The psychology of combat

[Jaif]

1) Exactly.  I would subtract dice for the worst wound level you've received, and subtract a die if more than one person is in or next to melee range (if I attack this guy, than that one will...)

2) The perception rules are more guidelines right now.  I'm trying to prevent a smooth transition from hacking orc #1 to immediately spinning around and helping Joe handle orc #2.  Concerning "in front of" - the problem here is the human neck; something can be in your front hex (to use tactical talk a second), but your eyes are looking right.  While peripheral vision is sensitive, tunnel vision often rules, especially when you're trying to tune things out.  Bottom line is that as a GM, I would take the successes and rattle off things directly in front of the player and close first, and then extend as more exchanges go by and more successes are rolled.  If, however, the player says something specific, like "I know Joe was on my right fighting that troll, I'm looking for him so I can help him", then I would favor Joe & the troll first, but that may result in the player missing something obvious.  Last, don't forget truly major terrain features - the mouth of an alley, a campfire, etc.  People focus on big things first to orient themselves.  This could be as easy as: "Ok, glancing back you see the campfire behind you to your left (1); Joe's on your right where you expect him to be fighting that troll (2&3 success)."  Hopefully our hero glances around a bit more just in case he missed something in his 1 second of looking.

3) Absolutely.  I would only allow 1 tick mark per battle, and in fact only 1 per day unless there's really, really heavy action that deserves 2 marks.

4) (If you can add new numbers, then so can I<g>).  I was writing my own game trying to spotlight these rules.  It was only an alpha, and the system was totally unintersting other than initiative & perception rules.  There are a couple thoughts that I haven't mentioned that I incoporated there:

a) Perception while in melee, or while aiming, is truly hard.  Someone could walk an elephant right by you, and you may not notice.  With the aiming, obviously things that appear between you and your target could grab your attention, but noticing things outside that is, well, sort of the opposite of aiming.  The GM should use this when they roll for perception against sudden flank attacks, and so on.

b) If you have a magically fearful creature, the type of thing that requires a warhammer cool roll, you can subtract dice from the "red dice" roll. People with low willpowers simply won't be able to force an attack without some leadership.

c) I intended, in my old system, for the number of dice subtracted to potentially get to a point that a person can no longer initiate combat. I also intended for there to be bonuses for attacking when no one could see you, e.g. an open flank with nobody else nearby is enough of an inviting target for you to overcome your fears and attack.  I haven't thought of the appropriate bonus for this system, but it's probably 1 or 2 dice.

As for the remainder of your comments, I too wouldn't use these rules until you hit a confusing battle.  If your party ambushes 3 people, it's not worth worrying about.  But the caravan attacked at sundown scenario (luckily the PCs weren't directly hit by the initial ambush<g>) would cause major confusion that I think should be considered.

-Jeff

[Le Joueur]

A few things:[list=1][*]There is already a point in RoS combat where people choose a red vs white die and reveal their choice.  I'm slipping in a few dice for the red one, so I'm not adding an extra step there.  I'm actually very conscious about adding steps to combat; as a computer programmer, I'm aware what happens when you add a line of code to a loop.

[*]I don't worry about calculations much.  In part, I know that's an artifact of myself and my group: none of us have any problem with math-heavy games.  We played aftermath, powers & perils, and lots of record-keeping wargames.

[*]You asked "what's wrong with it now?" and "what are you trying to fix?".  I believe I made that point explicit above, but in summary I'm trying to model psychological effects in combat in addition to mechanical ones.  This isn't a right & wrong issue;[/list:o]

Points 1 and 2: you still didn't respond to the point I was making.  You say you don't like the 'look-down' kind of play.  My point is; any extra rules, no matter how tiny, non-stepwise, or unproblematic, is more 'look-down,' the 'amount' doesn't matter.  It just is.

So I'll ask again; how do more 'look-down' rules make a game more 'scary, confusing, or dangerous?'  That seems counter-productive.

On point 3; I can't understand how you can say you want to "model psychological effects in combat in addition to mechanical ones," with more mechanics!  Besides, the psychological effects are already in there!

