New review at RPG.net

[Lance D. Allen]

Hello Not,

I don't know who you are, as intended.. but I feel a bit insulted, as a member of this community, that you think us so close-minded that you wish to hide your true opinions behind a mask.

(all you's hereafter are generic)

I agree with many of the negative points made about TRoS. The game is far from perfect. It's even farther from perfect if your preferences differ from those that it is designed to favor. If you like realistic, dangerous combat, with an element of player skill and risk-taking, TRoS is wonderful. If you like the ability to be rewarded for playing your character true to his goals and passions, then TRoS is wonderful.

If you get so attached to a character that you want no chance of losing them before you're ready for them to die, TRoS is not for you. If you prefer all characters to be balanced in power level at specific stages of advancement, then TRoS is not for you. Go play something else, and do so with my blessing, which I'm sure you appreciate. ::wryly::

As for writing and layout, I think Jake did a great job, overall. Many of the things he was slammed for I think were nice touches. The art is pretty decent, and the prose is human. Consider the fact that he did it mostly by himself, and it is his first product of this sort, and the accomplishment grows. Look at D&D3E.. How many years and iterations did it take to get to where it is today, and how many people worked on it? Some people STILL think it's crap.

That said, I think some things, as I mentioned above, needed a lot more explanation. SAs primarily, with terrain rolls, and various combat concerns following. But the lack of perfection does not make this a horrible game, and that is the flaw of most people who review TRoS on rpg.net, not all, but most.

The game isn't perfect, and it may be absolutely horrible for some people and some styles of play. But to take this personal bias and lack of understanding and rate the game badly is wrong, and anyone who does such will have their review curtly dismissed in it's entirety. Why? Because delivery is important. Objectivity is important. And frankly, there has never been a review that's made a decent point that hasn't already been discussed to DEATH here. Even Deacon Blues (something like that..), which was one of the best I've seen over there, failed to critique anything that we've missed.

Bottom-line: You can say the same old thing. You can dislike the game. You can rate it poorly.. But if you do not rate it fairly, objectively (or with allowance for your subjectivity) and give all particulars due honesty and detail, then your review is utterly and totally worthless, and worse because it has the potential to do added disservice to the game by turning off players who would otherwise be converts.

That's all I have to say about that.

[kenjib]

As for writing and layout, I think Jake did a great job, overall. Many of the things he was slammed for I think were nice touches. The art is pretty decent, and the prose is human. Consider the fact that he did it mostly by himself, and it is his first product of this sort, and the accomplishment grows. Look at D&D3E.. How many years and iterations did it take to get to where it is today, and how many people worked on it? Some people STILL think it's crap.

I agree.  Jake did a really fantastic job pulling this off as a one man show.  I'm always amazed at what people who have the balls and talent can just get out there and do and wish I could have the same determination to make my mark on the world as well.

Thanks for a great game, Jake!

[Turin]

I have been a player of Harn for years, and have recently taken an interest in TROS (which is saying something because I have not purchased a new RPG in about 5 years).

I do feel some of the comments in the review are valid, but overall from what I have seen I like a lot about TROS.  My experience is limited to the quick start rules and info I have been able to download.  But from what I have seen, I am interested enough to seriously consider purchasing TROS.

In regards to combat being deadly, the review seemed to be coming from the mindset of someone who counts their hit points to see if they have enough to charge the 10 archers who are threatening them!  

I love how TROS uses range - Most sytems make it only something that effects iniative, and counter this by giving longer weapons a high damage mod.  A dagger is as deadly as most thrusting weapons, it's disadvantage being it's length - you have to close with your opponent, and are at a severe disadvantage "to hit" until you do.  Some games represent this with no changes for the most part to hit, but making the dagger a little poker that does 1d4 damage.  

The "feel" of the combat system is great as well, giving you many options and making you feel as if you are in the combat, something unlike almost any other system.  Yes, you have to know the system to be skilled, but I actually like this idea - it's less bragging about your 20th level character and more what you can actually accomplish in a fight.

But I dohave some dislikes of the system that mirror to some extent the review:

1.  Combat is to deadly - Even though I do not like hit point systems, TROS combat is a bit too deadly.  Realistic yes, but to deadly for playability if you wish your characters to survive.  Harn's system has bleeding, instant kills, and death through infection and shock as well.  But with competent healers, you can live through many battles (although combat is still deadly and to be avoided).  I've thought Harn combat should be a bit more deadly, but TROS goes to far in that direction IMO.

