is more than simply a "win vs lose" closed system.  Characters can "lose" for a while in a scenario, while they bide their time, saving up intangible information and in-game resources (guns, money, NPC relationships, etc) and cards.  Then, in one fell swoop, the _team_ of players and the team of characters puts all their cards together, all their resources together, and makes their overwhelmingly-powerful bid.  

I'm not sure I agree with you about TORG's choice being not the right choice.  To my way of thinking, the game's inherent system IS the right choice, because the game deliberately sets about to put _that_ choice into practice.  Other games use other systems; the TORG game builds on the "aesthetic" of investing in the long-term.  To be frank, if your friend does not like that, your friend would enjoy other games better, I think.  To change this basic approach is to change the TORG game to something it is not, and in that case, it will not be TORG.  


I see your approach in your alternate systems, as proposed, but I do not see how they contain within them either (1) the philosophy of playing to the long-term and/or (2) the necessity of forcing players to cooperate for basic survival and ultimate victory.  The past and existing TORG games, to me, seem to encourage long-term investing and team-building/team-cooperation.  Your alterate systems seem not to encourage long-term investment (2nd proposal) and also seem to encourage individuals and provide little reason for team-building and -cooperation (1st proposal).

 

I hope this is helpful explanation!

Michael

 

 

  _____  

From: Benjamin Grant <benn at 4efix.com>
To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:34:34 PM
Subject: [Torg] Any ever thought of or tried reversing/altering Torg's Metapower vs Advancement struggle?

In Torg, one is awarded possibilities.  You can do two broad categories of things with these resources:  

1.       Use them to influence outcomes in the moments, one time per use. For example:

·         Gain a reroll

·         Block an opponent’s reroll

·         Soak Damage

·         Bring up a Reality Bubble (if you use them)

2.       Save them to increase you skills and advance the overall power of your character for a permanent increase every time from the skill purchase on.

·         For example, raise your Dodge from a +1 to a +7 over the course of several Acts and/or Arcs.

 

The first category I call Metapower – the ability of the player to change or affect through out-of-character or -game choices the results of in-game situations.  The second category I call basic Advancement – common to just about all RPGs.

 

Torg has a single award point – the Possibility that can be spent for either of those two options.  If you make a terrible roll in a situation where success is important to you (the player, not the character) you can choose to expend this resource point for a reroll.  On the other hand, if you are saving up these points to raise your Dodge, for example, you may think twice.

 

Ultimately in Torg, choosing Metapower means sacrificing Advancement, and vice versa.  My friend hates that.  He hates that if you embrace the situation, and spend several possibilities over the course of a scene, while you most likely succeed resolve the scene favorably – or at least more favorably than if you hadn’t – you do so at the expense of character advancement.  In effect, he argues that you are *penalized* for success.

 

Now I can see the opposite point of view, the one that I suppose Torg was founded on.  That if you choose to husband your possibilities in order to prioritize advancement later on, that you reap a less successful present, and that lack of success creates drama through potential temporary failure, loss, and hardship.  That by enduring this, you earn the advancement you gain.  This incentivizes potentially accepting story results that normally you might not, in order to ultimately gain in the long haul.  I get that.

 

Neither Torg’s approach nor my friend’s reaction are right or wrong, it all is a question of aesthetics.  However, it is intriguing to me to play devil’s advocate and imagine a different way of doing it.  Two spring to mind.

 

The first is an opposite system to Torg’s – where instead of choosing to gain metapower now or advancement later, you get both in the same action.  One simple way to arrange it is that for every possibility spent on a reroll, you get one checkmark in the skill the roll was for.  Get enough checkmarks in a skill (say 4 checkmarks to go from a +3 to a +4) and it simply goes up.  This way it precisely the actions you value and in which you invest in the moment that automatically advance.

 

The potential pitfall to that scenario is that this method may wind up incentivizing strange kamikaze-like behavior of people jumping in more or less recklessly in order to blow through possibilities on the skills they want to raise.  Still, perhaps that could be addressed somehow.  It certainly has no more (or fewer) warts than the existing method.

 

Secondly, you could simply separate the possibilities themselves from one “bucket” into two:  Possibilities that can be spent for all metapower uses as normal, but cannot be used to raise skills or attributes, and Skill Points that can *only* be spent on skills and attributes.  One way off the top of my head to do this could be to award Possibilities as session/Act awards, but to awards skill points as Arc awards.  Or something similar.

 

I am very curious to hear people thoughts on the topic – so long as the people are open minded and not just pumping out the party line that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.  I am NOT calling for a change to anything, I am simply curious as to the implications and effects of these lines of thought.  Any else have some reactions, ideas, or commentary to share?  Anyone else already implementing a solution to this issue different from the standard Torg conflationary and conflicting one?

 

-Benn Grant

eFix Computer Consulting

benn at 4eFix.com

603.283.6601

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.justintimeadventures.com/pipermail/torg/attachments/20090311/0c8d4258/attachment-0001.html