The Forge Archives

Inactive Forums => The Riddle of Steel => Topic started by: Ian.Plumb on January 29, 2004, 12:19:51 AM

Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 29, 2004, 12:19:51 AM
Hi,

I've read JD's review of TRoS and a fair amount of the mudslinging that resulted in the RPGnet forum. The review is not well written, seemingly designed to be controversial or argumentative in an effort to draw a readership and response. All responses to the article have been treated as if the responder has risen to the bait and is attacking the author. As such there isn't much value to be gained from reading through the threads...

On the other hand, I do think that it is important that those who understand TRoS extract the points made in the review from the surrounding hyperbole and, rather than saying "you're wrong -- this is how it is meant to work", look at how JD could have arrived at the conclusions he did from reading the rules and playing the game for a few months.

And it is great to see that this is how many people have approached the review on this forum.

Quote from: SigurthThe players were not happy. In contrast, with SAs driving the Drama, everyone contributes to the Story, and that makes everyone happy. It is not just the uber-mage or uber-cleric or uber-GM that drives the story.

A couple of observations about this broad subject of SAs.

Firstly, as a player and as a referee my favourite campaign of all time was WFRP's "The Power Behind the Throne", or at least the first three modules in the series. As a player the plot had everything -- it was intellectually challenging in its complexity, superbly detailed, and managed that clever balance of having the players caught up in a drama far larger than their own petty lives yet not so large that the players couldn't make a difference.

I now look at this campaign from the TroS perspective of "If your SAs aren't involved why should your character care...?". Would the campaign have worked under TRoS? Would certain PCs have to be asked to take certain SAs as mandatory, so that their hook into the campaign was smooth? Is that an acceptable request, as an alternative to wholly pre-generated PCs?

Secondly, in spite of a complete lack of combat training I find it unlikely that I would fight better when confronted by a knife-wielding attacker if the fight was over something I initially considered important. The situation is life-or-death and that would seem to me to be the over-riding consideration.

I might be more likely to fight over something I cared passionately about, I might even fight more desperately but is that what extra dice in the CP represent? Does desperation make people fight smarter? Maybe, maybe not -- but it looks like having extra dice in the CP lets you use more options in combat, which if it were true would indicate to me that the character was able to fight smarter.

Thirdly, was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use? To divorce the value of the SA from the degree to which the character holds to that SA? I find the rules contradictory. For instance, I have a character with a Conscience SA of 5. The character acts selfishly and loses a point of Conscience. He now has a Conscience of 4. In what way is this Conscience value of 4 different from the Conscience value of 4 he gets when trading in 1 point of this SA as part of an Attribute-raising exercise? Is the character a more or less Conscience-orientated character under either circumstance or both circumstances?

Finally, I find it restrictive that SAs aren't readily testable like the PAs, MAs, and DAs. The temptation process -- assuming for a moment a world-view where temptation represents a spiritual attack that the character must successfully defend if they are to resist temptation -- would seem to be most obviously resisted by Faith (if the character follows a religion that is opposed to the form of temptation) or Conscience. Yet the SAs have values of 0 through 5 and may or may not represent how strongly the character follows the SA.

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Bill Cook on January 29, 2004, 01:13:49 AM
Quote from: Ian.PlumbSecondly, in spite of a complete lack of combat training I find it unlikely that I would fight better when confronted by a knife-wielding attacker if the fight was over something I initially considered important. The situation is life-or-death and that would seem to me to be the over-riding consideration.

To me, SA's are better understood as Heroic Advantage.  There's nothing realistic about it, but it satisfies on another level.

I especially appreciate that SA's are seperated from metaphysical concerns such that, by the stats, "we're all men."  It is also notable that their context certifies the character as a prime driver of situation, setting the category apart from other kinds of attributes.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Malechi on January 29, 2004, 04:02:17 AM
I'm going to address your two final points and given that my opinion is just that and the opinion of a player/GM not the designer...

QuoteThirdly, was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use? To divorce the value of the SA from the degree to which the character holds to that SA? I find the rules contradictory. For instance, I have a character with a Conscience SA of 5. The character acts selfishly and loses a point of Conscience. He now has a Conscience of 4. In what way is this Conscience value of 4 different from the Conscience value of 4 he gets when trading in 1 point of this SA as part of an Attribute-raising exercise? Is the character a more or less Conscience-orientated character under either circumstance or both circumstances?

Yes it was a good idea.. in your example the person has grown somewhat as a result of Spending his SA point.  He has increased one of his attributes which can, in turn increase his ability to pursue his ideals/philosophy.  The other guy hasn't grown, he's gone backwards.  The payoff in spending the point to get better is that you don't have those extra points available to burn on Combat, Skill rolls or whatever.  However, all you need to is simply play your character as defined by SA and Philosophy and you're back on track, but a little better on the ground level thanks to spending that SA point on your Attributes, combat prof skill or whatever.  SAs are a fluid, dynamic thing, not something that indicates a particular level of Conscience, Drive, Passion, Luck, Faith etc... Thats better measured by Insight points, and knowledge of the characters action.  I'm not sure SAs were intended as an external measuring stick on how cool the character is just by their very fluid nature.

QuoteFinally, I find it restrictive that SAs aren't readily testable like the PAs, MAs, and DAs. The temptation process -- assuming for a moment a world-view where temptation represents a spiritual attack that the character must successfully defend if they are to resist temptation -- would seem to be most obviously resisted by Faith (if the character follows a religion that is opposed to the form of temptation) or Conscience. Yet the SAs have values of 0 through 5 and may or may not represent how strongly the character follows the SA.

I think you're making a fundamental error in the way you're understanding the system here.  in your example and in most games I know of tests refer back to your core Attributes and in TROS its no different.  I can't see the benefit of testing an SA amount if its inherantly fluid.  The test should test the characters inherant core ability to resist whatever  the temptation is.  In this case its probably Wit or something like that.  The SA is just a reserve to call on in times where the temptation is important.  Temptation isn't always going to be contradictory to your Conscience or your Faith.  I get tempted walking past Donut King... thats hardly going to need my extra resolve if I'm a hardcore buddhist or whatever.  Its just tempting me at a base level.   In other situations you'll be tempted where your base level of resistance is boosted by the relevant SA.  

I've probably got more to say, but I gotta dash...
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Alan on January 29, 2004, 04:56:48 AM
A Spiritual Attribute doesn't measure how much the character is committed to an issue, it measures how much the player is.  SAs exist solely as a mechanic to encourage player contributions of a particular type.  To assess them as just another Attribute is to miss the point.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Jaif on January 29, 2004, 10:36:50 AM
QuoteI now look at this campaign from the TroS perspective of "If your SAs aren't involved why should your character care...?". Would the campaign have worked under TRoS? Would certain PCs have to be asked to take certain SAs as mandatory, so that their hook into the campaign was smooth? Is that an acceptable request, as an alternative to wholly pre-generated PCs?
The short answer is yes, either the characters need to adapt to the campaign, or the campaign needs to adapt to the characters.  This is actually nothing more than formalizing something that decent GMs do anyways: "guys, I'm running a campaign where you're the good guys who fight chaos"..."ok, I can do that, but my character still hates Bretonians".
QuoteSecondly, in spite of a complete lack of combat training I find it unlikely that I would fight better when confronted by a knife-wielding attacker if the fight was over something I initially considered important. The situation is life-or-death and that would seem to me to be the over-riding consideration.
Yup, SAs are a story-telling element, not part of the simulation.

Btw, there's nothing stopping you from modifying things to your tastes.  You can play by simply handing out experience points for gold pieces found or goals accomplished at the end and doing away with the SAs.  Of if you want to run in WFRP, do that but keep the luck SA, which closely resembles fate points anyways.

-Jeff

P.S. When I first started my campaign, I told my players well in advance the general theme, and that I was nailing down 2 SAs and letting them only pick 3 (some still had a hard time).  Over time I've freed up and told them they are welcome to buy down those 2 SAs.  This was both to give the campaign a bit of focus at start and to help players figure out the new system.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Tywin Lannister on January 29, 2004, 11:23:29 AM
Besides, there is nothing wrong with things happening in the campaign in spite of SAs.
For example, Player Characters forced to wander through a desert while their SAs relate to NPCs on the other side of the world. Bad example, but you prob know what I mean
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: kenjib on January 29, 2004, 11:27:42 AM
I found this post by Ralph Mazza very interesting and thought I'd quote it here for those who don't want to wade through everything over there:

http://www.rpg.net/forums/phorum/rf08/read.php?f=2191&i=343&t=181

I think it's a very insightful look into what makes RPGs fun.

Quote
Author: Ralph Mazza (---.2.30)
Date:   01-29-2004 07:22

Sure, and to be clear, I have no problem at all with TRoS not meeting your preferences. And for 2 very good reasons. First, no game is going to meet everyones preferences; and Second, you are willing to acknowledge that just because it isn't your cup of tea that that doesn't make it a bad game design (a lesson several others in these discussions could learn).

I will say on final comment about "learning the system and how well they learn".

The system isn't particularly hard or difficult to understand. I'll avoid comparisons with the difficulty of other games because that would just open up a whole can of worms. But we aren't talking Phoenix Command here.

What makes me stress the skill required is not because its a particularly difficult skill to learn, but because its a particularly *different* skill to learn (for most gamers, esp those predominately players of D&D).

