[Torg] Any everthought ofor triedreversing/altering Torg'sMetapower vsAdvancement struggle?

[Travis James Hall]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com 
> [mailto:torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com] On Behalf Of 
> Dominick Riesland
> Sent: Saturday, 14 March 2009 4:28 AM
> To: torg at justintimeadventures.com
> Subject: Re: [Torg] Any everthought ofor 
> triedreversing/altering Torg'sMetapower vsAdvancement struggle?
> 
> I realize that this struggle is what Jeff doesn't like. He doesn't
> want to choose between defeating the bad guy now or buying the fire
> combat skill needed to defeat the new bad guy later. He wants
> defeating the first one to *earn* the right to learn the skill needed
> to defeat the other one.
> 
> There is precedent for such a philosophy. It drives practically every
> video game in existence.

But defeating the bad guy in Torg does earn the right to improve skills
needed to defeat other bad guys. Defeating the bad guy is generally an
objective for which Possibilities will be awarded at the end of the
adventure if it is achieved. Torg just doesn't guarantee replacement of the
resources used in defeating the bad guy in addition to the reward.

Can you name a computer game that not only rewards defeating the bad guys,
but also gives back the non-renewable resources expended in achieving that
aim? I'm sure there's a few, but certainly far short of all. I'm not a big
computer gamer, but when I played some of the Mechwarrior games, as one
example, it was entirely possible to win battles but expend so many
resources doing it that the pay didn't cover the costs. Most computer games
more complex than shoot-em-ups are, in my experience, resource management
games at heart; they pose the question not only of can you defeat this guy,
but can you defeat him without using everything you'd need to defeat the
next guy?

And I do wonder how many players who claim distress at having to choose
between advancement and immediate in-play benefits would really claim
satisfaction if the GM's solution was to simply split the standard
allocation of Possibilities (or other game currency) into two pools, with no
additional resources being given. Further, of those who claim that this is a
good solution, how many would be happy if the other players retained their
option to spend as they choose. After all, if Jeff simply doesn't want to
choose, but I enjoy having to choose, surely everyone is made happy by me
choosing and him not choosing, right? (And I do mean if a player like him
and a player like me were playing alongside each other in the same game.)

Travis Hall