[Torg] Delurks and Review

[Lev Lafayette]

On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 09:36 +0000, Phil Dack wrote:
> Lev,

Hi Phil,

> nice to see that Torg's name is still out there! However, I'm sorry to
> say I'm not a huge fan of the article, which feels very dry and would,
> IMHO, benefit from more "pointing" for the reader with headings and
> introductions.

That's probably a fair comment. I am a 'dry' writer by nature and
inclination (ergo, I quite like Greg Gordon's work). Pointers however
are always good.

> I also disagree strongly with some of yoru conclusions. The Axiom
> scale does not represent the net worth of a realm, so the fact that
> one realm only adds up to 38 and another to 71 does not have any
> impact on game balance whatsoever.

I must disagree with this as the axioms define what is possible in a
realm. Of course, with many years of play one could internalise these
limits and end up not notice them on a conscious level, but they are
still there. 

>  The axiom is a key part of defining the feel and genre of that realm.
> Artificially changing axioms as youi have done fundamentally changes
> how those realms will play.

Yes, and those with radical changes were marked as such. I am aware of
this.

>  Furthermore, at a metaphysical level, you need to go back and
> recreate that realm - if you're going to give the Living Land a magic
> axiom, you need to put in magical traditions for the Living Land, and
> explain how these are reconciled with the deterministic religious
> state where all things come from Lanala. It really makes no sense at
> all. And that's me being polite!!

Sure, that's true is well. I don't have a problem with that. The
objective was "a greater degree of balance within the settings", for
those who desire such things.

> In describing interpersonal skills, I think you've missed two of the
> most important elements. One, the emphasis on "non-combat"
> interactions on the drama deck meaning that the system actively
> encourages combat actions that are more than just attack and defend.
> Second, that the interpersonal system works equally AGAINST the PCs as
> it does for them, forcing players to think hard and roleplay hard
> whenever they're in a social situation.This, while not unique, is a
> feature that is core to the game's goal of having rules enforce genre
> convention. Not universally popular, as a concept this is still
> controversial even now (I could reference some debates on the Hero
> Systems board just this year on the same issue!)
> 

OK, that can be cause for elaboration.

> Your reference to the Glass Jaw Ninja is accurate, but your proposed
> solution is not, unless you adjust values of armour, weapons and
> toughness across the game. There are other solutions around though, so
> I'm sure we could find some web references if you're interested!

I honestly don't think the modifications you suggest are necessary, but
please elaborate if you like.

> I'm not sure why you think the lighter style of the GM book is a
> negative. Certainly that's the implication of what you write. To me,
> it was a positive, and made it a very readable text - and one of the
> better "How to GM" guides that I've read (an honourable mention here
> to D&D3.5 DMG as well).

I like a good content substance to word count, thus light writing isn't
my thing. Especially when a lot of the material is already in the main
book. 

> I'd like to know what you meant when you say the game "diverges from
> well-known conventions". I would think that, particular in the 21st
> century RPG world of indie games, there are no longer any true
> conventions in the RPG world.

It certainly did then, and it does - to at least 95% of the industry -
now.


> I'd also debate the point about high level of randomness relative to
> the scale. The die roll, while a d20, actually clusters quite tightly,
> so that most rolls will only give a -2 to +2 variance.

I disagree with you here, a d20 doesn't cluster. 

> I'm also not sure you've got your RPG genealogy right. I think Torg
> came out when crunch was perhaps just past it's peak, but it certainly
> didn't come out at a time when rules light was starting to dominate,
> which I'd argue was later in the 90s.

"It came out at a time when the fashion was increasingly towards simpler
mechanics and a rules­light approach" was the quote in question. 

Well let's have a look at what were the big, fashionable up-and-coming
games at the time.

Cyberpunk 2020 (definitely towards simple mechanics and rules light)
Rifts (OK, you got me there)
Amber (rules light and simple mechanics)
Vampire (again simpler mechanics)
Shadowrun (more conventional and easier mechanics.. but more broken as
well!) 

> 1. Too many "essential" rules were in the supplements, meaning GMs
> required (or at least, they felt they required) to make a big
> investment to play the game. This was certainly true of me. I didn't
> run a game of Torg until I had all the cosm sourcebooks, just in case
> there was stuff in there I "needed" to know. As it happens, this isn't
> true, but references to forthcoming supplements in the Torg boxed set
> reinforced this suspicion.

True that. It means a game tends towards a smaller and smaller group of
more dedicated fans. 

>  2. The metaplot was hard to sustain and inevitably lead either to
> divergences or to static campaigns as they waited for the next 
> supplement, and 

Or.. throw it to the wind!

> 3. White wolf came along and blew the RPG world apart with their
> darker gothic vision, against which Torg's largely cinematic /
> four-colour feel and style quickly became extremely unfashionable.

Yes, that too; "...and with a grittier feel (e.g., Cyberpunk)"

> 1. Ayle - I can't see reference to the Light/Dark dichotomy which is
> fundamental to how this genre operates.

Well, I mentioned it (albeit in passing) in the first line and iirc in
the editorial.. 

> 2. Supplements you don't have - it's hardly a comprehensive review
> then!

It is entitled "An Almost Complete Collection". As it turns out the
ratio is about 1/3 that I don't have.. I kept discovering more as I was
writing it (especially those towards the end of the series)!

>  However, I'd suggest that the length of commentary on the supplements
> you DON'T have is probably nearer the length that your comments on the
> supplements you DO have should be.

I'd suggest that's way off the mark; 5,108 words versus 879. Marginally
over 1/6th.

> Hope you take my criticism in a positive light. We Torgians are not
> known for our diplomacy skills and I've seen few e-fights like the
> ones we've managed to generate on this list. But my comments are meant
> in a helpful way, and are based on my many years of Torg experience as
> well as my job as a professional writer (albeit that I write business
> reports and such like!!)

No problem; I do a lot of writing (some of it published, even) myself.
I'll incorporate some of the suggestions you've made.

All the best,



Lev