From: Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim) <jogle@aoc.nrao.edu>
Subject: Re: Negating Possibilities
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:25:12 GMT

Brian Poel writes:

> 	Regarding the tone that the GM desides to run his campaign in . . .

> One of the things that frustrates me most about Torg, both fromt the
PC and the GM perspectives is the overly heroic nature that is built
into the system.  I know...that's how WEG wanted it.  I like so many
things about the system, but I prefer more realism.  After many
instances of impossible deeds done and
> unearthly amounts of damage ignored with the spending of
possibilities or the playing of a stack of cards . . . I've begun to
devise a variety of alterations which I think may solve my
perturbation.  Since the group I play in here at college only play
sporadically and we alternate our GMing for variety and experience,
I've only tried this method once.  So I can't attest to it's
> workability over the long run.  But hey, it's worth beating around the bush.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a little more realism; I feel that
way myself sometimes, though my players usually don't.  As a result,
whatever new rules I come up with usually gets heavy opposition and I
don't bother using them (except in rare situations where I can sneak
it by the players.) 8-/

> 	First off, the role-playing of possibilites is an important
concept to discuss.  Why exactly does erasing a little number on a
sheet of paper and writing a smaller number in it's place allow a
character to fall off a building and then simply shake the dust off
and walk away.  What did this possiblity energy do?  I feel it's
important for the players to SEE the possibility which saved them from
this certain doom or gave them that extra edge for that
> miraculous shot.

Not just Possibilities but cards as well; Opponent Fails is a good
example; why did he fail?  What happened to mess up his action?

> 		EXAMPLE : which possibility, out of a variety of p's, was the
>one that saved the PC from going splat after falling of the 6 story high dino?
> The player must state what happened to prevent the mammoth amounts of damage
>impacted his frail form.  A really big bush, a small pond, a soft rock? As you
> can see I'm stretching it a bit.  Which is exactly what might happen to a PC
> who can't creatively use his possibilities to save his butt.  Guess what
> happens to our poor PC who lands on the "soft rock"?  SPLAT.

I hope that if the PC isn't creative you do not still take away the
Possibility he wanted to use to negate damage; that would be a bit too
cruel.

> 	This also opens up the door in the other direction for possiblity
> cancelling.  If NPC1 shoots PC BOB at point blank range with a BIGGUN and PC
>BOB chuckles while he erases a possibility and hopes to erase the fact that he
>just had major open organ surgery done . . . he better have a good reason.  If
> it isn't plausible, NPC1 may cancel the use of that possibility in the logic

You cannot spend a Possibility to negate a Possibility that someone
spends to negate damage; its in the rules somewhere I believe.  Now if
you want to allow that as an option when a player isn't creative, you
have to be fair in the opposite direction too - the players should get
to negate Possibilities the NPCs spends to negate damage if you (the
GM) can't come up with a good reason.

> that there was no way on earth that the event which just occurred did not
> occur.  The line gets awfully grey and fuzzy at this point.  Just what is a 
> plausable possibility?  Instead of saying that NPC1's gun missed at ptblank,
>maybe it just jammed?  What does NPC1 have to say to that?  Well I don't know.
> 	This cancelling of possibilites when your opponent removes damage is a

See above.  It isn't allowed.

> really touchy issue.  Even this whole roleplaying of possiblities issue is
>dangerous. It gives a lot of power to both the player and the GM.  Misused, it
> can become a sort of wish-parser, instead of a way to regulate the absolutely
> rediculous possiblity saves which sometimes occur.

That is one of the nice things (from a players point of view) about
TORG; the cards and the Possibilities allow the players to shape the
game along with the GM, instead of just rolling dice and hoping for
the best.  It does take some getting used to and player abuse is a
possibility that the GM has to take into consideration.

> 	One method which could be explored is examining how much a player
>exceeds a difficulty number.  Exceeding it by a substantial amount of 20 or so
>sends it into the "untouchable" realm.  Beating a d.n. by 10 or 15 may require
>a pretty darn good reason to change it's reality of existence.  But say it was
> really close, then possiblities start gaining their power of versatility.

However, such a situation will make highly skilled characters unholy
terrors that cannot be stopped by anyone except those of an equal
skill level - in such a case you pretty much doom the players to never
winning the Possibility Wars, since when it comes time to take out the
High Lords no one will be able to do it (GM: "The Gaunt Man uses an
Occult spell on all of you...he succeeds by 20 points even if he rolls
a one because his skill is so high, so you all die.")

The other problem with this is that level of success is pretty much
already accounted for in everything you do; higher amounts of damage,
greater effects from Interactions, etc etc.  If you further penalize
characters by making it difficult (some people just aren't creative on
their feet) or impossible to lessen those effects in some way, it
takes a lot out of the game.

> 		EXAMPLE : Life Ender the ravagon of doom which has been
> hunting the party the whole campaign takes on Logan, his werewolf nemesis in
>our group.  A battle to the death ensues.  Armed with a huge two-handed silver
> blade, Life Ender eventually stands over Logan's bleeding, but "i'm not quite
> dead" form.  As long as Life Ender doesn't roll really pitfully for his final
> blow, there's no way in @#$% Logan's gonna shrug off being turned into a pin
>cushion.  Dramatic licence wins this scene and Logan finds peace for his soul.
> 	If Logan starts getting snippy and says LifeEnder slipped in some blood
> or something . . . oh please.

Well, if Logan is unconscious then no, he shouldn't get a chance to
negate the damage.  If Logan is still conscious though, not giving him
a chance to avoid his fate is NOT going to go over well with players;
it will seem too much like "the GM does whatever he wants, screw what
the players want".  (I've been in games like that as a player, it is
not fun.)

> 	It's getting late. . . i suck at using this infernal terminal to
> write in email.  I'm not making much sense anymore and my first contribution
> to this mailing list probably sounds like the ramblings of some rookie GM who
> isn't up to snuff with the calabre of intellectual discussion of the group.
> (when it's late i get a bet self-defeatist)

Nah, it wasn't that bad.  Besides, you should see how low some of our
"intellectual discussions" get sometimes.  8-)

Kansas Jim (jogle@aoc.nrao.edu)