SA dice by roll or CP

[Ingenious]

Upon reading that Ron, I have the same reaction...
My jaw is on the floor.

For one: why would a passion of 'hatred for X' apply to a situation that involves the resistance of aging(not the casting) of a spell that involved a player's hatred for X? I see no logical reason for those 25 dice to be added to an aging roll. at all. period.

If we added SA's per roll.. and let's use my combat pool over the last session, and my SA's. Normally I would just get the +10 net dice to the total CP. But what you're saying is that it would be +20 net, or +10 per exchange...
That means that instead of 21 dice.. I'd have 31 dice...
Nuts. Absolutely preposterous in my book.

with the +10 net gain to my CP.. that already doubles my CP.. so it would appear to triple it with the per roll method.

I also think this is bad from a fun factor perspective. If I'm going up against a badass NPC, and I'd normally lose hands down without SA's.. and the net gain to CP method is used.. I *might* be on par with my opponent. With the per roll setup, shit dude... Forget about it. I'd probably have to face a dragon or worse in order to get a challenge from that...or even the remote threat of death..

Remember, the fear of your character dying is a big part of the fun.. and using the SA per roll method seems waaaaay too D&Dish for my liking. Waaaaaaay too much.

I'm way too confused to type any more, so perhaps you might explain it and the reasoning(if any logical one(s) pop up..) behind it. Either you or Jake could answer that I suppose..

I guess you might attribute it to the style of game you are running.. if it's the blood opera thing or not. *shrug*
-Ingenious
'Hello, my name is Indigo Montoya.. you killed my father. Prepare to die.'

[Alan]

Upon reading that Ron, I have the same reaction...
My jaw is on the floor.

For one: why would a passion of 'hatred for X' apply to a situation that involves the resistance of aging(not the casting) of a spell that involved a player's hatred for X? I see no logical reason for those 25 dice to be added to an aging roll. at all. period.

Ingenious,

As Jake mentioned in a previous discussion, there is no logical in-game reason why SAs work the way they do.  They are not meant to have any logical connection to reality.  They are heroic music that plays when something is dramatically important to the character.  They are the meta-game oomph that gives them the edge to make a story.

[Ingenious]

Yea, I know that.
What is illogical to me though is not the way SA's work.. but apparently the fact that they're added to every single roll. Not added to the total CP, but to every roll.

I think you might have mis-interpreted my point..
-Ingenious

[Edge]

we still add ours to only the CP or the MP or the SP in any given situation and then the player determines how they are used.

so no in our games they can't be used for every roll but rather the CP.
Obviously they can be added to every skill roll or terrain roll that is performed out of combat but when it comes down to combat they are only available on a round by round basis and not every exchange.

our group loves SA's and think they are great new way of doing things.  We have spoken about the per roll v per round issue and as a group come to a decision that using them per round is sufficient enough as even then they still offer that needed kick

[Alan]

Yea, I know that.
What is illogical to me though is not the way SA's work.. but apparently the fact that they're added to every single roll. Not added to the total CP, but to every roll.

Hi again,

I must have misunderstand why you think it's illogical.  As far as I can see, if the designer decides "SAs are intended to give character's a major boost when their fighting for something meaningful to the player" then adding them to every roll is a perfectly logical design choice.

So I guess I need to ask: why do you think it's illogical?

[Ingenious]

Well, because.. uhhhh..
it can already have a major impact on a character's actions if only used in the CP method???
I mean, my CP was doubled last session.
Would you not define that as a "major" impact??
Doubling the SA's by using the per roll method in my mind's eye detracts from the fun. It's soooo one-sided in that regard, that I'd have to be going up against a dragon or two in order to come under the THREAT of death in combat...were my CP to be tripled by granting SA's on every single roll in combat..

Where does it end too? If it is used per roll, you could essentially argue that if I divided my CP into three equal parts to fight three opponents.. would it not therefore be added to each of those rolls?
That would make my CP quadruple if not more so than normal.

-Ingenious

[Alan]

Hi Ingenius,

Well, your argument seems a question of degree rather than logical sequence.  Jake has had a lot more playtest than I have, so to date I have trusted his recommendation.

I do admit that I found Ralph's argument persuasive: that SAs can make the tactics of maneuver almost irrelevant.  So one reason I see to moderate the use is if I want to emphasize maneuvers.  

Ultimately, I don't think I'll be able to reason out which is best.  I'd like more time to play test the add to CP option before I decide for myself.

How SAs are applied can be seen as a "dial" that players can choose a setting for.  A nice addition to TROS 2nd ed would be a section discussing the play flavor of each setting.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Ralph, to clarify: I think Jake's right, I think his advice matches the textual rules, and I think it's a wonderful way to play. I think it's the heart of the whole game.

More generally, I think people are mixing up two things:

1) Whether an SA is applied separately to two rolls, when the two rolls represent the splitting of a dice pool in an exchange (I'm using the term for both combat and sorcery, which I trust isn't confusing).

2) Whether an SA applies to an aging resistance roll, and why.

The first answer is surprising ("yes"), but not a problem in play. It simply doubles the influential power of SAs on play in both combat and sorcery. It is my first point when explaining why the TROS system facilitates Narrativist rather than Simulationist play. And yes, it's in the rules - SAs apply to rolls, not pools.

However, that first answer has nothing to do with the second issue, or by extension, to the general concern that you can apply SAs willy-nilly to anything you feel like.

I think that's an unfounded fear, based on serious GNS issues. And bluntly, TROS has a way of attracting a lot of different Creative Agendas to the table at once, and it's poster child for why this is not a positive phenomenon.

From a Narrativist viewpoint, SAs are applied and withheld insofar as they contribute thematic impact into a situation. That's it. Nothing more, no "why would it ..." or anything else. If the aging-resistance roll is part of a spell that saves the life of your child, and "Driven: my child shall be king!" is your SA, then wham, it applies. (Again, once for casting, once for resisting.)

But if the spell is just about whacking that mercenary captain because some guy paid you to, and no SA seems to apply, then you get neither.

There's a lot of possible diversity in how that "thematic impact" is managed, and by whom. You might get a GM who exercises quite strong control over this feature, and a bunch of players who are happy with that (much like Humanity rolls in Sorcerer). Or you might get a bunch of players who take great delight in withholding as well as using the characters' SAs, with the GM more-or-less observing. But given a Narrativist context, there need be no controversy about this.

But as soon as you get fears of Gamism dice-mongering going, and as soon as you get "dice pools equal in-game energy" Simulationist thinking going, and as soon as you get all manner of other GNS-based misunderstandings and whoa-wait what-if debates ... then you have Incoherent and ultimately dysfunctional play.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

The first answer is surprising ("yes"), but not a problem in play. It simply doubles the influential power of SAs on play in both combat and sorcery. It is my first point when explaining why the TROS system facilitates Narrativist rather than Simulationist play. And yes, it's in the rules - SAs apply to rolls, not pools.

Ahhh, now I understand why you keep recommending play without even worrying about the combat maneuvers and look at me quizically when I say that the maneuvers are hugely important to the depth of TROS combat.

If you're adding 10-15 dice to both exchanges of a combat round, then yes...maneuvers become pretty pointless.  


Gotta disagree with you big time on it though.  Doubling the influencial power of the SA is not a good thing nor does it support Narrativism better.  In fact, I'm about to argue that it damages Narrativism as much as it damages simulationism.

I don't think it has to do with fears of gamist dice mongering either.

First, why its a bad thing.  I think its very much, in GNS terms, an Exploration of System issue, and therefor independent of CA preference.  Its not an issue of CA clash (although I do agree with you that TROS is vulnerable to that).

TROS has  beautiful combat system that is powerful, exciting fun, and models man on man fighting better than pretty much any other system.  That was a primary design goal of the game and it succeeded in spades.  Its also a primary selling point of the game.

Throwing 10-15 SA dice on each exchange of combat pretty much, for the reasons I outlined above, destroys the beauty of that system.  So for those for whom exploring that system is part of the attraction of play...I think its a pretty horrible idea.

You completely render large portions of the system moot, to the point of "why bother even having a system, just make every roll with SAs".  That may well make for a really entertaining game, but its not part of the design goals of TROS.  And while I may be guilty of a little hyperbole there...its not much of one.  

So this isn't a sim thing, or a gamist thing, or a narrativist thing.  Its an Exploration thing.  Exploration of System to be precise.  And regardless of your CA, TROS is very much a very Exploration of System oriented game.


Secondly, I also don't think it supports the narrativist premise of TROS very well either.  In fact, I think it detracts from the central premise of the game.   TROS is all about chosing between hard choices.  Dumping that much raw power into a combat situation removes much of the consequence of choice.

If my opponent has 15 dice and I have 12, but I get 7 more from SAs...I have a 4 dice advantage if added to the CP.  4 dice is solid but not overwhelming.  I still will have to weigh whether or not I want to risk my life fighting this guy.  And on a micro scale, each maneuver choice has the potential to have consequences.  I could still lose.

If on the other hand I get to add 7 dice to each roll, I have an 11 die advantage.  An 11 die advantage is pretty much insurmountable.  There is no longer any risk.  I don't have to weigh the value of my life against the desire to kill my opponent...because there is no risk to my life.  I say I want him dead...poof, one red die later, he's dead (likely with a level 6+ wound).  I don't have to worry about maneuvers, or what maneuvers he might try.  I'm pretty much unbeatable for that combat.

Sure there are still consequences for the after effects of having killed him.  But you'd have those anyway.  

So I gotta disagree with you on this one.  Adding them to both exchanges is bad for the game, and bad for narrativist goals within the game too, IMO.

[jburneko]

Ralph,

I've been following this conversation with some interest.  I'm wondering if you've taken into account that the opponent may have Spiritual Attributes of his own firing?  I don't think SAs are a PC only thing.

So sure, those two or three guards blocking your way to the dungeon where your true love is being kept prisoner are so much mince meat but when her captor, who wants her for his own bride shows up... well now things get interesting.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

I dunno. Isn't ten to fifteen dice a little rare? Isn't it typically more like 5?

Basically, what this says is that if you're fighting for something that you care about, then you can worry a lot less - you've already made the decision. But if you make a hard decision to get into a fight where you have few SAs, then you'll have many harder tactical decisions to make. The game teaches you to fight for what you care for thereby. Twice as hard with Ron's method.

I personally think it works fine either way.

Mike

[Valamir]

Good question.  

There will be 4 effects really.

First: If you assume the same number of SA dice being added to both sides, then all you are doing is reducing the standard deviation of the possible results.  The total number of successes are more likely to be close to the expected number and less likely to be extremely good or bad.

Second:  You alter the balance among the maneuvers.  Maneuver costs become much less important, the bonus and penalty to due to stance becomes less important.  Counters become even more effective because the cost is less (as a proportion of total CP) and your opponent will always have a fair number of dice to win victories from.  Stop Shorts become less effective in some ways because lost dice are less dangerous and more effective in others (because you have more dice to burn on paying for TN).  Etc.

Third:  Wound effects will be interesting.  Because ultimately the wounds are less damageing.  Losing 5 dice to shock is not as bad when you have 21 dice as when you only have 14.  But then on the other hand, with a lower standard deviation you are less likely to be able to rely on a lucky roll to over come being down dice on you opponent.

Fourth: However the most damaging effect is if the combatants have different TN weapons.  Adding the same number of dice to both sides will help the side with the lower TN weapon most.  Adding the same number of dice to both sides once (to the CP) is dangerous.  Adding the same number of dice twice (to each roll) is potentially overwhelming if the number of dice is large.

Consider:  I have 14 dice and a TN of 6 you have 14 dice and a TN of 7.  I expect 7 successes, you expect 5.4.   Thats 1.6 advantage to me you have to figure out how to overcome tactically.  Now add 7 dice to each of us.

I have 21 dice expecting 10.5 successes you have 21 expecting 8.4 successes.   I now have a 2.1 advantage.  Now add 7 dice to each roll (14 dice total).

I have 28 dice expecting 14 successes, you have 28 dice expecting 11.2.  That's now a 2.8 advantage.  


So by adding more dice we have 2 reinforcing effects:  first the margin of extra successes you'll need against me has increased (meaning you'll need to get luckier in order to win); while simultaneous rolling more dice means reducing the standard deviation meaning less of a chance of being able to get those extra successes through luck.

This really skews the advantage of 6ATN/DTN weapons over the others.


Now, ok, these effects don't seem that bad.  Except that to me they're entirely unnecessary.  There's nothing to be gained by going this route except allowing really passionate farm boys wipe the floor with trained knights.  