In a game like D&D there is little you can do to avoid getting hit. There are various pre battle choices you can make to boost your AC, but by and large once the fighting starts whether you get hit or not is more dependent on what your opponent does then what you do. So D&D combat comes down primarily to trading hits. You expect to be hit, its ok to be hit as long as you're hitting the other guy harder.

In TRoS whether a character gets hit or not is more in the hands of the defender than the attacker. Its the defender whose in the drivers seat and the attacker who must use tactics and feints and timing in order to land a blow. In TRoS you don't trade hits. You trade attacks. You trade attacks until one side gains an advantage that they have the courage to exploit and land the blow. I say courage, because most of the time the attack needed to exploit that opening also leaves the attacker vulnerable too.

Its a different mentality. Not a harder mentality.


As far as the "metagame" issue. You and I could probably have some very interesting discussions on the variety of ways Metagame can effect play.

But for purposes of this discussion, I enjoy playing games where my choices as a player impact the success of my character in the game. I find the alternative pretty boring.

If my skills as a player don't matter, if the only deciding factor in whether or not my character lives or dies are the skills written on his sheet and how the dice fall, I see little point. Anyone could play my character. Anyone could pick up the sheet, roll the dice and determine my characters fate.

See, one of the common arguments against metagame is that it detatches the player from the character. For me I find the exact opposite to be true. I care MORE about the character and wanting to play that character when its me determining whether he lives or dies.

This operates on 2 levels for me. First mechanically. As I said if you postulate a game with zero player skill impact on the outcome of a fight, then I feel no attachment to the character at all. It could be anyones character. Anyone could "run" it through the battle and the results will 100% determined mechanically. When its MY choices making the difference, I feel MORE attached.

I know my character will survive because *I'M* going to win. Bob sitting next to me would get killed if he were running the character, but I'm going to save his bacon. I get to feel as a player anxiety from the risk of losing and the thrill from winning. Its the anxiety and thrill of losing or winning a game rather than the anxiety and thrill of losing or winning your life. But its still an emotional connection to the character. I'm feeling what the character is feeling because I know that I live or die based on what I do as a player. I don't feel that in games where the decision is determined solely by character skill level and die rolls. There's no anxiety there for me. There's no thrill there for me. Its just dice hitting the table. Might as well be playing the card game "war".


The second level for me is enjoyment of play. Lets say a character is supposed to love someone and be willing to risk there life for them in the game. Ok, sure I can *play* the character so that the character's actions demonstrate this love. But unless *I* as a player am interested in seeing this relationship develop its not fun to do that. Roleplaying becomes a chore. It becomes work. It becomes going through the motions of "what I'm supposed to do because its on the character sheet" whether or not I'm finding it the least bit fun.

That's why I stressed in my "situation" rant a while ago the importance of hooking the player not the character. I will engage my character in the parts of the setting and situation that *I* find interesting...not whatever parts the character is supposed to find interesting. Who cares what the character finds interesting, its just a piece of paper. It can't high five you for a job well done.

This awareness of what the player finds interesting also is important for the enjoyment of the *group*. I can engage with the story/setting/situation with my character in a way that others at the table can appreciate and enjoy. I can make decisions for my character primarily on the basis of enhancing their fun. Of getting them excited. Of maybe shocking them a little (in a good way). This is all "meta" gaming in the sense that it takes the cues and inputs of what's "right" from the living breathing players at the table rather than some scribling on a piece of dead tree.

IMO a character is just a vehicle for the enjoyment of the play group. It has no life and it has no rights. I have no duty or obligation towards a piece of paper. What I do have is a duty and obligation to the enjoyment of all of the members at the table whom I'm playing with.

That's metagame. That's why I shake my head whenever someone like polaris pipes up with a "metagame is bad" statement of dogma. Its a nonsensical statement to make.

As soon as you admit that the primary purpose of roleplaying is for the people at the table to have fun...you're talking metagame. The interests of the players are paramount.

The entire idea of avoiding metagame to me is like driving from L.A. to Vegas by way of Atlanta. You're in L.A (start of the game). You want to get to Vegas (players having fun)...just drive to Vegas for crying out loud. Why go out of your way to ignore, suppress, or avoid the needs, wants and preferences of the players (by driving to Atlanta i.e. avoiding metagame) when the road to player enjoyment is so much simpler and easier than that.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Jaif on January 29, 2004, 12:07:43 PM
Good post.  The object is for the players to have fun, not the pieces of paper. :-)
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Pyske on January 29, 2004, 12:39:27 PM
I agree that Ralph / Valamir's post was very well stated.  I think that for some people he is completely right.  The only point I see missing (possibly intentionally), is that for some people process is important to the goal.  Less abstractly, for some people maximum fun means minimum metagame.  Like many of the other things people fight about, it's a taste issue.

Can TROS work for such people?  I suspect it can, but in a more limited set of scenarios than for those who are comfortable with including the metagame (i.e. that subset which avoids the requirement to make metagame decisions which can't be mapped to character decisions).

. . . . . . . -- Eric

edit PS:  Decided I wanted to add some context.  Ralph's post was originally a response to someone claiming that metagame is never OK.  Thus, it was perfectly reasonable to present it as a defense of the position.  Didn't want my comment about "possibly intentially" to seem like I was accusing Ralph of anything.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Valamir on January 29, 2004, 03:02:52 PM
Hey no problem there Eric.  The Forge is all about identifying play preferences, seeing them as equally valid, and encouraging people to find people of similiar preference to game with if differences in play style is causeing difficulty.

So absolutely there are people whose source of fun comes from an absence of metagame.  One point that I do want to make clear however is this.

I have no problem with people who prefer to play Without MetaGame (WMGs) as long as that is a decision they arrived at rationally.  Meaning, they've played alot of different ways, with alot of different people and in the end concluded for themselves that they do, in fact, prefer WMG play.

What I do have a problem with is people who are WMG players forcibly indoctineating new gamers with WMG dogma (through peer pressure and lectures on the "proper" way to play).  I firmly believe that WMG play is  foriegn to "normal" non gamer sensibilities, and that this period of indoctination is often the reason why potential new players show up once or twice and never go back.  Its the WMG zealots who I have BIG issues with, because they IMO are severely damaging to our hobby.



I regards to your question about TRoS working for WMG players, I'd say this.  TRoS is not IMO a tool kit design.  d20, GURPS, Hero, Tri Stat, Savage Worlds, etc, many of the more popular game systems out there are tool kit designs.  By this I mean that each subsystem is reasonably self contained so that with a little work one can lift out one sub system and substitute in something else.  In d20s case this is how you get all of those OGL variants like M&M, etc.

This sort of thing is so common (and has been for so long) that many people just assume that any game can be mixed and matched as much as desired.

TRoS, however, is a much more monolithis system.  The combat system is not a seperate subsystem from the SA rules and the character advancement rules.  One can not simply mix and match with these.  They are all fundamentally tied and integrated with each other.

It would require much more careful "surgery" to seperate them.

This is the problem James ran into with his group.  He didn't question for a second (and still doesn't) that he could simply lift the SA and character advancement system out of TRoS, drop in an alternative and have the game work.  It didn't.  And the reason it didn't is because the game is not a tool kit like this.

If one REALLY wanted to make an RPG out of TRoS that didn't use the SA system (and James's version didn't really, he called them SAs but in practice they sound more like Burning Wheel-esque call on traits), then the combat system needs to be reworked.  Its the SAs that prevent the game from being a new-character-every-other-session death fest.  Without them, modifications are required.

Because combat is such a finely tuned machine, any mechanical changes that seriously reduced its lethality would have some pretty severe ripple effects (unless someone just rewrites the damage tables to have weaker effects).

So yes, I think you could incorporate the mechanical foundation into a WMG game.  But you'd need to revise the lethality of the system substantially.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on January 29, 2004, 04:55:13 PM
Hi all -

I posted something over in that rpg.net review thread - pardon me for reposting it here, but I thought the folks in this thread might find it interesting.

I was in the game where Ralph got wacked by the kid with a stick. It was an incredible role-playing moment - arrogant knight brought low by youngling with a sword. Not just "a kid" - a Fahal tibes-child with a culture strange and unknown to us, and a toughness that even my Kazak raider found imposing.

System used to support style of play - "meta gaming" in the service of desired game-reward. "Role" and "playing" enhanced by the interplay of charcter, player, GM and system.

That's what TRoS invites you to engage with, and what its' tools will support you in doing. You may not like the way it does it - that's fine. It may not be the goals you're interested in - also fine, and TOTALLY understandable. But obviously, objectively a "bad" game? That's just . . . insane, to my mind.

Gordon
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 29, 2004, 05:51:38 PM
Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbThirdly, was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use? To divorce the value of the SA from the degree to which the character holds to that SA? I find the rules contradictory. For instance, I have a character with a Conscience SA of 5. The character acts selfishly and loses a point of Conscience. He now has a Conscience of 4. In what way is this Conscience value of 4 different from the Conscience value of 4 he gets when trading in 1 point of this SA as part of an Attribute-raising exercise? Is the character a more or less Conscience-orientated character under either circumstance or both circumstances?

Quote from: MalechiYes it was a good idea.. in your example the person has grown somewhat as a result of Spending his SA point.  He has increased one of his attributes which can, in turn increase his ability to pursue his ideals/philosophy.  The other guy hasn't grown, he's gone backwards.

