Played the Riddle of Steel combat yesterday(long)

[Ace]

I had a very intersting experience as Senechal of the Riddle of Steel Senechal yesterday.

With a bit a luck I managed to get three of the players in the  D&D group to try the combat system.

I cooked up a couple of fighter types, relevent stats at 5, Combat Pool 12
armor 2 on all locations

1 guy was armed with a cut and thrust sword the other had a rapier. Both had bucklers.

What made this especially nice is the players were a broad cross section of styles. I had a pure gamist type, (MS) A very good roleplaying type ,a narrativst with sim tendencys IMO (ER) and a casual player (BP)

I decided the match was to be a duel type thing, not necessarily to the death. It was  1 on 1 rotating. Just to keep it easy.

A few things really stuck out.

First all of the players spar in Kendo, SCA or other styles and took to the system very quickly.

after I explained you good insult people and such like the players got into it. They started the match with a series of nasty in character insults. My favorite had to come from the casual gamer who managed a Shakespearian "I bite my thumb at thee"

There was quite a bit of fumbling around at first but within a few minutes we were going pretty good. .
We fought four bouts all in all
There were four kills 1 simulatneous.

Now the players were carefull with die pool alocation (1/2 up front and 1/2 in reserve) and reasonably crafty in manuevers. Full evasion seemed to be a favorite.

The problem I saw was one of luck, the dice pools mostly matched (partially because I  forgot to have them allocate in secret) however it seesm that if a person got a poor showing on the dice they were doomed. Thats is not good.

Horribly it also reminded me of why I hate Pool/Count Success mechanics.

Things I noticed

Everyone thought the art was great except me

The guys send complimentson the art .

It is the most viceral game combat experience I have had in a game.
Even playing the initiative die is pretty neat.
I even enjoyed saying "Throw Initiative" at the begining of each round.

Handling the dice in the pool makes you feel involved in the combat and really gets you into the mind set.  
That is extremely  good use of tactile sensation in an RPG.  

Jake that is something to be proud of  it is not an easy thing to do.

As has been mentioned here spiritual attributes are important (we didn't use them) They account for 25% of charcter effectiveness sometimes more.

Combat is extremely deadly. Even with leather armour a decent hit will kill or main very quickly if the dice go against you.

Stance is integrated flawlessly into the system. The  Manuvers work great as well. This is a good thing since layout was a bit of a problem and there were parts off the system that were less than clear to us.

For example

Can a rapier and buckler guy block? It wasn't listed on the style but since there was a shield in the other hand I couldn't see a reason why they couldn't if they wished even though a parry was effective.

Second listing evasion as a manuver would have saved some reference time. Anyone can evade but thats isn't explicit.

Third. A little more info on off hand weapons would have been nice. There is nothing on cloaks and those clam shell hilted main gauche daggers and saw toothed sword breakers were conspicuouly absent.

Fourth. Combat is complex, Would be Senechals may want to involve players whos characters are absent in large battles. That or have a co-Senechal. Running a lot of baddies well will be tricky.
Fortunely a round plays fast so the Senechal can just go about the board one fight at a time until everyone is done.

After the bout I asked the players what they thought of the game.

MS felt that the game was too deadly to be interesting. The sim was real enough but the gamewas unplayable for his prefered gaming habit. His joke "Its a good thing character generation is fast. You will need a lot of new ones"  and a snide "Why don't you just play GURPS if you want realism" [1]  Given his gaming tastes thats about what I expected. The only interesting note.
He won 3/4 of the bouts

ER wasn't impressed with game particularly. While he understood the game was not about combat it didn't offer him anything special.  While he often likes to play dark characters even the magic system didn't seem to linterest  him and I wasn't impressed with Weyerth enough to sell it.

As a Kenjutsu stylist and all around sword fiend he appreciated the rules set but I think he wanted a Katana :)


BP didn't choose to try the system but did give it a look over. His most interesting comment was "Its a mutt system its like a little White Wolf, Warhammer FRP (the dark tone) and a little Shadowrun with a few other things"

While I did go over the personality mechanics no one really cared that much.

Overall TROS combat gained kudos for his realism and fun but the game itself elicited no interest.

The general gist of the day was "We like to fight a lot in our games and TROS is too deadly and personal to meet our needs"

I can't say as I disagree.

