My TROS games

[Bill Cook]

We kind of have two threads going here, don't we?

Ian:

There've only been a limited number of times players in games I've run have actually used the pre-gen's.  And come to think of it, in that case, I made them do it, just to see what it was like.  The coolest thing about it was that the pictures matched, not so much the plot.

I don't see use of pre-gen's as encouraging play that follows a pre-defined plot.  The same goes for keeping the group together.  I guess there're two models: (a) keep everyone together and follow a trail of clues until the GM's secret is revealed and (b) create situations that incite player investment, allowing that in-game action to create a causal chain.  As long as the group is crystal on expectations for play, either model can be fun.  With respect to SA's, . . . this is speculative on my part, but I imagine with (a), really the Seneschal should write all the SA's.  Or at least provide a plot synopsis (without spoiling any juicy discoveries, which are so important to this model) and approve player-written SA's as being in-line with his plans.

I see two dynamics: pre-determined vs. improvised and multi-threaded vs cohesive view.  These ideas are more general than the TROS system.  Personally, I like to push things 'til they break.  And I enjoy loss of control.  So, I more favor improvised multi-threads.  But my pleasure would probably drive another man mad.  (Just like the only way I can seem to comfort some people is by wearing a straight jacket.)  These dynamics drill out to the Social Contract level, arguments to what the system supports, aside.

Which, I think that's a losing argument, BTW.  It's probably more productive to seek common interest and use TROS to support what your group has established, to the limit that it may.  Play is rarely so tidy.  This effort will likely be a process.

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.

I also prefer down endings.  But player-driven stories do not preclude this.  Especially not if I'm playing:)

Amy:

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.

How does changing the system to D&D resolve this?

*******************

TROS is more intended for home-grown scenarios, IMO.  I'm not widely read, but I've gotten the same impression from a number of other indie titles.  In this way, D&D is more like a parlor game.  IMO, it's a worse mousetrap, but turn around fast, and you'll knock over a stack of modules, ready for low-prep consumption.

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.

The shoe's on the other foot.  There will still be spur of the moment twists; they'll just come from the players.  The Seneschal's job becomes providing opportunities rich with twisting potential.

SA's are not a prison sentence, just an overt expression.  If they're not causing sparks, dump 'em.  You can't do that as a Seneschal, but as a fellow player, you can say, "Ok, look.  These SA's are boring the shit out of me.  I've thrown out a couple of things now, and I'm not getting a rise.  I'm starting to think you guys just pulled something out of your ass when you wrote them down.  So level with me: what are you really excited about getting into?"

[Thanaeon]

So far, my players haven't had as much SA improvement. Last session, they only got 1 or 2 each. However - and this is important - it was mainly a story of "getting there". The next session, I believe I will see a lot of SA's in action. However, SA's facilitated what I believe was the smoothest addition of a PC to the party I've ever run.

So far, I really like 'em.

[nsruf]

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?

Maybe because they are friends, family, colleagues, or members of the same religion, mercenary company, etc.? Think about this in real-life terms. E.g. the people I spend most of my time with share a lot of common ideas with me, especially if they are friends or family. People don't exist in a vacuum... and they don't usually meet strangers in a tavern and decide to take them on a dragon-hunt;)

SAs probably simplify and exaggerate character motivation to a level resembling fiction. But - IMO - they provide an interesting and more realistic basis for adventuring and group dynamics than the usual D&D approach, which goes something like

"Let's take her along." (she's a PC)

and

"We better go kill those orcs we were told about." (the GM hasn't prepared anything else)

Admittedly, I haven't played TROS yet (preparing a game right now), so SAs may not work for me, either. And I have no idea how to best handle an SA-driven plot. But I fail to see how the characters getting together and having a common background is a problem.

[kanseg]

Hi there, I just thought I would throw in my two cents here because this is a topic I was recently discussing with one of my players.

Our view became that SAs are a brilliant idea and really flesh out the character as well as providing a 'metaplot' framework for that particular character.  However for individual one shot scenarios it can twist the scenario if you are trying to incorporate these 'metaplot' SAs, expecially if it is a stand alone scenario you have converted for play with TROS.  

My idea was to add a new SA category, which would be based on the main goal to be achieved in the adventure (or in that chapter of the campaign) the PC is involved in - lets call it the 'adventure SA' for arguments sake.  This would then change (in terms of descriptor) for each individual scenario or for each individual chapter in the ongoing campaign.  Each time a PC contributed to the group's success in that particular scenario or chapter, then they would gain SA points in that SA.  These can not be used to add to pools for game purposes but are purely for use for advancement purposes.  I know that sounds a bit like experience points...

