New review at RPG.net

[montag]

- concerning char-gen, and assuming Merritt Baggett and Ingenious sought to address my point: I think you missed what I was trying to say. The point is not, that nobles are cripples, that was joking (see the ;) above) aside to those who exaggerate the issue. The point is, that char-gen forces the player to make a choice, that (a) leads to "non-realistic" results and (b) has nothing to do with the Riddle.

And since I'm in the process of making "enemies" anyway ;) I'd like to add a complaint concerning the artwork. Which is a bit tricky, since I don't own TROS because (a) there is zero interest in a fantasy game in our group right now and (b) I am unfortunately not rich enough to buy the game simply to support an indie game designer who IMHO has done a tremendous job overall.
Going from the art in the quickstart rules, well, IMHO it sucks .. badly. Apparently a couple of other people are feeling the same way, so, with your leave, I'll leave general considerations of aesthetics out of the debate for now, and simply take it as given, that the artwork in TROS is disliked by a sizeable number of people, which is larger than your average "can't please everyone" crowd.
And this is important to me. I'm the guy who comes up with "strange new systems" in my group, and if we were about to play a fantasy campaign, I'd argue for using TROS. Unfortunately the default over here is DSA, sold in the US as "The Dark Eye" and I would to argue why TROS is better. Sadly, listing the benefits of TROS will have roughly the same overall impact on my group as showing them some stunning artwork would. It isn't rational, and shouldn't be that way, but it simply is.
So, because the artwork is not that great, I would have a harder time to persuade my group to try TROS, which makes it less likely that I'll get to play it and less likely that anyone else will buy it as well. Heck, I could understand it if someone said they're not getting TROS form themselves because they'll never be able to persuade their group anyway, since the [other system]-fanboy in the group will simply point at the art, ridicule it and be done with it.
So yes, art does matter.

[Jake Norwood]

Hi all.

I haven't read the review yet. I'm trying to decide if I want to, since it sounds like more of the same criticism that we usually get (half on play preferences, half on real concerns that would be fixed, were a second edition in the making). I used to be a regular at RPG.net, but frankly there's a lot of negative energy floating  around there and I spend about 2 hours a day reading forums and answering emails as it is.

For the record: TROS wasn't a one-man show, although it was a one-man-guided project. I wore a ton of hats for the book, but not all of them. Rick McCann in particular was of great assistance in making TROS a reality, as was everyone else in the Credits page in their individual ways.

Some of the reviewer's concerns, apparently, are valid. I have no problem with valid concerns (and I only have a problem with invalid concerns when someone won't let them go or listen to reason...otherwise I just let them go). Much of the art in TROS isn't very good, but it was all more-or-less free, so whatyagonnado? People forget that TROS was produced from the same size company and budget as, oh, InSpectres, which for years had no art at all and was only 30 pages of text. The hard-cover format has been a mixed blessing for exactly this reason. I *do* take notes on all valid criticisms, however, and we're always trying to do it better. It will never be perfect, and I don't just mean "for some people." That's a fact, and I won't pretend otherwise. For the record:

TFOB will have typos. Some stuff won't be as clear as you want it to be. You won't like some of the art. Something you wanted the book to have will be missing, and lots of the book will be full of things you probably won't use, just like every other RPG supplement you've ever bought.

Do I think TFOB is going to rock? Yeah. Are we doing our best to make it better than OBAM, which I believe was a more professional product than TROS was? Hell yeah. Will we ever reach the top? No, so don't hold your breath. Driftwood is one guy (me) with a very dependable helper (Brian) and a bunch of contracted artists. And it probably will never get to be more. That's why we only get out one book a year, depsite our desires to do much, much more.

So, anyway, no further comment, really.

Jake

[luke silburn]

I haven't read the review yet. I'm trying to decide if I want to, since it sounds like more of the same criticism that we usually get (half on play preferences, half on real concerns that would be fixed, were a second edition in the making). I used to be a regular at RPG.net, but frankly there's a lot of negative energy floating  around there and I spend about 2 hours a day reading forums and answering emails as it is.

