Why Riddle of Steel

[Le Joueur]

While I was washing the dishes tonight, I've been thinking about the question Christopher posed with this thread.  While I appreciate everyone chiming in with their feelings, I decided to tell you what I thought.

First of all, you all know that I am a staunch believer in the idea that in order to get people to play, you have to hook their emotions into it.  Everyone so far have given some very passionate responses in this thread, but I've been 'listening between the lines.'

I've also been listening to Jake 'defend' his creation.  First against being GNS labeled, and then against being too deadly.  Back here Jake said, "In TROS we're trying to create adventure stories...look at all your favorite books and movies, the ones that you look to for inspiration when you game, and you'll find that all of them completely support the way TROS runs, and not the 'other FRPGs.'"  You know what?

I think he's wrong.

In fact, it's exactly how he's wrong that makes The Riddle of Steel so attractive.  Let me explain.  First a quote from farther up....

- It's got the first combat system that claims to be realistic - and actually is - and is quick at the same time.

I'll have to take this as gospel, between here, Jake's site itself, and all the 'realism' talk; I haven't played the game (I can't afford it) so I don't know for sure.

The point that needs to be made is that "adventure stories" and favored books and movies rarely, if ever, have 'realistic' combat.  They just don't; it's either too complicated to describe or just plain, well...plain.  'Real' combat would look boring in comparison to watching those Jedi go at it, and the movie makers know it.  Simply put, if realistic combat isn't the opposite of "adventure stories" dramatic confrontation, the two are at least utterly unrelated.  Which brings me to another quote....

From my own standpoint, a lot of the hook is the realism of combat, the grittiness of play

Ya see, I think Wolfen hits it right on the head here (just not the way he thinks he does).  Role-playing game combat is always some kind of abstraction of getting out there with live steel and doing it for real.  The more abstract, the farther the player will feel from that 'rush' of battle.  I think The Riddle of Steel, being written by someone so experienced with this kind of battle, works as less of an abstraction that way.

It gets you more 'hooked into' combat, in ways that a book or a movie could never even begin to approach.  That's exactly what I began with in the Scattershot Gaming Model; rather than echo the tired "It's Let's Pretend for growups," I state that gaming is "Well, if it were me...."  What gaming does is hook you into the narrative in ways that no other media can touch, you become a part of the story.

The problem is in the delivery.  I can't think of anything more distancing from the 'thrill of victory' and 'the agony of defeat' than making a single roll for each in-game minute of combat and then rolling some abstract 'hit point' amount (being the halcyon Dungeons & Dragons).  Most of the time, when combat systems are made 'more realistic,' it's by someone who hasn't been in a battle in their lives.  So the abstraction becomes a more complicated and thicker buffer between the player and the immediacy of fighting for life and limb.

Can combat in The Riddle of Steel be deadly?  Of course it can, that's part of the thrill.  How long do you play before you start thinking in first person mode?  Deadliness, 'grittiness,' and so on work only to support the feeling of 'being there.'

But that's not all there is to The Riddle of Steel, it does have things that make it more like "adventure stories."  So first it pulls you in by 'making it real,' then it delivers the '...two punch' but making like all the things that inspire us to play fantasy role-playing games in the first place.  (Is there anyone out there who came to play fantasy role-playing games simply by reading only them?  I think not.)  I think that Jake has done a superior job bringing these two things together, like none I've ever seen.

So it's that 'one-two punch' that answers the question, "Why The Riddle of Steel?"

Fang Langford

[Bob Richter]

In fact, it's exactly how he's wrong that makes The Riddle of Steel so attractive.  Let me explain.  First a quote from farther up....

- It's got the first combat system that claims to be realistic - and actually is - and is quick at the same time.

I'll have to take this as gospel, between here, Jake's site itself, and all the 'realism' talk; I haven't played the game (I can't afford it) so I don't know for sure.

The point that needs to be made is that "adventure stories" and favored books and movies rarely, if ever, have 'realistic' combat.  They just don't; it's either too complicated to describe or just plain, well...plain.  'Real' combat would look boring in comparison to watching those Jedi go at it, and the movie makers know it.  Simply put, if realistic combat isn't the opposite of "adventure stories" dramatic confrontation, the two are at least utterly unrelated.  Which brings me to another quote....

