The Forge Archives

My pet peave for a long time is that no game, anywhere, deals with the psychology of combat.  For example, during WWII a study was done on soldiers in combat: one of the results of this study showed that less than 30% (sometimes a lot less) of soldiers in a firefight actually fired their weapons during a firefight (let alone fired usefully).  In fact, if you read first & second person accounts (or just talk to people), you will find that everyone talks about fear, hesitation, tunnel-vision, and general confusion.

None of which is in any game I know about.  I'm not talking about silly morale rolls, I'm not talking about coolness vs magical fear in Warhammer, I'm talking about real people being so scared of dieing that they fail to act rationally.

Anyway, I've run some duels & mock combats w/RoS.  I like the game, and I even think that, in this vein, they've brought some of the player's fears into the game (e.g. both people picking the white die).  I intend to run the game this weekend pretty much as is, but afterwords I'm probably going to adopt the following options:

1) The "red die" will be an actual WP/Battle roll.  If you fail the roll, you hesitate and defend.  I'll modify the number of dice based on wounds received & number of people nearby, but those specifics will come later.

2) Picking a target during combat isn't simple.  To do so, roll Per/Battle, and the number of successes is the number of "features" you see.  You can accumlate these over many exchanges, and the GM determines which ones you notice first by distance and facing.

An example of the second one. You just finished off the thug that attacked you.  You're a little worried about the book salesman you're guarding, so you tell the GM you're going to look for him.  The GM tells you to roll to see the area.  You roll perception/battle, and get 3 successes, and the GM says that you've oriented yourself, and see 1) the alley the thugs came out of, and 2&3) Your guard buddy fighting a second thug nearby.  Next exchange, you look around for salesman, but get 0 successes and don't see anything new.  The following exchange, you roll again, get 5 more, and finally notice him running down the street with a thug chasing him, along with the fact that your buddy is actually fighting two people.

Will these rules tick players off? Yeah.  Are they real world? I claim they are closer.  In the real world, people fail to notice enemies directly in front of them, fail to pull the trigger and kill people at point blank range, shoot their buddies, and lose all track of what's going (just to name a few examples).

Why am I using the Battle skill? It is my contention that the only way for a person to adapt to battle is to participate in battle, and the Battle skill is the closest thing to this.  Furthermore, there's real world evidence that training can assist a person to adjust to the initial shock of combat, which fits in well with the mechanics of skills in the game.

I'm curious what you think.

-Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Look, everyone, this is Simulationist Drift. As such, I think it deserves both respect and a very critical review.

Your suggested modifications seem perfectly reasonable to me if your goal of play is enhanced "realism" for its own sake. It introduces hitches, fits, and starts into the process of combat, and that seems to be desirable only to someone with your goals of play. They would not, for instance, work well with my goals at all.

My goal of ROS play, which I contend is consistent with the textual content of the game, is to develop stories based on when a hero is or is not justified in killing people. These stories can vary a lot, from rather callous but fun adventure-larks, to soul-ripping tragedies. But that's what the game is "about," to me. Any and all "realism" of the system exists in service to that goal, and anything (realistic or not) which impedes it is not functional. Deciding to kill someone, or not to do so, is important in my ROS game as a moral choice, not as a moment-to-moment psychological one.

Ultimately, neither of our goals is The One True Way to Play; there is no such thing. As I said, as long as you are clear about what you want from play, and if that rules modification fits it, then go to town with it. However, you might consider that realism for its own sake is not, in and of itself, a fundamental goal of RPG design.

Best,
Ron

Ah, but it's not simply for it's own sake.  It will be something that further distinguishes the heros (the players) from the rest of the world.  A bunch of peasants faced by soldiers will simply stand there and be slaughtered (or more likely fumble the attack roll and run) - it'll take the heros to initiate anything.

The heros in my stories are the people who can deal with the fear of battle.

Btw, this will open up the sphere a bit for leadership rolls as well, things like successes in leadership granting people more dice to roll to attack.  In other words, a hero can lead people into battle and prompt them into attacking.

Last, while realism may not be a good goal in and of itself, consistency can be.  An inconsistant story is a poor one to me and my group as well (they obviously have a say in such things).  The idea of a gritty game that doesn't involve basic fears is inconsistant to me, and (like I said) it's been a pet peave of mine for a long time.

-Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Are you suggesting that player-characters would not be making the rolls you described, but that NPCs (or some NPCs) would?

If player-characters are making the rolls you're describing, by definition you are adding the chance of "hitches and false starts" into combat for player-characters. They may be more successful in making those rolls, on the average, than other characters, but that is not relevant to my point. No matter how you slice it, introducing these rules for player-characters means that the players are not addressing Issues, they are instead concerned with the "realism" of the isolated moment.

Therefore, if the heroes in your game are indeed the people who "can deal with the fear of battle," then the best way to make sure that occurs is for them not to be making those rolls at all.

I think that you need to decide whether you want games about people dealing with the basic fears of battle (for a player-character) or games about people who, unlike others, withstand the basic fears of battle. Your post mentions both. They are incompatible.

I suggest that your point about leadership is just as easily handled with existing rules, such that successes in leadership rolls translate straight to combat bonuses for the rank & file.

Again, nothing is wrong or bad with that shift in emphasis, if you or anyone else were to use it. However, as a distinctive change in goal, it's a very significant suggestion and should be considered as such.

I'm willing, by the way, to let the topic drop. If, as you say, it's a pet peeve, as such you may not be inclined to discuss your point, only to defend it. That would automatically remove the topic from my interest. Let me know if you'd like to continue.

Best,
Ron

This is a pretty cool thread. I like the idea as a pure sim idea (see, I'm getting the lingo), and about 3 or 4 different ways ways to mechanize it (using Jaif's mechanics, using "terrain" mechanics, etc.). It could also be handled through simple drama/narration (the way that the Seneschal describes a fight to his players, and the way that he roleplays the other combatants).

Incidentally, the Battle Skill was made for almost exactly this sort of thing, though I imagined its use only on the battlefied.

Jake

Ron,

I've probably let this argument go down the wrong track, so let me try again.

RoS was written in part to fill a void in the gaming.  The game, as intended, approaches the mechanics of fighting in a much more realistic manner than any game I've seen.  I believe this approach not only enhances the gaming side, but the storytelling side as well by making the decision making process more "real", and therefore easier to fit into the story.  "I feinted to his side then stabbed him in the throat." is a more palatable story than "I did 20 points of damage."

However, combat, from everything I've ever read or seen, has as much an emotional side as it does a mechanical one.  I think my stories will be more complete, more real, and therefore more meaningful if I include this side. That's why I want hitches & starts in my game.

Btw, looking back at your original arguments and goals something rings false to me.  If your goal is simply to, as you said, "...develop stories based on when a hero is or is not justified in killing people." then why are you bothering with combat mechanics?  Why not just toss them aside altogether? Let the players kill whomever they want, whenever they want, and stay focussed on their justification for doing so.

-Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I think that I'm doing Jake a disservice by taking such a strong role in this discussion. You arrived as a TROS enthusiast and he has responded positively, and my discussion with you is perhaps making it all a negative experience.

Therefore, as I'd rather you had a good time chattin' with the game author rather than gut-rip with me, I'll put my comments 'way down as a footer. Please simply stop at my closure if you don't want to continue; if you do, get in touch by private email or start a thread about combat mechanics in RPG Theory.

Best,
Ron
****
further comments below










We agree to a large degree regarding the emotional issues as well as the physical ones, when it comes to good role-playing. However, I think you may be missing a central design feature of TROS. The void it seeks to fill is not simply "realistic combat." The void is much different issue altogether. I'll summarize it like this: if you don't use the Spiritual Attributes, your character will die screaming. That is where the emotional issues of play are established in the rules. Jake refers to this as the "natural selection" of the game.

