Yet another RPGnet TROS thread

[Bankuei]

I use a very story-based and plot-immersive game; to me, the SAs randomize what I have been using for years, thus making my job more difficult.

Darth, I believe that a good key to answering Stephen's question comes in the answer to this question:

Is story something that the GM makes up and "happens" to players, or is story made up by player's actions and the GM's reactions?

Chris

[Matt Wilson]

Checking my chart, I've eight major factional agendas, three personal agendas, and some odd habits (like the vending machine) going in my current campaign. With that, who needs SAs?

Hey DT:

Wouldn't the SA's be the motivating factor behind most of what you listed above? Better yet, how would they interfere? Suppose that character you mentioned had the Drive: "climb the ranks of the Scravers." How would that be a hindrance or whatever for your style of play?

-Matt

[Darth Tang]

[quote="Bankuei]
Darth, I believe that a good key to answering Stephen's question comes in the answer to this question:

Is story something that the GM makes up and "happens" to players, or is story made up by player's actions and the GM's reactions?

Chris[/quote]

Both. Players write up PC histories (usually a couple pages long) for xp; I post 'em on our site. The campaign is built around long-term consequences and linked operations; for example, in the fantasy campaign we just closed, one of the first scenarios was that the PCs were hired by a hob-goblin clan to help drive a kobold tribe from a set of ruins. Except that the koblods were received finacil backing from a Human nation interested in destablizing the realm the tribe was located within.

The PCs accomplished their mission, but had a falling out with the hobs over the wording of the agreement. One scenario, three factions displeased with them (forty sessions later, the hobs were still a problem).

By presenting the players with a variety of problems and situations, they have the opportunity to bring associations, factions, and allies into play. And things build from there.

So I start out with 2-3 connected scenarios and a general campaign plan, and as we progress the players tend to nudge the campaign along. "what do you guys have in mind for the future?'

"Once we get out of jail and deal with the Silver Takers, I'd like to go after the Antmaster again'.

And so it goes. A desire for a promotion (not a level advancement) gets a PC to talk the party into investigateing a pass, which leads to them gaining control of a tradeing post, which leads to...etc

I usually build several scenarios in advance and then plug them into the campaign as the PCs seem to head in that direction. "We want to bag a wyver, The Black Souls got mega Fame when they got one."

OK, I had an Orc campaign set up in the wings; add a wyvern, and we're off.

[Darth Tang]

[quote="Matt WilsonHey DT:

Wouldn't the SA's be the motivating factor behind most of what you listed above? Better yet, how would they interfere? Suppose that character you mentioned had the Drive: "climb the ranks of the Scravers." How would that be a hindrance or whatever for your style of play?

-Matt[/quote]

Because it would require the players to set their goals when createing their PCs, and deny them flexibility as time went on. I'll use Max, the party leader in the previous campaign. He started out with merely wanting to aquire enough gp so he could go home, marry his sweetheart, and open a carpentry shop; he started fooling around with a female bard (whom he eventually married), got into business investment, sought expertise with the sword...etc. As the years passed, Max changed radically.

[Valamir]

Because it would require the players to set their goals when createing their PCs, and deny them flexibility as time went on. I'll use Max, the party leader in the previous campaign. He started out with merely wanting to aquire enough gp so he could go home, marry his sweetheart, and open a carpentry shop; he started fooling around with a female bard (whom he eventually married), got into business investment, sought expertise with the sword...etc. As the years passed, Max changed radically.

Hey Darth, I certainly understand the point you're making and the style of campaign you put together clearly seems to be working and I imagine many of us wish we had groups whose players were willing to use and return to and build upon plot hooks as effectively as yours are, so kudos to that.

But I think you need to really bone up on how SAs work in TROS before you offer further criticism of them.  The above statement makes it clear to me that you don't really understand how they work.  The statement on fixing goals at player creation and the implication that because of SAs TROS character goals can't change radically over play is 100% false.  If you are basing part of your dislike for SAs on this I'd recommend looking at them again.

If anything I'd say SAs are EXACTLY what it sounds like you and your group already do, only without the mechanical reinforcement.