Fang Langford

Really, that depends on what you watch/read. In JRR Tolkien's novels, lives are ended with a single stroke of the blade or a single arrow. It's boring as all hell, and lacks any variety in description, but it's more or less what happens in tRoS when a massively skilled character engages a less skilled one.

Jedi Lightsaber combat (in the newer movies -- the old choreography was terrible beyond belief and I'd rather NOT watch it.) is "realistic," but only because it has Jedi in it. Jedi can forsee each others' moves, making defense easy and attack difficult.

Adventure novels and movies have varying degrees of realism. tRoS should be seen as being on the high end of fantasy/adventure realism, but is still not even really close to real combat. At leat I'm not an ever-growing bag of "hitpoints" any more. :)

[Jake Norwood]

Adventure novels and movies have varying degrees of realism. tRoS should be seen as being on the high end of fantasy/adventure realism, but is still not even really close to real combat. At leat I'm not an ever-growing bag of "hitpoints" any more. :)

I realize that this is not an insult, flame, or challenge (nor is it viewed as such) but I felt that I wanted real fast to say why it is that TROS combat is the "most realistic" RPG combat system (or, for those of us that are more conservative or don't believe in the "most" of anything, we'll say very very very realistic).

The most obvious difference is hit points...or rather their lack, along with no "abstract" wounding really at all, but rather hundreds of real, tangible, describable wounds.
The second point is the attack-defense dynamic, or that players respond to each other's actions and die-choices instead of just rolling against a skill
The third is not only the presence of maneuvers, but the fact that every maneuver is historically attested to. I can preform any one of them for you at any time.
The fourth is the grouping of weapons into schools and the way that defaults word off of each other. These schools come from real-world fighting styles and are not "invented" by the designer, but rather researched and practiced by him (er, me). I train daily, sometimes for several hours (though this forum and writing for Driftwood has cut down on that time).
The fifth is the way that weapons are statistically depicted, playing on the real-world strengths and weaknesses of each weapon with the most accurate data available, including actual use and handling.
The sixth is the Combat Pool set-up, or rather that it comes from a combination of training, mental quickness, and nimbleness of body.
The seventh is the emphasis on thought and strategy, allowing each fighter to develop a personal "style" of fighting, as well as forcing players to adapt to other, different styles.
The eighth is footwork, terrain, and range, all handled in a quick-but-realistic manner that facilitates fighting instead of hampering it.
The ninth is the effect of someone's emotional state on how they fight, via the Spiritual Attributes.
The tenth...oh you get the idea...

My point is not that all of these things are individually exceptional (although some of them are close to it), but rather it is the smooth and rather seamless combination of these qualities that makes TROS combat so realistic.

Is it real combat? Hell no. Is it close to the real thing? As close as you'll get on a table with paper and dice. Could it one day be surpassed? Sure, and I'll be one of the guys trying.

Anyway, there's a lot of talk about the "realism" in TROS combat, and I just figured that I'd explain what was meant by "realism" in RPG combat.

Jake

[Bob Richter]

Adventure novels and movies have varying degrees of realism. tRoS should be seen as being on the high end of fantasy/adventure realism, but is still not even really close to real combat. At leat I'm not an ever-growing bag of "hitpoints" any more. :)

I realize that this is not an insult, flame, or challenge (nor is it viewed as such) but I felt that I wanted real fast to say why it is that TROS combat is the "most realistic" RPG combat system (or, for those of us that are more conservative or don't believe in the "most" of anything, we'll say very very very realistic).