Your suggested addition to the rules does not change that emotional content; it appears, to me, to delay it during play.

Your perceived "inconsistency" is faintly amusing. I suggest reading some more around the Forge, especially the essays, before continuing with that argument.

Meanwhile, here's food for thought. I don't know how familiar you are with games like Hero Wars, Orkworld, Dust Devils, Swashbuckler, or The Dying Earth. All of them also permit much more satisfying narration regarding combat than the games most people are used to. In my experience, these games are far better at producing gritty, intense, ugly, even realistic combats than most traditional combat-detailed RPGs like Rolemaster, RuneQuest, Warhammer, and others which emphasize narration-details, usually through critical-hit tables and complex initiative systems.

The Riddle of Steel, as I've said here and on RPG.net, presents an amazing potential - to put the detailed/linear combat mechanics at the service of story creation about a given hero and his identity. Not only is this my perception of the game, it's explicit in the text and scattered throughout Jake's comments. He just updated the website to reflect this issue, and you ought to check that out.

This is revolutionary. No one has ever combined the linear, detailed, mode of combat design in TROS (which has much in common with the original RuneQuest, only better) with thematic, player-managed mechanics regarding the character's emotional state in a game like this before.* Jake, Rick, and the other people involved in TROS are really going somewhere new.


* Pendragon did something similar, but Pendragon is not about creating a brand-new story through play (its scenarios are very fixed in their content).

I won't be posting in the rpg theory area - what I see about the discussions there frankly doesn't interest me.  I do have three points that I want to clear up from you footnote:

1) I understand that using spiritual attributes as the mechanic to drive a character's actions and progressions is important.  I used "written in part" when referring to the combat system for that reason.

2) I have Runequest from AH.  People are represented as a few bags of hitpoints (the head hitpoints, the chest hitpoints, etc.), but it still boils down to points.  Was the earlier edition that different?  I really don't consider Runequest in the same ballpark as Riddle.

3) The idea of using a player's motivation to affect their actions and as the conduit for experience is not new to Riddle.  Marvel (TSR's edition) used Karma in much the same way.  You could spend karma to affect your rolls, increase your stats, or purchase new skills & powers.  You gained Karma by being a superhero: saving lives and defeating villains.  I find Riddle's version improved, in that you aren't straight-jacketed to one system of awards (not bad for Marvel Heros, but bad for other settings), but it's still the same idea.

-Jeff

As an aside, or perhaps back onto the subject of the thread;

One system I recall did actually take into account the idea of clarity during battle, that was Albedo, with its Coolness under Fire rating(which also went up and down based on your character's Self Esteem...lots of cross indexing in that game...).

Under realistic terms, I'd make a difference between awareness in battle and the ability to act.  Many of the more dangerous opponents in a fight aren't necessarily aware of what's going on, but have no hesitation in attacking("the charger").  

This often determines how bad a streetfight will get, because one person may not be psychologically ready to throw a punch, another to slam someone's face into broken glass, and a third to slash a throat.  Certainly trained warriors who intend to kill(the original martial arts, not what is being pushed now), were trained and psychologically prepared for this much better than a peasant.  It's what makes the difference between the standard citizen, a hardened murderer, and a warrior.  

OTOH, being willing to jump in to combat does not make you aware of everyone else around you.  All sparring teaches you about the first(overcoming the hesitancy), but if you've had to spar against multiple opponents, it definitely is a different focus at use.

Bringing this back to ROS and mechanics, I think the initiative mechanic handles it quite well.  I believe only someone ready for combat should be informed that they should get ready to throw down a die, otherwise, a die just gets thrown and if you miss  the chance, you get sucker punched(or gutted).  Most people do not know the clues of body language of when a fight is about to happen, or may not have prepped themselves up for it and so will get one full round of attacks on them.

If you're referring to two different warriors trying to overcome fear(conscripts or first battle?) then you might want to start looking at WP/battle rolls, but I think it goes against the spirit of the game.  Unless you really want to play fresh conscripts, as opposed to seasoned warriors, it wouldn't necessarily fit with most character concepts.  Most fighters that are dangerous have no hesitancy in combat, no psychological walls about gouging, biting, stabbing, or slamming heads into concrete, and if they're trained, they've become very efficient at doing just that.

Chris

First of all, let's not discuss the truly violent personalities and so on, and leave such exceptions to be handled by the gifts/flaws system.

Second, while I appreciate the idea that people in combat initially are hesitant about stabbing/shooting/hurting someone else, that's not all of it.  The other side of combat is confusion and mortal danger.  It's one thing for a player to look down and say I'll attack that person there; it's another fo a character to actually ignore what's going on around him and do it.  When your aggresive action can be someone else's opening, or when you're not sure this is the best moment to attack because you think another's coming in just a second, you hesitate.  That's just two examples, but there are plenty of others in literature (non-fiction).

The point to my ideas is to get away just a bit from the look-down, wargamer-like version of combat, and move towards one where people get scared, misinterpret what's happening, don't know everything happening around them even when it's "obvious", and so on.

Also note this: a willpower/battle roll, for any fighter character, is going to be pretty easy.  It will only be a factor if you start subtracting dice for wounds (I'm thinking highest wound severity), being in a melee (people at range have an advantage), facing something monstrous (you want me to stab *that*!), and so on.  That's when your veterans will start to show themselves.

Note that last part: it's really what I'm going for.  There's a difference between the young, strong, confidant duellist and the old, battle-worn veteran, and it's not proficiency.  The duellist 1-on-1 should kick the vet's ass.  However, when the caravan's attacked at suppertime, the duellist will have a hard time figuring out what's going on, and will waste time fighting just one guy as he tries to make sense of the sights and sounds around him.  The vet, on the other hand, will see what's going on, take advantage of flank attacks (cheap shots!), press home his attacks quickly and efficiently, and generally make his presence felt.

-Jeff

P.S. As funny as it sounds, I'm not all that real-world with these rules.  In the real world, people who live in danger for long periods of time gradually become insane.  I'm not going to go there.

Hi Jeff,

Kinda funny. I get the idea we might be able to have a good conversation with one another if we started a new one ...

Anyway, your three points. I'm offering them just in the interest of clarity and not in an attempt to argue with you.

"I understand that using spiritual attributes as the mechanic to drive a character's actions and progressions is important. I used "written in part" when referring to the combat system for that reason. "

If we agree on that topic, then we have to set aside your earlier statement that realistic combat is the goal (filling the void) of the game. I'm willing to say we agree.

"I have Runequest from AH. People are represented as a few bags of hitpoints (the head hitpoints, the chest hitpoints, etc.), but it still boils down to points. Was the earlier edition that different? I really don't consider Runequest in the same ballpark as Riddle."

The two games are similar (especially the early version of RQ) because:

1) The combat systems are both derived from practitioners of simulated medieval combat (back in the early 70s, SCA was somewhat more like ARMA is today and less like some horrible nightmare of misfit-ism). Both combat systems involve some tricky timing and a lot of quick attack-defense; each game included notably high chances for maiming characters quickly. RQ was nicknamed "Limbquest" due to the frequency of combat amputations and the need to get healed using major magic, very often.

They are not identical systems. TROS "flows" in a way that RQ never did, and it incorporates player choices better into its sequence.

2) Early RuneQuest in particular was rooted very strongly in the idea of gaining "Rune Lord" status, in which one's identity was allied tightly to one's chosen "cult" (more accurately, "sect"). This inevitably placed one in a kind of tricky dance between one's judgment calls as a human and one's responsibility as a kind of holy warrior. In other words, early RuneQuest, specifically unlike the Avalon Hill RQ, was oriented more explicitly toward developing the personal hero-tale. (Early character creation and improvement was also very different between the two games, and that ties into the hero-orientation of the early-RPG as well.)

