[Torg] Re: Torg Digest, Vol 56, Issue 8

[Andrew Harmon]

Hell to all those on here - this is my first time posting to here.  (I
am also new to the original concept of Torg, including different cosms
and the axiums and such).  However, I have been playing in several
games with Benn for a couple of years now; I think the "dilemma" as
put by Benn is interesting to think over, and if any system should be
adopted in place of the current, the second might have "possibilities"
(no pun intended).

The possible drawbacks to such might be in keeping track of a bit more
accounting game-wise, but could possibly streamline advancement versus
metapower.

At this point I wanna make a HUGE  disclaimer - I am *NOT* pushing for
a change, merely thinking over the idea and trying new perspectives.
(End disclaimer)


I think the first system proposed by Benn is more messy, especially as
more impetous players (sometimes like myself :-) ) could potentially
abuse a couple of skills (Dodge, Unarmed Combat, etc) short-term
before being reeled back in by the GMs.  I personally don't have a
particular preference, and am happy playing as am.  The obvious fix
for such an attempt at a system could possibly be merely making it so
that a person using a particular skill must use it in creative ways
and may only get skill check marks if it leads to dramatic improvement
(like Glory conditions), although that could prove to become a bit
restrictive as well.


Any thoughts?

Andrew Harmon
Keene State College
<superchaosman at gmail.com>

On 3/11/09, torg-request at justintimeadventures.com
<torg-request at justintimeadventures.com> wrote:
> Send Torg mailing list submissions to
> 	torg at justintimeadventures.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.justintimeadventures.com/mailman/listinfo/torg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	torg-request at justintimeadventures.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	torg-owner at justintimeadventures.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Torg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. RE: Any ever thought of or tried reversing/altering	Torg's
>       Metapower vs Advancement struggle? (Benjamin Grant)
>    2. RE: Any ever thought of or tried reversing/altering	Torg's
>       Metapower vs Advancement struggle? (Benjamin Grant)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:35:02 -0400
> From: "Benjamin Grant" <benn at 4efix.com>
> Subject: RE: [Torg] Any ever thought of or tried reversing/altering
> 	Torg's	Metapower vs Advancement struggle?
> To: <torg at justintimeadventures.com>
> Message-ID: <000901c9a291$3d85db30$b8919190$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
> First of all, thank you for the time and effort in your reply.  And while I
> am about to potentially differ from your thoughts, I want to b egin with my
> thanks for sharing them.
>
>> Now, this may sound like variation on "it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>> I'd say it's more a comment on how a system that tries to let you have
>> your cake and eat it too is a system that is making a change that isn't
>> just about XP, it's about changing one of the fundamental foundations
>> of the game. Spending possibilities isn't about choosing advancement
>> over success. It's about risk versus reward and choosing what kind of
>> reward is more important to you.
>
> I read through your post (and while replaying to this one, another similar
> reply) and do feel like while the response(s) evince effort in their
> construction, neither of them addressed the questions I was hoping.  Both
> seem to be more of a "Whoa, there! Let's not cross this line here..." type
> of replies.
>
> If you both feel this way about Torg and about the general worthiness of the
> Metapower vs. Advancement Dilemma (or the lack of there even being a
> dilemma) than I would expect nothing different.  However, I must admit that
> the dilemma seems obvious to me.  For each possibility you spend on
> Metapower, that's one less possibility you can spend on Advancement.  Or
> vice versa, for each possibility you spend on Advancement, that's one less
> possibility you can spend on Metapower.
>
> Consider: Let's say the GM keeps track of how many possies the player spends
> and makes sure to award them that many in the Arc Award.  Well, that just
> means that the player gets to spend metapower resources for free - in
> addition to the awards the player was going to get if he *hadn't* spent
> those resources during the arc.  It avoids the problem by throwing out the
> baby with the bathwater.
>
> It is so obvious a point to me, that I can't imagine that it makes any sense
> to try to demonstrate it further.  If it's not obvious to one, then perhaps
> it will never be.
>
> However, given that there IS a real choice between the use of possies as
> Metapower and Advancement - that you can't have both - then so far the two