2.  SA's - I like how these address motivation.  It also provides a good way to represent types such as Tolklien High elves IMO.  A special SA like "the light in their eyes from Aman" could be represent this well with a little work.  Kind of like when Finrod "draws forth his power", bursts his bonds and kills a werewolf barehanded, but is mortally wounded himself.  Although I would like to see developemnt be a combination of training and combat experience with devopement slowing (and maxing out short of superhuman capabilities) and SA's.

3.  1/2 steps for strength, weapon damage, and the toughness thing changed - with a strength of 7 compared to the norm of 4, a character does a minimum of a 4 level wound if they strike unarmoured flesh.  Any positives to their weapon damage (i.e. +1 for an arming sword slashing) makes this even higher.  I would prefer strength to have an impact on damage, but not nearly as high or as much.  Same goes for toughness.  And with this in place for weapon damage, that +3 slashing weapon can never inflict a minor wound.

4.  Combat with large and/or non-humanoid creatures - Most games, TROS included have you "fence" with an enraged bear.  I have not read the Beasts and Men supplement, but I would think many combat techniques would not work in this situation.  The combat dice situation also does not work as well here.  The Bear would barge through any block or parry attempt and knock you down.  The only valid options I think would be an evasive attack, a full dodge, or a counterstrike, in which case you need to hope your counterstrike severely wounds the animal before it kills you.  I also don't like the fact that with enough of a combat pool, you are pretty well gauranteed being able to evade the beast.  Most sytems don't do this well however.  The only thing is that the more absract the system, the less noticeable this problem is.  Even Harn does not do this real well, I've had to concoct a set of house rules to handle this better.

With all that said, I still like a lot what I have seen so far!

[Edge]

The main issue that i notice people have with TROS is that combat is to deadly.
I actually totally disagree.
Combat is only as deadly as you make it.
In a game i am running at the moment 2 of the characters are combat orientated, one is fairly average at combat while the other is pretty good.

Both of them have managed to avoid being killed so far.  This is a combination of knowing when to flee from combat (while fighting some goblins, and winning mind you they were charged by a giant, needless to say they fled as fast as they're little legs could carry them), what maneovres to use against which opponents and to know when not to pick a fight.  When it comes to picking a fight they make sure it is on their terms not their opponents.

SA's have played another big part in keeping characters alive. As a normal person would they only pick fights which are tied in to their beliefs. As a result of this they quite frequently have a couple extra dice (thanks to SA's) to play with

[Turin]

Edge Wrote:

The main issue that i notice people have with TROS is that combat is to deadly.
I actually totally disagree.
Combat is only as deadly as you make it.
In a game i am running at the moment 2 of the characters are combat orientated, one is fairly average at combat while the other is pretty good

The issue is that losing in combat is too dangerous.  Yes, you can hand pick opponents so that the PC's have an advantage in CP's, including the use of SA's.  If they believe to have an advantage, they can fight.  If they have a strong disadvantage, they run.  But combat where they are at a slight disadvantage or equally matched (including SA's) is where it is deadly.  It is hard to survive a combat which you do not win, and that is realistic to a point, but also D20 ish to a point.  If you take on to strong of opponents, you are likely dead.  I do like where you can lose a combat, but not have to many fatalities, and while not in top shape, you can recover over a period of time.

While the death ratio may be fairly realistic in TROS, the way you must GM to keep most of the group alive is unrealistic, as you must tailor your opponents to the strength of the group and their SA's.  In a way this is similar to the D&D dungeon adventures which are tailored to the level  of the group.

I prefer having a group beaten up pretty well, an occaisonal death, but many of the party survives.  This can spur additional adventures as a group will try to break out of captivity if they are defeated and captured.

[dysjunct]

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.

The complaint here comes from, I think, people looking at the chargen system as a way of generating an infinite amount of characters to populate the world with.  And if this view were true, then I'd agree with this criticism of TROS's chargen system.  But it's not Demographics: The Bell-Curving, it's a ruleset for generating PC heroes.

So no, slaves (in general) don't have higher attributes than nobles (in general).  But PC slaves have higher attributes than PC nobles.  I don't have a problem with this.

[Valamir]

The issue is that losing in combat is too dangerous.

Turin, I actually understand fully where you're coming from with this.  But my actual experience, both in real play and on zillions of combat sim bouts doesn't really support this worry.

VERY VERY few engagements I've been in wound up with the player WHAM dead or maimed immediately and he never saw it coming.  Now granted, in D&D that becomes even less (to zero typically with characters of even modest level) but it just isn't true that player characters who lose end up dead.

No, what usually kills player characters, is player pride.

