New Review of TROS at RPG.net

[Charles Smith]

Guys~

    Just wanted to let you know there's another review of TROS at rpg.net. It's an interesting review, and I'm not sure what to make of it at this point. Check it out here:

www.rpg.net

    Just wasting some time at 1:30 am... wow, maybe I should get up and run around or something...

naw. I'll heat up some pizza and watch a movie. ;)

-Charles

[Caz]

Seems to be a great lack of simple creative thought, or maybe just the wrong perspective with much of the game.

[Tony Irwin]

Seems to be a great lack of simple creative thought, or maybe just the wrong perspective with much of the game.

Well, reviews like that can still serve some purpose. There're are so many flaws in it that it can ironically end up recommending the game to some people.

I've read screeds of material about people trying to replace the TROS magic system. It was their complaints about it being "unbalanced" and "way too powerful to trust players with" that made me think, "Hey! Here's a game that recognises game-balance for the crock that it is, and forces partnership between the GM and the players at his table."

When people moaned about SAs because it forces the GM to "create an adventure where a character's SAs are utilized", and (astonishingly) describe this as a flaw it made me think "Here's a system that codifies the way I'm already playing. Cool."

I'm a proud and very satisfied owner of TROS, thanks to reviews and debates just like that one.

Here's a few self-defeating quotes from the review that would make someone like me want to buy TROS:

But that leads to a problem for the Seneschal (GM - don't ask), and is a major flaw in the system, if you ask me. The GM must create an adventure where a character's SAs are utilized

Player's character concept becomes the focus of planned game events. Cool.

And the GM can't necessarily always run his adventures that way, either! The SAs can change on the player's whim

GM forced to respond to character development and change. Sweet

My only complaint here is that the skills and combat worked differently. It's generally best to use a universal dice method for everything.

A game that's advertised for having distinctly realistic combat has its own distinct system for resolving it. Sensible and promising.

Any wound, from any creature is a horrible, horrible, crippling thing. Every combat made my players devise careful plans to kill the one enemy they had to face. While sometimes this is needed and a good thing, it shouldn't be present at EVERY combat they encounter. One player started joking about how he'd run and hide if he encountered a little girl with a butter knife.

All violence is deadly and will have fearful consequences for either (or both) parties. Combat resolution is risky and extraordanarily tense and worrying for players, forcing them to carefully plan tactics. Tasty!

The other main problem with the combat is the lack of a system to deal with monsters. See, the game was designed so that two "men" could fight each other realistically

So the game is about real people, really trying to kill each other, in real ways. Wow! Sounds punchy.

The magic system is actually absurd to me. Sorcerers can create any spell they want, at any time, and their only restraint is the fact that they may age some months here and there.

Hmmm, magic has a built in curse, nice change from spell-slots. Novel.

Their spells can destroy towns

Woah, sorcery gets unfettered at last.

rip apart your carefully laid plots

Hmmm, so once again, player ideas and actions, not the GM's plot, are running the game. This is incredible, just the way I love to game and GM.

The game creator makes no apologies for this, and simply states that magic is wondrous and powerful, just like Merlin.

Something new and very bold, dammit this sounds good.

Well, let me shake some reality into your "realistic" game here, Jake. Sorcerers do not START off being gods. They may work their way to that level in time, but they shouldn't be masters at the start.

Sorcerer characters are capable, powerful, and able to affect their world from the very beginning of the game. No more frustrating months of play building up xps just so you can do what your character was intended to do? Amazing!

My point is that there is a serious game balance missing here. The creator, again, makes no apologies for this. He doesn't value game balance very much. I DO.

Thank god he doesn't value it! I want to help tell a deadly story about blood and passion, not compete to kill monsters.

This game would be the equivalent of playing vampire, only forcing everyone to be human, except one lucky player, who gets to be the vampire. Or, it's like playing DND at level one, except the mage who's level 10. I'm not even kidding.

Two games that I've found it difficult as hell to use to create compelling stories as a group. This comparison is very favourable towards TROS.

I'm all ranted out, and can't type any more. Reviews like this actually pushed me in the direction of TROS, but seriously I'm genuinely aghast at the reviewer's logic and hope that the review doesn't damage TROS's image with potential buyers.

Tony

[Thalaxis]

First off, I'm going to be honest about one thing: I think that the Riddle's
system is excellent.

However, while I think that there was a lot about that review that showed
a rather closed mind, I don't think that it's TOTALLY out of whack.

1) Spiritual Attributes
Are they good? Definitely... but not for a newbie GM, in which case they could very easily be a non-starter. In general, you cannot deny that even
though they do provide very good incentive for players and the GM alike
to roleplay their characters, look at it from the point of view of someone
who's never run a game before, or who's only run D&D or something like
that, where the rules pretty much hand-hold the GM through the basics of
GM'ing. It would be quite a switch, and can easily be daunting for many.

2) Disparate combat system. To some extent, I actually agree with this
one. I think it would be easier to pick up if the skill system was also a roll-
high system, so that it meshed with the combat system's dice mechanics;
that way combat is basically an extended version of skill resolution. See
the Hero Wars system for an example of what I'm getting at.

I consider that to be a minor quibble, though.

3) Brutality. Ok, that one I have to chalk up to the reviewer. Combat is
deadly, true; however, what he described made me think of players that
weren't thinking for themselves, based on my experience with the system.

4) Magic. It sounded to me like the reviewer didn't appreciate the
freedom for creativity that a roll-your-own spell approach offers, and he
also severly underestimated the impact that the built-in curse has.

5) Game balance. While *I* agree with you, I think it's also woth
mentioning that game balance is also one of those things that exists to
help newbie GM's.

