My TROS games

[MrGeneHa]

Second-Though I like TROS SA's and how they work, running the games based around character SAs made me feel like the game was too coincidental if that makes any sense.

I can't help you on the first one, but there's a pretty easy solution to make TRoS SAs work just like DnD XP.

Make everyone's SA goal "kill bad monsters and amass treasure" :)

Gene

[Shadeling]

Second-Though I like TROS SA's and how they work, running the games based around character SAs made me feel like the game was too coincidental if that makes any sense.

I can't help you on the first one, but there's a pretty easy solution to make TRoS SAs work just like DnD XP.

Make everyone's SA goal "kill bad monsters and amass treasure" :)

Gene

C'mon now, that wasn't the problem. We just went back to D&D because it was an easy game to just pick up.

I will expound later.

[Farseer415]

As one of Shadelings players, we do plenty of RPing.  I think I can speak for most of the players in that we all look foward to the RPing more then the encounter/treasure xp.   Even though we do like our share of the treasure:)


Farseer

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Second-Though I like TROS SA's and how they work, running the games based around character SAs made me feel like the game was too coincidental if that makes any sense.

This makes sense to me. In particular, if your players follow the "My character doesn't do anything unless their SAs are involved" line of reasoning then each character would seem justified in coming to the conclusion that the world really does revolve around them and their priorities. The referee, needing to tie in the motivations of all of the PCs, may find the scenarios being run have a certain similarity.

It would seem that this can't be avoided. The effect on play can be mitigated somewhat by allowing character's SAs to change whenever they feel like it. The world will still revolve around them, but at least the scenarios will potentially be able to explore different themes.

SAs are good in that they allow the referee to exert a measure of control over the PCs by ensuring that they have common goals. By rewarding the character that follows those goals the player is encouraged to stick to the plot that the referee has produced for the scenario. Very neat.

What happens when the campaign enters its tenth scenario and some of the players are perfectly happy with the same SAs that they started with? Is the referee justified in taking a player aside and saying, "Look, the Passion: Hates Rats thing was kinda funny early on but my world is starting to look like its being overrun by rats -- they're in every scenario somewhere -- would you mind changing this SA?"

Is the player able to refuse such a request, as they see the pathological fear of rats as central to their character's role?

Cheers,

[casinormal]

While coincidences don't always make for strict realism, they are good storytelling devices.
Think about it:  Why are there snakes in every location that Indiana Jones goes into?  Because there are.  Or rather, the GM of that "world" (the director, I guess) is using Indy's personality to tell an exciting story.
Realism is great, but a lot of players simply want an exciting story.  When my players (in any of the various RPGs I've done) decide they want to play characters from very different locales, it's often coincidence/destiny that they meet.  What they do after that is up to them...

[Tash]

What giving an "extra" SA to all players that couldn't be used for additional dice, but could only be saved up and spent on character development.  The GM could give out points to this SA in situations where none of the character's actual passions/drives/etc came into play, thus allowing players to feel like they still accomplished something even if they didn't advance their "plot" so to speak.

[Malechi]

I think casinormal got it right: SAs make for great stories where your character is *the* main character, and who wouldn't want that? Isn't that the hope of every player who ever wrote a detailed backstory, or interesting character hook.  Too often these are tossed aside in favour of the GMs story/plot/game ideas.  Come to think of it, I don't think I can recall an *actual* story where the people in the story, aren't the centre of the story.  That may seem redundant, but in the context of a roleplaying game, it seems to need repeating.  To have it any other way means your character is nothing but audience...

... those that are having trouble with the concept of SAs or those that perceive game session design based on them as too "coincidental" or "contrived" are, I think at least, having a basic clash in game-style.  SAs, as we all know, make the characters the centre of the conflict.  Versimultitude and campaign setting internal consistency/"realism" often don't encourage this kind of play, instead peripheralising PCs or punishing their connections to the world.  SAs make PCs protagonists (as Forge readers will know).  While I don't think they're as incompatible as people make out, Protagonist/Narrative(sorry had to use it ;) ) and that versimultitide/Simulationist(cringe) combination can be somewhat problematic if you cling to one and use the other.  


cheers

Jason K.

[Shadeling]

Remember now, I had been running the game since 2002, and then a few months ago, I realized my problems. Yes to have everyone from different places meet and adventure together is a contrivance that sometimes needs to be used...but constant contrivance on part of constantly crafting every session to allow possibilities for SA growth had finally gotten to me.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

While coincidences don't always make for strict realism, they are good storytelling devices.

Think about it:  Why are there snakes in every location that Indiana Jones goes into?  Because there are.  Or rather, the GM of that "world" (the director, I guess) is using Indy's personality to tell an exciting story.

