Intended Usage of SAs Clear?

[greyorm]

Over in New (very negative) review of THE RIDDLE OF STEEL, Chris made the following observation:

When I find these reviews, I usually put up a short post about how the game is supposed to work, which funny enough, is usually misunderstood because people are applying rules and advice from other games onto ROS, instead of simply following what's there.  The same problem is common for Sorcerer as well.

So what do you do with folks like the recent poster on the latest review on RPG.net, who proclaim it isn't all that revolutionary (or even necessary) because the book doesn't really describe how to use the SAs in the manner everyone says they are to be used?

Admitedly, I know this individual from other discussion forums, and I wouldn't hesitate a tick to call him a troll. But even a troll might make a point once in a while, beyond just the one on his head -- so, is this a valid criticism: that there isn't enough solid material in the main book about effective/intended use of SAs? Particularly for traditional gamers who may not be parsing the rules text as intended?

Thoughts?

[Bankuei]

Hi Raven,

Does ROS lack sufficient information for the entrenched "bog standard" gamer to understand SAs?

Sure.

I mean, we're talking a group of folks who can't conceive of functional play outside of Actor Stance, or hardcore Sim or Illusionist play.  What would be necessary would be an entire essay consisting of an explaination, comparison and contrast, plus injunctions against habitual play habits.

Is this worth doing?  

Hmmm... Not in my opinion.  What I think would be of use would be an entire chapter on SAs, since the ROS system is effectively SAs plus other bits(ooh, combat, ooh, skills) added on.  I'd suggest a lot of examples presented to show folks how SAs are intended to be used.

But, barring future editions, looking at the game as it stands...is it not enough for functional play?  By no means.  I was fortunate to pick up one of the early copies, completely ignorant of the SA system.  Through actual play, it didn't take very long to realize that ROS was a very different game then that I had expected.

ROS, unlike many other games, never points towards the Impossible Thing before Breakfast.  It never tells you to prepare a giant plot, perhaps linked through flowchart options or how to trick, cajole or force the players down certain actions.  At no point are you told to employ methods counter to what the SAs dictate.  In that regards, its very coherent.

The only advice I'd put to Jake, is aside from putting that sort of thing into future editions(if that ever happens), is go ahead and get some articles on the website as far as how to prepare and run these kinds of adventures.

Chris

[Bill Cook]

greyorm:

I'm so glad you started this thread.  I, too, read Chris' comment and had something to add but didn't because it was on old thread.

. . . because people are applying rules and advice from other games onto ROS, instead of simply following what's there. The same problem is common for Sorcerer as well.

I'm not speaking on behalf of trolls.  I'm more of a 1st ed. AD&D guy, ignorant of any online RPG presence until late last year.  Here's the thing: it's not so simple, even with a willing spirit.  To wit, a bubble of Illusionism in my current Sorcerer campaign, a knee-jerk of surprise check a la D&D.  And I love the Forge.  And I'm excited about learning new things through Sorcerer.

Can't remember which, but one of the gospels was written just for the Jews.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Does ROS lack sufficient information for the entrenched "bog standard" gamer to understand SAs?

Sure.

I mean, we're talking a group of folks who can't conceive of functional play outside of Actor Stance, or hardcore Sim or Illusionist play.  What would be necessary would be an entire essay consisting of an explaination, comparison and contrast, plus injunctions against habitual play habits.

I've been through the process. I bought the book and didn't understand how the game was supposed to be played. I then read Ron Edward's introductory article on GNS. I *certainly* didn't understand that. So I re-read it. Then read bits of it again. I then assembled a pdf with the introductory GNS article and the three specialist Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist articles. By the time I'd done this I was beginning to understand GNS and therefore understand the TRoS design and the purpose of SAs. It all started to make sense (and was really quite exciting).

I couldn't have gotten to that point without the GNS articles. The pdf I assembled ran to 96 pages. So where does that leave TRoS and its need to convert a player or group of players who have been taught that Actor Stance Simulationist play is all there is to role-playing?

I don't think there's enough space in any rule-book to provide enough material to achieve that goal. Many people reading the section on SAs for the first time won't even be aware that another Mode of play is possible let alone where SAs might fit in to that Mode of play (and be inappropriate for their current Mode of play). A section on scenario design might help the referee to get the point that scenario material is dependent on having the players as protagonists rather than peripheral characters watching events unfold. A section on player group design might help the players understand that they must design their characters with a degree of cohesion via their SAs. A section on Social Contract might help everyone understand how and why Narrativist design works so well. And, yes, definitely a section on SA design and use with plenty of examples of how SAs are used, how they are rewarded in play, and how dynamic they are in changing to reflect current goals.

Cheers,

[Bankuei]

Hi Ian,

Exactly.  For folks not entrenching into hardcore play habits of other games, its not very difficult at all.  For those who are... well, there you go, lots of un-programming to do.  The real question is who are you aiming your games at?  

While the hardcore bog standard folks make up a significant portion of the market, I don't think aiming ROS at those folks is really the most productive thing to do.  For those who are interested in trying out other methods of play, they'll look into it, and learn for themselves...or not.  And for those who aren't interested, the biggest most beautiful pile of words won't reach anything past their ears anyway.