I agree with what you are saying. What is represented by a value of 4 in Conscience as opposed to some other value? What impact does the method by which the character arrived at this value have on the character?

It looks like a value of 4 has no more nor less bearing on the Conscience than any other value. Nor does the method by which the character arrived at the value impact anything beyond the immediate determination of the value. The reason this is the case is mechanistic rather than simulationist -- as the SAs are part of the experience point mechanism (for want of a better word) the values of the SAs will be fluid and therefore must be divorced from any inherent meaning.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbFinally, I find it restrictive that SAs aren't readily testable like the PAs, MAs, and DAs. (Snip)

Quote from: MalechiI think you're making a fundamental error in the way you're understanding the system here.  in your example and in most games I know of tests refer back to your core Attributes and in TROS its no different.

Quite correct -- I'm saying that I find it restrictive that TRoS has no testable attributes that relate to the character's spiritual make-up. To use your terminology, the character's strength of spirit is not a core attribute in TRoS.

Quote from: MalechiThe test should test the characters inherant core ability to resist whatever  the temptation is.  In this case its probably Wit or something like that.

Notice how difficult it was to come up with an MA that really suited a check against temptation? Would you use a measure of the character's mental reflex and sharpness to test against temptation? Would you use a measure of how quickly the character learns to resist temptation? Would you use a measure of mental endurance and determination to resist temptation?

TRoS is great in that it divides the character into three areas of core attributes -- the physical, the mental, and the spiritual. Most RPGs rely on a Piety-type attribute to represent the whole of the character's spiritual state while TRoS devotes a section of attributes to the spirit! Yet they aren't testable attributes, which I find frustrating.

In TRoS, how do you test belief?

Cheers.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 29, 2004, 06:10:52 PM
Hi,

Quote from: AlanA Spiritual Attribute doesn't measure how much the character is committed to an issue, it measures how much the player is.

From which we draw the logical conclusion that when the player decides to trade in 5 points of their character's maxed SA to raise an MA or PA that they are no longer as committed to that SA...

That was a joke. Look, I think you are trying to say that the act of defining an SA allows the player to indicate to the referee the core values of their character. That's quite correct (though for me is blurred a little by the idea that the player can change those SA definitions as they see fit).

Is that function -- and a great one it is for player and referee alike -- necessarily linked to the character development function? Or does that link create as many issues as it solves?

Should TRoS have testable attributes that relate to the spirit of the character? Should TRoS cater for spiritual development as it does mental and physical development?

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 29, 2004, 06:17:08 PM
Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbSecondly, in spite of a complete lack of combat training I find it unlikely that I would fight better when confronted by a knife-wielding attacker if the fight was over something I initially considered important. The situation is life-or-death and that would seem to me to be the over-riding consideration.

Quote from: bcook1971To me, SA's are better understood as Heroic Advantage.  There's nothing realistic about it, but it satisfies on another level.

I absolutely agree.

Do you define SAs for NPCs? Do you develop your long-term NPCs using the same mechanisms as the PCs?

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: toli on January 29, 2004, 06:18:02 PM
Quote from: Ian.PlumbIn TRoS, how do you test belief?

Cheers.

I think TROS does test your 'current level' of belief throught the mechanic of SA's aiding you in time of stress.  If you believe strongly in a cause, you get bonus die...and all that.  That is a great mechanic (as I think most of us agree...).

It does seem odd, however, that this belief must be sacrifieced in order to increase one's proficiencies or attributes.  One day you strongly love your wife (Passion 5), then your dagger skill goes up and you don't really care any more (Passion 0).  At the same time you can only rebuild your passion for you wife by having a knife fight about her.  (Ok, I know this is simplified).

I just go along with the mechanic...
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Jaif on January 29, 2004, 06:23:36 PM
How do you test belief? You can do it mechanistically (like pendragon), I suppose, but you can also do it in the story.  Run actual tests of their behavior - create scenarios where they decide between their SA and something else.  Don't make it easy, either.  Like if they love a women, make her the type of women who holds the purse-strings, and demands control of all the finances and an accounting of the money her man spends.  Then create a scenario where some dirt-poor peasants do something crucial to help your adventurers, and see if the particular player gives all the money to his love, or slips some to the needy peasants.

That was off the top of my head, and maybe not so good, but hopefully it gets the point across.  Granted, there are times it would be nice to say "the slut looks pretty; make a chaste roll or you're going off with her for the night", but I think there's something to be said for building it into the story.

-jeff
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Valamir on January 29, 2004, 06:27:24 PM
I'm not sure what you're asking Ian.

The number as it currently stands doesn't measure anything.  

As a value it is simply an indication of the frequency with which the player addresses it (and is thus awarded more points) summed with the frequency with which the player spends it.  Only indirectly does it measure player committment to anything.  Presumeably something that a player really is engaging with will go up faster than the things he is not.  But its also possible for a value to simply be horded at a high level with no future engagment, so only tracing the entire history of the value can any conclusion really be drawn.


So in this sense an SA is a binary condition.  You either "Are" or you "Aren't", with the number saying nothing about "how much".  The bonus that the number supplies to rolls doesn't really represent anything from a simulationist perspective either.  It can kind of be thought of as passion or adrenaline if that helps...but in reality its a carrot.  

It is nothing more complicated than a reward to the player for engaging with the story.  

Engage with the story, get bonus dice used to enhance your character's effectiveness.  Don't engage with the story, don't get any bonus dice.  In this way even players who normally aren't all that interested in engaging will do so, if for no other reason than getting the dice.

Why are the dice tied to character improvement.  Simple.  Because in order to work as a reward the value of the reward must be capped (an SA that reaches a score of 30 just overwhelms everything).  However, once capped the player is motivated to engage just enough to hit the cap and then has no incentive to keep engageing.  So in order to continue to be an effective carrot the value must go down at some point so the player is motivated to keep engageing to get it back up.

TROS is very big on NOT penalizing a player for failing to engage so you can't just take dice away (in most cases), so instead you find a way to encourage the player to spend them voluntarily, what would a player be willing to spend them on...voila character improvement.

The values are nothing more than an incredibly effective, high powered, pavlovian reward system.  They don't MEAN anything.


So as for being testable...how would you suggest testing a binary condition?

Now, do please note that the bonus dice from SAs are not restricted to combat.  They can be spent on any kind of roll.  So if you're asking a player to roll to resist temptation and you deem that his Faith would apply (because its a temptation his Faith preaches against), then simply allow him to roll his Faith SA as bonus dice in the temptation roll.  Voila...effect achieved.

However, again...this is not a matter of someone with *stronger* Faith having an advantage over someone with *weaker*.  The Faith itself is binary.  The number of dice is just a purely metagame reward for a player who's taken the time to roleplay his Faith appropriately.

I'm not sure I'm actually answering your question though...
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 29, 2004, 06:48:10 PM
Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbIn TRoS, how do you test belief?

Quote from: toliI think TROS does test your 'current level' of belief throught the mechanic of SA's aiding you in time of stress.  If you believe strongly in a cause, you get bonus die...and all that.  That is a great mechanic (as I think most of us agree...).

What about belief in the sense of spiritual beliefs rather than SAs?

For instance, a character has grown up in a single-religion community. He therefore is quite familiar with the catechisms of that religion, he believes they are true, but he doesn't base his life around the ideals of the religion (that is, he has no SAs based on the religion). This character meets an itinerant friar, proselytizing for a different religion.

How do we handle the conversion process? It sounds like it should be a resisted roll -- the Friar's Theology skill being resisted by that which measures how strongly our character adheres to the religion of his upbringing.

Does the Theology skill represent how much the character believes in the religion in question? Personally I would say that Theology is quite separate from belief particularly if you are trying to model the medieval western-European environment. If this is the case should there be a Faith skill as well as a Theology skill, if religion or the clash of religions is important to your campaign? If so, what Attribute(s) would be rolled against the Faith skill?

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Trevis Martin on January 29, 2004, 06:52:55 PM
Quote from: Ian.PlumbShould TRoS have testable attributes that relate to the spirit of the character? Should TRoS cater for spiritual development as it does mental and physical development?

Hi Ian,

TROS is notable for the fact that it doesn't really model what I can 'inside' phenomena.  That is things like belief, commitment and intelligence.  There is a sentence where Jake notes that intelligence is up to the player's portrayal, MA merely measures how much aptitude for learning a character has.

I think a cue can be taken from that.  Belief is demonstrated by action of the player.  Put him in a situation that challenges beleif and the way he reacts is the test itself.  If he happens to have some dice in his faith SA then they can be contributed to the die roll of the action that demonstrates his belief, but there is nothing that models 'beleif' directly because this is the arena where TROS says we have to make our own decisions.  Those things are where the meaning comes from.

I think Ralphs suggestions of an SA being a binary is apt.  Even if an SA is, for the moment, at 0 doesn't mean the character has none.  Not at all.  Until a player actually changes the SA I think it must be assumed that they have it.  Even at 0.  Now if they neglect it by refusing to engage any meaningful tests of it then they will not have the metagame bonus to help them with those situations.  There are only five slots for SA's but there are Seven possible, one of which can be used multiple times.  Even before points TROS is asking the player to commit to a certain set of stuff important to him or that he wants to engage in.  We must, in order to preserve the integrity of the player's vision, ASSUME that those things exist in the character, whether they have points or not.  And as I said above, their test is in the action of play, the meat of the game.

regards,

Trevis
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: toli on January 29, 2004, 06:56:18 PM
I would agree that Theology is separate from belief.  ONe can understand the theological basis for some thing with out believing in it.