The game most often gives plenty of advanced warning.  It literally screams "hey meat head...its time for you to surrender now".

Take a couple of exchanges, witness how many more dice your opponent has than you...start to think about how to disengage and run, or turtle and wait for help.

Suffered a blow that costing dice loss from pain...what is it a Level 2 to the head.  Level 3 to the thigh...Pain is natures way of telling you its time to quit before you hurt yourself.  It serves the same role in TROS...but players often ignore it.

Right then at that point, you have the option to start to run.  To surrender, to fall down and beg for mercy.

Most players can't do that because they have too much pride.  Their egos are writing checks that their PC's bodies can't cash.  Then they get upset and say "combat is too deadly".

No...it isn't.  At least not all that often.  What it is is a system that punishes players from having too much pride and not being willing to back down and let their character be defeated without dieing.

And truthfully...isn't that what the Riddle is all about.  "What is worth dieing for?"  

Is your pride as a player at refusing to allow your character to be defeated by some guardsman worth your character dieing for?

TROS isn't too deadly really.  But it does fully expect you as the player to be willing to answer that question.  And if your answer is "yes, I'll die before I surrender"...then that's your choice, and TROS will hold you to it.

But outright death and dismemberment with absolutely no chance to save yourself...its rare.  It does happen more frequently if you go naked up against a dopplehander...but that's hardly the system's fault.

[montag]

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")

SNIP
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.

The complaint here comes from, I think, people looking at the chargen system as a way of generating an infinite amount of characters to populate the world with.  And if this view were true, then I'd agree with this criticism of TROS's chargen system.  But it's not Demographics: The Bell-Curving, it's a ruleset for generating PC heroes.

Frankly, I don't find this argument particularly convincing. I mean, there has to be a way to distinguish between a bad design idea and a "great idea that requires the player to make a decision right there". Otherwise any restriction on player choice that (a) is unnecessary and (b) has "unrealistic" consequences can be justified as "forcing the player to yadayada". By that same reasoning, games like Shadowrun or V:tM, which reward min-maxing during character generation, are perfectly allright, since the system is asking the player "are you willing to pay the price for not being a specialist?".
Which IMHO is just plain BS, since that question is wholly irrelevant to the game, it's just a poor design choice because it punishes certain character concepts for no particular reason. And with TROS, IMHO it's the same. What is important to the character and what addresses the Riddle comes through SAs, not through being a noble or a slave. Sure, their respective SAs and stories are going to be different because they operate on different social levels, but if and when the character puts his or her life on the line, their social status is about the most irrelevant thing imaginable.
To summarise: The forced choice in character generation would make sense, if "what are you willing to die for/sacrifice your character for" were in any sense related to the question whether you character concept is a noble or a slave. IMHO it isn't, but if anyone want to argue that point, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.


The "you're creating PCs not a random population sample" argument seems equally nonsensical to me. One possible counter is "another sad case of TROS Sim-Narr conflict, due to mixed priorities in various parts of the game", essentially saying that Sim-expectations are perfectly reasonable given other aspects of the game, so it's hardly anyone's fault to expect consistency here.
Another possible counter would be that by that reasoning any arbitrary favouring of certain choices is justified, after all, they're PCs. Heck, given that mindset it would be o.k. to force the player to play a crippled character if he wants him to be a noble. (Which, some might say, TROS is already doing ;) Now, if there is a particular point to that choice (see above) such a favouring may make sense. Otherwise, it's poor design.

[Merritt Baggett]

Ok, I think the criticism against the chargen namely the Noble vs Slave thing has been covered in other threads: player choices, use of insight points, etc.

However, in the interest of laying to rest the whole "Oh my god, my (starting) noble character is crippled, deaf, mute with one good eye" myth, I went ahead and put together a noble character.  Two things to note though, 1 its late here, and 2 I don't have tons of practical (read in game) experience with the game, but I view this as hey, if I can throw a decent noble character together, so can you.  (Also note, crippled nobles can be pretty awesome as character concepts in their own right, witness Tyrion Lannister of George R. R. Martin's series).

Also note that since we're talking about just the mechanics, we're leaving out all the great narrative bits that the game really encourages in your character development.

