Combat is too deadly?

[Bob Richter]

My current character, who has no combat skill to speak of, has been in numerous battles and remains, for all intents and purposes, alive.

Recently, he barely avoided being chomped by a dragon before his companion killed it (by shoving a quarterstaff up its nose.)

Actually, I'm enjoying being a not-great-at-combat character, and I'm proving every week that you don't have to be uber (in combat particularly) to be heroic.

[Andrew Mure]

Good to hear it!

One of the lesser known charms of TROS is that the get-the-heck-out-of-there option (ie-all my dice to Full evade) is actually a very desirable reaction to someone trying to cut you up. Its even seriously considered by characters with decent combat abilities!

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

My current character, who has no combat skill to speak of, has been in numerous battles and remains, for all intents and purposes, alive.

(SNIP)

Actually, I'm enjoying being a not-great-at-combat character, and I'm proving every week that you don't have to be uber (in combat particularly) to be heroic.

Many Systems have magic systems that are far more deadly than TRoS' combat system. If a mage casts a sufficiently powerful spell and the target fails their saving throw (whatever the mechanics involved might be) then the target dies. There might be a damage calculation but in the end at a particular stage in the mages career they are simply able to dish out more damage with a single spell than a human can take. Usually in these circumstances the deadliness of the magic system is controlled through the Setting. Perhaps spell access is tightly controlled, or perhaps all mages are hunted once detected by the populace, or whatever. So the Setting restricts what the System allows.

Here's a thought. TRoS is the first System to have a sufficiently deadly combat system that it requires a degree of Setting or Situation control. Setting, for instance, might need to very clear about the rule of law or tradition. Perhaps duels between gentlemen, while illegal, are acceptable if to first blood. Situation might need to account for PC and NPC surrenders in a way that isn't completely negative. Perhaps surrendering needs to be seen as inevitable for the professional warrior -- and that the true courtier/knight can benefit from these periods of "incarceration" (thinking de Coucy marrying Edward's daughter after Poitiers, but there must be other examples).

Cheers,

[Ben Lehman]

Here's a thought. TRoS is the first System to have a sufficiently deadly combat system that it requires a degree of Setting or Situation control.

BL>  Wow.

You have just clarified exactly what I like about this game.

Thanks.

yrs--
--Ben

[Mayhem1979]

I've been playing and GMing TROS since before it was officially released.  I have yet to kill a player character in one of my campaigns or get any of my players killed.

This of course does not count demos... people always die in demos.  :)


Why?  I certainly haven't been going easy on them.  My players just fight smart and know when to run.  That said, they fight a LOT, and cause a heck of a lot of damage.

The worst wounds ever suffered were a wide area level 3 wound to the chest when a player got hit by a stone golem full in the chest... and a level three to the head that cost a PC an eye when he purposely fell off his warhorse.. which was at a full gallop... when he was in masterwork full plate... on top of an unarmored baddy that was trying to drag him off and kill him.

So deadly?  If you play with a D&D mentality, yes.  Otherwise, it's not as deadly as you'd think.  But the potential for death is always there, which is what makes it FUN.

[Fizban]

I forgot he lost his eye on that one.  I thought it was just a really nasty scar or part of his ear.  Just 1 more luck point than that poor sucker, scarily close.  

One of the biggest things I've found is making your own luck.  So far TRoS has been open enough for me to pull off anything I've wanted so far.  If it can be done in real life it can be done in TRoS.  There is a slight downside to the realism.  Chivalry goes out the window.  Fair fights don't happen.  You as a character don't let them happen, unless your SA's make you.  Honorable yet ruthless seems to be the real "good guy", at least the one who lives through their first few fights.  

I'm currently running around with a character who has only his reflex to rely on.  The other characters in the group are combat monsters, so fights happen.  (they actually enjoy starting bar fights, which get really messy)  But I don't have to fight or win.  The SA system makes it so fights are not neccisary, in fact there are obvious benifits for not fighting.  I don't need to kill something to get EXP.  I could even run away like mad and actually serve my SAs.  There is an amazing combat system that doesn't force you to fight.