[1] The remark about GURPS was a comment on the way I run GURPS. By hook and crook I can get GURPS to run fast. I think he felt TROS reminded him of my GURPS in execution, fast, realistic and deadly.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ace,

That's a very enlightening post, but it seems more enlightening to me about the mode of trying out the game than it does about the system.

As you state, 25% or more of a character's effectiveness is generated by using Spiritual Attributes. (I actually think it's significantly more, because using SA's, by definition, is associated with the character caring about what happens; the Inigo example in the other thread is dead-on.) Yet your group didn't use them. They didn't use them. It's as if you were to try out a new jet design and all you did was taxi about on the runway.

When I ran my first tries of TROS, the first thing we did was construct a situation which dovetailed with the characters' SA's. The players latched onto it so fast that the characters basically shrugged and ignored (didn't care about) things that didn't correspond to SA issues. This is correlated with the fact that SA-less combat is, bluntly, going to maim and kill player-characters.

Let me say that again: SA-less combat in TROS against worthy opponents is nothing but an exercise in luck-driven character maiming and death, with no satisfaction value beyond how "realistic" it was.

So when testing the game as you did, the players correctly perceived this! "Gah," they say, "Why should I play just to get my character's kneecaps severed or smashed?" Given how you guys played, I agree with them wholeheartedly.

In another thread, I described how the TROS staff ran demonstration sessions. They provided characters without SA's, and conducted a fairly detailed prep phase in which the players assigned those SA's. Then they made sure that during play, people were realizing that the bonus dice were available. Therefore, combining the SA's use with the other big emphasis, tactics/ambush, we were able to enjoy our characters and perceive them as competent, successful heroes instead of meat-bags that the dice may or may not chop apart.

(Thanks to Rick McCann, by the way, who ran the demo I participated in. He was really tired at the time, but he did run it exactly as I described.)

Some role-playing groups do put their first priority specifically on the verisimilitude of maiming/death, which is not a bad thing. They would enjoy a session like yours and would enjoy TROS on that basis; they might not even use SA's.

However, I suggest many others will prefer to play the game (1) as written with its full mechanics in full application, and (2) will be interested in doing so if the game is demonstrated as Rick did, and as I describe above.

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

I also ran a oneshot yesterday(check Actual Play), and we did it with the SA's, but it was pretty much a combat run.   But we did find that the pc's were very competant, especially when using teamwork and good tactics.

On the flip side, most of my group really dug it.  They liked the old school "crunchiness" of it, but that it had pretty simple foundation mechanics that were easy to feel for.

Also, another kudos for the art.  My take is that a lot of the art I can see either was in color or had massive graytones that got washed out(the dancer, the really cool archer with the flaming arrow, etc).  From the graphic design/illustrator in me:  Please get someone who can balance the greytone levels to print...please, I hate to see good art get mangled in the printing process.(ok, begging rant over)

Back to our play:

I think a lot of folks have been spoiled on the idea that "criticals" are the only lethal hits, even in a lot of sim games.  We found the lethality fit well with the types of hits folks were taking, but I do think that many combats ended really fast(2-5 seconds). I think if we took into account movement time, etc. it may have actually made more sense.

We did find that SA's upped actions by 1-3 successes, and also that it definitely motivated player goals.  I really dug the "instant gratification" factor of handing out immediate rewards to be used right away.  We all were interested in seeing how SA's work over a longer term.  

Ron, do you think you could give us more detail as to how it worked with the demo, as how player generated SA's were worked into it?

Chris

[Ace]

Hi Ace,

That's a very enlightening post, but it seems more enlightening to me about the mode of trying out the game than it does about the system.

SNIP

As usual Ron you hit the proverbial nail on the head. The reason I demo'd the game in the manner I did was  because we were all at a restaraunt at the moment and it was kind of an impulse thing.

My second reason was simply a matter of salesmanship. When I read TROS the one part of the game that seemed the most interesting to me was not the spiritual attributes but the combat system.

While the rest of TROS is IMO a well crafted workman like system nothing in it really  is stand out. I don't care for the magic system (though it is well done) and Weyerth(also well done) is nothing really special.

As to the the spiritual attributes, IMO  are basically just a modification of a "fate point" system with an emphasis on rewarding good play.