As I said in another post here in this forum, if Jake Norwood had time-travelled back to The Chaosium in the mid-70s, I think he would have found willing and enthusiastic listeners to his ideas about the role of Spiritual Attributes.  

"The idea of using a player's motivation to affect their actions and as the conduit for experience is not new to Riddle."

You are correct regarding RPGs in general. I will spare you a lengthy history of these mechanics. However, such mechanics have been rare to vanishing in fantasy RPGs, most of which have either been retreads of D&D, retreads of RuneQuest, retreads of Rolemaster, or combinations.

Anyway, I hope that this post places us in a pretty decent space of understanding what one another is saying. I think you are definitely saying something worthwhile about the stress, confusion, and other factors of fighting that tend to get lost in most RPGs. We may disagree about how such things may best be applied in TROS, but that's not any reason to be in a state of personal animosity.

In hopes of pax,
Best,
Ron

Quote from: JaifThe other side of combat is confusion and mortal danger.  It's one thing for a player to look down and say I'll attack that person there; it's another for a character to actually ignore what's going on around him and do it.

The point to my ideas is to get away just a bit from the look-down, wargamer-like version of combat, and move towards one where people get scared, misinterpret what's happening, don't know everything happening around them even when it's "obvious", and so on.

Also note this: a willpower/battle roll, for any fighter character, is going to be pretty easy.  It will only be a factor if you start subtracting dice for wounds (I'm thinking highest wound severity), being in a melee (people at range have an advantage), facing something monstrous (you want me to stab *that*!), and so on.

I'm not comprehending what you're saying.  First I hear you say you want the side of combat with people scared, confusion, and mortal danger.  Twice you speak badly of the 'look-down' detached-player kind of gaming.  Then you suggest an additional die roll (and more mathematics, I think).

Pardon me, but doesn't adding more die rolls and mathematics further detach the player from the 'scared, confusing, and dangerous' side of combat?  Looking down to see what roll is necessary, make the roll and then calculate the results (above as much mechanical interplay that already takes place) could only serve to more separate the player from that action.

You might be arguing that it will make the character act more 'realistically¹', but taken to the extreme, there is little point for the player to come to the table.  The more 'realism¹' you introduce by adding more mechanical interference, the less involved the player is in the combat and more in just the rules.  Ultimately, couldn't we just leave the battle up to a computer simulation which makes all the 'realistic¹' choices?  Heck, let's do all the calculations in advance and simply print tables in the back of the book; look up your character type, index the situation, and roll the die, battle's over.

There seems to be high opinions about Riddle of Steel all the way around.  Why tip the balance of something so well done towards 'realism¹?'  My explicit question: what are you trying to fix?  The longer version is: what goal is served by adding more rules?  With a more rules-heavy version, is the game better?  Does it do what you say you want or only what you think it will do?

What's wrong with it now?

Fang Langford

¹ Let's just say that the degree and quality of realism as emulated by role-playing game combat is highly subjective and there's no definitive opinion over what is 'more real,' only person bias.

A few things:

1) There is already a point in RoS combat where people choose a red vs white die and reveal their choice.  I'm slipping in a few dice for the red one, so I'm not adding an extra step there.  I'm actually very conscious about adding steps to combat; as a computer programmer, I'm aware what happens when you add a line of code to a loop.

2) I don't worry about calculations much.  In part, I know that's an artifact of myself and my group: none of us have any problem with math-heavy games.  We played aftermath, powers & perils, and lots of record-keeping wargames.

3) You asked "what's wrong with it now?" and "what are you trying to fix?".  I believe I made that point explicit above, but in summary I'm trying to model psychological effects in combat in addition to mechanical ones.  This isn't a right & wrong issue; it's just after reading stories from people in combat and seeing lines like "...I was so scared, I didn't do anything for what felt like hours..." or "...I suddenly found myself staring at the enemy right in front of me; he had been there the whole time, it just hadn't registered." that I want to see some of that in the stories I tell. (Btw, I made up those lines, but you see things like that all the time in first-person accounts of combat.)

Finally, I do see that I stepped into it on these boards.  When I posted, I only knew about the Riddle board.  Looking at remainder of the forum, I now see many of the "combat bad, touchy-feely good" posts, so I guess this thread is rather out of place.

-Jeff

P.S. Don't take that last part too seriously - I'm trying to draw a picture, not belittle other people's opinions.  If it offends you, call me a combat-monkey with no sense of drama. :-)

QuoteHowever, when the caravan's attacked at suppertime, the duellist will have a hard time figuring out what's going on, and will waste time fighting just one guy as he tries to make sense of the sights and sounds around him. The vet, on the other hand, will see what's going on, take advantage of flank attacks (cheap shots!), press home his attacks quickly and efficiently, and generally make his presence felt.

Ok, so you're aiming more at the level of awareness rather than the psychological aggressiveness factor. I can certainly understand that.  Perhaps another option may be to have players either 1) sacrifice a round(take a couple of seconds) and choose a direction to look at, or 2) sacrifice CP to do so.  These are also good alternatives you may wish to look into, or perhaps Per/Battle as your roll.  

Actually, I'm an action fan myself, it's just that I'd like to see exciting fights along the lines of a swashbuckling Indiana Jones plus Jackie Chan on a hyper Tsui-Hark/John Woo thing :)  As opposed to the trading back and forth of hitpoints dropping :P

Chris

Okay, I suppose, seeing as how I am one of the Forge's resident RoS freaks, I ought to finally weigh in on this one..

I am taking Jaif's additional mechanics as an option that he is choosing to incorporate, and is posting here as a suggestion for like-minded people. Others here being very debate oriented, seem to be taking this as an opening to discuss the merits of this as an addition to the rules. In the end, however, I think Jaif will still use his ideas, and most of the people here will not. Jake, as probably the most neutral of all posters in this thread, might give them a try, to see how they effect things, and if he likes them, may add them as an optional rule.

As for me, I rather like them. I've experienced simulated combat conditions (I wasn't gonna die for real, but I still didn't want to die for fake, either) and I agree that confusion and even fear (fear of KP for 3 days is as real, if not as serious, as fear of dying) can seriously affect a battle. I will probably give them a try when I run the game, though I will not use them for situations outside of battles- whether it be a full-scale war, or just a surprise skirmish as bandits attack a caravan- such as duels or sparring.

Allow me now to make sure I fully understand your suggestions..

1) When you roll initiative, you will have one white die in one hand, and red dice equal in number to your WP in the other. If you choose to drop red, the resulting roll will be based on your battle skill. A single success means you can attack as normal, a failure means that you hesitate, (and will have to make the Reflex -vs- TN 7 as per Table 4.1 to even defend at all) and can only defend for the first Exchange of Blows.
[Comment: No extra rolls, unless you fail, thereby constituting a hesitation]

2) If you are out of direct combat, but still a participant in a battle,  to pick a new target, you must roll Per -vs- Battle to notice what is going on around you. Once you have succeeded, and you have noticed an enemy combatant, you may engage them. Question, however... If an opponent approaches you directly from the front, do you have to roll to notice him? Contrary to your belief, a combatant *will* notice what is directly in front of him, he just may not notice it until it *is* directly in front of him. Side and back is fair game though. Also, the size of the battle ought to effect exactly how much a character will see per success. A huge battle you'll only notice immediate combatants, whereas a bandit raid, each success should garner better impressions of the action.

3) Okay, so there wasn't a 3 among your points.. But with Battle being rolled considerably more often, it's likely to raise at a considerably higher rate. I submit the idea, if using these optional rules, that each battle would count as a single use of the Battle Skill. Or (this one's for Jake) is it supposed to work like that, where Battle would rise immensely faster in these circumstances?

