TROS with a narrative combat system?

[kenjib]

Okay, so TROS is a marvelous narrative game with a really cool simulationist combat system added in.  I almost feel like I'm breaching a taboo here because the combat system really is freaking cool, but what would happen if you removed the combat system and replaced it with something that was also strongly narrative in design?  I think you could end up with a really slick and amazing game.

What if the combat system was abstract and designed around plot points - characters getting captured, knocked unconscious, killed, mortally wounded, etc.  "Damage" in combat does not represent physical damage, but whittles your character power/stage presence/plot relevence until you are reduced to one of these states in a more abstract way, depending on the needs of the story.  Maybe the victor can decide the fate.  Since the GM plays the villains, player characters could thus only die when it is a good thing (with a good GM that "gets it" of course).

At this point I only have a vague idea, but I think I see the distant outlines of what could be a really interesting game with a very different feel from TROS.

The "what are you willing to die for" aspect of the game is gone.  The game looses it's gritty/pulp feel.  Instead is a more free flowing and wild high-adventure game of dashing heroics, daring swashbuckling, and larger-than-life personalities in the boldest tradition.  They are set loose in the world to struggle against each other in pursuit of mad dreams, crazed ambitions, and inevitable fate...

Has this been discussed before in the distant past?

[Tash]

I don't think it would work for me.  The reason I think you can get into the narrative aspects of characters in RoS compared to say, D&D, is that you actually care about them.  They are fragile, they can be killed easily if you make a mistake, so your attention stays on them to keep from making that one fatal error.

If a character isn't risking something when they draw a blade who cares that they are fighting?  And I think wild, high adventure type events are possible with RoS, that's what those SA points are for.

[Nick the Nevermet]

I don't think it has been discussed, but then I'm not very observant these days.

I guess I'm curious what your motivation is, especially since you say this:

The "what are you willing to die for" aspect of the game is gone.  The game looses it's gritty/pulp feel.  Instead is a more free flowing and wild high-adventure game of dashing heroics, daring swashbuckling, and larger-than-life personalities in the boldest tradition.  They are set loose in the world to struggle against each other in pursuit of mad dreams, crazed ambitions, and inevitable fate...

I must apologize, because its late, and I should know how to word this better than I'm about to.  I'm not trying to flame you, but if you are not interested in the style of play you mention above, why do you want to play TROS?  TROS is a sim/nar hybrid, and the combat is not the only sim component.  You have already answered your question to what happens to TROS if you replace the combat mechanics with a nar-based system involving plot points (which is a phrase which could mean a lot of different things to different people): you would end up with a very different game, whose system would encourage radically different play.

Another question to ask is why do you want to play TROS with such a major change?  What elements do you like and why?

[kenjib]

I don't think it would work for me.  The reason I think you can get into the narrative aspects of characters in RoS compared to say, D&D, is that you actually care about them.  They are fragile, they can be killed easily if you make a mistake, so your attention stays on them to keep from making that one fatal error.

If a character isn't risking something when they draw a blade who cares that they are fighting?  And I think wild, high adventure type events are possible with RoS, that's what those SA points are for.

That's a good point.  Would it be possible to shift the risk from mortality issues into plot based issues though?  Wouldn't you care whether you succeed or fail when your betrothed was sacrificed by an evil cult?  When the lord whom you have sworn to defend with your life has his castle beseiged by the forces of a dishonorable political schemer?

The penalties for failure are still very harsh and very real.  They are just different.

[kenjib]

Hi Nick,

No flame read at all and I hope that nobody feels like they have to sugarcoat anything.  I was throwing this out more as a brainstorm kind of thing, rather than some kind of plan I am somehow personally invested in.  It was just a thought I had.  SA's are such a great and powerful narrative tool, so what would happen if they were freed from the hybrid nar/sim model and allowed to completely take over the game design such that it becomes all narrative.

As a belated preface, I think TROS works great and I don't think a change like this would be an objective improvement - just a change.  I think you are right in saying it would be a different game.  That's what I'm talking about.

Another question to ask is why do you want to play TROS with such a major change?  What elements do you like and why?