[Richard_Strey]

There is a slight downside to the realism.  Chivalry goes out the window.  Fair fights don't happen.  You as a character don't let them happen, unless your SA's make you.  Honorable yet ruthless seems to be the real "good guy", at least the one who lives through their first few fights...

I have to seriously disagree with you here. Why do you think "Knights in shiny armor" are admired so much? If I want to go the chivalry route, with Knights being the people's heroes and whatnot, they'd better earn it. And not have it shoved up their butts via some form of cool powerz.

[ZenDog]

Chivalry was a myth. Knights were essentially lying, murdering, genocidal rapists and armoured thugs, motivated by material greed and a lust for power.

[Richard_Strey]

I don't deny that. All I was saying was that *if* you want your character to be seen as a über-warrior and hero of the masses, you'd better earn it. D&D-like paladins are sure fun to play, but they should have a tough, tough life.

[ZenDog]

I was replying more to...

There is a slight downside to the realism. Chivalry goes out the window.

than your answer richard.

[casinormal]

I realize that most fights were not and are not about fair play.  But couldn't the Conscience SA apply for some instances when someone decides to fight fair?  Isn't the archetypical if not historical knight in shining armor motivated by a desire to do the fair and honorable thing?  I realize that "doing the right thing" is subjective, but I think it could apply in some circumstances.

-Joel Norman

"Let the saints be joyful in glory:
let them sing aloud upon their beds.
Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
and a twoedged sword in their hand"
-Psalms 149:5-6

[Lance D. Allen]

Chivalry was a myth. Knights were essentially lying, murdering, genocidal rapists and armoured thugs, motivated by material greed and a lust for power.

All categorical statements are false.

[ZenDog]

Chivalry was a myth. Knights were essentially lying, murdering, genocidal rapists and armoured thugs, motivated by material greed and a lust for power.

All categorical statements are false.

Sorry I didn't realise this was a debating society for those skilled in the philosphy of fallacy. I'll keep my random observations  to myself in the future. To be slightly pedantic over it, you will notice the use of the word 'essentially' and the lack of the statement 'all Knights were'

Again I appologise I wasn't aware of the level of correctness required before making off the cuff statements. Sorry I'll leave now and take my half assed flippery with me.

[sirogit]

There is a slight downside to the realism.  Chivalry goes out the window.  Fair fights don't happen.  You as a character don't let them happen, unless your SA's make you.  Honorable yet ruthless seems to be the real "good guy", at least the one who lives through their first few fights.  

Don't you think there was a coincidince in that the guys who swore by fair fighting were completely covered in near-impeneterable metal?

Besides, if fair fighting served your SAs, it'd be really advantagous, besides the element of respect gained.

I would also say, that if the only reason someone refused to use dirty tricks in a fight was for a combat advantage, it wouldn't make that much sense thematiclly. The sort of people who wanted to fight in an honorable matter were not boiling down the situation into the most secure way for personal survival.

[Gideon13]

There is a slight downside to the realism. Chivalry goes out the window. Fair fights don't happen. You as a character don't let them happen, unless your SA's make you. Honorable yet ruthless seems to be the real "good guy", at least the one who lives through their first few fights.

Yes, being chivalrous can make combat harder.  That's why so many in those harsh times gave chivalry only lip service -- and why those who were chivalrous despite it all were something special.  It's a decision we still have to make today.  For example, it would be far, far easier and faster to flatten Al Fallujah from a distance (never mind the children and those who did not participate) than go in house-to-house with pictures of those who actually were in the mob.  But is that the sort of people we wish to be?

If you want a benefit from chivalrous behavior, perhaps your character can find it in the battle that doesn't happen because your neighbor doesn't attack you out of fear that you will attack him first.  Or perhaps you can find it during a war when a chivalrous band can trust that their members won't switch sides because of a bribe (think Braveheart).  Or perhaps you can find it after the war, when your character can look at his children and not see the other children who were acceptable collateral damage.  

So perhaps we can refine the Riddle to be not just asking what is worth dying for, but also asking what quality of life is worth knowingly running the extra risk of death for?