My TROS games

[silburnl]

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?

Leaving aside the '10 points to change SA category' point that has been addressed elsewhere, I think you need to focus upon the character advancement aspect of SAs as well.

A character who is maxed out in his SAs has a huge amount of narrative power within the game when they start firing. I'm not hugely familiar with the the game in play but those that are say a five dice boost is a big thing, 10-15 is pretty monstrous and 20+ is just insane. The downside is that this power is inflexible and can only be sustained for as long as the player is willing to forgo skill and attribute raises for the character (IME all players want to 'level' at some point); furthermore the player is effectively 'experience frozen'.

As soon as the narrative moves away from the PCs current object of obsession then those SAs are doing nothing for him and he's just an ordinary joe - less than ordinary if his peer-group have been cycling their SAs for Insight while he maintains his killer focus. At this point the player might as well trade in 10-20 SA dice for the trait bennies, insight and the chance to reorientate his character.

Sure he'll have a lot less potential narrative power for a while but what good are maxed out SAs if the story isn't likely to trigger them anytime soon?

Regards
Luke

[silburnl]

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

It doesn't. This is a problem with any game genre. The idea here is that with TROS it seems so much more important for everyone to have common ideals, common SAs. In D&D yeah it is necessary to have people with the same types of likes, you don't want the character bent on destroying the world with the character who wants to help the needy. But there are no SAs that need to mesh so that the characters will keep on adventuring together.

So TROS has in-game mechanics to discourage "five-strangers-meet-in-a-pub-and-decide-to-trust-each-other-with-their-lives" syndrome and this makes D&D preferable? I don't get that.

Is it that its less easy to do a pick-up "lets go kill the evil kobolds!" sort of session? I guess so, but then a game that has mechanics to encourage one mode of play will almost certainly be hard going if you are in the mood for a different mode.

But see thats not the point. Shadeling doesn't necessarily want only the players to do such things. He likes to do it himself. If the characters twist a plot or do something unexpected that's good but also normal for one of our sessions. It still revolves completley around their SAs. There can't be deviation if the players want experience.
Whereas other games, you do whatever and get experience. In TROS it is more rigid and therefore not as open to different things.

OK this I can engage with and it is a problem if the GM likes to be fairly tight and prescriptive in his session preparation. One option is to try and be a little less old school as a GM and do the whole bangs, kickers and R-mapping thing that you'll see discussed in numerous fora at the Forge.

Alternatively if Shadeling isn't too comfortable with that or wants to take back a bit of authorial power for the sake of a longer term story-arc is there anything stopping him saying "Guys, I think the current situation's pretty much tapped out. I have a couple of changes of focus in mind so you might want to think about switching a few of your SAs around over the next couple of sessions."

Finally if he's more hard-core Sim he could just change the direction of the story and let the players figure out that the world has moved on from their characters' earlier obsessions. Putting my evil-Simulationist hat on for a moment, just because a PC has 'Love Arabella Monterra' and 'Drive To Recover The Family Estate' doesn't mean he can't get captured by corsaires and end up as a galley-slave. The player can pay down four (or three if you go with the houserule proposed upthread) SAs to zero, picking up some useful skills for the PC's new situation in the process, and switch to 'Hate Brutal Overseer' and 'Drive To Escape Slavery' at any time they want. My guess is they'll have done this before the end of the second session they spend dodging whips and hauling on oars. Furthermore if they have a total of 10 or more dice in the SAs they are paying down they can switch one of the SAs (Conscience perhaps) to something thematically appropriate (Destined To Scatter The Barbary Corsaires Before The Wind) and you have an interesting 'Burning Avenger' character transition (just how far will he go in fulfilling that destiny?) that could make for all sorts of tragic/heartwarming developments and reveals later on in the game.

TROS is set up to foster Narrative play but that doesn't mean you can't get all Simmy with it if you want.

Regards
Luke

[Bill Cook]

This is a problem with any game genre. The idea here is that with TROS it seems so much more important for everyone to have common ideals, common SAs.  [TROS has] . . . SAs that need to mesh so that the characters will keep on adventuring together.