Note that the PCs could still use SA die from Luck, Concience etc in the scenario.  However, I would also allow new 'minor plot' SA's to be created based on the flow of the game.  For example a powerful NPC creates difficulties for one of the PCs.  That PC then has a SA specifically geared to defeating/killing that NPC.  Such a SA would of course vanish at the end of the adventure if that NPC had been dealt with (or of course it could remain if that NPC still survived and would thus become one of the metaplot SAs).  The SA die in these 'minor plot' SAs could be added to pools as well as being used for advancement purposes.

I have not tested this yet but I propose to see if these adventure goal SAs and minor plot SAs are workable in my next few sessions with my players.

Edit:  Just to note that when a new 'minor plot' SA was created during gameplay then I would start it at an initial level of 1 point, which could of course grow as the PCs deal with the difficulty/goal that 'minor plot' SA describes.

The entire aim of course is to develop tailored SAs to a specific scenario or chapter in the campaign as well as have 'metaplot' SAs which provide a good description of that PCs main drives and ambitions.  Such 'minor plot' SAs need not necessarily be combat based.  So for example one of the PCs decides he wants to run a successful courier service during the course of game session as a cover then he might gain a SA in that 'drive'.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

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.

Actually I'm providing a hypothetical situation. I'm not suggesting that a TRoS scenario must be created in this way. Having never seen a D&D3e scenario I would be amused if what I was suggesting was unique to that system.

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.

Well done. I look forward to seeing it.

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.

Personally I can't see any other way of running an off-the-shelf scenario (that was written for another RPG) under TRoS than by having the referee co-opt some of the PCs' SAs. I would suggest that part of the porting process is going to involve the referee analysing the plot, determining the SAs that are central to the plot, and allocating accordingly.

TROS characters aren't intended to be life-like, they're intended to be fiction-like.

For the newbie that reads the blurb on the back of TRoS it'll be the focus on realism that will catch the eye. Certainly did for me -- and the combat system is just what I want from an RPG, coming from the simulationist end of the RPG spectrum as I do. The joy of TRoS, for me, is that it doesn't take much effort at all to purge the mechanics of the unrealistic components -- it is so well written, so modular. Converting the system to run a real-world medieval campaign is a delight.

Cheers,

[kenjib]

Let's look at it from a different angle and see if something like this would work better.

Start by telling the players "The Cabrano House runs the large city of Pravatti.  They are a very old family that believes in now outdated ideals of honor.  In their hearts, they still believe that the rightful king was slain and the current king is an usurper.  They would support an heir of the old line should one come forth and make a claim on the throne.  Their enemies in the city are the Vasco family, who made their fortune running shady business deals during the civil war and are only newly come to wealth and power.  They support any king that will help them become more wealthy and powerful (which at this time means the new king) and their business reach is starting to eclipse that of the old Cabrano family.  The captain of the city guard does not belong to either family, but was placed by the new king to keep an eye on the Cabrano family."

Let the players pick a family and put the burden on them to define how they know each other.  Let's say they pick Cabrano, and make three characters.

One is the daughter of the head of the family.  She dabbles in forbidden arts which she must keep secret from her kin and other authorities at risk of execution.  She is vain and wants to make sure that she can always show up her rivals, the three daughters of the head of the Vasco family.  She has, at times, used her magic secretly toward these ends.  Perhaps this is why the city is so enamoured of her.

The second character is the family's Swordmaster - a master swordsman who serves as the family's personal trainer, guard, assassin, etc.  He is an exotic immigrant from Anu and has been charged by the head of the house with the protection of his daughter (the first character).  He knows about her secret occult pastimes and has vowed on his life himself to keep it a secret.

The third character is a cousin from a down and out branch of the family - a girl of dubious talents with whom she escapes the drudgery of social life by slumming it in the poor districts.  She has gotten the daughter into trouble more than once and while the head of the house frowns on their friendship, he can do nothing because they are family.

The SA's are all wrapped around the two families so there's plenty to work with as long as the story revolves around the tensions between them.

Okay, now figure out some background info to unravel later.  There is a plot by a secret society to overthrow the king and start a popular
revolution which will lead to a new form of government without a king.  Unbeknownst to the players one of character 1's uncles was involved in the plot.  Plant some clues leading to this.  The game starts with a scream in the night in the Cabrano house.  An assassin has killed the uncle and is still in the house.  Plant some clues pointing back to the Vasco family.  Decide why the Vascos wanted to kill the uncle.  Etc.