1) Exactly.  I would subtract dice for the worst wound level you've received, and subtract a die if more than one person is in or next to melee range (if I attack this guy, than that one will...)

2) The perception rules are more guidelines right now.  I'm trying to prevent a smooth transition from hacking orc #1 to immediately spinning around and helping Joe handle orc #2.  Concerning "in front of" - the problem here is the human neck; something can be in your front hex (to use tactical talk a second), but your eyes are looking right.  While peripheral vision is sensitive, tunnel vision often rules, especially when you're trying to tune things out.  Bottom line is that as a GM, I would take the successes and rattle off things directly in front of the player and close first, and then extend as more exchanges go by and more successes are rolled.  If, however, the player says something specific, like "I know Joe was on my right fighting that troll, I'm looking for him so I can help him", then I would favor Joe & the troll first, but that may result in the player missing something obvious.  Last, don't forget truly major terrain features - the mouth of an alley, a campfire, etc.  People focus on big things first to orient themselves.  This could be as easy as: "Ok, glancing back you see the campfire behind you to your left (1); Joe's on your right where you expect him to be fighting that troll (2&3 success)."  Hopefully our hero glances around a bit more just in case he missed something in his 1 second of looking.

3) Absolutely.  I would only allow 1 tick mark per battle, and in fact only 1 per day unless there's really, really heavy action that deserves 2 marks.

4) (If you can add new numbers, then so can I<g>).  I was writing my own game trying to spotlight these rules.  It was only an alpha, and the system was totally unintersting other than initiative & perception rules.  There are a couple thoughts that I haven't mentioned that I incoporated there:

a) Perception while in melee, or while aiming, is truly hard.  Someone could walk an elephant right by you, and you may not notice.  With the aiming, obviously things that appear between you and your target could grab your attention, but noticing things outside that is, well, sort of the opposite of aiming.  The GM should use this when they roll for perception against sudden flank attacks, and so on.

b) If you have a magically fearful creature, the type of thing that requires a warhammer cool roll, you can subtract dice from the "red dice" roll. People with low willpowers simply won't be able to force an attack without some leadership.

c) I intended, in my old system, for the number of dice subtracted to potentially get to a point that a person can no longer initiate combat. I also intended for there to be bonuses for attacking when no one could see you, e.g. an open flank with nobody else nearby is enough of an inviting target for you to overcome your fears and attack.  I haven't thought of the appropriate bonus for this system, but it's probably 1 or 2 dice.

As for the remainder of your comments, I too wouldn't use these rules until you hit a confusing battle.  If your party ambushes 3 people, it's not worth worrying about.  But the caravan attacked at sundown scenario (luckily the PCs weren't directly hit by the initial ambush<g>) would cause major confusion that I think should be considered.

-Jeff

Quote from: JaifA few things:[list=1]

• There is already a point in RoS combat where people choose a red vs white die and reveal their choice.  I'm slipping in a few dice for the red one, so I'm not adding an extra step there.  I'm actually very conscious about adding steps to combat; as a computer programmer, I'm aware what happens when you add a line of code to a loop.
  
  
• I don't worry about calculations much.  In part, I know that's an artifact of myself and my group: none of us have any problem with math-heavy games.  We played aftermath, powers & perils, and lots of record-keeping wargames.
  
  
• You asked "what's wrong with it now?" and "what are you trying to fix?".  I believe I made that point explicit above, but in summary I'm trying to model psychological effects in combat in addition to mechanical ones.  This isn't a right & wrong issue;[/list:o]

Points 1 and 2: you still didn't respond to the point I was making.  You say you don't like the 'look-down' kind of play.  My point is; any extra rules, no matter how tiny, non-stepwise, or unproblematic, is more 'look-down,' the 'amount' doesn't matter.  It just is.

So I'll ask again; how do more 'look-down' rules make a game more 'scary, confusing, or dangerous?'  That seems counter-productive.

On point 3; I can't understand how you can say you want to "model psychological effects in combat in addition to mechanical ones," with more mechanics!  Besides, the psychological effects are already in there!

This is coming down to the typical optimist/pessimist argument.  You're the pessimist; your proposal is all about creating more problems.  You're implying that the system is generic, lacking psychological effects.  Ron, on the other hand is the optimist; he notes that unless you have your 'spiritual attributes' going for you, you'll die.  He implies that the system is already about 'scary, confusing, and dangerous' circumstances and only by focusing your 'spirit' (id est overcoming the psychological hurdles you cite) can you succeed.

Your example of the veteran versus the duelist is prime.  In your additional material, certainly the veteran will fight better to protect the caravan, but it won't do anything to help the duelist win a duel.  On the other hand, as I understand it, the system already does this.  In a duel, the duelist will have lots of spiritual 'thingies' (I don't know the system) going in his favor (maybe reputation, romantic showing-off, or whatever), but the veteran has little; the duelist wins.  At suppertime, around the caravan, the duelist is outside of 'his element,' he'll have no spiritual 'thingies' going his way; he'll die.  The veteran, contrariwise, will be protecting, defending, and 'fighting the good fight,' (I think) that'll provide all the spiritual 'thingies' he needs to win the day.  So you see, the reason I ask, "what are you fixing?" is because it already seems to be there.

Or simply, I believe the author assumes that those same psychological factors are constant (so much so he doesn't even mention them) and that only by summoning up the right spiritual attributes(?) can you rise above them and win.  (This is what Ron has referred to as the 'survival of the fittest' understructure.)  I'm sorry I didn't notice this sooner.

As far as the examples (the fictional 'lines') you listed, none of that will come out of putting a few more dice in the first roll.  Those mechanics will not carry, suggest, or even give the impression of 'scariness, timelessness, things not registering' or anything like that.  To players it'll just be more dice and there's nothing psychological about that.

New final question: "Do you see how the battle is lost without the 'spiritual' stuff and how that is representative of exactly the psychology you ask for (just more pervasive)?"

Fang Langford

Sorry, this is probably gonna be long. :-)

First, my motivation:

Blackhawk Down, pg 45 softbound edition (section 7 of "The Assault").  The setting: an M-60 gunner and his assistant see a Somali with a white afro manuevering for position against another team of rangers.  The assistant urges the gunner to fire right away, but the gunner says he'll wait because "He'll come right to us."  What follows -  "And, sure enough, the man with the white Afro practically walked right up to them.  He ducked behind a big tree about fifty yards off, hiding from Eversmann's Rangers, but oblivious to the threat off his left shoulder."

In a game, there's no way the man doesn't look left and notice the people waiting for him.  When you (either the GM or the player) are looking down on the table at the little miniatures (or visualizing the scene in your head) with pizza in one hand and dice in the other, it's hard to imagine someone doing something so counter-intuitive.

But I'll tell you something, I've read this type of scenario hundreds of times from first & second person accounts.  It's ubiquitous in the literature.  I haven't even read Blackhawk Down yet, I just picked the book up because it was handy, and I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I could find a scenario like this in seconds.

That's what combat's about.  Not how powerful the M-60 is, or whether plate or chain is better against the longbow; it's about scared people doing dumb things, and dying or killing as a result.  Yep, sometimes stupid pays off.

Second, your statements.

I'm going to cheat and reach back a bit to an original statement you made:

QuotePardon me, but doesn't adding more die rolls and mathematics further detach the player from the 'scared, confusing, and dangerous' side of combat?

No, die rolls and math do not detach a person from the combat.  This feels to me like the common myth that states "words good, numbers bad", and somehow a string of adjectives and description does less to interfere than a die roll and a calculation.  Both can interfere, both can assist, and it's all about timing and feel.

QuoteThis is coming down to the typical optimist/pessimist argument. You're the pessimist; your proposal is all about creating more problems.