Noble - chargen priorities -> Race F (human), Social Class A (landed nobility), Attributes B (43), Skills D (8/8), Prof. C (6), Gifts and Flaws E (1 major flaw, 1 minor gift)

Ok, what have we got here?  Race is pretty straight forward.  If I wanted to min/max I prolly could have taken a B in Social Class and bumped something else up, but you know what?  Being able to afford a complete set of "fine" arms and armor, as well as innumerable social benefits is pretty significant.  Now that I think about it, if we're min/maxing sort of, why don't I use my influence and cash to get some vassals to help me go out and oppress those slaves! (just kidding).  Anyhow, my attributes (not even considering nationality) are going to be all 4s with a couple of stats above 4.  That is to say, by the system's defination mostly average stats with a few above average stats.  With skills at 8/8, I took the knight and soldier skill packets, and then spread my MA bonus points around so that all my skills are pretty much 7 with one skill left at 8.  With 6 proficiency points I'll put them all into Sword and Shield for a pretty classic weapon setup with decent defaults if I want to wield something different.  Finally, I'll take Phobia: Cats (what the hell, its late) as my major flaw, and minor Beauty of Legend as my minor gift.

So, all in all, I'm human with slightly above average stats, a decent though hardly world shattering combat pool, averagish skills, and while I may not be a supermodel, I look pretty damn good, especially in my shiny, best-that-money-can-buy armor.  And I hate cats.

Now, I'm no insane combat monster, but I'm hardly a cripple either.  With the chargen process, I'm pretty much saying, "Hey, Attributes are the 2nd most important thing to me about this character" which is again reflected by my attributes being slightly above average which is a far cry from the malnorished nobles we've been lead to believe are running the show.  All that, plus again, note my character is pretty damn good looking, thank you much.

I dare some starting character slave to penetrate my "fine-quality" armor with... his bare hands?  His improvised chains and manacles?  Ha!  You know what? I'm thinking I should have taken the overconfidence flaw instead of phobia!

Seriously tho, if you're a slave, you're prolly branded for live.  While I'm not saying a slave can't rise above his station, its most likely far easier for me to improve my skills and prof.   Now, if you want your slave character to be the next Spartacus or Maximus, etc.  That's cool too.  I'm just saying that starting nobles aren't that shabby.

Hail to the King, baby!

[Ingenious]

You hit that right on the nose man.
My noble is setup much like yours, except that I've used insight so as far as a 'starting character' goes.. using mine for a comparison is invalid.

Yes, there are several manifestations of the arrangement of priorities for nobles.. mostly being that you can switch a few around and come up with a totally different kind of noble.

Mine for instance is social priority B..
He's got attributes at A, etc etc.
You could make it attributes at A, social at B, prof's at C, skills D, gifts/flaws E, and race F..
or if you wanted a bit more knowledge in the combat aspect.. switch the above C and A... making you have 8 prof's in one weapon vs 6.. giving you 2 more CP.. unless due to the drop in attribute points to spend your reflex takes a drop. Or you could be very skilled and have skills as A... etc.

In either case the main idea of a starting character is that you can't have you cake and eat it too. I can however via the use of insight points..
If you want a higher priority in something, you must sacrifice something else for it.

Let's say you have an average character with skills at C, D, or E. Your skills can be lowered over time via practice.. so perhaps you can write those poor skill ratings off as the character being young, inexperienced..and slightly trained...etc. Perhaps he was more concerned as a kid learning swordsmanship than riding a horse.. or whatnot. Perhaps vice-versa.. in the case that skills are A or B.. and prof's are lower.

Just look at the big picture and it's easy to find an explanation for everything in the character generation process. At least it is for me.

-Ingenious

[NotOnYourLife]

First of all, let me extend heart-felt appologies to Wolfen and any others who felt insulted by my choice to remain anonymous. Before I go further, please let me explain the motivation a bit so as to (hopefully) reduce the feelings of insult. Please understand I chose to remain anonymous in this post as a result of MY inadequacies and personal baggage...not as a comment on the open mindedness on the TRoS community in this forum. I am a person of extreme low self esteam who is ALWAYS afraid to the tenth degree that others will degrade and belittle his every idea and then demean him and treat him as a child forevermore in every possible way (even though my general IQ is fairly well into the ridiculous range, making the above delusion even more absurd, the intellect still can't overcome this emotional disability that at least I do recognize that I do have). Even though I know at a base level that the participants in this forum would not do that to me, my psychosis is STILL so overpowering that I feel the need to unnecessarily protect myself. So again, my appologies for any insult taken as no insult was intended at any level.

Now on to issues, and replies to things I've read thus far.

First of all, Kenjib said:

I agree. Jake did a really fantastic job pulling this off as a one man show.

I couldn't agree more. In fact I think he did a really fantastic job pulling this off even compared to systems having whole teams of developers, let alone one man shows.

