Are multi-actions too cheap?

ZorValachan
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Are multi-actions too cheap?

Postby ZorValachan » Thu Aug 31, 2017 1:48 pm

You might find it harsh, but in Old Torg, I only allowed possibilities (drama and hero cards too) to be used on a single action. that cut down on the crazy one-on-many's going on in my game. Other cards could be used, so players did not abandon o-o-m, but thought if they wanted to risk it.
- Leamon Crafton Jr.
Infiniverse Exchange author:

The Paraverse: An entire alternate Cosmverse
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/237607/

The Knights of the Road: Archtypes designed as a Storm Knight group
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/228365/

User avatar
Rabbitball
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:41 pm

Re: Are multi-actions too cheap?

Postby Rabbitball » Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:29 pm

ProfessorK wrote:
Rabbitball wrote:
ProfessorK wrote:My players seem not to care much about the -2. if they are on the line, they generally have poss polints or cards to burn to get over it.


If that -2 is the difference between a Standard and Good attack (or between Good and Outstanding), and it's pointed out as such, that may change...


No, because ikf 2 is the difference they almost always have a way by trading cards around of mkaing it.


And so they are spending a card to gain a card. That seems counterproductive to me... ;)
Dominick Riesland, aka Rabbitball
Co-author, Aysle Sourcebook for Torg Eternity
Creator of the Cosmversal Grimoire
"Those who will not follow are doomed to lead"—Anarchist, Magic: the Gathering

ZorValachan
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Are multi-actions too cheap?

Postby ZorValachan » Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:59 pm

Rabbitball wrote:
ProfessorK wrote:
Rabbitball wrote:
If that -2 is the difference between a Standard and Good attack (or between Good and Outstanding), and it's pointed out as such, that may change...


No, because ikf 2 is the difference they almost always have a way by trading cards around of mkaing it.


And so they are spending a card to gain a card. That seems counterproductive to me... ;)


Depends on the card they spend and the one they get. :)
- Leamon Crafton Jr.
Infiniverse Exchange author:

The Paraverse: An entire alternate Cosmverse
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/237607/

The Knights of the Road: Archtypes designed as a Storm Knight group
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/228365/

User avatar
Kuildeous
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: Are multi-actions too cheap?

Postby Kuildeous » Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:00 pm

I could certainly see gaming the system where you spend a Willpower card in the hopes of drawing a Leadership or Rally card. In that case, you're trading a card for a card, but it's an upgrade.

But it's a risk. You may spend a Willpower to draw another Willpower. Not only did you not gain anything substantial, but you weakened your pool by one card.

I'm okay with people spending resources to gain more resources. The players have fun doing it, and there is a chance of improving their situation without making it an automatic gimme.
The Boneyard – Friends and foes within Tharkold's Blasted Land

Infiniverse Exchange Word template – Infiniverse Exchange template for MS Word users

User avatar
Gargoyle
Posts: 1797
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:20 pm

Re: Are multi-actions too cheap?

Postby Gargoyle » Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:47 am

Let's not forget that a multi-action to get another card doesn't *just* grant you another card. Sometimes I think Torg players and GMs are jaded....not many game systems allow you to take a second action during your turn (or third, or fourth, etc). :) In addition to a card you get whatever benefits those two actions grant. If only one action succeeds and the result of it was meaningless, like in the rare case of an interaction attack against a foe that was already very stymied and very vulnerable, and you used a card, then yeah, you just used a card to get another card, and nothing more. In all other cases you're putting a status on them or doing some damage in addition to getting a card. It's a good gamble, especially if the card you're using isn't all that awesome.

And there is always a chance that you'll get an awesome exploding roll. It's better to have it happen on a multi-action than on a single action.