This is coming down to the typical optimist/pessimist argument.  You're the pessimist; your proposal is all about creating more problems.  You're implying that the system is generic, lacking psychological effects.  Ron, on the other hand is the optimist; he notes that unless you have your 'spiritual attributes' going for you, you'll die.  He implies that the system is already about 'scary, confusing, and dangerous' circumstances and only by focusing your 'spirit' (id est overcoming the psychological hurdles you cite) can you succeed.

Your example of the veteran versus the duelist is prime.  In your additional material, certainly the veteran will fight better to protect the caravan, but it won't do anything to help the duelist win a duel.  On the other hand, as I understand it, the system already does this.  In a duel, the duelist will have lots of spiritual 'thingies' (I don't know the system) going in his favor (maybe reputation, romantic showing-off, or whatever), but the veteran has little; the duelist wins.  At suppertime, around the caravan, the duelist is outside of 'his element,' he'll have no spiritual 'thingies' going his way; he'll die.  The veteran, contrariwise, will be protecting, defending, and 'fighting the good fight,' (I think) that'll provide all the spiritual 'thingies' he needs to win the day.  So you see, the reason I ask, "what are you fixing?" is because it already seems to be there.

Or simply, I believe the author assumes that those same psychological factors are constant (so much so he doesn't even mention them) and that only by summoning up the right spiritual attributes(?) can you rise above them and win.  (This is what Ron has referred to as the 'survival of the fittest' understructure.)  I'm sorry I didn't notice this sooner.

As far as the examples (the fictional 'lines') you listed, none of that will come out of putting a few more dice in the first roll.  Those mechanics will not carry, suggest, or even give the impression of 'scariness, timelessness, things not registering' or anything like that.  To players it'll just be more dice and there's nothing psychological about that.

New final question: "Do you see how the battle is lost without the 'spiritual' stuff and how that is representative of exactly the psychology you ask for (just more pervasive)?"

Fang Langford

[Jaif]

Sorry, this is probably gonna be long. :-)

First, my motivation:

Blackhawk Down, pg 45 softbound edition (section 7 of "The Assault").  The setting: an M-60 gunner and his assistant see a Somali with a white afro manuevering for position against another team of rangers.  The assistant urges the gunner to fire right away, but the gunner says he'll wait because "He'll come right to us."  What follows -  "And, sure enough, the man with the white Afro practically walked right up to them.  He ducked behind a big tree about fifty yards off, hiding from Eversmann's Rangers, but oblivious to the threat off his left shoulder."

In a game, there's no way the man doesn't look left and notice the people waiting for him.  When you (either the GM or the player) are looking down on the table at the little miniatures (or visualizing the scene in your head) with pizza in one hand and dice in the other, it's hard to imagine someone doing something so counter-intuitive.

But I'll tell you something, I've read this type of scenario hundreds of times from first & second person accounts.  It's ubiquitous in the literature.  I haven't even read Blackhawk Down yet, I just picked the book up because it was handy, and I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I could find a scenario like this in seconds.

That's what combat's about.  Not how powerful the M-60 is, or whether plate or chain is better against the longbow; it's about scared people doing dumb things, and dying or killing as a result.  Yep, sometimes stupid pays off.

Second, your statements.

I'm going to cheat and reach back a bit to an original statement you made:

Pardon me, but doesn't adding more die rolls and mathematics further detach the player from the 'scared, confusing, and dangerous' side of combat?

No, die rolls and math do not detach a person from the combat.  This feels to me like the common myth that states "words good, numbers bad", and somehow a string of adjectives and description does less to interfere than a die roll and a calculation.  Both can interfere, both can assist, and it's all about timing and feel.

This is coming down to the typical optimist/pessimist argument. You're the pessimist; your proposal is all about creating more problems.

I hadn't heard of it put that way before, but yes. Actually, that's very close to the way I described it to my friends when we discussed the concept.  I would like to point out that all stories (in the RPG context, at least) are about problems, or more properly 'conflict'.  I'm just adding a different, and I feel necessary area of conflict to my stories.