Malechi had several comments indicating confusion or disbelief of where these reviewers were getting their ideas from, and then turned around and basically summed it up (I think) by saying:

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.

which I think pretty much hit the nail on the head as to explaining it. So as I run through my thoughts on this I'll try to put in a word or two about this where applicable.

Now on to the actual things I found myself nodding to in the article (the actual point of the initial post). I'll try to keep this as short as possible as this is already a ridiculously long post. Aw, who am I kidding? I'm wordy and there's a ton to say, so this is going to be ridiculously long, so appologies for that and I'll just get to it:

The reviewer commented on the possibility of contradictory SA's between players. Ok, no suprise there to anyone. I've seen discussions here already that address that issue and express that the Seneschal needs to step in to make sure that isn't allowed, and that the group needs to be aware they need to cooperate and choose SA's that are not incompatible between players. He also said his group did that and did not experience the problem. So he too recognized it, just like people here did, but didn't actually encounter the problem in playing because his group took the high road and did cooperate in SA design. So let's call it a non-issue because he resolved it exactly as discussions here in the forum indicated he should, but let's also agree that it is a valid observation.

The reviewer also commented that there was insufficient explanation of SA's, how to use them, when to use them, etc,.... This also has been echoed here in multiple threads, including this one, so let's agree that this too is a valid observation.

The reviewer implied there should be some "generic" SA's that apply to all characters as they are inately common to all humans. It sounds like self-preservation, fear, desire to protect close friends, adrenaline surges in times of danger, and many other such concepts are probably what he is talking about. That's not really a issue with the system itself per-se (even though he presents it as such), but it is an interesting observation worth mentioning as there is some logic sense to it.

The reviewer commented that he actually loved the concept of SA's, implying they are a good thing. That hopefully shouldn't be too hard to agree with as well.

The reviewer liked the dice mechanism used. I think most people here agree whole-heartedly with that, so no further comment needed. His only beef on that issue seems to be the concept that "everything isn't done the same way". Let's call that a preference problem. Yes, it would reduce learning curve if the dicing system, skill system, combat system, etc,....was exactly the same for all aspects of the system, but that's really a preference thing in my mind, so that "problem" I kind of dismissed.

The reviewer commented on the lethality of the system in combat, and basically said that combat should be avoided unconditionally as the likelihood of death or permanent injury is too great to risk. That shouldn't come as a shock to anybody. The combat system models real life swordplay, and humans are incredibly fragile things. It takes all kinds of meds, doctors, hospitals, etc,...just to keep us healthy when NOT doing dangerous things. Getting into a situation where someone else dislikes you enough to start swinging long, hardened, sharpened steel at you with intent to maim or kill pretty much guarantees that SOMEONE (you, them, or both) is going to be spending the balance of the day in the morgue or receiving significant medical attention. To me, that observation by the reviewer seems reasonable.

The reviewer commented on being closer to a farmer than Aragorn of Lord Of The Rings. Ok, while I feel this is VERY true, it falls into Malechi's summary I think.

Perhaps its an issue of expectations or preconceptions not being met.

The reviewer was probably hoping for a "novel heroic" or a "movie heroic" or a "computer game heroic" character, and instead got a "real life heroic" character. Most real life heroes (not all, but most) are pushing up daisies as a direct result of their heroism. He probably wanted a character that would at least GROW to be fairly invincible as it became more experienced, much like most D&D or computer game characters. Anyone looking for that in this system is bound to be disappointed (barring house rules or a VERY kindly Seneschal), because this system is deadly. Period. While it is UNLIKELY a one on one between a novice character and an experienced character will end poorly for the experienced character, it CAN still happen if the novice character is being run by an expert player and the expert character is being run by a novice player...especially if the weak character "suicides out" by simultaneously attacking full out and "gets one in first". Throw melee to the side and just consider missile fire, and it gets worse. You can pretty much kiss that highly experienced character goodbye if anyone, even a novice character, fires a bow at him. So I would definitely chalk this one up to "expectations and preconceptions". The system is correct as designed, but is also not compatible with the concept of the "computer game heroic" style character that slowly becomes invincible through experience (such as would be possibly through many other games including D&D). As making it possible to develop such a character was not the intent of the designer, this is not a "fault" (such as the reviewer presented it) but rather is a "you're playing in the wrong system" expectation/preconception problem. It is worth noting anyhow, as MANY new players (including myself) are always looking for a way to achieve that kind of a character in every system they play. In my opinion, it would be worthwhile to stress (not just mention, but rather STRESS) up front in the core rule book (if it isn't already there) the point that this system is not compatible with that concept of character developement.