Granted they are tied into the experience point system but again  I saw this back in the 1980's with the original Marvel Super Heros RPG. I don't find them revolutionary.

While the spiritual attribute system is pretty good it seems to me it could lead to characters having more chance of dying at the hands of bandits or in a tavern brawl than against their worst foes. That  seems kind of counter intuitive to me.


Let me say that again: SA-less combat in TROS against worthy opponents is nothing but an exercise in luck-driven character maiming and death, with no satisfaction value beyond how "realistic" it was.

Agreed. The problem they saw was one of style. Combat sessions with mook oppponents is an expected part of why they game.  In TROS combat is to be avoided unless absolutly necessary. Thus the satifaction they get in taking on the faceless horde is gone.

One of the players made an interesting comment " Say you were rescuing the Princess and a bunch of guards were trying to stop you. In the game you couldn't fight them,  you would die"

Rather than taking this as a challenge to be more clever he saw it as a narrowing of the range of expected options.

I think that was partially because the weapon selection in the game wasn't mainly "Warpick and broadsword" but was Rapier and Cut and Thrust as well. This lead to belief that (combined with the spiritual attributes) the game was good for swashbuckling derring do.

Thats is partially my fault I am afraid for not being clear enough about the gritty factor.

Another point  I  am afraid the  system would lead to at least two bad things

1- Min Maxing of appropriate spiritual attributes (why can't I use passion in this situation for the extra 3 dice) and
2- lower than expected effectiveness of the spiritual attributes (yes you have drive 3, Passion 2  here but the guard have loyalty 3,  so in effect you get only two extra dice)

This would detract from the Roleplaying aspect of the spiritual attributes and bring the game back down to a luck driven level. Again IMO

My feeling is after playing the system that even with Luck and the other Spiritual Attributes the game is too gritty for the players and maybe for me.

I am going to try the game in its proper context as a player (hopefully next week) and test that hypothosis.  

Anthony

[Ron Edwards]

Well, let's see ...

We knew we were to be on a ship, chasing some other ship which had kidnapped some chick ('scuse me, female NPC). This correlates to one of the book's story seeds, by the way, although I didn't know about that then.

So I decided my dwarf, who had some doctor-type skills, had been the guy who'd presided over her birth and had a relationship with that whole family. It permitted me to toss those dice into the final fight in the run, with the dastard who'd stolen her.

It wasn't much, but considering that the run consisted of (1) stumbling around on an island trying to find the bad guy's camp, (2) an ambush on a beach with two schmoe pirates, and (3) a short fight with the main bad guy on some rocks, it was enough to show the value of the SAs. Mainly because the bad guy was extremely tough and would have butchered the two of us easily.

Best,
Ron

[Jaif]

Let me say that again: SA-less combat in TROS against worthy opponents is nothing but an exercise in luck-driven character maiming and death, with no satisfaction value beyond how "realistic" it was.

I'm hoping you meant to say "no satisfaction [to me]" and so on, because otherwise this statement is drivel.  The reason I say this so harshly is there are many people who would find satisfaction in a well thought through encounter that results in a victory over their opponents.  The challenge of out-thinking someone, both strategically and tactically, is statisfying to many, and campaign-driven reasons would simply be the icing on the cake.

Also, the converse of your statement goes something like this: "unless every single character has an SA at stake in the combat, it's simply a luck-driven exercise of maiming and death for them."

No, I don't buy that either.  I think you can have a game in which characters are strongly encouraged to pick & choose their encounters very carefully as much with their brains as with their SA dice.  In fact, I hazard a guess that a person who stupidly bulls their way forward into combat and counts on their SA dice to save them will die much quicker than a person who plays it smart and runs, hides, ambushes, and maybe cheats & murders rather than engaging in straight-up fights and hoping for luck.

Bottom line, to me at least, is this: tactically, players should count on their brains.  Strategically, players should play in character, following their SAs, and they will progress both in a (to use your words) gamist sense and a narrativist one.