I hadn't heard of it put that way before, but yes. Actually, that's very close to the way I described it to my friends when we discussed the concept.  I would like to point out that all stories (in the RPG context, at least) are about problems, or more properly 'conflict'.  I'm just adding a different, and I feel necessary area of conflict to my stories.

QuoteYou're implying that the system is generic, lacking psychological effects.

I'm implying nothing: I'm stating it for the record, and expanding to every game that I've seen.  Note that I'm very specific - I'm not making a statement about the entire game system, just one particular area for which I can cite support.

One point of confusion too:

QuoteI can't understand how you can say you want to "model psychological effects in combat in addition to mechanical ones," with more mechanics!

I was ambiguous: I gave a double-meaning to the word "mechanic".  RoS models combat maneuvers, human abilities, and arms (what I referred to as 'combat mechanics') very precisely as compared to any game I've seen.  In real life, you may duck & weave in combat: in RoS, there's a duck & weave manuever.  Cuts, Bashes, parries, counters, blocks, and even bind & strikes (use a shield or dagger to pin the other guy's weapon while you attack) are all physically in the RoS combat system.  There are game-mechanics modelling real-world combat-manuevers and so on.

None of that, though, reflects the psychological side of combat, the tendancy of people to do dumb things and overlook their environment.  The sources of these failures are fear & confusion, which is what everybody who's been in combat discusses when you talk to them.  If I'm going to tell a story about combat, my belief (and it's a sim belief if I'm to use the language of these forums) is that it's necessary to model this.

Hope that helps,

-Jeff

I know double-posting is a social faux-paux (is that how you spell it?), but I want to point something out: this conversation has taken some very simplistic additions that I suggested and blown them way out of proportion.

In the first case, for those who don't know, initiative in RoS is mostly dealt with automatically.  The attacker has the initiative until the defender takes it (generally by rolling better), at which point they reverse roles.  I'm not touching that in the slightest.

However, at the beginning of combat, and during occasional pauses (e.g. when there's a successful full-evasion), the game requires players to 'roll' a die, either red or white, to show their intent to either attack or defend.  The roll means nothing: you could simply say "reveal" instead of "roll".  The outcome of this is either attack, defend, or hesitation (if a player is too slow or a character is surprised).  What I suggested was that in more battle-like situations the GM should ask people who roll a red die to actually make a WP/Battle roll instead of simply revealing a die.  The result of that can be attack, defense, or maybe even a hesitation (say a fumble), just like normal.  This isn't a big deal, and works cleanly with all the mechanics as stated in the game, and gives the Battle skill a bit of prominence.

The second thing I suggested could be phrased like this: during confusing battle situations, when you ask your players what to do and often have them make perception rolls anyway, just make them roll perception/battle and use the number of successes to define what they can see.  As a rule, 1 success=1 person or terrain feature.  When a GM responds "but hey, they're going to miss a whole lot of things that way, it's stupid", I respond a) "exactly; stupid happens in combat, don't feel bad", and b) "we're talking about 1 second of time here, maybe they look around for 2 or even <gasp> 3 or more seconds and make an extended roll to take in the situation."  Horror! People pausing during a confusing event to look around and see what's happening!  And again, I give a bit of prominence to the battle skill.

-Jeff

What Jeff is talking about here is really simply dialing up the grittiness factor of RoS.  By grittiness I mean the same thing that differentiates the combat scenes in Black Hawk Down from the combat scenes in Commando.

Personally I don't see a big mechanical difficulty in making the initiative roll an actual roll (I'm embarrassed by the number of times I had to reread that section before I finally got that the 'roll' wasn't a 'roll').  I'm actually interested in how Jeff would interpret that roll once its made.

As for perception checks...I pretty much hate perception checks as a matter of course.  There is little more guarenteed to elicit a groan from me as a player than to be told to "make a perception check" (although I unfortunetely have a tendency to fall into that mode as a GM from time to time).

Better IMO is to simply give each "hidden" event a threshold and if the character's perception is higher than this threshold (accounting for distractions) than he notices, other wise he doesn't.

But, if you're going to do a perception check, I see nothing onerous or unreasonable in restricting the check to 1 feature per success in a time cruch situation.  

Now I'm a little loathe to add more rules to a game that is already a bit more rules heavy than my current taste, but thats clearly just personal taste.

QuoteI'm actually interested in how Jeff would interpret that roll once its made.

I would do what Woffen said, but a little lighter.  A success (any number) means you attack.  A failure means you defend.  A fumble means you hesitate, and then roll on the table (forget the number) as appropriate.

A low-will person with a crappy (or no) battle skill won't initiate attacks, and probably should stay defensive.  An average person with a decent skill can expect to succeed as a rule, but may have troubles when facing a few zombies, which not only scare him but enough are nearby to make him pause (I would call this -2, 1 for scare, 1 for extras nearby).  A lightly wounded person will also have a harder time initiating attacks.

A hero PC, on the other hand, will have a high willpower and a good battle skill, and just might attack a scary zombie in a pack of zombies even when he's wounded.

-Jeff

Quote from: JaifThat's what combat's about.

[Snip.]

RoS models combat maneuvers, human abilities, and arms (what I referred to as 'combat mechanics') very precisely as compared to any game I've seen.  In real life, you may duck & weave in combat: in RoS, there's a duck & weave manuever.  Cuts, Bashes, parries, counters, blocks, and even bind & strikes (use a shield or dagger to pin the other guy's weapon while you attack) are all physically in the RoS combat system.  There are game-mechanics modeling real-world combat-manuevers and so on.

None of that, though, reflects the psychological side of combat, the tendancy of people to do dumb things and overlook their environment.  The sources of these failures are fear & confusion, which is what everybody who's been in combat discusses when you talk to them.  If I'm going to tell a story about combat, my belief (and it's a sim belief if I'm to use the language of these forums) is that it's necessary to model this.

It's funny how you go back and quote me so that you don't have to deal with my question, but I'll let that one go.

When I pointed out you imply the system is generic, I mean you imply that it does not already take psychology into account.

First of all, why should combat maneuvers rules cover psychology?  There are no psychological combat maneuvers (a little generalization, but bear with me).  What I have been trying to say is that there already are psychological 'effect' mechanics!  What do you call all the Spirit Attribute stuff?  A waste of paper?

As I have read Ron's review, it is quite clear unless you have some kind of 'psychological effect' going your way, you almost always die in this game.  I'm saying that the "psycholgical side of combat" is already factored in by this.  It means exactly that 'normal' people quickly die facing seasoned veterans; it's already in there!

I'm saying that you are implying that it is not a factor in the game as written.  I'm saying that it is, so much so that it goes without mention.  Adding an extra mechanic to make combat harder due to 'psychological effects' is redundant!

And finally, what you listed is "what combat's about."  This isn't combat, it's a game!  And from Ron's reading, it's not even a game about combat.  I would propose that it is actually a game exactly about the 'psychological effects' combat has and how 'a man' (meaning your character) rises to meet that challenge.

So either address why you don't think the Spirit 'stuff' doesn't essay your 'psychological effect' needs or I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

Fang Langford

(What does it take to get through to a person about a game's most central mechanic, which they seem bent on ignoring?)

QuoteFirst of all, why should combat maneuvers rules cover psychology?

I covered that extensively.  It's because that's what combat is really about.

QuoteAs I have read Ron's review, it is quite clear unless you have some kind of 'psychological effect' going your way, you almost always die in this game. I'm saying that the "psycholgical side of combat" is already factored in by this.

I don't agree with this; people do not survive combat in the game by bulling their way through with more dice granted by spiritual attributes.  They survive by playing smarter and not getting in straight-up fights to begin with.  Fight dirty, fight cheap, fight to survive.  I've read this time and time again from the developer; he has stated that it's part of the point to the game.  If the combat mechanics are that deadly, the group has to respond by playing smarter, and that the thinking involved is part of the fun.