The review itself is probably worth reading - if only to get another bead on how some groups react when confronted with TROS, I agree that it goes over much the same ground as that other rather dodgy review back in January. Be warned - its quite long, the writing style isn't very good and it shades towards ranty-ness in places, so you'll probably need a couple of rereadings to get where the author is coming from.

Its spawned a bunch of flammage in the associated messageboard and you probably don't want to wade through a couple of hundred posts (many repeating points from the last couple of TROS-go-rounds) in order to get to the subset of concerns/criticisms that would be worth addressing.

BTW the 'Kid With A Stick' story from that GenCon game you ran with Ralph and various others cropped up again as an example of player skill over-rides character skill and how this was a terrible thing in an RPG. I feel that a couple of people are making a bigger deal of it than it warrants but when I tried looking for a detailed account of the incident to put some facts on the table I came up empty on this forum.

Has anyone at that game ever written up a more detailed story than 'Savraxen Huscarl got cocky, made some poor decisions and was clocked by young nomad'?

Regards
Luke

[bergh]

I actually only think that when making a character that you need to remove the social class columm, and handle the social class via gift and flaws. saying that all starts on low/high freeman and being a peasent or slave is either minor or major flow, and the other way around on nobles...this would be MUCH MUCH better!.

[Dain]

If bergh isn't "letter perfect" there in his idea, I don't think he's far off. The problem there is rollup fairness. For rollup fairness of character design it does make sense to put it into the priority picks...because having cash, land, and influence IS A MAJOR ongoing benefit to a character that other characters wouldn't have access to that can CONSTANTLY turn the tide of any given adventure. So it would probably have to be something more than just a major gift if altered, because cash and status can just have way too much impact on a game. Don't know what the answer is myself, but having it as a priority pick does tend to make slave characters somewhat superiour to noble characters in an overview kind of way as regards all aspects OTHER THAN social status...which is fair, but a little unrealistic when compared to the real world examples of real slaves versus real nobles.

[Valamir]

I'm pretty sympathetic to that point of view Dain.  I've touched upon it myself in times past.

But you know...when you play TROS, you're not playing any old "slave character".  You're playing Sparticus.

Folks can stand there all they want and proclaim how its not realistic because a "real slave" would be malnourished, and a "real slave" would be undereducated and all sorts of other stuff (although in Rome that's certainly not automatically the case).  But I ask you...who would want to play that character?

Ok Player X, for this game you are going to be a slave.  Your average attributes are going to be 2 points lower than everyone else, your skill target numbers will be 1 higher than everyone else, you'll have 0 proficiencies, twice as many flaws, 1/2 as many gifts, no money, and anyone who wants can whip and beat you if you don't do exactly what you're told.

Who's going to play that character?  No one.  So why in the hell would Jake want to waste his time writing rules for how to create that character?  Its ridiculous.  If someone REALLY wants to play that character, all they have to do is ask the GM to trade in their A and B priorities for D and E priorities.

So I don't understand really the logic that says that the rules don't produce "realistic" slaves, because no one wants to play a realistic slave any how.  If you're going to play a slave character you're going want to play Sparticus not Gimpy McSores the Piss Boy.  So, in TROS, you get a little advantage in having slightly higher average Priorities (post Social Class spending) than a nobleman.

I don't know how it could be any plainer than that.

[Dain]

Hey Valamir. Kindof got it backwards from my perspective. I wasn't saying unrealistic slaves....I was saying unrealistic nobels. Much like you wouldn't want to play a malnourished slave but rather play Sparticus, you wouldn't want to play a pasty wimp nobel. Basically the system allows Sparticus just fine, but nobles tend to be a bit on the pasty side.

[bergh]

yes, you are right, only having it like a major gift is not enough, but then again how evolved is the gift/flaw system in TRoS,....not much!
ALL too few gift/flaws in the book, and only having two classes, like major & minor is also to undetailed.

in my campaign we have borrowed all kinda flaws/and gift from other rpg games and even invented some we liked.
Flaws are from -1 to -5 points and gifts are from 1-5. 0 is a rather geneic number.

lets say that the Social status is not into the flaw/merit catogory, all characters start from being a low freeman (or something like that) type, and this means that he have the gift/flaw: Social 0, which all start with.
If the player decides that he wanna use his merit/flaw points to change his "social" status.