-Jeff[/code]

[Ron Edwards]

Jeff,

I don't know how many times on this forum I have specified that two distinctive and  valid modes of ROS play exist. (I've also suggested that they are compatible, which is not historically the case in other RPGs.) One is focused on combat grittiness; one is focused on a philosophical, ethical conundrum (see #9 on p. 219, among others). Sooner or later, you'll have to accept that I can't repeat that whole spiel every time I make a point about the game that isn't aimed right at it. I've identified the combat/gritty priority as valid. Accept that and don't be paranoid that I'm slipping "bias" in when no one's looking.

Understand where I'm coming from, look at the post I'm responding to, and you'll see, I hope, that your particular quibble is not a big deal. The key issue is this: I am addressing why and how Ace's group had a relatively negative experience with the game, and how he can fix it. He has agreed with me and has some food for thought about playing again. I don't need policing about my phraseology - when it's directed toward that contrast I describe above, the phrasing will be precise.

Before launching into some major dispute with me about this - and I specifically mean a line-by-line hunt for "inconsistencies" and so on - I suggest reading the thread "Playing ROS (a little)" if you haven't done so, with special reference to Jake's posts. I also suggest playing the game for a while, and I mean weeks and weeks, sessions and sessions, before anyone, me included, holds forth more about what the game is "about."

Best,
Ron

[Jaif]

Ron,

If you accept two different modes of ROS play, then there should be no need to make as strong a statement as I referenced.  It's not that hard to qualify it without having to re-explain your entire position.  The reverse, expecting readers of a thread to read many other threads to get a feel for you is rather, well, slippery and sloppy.  Your individual posts should be able to stand on their own, even if not fully explained.

Whatever.  Not a huge deal.

If I understand your main point to ACE, you were trying to tell him that trying the system as a roleplaying game and ignoring the SAs wasn't a fair way to judge.  On the general subject of SA's we agree, I believe. I'm really infatuated with the SA system, and have enjoyed it in play thus far.  I further think they add a level to the roleplaying side of the game that lifts it above others.

However there's a strong subtext to what you're preaching that I disagree with, and that's statements along the lines of "Your SAs are 25% of combat power."  Perhaps it's literally true as a beginning character; that is, the number of dice used may be enhanced by 25% through your SAs on average.  However, I think that bypasses the point to the combat system.  I'm bolding that, because I want to distinguish the combat system from the full game.

I disagree with this thinking for a few reasons:

a) The developer (pulling from the psychology thread, but he's said it many times and it's littered through the book): "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." Again, I bolded part for emphasis - if you want true combat power, use ambushes, or more generally planning.  Pick your battles, don't let them pick you.

b) Referring to SAs as +25% to combat can lead people to believe they can play this game like any other, e.g. Player:I attack the guards, starting with the one on the right. GM:  There's 2 guards, and possibly some others on the balcony with crossbows; are you sure? Player:You bet, I love the princess, so that's 3 dice 5 times right there, and I'm driven to defeat the empire, so that another 2 that I can use as much as I want.  I'm gonna kick their butts!  Within a few rounds, our hero finds out that charging into the open in an unknown situation to fight 2 people trained to fight themselves is rather silly in a gritty game, regardless of a few extra dice here and there.

c) It's a gritty game.  You're making it sound like a high fantasy game with some gritty stuff tucked in to penalize those who step out of line.

Now, getting back to ACE, I wouldn't necessarily say his judgement is off.  While there's a major portion of the system he left out (the SAs, you and I agree there), that doesn't mean his feel of the combat system is suddenly invalid.  It's a gritty system, and it will kill you if you're not being careful.  That type of care may not be what ACE's group is looking for.

-Jeff

[Ace]

Ron,


c) It's a gritty game.  You're making it sound like a high fantasy game with some gritty stuff tucked in to penalize those who step out of line.

Now, getting back to ACE, I wouldn't necessarily say his judgement is off.  While there's a major portion of the system he left out (the SAs, you and I agree there), that doesn't mean his feel of the combat system is suddenly invalid.  It's a gritty system, and it will kill you if you're not being careful.  That type of care may not be what ACE's group is looking for.

-Jeff

Both of those points hit the nail on the head. The game is too gritty for the expected mode of play. also for my group the fantasy level is too low. Most of them are used to D&D influenced games and maybe one more system.
This game which draws from earlier pulp works, Arthurian legend History  and that sort of thing is a foreign game concept to the players.
Also the Spiritual attributes system is too narrative a play tool (IMO) for my group.
Even playing to alignment in D&D is pretty challenging for these guys.