So multi-actions are very good, and may even be better most of the time. But are they too good? I don't think so for a few reasons:

- If you nerf them, they probably won't be used at all. Gameplay anecdotes are useful but it's not the same as playtesting. And it would be a shame to not see them used, because they are very cinematic.@TorgHacker mentioned that this was determined in playtesting, and I'm trusting that over anecodotes from gameplay, at least for now because there isn't much granularity in the system. A plus or minus one is potentially a big change.
That's why you can't say Double Tap sucks at +1, let's just make it +2, that would be Rapid Fire. There's not room to tweak many things. There are other ways to nerf it that could work, but my point is that it's very easy to cross that line to turn it into an option that will never be used.
- There are times when they clearly aren't a good idea. The argument that they are too good is that you should always use them but I just don't think that's true. Using them with a skill you don't have adds in is probably not a great idea, and there are times you really should be focusing on success with one important action. I have a feeling that they are useful more than people would like, but that's not the same thing as always being the right choice.
- If it is used all the time, I don't think it's a big deal. The math isn't hard, it still only requires one roll, and if the GM feels like it's making things too easy, drop a ravagon on them. ;)
"That old chestnut?"

Gargoyle

ProfessorK
Posts: 396
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:21 pm

Re: Are multi-actions too cheap?

Postby ProfessorK » Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:29 pm

Rabbitball wrote:
ProfessorK wrote:
Rabbitball wrote:
If that -2 is the difference between a Standard and Good attack (or between Good and Outstanding), and it's pointed out as such, that may change...


No, because ikf 2 is the difference they almost always have a way by trading cards around of mkaing it.


And so they are spending a card to gain a card. That seems counterproductive to me... ;)


You mustve not done game theory then.

They get a card WHENEVER they do this.

The onyl spend a card in that critical "almost there ' situation. And they could still hit "almost there" situations anyway an NOT have the cards to handle thme if they don't do this.

Its an OBVIOUS net win.

User avatar
TiaMaster
Posts: 282
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: Are multi-actions too cheap?

Postby TiaMaster » Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:28 pm

On a moderately experienced character (with adds in interaction skills and an attack skill), I can't see a reason not to multi-action. I wish that weren't true because there are ALREADY too many +/-2s and +/-4s flying around. This is why one of my house rules is having Stymied = oTorg Stymied. I just made it so it only happens in Good or above results.

Savioronedge
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Are multi-actions too cheap?

Postby Savioronedge » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:32 pm

I would think that inexperienced players with inexperienced characters would have trouble making multi actions work consistently.

Inexperienced players with experienced chatacters is a problem unto itself, don't blame the multi action system for this.

With experienced players, multi actions should be role driven, not roll driven: a great player will choose the combat option which is most appropriate for the story, not the number crunching min-maxing "best" option. And if the best story driven action is a multi action, I don't want it to be nigh impossible.

Impra
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:09 am

Re: Are multi-actions too cheap?

Postby Impra » Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:40 am

The meta gaming of smart players will be or already is combine interaction with combat in a multi action because you get 2 possie rolls for the price of one and the -2 is offset by the effect of the interaction.

for this reason i will rule it as ZorValachan keep those calculator from dominating...... if its a sitaution arisng from play multiaction is good but a series of them kills the spirit.

User avatar
Wotan
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:10 pm
Location: Aysle (UK)

Re: Are multi-actions too cheap?

Postby Wotan » Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:18 pm

Impra wrote:The meta gaming of smart players will be or already is combine interaction with combat in a multi action because you get 2 possie rolls for the price of one and the -2 is offset by the effect of the interaction.

Mechanically speaking, all parts of a multi-action happen simultaneously, so a character's attacks don't get to benefit from the effects of their interactions (& vice versa.)

TBH, whether or not it's meta-gaming, I think it's part of the intended system balance for Storm Knights to be able to pull off possibility enhanced multi-actions. I'm not saying that your way of doing it is bad-wrong-fun but I'm guessing that it'll result in PCs feeling less heroic, & possibly having a harder time with enemies. *shrug*
Glitchfinder General


Return to “Rules Questions (TORG)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests