Why SA's for stat/proficiency developement?

[Dain]

<grin>...nope Valamir, didn't miss it. It just didn't quite match what I was saying. Your reply addressed the question "why do systems based on experience work well" which isn't the question I was asking.  Not saying anyone here is right or anyone is wrong...just was asking Jake the "why" of why he chose to do a half-n-half methodology.

(above was re-editted...quite a bit...after initial entry, but no one replied yet so I thought I'd clean it up a bit).

[Jake Norwood]

So this thread has gotten very, very large rather quickly, so it's not possible for me to address everything. First, I'll say that more or less Ralph (Valamir) is right, so use what he said to fill in gaps. Ralph "gets" TROS in a way that's spooky, and has frightened me ever since the now-famous Origins game where he mercilessly drove his own character toward death based on his rather dour Destiny.

Kenjib said

Or, looking at it from the other perspective, why do skills advance through use instead of through the spending of SA's?

Two reasons: One, the my rather large inner simulationist wanted something that simmy in there even though that's not the game's reward system's focus. Second--and this is the most important thing--players seek out opportunities to do the things that they're rewarded for. What's the point of having 30 skills if you only use a few? The motivation to get better at an obscure skill by using it introduces that skill into the game where it may have gone unnoticed, unused, and unloved before.

Actually that is the perspective that makes absolutely zero sense to me (if trying to make the system model real life).

Well, I am and I'm not. I'm trying to model *fiction.* Fiction resembles real life in many ways, but it's plagued (or blessed, in my book) with the kinds of dramatic cooincidence that Shadeling has recently been unhappy with. Players go where the rewards are. In D&D, a solid game in its own right, players who go by the rules kill stuff and take things. Many play groups (mine included) upped "roleplaying rewards" in our games, thus changing the focus of the game. Players go where the rewards are.

The reason for "realism" in TROS is suspension of disbelief and also "cool" factor. The reason for narrative rewards (SAs) is story development and player involvement (protagonism, to get fancy).

Not slamming you here. Your view is a very viable option many systems use, and use quite successfully. Let me ramble on for a bit so you can see where I'm coming from too. Let me list a few sample situations that make no sense to me when trying to model real world from the perspective of the CHARACTERS themselves:

1. I believe so stoutly in my deity (faith SA) that I stood on the edge of the cliff and balanced myself without falling (using all those extra SA dice to keep from losing my balance) and now as a result I swing my bastard sword more proficiently but my faith is greatly reduced (because my player had to spend the points he earned).

Ever seen anyone fight well when they didn't believe in what they were doing? Why do sports teams work so hard to get "pumped up" before the game and at half time if only training is what we're seeing on the field. SA's represent what Gene Hackman called "Heart" in the replacements. This is a common theme of *every* sports film and many war movies.

The other BIG mistake here is confusing your SA levels with how much you believe. SA's are temporary holding tanks for the progress your character has made as a protagonist. They are not representations of how strong your faith or passion is. These things are measurable only through actions and the overall progress.

Lastly, and this is attached to both of the above ideas, people only really train when they care. This is especially important in fiction, which is what TROS is about (albeit a certain brand of fiction). In the movies (or whatever brand of drama) when does the hero start training hard? When he gives a damn, and not a day before.

In my own life I can, oddly attach this to swordsmanship. I've always been "husky," meaning about 25-40 lbs overweight. Nothing every really got me off my ass to get in shape, no matter what I tried. Then, I found swordsmanship. The "real" thing (or as much of it as we currently understand). I got fanatical, and got to the point where I trained 10+ hours a week, not counting reading and research (now I train about 6/week). I began running and went on a strict old-fashioned diet. Somehow in 3 years I went from "just a guy" in the ARMA (where I was when I wrote TROS) to the "Senior" Student/Instructor right under John Clements. Did I get that good because I spent lots of time on it (e.g. skill checks), or because I was passionately obsessed with swordsmanship (passion: swordsmanship), or because it was my destiny (destiny: become ARMA number two)? My money's on the second one, not the first. I know lots of guys that spend forever on something, but they never really get there, no matter how many skill checks.

As Ralph said, combat is a central focus of the moral universe that TROS explores--the other skills are means to ends, but the proficiencies and vagaries are where the real action happens. That's where the theme music kicks in and the lead character in the movie starts jogging and training and getting PUMPED for the big fight. SAs get you pumped.

2. My player (something that does not even exist from the character's perspective) got lucky on dice all night, made everyone at the table laugh, and in general made everyone at the game table have a good time, and now as a result my physical strength was significantly higher when I woke up this morning...so from my perspective as a CHARACTER, I lounged around all night doing nothing noteworthy or strenuous in the slightest, went to sleep, and when I woke up...POOF...I'm magically stronger with no logical explanation whatsoever, and all of a sudden my luck sucks (because my player had to spend the points he earned).

Ever met a guy that was good at something for no reason? That's this character. Are you denying that some crap happens and we don't know why? If I have a simulationist game that doesn't simulate the inexplicable, am I not missing something?

Seriously, though. The character doesn't exist. At all. What exists is your experience at the gaming table, and that's what in-game rewards are about. It's not about the character. He doesn't exist. It's only about the player.

3. As a result of my drive to "reveal to the masses those abusing their power" I stayed up all night with a printing press and generated tons of papers revealing indesputable proof that the local Duke was falsely convicting and imprisoning people too poor to defend themselves in order to replenish the slave labor in his secret gold mines, and now as a result I can fire my longbow better, but I suck at trying to uncover more abuses now (because my player had to spend the points he earned)

To some degree this is covered elsewhere, but it's still a good topic. My best "simulationist" answer for this (and this *is* how I understood SAs before narrativism got explained to me), is that people only get better at stuff when they care. When life has meaning. If I am fulfilling my drive all night, my mind and heart are clearer, and my "soul" learns faster, retains more information, and makes me better whereever I put my energy. Look around and tell me that this isn't very much the case in much of the world, and always in literature, which *is* what TROS is about.

