New review at RPG.net

[Malechi]

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10177.phtml

errrr ... yeah....
go check it out..

*ahem*

[Salamander]

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10177.phtml

errrr ... yeah....
go check it out..

*ahem*

Meh. So they don't like it. Like we have been saying for awhile around here, TRoS isn't for everybody. I find they system rather refreshing and have enjoyed it since the first time I cracked the cover. Since our first game, four of us have bought the book... in a group that NEVER buys more than two books for a campaign. [sarcasm]So it must be a pretty crappy game.[/sarcasm]

And judging from how quickly the thing has been selling and all the effort Jake and Brian are putting into TFoB, I am pretty sure it is selling well.

[bottleneck]

If he wants to play Aragorn, well, make a character with all A-priorities. Then the combat system won't be as deadly either (unless of course he acts stupid).

What he really wanted was to play [that other game], just using tROS rules...

[Malechi]

Yeah.. it seems to me however that the same things crop up in these reviews all the time:

a) combat is TOO deadly
b) SAs are poorly explained
c) SAs are a crutch for those unable to roleplay their way out of a wet character sheet
d) Slaves are über combat munchies (or "I don't get the character priority system and the idea that choice matters and forget that money and social position determines what weapons I can carry")
e) people seem to ignore the part of the book where it clearly states how to run a combat with multiple opponents
f) they fear their group is going to powergame/munchkinise the game so it'd be unplayable to their particular group
g) Sorcery is all at once too powerful yet ultimately sorcerers are crippled by the ageing system...that one still makes me laugh.

I find it interesting that people seem to have an almost identical set of problems with the game time and time again.  Perhaps its an issue of expectations or preconceptions not being met.  Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste/preference.  Perhaps its just fascimile reviews.   I still find it curious that these people can "logically" argue their points and still say they've read the book and playtested the game.  

Interesting, though possibly pointless to ponder too much..

Jason K.

[Caz]

Hehe has anyone that "gets it" ever done a review?  They always sound like sirens...
     Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[MrGeneHa]

Lots of games have deadly combat systems.  At low levels, even DnD.

But they also have quick healing (spells, tech, etc) so you don't have to wait to heal.  If 'deadly' combat is someone's problem with TRoS, just add a miraculous healer to the group.  POOF you're healed.

Gene

[tauman]

Actually, you're right. If you want to play high-fantasy, just give a few magic-items to your players. If you actually modelled it right, you could even add a stormbringer to the game and have a PC mow down combatants a-la the books. Just power down the sorcery rules and presto, you've got a Melnibone campaign. Just ond't forget that chaos lords can swallow you in two gulps, weapon, armor, and all ;)

Actually, if you think about it, many of the standard magic items from D&D would put a standard character head and heel above the average fighting denizen of the world:

1. Ring of Regeneration (wow is this powerful in TROS).
2. Any wand
3. Any special magic sword: +x defender, vorpal sword(!), dancing sword, nine lives stealer, etc.
4. Ring of Invisibility
5. Magic Armor (D&D magic armor has reduced encumberance)
6. Anything of giant strength...

Okay, so it's not to my taste, but whining about not being able to play high fantasy is silly...

tauman

Lots of games have deadly combat systems.  At low levels, even DnD.

But they also have quick healing (spells, tech, etc) so you don't have to wait to heal.  If 'deadly' combat is someone's problem with TRoS, just add a miraculous healer to the group.  POOF you're healed.

Gene

[Eamon]

a) combat is TOO deadly.

A valid complaint to those who like the idea of hit points or high soak-to-damage ratios.

b) SAs are poorly explained
c) SAs are a crutch for those unable to roleplay their way out of a wet character sheet

I'm with you here.

d) Slaves are über combat munchies (or "I don't get the character priority system and the idea that choice matters and forget that money and social position determines what weapons I can carry")

Actually, this is something I don't like about TROS and many other games.  Throwing in the accuracy issue, generally slaves have been poorly fed and poorly trained throughout history.  They simply don't get access to the high protein diets of the nobility, and rarely have the amount of time to spend on practicing how to fight or read.  I tend to call this issue the sad human rights condition caused by the Gaming Oppression of Nobility, in that nobles lose out on attributes and skills due to their rank.

e) people seem to ignore the part of the book where it clearly states how to run a combat with multiple opponents

While the text may be relatively clear, I certainly needed the help of this forum to find that part of the book.  

f) they fear their group is going to powergame/munchkinise the game so it'd be unplayable to their particular group

Heh heh.  I have two lawyers in my gaming group.  Every game system is a fight to keep two otherwise good roleplayers from... rollplaying.  Fortunately, I'm a tyrant as a GM about that sort of thing.

g) Sorcery is all at once too powerful yet ultimately sorcerers are crippled by the ageing system...that one still makes me laugh.

Ya.  That one makes me laugh too.

I find it interesting that people seem to have an almost identical set of problems with the game time and time again.  Perhaps its an issue of expectations or preconceptions not being met.  Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste/preference.  Perhaps its just fascimile reviews.

I go with facsimile reviews.  This review looks to have lifted sentences from someone else's effort.  Bleah.  If you are going to write a negative review, at least have the grace not to copy someone elses blather.  You aren't allowed to do it in a positive review, so why a negative review?

[Lance D. Allen]

a) combat is TOO deadly
b) SAs are poorly explained
c) SAs are a crutch for those unable to roleplay their way out of a wet character sheet
d) Slaves are über combat munchies (or "I don't get the character priority system and the idea that choice matters and forget that money and social position determines what weapons I can carry")
e) people seem to ignore the part of the book where it clearly states how to run a combat with multiple opponents
f) they fear their group is going to powergame/munchkinise the game so it'd be unplayable to their particular group
g) Sorcery is all at once too powerful yet ultimately sorcerers are crippled by the ageing system...that one still makes me laugh.

a. Combat is too deadly for those who prefer less-deadly combat.
b. SAs don't get nearly the emphasis that they should in the text. I personally feel that choosing SAs should be the second thing you do in chargen; immediately after concept and philosophy.
c. Disagree. Entirely. A crutch for the GM to introduce interesting content, perhaps.. but not for the players.
d. Eh.. true. But the game doesn't attempt realism in chargen. It attempts to make you make choices.
e. Multiple opponent combat is confusing. The book could do with a lot more explanation here. Just follow the URL in the book, find this place, and you're fine, though.
f. If your group is a bunch of munchkins, you've got group issues, not game issues. Don't confuse them.
g. Ridiculous. You can't have it both ways.

All in all, it boils down to pure preference. Since finding the Forge, I can't even bring myself to bash D&D anymore. It's not bad... it just fails to meet my preferences. If you don't like TRoS, go find something you do. Attempting to turn other people off by negatively spun reviews is childish, though.

[Stephen]

Most of the review, I agree, was a study in missing the point.

I did find one element of it interesting, though: the idea that the sheer deadliness of combat -- originally meant to discourage characters from engaging in fights casually -- winds up scaring players away from fighting at all, even when they should, and turns it into an unenjoyable exercise in nitpicky planning when you do.

I remember expressing similar concerns about the sorcery system at one point, noting that while all the flavour text of sorcery emphasized how powerful it was, the mechanics threatened to turn sorcerers, in play, into CTN-minmaxers desperately waiting for SA-activating situations rather than the gods-on-earth they were described as.

I think this description too misses the point, but that contradiction is there in both combat and sorcery -- the carrot is an amazing level of in-game "punch" to those proficient at them, but the stick is a level of unforgiveness for even your first mistake (crippling wounds for fighters, youth lost beyond recall for sorcerers) that maintaining enthusiasm through the learning curve can be more difficult than many gamers are used to.

[bergh]

I did buy TRoS for its battle system, and i like it, actually the only thing i don't like is the character generation system. but we somehow fixed it in a boring way.

3 ways to make a character with the prioritys:
CCCDDD
BCCDDE
BBCDEE

then there are no slaves or super nobles with bad stats, no characters with only one skill packet....anyway im thinking on doing a whole new system to make characters.

[Richard_Strey]

Hi all.

Since I've had a hard day and not eaten much yet, I'll refrain from being diplomatic and come to the point. Most of the reviewers who post a "low score" seem to me like they just started roleplaying and behave like helpless children. "The game doesn't work out of the box the way I want it to. Mom, make it go away. Waaaah!". :(

Shouldn't all RPG material be regarded as just that? Source material that allows a group -needing a competent GM and responsible players in interaction- to weave their very own gaming experience? If parts of the game don't suit you, change them. If you don't like a rule, leave it out. Is there info (like armor coverage) "missing"? Go search the web, or something. RPGs aren't videogames. You actually have to *make them work*. Jake had to carefully judge what to put into the book. Lots of stuff could have gotten coverage, but didn't. Those were tough choices, but I think he made a decent job of it.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone should be a master of improvisation and tuning game systems. I'm not saying that you should have to do your own research to play an RPG. But if you carefully avoid thinking on your own initiative and after years of "gaming experience" still ignore the Golden Rule, then -in my humble opinion- you deserve to fall on your nose.

p.s.: If you don't like the character creation system as it stands, you may want to have a look at the Shadowrun Compendium (either 2nd or 3rd Ed.) and let the point-based system inspire you. That should provide for a more granular character creation.

[montag]

what I found interesting was the observation that combat skill is in the hand of the players. I hadn't thought of that before and I can see how it is a severe limitation for some groups:
Say, you got a player who either isn't particularly gifted or never gets rules or never can be bothered to read or remember them. These people exist, they game and overall I've found them to be as fun to game with as anyone else.
However in TROS I run into a problem, since I can't hand them the usual combat monster which they otherwise often get to play, since the character simply won't be that combat monster without the player skill to back it up.
This of course resembles the general problem with social skills, where a certain amount of resolution through drama (role-play) is the norm and which often means that people with lower social or argumentative skills have difficulties playing characters with high skill levels in these and consequently often don't. The specialist for social stuff is however usually just one position in a party, so while uncomfortable, the situation is not a major problem (at least for most people AFAIK).

[NotOnYourLife]

This is going to get my butt chewed, but here goes anyway. I'm a regular here, but fearing repercussions to my normal login I created this second account (that I never intend to use again) so everybody "hates" this login instead of my normal one.

Other than the review's author's highly inappropriate attitude, a little close mindedness (no, only a little, not total), and his tendency to exaggerate some of the items (yes, only some), I really don't see his being that far off the target for a whole lot of things he wrote. Some things were indeed WAY off target, but I felt other issues hit absolute dead center. I know that people here who live and breath TRoS are taking his inapropriately toned attacks very personal and are blowing off the whole article based on his tone alone, but I felt some of his observations are pretty much "on the money" in many areas. So much so, in fact, that I would have hoped that the fanatic devotees and designers of TRoS would have taken the time to read through it and shrug off the highly inappropriate and insulting tone in order to consider the issues being presented, and then decide on content rather than tone on whether or not to give some serious consideration to those issues before just blowing them off as non-sense.

Don't misunderstand me here, I think TRoS is a fantastic system. I just found myself nodding in agreement to MANY of the issues presented in between periods of feeling outraged at the tone of the presentation.

'nuf said

[Stephen]

Don't misunderstand me here, I think TRoS is a fantastic system. I just found myself nodding in agreement to MANY of the issues presented in between periods of feeling outraged at the tone of the presentation.

Which issues were you noticing in particular?

While I admit to being a TRoS fanboy, most of the things the reviewer seemed to be complaining about struck me as along the lines of, "This chicken doesn't taste like beef!" -- i.e., holding up the game's admitted differences from other products as a negative by definition.  Is it a weakness that the game doesn't work like [insert X game here]?  Not if it was never intended to in the first place.

For myself I think there were basically only two major issues that came up, and you may or may not agree with me on the second:

1)  The implications and potential of SAs.  These things make the game what it is, and a revised edition should definitely have a much bigger section on their use, definition, potential and pitfalls.  (Making sure character SAs are compatible, or at least not contradictory, is a major tip for all players in this game.)

2)  The conflict between implied style and explicit mechanics, partly because the narrative elements of TROS assume the impact of SAs but the mechanics are written as a "default" without them.  Like I noted above in my comments on the sorcery section, the effect -- to someone not fully aware of how critical SAs are and how to bring them into play for best effect -- is to make the game's two most powerful methods of in-game influence (and the two typically resorted to most often, in other games) also the most dangerous to use, and thus, paradoxically, the least-often used.

I don't think of this second as an "issue" so much as simply a design philosophy difference demanding that characters (gasp) take risks in order to change the world.  What is an issue is that this difference may not be as clear as it could be, and if potential gamers are being put off by that, that might be something to think about.