The difference between a weak fighter of 6 CP and a strong fighter of 14 CP is only 8 dice.  If you're going to start routinely adding 8 dice to the fight (a single SA of 4) or even 20 dice to the fight (2 SAs of 5)...then you've completely erased the difference between a weak fighter and a strong fighter.

Which means you've undermined the whole reason for selecting Proficiencies as a priority...everything.   You've rendered BladeSlinging a waste of time as any peon who hates them enough can kick their butt.

You really might as well scrap the entire system and just have an SA roll off at that point (yes again, I'm dropping a little hyperbole...but only a little)

[Edited for typos]

[Lance D. Allen]

I can see the points made by Ron, but I really think that Ralph has the right of things, at least from my view of the game. SAs are a primary factor in the game, but they shouldn't be allowed to overwhelm every other part of the game when they're firing. Ron's claims has TRoS a narrativist game disguised as a simulationist game, but I'm much more of the opinion that it's a successful blend of both. Allowing either side to become dominant to the point that the other side is irrelevant lessens the overall impact.

[Valamir]

1 last thing I forgot to add.

It completely changes the exchange rate on using SAs to buy up proficiencies.  

By reducing the importance of CP dice from proficiencies and increasing the importance of CP dice from SAs, you're basically motivating players to horde SAs so they can keep them up at level 4 and 5.  

Since changing SAs is a key feature of the game, the requirement to spend them down to 0 means that inorder to do so you have to give up twice as much effectiveness as you would the other way.  This basically motivates players to not change SAs because it would be too great of an effectiveness hit.

I really believe this throws a wrench into the whole works.

[Ingenious]

It appears that at least the three of us are on the same wavelength.
Logically, as is globally agreed I beleive.. SA's are added to any type of roll they apply to..whether that be a skill check, an aging roll, etc..

So, case in point.. those rolls are not affected by the per roll of per CP method. Only the pools are. Every roll other than combat/sorcery using the per roll method stays at the current number of dice applicable from SA's. In the per roll method for combat/sorcery/missile pool however.. every one of those would be doubled using the per roll method. That's where sorcery and combat essentially become one in the same mechanic.. you're splitting your pool anyways...both get their pool dice from derived attributes and in some form.. skill/training. And under the proviso of the per roll method.. both of the above are insignificant. Skill matters not, and neither does natural talent when using the per roll method with either the CP or SP. SA's would seriously dwarf and undermine the whole entire damned concept of manouvers, attributes and proficiencies. Ralph stated that it would undermine the proficiency thing.. it would also undermine anyone who chose attributes as their A proficiency. Why? Because you'd better have attributes at A if your sorceror wants a hefty sorcery pool... but alas, it is all tossed in the shitter when using the per roll method. It's meaningless in that situation to have either prof's or attributes at A. (Also if your character wants a high reflex.)

As SA's apply to the missile pool, I don't see how they really can be since the MP is made from the comination of Aim, and proficiency...and that it can never go higher than the total missile pool. So that point is nixed already..

These things and more make me say this: If we did it with the per roll method that Ron and (apparently sometimes Jake) does.. I would be seriously disinterested in playing TROS.

Regarding the use of SA's by major NPC's... I say that's a good idea and one we have used before. However, SA's for every NPC? Nope. No way Jose.

Saturating someone's dice pool with double the amount of SA's due to the fact that said pool is split in some form or fashion.. seems to me like someone wanting to exploit that very same thing.. and make super-characters out of supposedly average people.. or slightly above average people. Having someone who is a pathetic little peon suddenly get some dice from SA's.. and the unarmored... slightly armed peasant(even with a freaking piece of wood as a weapon mind you)..can punch through knight's armor.. Now Ron and you crazed loons whom like and use the per roll method in combat, does THAT seem logical? Does it even seem within the realm of possibility?

I'd like to see someone attempt to skewer me with a singapore cane.. while I was wearing plate.. and while they were hating my guts.. I had kidnapped their significant other, and any other real-world SA you can think of.. do you even think for one moment that I'd be under ANY risk of danger from anyone at all on this planet in that situation? If you do, seek help.

If TROS is supposedly 'realistic', the per roll method in combat negates that.
-Ingenious