I have a feeling that this review will sit rather nicely with the D&D uber-
fans (you know, the ones that act like Worshippers of Jobs :)).
Unfortunately, it will also sit rather poorly with anyone resistant to change,
and that includes most people, and since it is far more likely that a given
gamer was introduced to gaming via World of Angst games or D&D (it's
what's in Borders and B&N), well, you do the math.

All in all, I agree, though; it wasn't a particularly good review; to me it
read almost as if the reviewer did not WANT to like it to begin with.

[Brian Leybourne]

I think it would be easier to pick up if the skill system was also a roll-high system

Uhh.. can you explain to me what part of the skill system isn't "roll high"?

Brian.

[Thalaxis]

I think it would be easier to pick up if the skill system was also a roll-high system

Uhh.. can you explain to me what part of the skill system isn't "roll high"?

Brian.

Oops... that would be a mis-remembrance on my part. (It's been a while.)

Reading through the feedback on RPG.net reminded me of that :/

Um... D'oh?

[Stephen]

I also think that although SAs are one of the best ideas in gaming in a while, they do present challenges for a troupe unfamiliar with their ramifications.

An SA is basically a way to ensure that a player's rewarded for following his character's own plot.  But this methodology does have a weakness in that unless SAs are designed by the group so that all players complement one another, it can be very easy to stumble into a game where the plotlines are competing not just metaphorically but literally -- the fighter with a Drive to free Farrenshire won't have much to do while the group's in Taveruun, and the thief with a Drive to Get Wealthy won't belong on a quest to save the downtrodden of Odeon.  This conflict can happen in any game, of course... but it's only in TROS that characters can literally become physically less likely to survive if they're caught up in an adventure that isn't specifically tailored to their SAs in particular.

Also, what happens when a GM designs an adventure around a bunch of SAs that the players then decide to change or redirect in mid-game?  What happens when the knight decides he no longer loves the Princess the GM set up the game to be about saving?  I don't think it's "railroading" to complain about a lot of wasted time, planning and effort just because a player gets bored of a character idea sooner than he expected to; and likewise, the flexibility of SAs becomes less valuable when changing them in mid-adventure can directly decrease your character's surviveability.

Essentially, SAs are a bit of a tradeoff -- they reward you for playing to them, but the lack of the extra dice are their own penalty when you don't, and not all situations reasonably allow you to.  Moreover, in many situations some players' SAs will be applicable where others' won't, and this can stimulate a whole new breed of intra-party competition -- not for gold or for magic items, but for SA dice.

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

I think the usual conflict that most people have with TROS is that it runs off of unstated assumptions about play.  

First, that the player themselves must be willing to learn abit about the dice strategy in combat, that it makes more of a difference than simply having a "level 10" character.  This is the reason that a good player can do better with less, than simply a big dice pool.

Second, and more fundamental, is that most people assume that the only ways to set up adventures are to either "list possible events, engineer PCs into them" or else "complete freeform, pull it out of your ass as you go!" gaming.  The fact is, there is a third manner, which you prepare what is necessary to maintain focus during play, but does not require specific outcomes.  Ron has it in Sorcerer, with Bangs, Inspectres has an endgame requirement, and ROS it is by using the SAs of your NPCs and setting up a strong conflict.

It's rather unfortunate that explicit details about how to play as such are not in the TROS book, since folks used to solely the previous 2 methods just "don't get it".

Chris

[Valamir]

Thing is, Jake came up with all of this stuff, from the kick ass combat system to the revolutionary SAs... himself, without the "advantage" of The Forge.  I'm not sure he completely realized himself how revolutionary the SAs were when he created them, or how to fully explain them.

I think a good part of the reason why he's considering doing Riddle of Jade is to have a vehicle where he can put all of the insight into how to play and how to describe SAs and the like that he's learned over the past year (much through this forum) into print without having to go the "2nd Edition" route.

[toli]

I'm not really sure why some people have such a problem with SAs.  If they don't suit your style, you could just give experience points that function the same as SAs for buying new levels.

Personally, I like them....

[Nero's Boot]

And asshat reviewers who don't understand what they're reviewing is the reason why I refuse to read reviews of any kind.  I'll make my own decisions on my purchases, TYVM.

--still seeking to solve the riddle of steel NB

[hyphz]

Is there any reason why we couldn't have a sample adventure for TROS, with sample characters AND THUS SAMPLE SA'S?

For changing them, players would have a list of potential changes they could choose from during the game (no others allowed), and the adventure text would tell the GM how to react to the changes.

[Lyandar]

hmm.. my first post here, but I recently finished running my first ever game, and it was Riddle of Steel.  The reason I wanted to run my game under TROS?  partially due to the combat system and partially due to spiritual attributes.

Why I think a review like the one posted is simplistic - first, it REALLY annoys me when people are all about numbers... if your character picks a SA that works for the concept, but might not give you quite as many dice as another player given the circumstances, I don't see a problem.  Any GM worth their salt will work to keep the players relatively balanced and TROS makes this easy.  The guy that tried to munchkin his character by maxing his stats and changing his SA's with every adventure...crippling leg wound to allow the other players to have some action.

I've noticed some characters have had difficulties thinking of SA's that can "fit" into the game, but I personally think that both players and the GM should be flexible to let things like this guide the game a bit.  In the end, I've found that it gets players a lot more interested in their character's "character", rather than just its stats.

[Brian Leybourne]

Is there any reason why we couldn't have a sample adventure for TROS, with sample characters AND THUS SAMPLE SA'S?

For changing them, players would have a list of potential changes they could choose from during the game (no others allowed), and the adventure text would tell the GM how to react to the changes.

Sounds like a sterling idea for an introductory adventure, Hyphz. Are you volunteering to write one up? :-)

Brian.