[Torg] Reality Storms

[Steve Crow]

> > 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.
> 

As players (and as characters), they already know the results of losing and winning a reality storm battle, and that they're not guaranteed to win. My understand from the original suggestion was that more specific info should be conferred as a deterrent (i.e., "That ninja looks like someone you shouldn't invoke an IRS against.") It's not clear how in context you can communicate that to PCs without getting into meta-gaming.

> > 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.
> 

It isn't happening in the situations I've described. It's also a situation I have no control over. Saying something isn't likely to happen, when it keeps happening, doesn't really help with the situation I find myself in. :)


> > 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?
> 

He's not giving energy to his opponent: his opponent is drawing it from the surrounding environment (and the Everlaw of One, trying to reduce variables, contrai-wise _permits_ it, see above). The main problem would go away if it was only the loser giving possibilities to the winner.

Well, the main thing is that if you lose a reality storm, you're typically... well, dead. Not directly. But rather, the now possibility-less opponent is out of possibilities (although still reality-rated), the IRS PC and his comrades are still there, and they apply the beat stick at that point.

Unless you're playing a solo campaign, in which case only the IRS PC is there with the new batch of possibilities to apply the beat stick. :)

That seems pretty consistent with the written material. The Heart of Coyote is drained and useless. The walkway collapses and the now possibility-less loser falls to his death. The Nippon businessman becomes a dazed Core Earther and is taken away.

So giving up your reality (presumably most people don't to lose it), just to end the battle, so the victor and his comrades can proceed to beat you up, seems like a meta-textual consideration.

> > 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.
> 

Except people earlier were suggesting you limit P-rated opponents during dramatic scenes to avoid the problem in this campaign as well. We seem to be heading toward limiting P-rated opponent overall, just because of one rule.

Also, as noted, WEG was fond of including P-rated opponents... well, everywhere. :)

> > 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.
> 

I'm aware they're not the same, yes. Problem is, it gives the PCs a huge advantage during Standards scenes on top of cards.

> > 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.

Which IRS seem to often fit.

> > 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.
> 

Ummm, I do do this. It's still boring.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that any common sense assumptions about what's going on, and conclusions from it, I've already made. :)

As noted, the problem is that these go on for a while because a PC simply chooses to maintain it to grab more possibilities. That means the battle often extends beyond the end of "regular" combat.

In other words, the boredom doesn't come to the length of each individual combat round and how much time is devoted to it. It's the sheer number of individual combat rounds where a PC who already has the advantage says, "Okay, I gain 3 more XP." "Opponent rolls and fails to beat PC's Reality roll." "Next round"

Plus it's kind of irritating when it's another PC saying in essence, "Okay, I'm gaining more XP." :)

> > 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.
> 

Rather than cursing, again, please read for context. I've tried to make it clear (apologies if I haven't, but "bullshit" isn't a necessary response even if I failed), but to clarify: what happens is the situation happens randomly to a PC. That PC becomes substantially ahead of the other PCs in XP. Then it escalates into an arms race because one PC is imbalanced, XP-wise. (That's what the PCs think: your mileage may vary. However, a lot of the PCs I've dealt with think PCs with otherwise consistent levels of performance should have consistent levels of XP. You touch on this below, so I assume it's something you're familiar with.)

Then someone loses and they back off. Then someone gets lucky again. And the cycle repeats.

> > 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

Now we come to the parity question. That's not using possibilities as XP. The concern is grabbing XP, not just possibilities but the use of them as XP (raising skills, attributes, buying spells, so on).

For what it's worth, none of the other players are interestd in telling the PC with extra XP what to spend it on. It's the fact he has it and they don't. I suppose I could tell them to think differently... not sure how it will work, though. :)

> > 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.)
> 

Neither of which are a random mechanic or change the nature of reality storms.

> > 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.
> 

Both. And gaining a lot of possibilities, not just "some."

> 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?

No. He posted on here once it started in his most recent campaign, asking if other GMs have seen a similar problem, and IF SO how they've dealt with it.

Hence, this conversation. :)

I'll concede, if someone hasn't had the problem happen (and at least initially, it's due to lucky die-rolling rather than intent), the proposed solutions may not relate to what is happening. Or you may have PCs with a different mindset then all the ones I've encountered.

---

Steve Crow

"Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority."

Check out my website at:  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4991/


_________________________________________________________________
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®. 
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=TXT_MSGTX_WL_HM_express_032009#colortheme
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.justintimeadventures.com/pipermail/torg/attachments/20090315/0917303f/attachment.html>