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

[Scott Schultz]

> In the meanwhile, would either of you who have already
> replied consider the
> other two options ( A - Metapower leads to Advancement, or
> B - Metapower and
> Advancement are separate) problematic?  To be less
> judgmental and value
> driven, in an objective way, what do you think games that
> employ alternative
> A or alternative B instead of Torg's approach would be
> like?  How would
> playing them be different from Torg?  What would be gained
> and lost (for
> both would happen) by drifting Torg in either way?
> 
> Thanks guys.
> 
> -Benn Grant
> eFix Computer Consulting
> benn at 4eFix.com
> 603.283.6601
> 

Okay, let's try a different tack here.

My disagreement with the proposed change is that the current system requires some kind of choice on the part of the player. It's a risk versus reward decision. Short term gain versus long term gain. Teamwork versus individual gain.

This decision-making process is part of the dramatic tension of TORG, IMO. Possbilities are not just XP, they're also a game mechanic and a kind of "currency" that you can spend in-game or out-of-game for different sets of rewards depending on how you choose to spend them.

I don't view this as "penalized for succeeding". You wouldn't have succeeded without spending those possiblities during the adventure. Otherwise, why spend them? You're not being "penalized" for success because you patently failed, or at least had a high probability for failure that you wanted to avoid.

Possibilities spent in-game don't reduce your advancement, they promote it by allowing you to successfully complete the adventure and advance THE STORY. That may be different than advancing your skills, but it's advancement nonetheless. The fact that aborted failure also advances you towards a final-act possiblity bonus is incidental.

I won't put words in anyone else's mouth, but IMO to view possibilities spent in-game as "penalties to skill advancement" is missing the point of the game.

This doesn't make the proposed changes bad, but it DOES fundamentally make it a different game. I'd liken it to Top Secret more than TORG. Top Secret had a Fame and Fortune mechanic that pretty much behaved the way you're proposing. They had experience levels, and whenever you gained a level, you got a Fame point. Fame points were used to alter dice rolls in much the same way that possibilities are used in Torg. Players got only a handful over the life of their spy, so they used them rather more sparingly than TORG players do. Fortune points were end-mission awards akin to the "skills-only" possiblities you're proposing. You used them to buy attributes and bonuses for your character.

Top Secret was a fine game, and a TORG setting using similar rules might be a fun game. The gameplay would, IMO, be different enough that it would be a different EXPERIENCE, and I would probably lose interest in it eventually because that dynamic of choosing between in-game award and out-of-game award is part of the appeal of TORG. To my mind, it's a fundamental pillar that defines why I like the game. Hence, my feeling that it's both unneccesary and, as I stated earlier, a way of trying to have your cake and eat it too that really misses the point of the game's core design.

The proposal to increase a skill based on spending a possibility on that skill's use doesn't click with me at all. It implies a connection that shouldn't exist. Moreover, it encourages repetitive gameplay. "If I want to increase my dex, I'd better start jumping across a lot of chasms and spending possiblities when I do it."