You're implying that the system is generic, lacking psychological effects.

I'm implying nothing: I'm stating it for the record, and expanding to every game that I've seen.  Note that I'm very specific - I'm not making a statement about the entire game system, just one particular area for which I can cite support.

One point of confusion too:

I can't understand how you can say you want to "model psychological effects in combat in addition to mechanical ones," with more mechanics!

I was ambiguous: I gave a double-meaning to the word "mechanic".  RoS models combat maneuvers, human abilities, and arms (what I referred to as 'combat mechanics') very precisely as compared to any game I've seen.  In real life, you may duck & weave in combat: in RoS, there's a duck & weave manuever.  Cuts, Bashes, parries, counters, blocks, and even bind & strikes (use a shield or dagger to pin the other guy's weapon while you attack) are all physically in the RoS combat system.  There are game-mechanics modelling real-world combat-manuevers and so on.

None of that, though, reflects the psychological side of combat, the tendancy of people to do dumb things and overlook their environment.  The sources of these failures are fear & confusion, which is what everybody who's been in combat discusses when you talk to them.  If I'm going to tell a story about combat, my belief (and it's a sim belief if I'm to use the language of these forums) is that it's necessary to model this.

Hope that helps,

-Jeff

[Jaif]

I know double-posting is a social faux-paux (is that how you spell it?), but I want to point something out: this conversation has taken some very simplistic additions that I suggested and blown them way out of proportion.

In the first case, for those who don't know, initiative in RoS is mostly dealt with automatically.  The attacker has the initiative until the defender takes it (generally by rolling better), at which point they reverse roles.  I'm not touching that in the slightest.

However, at the beginning of combat, and during occasional pauses (e.g. when there's a successful full-evasion), the game requires players to 'roll' a die, either red or white, to show their intent to either attack or defend.  The roll means nothing: you could simply say "reveal" instead of "roll".  The outcome of this is either attack, defend, or hesitation (if a player is too slow or a character is surprised).  What I suggested was that in more battle-like situations the GM should ask people who roll a red die to actually make a WP/Battle roll instead of simply revealing a die.  The result of that can be attack, defense, or maybe even a hesitation (say a fumble), just like normal.  This isn't a big deal, and works cleanly with all the mechanics as stated in the game, and gives the Battle skill a bit of prominence.

The second thing I suggested could be phrased like this: during confusing battle situations, when you ask your players what to do and often have them make perception rolls anyway, just make them roll perception/battle and use the number of successes to define what they can see.  As a rule, 1 success=1 person or terrain feature.  When a GM responds "but hey, they're going to miss a whole lot of things that way, it's stupid", I respond a) "exactly; stupid happens in combat, don't feel bad", and b) "we're talking about 1 second of time here, maybe they look around for 2 or even <gasp> 3 or more seconds and make an extended roll to take in the situation."  Horror! People pausing during a confusing event to look around and see what's happening!  And again, I give a bit of prominence to the battle skill.

-Jeff

[Valamir]

What Jeff is talking about here is really simply dialing up the grittiness factor of RoS.  By grittiness I mean the same thing that differentiates the combat scenes in Black Hawk Down from the combat scenes in Commando.

Personally I don't see a big mechanical difficulty in making the initiative roll an actual roll (I'm embarrassed by the number of times I had to reread that section before I finally got that the 'roll' wasn't a 'roll').  I'm actually interested in how Jeff would interpret that roll once its made.

As for perception checks...I pretty much hate perception checks as a matter of course.  There is little more guarenteed to elicit a groan from me as a player than to be told to "make a perception check" (although I unfortunetely have a tendency to fall into that mode as a GM from time to time).

Better IMO is to simply give each "hidden" event a threshold and if the character's perception is higher than this threshold (accounting for distractions) than he notices, other wise he doesn't.

But, if you're going to do a perception check, I see nothing onerous or unreasonable in restricting the check to 1 feature per success in a time cruch situation.  

Now I'm a little loathe to add more rules to a game that is already a bit more rules heavy than my current taste, but thats clearly just personal taste.

[Jaif]

I'm actually interested in how Jeff would interpret that roll once its made.