It's even in the rules: one of the stories at the head of a chapter deals with an old vet telling his young companion that the bad-guys are just ahead, and if they hurry they can catch them and murder them in their sleep.  When the kid protests about the lack of honor, the vet points out that this is the real world, and that's how things are done.  There's more to it, but the story gives the same message: don't fight straight-up, be cheap, fight dirty, and win.

QuoteSo either address why you don't think the Spirit 'stuff' doesn't essay your 'psychological effect' needs or I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

In my opinion, and I haven't played enough to be certain, the spiritual attributes are neither limited, nor all-encompassing like Pendragon was.  They are somewhere in the middle.  They certainly won't cover every action you take in a typical game, nor will they protect you for long if you persist in fighting without thinking.  On the other hand, killing without getting into straight up fights will go a long, long way to keeping your character alive. (As far as combats go: can't speak for the consequences of those deaths.<g>)

I'll add: I think the fun part of spiritual attributes isn't that they grant some form of partial script-immunity or super-human abilities: we're only talking about a few dice (typically).  Instead, a player will be driven by the system to create a motivation, and then follow-through on it in order to gain experience.

That's where characters "won't survive", IMO.  A player who refuses to follow his character's motivations will find that he doesn't gain experience.  For the character to prosper, the player must define spiritual attributes inline with his in-game interests, and then follow those to gain experience.  It's a nice, tight circle that drives a player to play in character, and gives the GM a clear vehicle for rewarding in-character play.

-Jeff

Quote from: Le Joueur

Quote from: JaifThat's what combat's about.

SNIP

Fang Langford

(What does it take to get through to a person about a game's most central mechanic, which they seem bent on ignoring?)

Are you sure that most people even care about the spiritual mechanics?

At the risk of being snide the ROS combat system is so good and so interesting that it overshadows every other part of the book.

JMHO but many of the likely buyers of TROS are martial arts oriented types. The remainder will be drawn in from places like the Forge but again JMO the game is percieved to be about a cool combat system.

From a certain POV the Riddle  might look like this

A decent chargen system that produces pretty average guys as starting characters.

a dark magic system that allows starting mages to be really strong but makes them burn out do to old age.

A so so "Pseudo Europe" game world which may  elicit "Oh an Earth like world I made one of those once"

A few monsters "Looks like the basics got covered, Gol are kind cool though I guess they are like uhhh Orcs"

Spiritual attributes. Ok its like a roleplaying hook I guess, whatever. I'll take luck....

Combat system. It must be Mine!

I think there is a substantial play base who will be using The Riddles combat system as a Sim.

Yes, OK they will use the magic too but they really aren't interested in Detailed Roleplaying". as we might know it

What does catch their eye is a combat system that works like a real duel or battle does.

Even the name Riddle of Steel doesn't lead this sort of player to think of Philisophical Swordsmanship but instead to the Conan movie.

This is not IMO a bad idea.

There are a lot of buyers out there who will invest in a game for a really good system.

Why not accomodate the Sim play spectrum as well as the Narrative one.  

That way you can get more cash flow  and a larger play base.

Maybe a few of those Sim players will  actually get what the Riddle is all about

Quote from: Ace

Quote from: Le Joueur

Quote from: JaifThat's what combat's about.

(What does it take to get through to a person about a game's most central mechanic, which they seem bent on ignoring?)

Are you sure that most people even care about the spiritual mechanics?

At the risk of being snide the ROS combat system is so good and so interesting that it overshadows every other part of the book.

[Snip.]

There are a lot of buyers out there who will invest in a game for a really good system.

Well, according the reviews and what the author has said, if you don't care about (read that 'use') the spiritual mechanics, you can't win.  That's what makes it a really good system!

Quote from: AceWhy not accomodate the Sim play spectrum as well as the Narrative one.  

I'm not even going to touch another thread that asks why you can't have a Simulationist game that is also a Narrativist one.  Go ask one of the local 'coherency experts.'  That's a far bigger flamewar than I have any interest in joining.

Suffice to say the lethality outside of using the spiritual mechanics means that the game is quite squarely Narrativist, by both Ron's review and the authors word.  No matter how much you want it to be Simulationist, that fact won't change (and I'm not going to try and change your mind).

Fang Langford

From the billion-page monster thread on RPG net, I give you the developer's own words:

QuoteWhat keeps your characters from getting whacked is the same thing that kept man alive in the world back when it was this deadly (which, technically, it still is): cunning and wits. TROS isn't a hack-and-slash game...it's more about thinking your way through problems. An example I like to share at demos is something like this:

Three of you (adventurers) are walking down a path. One of you, a scout, runs up ahead and comes back to report that there are 5 orcs (or whatever) coming down the path. These orcs are on their way to do something bad, and you have to stop it (I'm ommiting details so save space  ).

But what is an orc? It's a 6 or 7 foot tall warrior-from-birth from a culture that canibalizes the weak...

In every FRPG I've ever seen (and I've seen a few) it runs like this: the fighter(s) in the group either handles it alone ala Conan or the whole group just walks up to them and the fight starts after an initiative roll. Some better players may choose to stage an ambush or whatever, but the advantage it gains them is piddly, and they're 17 year old characters really don't need the advantage anyway. (if this doesn't sound like your FRPG games, then you're part of the blessed minorty)

In TROS, undersanding that the odds are bad--but that something must be done--the characters must act more carefully. So that begin to form a plan (teamwork in an FRPG...what an idea!).

"We'll hide in the brush off to the side and wait for them to pass. Then we'll sneak out and cut down the first three right away, imediately putting the odds in our favor. If we're lucky, the orcs will still be drawing their swords when we cut them down, too."

What develops is a low-risk plan...an ambush. Ambushes have been working in the real world since man started killing each other, but in RPGs they're usually just nice additions to the story that aren't all that advantageous. Also, the "very deadly" system of the Riddle allows such plans to work as well as they should--because the orcs don't have "X" number of hit points, health points, damage thresholds, or whatever, even their bad-asses can get cut down.

In over a year of our own play we've lost ONE character to death, and it was due to a poor tactical descision on his part. Part of the philosophy behind such a realistic and brutal combat system is putting the responsibility for a fight's results into the hands of the players, not their dice. So the game uses strategy and planning on both team and indiviudal levels. As in the real world, smart fighters can beat statistical odds.

What if you just roll really poorly? Well, that's part of why we use dice...it keeps us from winning all the time. Despite that, however, as Ron wrote earlier, the "Spritual Attribute" system will grant bonus dice in fights (or any situation) where something important to your character is at stake.

And, in the case of maiming, the Riddle super-flexible and powerful magic system can put the limb back on, if you can convince a sorcerer to take the risk of using so much magic at once.

Finally, because we recognize that some folks are just gonna get killed (it happens...but then again, if you swing a sword at people for living, who ever said it wouldn't...), TROS conains a system called "Insight," which--like Karma--allows much of a previous character's "experience" to pass on to the new one. Kind of a "consolation prize" of sorts.

Harsh, and probably not fair, but it IS balanced by the best mitigating factor...caution, thought, and the knowledge that everyone is mortal, and none of you have hit-points.

I hope that helps. See our site, www.theriddleofsteel.com and go to "what is the riddle" for an example of combat in play.

Jake Norwood
Driftwood Publishing
Creator, TROS

This quote comes from page 2 of this thread: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3612&perpage=20&pagenumber=2  It's one of the primary things that prompted me to purchase the game, and thus far in mock combats and reading I haven't been dissapointed.

-Jeff

Howdy folks. Figured I'd pop my head in on this one, and tell you where I'M coming from.

When I wrote TROS I didn't have the faintest idea of what sim, narrative, dramatist, gamist, or any of the other pigeonholes were. Because I didn't know I didn't care. Now I do know, I've read a bit, but the fact is that I still don't really care.

