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

[Michael Jason Teegarden]

Hi, Benjamin,

You wrote:
"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?"

Being one of the earlier responders, I would like to answer your questions.  I hope these are helpful in explaining my perception (ie, there is no "dilemma" but there is a "forced option").  I have considered options such as "metapower leads to advancement" and also "metapower and advancement should be separated," both being useful for certain games.  I've long played such games as Call of Cthulhu, and one successful, long-running campaign saw us using experience checks for skills as well as "luck points" for metapower effects (not just luck rolls, as per the straight system, but a number of luck points based on POW).  We liked the separation of metapower and advancement, but those two systems were deliberately chosen to help support the feel and atmosphere of the game itself.  In contrast, for the TORG game, we want a different feel/atmosphere.

What would games that use either A or B be like?  I would say they would have a less-dramatic and less-action-adventure-movie feel or dynamic or atmosphere to them.  For example, our group could not duplicate the feel of the Indiana Jones movies with Call of Cthulhu's or D&D's game systems.  To make that "feel," we would need to use the TORG game.  Instead, the atmosphere of the Cthulhu game (with luck points) would be closer to a psychological thriller-type horror movie (not blood and guts horror, but _Psycho_ or _Saw_ horror).  The suspense would be deeper than in TORG; the heart-pounding action would be less than in TORG.

Does that help to clarify things in the objective way I think you were asking for?  (Comparing different games, feels, atmospheres, and play styles is a tall order!)

Michael


----- Original Message ----
From: Benjamin Grant <benn at 4efix.com>
To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:35:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Torg] Any ever thought of or tried reversing/altering Torg's Metapower vs Advancement struggle?

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

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