I would do what Woffen said, but a little lighter.  A success (any number) means you attack.  A failure means you defend.  A fumble means you hesitate, and then roll on the table (forget the number) as appropriate.

A low-will person with a crappy (or no) battle skill won't initiate attacks, and probably should stay defensive.  An average person with a decent skill can expect to succeed as a rule, but may have troubles when facing a few zombies, which not only scare him but enough are nearby to make him pause (I would call this -2, 1 for scare, 1 for extras nearby).  A lightly wounded person will also have a harder time initiating attacks.

A hero PC, on the other hand, will have a high willpower and a good battle skill, and just might attack a scary zombie in a pack of zombies even when he's wounded.

-Jeff

[Le Joueur]

That's what combat's about.

[Snip.]

RoS models combat maneuvers, human abilities, and arms (what I referred to as 'combat mechanics') very precisely as compared to any game I've seen.  In real life, you may duck & weave in combat: in RoS, there's a duck & weave manuever.  Cuts, Bashes, parries, counters, blocks, and even bind & strikes (use a shield or dagger to pin the other guy's weapon while you attack) are all physically in the RoS combat system.  There are game-mechanics modeling real-world combat-manuevers and so on.

None of that, though, reflects the psychological side of combat, the tendancy of people to do dumb things and overlook their environment.  The sources of these failures are fear & confusion, which is what everybody who's been in combat discusses when you talk to them.  If I'm going to tell a story about combat, my belief (and it's a sim belief if I'm to use the language of these forums) is that it's necessary to model this.

It's funny how you go back and quote me so that you don't have to deal with my question, but I'll let that one go.

When I pointed out you imply the system is generic, I mean you imply that it does not already take psychology into account.

First of all, why should combat maneuvers rules cover psychology?  There are no psychological combat maneuvers (a little generalization, but bear with me).  What I have been trying to say is that there already are psychological 'effect' mechanics!  What do you call all the Spirit Attribute stuff?  A waste of paper?

As I have read Ron's review, it is quite clear unless you have some kind of 'psychological effect' going your way, you almost always die in this game.  I'm saying that the "psycholgical side of combat" is already factored in by this.  It means exactly that 'normal' people quickly die facing seasoned veterans; it's already in there!

I'm saying that you are implying that it is not a factor in the game as written.  I'm saying that it is, so much so that it goes without mention.  Adding an extra mechanic to make combat harder due to 'psychological effects' is redundant!

And finally, what you listed is "what combat's about."  This isn't combat, it's a game!  And from Ron's reading, it's not even a game about combat.  I would propose that it is actually a game exactly about the 'psychological effects' combat has and how 'a man' (meaning your character) rises to meet that challenge.

So either address why you don't think the Spirit 'stuff' doesn't essay your 'psychological effect' needs or I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

Fang Langford

(What does it take to get through to a person about a game's most central mechanic, which they seem bent on ignoring?)

[Jaif]

First of all, why should combat maneuvers rules cover psychology?

I covered that extensively.  It's because that's what combat is really about.

As I have read Ron's review, it is quite clear unless you have some kind of 'psychological effect' going your way, you almost always die in this game. I'm saying that the "psycholgical side of combat" is already factored in by this.

I don't agree with this; people do not survive combat in the game by bulling their way through with more dice granted by spiritual attributes.  They survive by playing smarter and not getting in straight-up fights to begin with.  Fight dirty, fight cheap, fight to survive.  I've read this time and time again from the developer; he has stated that it's part of the point to the game.  If the combat mechanics are that deadly, the group has to respond by playing smarter, and that the thinking involved is part of the fun.

It's even in the rules: one of the stories at the head of a chapter deals with an old vet telling his young companion that the bad-guys are just ahead, and if they hurry they can catch them and murder them in their sleep.  When the kid protests about the lack of honor, the vet points out that this is the real world, and that's how things are done.  There's more to it, but the story gives the same message: don't fight straight-up, be cheap, fight dirty, and win.