From there out, the players do what they want, and let things fall from there.  They can play through the funeral, which the Vasco daughters have the audacity to crash.  Investigate what happened.  etc.  Every once in a while, throw a new twist or plot thread into things, and as long as it's related to the same central conflicts some SA's will likely line up, like character 2's SA drive:  protect the daughter, and character 1's passion:  loyalty to House Cabrano.  Specifically target certain characters' SA's - if character 2 has passion:  love for the Vasco family swordmistress, either have her try to lure him into treason or create a fun, light-hearted love-hate kiss-kill relationship.  Introduce new characters with their own interests and SA's to further complicate the plot.

When characters uncover the plot, they are likely to change some of their SA's to re-orient around the new conflict.  This conflict opens things up on a wider scale and the game can shift focus from the city to the bigger kingdom level dynamics.

I think a pre-made scenario could provide all of the pieces for this, maps of major locations like the Vasco and Cabrano family manors, the city gaol, the king's castle, the store of an underground fence and information broker in a bad part of town (and what he knows, when), a couple of cities; factions and people that may come into play depending on what happens along with their SA's, relationship with others, and actions they might take, etc.  Various pre-made twists, plots, and potential timelines can be provided.

These are all materials for the Seneschal to improvise off of depending on how the characters were set up, who they had allegiance to, etc.  In this case they start trying to catch the assassin.  With different characters they might have started out as the assassins, or framed for the murder, or are investigating it for the captain of the city guard, or any number of options that would pull them into the intrigue.

The Seneschal didn't have to get the characters together.  They worked with the scenario to do it themselves.  There is also plenty of room to throw new twists in, some of which can be teased out from existing SA's.

[Malechi]

hrmmm

I wonder if this debate would benefit from an exercise similar to Ron Edwards' "Art Deco Melodrama" thread list.  

We postulate a setting with as much detail as needed or as you would classically give at the beginning of a campaign (the seeds that kenjib posted might be a good start). Then go through the processes of character generation with SAs etc and have the Seneschal explain how he's going to make the character soup into a campaign startup.  There's no actual game, just a run  through the processes behind a well setup TROS game that emphasises the SAs at work with feedback to the players who submit their characters to the thread for integration.  I know some might have a really good grasp of SAs, but I'm still occassionally seeing players and people comment about SAs that i don't think fit under the headings they give them (passions that are really drives, drives that are really destinies, destinies that are wayyyy short term, drives that are really conscience).  This kind of tutorial run-through might be beneficial to those who are having some concerns or trouble with the kind of game we're trying to talk about here.

Any takers (Seneschals, Players, Commentators, Observers?)

Jason K.

[Lance D. Allen]

kenjib,

Awesome set-up. Any adventure books for TRoS would have to be precisely such a thing. If someone wanted to run a game with a set-up like that, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

There've only been a limited number of times players in games I've run have actually used the pre-gen's. (SNIP)

I don't see use of pre-gen's as encouraging play that follows a pre-defined plot.  The same goes for keeping the group together.

Concept: TRoS is different to traditional RPGs. In TRoS the players determine, broadly speaking, the content of the plot and the type of scenario that will be played through the design of their SAs.

Counter-point: This is an illusion. The referee has ample opportunity to mould the SAs that the players will take. The SAs, because they are linked to the reward mechanism, ensure that the players will stick to the plot in order to ensure that their characters will develop as quickly as possible.

Illustration: A TRoS scenario demands that the player's SAs are intertwined with the plot. Therefore, in the case of pre-gens for a published scenario, the designer is able to ensure that the PCs have good reason to stick together (their SAs are mutually supportive) and follow the plot (their SAs are intertwined with the plot elements). This isn't nearly so easy to orchestrate in scenarios designed for other RPGs.

Hence, no, I don't think that pre-gens as a general rule ensure that the PC group sticks together and/or follows the plot. SAs, on the other hand, provide ample opportunity for both. TRoS pre-gens would have SAs and therefore are capable of producing unity and adherence to the plot.

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.

I also prefer down endings.  But player-driven stories do not preclude this.

I can't agree with this. TRoS defines SAs as being at the core of the character (hence the massive bonuses that apply when they're firing). As such failure to attain or follow these core concepts is as interesting to the plot (and is more important to character development, IMO) as attaining or following these core concepts.