Okay, so keep the emphasis on player direction and choices and SA's.  Keep the design principle that plot resolution is the driving force and game balance is irrelevant because of it.  Keep the use of magic as a tool for plot and SA resolution rather than an extension of game mechanics.

Now change combat such that it is based on plot points - just like all these other elements of the game are.  Yes, it's a very different feel and a very different world that the characters would be in.  I think it could be interesting though.

Are there already games out there that do this well enough that such a change wouldn't be compelling?

[Tash]

That's a good point.  Would it be possible to shift the risk from mortality issues into plot based issues though?  Wouldn't you care whether you succeed or fail when your betrothed was sacrificed by an evil cult?  When the lord whom you have sworn to defend with your life has his castle beseiged by the forces of a dishonorable political schemer?

The penalties for failure are still very harsh and very real.  They are just different.

I see your point, but at least for me that woulnd't work as well.  I can PRETEND I care, but in practice its harder to get attached to an abstract notion in the GMs mind than it is to something I crafted myself over several play sessions.  During the course of building a character one becomes attached to that character, and at that point its easier to roleplay what that character would feel about a certain things, like the "true love sacrificed by cult" thing.  

If I'm not attached to the character, then that's just an idea and my reaction is closer to "oh well, sucks to be him...which class should I try next", or something along those lines.

EDIT:  I just thought of something else.  I remember once playing a game, I think it was published by TSR in the 80s.  The players represented a pantheon of minor gods/goddesses.  There was a very open combat system (whose going to tell a god "Sorry, that D20 roll doesn't beat the targets AC?) and no XP system at all.  Instead the player "advanced" based on how many worshippers they had.  Those worshippers represented a pool of faith the go drew its power from, if you lost all your worshippers you didn't die but lost your relevance in the world and faded into legend.
Sounds kind of like the "Death = you are no longer part of the plot" idea you are putting forth.

However I can't remember the name of this game, does it sound familliar to anyone?

[Turin]

The exitement of games for me is the random chance.  You go into combat, fight well, but there is always the chance you may die.  The combat system of TROS seems to do this very well.

Doing it in that narrative style would make it more like reading a book I've read a few times - moderately interesting, but you know what will happen.

Or I guess like watching a series.  For example, I like watching Highlander the series, but I always knew McCloud would make it through (although Ritchie and his McCloud's girlfriend getting killed suprised me).

But even though I liked the series, It did not keep me enthralled or exited about it.

[Bankuei]

Hi kenjib,

I'd highly suggest checking out Heroquest and Trollbabe for two games that have all purpose resolution systems, and do not necessarily have gritty combat or death always hanging over the protagonists' heads, either.  Both use relationships as bonus mechanics, and augments are functionally similar to SAs in TROS.

Chris

[Malechi]

hrmmmm

interesting.  Since I've been playing a bit of InSpectres lately I can see where this kind of thing can work.  

You can maintain the Attributes as is..including SAs.  Gifts/Flaws remain.  Gone is the skill system (maybe... though perhaps have it more loosely defined), combat system and perhaps magic system (i'm less sure of this)...

For any situation where the outcome is desired you roll a combo of your attributes and your SA's as approapriate.  The TNs become less of a scale and more like the InSpectres where you have a single table.  High successes give you Narrative rights and an SA dice or Party Pool dice or whatever (see Franchise dice in InSpectres) which goes towards some kind of resolution, or perhaps just adds to your SA points.. i dunno.
If you roll bad, the GM gets to give you a hosing or determine the outcome of your action.  

Problem: why not just play InSpectres?
Possible answer?  As is InSpectres is quite specific in the way its presented (comedy/horror/dotcom startup) but then again we're already bastardizing TROS for the purposes of this mind-experiment.  

You could even do away with the Attributes altogether and simply have SAs.  The rest of your characteristics are determined by your backgrounds, gifts/flaws.  These give you a single bonus dice to your roll when they come into effect.  

anyways.. I've hybridised these two wonderful games enough.. I'm off to cleanse myself ;)

cheers

Jason K.