Social -5 would be like being an slave maybe and the  +1 is something like you are a high freeman, and 3 you maybe is a noble, but poor in noble terms, and being noble 5 would be like a duke.

the term major/minor is converted into points; flaw are negative and gift positive.

Generaly we have not writtean any rules for for this, but all understand it in our group. hope you also do. but ofcourse much work should be done to make out details of this system if they should be in somekind of rulebook, for now its just something we invented.

[bergh]

that you can make super slaves are no problem for players who understand the idea of ROLEplaying and like to make make his character a real person with background history and such.
most persons don't want to have a slave background.

BUT when it comes to these Munchkin type players, who the GM tryes to tell em how great it is to ROLEplay instead of just killing. most of these people cannot understand the concept of having a nobleman who can't fight, is something who you can get ALOT of fun out off. so most of them choose slave social background and HIGH stats, so he can kill somestuff.

this is fine if is an all hack-and-slash-munchkin game, but when the GM want some more ROLEplay, then it sucks.

Im my gaming group one of the characters choose slave as an background option, and when the game started he was the best fighter, but with no gear, then he borrowed some money from the landless noble and vupti now he got nice gear and is the best fighter in the group, and all the others has been angry since.

I don't know how to make him down to his "slave & prisoner" level again, he got good clothes and fine weapons, he canceled his F priority in around an hour of game time......what to do now as a GM?

[Valamir]

you wouldn't want to play a pasty wimp nobel

most of these people cannot understand the concept of having a nobleman who can't fight

Guys...seriously.  Exaggeration city here.

Pasty wimp?  Can't Fight?

People...its ONE PROFICIENCY.  It doesn't create super slaves or wimpy nobles.

[Dain]

Ok, fair enough. I think this is starting to sound like a personal bias thing. Basically I'm getting the "get over it" response to what seems to me (and judging from countless other threads,  many other people as well) to be a reasonable stance, but also seem to be getting the other side from just as many people and just as often. Since Jake respects Valamir's opinions so highly (some recent thread, forget which one), I'm going to go wishy washy here and conceed the point even though I still personally don't agree. Gotta respect the guy who Jake says is the man who "gets TROS in a scary way".

[Valamir]

I'm going to go wishy washy here and conceed the point even though I still personally don't agree. Gotta respect the guy who Jake says is the man who "gets TROS in a scary way".

Don't ever do that...you'll create a monster ;-)

As I said, I'm sympathetic to the view point, it was my first reaction as well; and there are alot of folks who've made the same point.  But honesty, I think those folks primarily

a) noticed the effect by crunching through the priority table and saying "hey, that means..."

b) then getting their "that's not realistic" dander up

c) without actually thinking through what the point of the system is.


So my point is firstly, that there are some very good reasons why it was done that way that actually make alot of sense; and secondly, even if you don't agree with those reasons, the effect is a pretty minor minor one.

I'll add a third one I haven't made before...To date, I've heard zero reports from any actual play experience (not speculation...actual play) where the players made a bee line for the Slave social class in order to get a priority bump, or wanted to but refused to play a noble because of the priority hit.

Anyone out there run a game where players actually did this...not made a remark in passing like "well, in that case I'll just be a slave"...but actually followed through with a real character in a real campaign where they picked slave specifically because of the priority benefit?  If so, start a new thread for us to talk about it.

[Dain]

<chuckle>...I did...but I actually wanted to play a slave on top of that to try out some good roleplaying ideas I had thought of....so I wasn't just crunching the numbers. At work right now so don't have access to the details to start a new thread right now...maybe later tonight.

[Dain]

You know what...can't do it. Other players not up to speed on the character yet might browse out here and lose all the surprise of finding out entertaining details during the game. Have to pass on starting that thread until after the campaign has been running long enough all the secrets are out. Best I could do is a PM or something.

[Lance D. Allen]

I've never had anyone even consider slave, except for me.. And I'll guarantee it was story reasons. (See the thread which is probably now on the second page about Tuin)

As for nobody wanting to play a pasty nobleman.. Hey, Lx.. Did you enjoy playing Dominick?