However, while the reward mechanism is tied only to the positive (that is, the player that follows the goal is rewarded whether successful or unsuccessful in the specific instance), player-driven stories won't head down the negative path -- characters that do this will develop slowly and will be seen as having a negative impact on the plot.

Cheers,

[Alan]

Counter-point: This is an illusion. The referee has ample opportunity to mould the SAs that the players will take.

I have a hard time seeing how the GM can restrict player SA choices - he can suggest, but they are the player's choice.  Can you give me an example that doesn't involve pre-gens?  

The SAs, because they are linked to the reward mechanism, ensure that the players will stick to the plot in order to ensure that their characters will develop as quickly as possible.

What stops a player from just spending four SAs to zero and announcing he's changing two of them?  Within moments, he can radically change the direction of the character.

[Muggins]

I have to say, TRoS is fantastic for one-off modules, but much more difficult to make ordinary "insert any party" stories. I have run two once-offs (you can tell I am not in the country for long periods!), both of which I have set up characters that are directly antagonistic, with a strong drive. The first scenario involved the retrieval of a certain artifact for a king, with characters doing it for money, prestige, loyalty to the king, or religious concern for the artifact. It was a test for me on how to set up a party with disparate aims (in their SAs), and worked very well... (well most of them killed each other, but only after much roleplaying!).

For campaigns, if the party is not coached to select obviously compatible SAs, the seneschal needs to be sneaky. The influence of an outside force is always useful in getting mutually antagonistic enemies to cooperate. The campaign I am currently putting together (as a mini-supp with enough ideas for Ian and many more!) postulates an invasion as a motivation, with a hefty dose of interference from powerful entities.

And surely, fear of snakes is not an SA? I would have dismissed it outright, turning it into a Flaw, not a character-defining trait.

James

[Jaeger]

I have a hard time seeing how the GM can restrict player SA choices - he can suggest, but they are the player's choice. Can you give me an example that doesn't involve pre-gens?

Easy, he says no - not in my campaign...   Whenever my last group sat down to start a campaign the GM always had veto power over those SA's that were either too munchkin - or would obviously lead things away from the campaign focus. Now obviously the type of campaign was talked about beforehand, and a general consensus was reached what types of PC's would best suit the campaign - players and GM agreeing.

What stops a player from just spending four SAs to zero and announcing he's changing two of them? Within moments, he can radically change the direction of the character.

In my group it was basic "campaign etiquette" that a player must get GM permission during the middle of a campaign to change things. I had one player change a passion in one of my campaigns to the hatred of a bad NPC - that was OK, and helped develop the story even more.  But if he was allowed to just change his passion to: recover the shard of Xanar, when the campaign is taking place in  Stahl - that wouldn't have been cool. It would have been unfair to the other PC's who still want to stay in stahl and protect the high king.

 Playing TROS is a two way street between players and the GM. The players get to influence the campaign all day long - but the GM should also get to enjoy things and I (and my past group) felt he should have a little say in the PC's SA's so as to make life a little easier.

[Dain]

Hey guys,

meant to drop this in much earlier...appologies since it looks like it would have removed much debate.

Doesn't the book say changing SA's is like major expensive? I.E. players won't be changing them willy nilly because they wouldn't be able to. Page 66 TROS core book, paragraph two under "1. Spiritual Attributes".

Unless I'm missunderstanding, you have to zero out the SA you want to change (makes sense) AND zero out some other SA (painful but ok) AND LOSE 10 more Spirit Points. In other words, you have to have a TON of SA points just to change one SA, and after you do so you've pretty much made it impossible to change again for a while because you basically blew away all the points you had and you have to play a while to regenerate some more SA points before you have enough points to TRY to change an SA again.

Someone let me know if I'm misreading or just plain wrong.

[Alan]

Hi Dain,

In another thread Ben and Jake confirmed that the 10 points of SAs are not lost - you spend them on character improvement.

I even got the impression, but I can't find the quote right now, that even that requirement might be reduced in their games.

[Dain]

Thanks for the info, but even if they are not lost and are spent instead, they still come off the SA's anyhow, right? If so, that doesn't change the math and still makes it unlikely one could change SA's with any frequency. You only have 25 as a max...if 10 must be spent, you're down to 15 max, at most you could change one more SA because that would only leave you 5...and you'd have to play for a while to get at least back up to 10 in order to try again. Right? or am I still off?