[Torg] Reality Storms

[Travis James Hall]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com 
> [mailto:torg-bounces at justintimeadventures.com] On Behalf Of Steve Crow
> Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2009 9:00 AM
> To: torgmail
> Subject: RE: [Torg] Reality Storms
> 
> Because it was suggested as a deterrent. But if the PCs don't 
> know the fact the GM wants them to know that might deter 
> them, it doesn't... well, deter them. :)

So tell them. You have a tongue, they have ears, so communication is
possible. If you want players to be aware of the fact that getting into a
reality battle with a stronger opponent will likely see them stripped of all
their Possibilities and Reality adds, say so. While you are at it, point out
that they will never know which opponent is the wrong one to storm.

> That's good. Once the losing NPC (or PC) is down to 0 
> possibilities (and some folks noted it can happen quite 
> quickly: does it happen quickly or slowly?), the battle can 
> still be maintained indefinitely. All the winning side has to 
> do is keep adding possibilities to himself.

You deleted, without response, the next paragraph, in which I pointed out
that a transform result will, most likely, end the reality storm once the
NPC has no Possibilities. The PC cannot choose not to have that happen.

Here's another thought... R&E says that aggressive defense is an option
during an invoked reality storm, but it doesn't actually say that no other
combat options can be used. Most combat options just don't apply. However, I
don't see why some of the standard combat options could not be generalised
to be applicable in a broader range of situations, including reality storms.

Definitely applicable to this situation would be All-Out Attack. (If you can
sacrifice offense for defense, using aggressive defense, why not sacrifice
defense for offense?) By choosing this option, the NPC would gain an
effective +1 on his Reality total. (He would get +3 for his action total and
+1 on his effect total, but there's no case in which the extra +2 action
would help, since the action is Reality vs Reality and the effect is Reality
vs Reality and there is no effect if the effect result points are negative.)
His opponent would get +3 to the bonus number. Normally, this would seem to
be a losing option - but that's exactly why it is appealing in this case.
For a much weaker contestant in a reality storm, losing slowly is the worst
result, so boosting his offense while reducing his defense is a definite
help. Win or lose, he just wants out right now.

> The wining side can simply spend to negate. Granted, since 
> PCs have cards, this gives them a bit of an edge.

Yes, the Possibility spent to boost the NPC's result each round will most
likely be negated by the PC, but the point of the expenditure was to reduce
the NPC's Possibilities. The chance at a bonus is merely icing on the cake.

> That's a possibility (so to speak :) ), although it seems to 
> attribute a bit too much meta-textual consideration to the NPC.

Why? The NPC knows about possibility energy, he knows that giving huge
amounts of it to an enemy likely to kill him greatly reduces whatever chance
of escape he might have. Why is it "too much meta-textual consideration" for
him to cut his losses and run?

> Also a possibility. I'm not sure why instant transformations 
> aren't allowed once a maelstrom occurs.

Though on reflection, it probably wouldn't make a lot of difference, because
the NPC has already lost at least 5 Possibilities before the maelstrom
changes how things work. If there was even only one or two rounds of
non-maelstrom reality storm prior to that, he's probably already very close
to out of Possibilities.

> Yeah, I thought that too, that Attack, Defend and Any would 
> net the PCs cards during a reality storm. The potential 
> problem is it somewhat limits using P-rated opponent in 
> standard scenes since the Conflict Line activities favor the PC.

IIRC, that was the general recommendation for adventure design anyway -
limit use of P-rated opponents in standard scenes.

> The conflict lines during a Dramatic encounter tend to at 
> least give the NPCs something akin to the PCs' card 
> advantage.

Ah, now you are talking conflict line, and that's not the same as approved
actions. The conflict line does still apply during an invoked reality storm.
You just ignore any approved action that happens to appear on it. So, those
Flurries, Ups, Stymies and so on still apply, which does give the NPC
somewhat of an advantage in Dramatic scenes.

> And you'd think an IRS by its nature would be... 
> well, Dramatic. :)

As has been pointed out, dramatic != Dramatic. "Dramatic Scene" is a Torg
term of art, with a specific definition.

> Even without XP grabbing, IRSs seem rather boring. No 
> approved actions, just two characters, no toys, they make the 
> same skill check every round. The other players certainly 
> find them boring to watch. Even more boring on the times when 
> someone has their opponent down to 0 possibilities but still 
> has a few reality adds, and the maelstrom XP-grabbing begins.