As it's been said before, there is no "right" way to play the game. Based on failures in the past a lot of folks seem to think that you can't have a good narrativist system and a good sim system all at once. I think that's crap, though, having looked around a bit. Think of your favorite simulationist systems...GURPS, Rolemaster, Runequest, whatever. Think of your favorite narrativist systems...Whitewolf, Sorcerer, whatever...now take the good narrativist stuff and the good sim stuff and there's your game. That's not exactly what we did (as I said, I didn't even know what "narrativist" meant in an RPG context), but it's getting there.

I started with a really good idea for a combat sim. For months we tinkered and played and never had characters...just bodies with swords. One day I sat down and started doing attributes. I had Physical ones and Mental ones, and then I added Spiritual ones. I liked the idea. My home games have always revolved around issues of religion (presented as they are in TROS, not ala TSR) and familial relationships. I picked up Pendragon back in '98 I think (as I've mentioned before) and said "cool...the players actually have reasons to be good and to roleplay," but it never went past that. I never conscioiusly made TROS narrativist or sim, really...it just is what it is...

What I'm saying is this: Ron's right. TROS, now that I get the terms, is a great narrativist game. What Ron has also said (and many of us have missed this somehow) is that it's a BLEND of Sim and Nar (something that I hear hasn't been done before, or at least not as well...hell if I know...).

I would have bought TROS based on the Sim aspect. It's the Spiritual Attributes that really make it fun for me as a Roleplaying Game, though.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we should recognize that TROS does both, smile and say "I'll be damned...someone did it," and go play the game according to our own biases of Sim, Nar, or--like me--just for fun.

Jake

p.s. As for the lethality of the game outside of Spiritual Attributes...I'll confess, they help A LOT...but I'd rather fall back on a good plan (and hey, those SA's really help). I never actually intended the SA's to balance anything...they were there to give an advantage, but still not one that a decent ambush wouldn't make up for in spades.

p.s.s. A lot of you seem to feel that beginning PCs are a tad weak or "average..." They're NOT, I assure you. They're quite strong. An average PC who puts his Attributes into Priority C is only one point short of "average" (something that I don't think really exists, hence 39 pts and not 40...that'd be too easy), but has a ton of Master-level skill or proficiencies. Compare a beginning TROS character to ANY 1st level character or most any other beginning character (even white wolf ones, but probably not IN NOMINE ones...) and the TROS fighter will kick the living trash out of the other guy. The TROS wizard will melt his magic-missile throwing opponent, and the TROS thief will sneak circles around the other guy. Just my two cents, but that issue is a tad overblown around here and isn't really all that justified. If you wan't "High fantasy," then I agree wholeheartedly with adding Attribute points, but never mistake a TROS beginning character as "average."

Much love and stuff,
Jake (again)

Wow, lotsa posts..


First: Jaif, thanks for the clarification. A failed roll in Initiative is not the same as hesitate, in your options. Gotcha. Hesitation is strongly advised against and strongly discouraged by the mechanics- if you hesitate, you might end up (60% chance per die) just standing there and *letting* your opponent hit you.

Second: Just like to support ('cause Jake beat me to it) the position that using SA doesn't mean you'll survive.. They just give you added chances of doing so. You can have an absolutely insane passion score, and apply it to a situation, but still get whacked because you were stupid. A sorceror doesn't care if the warrior hates them with an unholy Passion, he's still going to fry them. A Drive isn't going to get you out of the middle of a Gol military assault alive (though Drive, Passion and Luck might...). Situation is absolutely crucial. In purely combat situations, it's more important than your SA.

Third: Ace makes the point that a lot of people (myself included) will buy this game because of the schweet combat mechanics. Some, (like myself) will love the Spiritual Attributes.. Those sorts are the ones who will actually play the game as a roleplaying game. Others won't. Jake mentioned a tournament style game which a store here in Pheonix (the only one in my area to have both Riddle of Steel and Sorceror) intends to sponsor. I seriously doubt that characters will get better through roleplaying, if they improve at all. I also doubt that Spiritual Attributes will even apply, unless it's such things as "Drive: Win the Tourney", "Passion: hates the tourney champion", "Faith: <specific deity>" (which could apply when fighting an infidel) or just plain ol' Luck. I'm not even sure they'll allow use of Spiritual attributes, which has been bruited about as the Central Mechanic of the game. Purely Sim players can play this game and enjoy it, without needing to cater much to the SA. Narrativist players can enjoy it, because of the SA. I'm with Jake on this one... Lack of knowledge of GNS might have allowed him to create a game which does cross the boundaries quite satisfactorily.

Remember, many things are accomplished because no one ever told us that they were impossible.

Quote from: Jake Norwood
p.s.s. A lot of you seem to feel that beginning PCs are a tad weak r "average..." They're NOT, I assure you. They're quite strong.

This isn't really the right forum for it, but you brought it up so I thought I would respond. :)

I do agree with you that the characters certainly aren't average. However, one drawback of the priority system of creation means some very harsh choices while making up a character.

Lets say I want to make up a warrior type. I'll go human so that takes care of F. I want to be pretty good at fighting etc, so my A and B will be proficiencies and attributes. Now I have a tough time deciding what to take - if I want have anything like reasonable starting skills then that has to go C, which leaves me either as a low freeman with no gifts or a minor of each, or a high freeman with a major flaw (and lets face it, they're all very sucky). Or I can bump one of those up and have terrible skills.

It's even worse if I want to play a magic-using human. B is taken up with race. 6 proficiencies wont be enough for spells and basic weapon use, so that has to go A, which leaves attributes at C. Now I have to live with some nasty flaws, crappy skills or being a slave. It's almost impossible to get a sorceror who has reasonable skills AND has wealth, unless you're happy for his attributes to all suck very badly.

I'm not panning the system - far from it - but I do think that it gets pretty nasty. In most other games, you can have a character who is great at some things and has disadvantages (like tRoS), but you usually also have the choice of not taking the top cool stuff in return for not being screwed at the other end, and that's not an option in tRoS. (yes, I know you can buy off flaws and suchlike, but that takes some time).

What it comes down to, I guess, is that if you want to be good combat wise, you're not going to be very good socially/skill wise. However, making up a character who totally de-prioritises combat and attributes so he can have all the cool RP stuff means he'll very very likely die the first time the group gets attacked.

Just my 2c. Don't think it doesn't mean I like the game, 'cos I really do.

p.s: One possibility to get around that I guess could be to start off with slightly bumped characters. I'm not talking about adding X to attribute totals like some have suggested, but maybe a variation of the Insight system - instead of ABCDEF, maybe give out ABCDEE or ABCDDE or something like that. Or, in a variation of Ambers (and maybe others') system of giving rewards for storys, diaries, logs etc, maybe start with ABCDEF but allow players who commit to doing stories for their character to bump up any priority under C by one, something like that?

Quote from: BrianL
I do think that it gets pretty nasty. In most other games, you can have a character who is great at some things and has disadvantages (like tRoS), but you usually also have the choice of not taking the top cool stuff in return for not being screwed at the other end, and that's not an option in tRoS. (yes, I know you can buy off flaws and suchlike, but that takes some time).

What it comes down to, I guess, is that if you want to be good combat wise, you're not going to be very good socially/skill wise. However, making up a character who totally de-prioritises combat and attributes so he can have all the cool RP stuff means he'll very very likely die the first time the group gets attacked.

You have some good points, and so it really becomes an issue of what you want. While it's true that the Skill-based (read: noncombat, nonmagic) character would get hashed in many a fight, he can always run (which is what those sorts of characters always do in the movies and literature) if he ended up like that. On the other hand, I'm almost 100% convinced after all of our playing out here that the "thief" type characters, with a high stealth and the like, are massively deadly in the right circumstances (which they create for themselves) and are generally more uselful in 90% of situtations. If I wanted to make a good all-around guy, one that I could develop in any direction, I'd go with A for Skills (or B), B for Attributes (or A), C for profs, D for Social, E for gifts/flaws, F for Race.