I would say if the belief doesn't figure into the character's SA's, its not that strong a belief that it really affects the character's life in a way that requires an in game mechanic.  Switching from one religion to the next would be the Player's choice and have no earth shattering impacts on the PC unless it is taken as a new Faith SA.  In the absense of a newly formed SA, the belief would simply be roleplayed.  How strongly the character believes the new religion would be played out in how the Player decides to play the PC.

NT
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 29, 2004, 07:49:49 PM
Hi,

Quote from: ValamirI'm not sure what you're asking Ian.

And I'm not sure which post you are responding to, so we're even! ; ^ )

Quote from: ValamirThe number as it currently stands doesn't measure anything.

Quite correct.

Quote from: ValamirWhy are the dice tied to character improvement. (Snip)

Again, quite correct. For the SAs to be used as a reward mechanism they must function in the way that they do.

Quote from: ValamirTROS is very big on NOT penalizing a player for failing to engage so you can't just take dice away (in most cases), (Snip)

Page 67 seems to go against what you are saying here. Conscience, Drive, Faith, Passion all drop when the character fails to engage given the right opportunity. This makes sense to me -- there is no free lunch, or at least there shouldn't be.

Quote from: ValamirSo if you're asking a player to roll to resist temptation and you deem that his Faith would apply (because its a temptation his Faith preaches against), then simply allow him to roll his Faith SA as bonus dice in the temptation roll.  Voila...effect achieved.

I'm happy to allow the Faith SA to be used as bonus dice in the temptation process -- but what skill is used for the underlying roll?

Having resisted the temptation, how do we indicate that the character is less likely to succumb to temptation in the future?

Having traded in 5 points of Faith SA to bump an attribute, why is the character more likely to succumb to temptation when it next presents? What are we simulating here?

How does the believer who doesn't centre their life around their belief (no SA, representing the ordinary adherent to the religion rather than the cleric or paladin of the religion) measure their degree of belief, their capacity to resist temptation?

SAs are a great idea. Their initial definition allows the player to indicate to the referee what they want from the plot of the campaign. Their ongoing development allows the player opportunity to role-play and the referee to reward that role-play. The player is able to role-play the situations where their SAs are being followed and when they are not.

Neither of these functions is inherently linked to or even particularly served by the SA point trading mechanism. In addition, it is the SA point trading mechanism that requires the value of an SA to have no meaning, prevents the SAs from being directly testable, and leads to players feeling that they are being punished if an SA value is decreased by the referee when their character fails to act on an SA-related opportunity.

Perhaps it is possible to alter the mechanic such that the benefits of SAs to the game for player and referee alike are retained yet the development of the PAs/MAs/Proficiencies aren't linked to the development of SAs?

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Lance D. Allen on January 29, 2004, 09:21:19 PM
Temptation: Willpower, natch.

I'm not seeing how this is a difficult question. You are trying to resist something, so it's a matter of how strong your will is. If you're weak-willed, you give in easily. If you're strong willed, you don't. TN determined by how strong the temptation is. If it's a recurring or constant temptation, make it an extended contest, requiring multiple successes to "win" for the time being.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Valamir on January 29, 2004, 09:48:48 PM
Quote from: Ian.Plumb

Page 67 seems to go against what you are saying here. Conscience, Drive, Faith, Passion all drop when the character fails to engage given the right opportunity. This makes sense to me -- there is no free lunch, or at least there shouldn't be.

You are correct.  I had forgotten that.  Doesn't change the necessity of finding something else to spend the SAs on, but good catch on my error.

QuoteI'm happy to allow the Faith SA to be used as bonus dice in the temptation process -- but what skill is used for the underlying roll?

Good question.  There is no skill that immediately comes to mind.  But one can get a good idea from looking over the existing skills.  When trying to persuade someone the target resists using persuade or a default.  When trying to intimidate someone the target resists using intimidate or a default.  Same for winning debates with orate and a couple of others.  If memory serves the default for all of these are 10 (or maybe 11).

An exception to this is the Sincerity Skill which is an attempt to convince someone with lies.  I believe the TN there is just a flat 8.

So taking these as a precedent I'd say setting a TN of 8, 9 or 10 depending on the severity of the temptation.


QuoteHaving resisted the temptation, how do we indicate that the character is less likely to succumb to temptation in the future?

Hmmm. I'm not sure that is a reasonable thing to expect as a blanket effect.  Would the target be less likely?  Maybe.  But I could just as easily see the target becoming MORE likely reflecting repeated exposure wearing him down.  I'm thinking here about things like a college kid who refused a joint when first got to school, but after constant peer pressure is a regular user by his senior year.  Or the guy who resisted the advances of his buddy's girlfriend at first.  But after repeated attempts finally succumbed.

Seems to me like you'd have to adjucate on a case by case basis whether the character has become more or less susceptable and simply modify the target number accordingly.

The best idea I have would be if the character succeeded with extra successes on the initial resistance roll, that those extra successes get to be kept as bonus dice to use on a future roll.



QuoteHaving traded in 5 points of Faith SA to bump an attribute, why is the character more likely to succumb to temptation when it next presents? What are we simulating here?

Well, as I attempted to explain in some detail in the post above.  Nothing.  There is nothing being simulated here.  If you want to create an in game justification for it, consider it a point of temporary weakness.  Perhaps the player wishes to role play out a crisis of Faith...

But in the end, the points that helped him resist the first time were NOT due to his strong Faith at all.  They were, as I said, simply a metagame carrot.  A reward for engaging.  A reward which he no longer has access to for metagame reasons.

QuoteHow does the believer who doesn't centre their life around their belief (no SA, representing the ordinary adherent to the religion rather than the cleric or paladin of the religion) measure their degree of belief, their capacity to resist temptation?

Sounds like a case for a Will Power vs assigned Target Number roll to me...

Quote
Neither of these functions is inherently linked to or even particularly served by the SA point trading mechanism.

I don't know that I agree with that.  I gave what I think is a particularly good reason for the linkage, but perhaps it got lossed in the simultaneous mistake I made about losing points.

If SAs are not capped they'll grow to become a disproportionately dominate feature of the mechanic.  Additionally they'll allow characters to become 1 dimensional because players won't need to work to get 2-3 SA firing at the same time in order to get alot of dice at once.

However, if SAs *are*capped then the problem is that once a character hits that cap that the SAs no longer serve any kind of motivational purpose for the player...since they can't get any higher anyway.

Thus, in order to function there has to be a mechanism that players *want* to engage in that causes points to bleed out of the SAs so that the player must keep engaging in order to maintain their bonus.

Relying on penalties for bad roleplaying I don't think will do that, a) because players won't necessarily give you opportunities to penalize them, and b) no one really likes a system that relies on the GM punishing the player.

Having the SAs be spent when they're used so they have to be replaced I don't think will work as well either, because a) that doesn't model anything any more realistically anyway and b) it robs the player of being able to excel over the course of an entire battle without worrying about running out of points.

Can you think of another way to get players to voluntarily reduce their SAs in order to keep the treadmill running?


Thanks for clarifying what you were asking.  I think I missed the thrust of your question the first time.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Jake Norwood on January 29, 2004, 09:49:55 PM
This has become a suprisingly complicated thread, so I can't even think to address everything or do it justice, but a few things stuck out to me.

[quote'"Ian.Plumb"]In TRoS, how do you test belief? [/quote]

This has been assessed pretty well by a lot of folks, but here's my take on it. In TROS, you assess belief in the same way that you do IRL. You put it to a test of real-life priorities.

I'm going to use an example from my own life here. I am, as many of you know, a practicing Mormon. This religion, more than most Christian religions, is a lifestyle. The tennants of my faith dictate to some degree what I drink and how I spend large quantities of my time. When I was called by the leadership of the church to spend two years as a missionary in Poland at my own expense, I went. During that time I was something like a minister, a monk, and a door-to-door teacher. The rules--dogmatic or otherwise--that I was asked to obey as a missionary were very, very strict.

This was, of course, a test of my faith. What does God care if I get up at 6:30 am every day? Even now, I don't think that he does...but it was required of me by the institution in which I place my faith. Thus my faith was tested.

In TROS, it works the same way. SAs are tested when the players are given a chance to "put their money where their mouth is." Is it a test that the GM can predict? No, but then again neither is a roll. Is it a trait that can be rolled against something? No, it's not, and if it was, it would reduce the power of a player's decision in the story and in play.

QuoteNotice how difficult it was to come up with an MA that really suited a check against temptation? Would you use a measure of the character's mental reflex and sharpness to test against temptation? Would you use a measure of how quickly the character learns to resist temptation? Would you use a measure of mental endurance and determination to resist temptation?

The thing is, you don't tempt the character sheet. You tempt the character by tempting the player's desires for that character. Is it "metagame?" I guess it might be, but who cares? If you tempt the numbers on a character sheet than no temptation has come through...it was just a computerized model with no human element. BUT if you tempt the player's vision of the character, then not only have you as the GM done something noteworthy, but the player's decision for their character--whichever way that decision goes--will be worth remembering and will make a wonderful story and game. SAs are not unlike Ron Edward's kickers in that way, although I had no idea that anything like them even existed at the time I wrote TROS.

Quote...was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use?