My personal opinion is that TROS with or without spiritual attributes is wrong for that group.

However I am in the process of joining another group explicitly to play TROS and it probably will work much better with them. We will see...

Anthony

[Nick the Nevermet]

I completely agree that tROS is a gritty, gritty game.  However, and I know i'm splitting hairs, I don't think its dark per se.  Dark, to me, implies much more moral compromises than tROS seems to project.  yes, life is nasty, brutal, and short... but its also a game where peopel try to strive toward ideals.  Truly dark games either have no ideals to strive for, or the ideals are purely personal in nature.

*looks at my copy of SLA Industries on my shelf, taunting me*

...um... anyway... the point is that tROS seems to walk a strange line of gritty, yet encouraging characters to act morally, if not heroically.  Being heroic, such as the example about burning through SAs to save a princess, will either result in 1 of 2 things.  Either 1) the PC going out in a blaze of glory (and maybe some more SAs which may increase his insight points, rewarding him with a more advanced new character), or 2) it will result in an awe-inspring display of determination, and a VERY emotionally spent PC.  If I was more awake, I could probably think of several examples of movies which are for the most part gritty action movies, where in one key scene, the protagonist goes absolutely NUTS, and nigh-superhuman in his ass-kicking abilities.  tROS simulates that pretty well: its gritty 99% of the time, until the key scenes where the PCs' passions become enflamed.  Such an effect doesn't mean its not gritty... it just means the grittiness recedes from time to time.  And seeing how its still pretty easy to kill ANY character in tROS, I'm not that worried about it escaping its gritty existence.

Also, I don't know if its too late for giving more suggestions for the next printing of tROS, but I think a good one would be a reading list.  Other games have them, and its a quick reference tool to say, "Thats the kind of feel we think this game works with."  I may have mentioned it before, but has anyone here read any Thieves' World?  I'm not gonna claim its the best fantasy series ever written, but its a style of gritty I think fits tROS pretty well.

anyways, sorry I rambled and wasn't clearer

[Lyrax]

I know that TROS is deadly.  That's why 1/2 attack and 1/2 defense is NOT being reasonably crafty.  If you want to live, it is a generally accepted rule that you have to spend more on defense than your opponent spends on attack (unless your defensive TN is radically lower than his attack TN, but that's another story).  Also, because full evasion was a favorite, that makes me think that your players didn't quite understand the advantage of a parry (or a counter!).

Other stuff:

A rapier/buckler guy can block.  He can do anything he wants to, except for stuff like "two-weapon attack" or "hook" (for obvious reasons).  It says, in the style description, that rapier-schooled people may use an off-hand dagger or shield.

Running large battles isn't too tricky, as long as each player fights about one person at a time.

Yes, the game is deadly.  Yes, you have to be much more careful in TROS than in D&D.  I think that this is a good thing most of the time.

The magic system is amazing, and I am really quite surprised that ER didn't like it.  The only thing that some people don't like about it is that you have to have some imagination and creativity to make it work.

What I got from my first session is this:
"If you are careful, your character can survive a very long time.  If you are not, you will die a horrible death.  So, you should either have a way to keep your character safe in dangerous situations or a very good idea of what the next character should be like."

Although, from seeing your posts (after the first one), I'm starting to think that TROS may not be as good for your group as it is for mine.

Nevermet - TROS has a reading list.  It's kinda hidden in the damage appendix (pg. 242-243, at the bottom of the pages), but it's there.

[Nick the Nevermet]

Nevermet - TROS has a reading list.  It's kinda hidden in the damage appendix (pg. 242-243, at the bottom of the pages), but it's there.

D'OH!

Mudder fuggin...
sorry about that

[Jake Norwood]

We actually wanted to put in a HUGE reading list, but ran out of paper...the joys of indie game design, huh!

What I DO want to do is put up a full-sized mega-list on the web site: movies, music, books, generic supplements (I recently got a copy of Palladiums Compendium of Armor, weapons, and castles...it's pretty darn good, especially on the armor and castles and sheer number of weapons, though their descriptions and interperetations of many of the European weapons were a little off...but hey--I'm picky), and other fun stuff...in fact, I'm gonna start a thread on it, asking for submissions of titles and stuff.

Jake