It sounds like your priority is cohesion, i.e. one window through which to view the game world.  That flauts intent with TROS, IMO.  Off the text, it is not supportive to your desired play, methinks.

There are a couple of things you can do:
[list=1]
[*]Supportive: Port the mechanics that most intrigue you (e.g. borrow manuevers, ignore SA's) into a less prescribed system.  (Forgive me, TROS purists!)
[*]Challenging: Read up on scene framing.  Plan an exercise with your group to implement this concept.  If you decide to try this, pitch the idea out-of-play with clear presentation and open discussion.
[/list:o]

But see thats not the point. Shadeling doesn't necessarily want only the players to do such things. He likes to do it himself. If the characters twist a plot or do something unexpected that's good but also normal for one of our sessions.

It sounds like Shadeling is an ideal TROS player.  The way I think of it, a Seneschal performs quite a different function than a DM.

It still revolves completley around their SAs. There can't be deviation if the players want experience. Whereas other games, you do whatever and get experience.

Well, yes, it does revolve around SA's, and that's the idea.  If by "other games" you mean D&D, I beg to differ: it's mainly kill monsters and find treasure.  And what allows variety (yet maintains support) is to throw out different, more powerful monsters and new kinds/amounts of treasure.  It doesn't all have to be kobolds and gold.

Similiarly, with TROS, once you've had your fill of "Desire: Revenge upon the Dread Lord who slaughtered my family," you move on to "Destiny: Unite these war-torn lands."  The players just have to be trained to sense that moment of change and speak up.

In TROS it is more rigid and therefore not as open to different things.

You find that TROS does not support your agenda.  Based on what you've shared, I agree.  I do think it's a highly qualified catalyst for player-driven play.  That's kind of the big, new idea that it seems to be based around.  I encourage you to do both things: defend comfortable, staple play and plan time to try new things.  (And by "try," I mean: keep at it 'til you get the good out of it or decide it's not worth the effort.)

Edited: Wa-hoo!  My 100th post!

[Shadeling]

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

It doesn't. This is a problem with any game genre. The idea here is that with TROS it seems so much more important for everyone to have common ideals, common SAs. In D&D yeah it is necessary to have people with the same types of likes, you don't want the character bent on destroying the world with the character who wants to help the needy. But there are no SAs that need to mesh so that the characters will keep on adventuring together.

So TROS has in-game mechanics to discourage "five-strangers-meet-in-a-pub-and-decide-to-trust-each-other-with-their-lives" syndrome and this makes D&D preferable? I don't get that.

Is it that its less easy to do a pick-up "lets go kill the evil kobolds!" sort of session? I guess so, but then a game that has mechanics to encourage one mode of play will almost certainly be hard going if you are in the mood for a different mode.
Luke

I didn't switch to D&D for 'lets go kill monsters' games. The point was in D&D, there is less headache for me to just run sessions on the fly if I feel so compelled...1) I have no worries of stepping on the toes of someones SAs, and 2) I don't have to worry in said situations of someone not getting XP. XP in D&D doesn't have to be tied to killing things.

D&D wasn't the only game we were playing instead. There was Lord of the Rings, Exalted, and Mutants and Masterminds to name a few.

Also the other big problem as you have heard my wife say, was the lack of promised supplements. TFOB may be coming out this year, but it has been too long since I needed it. Maybe I am coming off as bitter, but I am not trying to sound as such.

[silburnl]

I didn't switch to D&D for 'lets go kill monsters' games. The point was in D&D, there is less headache for me to just run sessions on the fly if I feel so compelled...1) I have no worries of stepping on the toes of someones SAs, and 2) I don't have to worry in said situations of someone not getting XP. XP in D&D doesn't have to be tied to killing things.

What do you do when you prep to run D&D (or the other games you mentioned - but I'll stick with D&D terminology 'cuz its a useful lingua franca for gamers) on the fly? Or is it literally on the fly with absolutely zero prep? If you do absolutely no prep in advance, how do you come up with ECLs that are appropriate to the player characters? Do you use one big brute that everyone can whale on or a bunch of lower ECL creatures? What about special attacks that the monsters have? What about special attacks or buffs the PCs have (did you remember that the fighter got a potion of protection against [blah] last time?)? Can you throw in some undead if the party aren't strong in clerics or paladins? How do you decide what booty the PCs are due once they've defeated the encounters?