The reviewer disliked not having rules for non-human combat. OMAB corrected that. Too bad if he didn't choose to spend the cash on it and wanted it for free in the core rule book. I consider that just whining on his part. He commented on being like Rolemaster in having tons of charts for each different beast. Not having had time to go through OMAB yet, I can't comment on that, but having actually GM'd Rolemaster for years and years, NOTHING could be that painful and I think it is likely he is exagerating badly. Even if he isn't, I did GM Rolemaster in huge combats for countless adventures without having a massive coronary failure and dying a painful, violent, twitching death, so I think he's probably way off base here.

The reviewer commented that the player's skills are more important than the character's skills. I say "Duh. No shit?" to that. Someone who knows the system inside and out is always going to pound someone who doesn't regardless of character skills unless the novice manages to get to the other guy asap and overwhelm him with those higher skills. The expert player is going to try to avoid the novice being able to do that because he knows what the result will be. This system, being fairly lethal to begin with, gives the experienced player an edge. It is an edge, however, that rapidly diminishes. Most novice players in this system become experienced players (in terms of combat anyhow) pretty quickly (by dying miserably). It only takes a few combats or a half hour with Brian's combat simulator to realize what kind of things DON'T result in you being dead. The reviewer did make a valid observation here, but I think he also assigned a little more concern to it than it really warrented.

The reviewer commented that he found numerous examples of play proving the system is not realistic, then went on to give an example that EXACTLY models real life fencing, then tries to support his point by referring to the other games (like Warhammer) having handled it differently. So, not only is he wrong there, he has a problem differentiating between real life and games. When accusing something of not modeling real life, it's absolutely ridiculous to say it's wrong because some game(s) handle(s) it in a way you LIKE better. Sorry my friend, but your LIKES have nothing to do with determining realistics. This falls back into Malechi's preconception/expectation problem I think. The guy wanted "game like combat feel" and got "real life combat feel" and didn't like it. So while I understood what he probably would have preferred, he's off base here and I think the system is fine as stands on this point.

The reviewer commented on settings being too numerous and being under described. I think he's mistaken and totally off base. It's certainly far more verbose than many other settings I've seen, with far fewer holes to fill in. Filling in those holes is the Seneschal's job and is what gives each campaign it's own distinct flavor. If he wants a rigid, fully defined setting, he needs to purchase one and convert it or play a computer game instead (in my opinion).

The reviewer commented on artwork. Oh, get a life! I've read the book so many times I can't even estimate anymore how many times I've been through it, and for the life of me I can't remember a single picture (appologies to the art designer. I'm sure the art is excellent and appreciate the time and effort you put into it, but it wasn't the reason I was reading the book on any of those readings so I didn't pay attention to it).

The reviewer commented on character generation and priority assignment resulting in high quality slaves and low quality lords. Now balance issues asside, come on, you've got to agree with this one A LITTLE just based on basic logic. If you have to waste an A pick on status, you don't HAVE an A pick left to assign to proficiencies, skills, stats, etc,.... Your best pick left is a B pick. If someone "plays the numbers" and creates a human slave, there go picks E and F, leaving A through D for the rest. But if someone creates a human noble, there go picks A and F, leaving B through E for the rest. Heaven help you if you have to create it as a spell caster (A and B gone, leaving only C through F for everything else...and things start sucking badly with C picks and get worse fast). From a character balance and fairness perspective, the design is fine. However, from a realistics perspective the reviewer is not inaccurate in his observation here. In the real world most nobles would kick most slaves butts in most areas other than maybe wrestling and boxing due to education, training, etc,...that would not be available to the slaves due to their social status and finances. The reviewers only other real complaint seems to be character creation effort and time required. Well, yes, I do think it takes a good deal of time and effort, but I also think his time required was unrealistic. I also think the time would drop drastically as one becomes familiar with the system, so I think that while worth mentioning it really isn't a valid concern. Overall, since the existing character creation system is designed well for game balance and fairness between players, I don't think there is actually a problem here, but the reviewer's comments don't seem utterly unfounded here either.

Ok, I've tortured you all long enough, time to get to the last issue...sorcery. The reviewer basically said the system was too powerful but it didn't matter because the aging penalty is so severe no one will ever cast a spell of any real merit anyhow. Sorry, but I'm with him on this one wholeheartedly guys. Here's why: Malechi's summary.

Perhaps its an issue of expectations or preconceptions not being met.