I have no problem with games that use experience to advance characters, D&D has been fantastically and inexpressibly successful at the whole "killing things makes me fight, cast, and thieve better" concept, even though it makes no real world sense why killing something makes you pick a lock better.

Cool.

I was just currious as to why a system so accurate in fencing, and so logical (in the CHARACTER's point of view as opposed to the PLAYER's point of view) in skill developement, didn't go ahead and make the rest of the system follow the path of accuracy and logic instead of the path of "we know it makes no sense logically, but we're going to take a set of completely unrelated behaviors and tie them to skill and stat developement anyhow to motivate the players to role play well".

Well, I hope you see that in the eyes of the designer these behaviors are not unrelated. It's a side effect of current pop psychology to think that human beings are so compartmentalized, when we all know that isn't the case. Example:

"Why did Bob get his ass kicked last night in that fight with Mel?"
"His heart wasn't into it. His girlfriend just dumped him."

Weeks later...

"Man, Bob wailed on six guys last night. How'd he do that?"
"He's got a new girl, a new reason to live, and he's just on fire. There's no beating him."

This phenomenon is well known to women, who often tell me that men are more handsome when they're confident and when they think they're handsome. How is physical appearance related to spiritual/emotional issues? In a stat in-game it wouldn't be. In TROS, it can be.

In fact, the reason that fencing is accurate is becuase IMO there's nothing so intense as the real thing, and TROS combat is all about intensity and emotion...which incidentally is what SAs are about.

I guess overall I had the observation that this is a hybrid developement system, where part of the system took the "character ability improves without the character doing anything to explain that improvement (experience based)" route while another part of the system took the "the character studies/trains/practices to improve, just like in real life" route.

That's a very valid question. I think that I like both approaches, and that both reward certain (different) behaviors in-play. I wanted both behaviors, so I had to reward for both. But I couldn't let the players choose which one and still get both, so they have to exhibit both behaviors if they want the full reward.

All that being said, Kenjib, I do play in and approve of the game balance provided by many experience based games, and don't have a problem with them in the slightest...but those games all tend to be single methodology (ie. all experience based, no character's point of view logical developement), whereas this one seems to be pulling from both worlds, and some people are remarking that having to put situations for all SA's of all characters in each and every game seems to make the games all feel the same while being played, and seems to be resulting in players losing interest after a few games.

See above. I think that going all-SAs would be *too* Narrative, and all checks would be *too* Simmy. I like the hybrid, and it's fully intentional.

If the SA for experience situation did not exist, the Seneshal's seem to be saying they feel they would have an easier time keeping the interest of their players because they could create more diverse situations and spend time developing story lines instead of doing SA maintenance for all the characters sitting at the table as a first goal, and putting the actual story line second to that.

Actually, Shadeling is the first time that I've heard this in this way. Usually Seneschals get very, very excited about how much *easier* their job is with SAs. Various tastes vary, of course, and Shadeling doesn't seem to be getting the mileage he wants out of SAs. His concerns, however, are the opposite of my experience and the experience of many, many TROS players and GMs that *love* the power that SAs give to both sides of the GM screen.

Also, the line, "because they could create more diverse situations and spend time developing story lines instead of doing SA maintenance for all the characters sitting at the table as a first goal, and putting the actual story line second to that." is at the crux of the problem. The SAs ARE the story. Any story coming from somewhere else doesn't belong to the players, and they become audience members or cast members, but not co-creators. SAs restricting in-play choices? Change them. It's easy. Mid-game. Hell, mid-battle or even mid-swing, so long as your Seneschal is cool with it. More diverse situations? If the players wanted more diversity all they have to do is come up with a new SA. Bam. Instant player-driven diversity.

Now, not all players and groups like player-driven play. That's fine, but it isn't TROS as-written. Why did I do anything in TROS? Two reasons:

One: to create intense player-driven games
Two: I was a new publisher and I didn't know better.

I hope that covers your question. Whew.

Jake

[Alan]

Hi Jake,

This explaination should be added to the newbie sticky or TROS faq.  It's very clear.

[Dain]

Thanks Jake! That's all I was looking for, and it covered everything I was asking. Sometimes it's good to have a window into the brain of the designer to see what his intentions really were in order to better participate in the game (whether as Seneschal or as player). A game system is a living thing, not just hard, cold, lifeless rules. Knowing the emotional background and intent of the beast is every bit as important as a hunter knowing his quarry (don't have a dictionary with me...hope that's really a word and the right one at that). The reason I say that is that it makes it easier for everyone at the table if eveyone has "the feel" for the hows and whys of the ways things are done, that way they tend to subconsciously tailor their actions to things they know are within the scope of the design instead of finding themselves unintentionally but constantly bucking the system by trying to follow rules by their letters instead of their intents.

Thanks too to Valamir, Kenjib, and everybody else here for their perspectives. Even though they weren't addressing my exact question, the inputs they had were very valid and pretty much exactly match things I've found in my own 19+ years of game mastering other various systems.

Thanks again to all.

[Bob McNamee]

Something else thats been mentioned other places, and alluded to by Jake.

It shouldn't be a big problem for the GM to do maintenance on SA's. Some work, yes, but not mostly theirs.

The Players should be driving toward situations that bring their SA's into play. They created them for a reason. They should be looking for openings to drive toward what matters to them... or change them to something that does interest them... or fit the play situation better.

I would be.

Consider
If you created an Aragorn-type character, would you avoid driving play toward the chance to become king, in order to go dungeon delving for cash?