So either address why you don't think the Spirit 'stuff' doesn't essay your 'psychological effect' needs or I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

In my opinion, and I haven't played enough to be certain, the spiritual attributes are neither limited, nor all-encompassing like Pendragon was.  They are somewhere in the middle.  They certainly won't cover every action you take in a typical game, nor will they protect you for long if you persist in fighting without thinking.  On the other hand, killing without getting into straight up fights will go a long, long way to keeping your character alive. (As far as combats go: can't speak for the consequences of those deaths.<g>)

I'll add: I think the fun part of spiritual attributes isn't that they grant some form of partial script-immunity or super-human abilities: we're only talking about a few dice (typically).  Instead, a player will be driven by the system to create a motivation, and then follow-through on it in order to gain experience.

That's where characters "won't survive", IMO.  A player who refuses to follow his character's motivations will find that he doesn't gain experience.  For the character to prosper, the player must define spiritual attributes inline with his in-game interests, and then follow those to gain experience.  It's a nice, tight circle that drives a player to play in character, and gives the GM a clear vehicle for rewarding in-character play.

-Jeff

[Ace]

That's what combat's about.

SNIP

Fang Langford

(What does it take to get through to a person about a game's most central mechanic, which they seem bent on ignoring?)

Are you sure that most people even care about the spiritual mechanics?

At the risk of being snide the ROS combat system is so good and so interesting that it overshadows every other part of the book.

JMHO but many of the likely buyers of TROS are martial arts oriented types. The remainder will be drawn in from places like the Forge but again JMO the game is percieved to be about a cool combat system.

From a certain POV the Riddle  might look like this

A decent chargen system that produces pretty average guys as starting characters.

a dark magic system that allows starting mages to be really strong but makes them burn out do to old age.

A so so "Pseudo Europe" game world which may  elicit "Oh an Earth like world I made one of those once"

A few monsters "Looks like the basics got covered, Gol are kind cool though I guess they are like uhhh Orcs"

Spiritual attributes. Ok its like a roleplaying hook I guess, whatever. I'll take luck....

Combat system. It must be Mine!

I think there is a substantial play base who will be using The Riddles combat system as a Sim.

Yes, OK they will use the magic too but they really aren't interested in Detailed Roleplaying". as we might know it

What does catch their eye is a combat system that works like a real duel or battle does.

Even the name Riddle of Steel doesn't lead this sort of player to think of Philisophical Swordsmanship but instead to the Conan movie.

This is not IMO a bad idea.

There are a lot of buyers out there who will invest in a game for a really good system.

Why not accomodate the Sim play spectrum as well as the Narrative one.  

That way you can get more cash flow  and a larger play base.

Maybe a few of those Sim players will  actually get what the Riddle is all about

[Le Joueur]

That's what combat's about.

(What does it take to get through to a person about a game's most central mechanic, which they seem bent on ignoring?)

Are you sure that most people even care about the spiritual mechanics?

At the risk of being snide the ROS combat system is so good and so interesting that it overshadows every other part of the book.

[Snip.]

There are a lot of buyers out there who will invest in a game for a really good system.

Well, according the reviews and what the author has said, if you don't care about (read that 'use') the spiritual mechanics, you can't win.  That's what makes it a really good system!

Why not accomodate the Sim play spectrum as well as the Narrative one.  

I'm not even going to touch another thread that asks why you can't have a Simulationist game that is also a Narrativist one.  Go ask one of the local 'coherency experts.'  That's a far bigger flamewar than I have any interest in joining.

Suffice to say the lethality outside of using the spiritual mechanics means that the game is quite squarely Narrativist, by both Ron's review and the authors word.  No matter how much you want it to be Simulationist, that fact won't change (and I'm not going to try and change your mind).

Fang Langford

[Jaif]

From the billion-page monster thread on RPG net, I give you the developer's own words:

What keeps your characters from getting whacked is the same thing that kept man alive in the world back when it was this deadly (which, technically, it still is): cunning and wits. TROS isn't a hack-and-slash game...it's more about thinking your way through problems. An example I like to share at demos is something like this:

Three of you (adventurers) are walking down a path. One of you, a scout, runs up ahead and comes back to report that there are 5 orcs (or whatever) coming down the path. These orcs are on their way to do something bad, and you have to stop it (I'm ommiting details so save space  ).