And herein lies the rub.

The first time it is amusing that there is a snake scene or two in the scenario. By the fourth scenario the only interest is in seeing how the referee manages to insert a snake scene into the scenario in a novel and interesting manner. By the tenth scenario the only question that remains to be answered about snakes is why the country is seemingly overrun with them and how did they get onboard the ship the group are using to sail to another less snake-infested continent...

A plot device (such as fear of snakes) is amusing the first time it is used. The second time is a coincidence. The third time it assumes normality ("Oh, is it time for the snake scene already?). The fourth time is repetitive. Thereafter it is simply boring, particularly for the referee and the other players.

I think casinormal got it right: SAs make for great stories where your character is *the* main character, and who wouldn't want that?

Not every player wants their character to be the centre around which the scenario revolves. In fact, not every player even wants the scenario to revolve around one or more of the PCs. I mean this from the point of view of a scenario being about the thwarting of an assassination attempt on an NPC or the thwarting of an assassination attempt on a PC.

SAs, as we all know, make the characters the centre of the conflict.

SAs may or may not make a character the centre of the conflict but that isn't their purpose. They are a tool for the referee to use to ensure that everyone sticks to the plotline in a relatively predictable manner. Where most RPGs struggle to provide a logic for the PC group to get together and act in unity, TRoS provides the SA nose-ring to help the referee lead the PCs through the scenario as a cohesive unit -- rewarding them when they do the right thing and (conceivably) punishing them when they do the wrong thing. SAs are an extremely clever and refreshingly novel idea from a mechanics perspective.

Cheers,

[nsruf]

Yes to have everyone from different places meet and adventure together is a contrivance that sometimes needs to be used...but constant contrivance on part of constantly crafting every session to allow possibilities for SA growth had finally gotten to me.

Was your group really that disparate? The general advice on the forum here seems to be to create characters together, with a common background in mind. I'll certainly do that for my first game, and require common or at least complementary SAs.

[Alan]

SAs may or may not make a character the centre of the conflict but that isn't their purpose. They are a tool for the referee to use to ensure that everyone sticks to the plotline in a relatively predictable manner. Where most RPGs struggle to provide a logic for the PC group to get together and act in unity, TRoS provides the SA nose-ring to help the referee lead the PCs through the scenario as a cohesive unit -- rewarding them when they do the right thing and (conceivably) punishing them when they do the wrong thing.

Jeez, I think you've got this completely backwards.  It's not the players that are lead by SAs, it's the GM.  Players can change their SAs at any time and it's players that choose SAs, not the GM.  They are completely free to set out on stories that interest them.  

I like this.  It makes my job as GM easier.  Instead of me trying to guess what the players will find most interesting, they tell me.

[Valamir]

yeah, Alan.  Absolutely.  The idea of SAs as a nose ring for the GM to pull on makes me shudder.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

SAs may or may not make a character the centre of the conflict but that isn't their purpose. They are a tool for the referee to use to ensure that everyone sticks to the plotline in a relatively predictable manner. Where most RPGs struggle to provide a logic for the PC group to get together and act in unity, TRoS provides the SA nose-ring to help the referee lead the PCs through the scenario as a cohesive unit -- rewarding them when they do the right thing and (conceivably) punishing them when they do the wrong thing.

Jeez, I think you've got this completely backwards.  It's not the players that are lead by SAs, it's the GM.  Players can change their SAs at any time and it's players that choose SAs, not the GM.  They are completely free to set out on stories that interest them.

Perhaps.

Try looking at it this way. I develop a TRoS scenario for publication. It includes pre-generated characters for the PCs. As with any TRoS scenario the SAs are integral to the plot and so the pre-gens include SAs.

The players assume the roles of the pre-gens and play the scenario. Being experienced RPers they are well capable of assuming the roles of the highly detailed and complex pre-gen characters designed for the scenario.

In these circumstances the SAs ensure a high degree of compliance to the plotline while the players stay in-character. The referee hands out the doggy-treats when the players follow the SAs, reinforcing the benefit of compliance to the plotline through compliance with the SAs. The referee's job is made easier than in other rule systems where the player's interpretation of the character's motivations is not so clear cut nor so well reinforced within the rule system itself.

I think that the same principle applies in a home grown scenario. The players create their characters; the referee though is not separated from this process. The referee assists in the process by indicating where cohesion is required within the player party -- common goals as represented by mutual or supporting SAs -- and where interaction with the gaming environment is required. As such the referee has a reasonable degree of control over where the game heads and how the player character's are linked.