It was the best idea in the lot! The mistake may have been calling the SAs "attributes" at all, instead of "motivations" or "values," but I confess that what I was doing at the time was "new" even for me. See, in the end, the game ends up being "about" whatever the advancement system is "about." Rolemaster is wonderful this way, because it's "about" experiencing things by doing...and the advancement system reflects this. D&D is good here, too. In it's raw old-school form D&D is "about" killing things, taking their stuff, and overcoming challenges, and XP reward exactly that. GURPS, IMO, fails here somewhat, because the Character Points are handed out for things like "role playing" and "overcoming objectives" which generally means that everybody gets the same 4 points at the end of every session regardless of what they really did (understand that I played GURPs fanatically through High School, and I still like the game, even if it violates all kinds of theory and is no longer really to my taste).

TROS, as stated in the GM section, is about exploring "passions, motivations, and beliefs...pitted against one another...These things are the Riddle of Steel--a deeper understanding of who we all are and what is important to us. ... Sure, [TROS] is an RPG, and a strategy game, but it's also a kind of moral play. Try it out that way...it'll be a different kind of roleplaying experience for you and your players. We promise." (TROS p. 214-215)

Therefore, the reward system should be about passions, motivations, and beliefs so that a moral play is created. When people say "TROS claims to be so real, but the character creation and the SAs aren't," then they aren't reading the ad copy close enough. The combat mechanic is "realistic." The rest--spearheaded by SAs--is all literary...what some would call "narrativist," and blatantly so.

Jake
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Valamir on January 30, 2004, 12:00:45 AM
Nice answer.  I think I've been pretty clear on what I think of metagame elements, so no surprise that I agree entirely.

As a thought, you may want to consider splitting Ian's series of posts and responses off from the original review commentary thread for archival purposes.  They're certainly worthy of a thread of their own.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 30, 2004, 05:53:04 AM
Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbI'm happy to allow the Faith SA to be used as bonus dice in the temptation process -- but what skill is used for the underlying roll?

Quote from: ValamirGood question.  There is no skill that immediately comes to mind.  But one can get a good idea from looking over the existing skills.  When trying to persuade someone the target resists using persuade or a default.  When trying to intimidate someone the target resists using intimidate or a default.  Same for winning debates with orate and a couple of others.  If memory serves the default for all of these are 10 (or maybe 11).

An exception to this is the Sincerity Skill which is an attempt to convince someone with lies.  I believe the TN there is just a flat 8.

So taking these as a precedent I'd say setting a TN of 8, 9 or 10 depending on the severity of the temptation.

OK, please correct me I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here:

As referee I build a scene where the PC obtains the key to the manorial cellar. The PC is well aware that the cellar contains a fine red wine collection. The spiritual force of Greed presents temptation to the PC in the form of an opportunity to sample these fine wines undetected...

The character is not usually a thief, but there are spiritual forces at play. The player doesn't understand why their character is being inexorably drawn towards that cellar door, to remove the key from their pocket, to take a last furtive glance around the corridor, to reach for the door handle. While the player clamours their denials the moment of decision is reached...

The referee assigns a strength to the spiritual force of Greed. Lets say it has a strength of 5. The referee assigns a TN to the task of tempting the character. Lets say a TN of 8 -- the character is law abiding and trustworthy. The roll is resisted by the player. The referee determines that the temptation is not great -- the character doesn't particularly like red wine. So it's a TN of, say, 6. The player rolls (X dice plus appropriate SAs) against the TN of 6. The referee rolls 5 dice against a TN of 8.

If this is the case, what would you use as the base number of dice for the player?

Quote from: Ian.PlumbHaving resisted the temptation, how do we indicate that the character is less likely to succumb to temptation in the future?

Quote from: ValamirHmmm. I'm not sure that is a reasonable thing to expect as a blanket effect.  Would the target be less likely?  Maybe.  But I could just as easily see the target becoming MORE likely reflecting repeated exposure wearing him down.

I agree that either is possible. There should be a mechanism for allowing either of these to be the end result. For example, if the player devotes development to this area then they get stronger. If not then weaker. Like TRoS's SAs, fluctuation up and down...

Quote from: ValamirThe best idea I have would be if the character succeeded with extra successes on the initial resistance roll, that those extra successes get to be kept as bonus dice to use on a future roll.

Hmmm, I like this too. Particularly if it applied to a particular form of temptation. Resist the test of the cellar door successfully and the next time Avarice rears its ugly head you get the bonus. Conversely, if the test of the cellar door is failed then the degree of failure acts as a penalty the next time you try to resist the same form of temptation...

Quote from: Ian.PlumbHaving traded in 5 points of Faith SA to bump an attribute, why is the character more likely to succumb to temptation when it next presents? What are we simulating here?

Quote from: ValamirWell, as I attempted to explain in some detail in the post above.  Nothing.  There is nothing being simulated here. (Snip)

I understand that the SA value and reward/expend mechanism aren't there to simulate anything. For me that's OK, unless it gets in the way of the in-game outcome. In the above example it would seem to have produced a result that is difficult to rationalise.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbHow does the believer who doesn't centre their life around their belief (no SA, representing the ordinary adherent to the religion rather than the cleric or paladin of the religion) measure their degree of belief, their capacity to resist temptation?

Quote from: ValamirSounds like a case for a Will Power vs assigned Target Number roll to me.

Really? You'd use the Attribute that reflects the character's level of determination to check an adherent's level of belief? Their capacity to resist temptation? That's interesting. It is probably the best of those available but I wouldn't have thought it was a good measure of the character's capacity to stick to their moral code. In the sense that you'd probably say that politicians are very determined people to have gotten where they are but I wouldn't describe politicians as a particularly moral group. Not that an example makes or breaks a rule -- WP is the most appropriate attribute of those available.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbNeither of these functions is inherently linked to or even particularly served by the SA point trading mechanism.

Quote from: ValamirI don't know that I agree with that.  I gave what I think is a particularly good reason for the linkage, but perhaps it got lossed in the simultaneous mistake I made about losing points. (Snip)

I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis.

Imagine for a moment that the PAs and MAs can be developed directly through usage. They're also capped at 5 (human maximum, can't be exceeded). However, points from these can be traded into points in SAs (not as TRoS currently defines SAs but rather attributes that reflected the spiritual side of the character -- Faith, Compassion, Patience, etc.). These new SAs are used to combat spiritual attacks -- the main crux of this awful gaming construct.

The mechanics work -- the players want their characters to perform tasks that use their PAs and MAs as that is how they develop, and they need their SAs to increase in order to combat the evil forces at work in the world -- but there is no logic to such a system, no inherent reason for linking the different attributes in this way.

Our gaming group uses an RPG whose character development is experience point driven. The last time we received experience points was thirty months ago. As you can imagine, changes on the character sheet are not the reason we game. I can't imagine many long-term gamers rate their participation or enjoyment of a TRoS game by how many times their SAs were used or rewarded in a session. To me, SAs look really handy for experienced players with new characters, extremely useful for novice players, and almost vital for novice referees with novice players (the sort of vital that makes you wonder why it hasn't been done before in other games).

Quote from: ValamirRelying on penalties for bad roleplaying I don't think will do that, a) because players won't necessarily give you opportunities to penalize them, and b) no one really likes a system that relies on the GM punishing the player.

Well I wouldn't say that a player having their character go against their SAs represents bad role-playing.

As SAs are used as a reward mechanism losing a point in an SA is seen as a punishment. Ipso facto the person being punished must have been doing something bad.

On the other hand you could argue that the character who goes through life adding to their SAs, never losing a point, is not behaving like a real person.

Quote from: ValamirHaving the SAs be spent when they're used so they have to be replaced I don't think will work as well either, because a) that doesn't model anything any more realistically anyway and b) it robs the player of being able to excel over the course of an entire battle without worrying about running out of points.

Doesn't the Luck SA work in this way?

Quote from: ValamirCan you think of another way to get players to voluntarily reduce their SAs in order to keep the treadmill running?

Absolutely not -- if you're going to drive PA/SA/Proficiency development through the SAs then this is the way to do it.

I sit in the simulationist camp (no secret there I guess) so I'd rather see logical mechanisms driving character development. Well, not just character development but most areas of the game. That is why I admire the combat system yet balk at the implications of the SA system.

Personally, I wish the current SAs were called something else. It confuses the issue to have some attributes that are testable and some that are not, some that are capped and some that are not, some that develop directly and some that develop indirectly. I also wish that the system did have some spiritual attributes that were testable and worked in the same manner as PAs and MAs. It would certainly make delving into aspects of the spiritual realm a lot easier.

Many thanks for taking the time to detail your thoughts here. It has been interesting.

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 30, 2004, 06:58:27 AM
Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbIn TRoS, how do you test belief?

Quote from: Jake NorwoodThis has been assessed pretty well by a lot of folks, but here's my take on it. In TROS, you assess belief in the same way that you do IRL. You put it to a test of real-life priorities.

(Snip example)

In TROS, it works the same way. SAs are tested when the players are given a chance to "put their money where their mouth is." Is it a test that the GM can predict? No, but then again neither is a roll. Is it a trait that can be rolled against something? No, it's not, and if it was, it would reduce the power of a player's decision in the story and in play.

SAs are tested in this way but what about belief? As has been discussed previously unless a character's beliefs are central to their existence then they don't warrant an SA. Beliefs are part of the character's culture, their upbringing, their socialization -- they have importance to everyone in a medieval western-European society but they're not usually SA-worthy for non-clerical/templar characters.