In a nutshell, that's it. When I see a game system with a magic system, I expect to be able to USE that magic system. I DON'T expect to have it dangled in front of my face like a unflawed blue diamond goblet filled with ambrosia directly from mount Olympus, then have it cruelly snatched away amidst yells of "PSYCH!" and much giggling as the ramifications of actually trying to use it are WORSE THAN the situation you are in to begin with that requires the use of magic. If you're not going to let me use it, don't give it to me in the first place. That being said, I know and accept that this system was not designed to have that flavor of magic use and that my expectations/preconceptions are incorrect for this system. The system is designed just fine, and it is ME that has the problem...not the system. Anyhow, Malechi, that's where this guy is coming from most likely...the same incorrect expectations/preconceptions that I had trouble letting go of. The magic section of the book does fairly clearly express the design, and the flavor of magic in this system, and the consequences for using it. Still it's tough for some of us olde tyme wizard wannabees to let go of our perception of "what a wizard should be" and accept what this system says a wizard really is. Long story short, the reviewer is off base due to wanting to use the system in ways other than designed, but his observations are right on the money as regards the "penalties too great for the rewards" flavor of magic here. Still, it is his perception that needs to change, not the system.

Appologies to all. This long a message is TOTALLY uncalled for, and I'll never do it again. But someone asked directly what I was talking about, and I did want to appologize to Wolfen and anyone else I set off.

'nuf said. Won't post under this login again unless someone specifically asks me to (and I see it).

[clehrich]

Ralph hit the nail on the head about deadliness.  Many of us are just not used to the "surrender" option being a real one, because we're used to fighting "Bad Guys" (tm) who will kill you if you let down your guard.  But most of what I think happens in TROS combat is two guys whacking at each other in an effort to win.  Both are scared shitless, frankly, that the other guy is softening him up for the kill.  If somebody has an advantage and presses it, he's really, really hoping that the other guy will throw down his sword and scream, "Uncle!  Please don't kill me!"  So when you find yourself in a really bad combat situation, what you do is surrender.

Sure, if the GM is a real jerk he can say, "Sorry, this guy's a psychopath, and you dropped your sword and shield, so he kills you, ha ha."  But that's a problem with your GM and not the system.

The sort of combats I imagine being usual, in terms of the games I'd want to run with this (see this thread for details), come in the following forms:

1. A small squad (3 to 5) gets the drop on a single guy or a pair.  If the latter has a brain, he surrenders.

2. A single guy duels with another single guy.  The first to get an advantage, or draw any blood, wins, because the other guy surrenders.

3. A couple of squads face off warily.  Probably somebody bites it if both sides are serious, and then those who can run away and the rest surrender.

4. A small squad makes a very, very bad mistake and jumps a single guy who's a kick-ass combat god.  He uses things like bind, counter, and double attacks, and quickly has everyone in agony while he stays clean.  He suggests that maybe they'd like to apologize and stop it please, and they hobble off to get some first aid.

5. Once in a long while, a serious little platoon (say, 25 guys) decides to take on The Crew From Hell (say, 3 guys who are all combat gods with uber-cranked skills and stats and SA's from hell).  Tactics rule, and if The Crew work as a smooth team, the platoon doesn't have a chance because only so many of them can get in on it at once.  Pretty soon they realize this, and those who can't flee surrender and beg not to be used for off-hand back-hand beheading practice.

6. Very, very rarely, some nutbar decides to fight to the death.  If his opponent is clever and equally skilled, the nutbar probably dies, because the opponent is going to use SA's if possible, and besides won't constantly go for the death-shot.  In my planned campaign, this is likely to happen when some very skilled nutcase takes on one of the Champions to Make A Point, and then his entire street cred (as it were) is on the line and he'd rather die than surrender.  The Champion will eat him for breakfast as soon as he realizes that this guy won't stop; there are ways and means, after all (cut his hands off, then hamstring him; cut his hand off, then step past and drag the sword-blade across his throat; bind super-high and then chop his head open; etc.).

So I don't see the system as too deadly.  It's just a question of having the basic clue required to surrender when you're not going to win.  If this is a problem in your games, you might want not to have so many vicious critters attack: stick to hardened professionals who'd rather swing the sword one fewer times and have a nice prisoner to show at the end of the day (and maybe also somebody interesting to talk to, with some new jokes, god I'm getting tired of the rest of this squad's jokes).

Chris Lehrich

[edited to add]
P.S. NotOnYourLife: I don't think The Forge is a place you need to worry about being stomped, particularly.  This post was a bit of a flame-bait, but I think you weathered it just fine.  Here's hoping to see you posting here and there around the site!

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

The observation was made that spending less on social status allows you to spend more on other things. Conversely, spending more on social status requires you to spend less on other things. The net result of this must be that those who govern are less individually capable than those who are governed.

