From: cbekar@fraser.sfu.ca (Clifford Bekar)
Subject: Players info set
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:20:41 GMT

I just picked up the GMR at my fav hobby establishment and
the purchase has got me in the mood to toss my 2 cents in on 
the topic of player information.  Specifically, it has suprised
me to see that a number of GM postings in the last couple of weeks
have concerned group rebellions over whether or not the characters
should venture into Illmound keep.  This is in some ways an extension 
of the munchkin psychosis, and in another way it is the antithesis of
the driving force behind the TORG genre.  Just to make sure I don't
sound like a ranting lunatic, let me explain that I am in no way
pretending what I say is the truth about TORG, or that my games
are in any way better then anyone elses, I'm just throwing in my
contribution on TORG methodology.

I GM two players who each have two characters (Elven Mage, 
Cybepapacy vehicle specialist [forgery tag skill!], 
Indonesian professor/werewolf, and a ninja), in each case I
have given the characters some extra abilities (ie the cyberpapacy
character is very at home in europe, and can always seem to lay his
hands on a hideout, getaway car, some info, etc., but in return is
ruthlessly pursued by the cyberpapacy).  Pretty standard, but I have
also done away with the cyberware rules, no limit, no psychosis, no
nothing--talk about an easy system--in return, the player is very
reasonable about his cyberware (actually, he has, if anything, too
little cyberware).  All of the players are like this.  They love the
game, the love the source material (pour over at every chance), but
would rather leave the details to me (and this is a group who in
AD&D, and ShadowRun turned into terrible rules lawyers of the worst
sort).  They have no idea what module their ever in, (I photocopy
them and put them in a binder, so they can't even see the cover) and
they never *want* to know.  What I always thought made TORG such a
great system is that the cinematic feel destroys the desire to be
a munchkin (again this is for me and my group, if somebody has fun
playing superman then power to them, really!).  The PC's get a kick
out of doing the amazing (ie in still world, the ninja blows the
generator in the compound and jumps onto the seaplane while it taking
off, getting a Glory Result no less, while the card was in his hand, 
we *still* talk about that), but realize this turns quite dull unless
there is a real threat, and in my games there always is.  The PC's
have never been to Orrorsh, but they are terrified of it nonetheless,
they have no idea why its so scary, and that makes it all the worse 
for them. However, when they heard they might have to make a foray into
Orrorsh they were all for it.  They honestly like to risk their 
characters for the greater good of the story (when they die I am much
more inclined to allow the new character to be related to the old one,
something I was loathe to do in AD&D--ie my new PC obviously inherits
my old PC's magic items doesn't he?).

So here is my point, the very cinematic feel of TORG demands a little
compromise from the players in regards the lives of their PC's (and, I
would suggest, is *absolutely essential* in Orrorsh).  The denial of
this aspect of TORG causes it to lose an essential aspect which makes
it unique.
Further, by maxing out there PC's (and here I am including a party with
the desire to go out and learn enough about a upcoming adventure that 
they no longer want to play it!) the players again ruin the cinematic
feel of the game, reducing their PC's to a collection of stats (I mean,
how could they possibly reject the chance to strike at the Gaunt Man,
what are the possibility wars about anyway!).

Hope I didn't come of sounding self-important and preachy, certainly not
my intention.

Riding the Storms...

Cliff Bekar

Newsgroups: alt.games.torg