If the spiritual development of a character wasn't one of the main themes of the campaign then I'd handle all aspects of spiritual development and conflict in an ad hoc manner. It would occur infrequently and so, I guess, can be fudged as required.

If on the other hand spiritual development and conflict is one of several cornerstones to the campaign then mechanisms are required to handle these activities. You need consistency of approach.

If, for instance, temptation can always be resisted simply by the player stating that they don't want their character to succumb to temptation then spiritual development and conflict probably isn't going to be much of a feature of the campaign.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbNotice how difficult it was to come up with an MA that really suited a check against temptation? Would you use a measure of the character's mental reflex and sharpness to test against temptation? Would you use a measure of how quickly the character learns to resist temptation? Would you use a measure of mental endurance and determination to resist temptation?

Quote from: Jake NorwoodThe thing is, you don't tempt the character sheet. You tempt the character by tempting the player's desires for that character. Is it "metagame?" I guess it might be, but who cares?

I do.

The SAs, as written, are designed to focus the player on ensuring that their character behaves according to the goals they defined for the character. If they're good and behave as expected then they're given points. If they're bad and don't follow up on the situations we as referees have designed with their character's SAs in mind then they can be punished by taking points away.

This is very neat and simple.

On the other hand, it looks like a complicated concept such as temptation should be handled situationally with the player simply deciding what the character will do, rather than situationally with a mechanism determining whether the character is able to do what the player intends for them.

Is there any other facet of the gaming environment that is handled this way?

Quote from: Ian.Plumb...was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use?

Quote from: Jake NorwoodIt was the best idea in the lot! The mistake may have been calling the SAs "attributes" at all, instead of "motivations" or "values," but I confess that what I was doing at the time was "new" even for me. See, in the end, the game ends up being "about" whatever the advancement system is "about."

The game is about improving the values in the character's SAs?

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Valamir on January 30, 2004, 07:55:00 AM
QuoteOK, please correct me I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here:

If this is the case, what would you use as the base number of dice for the player?

You could do it that way as an opposed roll if you wished.  I'd probably only do that if the tempation was being actively encouraged by a another person  "sure...take a drink, you can handle it, no one will know" in which case it would be a pretty straight forward Persuasion Test.

For a static temptation, like just the wine being there...I'd just go with strait Will Power vs TN based on strength of Temptation; and have WP be boostable by any applicable SA (such as Loyalty to Lord if the wine belongs to the lord)

Quote
Quote from: ValamirSounds like a case for a Will Power vs assigned Target Number roll to me.

Really? You'd use the Attribute that reflects the character's level of determination to check an adherent's level of belief? Their capacity to resist temptation? That's interesting. It is probably the best of those available but I wouldn't have thought it was a good measure of the character's capacity to stick to their moral code. In the sense that you'd probably say that politicians are very determined people to have gotten where they are but I wouldn't describe politicians as a particularly moral group. Not that an example makes or breaks a rule -- WP is the most appropriate attribute of those available.

I'd say resisting temptation, whether that a seduction to a married man or a piece of chocolate cake to a dieter is pretty much will power based.

If you want to build the slippery politician type, I'd take my cue from the Lecherous Flaw and go from there.  The Lecherous Flaw deals directly with idea of seduction as a temptation.  It takes the approach of calling for tests more frequently but uses a pretty generous default TN of 6 to resist.  

Alternatively (and perhaps simply) You could just have such a flaw mandate a more difficult TN for whatever the test would ordinarily be.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Bob Richter on January 30, 2004, 10:08:31 AM
How do you deal with beliefs in DnD?

Actually, fairly well. You don't want to do something, you say so. Someone tries to force you, you make a Will save.

TROS is pretty similar, and I think it's fine.

If you don't have a problem with drinking and whoring, you don't make the check, you just do it.
:)
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Morfedel on January 30, 2004, 11:16:31 AM
To me. temptation and such should be based on roleplaying, not rollplaying here. Make something that the player would find tempting, or that the really good roleplayer thinks would tempt the character, and you have a moral situation.

For example, its a lot of fun to take the character that has, say, oaths of poverty or somesuch, and then wave very powerful magic items or tons of gold; the greed that lights up in the players' eyes as they contemplate it is a ton of fun.

But if you feel that it has to be a rolled test, its simple; make it a willpower test with bonus dice where SAs are applicable, against a TN that you think appropriate.

For instance, lets say you are playing a human warrior named, oh, Boromir. Boromir has an SA called "Defend the Fellowship" with 4 dice and a WP of 4.

His friend, Frodo, stumbles and drops a magical ring that he picks up. This hypothetical ring has a magical enchantment on it that makes everyone tempted to pick it up. The Seneschal judges that its temptation power is a 7, but it constantly exerts its temptation whenever it becomes reachable; a single failed test could mean the person falls under its temptive control.

Boromir picks up the ring and rolls his test. He rolls 8 dice against the 9, and gets one success. With Aragorn's intercession, he barely manages to shrug off its effects and give it back to frodo.

(Could be fun to give the ring  score of dice it rolls on an opposed test against Boromir and others over extended period of time too).

Point being, make it a WP test if you don't want to RP it out; set a TN or make it opposed.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Tywin Lannister on January 30, 2004, 11:16:54 AM
And in addition your character may have such flaws as Addiction or Lecherousness to make the choices easier.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: kenjib on January 30, 2004, 12:40:04 PM
Temptation in TROS is more than just freeform roleplaying, even if you don't roll for it.  The incentive of SA advancement encourages the player to act in accord with his SA's.  Therefore, if you bait the temptation with SA rewards, you are tempting the player too.  SA's help to put the player more into the mind of the character.  What the character wants, the player wants too, therefor you can tempt the player by tempting the character.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Jake Norwood on January 30, 2004, 03:07:52 PM
Quote from: Ian.Plumb
Quote from: Jake NorwoodThe thing is, you don't tempt the character sheet. You tempt the character by tempting the player's desires for that character. Is it "metagame?" I guess it might be, but who cares?

I do.

The SAs, as written, are designed to focus the player on ensuring that their character behaves according to the goals they defined for the character. If they're good and behave as expected then they're given points. If they're bad and don't follow up on the situations we as referees have designed with their character's SAs in mind then they can be punished by taking points away.

Aha! SAs don't ensure anything! That would remove free will, and that's what SAs--and TROS--are about. What do I do with my free will? Sure, the player should act according to their SAs, and if they don't, then it's worth asking them why they chose not to go that way (and even change the focus if need be), but the mechanics don't force action, or even coerce. They tempt the player with a reward for acting a certain way.


QuoteThis is very neat and simple.

On the other hand, it looks like a complicated concept such as temptation should be handled situationally with the player simply deciding what the character will do, rather than situationally with a mechanism determining whether the character is able to do what the player intends for them.

This is absolutely correct. What you're leaving out is the reward mechanism. SAs are rewards for acting a certain way, and, as written, occassionally punishments.

QuoteIs there any other facet of the gaming environment that is handled this way?

A great deal, if I understand you correctly. Most of what characters do in most games is based on the decisions of the players, not on the stats of the characters. Anytime anything is done without a die roll this is the case. Some games use dice or stats to moderate the player's choices for their characters, but TROS does it by handing out doggie-treats (SAs) when characters act one way, and not another.

Quote
Quote from: Ian.Plumb...was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use?

Quote from: Jake NorwoodIt was the best idea in the lot! The mistake may have been calling the SAs "attributes" at all, instead of "motivations" or "values," but I confess that what I was doing at the time was "new" even for me. See, in the end, the game ends up being "about" whatever the advancement system is "about."

The game is about improving the values in the character's SAs?
Cheers,

Not quite...SA rewards are just that--rewards for playing according to "what the game's about." A martial art tournament isn't about the trophy--it's about skill and competition. The trophy is just the reward. Even more appropriately, a boxing prize-fight isn't about the dollar amount, but about fighting. The reward is the dollar amount that allows the boxer to continue a professional career and train full-time, thus allowing their skills to improve, etc. The boxer needs to win a match so that his career can continue, but the fight isn't about the money--it's about skill, competition, and a continuing career. Is that helping?

Jake
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 30, 2004, 04:45:45 PM
Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbOK, please correct me I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here:

If this is the case, what would you use as the base number of dice for the player?

Quote from: ValamirYou could do it that way as an opposed roll if you wished.  I'd probably only do that if the tempation was being actively encouraged by a another person  "sure...take a drink, you can handle it, no one will know" in which case it would be a pretty straight forward Persuasion Test.

Absolutely. From what I've read of Weyrth spiritual development (as opposed to SA development) is not a key area of the game. As such, providing a framework for spiritual development and spiritual conflict isn't needed. Temptation, as you've described it, isn't a spiritual force in its own right and therefore needs no mechanism for its resolution. Resisting temptation isn't a spiritual issue but one of self-discipline.

On the other hand, if you're planning on taking TRoS out of the Weyrth setting and into another gaming setting where spiritual development and spiritual conflict are as important as physical development and physical conflict, where temptation is an active spiritual force, then I think TRoS as it stands might need some changes. It would be useful if the core rules catered for spiritual development/conflict.

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Jaif on January 30, 2004, 08:48:22 PM
Even then there's no need for a willpower test.  Sure, everybody here knows the story and will give the ring back to Frodo.  But in your sessions, nobody need know all the details.  Remember our player named 'Boromir' knows his history: the ring was taken by his ancester from the dark lord, and is the rightful property of men.  It is generally known that the ring is a weapon of great power too.