But what is an orc? It's a 6 or 7 foot tall warrior-from-birth from a culture that canibalizes the weak...

In every FRPG I've ever seen (and I've seen a few) it runs like this: the fighter(s) in the group either handles it alone ala Conan or the whole group just walks up to them and the fight starts after an initiative roll. Some better players may choose to stage an ambush or whatever, but the advantage it gains them is piddly, and they're 17 year old characters really don't need the advantage anyway. (if this doesn't sound like your FRPG games, then you're part of the blessed minorty)

In TROS, undersanding that the odds are bad--but that something must be done--the characters must act more carefully. So that begin to form a plan (teamwork in an FRPG...what an idea!).

"We'll hide in the brush off to the side and wait for them to pass. Then we'll sneak out and cut down the first three right away, imediately putting the odds in our favor. If we're lucky, the orcs will still be drawing their swords when we cut them down, too."

What develops is a low-risk plan...an ambush. Ambushes have been working in the real world since man started killing each other, but in RPGs they're usually just nice additions to the story that aren't all that advantageous. Also, the "very deadly" system of the Riddle allows such plans to work as well as they should--because the orcs don't have "X" number of hit points, health points, damage thresholds, or whatever, even their bad-asses can get cut down.

In over a year of our own play we've lost ONE character to death, and it was due to a poor tactical descision on his part. Part of the philosophy behind such a realistic and brutal combat system is putting the responsibility for a fight's results into the hands of the players, not their dice. So the game uses strategy and planning on both team and indiviudal levels. As in the real world, smart fighters can beat statistical odds.

What if you just roll really poorly? Well, that's part of why we use dice...it keeps us from winning all the time. Despite that, however, as Ron wrote earlier, the "Spritual Attribute" system will grant bonus dice in fights (or any situation) where something important to your character is at stake.

And, in the case of maiming, the Riddle super-flexible and powerful magic system can put the limb back on, if you can convince a sorcerer to take the risk of using so much magic at once.

Finally, because we recognize that some folks are just gonna get killed (it happens...but then again, if you swing a sword at people for living, who ever said it wouldn't...), TROS conains a system called "Insight," which--like Karma--allows much of a previous character's "experience" to pass on to the new one. Kind of a "consolation prize" of sorts.

Harsh, and probably not fair, but it IS balanced by the best mitigating factor...caution, thought, and the knowledge that everyone is mortal, and none of you have hit-points.

I hope that helps. See our site, www.theriddleofsteel.com and go to "what is the riddle" for an example of combat in play.

Jake Norwood
Driftwood Publishing
Creator, TROS

This quote comes from page 2 of this thread: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3612&perpage=20&pagenumber=2  It's one of the primary things that prompted me to purchase the game, and thus far in mock combats and reading I haven't been dissapointed.

-Jeff

[Jake Norwood]

Howdy folks. Figured I'd pop my head in on this one, and tell you where I'M coming from.

When I wrote TROS I didn't have the faintest idea of what sim, narrative, dramatist, gamist, or any of the other pigeonholes were. Because I didn't know I didn't care. Now I do know, I've read a bit, but the fact is that I still don't really care.

As it's been said before, there is no "right" way to play the game. Based on failures in the past a lot of folks seem to think that you can't have a good narrativist system and a good sim system all at once. I think that's crap, though, having looked around a bit. Think of your favorite simulationist systems...GURPS, Rolemaster, Runequest, whatever. Think of your favorite narrativist systems...Whitewolf, Sorcerer, whatever...now take the good narrativist stuff and the good sim stuff and there's your game. That's not exactly what we did (as I said, I didn't even know what "narrativist" meant in an RPG context), but it's getting there.