Are juggling the factors that go into those decisions for D&D intrinsically harder to handle than worrying about a dozen or so SAs? Or is it that you (and me and most other roleplayers) have internalised such considerations to such an extent that we fail to notice how hard such things are to do for someone fairly new to the game?

If you decide to return to a comfort zone game, to what extent is that TROS's failure? Clearly it wasn't compelling enough to keep you guys playing, which is a failing and a sadness but does it make SAs a problem for TROS? Or TROS a weak game?

Also the other big problem as you have heard my wife say, was the lack of promised supplements.

There you have my sympathy. As a long time player of Pendragon I know where you're coming from...

Regards
Luke

[Bill Cook]

Hey, Ian.  Just noticed your reply.

I hear you saying that the Seneschal retains influence at time of SA writing.  And because of the SA/reward link, he has leverage during play.

I can see how the author of a module could script SA's as supportive.  Were the goal in writing to bind the characters to a pre-defined story-line, it makes sense that SA's could be used to this end.  Not that Shadeling was playing from a module, but within this context, it is ironic that your conclusion is the opposite of his reality.  (I don't see that as detracting from your argument.  I think he's coming from a different place.)

More generally, you assume the value of a pre-defined plot.  And advancement as a driver for player behavior.  These ideas are probably mainstay, but not universal.  Clearly, there are different schools of taste, but a workable (if not primary) use of TROS is to support story arising from play.  And not just the drapes.  The whole damn house from nothing.  (I guess, count the SA's as a foundation, to complete the analogy.)

As concerns driving behavior, at least for my part, I've always done things with my character just to make things happen.  I bet I'm not the only supposed spoiler out there.  No experience points, powerful gizmo or gain in ability has ever moved me in the slightest.  Not being bored, facing down a challenge, choosing from an array of tactics, mattering to what's developing in the imaginary space: that's what drives me.  As far as being effective, that's a non-negotiable starting point, for my needs.

My group uses a pre-defined plot and is generally driven by SA awards and the advancement they bring, BTW:)  The session before our campaign ended, someone had to explain to me how to spend SA points.  And even then I didn't.  It just seems silly.

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

You make an interesting point regarding SA awards being tied to the positive.  And that acting out character struggle in play is not suitable for support by SA's.  In as much as you are portraying struggle.  This gets back to assuming advancement as a driver.

SA's also function as a compass.  The mere fact that they are written out will impact player decisions.  Of course, this is a matter of player sensibility and not something whose pursuit may be mechanically enforced.

You're making an argument against player-driven stories as losing out on the contrast and enrichment that struggle and suffering hardship provide.  I don't know . . .  Maybe you could make self-destructive SA's like "Destiny: Drink myself to death," like in Leaving Las Vegas.

How does the Seneschal leveraging awards solve this issue?  Or are you saying this is a limitation of the mechanic and not something a style of play could address?

[Starshadow]

Hi there.

Just a little note about player-driven vs. GM-driven playing:

GM: You see lots of people gathering around a man putting up posters in the town square.

Player 1: Do you know how to read?
Player 2: Nope.
Player 1: Me neither. What's that over there

Players walk away...

Sometimes GM-driven stories are good, but beware of rebellion. Let the players decide what to do once in a while as well.
:)

[Alan]

The session before our campaign ended, someone had to explain to me how to spend SA points.

Hi Bill,

Hey, didn't it bother you when you lost SA points awarded in play because your SA scores had maxed out?

[Shadeling]

Hi there.

Just a little note about player-driven vs. GM-driven playing:

GM: You see lots of people gathering around a man putting up posters in the town square.

Player 1: Do you know how to read?
Player 2: Nope.
Player 1: Me neither. What's that over there

Players walk away...

Sometimes GM-driven stories are good, but beware of rebellion. Let the players decide what to do once in a while as well.
:)

I do let the players also decide what to do.