Now, when Boromir picks up the ring, tell the player to put +3 next to every stat and weapon skill.  When he gives the ring back, tell him to erase the +3.

The point is make the conflict tangible and real, and let the player decide.

-Jeff
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Brian Leybourne on January 30, 2004, 09:12:43 PM
Jaif,

Ordinarily I would completely agree with you, temptation should be a player based thing and not decided on WP rolls - that's not really fair to the player as it takes control of the character out of their hand. Besides, give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves with it anyway :-)

However, in this specific example (ala The One Ring), I would ALSO include a WP component. It wasn't only a desire for power/status/whatever that drew people to the ring, it was a very real presence fuelling their desires and making it harder for them to resist them, thus I would involve a WP test of some sort to overcome that.

Brian.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 30, 2004, 09:15:52 PM
Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbThe SAs, as written, are designed to focus the player on ensuring that their character behaves according to the goals they defined for the character. If they're good and behave as expected then they're given points. If they're bad and don't follow up on the situations we as referees have designed with their character's SAs in mind then they can be punished by taking points away.

Quote from: Jake NorwoodAha! SAs don't ensure anything! That would remove free will, and that's what SAs--and TROS--are about. What do I do with my free will? Sure, the player should act according to their SAs, and if they don't, then it's worth asking them why they chose not to go that way (and even change the focus if need be), but the mechanics don't force action, or even coerce. They tempt the player with a reward for acting a certain way.

Oh Jake there's no need to be so literal. The SAs make the player predictable. They don't ensure that they are predictable, but they stack the odds in the referee's favour. We might choose to put a different spin on this, but when players are encouraged to question why their character would even participate in activity that isn't related to their character's SAs -- well, SAs can be see as a neat way of ensuring a high degree of compliance with the plot line. This isn't a bad thing. It is a good thing.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbOn the other hand, it looks like a complicated concept such as temptation should be handled situationally with the player simply deciding what the character will do, rather than situationally with a mechanism determining whether the character is able to do what the player intends for them.

Quote from: Jake NorwoodThis is absolutely correct. What you're leaving out is the reward mechanism. SAs are rewards for acting a certain way, and, as written, occassionally punishments.

I don't see temptation being linked with SAs necessarily. Maybe it is in some campaigns -- perhaps the only temptation with relevance to the character is one that entices them from the headlong pursuit of their SAs.

As I see it, TRoS doesn't have spiritual attributes in the sense that it has physical attributes and mental attributes. It has something that it calls Spiritual Attributes but, from a mechanics perspective, they bear no resemblance to the other attributes. I would like to see the game have both spiritual attributes and Spiritual Attributes.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbIs there any other facet of the gaming environment that is handled this way?

Quote from: Jake NorwoodA great deal, if I understand you correctly. Most of what characters do in most games is based on the decisions of the players, not on the stats of the characters. Anytime anything is done without a die roll this is the case. Some games use dice or stats to moderate the player's choices for their characters, but TROS does it by handing out doggie-treats (SAs) when characters act one way, and not another.

Let me rephrase: Is there any other form of conflict or contest within the gaming environment where the player has the option of simply deciding whether their character wins or loses?

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Jaif on January 30, 2004, 09:36:41 PM
QuoteHowever, in this specific example (ala The One Ring), I would ALSO include a WP component. It wasn't only a desire for power/status/whatever that drew people to the ring, it was a very real presence fuelling their desires and making it harder for them to resist them, thus I would involve a WP test of some sort to overcome that.
I agree.  I frankly don't think there's any good way to represent things like the one-ring fully.  If I let the player roll, than that act gives them information.  Either I take control at that point, or they figure out what's going, even if only partially, and actively resist because that's 'right', not because they want to.

You could make the roll for the player, and then moderate the response accordingly. Or you can have the player make a roll: if he fails, tell him he's not fully in tune and only gets +3 to his stats.  If he succeeds, tell him he senses an evil presence in the ring, but he's mastered it and it doesn't control him.

I think it would be more fun to ham it up and lie to the player (through the ring, of course), then to just rely on a roll.

-Jeff

P.S. I don't think there's a really good way to represent subtle things like the ring.  Personally between a die roll to decide or an elaborate game, toying with the player, I prefer the game.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Bill Cook on January 31, 2004, 12:47:24 AM
Sorry so late.  Just realized you asked me a question.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbI absolutely agree.

Do you define SAs for NPCs? Do you develop your long-term NPCs using the same mechanisms as the PCs?

And the answer's not worth the wait:)  I've yet to run a TROS campaign.  But I wonder what my Seneschal would say . . .  I'll ask him.

BTW, my general approach to running antagonists and proponents is to portray some kind of drive, but it's all internalized, i.e. not formally expressed as with SA's.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 31, 2004, 01:36:01 AM
Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbDo you define SAs for NPCs? Do you develop your long-term NPCs using the same mechanisms as the PCs?

Quote from: bcook1971I've yet to run a TROS campaign.  But I wonder what my Seneschal would say . . .  I'll ask him.

BTW, my general approach to running antagonists and proponents is to portray some kind of drive, but it's all internalized, i.e. not formally expressed as with SA's.

I imagine most referees won't bother with SAs for NPCs. Instead they'll balance the combat odds by giving the NPC appropriate numbers to offset the PCs SA bonuses.

How do you generate pro-rated PCs in TRoS? Let's say the player isn't in a position to use the Insight rules but they don't want to play a raw recuit. Would you allocate Insight Points according to a formula of, for example,  2d10 per year over the age of 18 and apply the result to Table 3.5?

Would you use a similar system for the NPCs?

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Bob McNamee on January 31, 2004, 12:35:12 PM
If SA's were called Story Advantage points it would eliminate most of the misiterpretations.

Your SA's indicate what areas of Story you as a Player are most interested in pursuing in play.  The reduction in SA that you get for acting contrary to your SA, is simple a sign from the Seneschal that you must not be considerin it as important a story area anymore... or a social contract nudge.

Dropping them to 0 in order to advance your character...is just another way to create an advantage for the character.

A zero SA still indicates that this story area is important to you as a player to pursue, but until you do so, you gain nothing by pursuing it. The more you pursue the SA the more important you indicate it to be story-wise...thus raising an SA to 5 is a sign of one that is both important and actively used.

Its a bit of a social contract between the player and GM.

Player: I find these areas interesting and want to see it become part of the game.
GM: I can design ideas that will interest the players, if they tie into their SAs, with a mechanic to both monitor and reward whether this is true.

Thats my way of thinking about them, anyway...
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Bob McNamee on January 31, 2004, 12:43:47 PM
Also, if a player is having his character get involved in areas where he doesn't indicate a Story Advantage, then he is taking on as much risk as any normal human...

He should take on those challenges that he cares about... where SA's are involved. It is there that the bonus dice will let him be heroic.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Jake Norwood on January 31, 2004, 06:18:34 PM
Hi Ian.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbOh Jake there's no need to be so literal. The SAs make the player predictable. They don't ensure that they are predictable, but they stack the odds in the referee's favour. We might choose to put a different spin on this, but when players are encouraged to question why their character would even participate in activity that isn't related to their character's SAs -- well, SAs can be see as a neat way of ensuring a high degree of compliance with the plot line. This isn't a bad thing. It is a good thing.
Quote

Ah, such is the weakness of this brand of communication. I understand better now, yes, and I concur.

QuoteI don't see temptation being linked with SAs necessarily. Maybe it is in some campaigns -- perhaps the only temptation with relevance to the character is one that entices them from the headlong pursuit of their SAs.

Half agree, half disagree. Temptation in literature is always about what's really important to someone...or about their weaknesses. Weaknesses are handled through Flaws and WP rolls, so that may be what you're looking for, as some have suggested.

QuoteAs I see it, TRoS doesn't have spiritual attributes in the sense that it has physical attributes and mental attributes. It has something that it calls Spiritual Attributes but, from a mechanics perspective, they bear no resemblance to the other attributes. I would like to see the game have both spiritual attributes and Spiritual Attributes.

This is spot on--SA's aren't like PAs or MAs, and as I said before, they're probably misnamed (btw, I like Bob's approach, above). The best model I've seen for what you're talking about is probably Pendragon (which was, admittedly, a huge influence on TROS). I'm not sure that I would like to see TROS with the kinds of SAs that you're describing, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see a TROS spinoff/tie-in that works that way (wink-wink).

QuoteLet me rephrase: Is there any other form of conflict or contest within the gaming environment where the player has the option of simply deciding whether their character wins or loses?

I think where we're hitting a wall here is the idea that a player can "win or lose" by making a decision. Temptation is, IMO, entirely an issue of (a) decision and (b) discipline of character ( = WP). I don't see a need for any decision to be handled by mechanics. Temptation, for me, is just like "do I go north or do I go south? North lies fortune, south lies my friends..." There is no mechanic that I would want interfering here in standard TROS play. Thus I don't really see how temptation is a non-choice based conflict, or one that shouldn't be handled by the player making a decision, unless the game is "about" something other that what TROS as written is about. In your Lyonesse setting (where I presume many of these issues are coming from) the focus of play may be very different from what vanilla TROS is set up for--which is fine--but I would like to know when a character should lose the ability to make the decision 100% on their own, and why? (Note- I'm not contesting the idea, but actually asking when and why in-play this is desireable?)