I started with a really good idea for a combat sim. For months we tinkered and played and never had characters...just bodies with swords. One day I sat down and started doing attributes. I had Physical ones and Mental ones, and then I added Spiritual ones. I liked the idea. My home games have always revolved around issues of religion (presented as they are in TROS, not ala TSR) and familial relationships. I picked up Pendragon back in '98 I think (as I've mentioned before) and said "cool...the players actually have reasons to be good and to roleplay," but it never went past that. I never conscioiusly made TROS narrativist or sim, really...it just is what it is...

What I'm saying is this: Ron's right. TROS, now that I get the terms, is a great narrativist game. What Ron has also said (and many of us have missed this somehow) is that it's a BLEND of Sim and Nar (something that I hear hasn't been done before, or at least not as well...hell if I know...).

I would have bought TROS based on the Sim aspect. It's the Spiritual Attributes that really make it fun for me as a Roleplaying Game, though.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we should recognize that TROS does both, smile and say "I'll be damned...someone did it," and go play the game according to our own biases of Sim, Nar, or--like me--just for fun.

Jake

p.s. As for the lethality of the game outside of Spiritual Attributes...I'll confess, they help A LOT...but I'd rather fall back on a good plan (and hey, those SA's really help). I never actually intended the SA's to balance anything...they were there to give an advantage, but still not one that a decent ambush wouldn't make up for in spades.

p.s.s. A lot of you seem to feel that beginning PCs are a tad weak or "average..." They're NOT, I assure you. They're quite strong. An average PC who puts his Attributes into Priority C is only one point short of "average" (something that I don't think really exists, hence 39 pts and not 40...that'd be too easy), but has a ton of Master-level skill or proficiencies. Compare a beginning TROS character to ANY 1st level character or most any other beginning character (even white wolf ones, but probably not IN NOMINE ones...) and the TROS fighter will kick the living trash out of the other guy. The TROS wizard will melt his magic-missile throwing opponent, and the TROS thief will sneak circles around the other guy. Just my two cents, but that issue is a tad overblown around here and isn't really all that justified. If you wan't "High fantasy," then I agree wholeheartedly with adding Attribute points, but never mistake a TROS beginning character as "average."

Much love and stuff,
Jake (again)

[Lance D. Allen]

Wow, lotsa posts..


First: Jaif, thanks for the clarification. A failed roll in Initiative is not the same as hesitate, in your options. Gotcha. Hesitation is strongly advised against and strongly discouraged by the mechanics- if you hesitate, you might end up (60% chance per die) just standing there and *letting* your opponent hit you.

Second: Just like to support ('cause Jake beat me to it) the position that using SA doesn't mean you'll survive.. They just give you added chances of doing so. You can have an absolutely insane passion score, and apply it to a situation, but still get whacked because you were stupid. A sorceror doesn't care if the warrior hates them with an unholy Passion, he's still going to fry them. A Drive isn't going to get you out of the middle of a Gol military assault alive (though Drive, Passion and Luck might...). Situation is absolutely crucial. In purely combat situations, it's more important than your SA.

Third: Ace makes the point that a lot of people (myself included) will buy this game because of the schweet combat mechanics. Some, (like myself) will love the Spiritual Attributes.. Those sorts are the ones who will actually play the game as a roleplaying game. Others won't. Jake mentioned a tournament style game which a store here in Pheonix (the only one in my area to have both Riddle of Steel and Sorceror) intends to sponsor. I seriously doubt that characters will get better through roleplaying, if they improve at all. I also doubt that Spiritual Attributes will even apply, unless it's such things as "Drive: Win the Tourney", "Passion: hates the tourney champion", "Faith: <specific deity>" (which could apply when fighting an infidel) or just plain ol' Luck. I'm not even sure they'll allow use of Spiritual attributes, which has been bruited about as the Central Mechanic of the game. Purely Sim players can play this game and enjoy it, without needing to cater much to the SA. Narrativist players can enjoy it, because of the SA. I'm with Jake on this one... Lack of knowledge of GNS might have allowed him to create a game which does cross the boundaries quite satisfactorily.

Remember, many things are accomplished because no one ever told us that they were impossible.

[Brian Leybourne]

p.s.s. A lot of you seem to feel that beginning PCs are a tad weak r "average..." They're NOT, I assure you. They're quite strong.