Your "bumper" idea is quite valid, though (you'll notice that that's exactly how the "insight" system works. Most 2nd characters start out with significantly higher stats. I really like the idea of giving out a bonus "E" priority (or better) for good character preparation (stories, histories, etc).

As for the extremism...it's intentional, though again you can tamper with it to your liking. I just don't believe in "average." I've never met an average person, and the idea of all 4's in stats, 4's in profs, and 7's in Skills all around with a minor gift and a minor flaw just says "dull" to me. In TROS you have to think HARD about building your character, because your decisions matter and they have real consequences.

On a final note, if you look at character progression you'll see it's very easy to improve from "crappy" (low priority choices) to "good/average" within a few games in several areas. Remember that you're not locked in with your priorities, they just get the ball rolling.

Jake

Quote from: Jake NorwoodOn a final note, if you look at character progression you'll see it's very easy to improve from "crappy" (low priority choices) to "good/average" within a few games in several areas. Remember that you're not locked in with your priorities, they just get the ball rolling.

Jake

Very true, and in fact many skills would climb very quickly, it's not unlikely that many skills would get used three times in a session (particularly the 8 hour sessions we play). Of course, as your skills get better you're less likely to have them increase every time.

Given that, in fact, it might be better to prioritise skills below gifts, because it's expensive to buy off major flaws but easy/easier to increase your skills.

As an aside, did you get the file I sent you? It was just a preliminary look at the interface of the combat sim. Pretty dry, admittedly (and it's already changed a little) but I was hoping to get some feedback from you before I pressed on in case you hated it.

Brian.

Quick note, back on the thread subject:

I just ran a ROS oneshot and I do think having some method of slowing the "Mower through the grass" effect of one combat to the next may be a good option.  I'm not sure how I would implement it, probably 1 second of roll to identify next objective or something like that, but yes, most of our combats lasted 2-4 seconds(game times) and the longest was like either 5 or 6 seconds.  While that alone wouldn't be so bad, it was the sheer A to B combat factor of "one down, who's next?" that made things kinda sketchy.

Second, on the note: Characters are definitely not underpowered.  This session alone will have left pegleg carvers in the gameworld busy for a long time :)

Chris

Personally, I like the idea about a "panic roll" of some kind, and I really don't understand what the fuzz is all about.
I mean, it doesn't take very long to roll a WP/Battle roll to see if you keep your pants dry when you face two gols alone.

How about this for a house rule: role the colour die for initiative, anfd if it is higher than or less than a threshold the GM thinks is appropriate, the character hesitates.  This on the basis that you're tossing the die anyway.

That's an excellent idea. Perpahps you have to roll under or WP , reflex, Proficiency, or something of the sort...

Jake

Just wanted to support the idea of introducing hesitation, perception, morale and leadership.  Definately such should be considered when/if battle situations are added to the rules; on a larger scale, I've seen many "miniatures" battle systems out there where a whole battle takes what, half an our or less in "game time" while real battles could take days.  Why?  These systems don't account for time lost in perception, hesitation, general confusion and translation of command into action.  Great topic & thread Jeff started here, IMO.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Shadow.  I've played with the rules a bit more, so here's what I have to say now.

1) Attack rolls (WP/battle to take initiative) aren't the design pain people here seem to think.  They're not an every-round thing, and in fact people often go white + ridicule anyway.

2) Attack rolls: I've settled on a system where I count successes: 1 is generally enough, but you need an extra 1 for more opponents, and another extra when you fight magic-based fear.  So, attack a zombie and you need 2 successes to initiate an attack, and 2 or more zombies are 3 successes.

3) Attack rolls: these aren't the anti-heroic things people paint them as.  In general, a fighting hero is going to make these, assuming you told them that the battle skill is important to begin with.  Even more, they'll be able to apply SAs, so it's not likely they'll fail.  However, their opponents may fail quite a bit, depending on their level of competance.

4) Perception rolls: Melee combat in Riddle is too fast, IMO.  No, I'm not arguing the speed of a duel, but there's just no way a person who just finished off one opponent moves 4 feet left and attacks another one second later.  It takes time for humans, no matter how brilliantly witty or heroic or whatever, to perceive their surroundings.

5) Perception rolls: Per/battle rolls have worked well for me in practice.  It's an easy way to deal with "3 successes? Ok, you look up and see that you've drifted from the door you're supposed to be guarding (1).  Your fighter-buddy is fighting another thug (2), and your talker-buddy is cowering behind him (3).  The other thugs? Roll again next exchange."

Last, on the idea of all this being "anti-heroic", I contend it's not.  In fact, these rules tend to slow down the enemies a whole lot more than the driven, passionate heros, which gives them more of a fighting chance against many opponents.

-Jeff

I don't know if rolling Per/battle is the best way to do it, IMHO.  My character has no Battle skill, because he doesn't ever plan to be in an army or fight in a war.  Yet he could still look around and see who's where and what they're doing (he's got a 7 Perception and a 6 Wit).

The way I see it, a Per/Battle roll would be used to see where the commanders are, what orders are being given, what formations are being used, where the flankers are, and other sorts of things that someone without the battle skill wouldn't know to look for.  If it's just a brawl, street fight or something similar, I would probably say that a Per/TN 8 or 9 would be used to see what's going on, and should only be made if the character is looking around.  Then, it doesn't depend on any skill, but on their perception attribute.

Also, you could use a Wit/Battle to determine how swiftly someone takes action on a battlefield, and Wit/TN 8 in a brawl or streetfight.  This is because there is a vast difference between the two.  Do you see what I'm getting at?

Quote from: WolfenI also doubt that Spiritual Attributes will even apply, unless it's such things as "Drive: Win the Tourney", "Passion: hates the tourney champion", "Faith: <specific deity>" (which could apply when fighting an infidel) or just plain ol' Luck. I'm not even sure they'll allow use of Spiritual attributes, which has been bruited about as the Central Mechanic of the game.

I might stay away from the SA when playing a tourney or what not. It seems to me that the whole purpose (adding power to desire/need/passion) turns into "Oh look, 7 extra dice to roll whenever,
'cause they're all luck dice."

I already see luck being an "easy out" to actually thinking about your character, thereby short-circuiting the whole purpose of them and simply making the character "that much tougher" in combat.

Just a thought. Anybody else feel that way about luck? It could even happen in a regular campaign, but at least there real passions, drives, destinies (for crying out loud) will get a chance to shine and make sense of the character.

At least, you should be certain to point this out in a tourney or whatever, because someone who thinks about the character (and/or takes the well made character) and takes reasonable and realistic SA as opposed to all luck will feel a certain lack of, how do you say, fairness. Or something.

Now someone will post about their concept for a well thought out lucky guy with a 12 page long back story that's more detailed than the most passionate, well-rounded sort I could think of. Fine. :)

*AR*

I don't see Luck as an easy way out... of course, my character is more lucky than Driven, Destined, etc., but that's not my point.

My point is that, for some people, Luck really is a great part of their personality.  They eventually depend on it for support, and, for some of them, it really does support them.  The Kozaks are a great Weyrth example.

Atomic,

If I toss my munchkin hat on for a second, then luck & conscience are certainly "easier" than figuring out a drive or even - heaven forbid - a passion. Of course, passions & drives are more powerful in their effect, and much easier to use and earn experience in.

I'll say this about luck, though: while it's effect on rolls is minor, it will keep your character alive if you get very unlucky via the "spend a point" route.  No good munchkin should leave home without his guardian luck points.

-Jeff