The most obvious difference is hit points...or rather their lack, along with no "abstract" wounding really at all, but rather hundreds of real, tangible, describable wounds.
The second point is the attack-defense dynamic, or that players respond to each other's actions and die-choices instead of just rolling against a skill
The third is not only the presence of maneuvers, but the fact that every maneuver is historically attested to. I can preform any one of them for you at any time.
The fourth is the grouping of weapons into schools and the way that defaults word off of each other. These schools come from real-world fighting styles and are not "invented" by the designer, but rather researched and practiced by him (er, me). I train daily, sometimes for several hours (though this forum and writing for Driftwood has cut down on that time).
The fifth is the way that weapons are statistically depicted, playing on the real-world strengths and weaknesses of each weapon with the most accurate data available, including actual use and handling.
The sixth is the Combat Pool set-up, or rather that it comes from a combination of training, mental quickness, and nimbleness of body.
The seventh is the emphasis on thought and strategy, allowing each fighter to develop a personal "style" of fighting, as well as forcing players to adapt to other, different styles.
The eighth is footwork, terrain, and range, all handled in a quick-but-realistic manner that facilitates fighting instead of hampering it.
The ninth is the effect of someone's emotional state on how they fight, via the Spiritual Attributes.
The tenth...oh you get the idea...

My point is not that all of these things are individually exceptional (although some of them are close to it), but rather it is the smooth and rather seamless combination of these qualities that makes TROS combat so realistic.

Is it real combat? Hell no. Is it close to the real thing? As close as you'll get on a table with paper and dice. Could it one day be surpassed? Sure, and I'll be one of the guys trying.

Anyway, there's a lot of talk about the "realism" in TROS combat, and I just figured that I'd explain what was meant by "realism" in RPG combat.

Jake

Couldn't have said it better myself. I was just trying to point out the basic impossibility of truly realistic combat in a tabletop game.

I mean...as long as you're using dice, numbers, and tables (and there's no good way around that) things are never truly going to be realistic. :)

Aside of actually getting out and fighting, tRoS is the most realistic experience I've ever had...and it's a far cry better for you than actually FIGHTING.

[Le Joueur]

In fact, it's exactly how he's wrong that makes The Riddle of Steel so attractive.  Let me explain.  First a quote from farther up....

It's got the first combat system that claims to be realistic - and actually is - and is quick at the same time.

I'll have to take this as gospel, between here, Jake's site itself, and all the 'realism' talk; I haven't played the game (I can't afford it) so I don't know for sure.

The point that needs to be made is that "adventure stories" and favored books and movies rarely, if ever, have 'realistic' combat.  They just don't; it's either too complicated to describe or just plain, well...plain.  'Real' combat would look boring in comparison to watching those Jedi go at it, and the movie makers know it.  Simply put, if realistic combat isn't the opposite of "adventure stories" dramatic confrontation, the two are at least utterly unrelated.  Which brings me to another quote....

Jedi Lightsaber combat (in the newer movies -- the old choreography was terrible beyond belief and I'd rather NOT watch it.) is "realistic," but only because it has Jedi in it. Jedi can forsee each others' moves, making defense easy and attack difficult.

Forseeing each others' moves?  Jedi?  Lightsabres?  Realistic?

What world do you live in?  I've never seen any of them in the really real world.  I think Jake will attest that all the grasshopper flips and other 'Hong Kong Fight Movie' conventions happen nowhere in the really real world.

And that's exactly what I was saying.  You can't deliver that (Jedi action) to the players without it seeming, I dunno, unreal.  The 'realism' in Jake's game is just something you can almost 'touch.'  He makes a good point out of it rising out of his own personal experience.  You can't beat that for 'pulling in the players.'

And you'll never get that out of a book (or movie); they're more concerned with the 'decorative' quality of the product (than the 'entrenching realism').

Fang Langford

[Bob Richter]

In fact, it's exactly how he's wrong that makes The Riddle of Steel so attractive.  Let me explain.  First a quote from farther up....

It's got the first combat system that claims to be realistic - and actually is - and is quick at the same time.

I'll have to take this as gospel, between here, Jake's site itself, and all the 'realism' talk; I haven't played the game (I can't afford it) so I don't know for sure.

The point that needs to be made is that "adventure stories" and favored books and movies rarely, if ever, have 'realistic' combat.  They just don't; it's either too complicated to describe or just plain, well...plain.  'Real' combat would look boring in comparison to watching those Jedi go at it, and the movie makers know it.  Simply put, if realistic combat isn't the opposite of "adventure stories" dramatic confrontation, the two are at least utterly unrelated.  Which brings me to another quote....

Jedi Lightsaber combat (in the newer movies -- the old choreography was terrible beyond belief and I'd rather NOT watch it.) is "realistic," but only because it has Jedi in it. Jedi can forsee each others' moves, making defense easy and attack difficult.