Jake
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on January 31, 2004, 09:40:54 PM
Hi,

Quote from: Bob McNameeIf SA's were called Story Advantage points it would eliminate most of the misiterpretations.

Your SA's indicate what areas of Story you as a Player are most interested in pursuing in play.  The reduction in SA that you get for acting contrary to your SA, is simple a sign from the Seneschal that you must not be considerin it as important a story area anymore... or a social contract nudge.

Bravo! Neatly put and I concur wholeheartedly.

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on February 01, 2004, 01:46:03 AM
Hi,

Quote from: Jake NorwoodAh, such is the weakness of this brand of communication. I understand better now, yes, and I concur.

Hours after making a post a little voice inside my head says, "You know, when you thought "blah blah" and posted "rhubarb rhubarb" they may have thought you meant "other stuff" because they were thinking about "different perspective". Naturally I ignore the voice...

Quote from: Ian.PlumbI don't see temptation being linked with SAs necessarily. Maybe it is in some campaigns -- perhaps the only temptation with relevance to the character is one that entices them from the headlong pursuit of their SAs.

Quote from: Jake NorwoodHalf agree, half disagree. Temptation in literature is always about what's really important to someone...or about their weaknesses. Weaknesses are handled through Flaws and WP rolls, so that may be what you're looking for, as some have suggested.

Hmmmm -- and if the gaming world view is one where everyone by definition is inherently flawed?

Quote from: Ian.PlumbAs I see it, TRoS doesn't have spiritual attributes in the sense that it has physical attributes and mental attributes. It has something that it calls Spiritual Attributes but, from a mechanics perspective, they bear no resemblance to the other attributes. I would like to see the game have both spiritual attributes and Spiritual Attributes.

Quote from: Jake NorwoodThis is spot on--SA's aren't like PAs or MAs, and as I said before, they're probably misnamed (btw, I like Bob's approach, above). The best model I've seen for what you're talking about is probably Pendragon (which was, admittedly, a huge influence on TROS). I'm not sure that I would like to see TROS with the kinds of SAs that you're describing, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see a TROS spinoff/tie-in that works that way (wink-wink).

Yes, I agree that Bob nailed it.

Personally, I think that if characters in RPGs are to be truly three dimensional and people-like then the gaming framework, both rules and environment, must include a framework for spiritual development and conflict. Belief ties otherwise dispirate people together and medieval communities relied on it for social cohesion. If a spiritual framework is included in the game then it can be ignored by groups for whom such things are uninteresting. If it is not provided then for those groups who are interested in that side of gaming it is hard to build from scratch.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbLet me rephrase: Is there any other form of conflict or contest within the gaming environment where the player has the option of simply deciding whether their character wins or loses?

Quote from: Jake Norwood(Snip) Thus I don't really see how temptation is a non-choice based conflict, or one that shouldn't be handled by the player making a decision, unless the game is "about" something other that what TROS as written is about. In your Lyonesse setting (where I presume many of these issues are coming from) the focus of play may be very different from what vanilla TROS is set up for--which is fine--but I would like to know when a character should lose the ability to make the decision 100% on their own, and why? (Note- I'm not contesting the idea, but actually asking when and why in-play this is desireable?)

Firstly, when you say TRoS do you mean the rule system, the Weyrth campaign setting, or both? When I say TRoS I mean just the rule system. Now, some of the rule system is quite intertwined with the Weyrth game setting (Char Gen, for instance). By and large though they are separate.

In Weyrth, temptation is not a spiritual matter in the sense that there is no spiritual force actively at work in a temptation situation. As an example; an individual is offered a piece of cake at the end of a big meal. They are full but could squeeze it in. The primordial part of the brain kicks in, remembers a time when the ancestors were dieing of starvation, and passes on the message to the mind that the piece of cake should be eaten. The rational part of the brain opposes this suggestion, determining that the stomach is already full and that the cake has little nutritional value. A decision needs to be made. If the cake is eaten then the hostess is happy and certain benefits may devolve from those positive thoughts. If the cake is not eaten then when the character is chased out of the village later that night they won't end up heaving their meal by the side of the road. The decision has consequences both good and bad either way, and the decision was entirely the player's.

In our campaign environment we base our view of the supernatural on St Augustine's view of the spiritual realm (as defined in "City of God"). Such a world view as he presents has broad implications for the campaign environment. Suffice it to say that as far as this discussion is concerned the situation described above would be handled in exactly the same way as described above. That is, core TRoS.

However, our view of the spiritual realm is based on the idea that there are active spiritual forces at work in the temporal realm for both good and evil. As this is a minimalist magic/miracle environment these spiritual forces are subtle and do not manifest directly. The evil spiritual forces use Temptation as a tool to manipulate individuals into performing actions further the goals of these dark spiritual forces. It will seldom be obvious how these events promote those goals -- all the character will be aware of is if they succumb to Temptation their life or the life of someone else will be affected for the worse. This introduces the concepts of attonement and redemption.

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Bob Richter on February 01, 2004, 01:53:51 AM
There is the further question of what your character finds tempting, though.

What if, for example, drink holds no appeal at all for your character? Should a WP roll be required in that case?

Isn't that a kind of Advantage, when you come right down to it? How would it be reflected in the rules?
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on February 01, 2004, 03:45:03 AM
Hi,

Quote from: Bob RichterThere is the further question of what your character finds tempting, though.

What if, for example, drink holds no appeal at all for your character? Should a WP roll be required in that case?

Isn't that a kind of Advantage, when you come right down to it? How would it be reflected in the rules?

Ah yes, I can see it now! The crafty player assigns an F to Gifts and Flaws -- one major flaw, one minor flaw. He takes Amputee (Major) and Lecherousness (Minor), and decides to play a heterosexual eunuch. Frustrated he might be but he's beaten the system (the *real* objective of any gamer)...

To answer your question:

In TRoS Core there should be no need to roll unless the character has a defined weakness (such as a flaw or an established character trait) that is relevant in the situation. Should being a Teetotaller be a defined Advantage? Not unless the referee doesn't play any of the negatives of being a Teetotaller.

In our campaign environment Temptation is active and guided. If the character despises alcohol then Gluttony would tempt the character through some other form of excessive consumption. If the situation wasn't a spiritual attack then it would be handled in the same way as the core rules.

Cheers,
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Bill Cook on February 01, 2004, 05:56:33 PM
Quote from: Ian.PlumbHow do you generate pro-rated PCs in TRoS? Let's say the player isn't in a position to use the Insight rules but they don't want to play a raw recuit. Would you allocate Insight Points according to a formula of, for example, 2d10 per year over the age of 18 and apply the result to Table 3.5?

Would you use a similar system for the NPCs?

I figured out that Insight bit last night during  play.  My Seneschal has been saying things like, "Ok, Billy, you get +1 for pursuing your destiny," after we finish some sequence.  Turns out you can spend those gains for all manner of advancement.

So it's getting back to D&D-style leveling up.  If your goal as Seneschal is to match challenge to ability, I assume you'll have to eyeball your group's character sheets to create meatier nasties.  I'd do it that way rather than holding to some in house rigor.
Title: Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")
Post by: Ian.Plumb on February 01, 2004, 06:30:26 PM
Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbHow do you generate pro-rated PCs in TRoS? Let's say the player isn't in a position to use the Insight rules but they don't want to play a raw recuit. Would you allocate Insight Points according to a formula of, for example, 2d10 per year over the age of 18 and apply the result to Table 3.5?

Would you use a similar system for the NPCs?

Quote from: bcook1971I figured out that Insight bit last night during  play.  My Seneschal has been saying things like, "Ok, Billy, you get +1 for pursuing your destiny," after we finish some sequence.  Turns out you can spend those gains for all manner of advancement.

So it's getting back to D&D-style leveling up.  If your goal as Seneschal is to match challenge to ability, I assume you'll have to eyeball your group's character sheets to create meatier nasties.  I'd do it that way rather than holding to some in house rigor.

Pro-ration is a reasonably important issue. Sure the referee will invariably fudge the opposition in a combat so that there is a reasonable degree of tension to what should be a climactic scene. Pro-ration though is a wider issue than balancing the opposition.

For instance, at the climax of a scenario a PC is accused of heresy and arrested. Initially he denies the accusation but soon realises denial will result in a far harsher penalty should he be found guilty than immediate renunciation of his heretical ways. So he renounces. His punishment is harsh -- pilgrimage to Rome, Constantinople, Acre, and Jerusalem by land. His political enemies have indeed stitched him up and he'll be out of play for a year or more -- should he survive the journey.

So the PC's pilgrimage is played ex-camera, with periodic notes from the referee to the player in regard to the character's adventures while on pilgrimage. In-camera the player's new character and the rest of the PCs have various adventures. Time passes. 18 months of game time later the pilgrim returns and rejoins the PC group. Much has happened on both sides. But has the pilgrim remained in stasis as far as his skills and proficiencies are concerned?

For NPCs, particularly the NPCs that will be a constant over the length of the campaign, there needs to be some capability to sensibly estimate the level of their skills, attributes, and proficiencies at various stages of their career. This will vary from referee to referee as it will be dependent on the rate of SA acquisition within the referee's own campaign.

Looking at the rules I can't see an obvious way for creating a character and then advancing that character five or ten years. Some sort of guideline would be handy.

Cheers,