IMO, there are or were two options when it came to the SA mechanism.

There was the option of providing an opportunity for the player to state what they wanted for their character through the game. Rather than a series of five-words-or-less statements these could be quite complicated (not that I'm saying you can't have complicated SAs under the core rules but the tendency for players is to use a fit-in-the-box approach). In play, non-compliance to the stated motivation is just as important as compliance. Both are dramatic and thus useful to the referee.

The alternative was to link these motivations to the character reward/development mechanism. By heading down this path compliance becomes of paramount importance to the player as they want their character to develop, and thus compliance becomes relatively predictable for the referee. This is extremely useful for the referee and is a good thing.

IMO those characters that pursue their goals with such single-minded determination are not particularly life-like. Most people do not behave in this way and most people have more depth to their character than this. I enjoy playing and writing for characters who fall short of their goals and ambitions, as their reaction to this is what makes them life-like and interesting.

Cheers,

[Amy1419]

Here's the thing. Shadeling doesn't like it that things happen just because the characters have SAs for it.
When we play (I'm his wife and fellow gamer) we all make characters together and have at least one SA that directly relates to each other. Obviously we make our backgrounds compatible.
The idea is that how big is the world? How possible is it that there are more than the 4 PCs who have the same ideas? Therefore why is it that these four just happend to find each other, find out about their common ideals, and decide to adventure? That I think is what really starts to bug him.
It's like in any game. You have four characters, great how do they meet? For him its a big coincidence and unrealistic for them to reasonably meet, talk, and then decide to all hang out together.
Also Shadeling enjoys playing a game with supplements. He likes a lot of things being defined, less guess work. When we first picked up the TROS book we were excited about the supplements coming out in such a short time. Now its been awhile and in order to keep playing he wants the supplements. We have run into a mass battle/war raging between different races and countries. All the PCs want to engage in that fight but there are not rules for it. Also, there has been ALOT of stuff going on with Fey relating to destinys and so we want Sorcery and the Fey before we continue on those plot lines so there is less to make up.
As far as D&D, we started playing it because characters are easy to make, most people know the system, and we already had all the books. A good lot of our games don't involve the ideas of only killing things to get loot. There is always role-playing involved. D&D was just easy because it was there.
Shadeling likes coming up with spur of the moment plots and twists and stories but I think he feels like he can't because of the SAs. If the SAs are supposed to be incorporated enough in each game session to award like what 3-5 points, than the whole game has to be about the SAs. Giving him not enough room to do other things. Plus if the characters are always centered around the SAs than wouldnt they realistically not want to do anything else? Making an SA too broad "kill all evil" seems silly as well.
So I dont know if I helped sum anything up or just made it more confusing. But I was trying to help.

Amy

[Alan]

Jeez, I think you've got this completely backwards.  It's not the players that are lead by SAs, it's the GM.  Players can change their SAs at any time and it's players that choose SAs, not the GM.  They are completely free to set out on stories that interest them.

Try looking at it this way. I develop a TRoS scenario for publication. It includes pre-generated characters for the PCs. As with any TRoS scenario the SAs are integral to the plot and so the pre-gens include SAs.

You're assuming that a TROS adventure has to be packaged like the myriad of D&D3e modules available, that require characters to go a particular way.

I am right now writing a TROS adventure package that throws this approach out the window.  Instead, the players spend a session learning about the setting and situation, discuss what they would like to do with the material, then they create characters with SAs of their choosing.

I've play-tested it twice, both with good results.  The resultant events and focuses have been greatly different between the two games.  But that's okay: the package isn't wedded to any particular plot unfolding.

The players assume the roles of the pre-gens and play the scenario. Being experienced RPers they are well capable of assuming the roles of the highly detailed and complex pre-gen characters designed for the scenario.

You can certainly use SAs as a pull for players - especially if they don't get to choose their SAs.  But that ignores a fundimental rule of TROS (that players choose their SAs and can change them whenever something new interests them.)  Finally, I think restricting the rules in that way is a waste of game potential.

IMO those characters that pursue their goals with such single-minded determination are not particularly life-like.

TROS characters aren't intended to be life-like, they're intended to be fiction-like.  Fiction focuses on climactic periods in characters' lives, when their issues do come to a head and they do pursue them with increasing focus.  This has been what I've been looking for in role-play for years.  

This is a Creative Agenda preference point.  TROS was designed with rewards and advancement that encourages narrativist goals.  However, if you strip that off or change those sufficiently, the remaining system works well for a simulationist game.  I won't argue that you can make those changes if you want - as Jake has said in the past, you bought the game, so play it how you like - however, I will assert that such changes are not how the game was intended to be played.