This isn't really the right forum for it, but you brought it up so I thought I would respond. :)

I do agree with you that the characters certainly aren't average. However, one drawback of the priority system of creation means some very harsh choices while making up a character.

Lets say I want to make up a warrior type. I'll go human so that takes care of F. I want to be pretty good at fighting etc, so my A and B will be proficiencies and attributes. Now I have a tough time deciding what to take - if I want have anything like reasonable starting skills then that has to go C, which leaves me either as a low freeman with no gifts or a minor of each, or a high freeman with a major flaw (and lets face it, they're all very sucky). Or I can bump one of those up and have terrible skills.

It's even worse if I want to play a magic-using human. B is taken up with race. 6 proficiencies wont be enough for spells and basic weapon use, so that has to go A, which leaves attributes at C. Now I have to live with some nasty flaws, crappy skills or being a slave. It's almost impossible to get a sorceror who has reasonable skills AND has wealth, unless you're happy for his attributes to all suck very badly.

I'm not panning the system - far from it - but I do think that it gets pretty nasty. In most other games, you can have a character who is great at some things and has disadvantages (like tRoS), but you usually also have the choice of not taking the top cool stuff in return for not being screwed at the other end, and that's not an option in tRoS. (yes, I know you can buy off flaws and suchlike, but that takes some time).

What it comes down to, I guess, is that if you want to be good combat wise, you're not going to be very good socially/skill wise. However, making up a character who totally de-prioritises combat and attributes so he can have all the cool RP stuff means he'll very very likely die the first time the group gets attacked.

Just my 2c. Don't think it doesn't mean I like the game, 'cos I really do.

p.s: One possibility to get around that I guess could be to start off with slightly bumped characters. I'm not talking about adding X to attribute totals like some have suggested, but maybe a variation of the Insight system - instead of ABCDEF, maybe give out ABCDEE or ABCDDE or something like that. Or, in a variation of Ambers (and maybe others') system of giving rewards for storys, diaries, logs etc, maybe start with ABCDEF but allow players who commit to doing stories for their character to bump up any priority under C by one, something like that?

[Jake Norwood]

I do think that it gets pretty nasty. In most other games, you can have a character who is great at some things and has disadvantages (like tRoS), but you usually also have the choice of not taking the top cool stuff in return for not being screwed at the other end, and that's not an option in tRoS. (yes, I know you can buy off flaws and suchlike, but that takes some time).

What it comes down to, I guess, is that if you want to be good combat wise, you're not going to be very good socially/skill wise. However, making up a character who totally de-prioritises combat and attributes so he can have all the cool RP stuff means he'll very very likely die the first time the group gets attacked.

You have some good points, and so it really becomes an issue of what you want. While it's true that the Skill-based (read: noncombat, nonmagic) character would get hashed in many a fight, he can always run (which is what those sorts of characters always do in the movies and literature) if he ended up like that. On the other hand, I'm almost 100% convinced after all of our playing out here that the "thief" type characters, with a high stealth and the like, are massively deadly in the right circumstances (which they create for themselves) and are generally more uselful in 90% of situtations. If I wanted to make a good all-around guy, one that I could develop in any direction, I'd go with A for Skills (or B), B for Attributes (or A), C for profs, D for Social, E for gifts/flaws, F for Race.

Your "bumper" idea is quite valid, though (you'll notice that that's exactly how the "insight" system works. Most 2nd characters start out with significantly higher stats. I really like the idea of giving out a bonus "E" priority (or better) for good character preparation (stories, histories, etc).

As for the extremism...it's intentional, though again you can tamper with it to your liking. I just don't believe in "average." I've never met an average person, and the idea of all 4's in stats, 4's in profs, and 7's in Skills all around with a minor gift and a minor flaw just says "dull" to me. In TROS you have to think HARD about building your character, because your decisions matter and they have real consequences.

On a final note, if you look at character progression you'll see it's very easy to improve from "crappy" (low priority choices) to "good/average" within a few games in several areas. Remember that you're not locked in with your priorities, they just get the ball rolling.

Jake