If your group find reality storms boring, you might need to change how you
run them. Yes, with limited possible outcomes for the actions of those
characters, there's little you can do to make it a spectator sport, but the
beauty of that is that you don't have to waste much time on it. The actions
of those particular characters can be handled in a few seconds. When that
PC's action comes up, you point to the player and say, "Roll it." See the
roll, do the maths, say "3 Possibilities - gain or strip?" (If you're not in
a maelstrom, don't even do that - just mark off the NPC's Possibilities),
reduce the Possibilities of the NPC and move on.

Why do this? Because as you say, straight rolls with fixed outcomes are
boring. Don't try to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Quickly move on to
the interesting thing: what the other PCs are doing. (They are doing
something, right? You aren't making your Dramatic scenes about a single NPC
jumping out of the shadows and going, "Mua ha ha ha!" are you?) Their
situation will be complicated by a reality storm in the middle of things,
and that's where you get really interesting effects.

> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'd say more it's one or two 
> "lucky" results (which seem to occur relatively often enough 
> that they're not really "lucky" or statistically improbable).

You say this happens with "some regularity", that the players are trading
cards to optimise for the situation before it occurs, that the situation
gets milked for Possibilities, but this is simply one or two lucky results?
Bullshit. That regular preparation is not indicative of accidents.

> As a GM, I'm not interested in "winning."

Get interested, because your NPCs are. Your objective should never be to
"win" the game of Torg, but if you don't know *how* to win Torg, you don't
know how to play your NPCs to maximum effectiveness. Sometimes, they should
be effective.

> So part of the problem is the rule allows XP-grabbing. 
> Another part of the problem is the other PCs seeing it happen 
> and thinking they need to do it to maintain XP balance, as it were.

If the entire group is just trying to maintain parity, you've got much
better ways to let that happen. The desire to maintain parity is definitely
a player-level concern. The players should talk to each other about it, and
you should encourage them to talk about it. Let the player who just gained a
bunch of Possibilities know that everyone else at the table would like to
see them benefit the whole group. Let him be the one to spend to counter
NPCs Possibilities for a while. (That's what was expected of Father O'Malley
after storming the Aztec gods... Though frankly the boost from the storms
was much smaller than the boost he had already gotten from smart play in
other ways, especially card play, so it was already happening by that
point.) Let him trade away Drama cards to other players, to give them a bit
of a boost.

And to really ramp his drain into overdrive, let them find an eternity shard
with a group power. Heck, even several. Guess who gets to spend a crap-load
of Possibilities to become bearer for a power that benefits the entire
group? Guess who gets to spend lots on using the group power, too?

We sometimes speak of two generalised methods of motivation: the carrot and
the stick. Enemies with high Reality skills acting as agents for a Darkness
Device are the stick built into the setting that you use to beat hell out of
players who attempt to abuse these rules. Group powers are the carrot for
taking a big risk, succeeding, and then doing the right thing with the
resulting boon.

> Well, presumably it's not a random mechanic. However, the 
> rule stands in large part in isolation from the game setting. 
> Some of the changes you propose, and that I'm looking for, 
> don't seem to require a change to the setting.

I only proposed one change, or two if you count "Uncle!" (The latter is
really just something not covered by the standard rules due to it being a
tactic that is usually overlooked.)

> If as you note 
> the rule is changed so that instant Transformations are still 
> permitted in a Maelstrom, no change in the setting is 
> necessary. It doesn't even seem to contradict anything 
> established in the setting.

Except for the Gaunt Man's battle with the Heart of Coyote. I'm not sure how
justifiable it is to retain the instant-transformation result and allow that
to continue as long as it did. Assuming the Gaunt Man and the Heart had the
same reality skill, it works out to 28,800 bonus numbers generated per day,
and the first one that hits +13 ends the reality storm. This conflict
continued for months. The probability of a +13 is low, but I don't think
it's that low.

> Or maybe not. I don't know if it inevitably causes problems. 
> Or really care. :) I just know that I keep seeing it come up, 
> in campaigns separated over decades and with wildly varying 
> groups of PCs.

Keep seeing what come up, precisely? Invoked reality storms, or problems
resulting from them? Because I don't count gaining some Possibilities as a
problem in and of itself.

And in any of those cases, did a GM ever respond to what was happening? Or
did he just sit there resenting the "hole" in the rules that "let" this
happen?

Travis Hall