Mechanically 5 SAs are chosen when play commences and points are distributed among them.  At any point during play where its appropriate points from the SAs can be spent on character improvement.  You can change SAs AT ANY TIME simply by spending that SA and 1 other down to 0 and chosing something else.  Since it is perfectly acceptable to put 0 points in SAs at the beginning of play it is perfectly acceptable to have 2 SAs already at 0 during the first session or so until something tickles your fancy...at which point changing the 0 point SA to something new is easy.

[Vanguard]

Valamir. I was about to say the same thing.

Darth, I ackowledge ur concerns regards SA inflexibility (because I originally shared them), but further reviewing of TROS has led me to realise that it can perfectly accomodate evolving play.

Take care

[Callan S.]

Ron Edwards: I'm not terribly focused on impressing, I'd finished a reading darth tangs post where he said SA's were lame, so I was pretty much in the same mind set (which I felt didn't impress). In addition I said weak when lame was the actual word used…is 'weak' more of a loaded word? My mistake, if so.

I'll just do a quote of Darth Tang, from RPG…

I had even an easier time of it. Since I dumped most of Ros (especially the lame SAs), it was easy enough to write up the manuvers and weapons charts, plus a quick guide to the combat system, and give them to my players.

The PC generation system is good, but the magic system in undeveloped, and the PC advancement system is extremely weak, as is the 'skills package' concept. RoS attempted to do away with the 'classes' system (not a bad idea), then went with lame skill packages that revert right back to cardboard PCs.

Now, I think Darth Tangs gaming is valid…he seems to have tons of stuff going on, about a million background plots, etc. Even though some of his material doesn't sound like it would be fun to me, it sounds like he's got such a wealth of material in use it would be fun regardless. Probably better than games I'm running…there, am I an impressively humble being now? Nah…

But the thing is, the guy is using about four or five different systems, taking bits from each system. Now most people might borrow a few things from one other system, but blending several is pretty unusual. My point isn't that that is bad, though, its fine. My point is that it’s a pretty unusual style of gaming (unless I'm horribly wrong).

But with the above quote, what are most readers going to think? Their probably thinking he's the sort that uses one system & borrow a little from others, not the sort that is blending five or so, since its not common. So when he says he 'dumped…the lame SA's' it's sounds as if their very, very lame…it doesn't sound as if he dumped them because he has very specific tastes (and can I say again, that’s a fine taste in style…probably not common, though).

Not to mention other words which are a tad loaded, like 'cardboard PC's', and an 'undeveloped' magic system (does an extensive spell list make it developed, what is the qualification for undeveloped in this case).

It all just seemed very unfair, since the reader isn't going to second guess Darth Tangs particular style. When I say 'I can't believe he said they were weak', its mostly because its so blunt, without qualification.

Look, I just wonder, if this were the first TROS post I'd seen and not a previous one, would I have bought the book in the end? I felt it was a heavy handed approach when the writer was judging it in regards to a very specific taste, not one most readers would have (unless I'm wrong about not many people blending five or so books).

Perhaps I should have specified all that with my post, but I thought the general impression would have carried over to others.

Darth Tang: In regards to disposable income, it reminds me of a little quote in a 'cheap ass company' game 'Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want'. Champaigne loosing its tang when you have to much of a good thing, and all that.

Good work for not taking on my nasty tone yourself…I hope that when I did say I was being a bit nasty, it was clear to all I was being somewhat self indulgent and to look past it…and you did, bless ya! :)

When I used the word rigid, I meant in terms of player chosen character objectives, not in terms of skill selection options. I think you previously mention building in some pre-set agenda's to classes, which seems to be a 'choose the class that most closely matches what you want you PC to care about', rather than 'build into the character exactly what you want your PC to care about'.

Sorry if I'm over quoting you here, but … 'I prefer players choose a more defined agenda for their PCs'. However, you don't like how PC's have to choose their SA's at the start (even though there are rules for changing them in game), because it denies them flexibility latter on. I could see that SA's might be seen as a more clumsy version of XP (but I'm vise versa), but I think both are just as flexible. Still, if it seems clumsy and you already have a XP system in place, I can see the desire to keep what you have. But I just feel 'lame SA's' is a bit of a strong comment in that case.

I'm also not sure how SA's are supposed to get in the way of your example of the vending machine. Luck is the catch all SA's, used to reward good plans and funny lines. XP is good, and I myself give XP in other games the moment something like that is done (not waiting till the end). But XP just seems to be as unrelated to PC goals as cash collection is…their both numbers and it doesn't represent, as much, the characters own personal focus.