> respondents have said variously 1) this is a GOOD thing (which is a
> possibility I included) and 2) Without that it cannot be considered Torg.
>
> To answer that in reverse order - Torg doesn't stop being Torg just because
> you decide that Arc awards will be skill points and Act awards will be
> possibilities - unless ANY house mod or rule change makes the game being
> played "not Torg".  Frankly, that is insupportable.  Torg or not-Torg isn't
> black and white, it's a continuum from lightly modified Torg to heavily
> drifted Torg - and even what is considered "light" or heavy" is in the eye
> of the beholder.  Some may find Jasyn Jones' GJN fix more heavy than the
> idea of separating Act/possy and Arc/Skill awards.
>
> So in a nutshell, I am taking from the two responses so far two votes for
> "Metapower vs Advancement is a good dilemma".  I hope to receive further
> responses that stray from the party line and show a great breadth and
> diversity of opinion and approach.
>
> 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
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com [mailto:torg-
>> bounces at justintimeadventures.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schultz
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:59 PM
>> To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
>> Subject: Re: [Torg] Any ever thought of or tried reversing/altering
>> Torg's Metapower vs Advancement struggle?
>>
>>
>> I think you'll find that this is the last group in the world where
>> you'll have to be criticized on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't
>> fix it". *heh*
>>
>> Here's the thing that your friend hasn't quite grasped (or maybe it's
>> his gamemaster): Your total "income" of possibilities over the course
>> of an adventure is normally positive, in spite of, or even BECAUSE of,
>> judcious spending of your possibilities. Every act has a built-in
>> possibility award and the end of an adventure typically has a bonus
>> possibility award. This is no different than games that have "XP". If
>> you're an MMO player, you've seen this model, where you get a certain
>> amount of XP from "killing stuff" and then you get a bonus at the end
>> of the mission.
>>
>> TORG is designed around the same engine. Instead of XP, you get a
>> possibility allowance at the end of each act. At mission's end, you get
>> a bonus. The size of the reward is dependent on the GM, the adventure,
>> and how he feels about your gameplay. Like any other RPG, your TORG GM
>> is likely to reward compelling or fun gameplay with extra
>> possibilities. Spending possibilities creatively adds to the fun, which
>> generally adds to the rewards.
>>
>> Sure, there will be times where you have to make a choice between
>> gameplay or advancement, but if your friend feels like he's making that
>> choice constantly then either your GM is being stingy with the rewards
>> or your friend needs to get out of the min/max powergamer mindset that
>> says that all possibilities must be hoarded towards advancement. The
>> game is designed with the idea that there's a balance between the two
>> goals and part of "playing right" is achieving the right balance.
>>
>> Now, this may sound like variation on "it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>> I'd say it's more a comment on how a system that tries to let you have
>> your cake and eat it too is a system that is making a change that isn't
>> just about XP, it's about changing one of the fundamental foundations
>> of the game. Spending possibilities isn't about choosing advancement
>> over success. It's about risk versus reward and choosing what kind of
>> reward is more important to you.
>>
>> Ultimately, though, I'd say that a typical gaming session should make
>> you feel that you succeeded at both goals - game success and
>> advancement. As I said earlier, if you feel like you're constantly
>> stuck with one or other, then your GM should probably start pumping out
>> more possibilities as mission rewards.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Torg mailing list
>> Torg at justintimeadventures.com
>> http://www.justintimeadventures.com/mailman/listinfo/torg
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:45:02 -0400
> From: "Benjamin Grant" <benn at 4efix.com>
> Subject: RE: [Torg] Any ever thought of or tried reversing/altering
> 	Torg's	Metapower vs Advancement struggle?
> To: <torg at justintimeadventures.com>
> Message-ID: <000a01c9a292$a2b70c80$e8252580$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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 succ!
>  eed.  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.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Torg mailing list
> Torg at justintimeadventures.com
> http://www.justintimeadventures.com/mailman/listinfo/torg
>
>
> End of Torg Digest, Vol 56, Issue 8
> ***********************************
>