The complaint here comes from, I think, people looking at the chargen system as a way of generating an infinite amount of characters to populate the world with.  And if this view were true, then I'd agree with this criticism of TROS's chargen system.  But it's not Demographics: The Bell-Curving, it's a ruleset for generating PC heroes.

So no, slaves (in general) don't have higher attributes than nobles (in general).  But PC slaves have higher attributes than PC nobles.  I don't have a problem with this.

As we're generating heroes here it naturally follows that PC slaves will not only have higher attributes than PC nobles but also NPC slaves -- in fact, virtually any character that wasn't created with an Insight bonus. The natural corollary of this argument is that PC nobles will always be less endowed than PC slaves and NPC nobility.

TRoS is all about choices. If you choose to play the PC Noble then your character will truly be without equal.

Cheers,

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

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.

Personally I haven't seen anyone on this forum express their opinion and been reviled to the point where they felt it necessary to leave.

(SNIP) ... 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.

The argument about SAs is reasonable. If the PCs have mutually exclusive SAs, and the referee is required to create a scenario that caters for all of the SAs, how does the game function? The answer is obvious to a TRoS player -- the PCs are built with at least some mutually supportive or common SAs.

The argument about the dice mechanism was a little strange -- perhaps a misunderstanding? Attributes are never Target Numbers. Skills are indeed Target Numbers and therefore they should decrease rather than increase.

The combat argument was interesting. Our gaming group has been running with the same core of people for about twenty years now. We have always had the same number or more female players than male players, and thus more female PCs than male PCs. On introducing TRoS to the group and giving them a chance to read the rules the tongue-in-cheek comment that was made was that you could smell the testosterone oozing from every page of the combat section. One glance at the Damage Tables brought home the notion that 5 successes on the combat roll was the difference between minimum and maximum damage. This lack of granularity in result was a point of concern.

The answer to these concerns is in familiarity with the system. I think that this is true of the reviewer's concerns as well. All of the reviewer's comments make perfect sense if you assume that none of the PCs had their SAs involved during combat. This would explain why all characters appear ordinary rather than heroic and why combat appears incredibly deadly. In addition the reviewer doesn't appear to be familiar with the combat mechanics. Hence the observations that there are no rules for multiple opponents, that if you parry you automatically gain initiative, that the game is impossible to modify.

The reviewer makes the observation that the character's SAs have to be involved before the character has the capacity to behave like a hero in combat. The way the statement is phrased indicates that the character's SAs were rarely involved during combat (as it is the odd situation rather than the normal situation). I would suggest that this has implications for the scenario that was playtested by the reviewer and their play group, and the way it would work under TRoS. I would even go so far as to suggest that they may have been trying to play an off-the-shelf scenario under TRoS. The difficulties in doing this have been described elsewhere.

The setting argument is a case of missed expectation. The reviewer wanted an off-the-shelf gaming environment that was ready to play. They got a skeleton framework that needs to be fleshed out. They weren't happy. Personally I agree that the material should be removed from the rulebook and placed in a separate tome (and the freed space dedicated to SA and combat examples).

The artwork critique is simply padding for the review. All RPG artwork is there for atmosphere and little else. Some like the artwork, some don't, and most don't notice it.

The character creation observations were a real surprise to me. Unless your players had never seen TRoS before and were completely unfamiliar with the gaming environment in which their characters would be placed, how could you spend more than an hour creating a TRoS character? Sure, TRoS is all about decisions but there just aren't that many decisions to be made when creating your character!

The magic system concerns revolve around play balance. I'm not sure but I think similar concerns may have been raised on this forum in the past. If play balance is your thing then TRoS magic won't appeal. Simple as that. The best part about TRoS magic is that it doesn't tie in to any other part of the gaming system. Therefore, it is easily removed and another RPGs magic system bolted on in its place. Problem solved.

Cheers,

[Alan]

I too suspect that most of the complaints about "too deadly" and "not heroic" come from under-utilization of SAs.  My recent game has seen SAs firing in every combat, partly because of player choice, partly because I don't throw irrelivant fights at the characters.

However, unlike some, I _like_ the so-called sketchiness of setting material.  It's just enough to trigger major ideas for setting and situation without restricting the creative options.  I've always hated detailed settings because they take away a large part of my fun as GM.

Also, I think that this approach to setting material _supports_ the kind of play SAs encourage: it gives enough information to trigger player ideas, but leaves canvas space for them to paint the results.  Anything more detailed would produce situations where players can only participate in the setting by constraining their SA choices.