Oh, Valamir just said a few things better than here as well. Damn!

[Darth Tang]

Ok, let me explain a bit:

XP: The advantge of xp is that the player's demand contunally increases (kept of reminds you of an addiction, eh?), in that it takes bigger & bigger amounts to see a benift. You can toss a player a XP 'bone' of a hundred or so points several times in the course of a game, and still avoid 'inflation'. It gives you a flexible reward system that can absorb a lot of use. Wheras a 1-10 system cannot handle a long-term campaign as well.
 A note: no xp for kills in my game.

PC classes: Yeah, I use my own. However, unlike D&D, where a class is a genertic bundle of abilities, the way I use it is to represent the background and inclinations of a PC. Plus, in both Fading Suns and fantasy worlds, knowledge is restructed by the various Guilds. So what a class does is determine your access to skills. I have a list of 350+ skills, broken down into catagories. There are General skills (first Aid, ride bike, etc) which are avalible to every player. Then each class has its own skills. For example, an Armsman is a combatant whose focus is on individual skills, such as LE, bodyguard, etc. Besides General & Armsman, he gets decent rates on Guardsman skills, but increasingly steep skill costs in Tech, Rogue, etc. Guardsmen are military men; besides General and Guardsmen, they buy Tech skills at a moderate rate, Armsman skills at a decent rate, etc.
 So each PC is unique, based on the skills they choose. You can have an Armans whose good at theiving type skills, a Tech who can snipe, etc. Increasing in level simply gives you a 2% bonus to your 'class' skills and the opportunity to increase your stats. Learning new skills is done by nstruction or buying with xp.

 Every PC should be unique, IMO, and that's how I set up my games.

 I don't know how great my campaigns are, but I've always been able to keep a reliable group entertained, and find good replacement players, so I'll call myself a 'sucess' and leave it at that. Because if you've got a group, obviously you're good enough.

[Lance D. Allen]

I am slightly curious about something.. It may turn out that you were right to take what you wanted and scrap the rest, but I'd like to know if you even attempted to play the game "as is" without a bias toward the "lame" and "weak" elements of the game. It really doesn't sound like you did, because your examples as to why your system is better could easily be turned around to support the SAs and advancement system.

But as Jake often says.. It's your game now, do as you like with it.

[Darth Tang]

I am slightly curious about something.. It may turn out that you were right to take what you wanted and scrap the rest, but I'd like to know if you even attempted to play the game "as is" without a bias toward the "lame" and "weak" elements of the game.

No, I didn't run the game-I don't do one-offs. I run long-term campaigns; the last campaign I ran had 50 sessions in one year; the campaign before that lasted over three years. I've incorporated a slimmed down version of the RoS melee system into my FS campaign, which is on-going (and new; tonights session 9), but I won't actually use most of RoS until I switch to a War Hammer campaign, probably in 2004.

[arxhon]

but I won't actually use most of RoS until I switch to a War Hammer campaign

Do you mean WFRP? If so, sweeeeeet! :-)

I love that game, and the world for it is great. TROS would go nicely with the Warhammer world.

[spunky]

Because (they (SAs)) would require the players to set their goals when createing their PCs, and deny them flexibility as time went on. I'll use Max, the party leader in the previous campaign. He started out with merely wanting to aquire enough gp so he could go home, marry his sweetheart, and open a carpentry shop; he started fooling around with a female bard (whom he eventually married), got into business investment, sought expertise with the sword...etc. As the years passed, Max changed radically.

An easy fix within the TROS system is to have your players divide their 5 starting SA points between no more than 3 SAs, leaving at least 2 SA spots open for motivations that develop as the story progresses.  Very simple to have a character with Luck, Faith, and Passion: A Good Scrap to get the ball rolling, and let them mature with the story...

[Darth Tang]

but I won't actually use most of RoS until I switch to a War Hammer campaign

Do you mean WFRP? If so, sweeeeeet! :-)

I love that game, and the world for it is great. TROS would go nicely with the Warhammer world.

Yep. RoS melee & game & most of the PC creation, modified melee, RM Spell law, and a class & skill system of my own. All set in the WHFRP world. I've just about every Armies book and sup printed, plus most of the novels.