[Bill Cook]

Hey, didn't it bother you when you lost SA points awarded in play because your SA scores had maxed out?

During the six session campaign we played, I never was awarded more than three points per type.  I'm now aware that there's a five point max.  So yes, I will spend them rather them lose them.  Probably to buy more CP.  Those're what I like.  

Or you could ignore the cap.  That's probably what I would have done in ignorance.  But now that I know better, I'll probably follow the rules.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

(SNIP idea about modified reward mechanism) This makes it easier for a player to set up contradictory SA's for their character and for a Seneschal to reward interesting internal conflicts.

I have no issue with the reward mechanism that you suggest. However, it doesn't cover what I'm talking about. Here is an example:

A character has an SA -- Passion: Love for wife and family. He operates in this manner for many years. Then, during one session of one scenario, he cheats on his wife.

His SA has not changed. In fact he goes on to demonstrate his love for his family in the years to come.

The idea that he should change that SA or another for that session just so that he can be rewarded for the action doesn't appeal to me.

Nevertheless the incident was extraordinary for the character and no doubt totally unexpected for the referee. Lots of role-playing potential there and we probably know more about the character of the character, so to speak -- in fact, the character has become more like a person.

Such aberrant behaviour, such uncharacteristic behaviour, is dramatic. It is to be encouraged.

On the other hand, just before committing the act, the player realises not only will he not gain an SA point by failing to take up an opportunity to demonstrate his love for his wife but he will actually lose an SA point. That's a 2 point turnaround. And so the character acts like a monk...

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.

I see two situations that you describe here.  The first is a character who fails to attain a goal he is trying to attain.

That's covered by "...the player that follows the goal is rewarded whether successful or unsuccessful in the specific instance)...". The referee is instructed to reward both of these, in equal measure.

The second situation is the inability to reward a player's character for not really trying to follow his SA's.  It is a failure in effort and I agree that it has dramatic potential.  However, I don't see that this is not supported once we except the subcase of conflicting SA's that the house rule above solves.  If a character no longer wants to attempt to follow an SA, then why not change it to something else?

Because the player does want the character to follow the goal. It's just that the referee was able to present a situation wherein the character would choose not to follow the life-long goal. The player recognised that and decided to role-play the situation even though it cost them SA points.

Cheers,

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

I can see how the author of a module could script SA's as supportive.  Were the goal in writing to bind the characters to a pre-defined story-line, it makes sense that SA's could be used to this end.

TRoS requires the referee to produce material according to the player's SAs. Extrapolating from that premise, to play a ported scenario/campaign (such as Warhammer's PBtT) requires the characters to have SAs that will be triggered during play of PBtT. To write a scenario for TRoS that has pre-gens, the pre-gens must have SAs that will be triggered during play (to simulate the usual situation of the referee writing material for the character's SAs). As such, I don't think there's much alternative to writing supportive SAs for the pre-gens. I'd even include a list of suggested SAs for the referee to give to the players should they want to take their own characters into the scenario. That would make it easy for lazy players to simply swap in a couple of pre-generated SAs, safe in the knowledge that they will be in tune with the coming scenario.

As concerns driving behavior, at least for my part, I've always done things with my character just to make things happen.  I bet I'm not the only supposed spoiler out there.  No experience points, powerful gizmo or gain in ability has ever moved me in the slightest.  Not being bored, facing down a challenge, choosing from an array of tactics, mattering to what's developing in the imaginary space: that's what drives me.  As far as being effective, that's a non-negotiable starting point, for my needs.

That's interesting. We currently use a system that involves experience points for character development. It has been two and a half years since the referee handed out experience points. I guess you could say nobody at the gaming table is motivated by Exp accumulation. Somewhat similar to your position I imagine.

My group uses a pre-defined plot and is generally driven by SA awards and the advancement they bring, BTW:)  The session before our campaign ended, someone had to explain to me how to spend SA points.  And even then I didn't.  It just seems silly.

Blasphemer!

You make an interesting point regarding SA awards being tied to the positive.  And that acting out character struggle in play is not suitable for support by SA's.  In as much as you are portraying struggle.  This gets back to assuming advancement as a driver.

