Balance

[Atomic Requiem]

Hi there. I guess I'm committing an horrible breach of etiquette or else jumping into the midst of things, depending on how you look at it, by starting a new thread my first post. Well, perhaps I've lurked enough, and this forum hardly seems over-threaded, so perhaps I'll be forgiven.

Anyways, I thought I'd like to talk a little bit about balance. TROS is a little bit of a shock to the system, in that it deliberately supports a non game-balanced method of gaming. At least, that's how it seems to me.
Sorcerors are powerful - deliberately and beautifully so (the aging problem is astounding and interesting) but limitlessly so, as pointed out in the book. Spells can create AV 12 armour, kill people instantly and so on- what's more, only a "few" examples are given, leaving the majority to be designed by the players, who given these examples will probably end up with more powerful spells.

Spiritual attributes are left up to the player to incorporate as character features. Theoretically, they could be very battle oriented, resulting in a drive, destiny and passion used very frequently in battle. Yes, the Seneschal could instruct them to be less so, but what guidelines or overall balance reasons do they have to do so?

I guess I'm not talking about case by case stuff - obviously the Seneschal has a job to do, and if he doesn't do it there's trouble - but what sort of guiding force can we find in TROS to illuminate our path? In (cough) some systems, we know that game balance is the metarule to which all new (cough) classes (tm), powers and so on must adhere, but whence TROS?

I hope this question makes sense; I'm not sure there's a particular answer, especially given my two examples which aren't the same case at all, but I trust my overall question will make it through and evoke some discussion. If I missed some good responses on this already, please just point me to the thread, and I'll hang my head in shame and wander in that direction.

Thanks!

*AR*

[Rattlehead]

Actually, I think that's a valid question, and I'm surprised I haven't seen someone else ask it before now. I think I know the answer too...

I'm fond of saying that TROS is a RPG for "advanced" players. You have to use common sense, good roleplaying (as opposed to roll-playing), and reason to make the game work.

If someone wants to munchkin-ize it, they probably could quite easily, but it wouldn't be worth playing then. And I think it's safe to say they'd have a hard time finding others to play it with before long....

Hack and Slashers, and their ilk, will not get far with TROS. On the other hand, players who have a great sense of character-driven gaming will take it and run with it. The sky is the limit for them.

Example: My current character (Julianos Vainsteel) is a swashbuckling type who prefers the rapier. I could stick a better - and more lethal -  weapon in his hand, but it wouldn't fit the character. That's more important to me than his merit as a killing machine.

All in all though, the game isn't totally without balance, but it's up to the players to maintain that balance, rather than the developer to make it invincible to munchkins.

Hope this answers your question! :-)

Brandon

PS: I bet you guys are getting tired of hearing about Julianos, huh? ;-)

[Bankuei]

Don't worry, you've got valid questions.

Spiritual attributes are left up to the player to incorporate as character features. Theoretically, they could be very battle oriented, resulting in a drive, destiny and passion used very frequently in battle. Yes, the Seneschal could instruct them to be less so, but what guidelines or overall balance reasons do they have to do so?

Let's try this: Drive-"To be the best swordsman"  Ok, seems really useful in combat right?  So Sir Powergamer gets into a fight with 3 guys with spears, all conscripts, crappy fighters in general, just rabble, right?  No bonus.  Guess what? 1) They're rabble, beating them doesn't really prove you're the best, 2) They're not swordsmen, again, it proves nothing.  You COULD still get killed though.  Fighting Sir Dumont of the Lupin sword style who may or may not be a riddlemaster, well, now you're talking.

So how do you improve that rating?  Well now you're even deeper in it because anytime your character chooses to do something that is against it, you can lose points.  Such as if Sir Dumont challenges you and you know you're way outclassed.  Do you take the duel and risk your life, or do you lose the points you've hoarded?

Let's take another good one: "Kill the Dubois, down to the last man"  Again, you may get this one everytime you fight them, but how do you really raise it?  You'd have to get together enough folks(or conspire to frame the family) to see them eliminated, and if you pass up a chance to do it, you lose points.  Even if you succeed, you still have to spend MORE points to change your drive to something else.

In (cough) some systems, we know that game balance is the metarule to which all new (cough) classes (tm), powers and so on must adhere, but whence TROS?

If your question is about system abuse, primarily in terms of story control, or player protagonism based on one person being more powerful, understand that in death, all are equal.  The primary balance is that combat is deadly.  You can have a combat pool of 30, kick ass all day, make a bad choice, a bad roll, or both, and byebye.  You can be a mage, and get poisoned, sniped with a crossbow, or simply shanked in your sleep by a beautiful woman, and that's not even the crazy spirits and demons you deal with.  Hell, even if you cast yourself into unconciousness, a frenzied land of angry witchhunting people can wear you down, find you, and kill you still.

In our most recent game, the character with the best skills had the most(but not too much) story time while the combat nuts spent most of it trying to avoid a bloody swordfight.  Consider everyone to be the equivalent of level 1 characters in that other game and the best you'll get is level 2, so exactly what will powergamers do?  This game isn't for powergamers, they will be dissatified, because they can work up a character for 3 years, and still die in a stupid, meaningless fight.  

Ultimately, the characters who will advance the furthest are those who acheive their goals, and avoid as much danger as possible, and carefully choose their risks.  Not the powergamers, but the tacticians, the politicians, the schemers, and the negotiators.  

Chris

[contracycle]

I agree with the above - when weapons are actually dangerous, much of the positive feedback powergamers seek vanishes.

[Atomic Requiem]

Good thoughts regarding the spiritual attributes. They are fairly self-balancing; even if someone chooses drive: to kill as many people as possible, that's going to get them killed in a big hurry. Those that live by the sword, learn the riddle or die by the sword. Or something like that.

Say, regarding sorcery... Basically the one inherent balance there is the CTN (+ aging) factor. How do you feel about that? How does aging work as a balance to wicked bad magic (I don't mean here simply the blantant flagrant displays of power) in practice? In theory, I'm not sure what to think about it, so I'd like to find out how people with actual characters (or their Seneschals) are finding it. Certainly the potential of knockout presents very real "combat-oriented" reasons to be careful. I guess my deepest question is, "is any spell created inherently and appropriately balanced by its CTN"?"

The casting times seem prohibitive (but not unnatural), but no more than say, a bow. Certainly I don't see an issue there, though I am curious to find out how sorcerors fare in combat.

Some have been discussing the sword and sorcery type of character, which is a concept I find interesting, and hope they will have at least moderate success. I think that as long as they shed the notions of armour being naughty and wear some like a normal rational person, they should be fine.

Anyways, great to be involved in the dialogue.

*AR*