The only thing a designer is responsible to do is produce a functional game, not to school folks and deprogram their issues for functional play.  To take it to an extreme, it's rather like being upset with Monopoly for not teaching folks how NOT to play chess before explaining the rules.

Thoughts?

Chris

[Ben Lehman]

As a counterpoint, I was introduced to tRoS by the RPGnet reviews, had never read Ron's essays, and realized pretty much exactly how spiritual attributes were supposed to work and interface with the rest of the game with one reading.

yrs--
--Ben

[nsruf]

l believe I understand how they are supposed to work, although it came from reading these boards. I just can't seem to make them work very well...

The rulebook alone is rather brief on use of SAs.

[Jake Norwood]

Dude, I like, got them from like, day one.

Actually, I didn't. I just knew I had something cool going on, and I knew how I wanted it to work, and it does all of that fine...but I'd never seen anything like it before, so describing it was hard (I had never heard of the Forge, GNS, or any of it's unholy children until after TROS was published the first time).

If I did it again (and maybe I will, but not in the near future), I would definitely make everything clearer. OTOH, if you play TROS as written, without making loads of "this is an RPG so I already know how to play" assumptions, then the SAs will work fine. I guess, 'cause I'm a guy that reads a book all the way through, and take it at face value, revelling in how different it is (or isn't) from other games I've read/played, that others would do likewise. Ah, the arrogance of youth...

Jake

[Stephen]

I got how they worked *mechanically*, at least in terms of how you used them and what they did.  What confused me was a misunderstanding of what they *represented*, in terms of getting "inside a character's head" -- the SAs aren't a numerical measurement of personality, but rather a metagame reflection of how strongly your play style has focused on that particular roleplaying aspect.

The simplest answer is to say, "Most other numbers on the character sheet drive your roleplaying choices.  With SAs, your roleplaying choices drive those numbers."

I'll be the first to admit that the whole GNS paradigm really puts me off, because it strikes me as far too complicated a bunch of theorizing for what use I and my friends might get out of actually playing it.  I have enough to do learning the game system, I don't have the time to study roleplaying psychology and theory.  But I definitely agree that a slightly different approach is needed to showing how SAs work and what they do -- I'd just like to see it written in as plain language as possible, with as little reference to Official Forge GNS Terms (TM) as you can get away with.

[greyorm]

Thanks for the thoughts, everyone!

While the hardcore bog standard folks make up a significant portion of the market, I don't think aiming ROS at those folks is really the most productive thing to do.  For those who are interested in trying out other methods of play, they'll look into it, and learn for themselves...or not.  And for those who aren't interested, the biggest most beautiful pile of words won't reach anything past their ears anyway.

Hrm, interesting, Chris...but let's take a different example.

Let's say you have a guy who is a traditional, hardcore, old-school gamer, fully immersed in the mythology of our modern microculture. And he's looking for something else because, damnit, the myth is cracking around the edges for him (though he has no clue that's what it is at all). Someone desperately trying to fit square pegs into round holes and thus becoming continually frustrated by his hobby. So, someone alot like myself three or four years ago.

Here's a guy who wants to expand his play, but keeps running smack into solid walls everytime he tries. I admit, I would be the first one to drag all the old-school methods and beliefs about gaming through the text with me, because, "ya know, that's how you game." Because, well, I did.

So I'd be lost; SAs wouldn't be working for me because I'd still be playing D&D. I wouldn't even "realize" it was a case of a using different (but quite simple) methodology of play...because, well, I'd have no idea there WAS such a thing. I'd sigh, give up, and put the game away because "well, it had this interesting mechanic, but it didn't really work." And I'd go back to desperate looking to get the "something else" out of my gaming.

Me? I'd need a clear map of use that said up-front: "No, baka, not like you're thinking. That isn't working for this mechanic because... Here's how they're supposed to work..."

So, I'm asking, don't we owe it to this guy?
To at least try a little? Because we do it on the forums: there's tons of good, concise info. about "what it means" and "how to use them" that (IMO) really should be available in a book, or as an addendum, or a loose one-page sheet stuck into the back of all the most recent printings. Something easily culled from the numerous repetitions about SA usage found here and on RPG.net.

My point is, if we're willing to train "after the fact" (post-book-purcahse), then we should be willing to do it right there in our books, too.

Now, even if Jake might not have the time or inclination to write something up right now, maybe one of us could? To submit it for inclusion on the Riddle's website for perusal, download and printing...an "on-line rules addendum." Jake, would that be something you'd approve of?

[Stephen]

Now, even if Jake might not have the time or inclination to write something up right now, maybe one of us could? To submit it for inclusion on the Riddle's website for perusal, download and printing...an "on-line rules addendum." Jake, would that be something you'd approve of?

Hey, I'll put my money where my mouth is, if you're looking for a volunteer... I already wrote the Quickstart Rules, after all....

SJB

[Bankuei]

Hi Raven,

Exactly why I'm recommending online articles.  Its easy, its cheap, and its an immediately useful solution until the point where in the future, further editions are printed.

Chris

[greyorm]

Cool, then. If Jake's ameniable to the suggestion, go for it, Stephen.

[Jake Norwood]

I'm cool with it.

Jake