Yes, you are quite correct. Were I presented with this situation I would play the role rather than play the mechanics. OK, burn a couple of SA points, but in the end the role-playing is the motivation not the harvesting of SAs.

You're making an argument against player-driven stories as losing out on the contrast and enrichment that struggle and suffering hardship provide.  I don't know . . .  Maybe you could make self-destructive SA's like "Destiny: Drink myself to death," like in Leaving Las Vegas.

You could certainly have SAs like this or potentially contradictory ones as kenjib suggested. For me, though, the pathos comes from defining the goal and *infrequently* acting in a manner contradictory to the goal.

How does the Seneschal leveraging awards solve this issue?  Or are you saying this is a limitation of the mechanic and not something a style of play could address?

It is a limitation of the mechanic.

Cheers,

[Ingenious]

Allow me to burst in here and make a few comments randomly after not posting in this thread for sometime..

To expand upon the idea of an SA regarding 'love my wife and kids' and then cheating on them...
Perhaps if you look at it from my perspective it would be done by rolling willpower vs a target number based on the attractiveness of the subject at hand.. and the SA would be added dice to the WP roll.

What REALLY can get someone tripping over the issue of fidelity and this SA(whilst still using it).. is if the subject that has made a pass at the PC.. or otherwise just sat there and was attractive.. if this NPC had either version of the beauty of legends. I would see that as a very high TN. Of course, I am basically twisting the flaw of lecherousness into this example.. and how such behavior can detract from the SA..etc etc. So the character in this hypothetical situation can have his cake and eat it too. Remember people.. flaws can be gained through the course of an adventure...whether that's just a simple amputee flaw.. or otherwise.

I will begin reading this thread and posting to it more.. once I get some sleep. It's 4:30 AM.. there's 71 posts in this thread so far.. and mine makes it 72.. and I am too damn tired to read all of the stuff I've missed.

Pardon the non-coherence..
-Ingenious

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

To expand upon the idea of an SA regarding 'love my wife and kids' and then cheating on them...

Perhaps if you look at it from my perspective it would be done by rolling willpower vs a target number based on the attractiveness of the subject at hand.. and the SA would be added dice to the WP roll.

Sure you could reduce it all to a dice roll. A preferred result for me as referee would be to try to avoid a dice-based resolution. The male character in this situation has built their SA over a number of months or years. Similarly, the "downfall" situation needs to be built over months or years of game time. As referee I would introduce the female NPC harmlessly in a scenario as scene-decoration. As various scenarios are played she would be present at times, sometimes peripherally sometimes more centrally; the relationship with the male NPC would develop from "someone-I-know" through to "someone-I-trust" through to committed friendship (where each has risked something of themselves to demonstrate that friendship) over time. Then I'd introduce the specific scene. Hopefully the player would play their character's part based on their history with the NPC and the specifics of the current situation. Either way the decision falls their Passion SA will be affected via the reward/punishment mechanism.

If the player in the end couldn't decide what to do and so requested a dice roll I'd be a little disappointed as referee but, oh well, so be it.

Cheers,

[Emiricol]

Not having played TRoS yet, I can't add much to the dialogue yet (my book arrived yesterday).  However, I want to say that D&D doesn't have to be about killing kobolds and phat lewt, so to speak.

For example, in my D&D campaign (3.5 rules) the characters gain XP each session equal to (X*Y)*Z where Y is the average level of PCs in the party rounded down, and Z is the number of hours the session lasted (usually 3). X is 25, 50 or 75 depending on the challenge of the session, whether roll play or role play for the evening (most of the time, 50).

The players have figured out that they gain the same XP whether they kill the bandit or roleplay a meeting with the estranged father of one of the characters, and so are much more willing to take the non-combat approach.  They've also figured out that I let them assume a little bit of a director's stance (I'm working on increasing that, but it still makes me uncomfortable as a DM).

So this has been a long post to simply say "D&D doesn't have to be that way."  Once I've actually played TRoS I'll have more to say on the rest of this subject matter as well :)