Forseeing each others' moves?  Jedi?  Lightsabres?  Realistic?

What world do you live in?  I've never seen any of them in the really real world.  I think Jake will attest that all the grasshopper flips and other 'Hong Kong Fight Movie' conventions happen nowhere in the really real world.

And that's exactly what I was saying.  You can't deliver that (Jedi action) to the players without it seeming, I dunno, unreal.  The 'realism' in Jake's game is just something you can almost 'touch.'  He makes a good point out of it rising out of his own personal experience.  You can't beat that for 'pulling in the players.'

And you'll never get that out of a book (or movie); they're more concerned with the 'decorative' quality of the product (than the 'entrenching realism').

Fang Langford

Jedi, Lightsabers, and Force powers in this case are a part of the premise of the setting. What is important in good choreography is REALISTICALLY reflecting the character and capabilities of the fighters while reaching the outcome required by the plot.

So there are no Jedi.
So there are no Lightsabers.
So there is no Force.

But what if there were? How would they effect things?

Verisimilitude doesn't have to align with the "really real" world, just with the "really real" world "as modified THUS..."

Bringing this back home, Sorcerers in tRoS have precognitive powers as well, and I can just imagine one of them cooking up a spell that allows him to discover his opponent mentally telegraphing his moves and thus giving him the defensive edge he needs to stay alive in a prolonged sword fight.

In fact, the two are SO closely related that me and my buddies are  working on porting the world of Star Wars-- Jedi, Lightsabers, Force and all-- into the tRoS system.

[Brian Leybourne]

In fact, the two are SO closely related that me and my buddies are  working on porting the world of Star Wars-- Jedi, Lightsabers, Force and all-- into the tRoS system.

Damn you! :-)

I have already been having many thoughts along these lines. Particularly after playing Jedi Outcast recently, with it's three level force powers (vagaries have three levels too). It's almost as if the systems were designed to be mutable.

Oh well, I'll leave it to you then, but make sure I have access to a copy when you're done, eh? :-)

Brian.

[Jake Norwood]

Me too me too! The fact is that I really want to do this, too, but don't have the time. So, uh, send me your notes, huh.

Jake

[Lyrax]

Eh, time for me to get in on this.

Why Riddle of Steel?

Short Version: Weyrth!

Long Version: Aside from quick character generation, the most realistic combat I have ever experienced, the least arbitrarily restrictive and most intuitive magic system I have seen, the ability to start out as a character who is not level one and must slay ten thousand rats in order to get to level two, what draws me in the most about The Riddle of Steel is the game world.  It is almost real, a world full of superstition and people, less full of magic, orcs and (Heaven Forbid!) +1 longswords.  Gritty?  Yes, just like Tolkien would have wanted it (remember that almost everything about our "fantasy" genre is Tolkinesque).  Optimistic?  It can be.  Deathtrap?  No, this isn't a Cthulhu game.

The magic (or lack thereof) is really what makes the game world interesting.

Shoot.  This thread evolved.  Oh well, I'll just put in two scents about that too. (sic intended)

Realism: I have never cast a spell.  I never will.  But if it WERE to be possible, this is the way I'd want to do it.  Similarly, Gandalf the Grey isn't anywhere on this earth.  Yet, on Middle-Earth, he is real.  The ring is real there, too, and it isn't realistic because you will find sorcerors running around tossing magic rings to hobbits with abandon, but because it COULD happen.  If the world were only a little bit different.  Frodo acts like a real person (a real driven person).  Zifnab acts like a... okay, bad example.  But Haplo and Alfred act like real people.  Same with Anakin, Obi-Wan and Palpatine.  They are real people in a different world, but because of that, they make the world seem real.  Yes, Jedi Knights can deflect laser blasts with light sabers, but it makes sense for them to do so.  Why?  Because:
A) Light sabers exist.
B) Blasters exist.
C) Their attunement to The Force allows them to predict where the next blast will be.
D) They have trained their entire lives for this.

Now, I can't do any of the things they do, so for me, it is unrealistic.  But for a Jedi Knight, it is more than possible.  There are, naturally, limits to all this.  Jedi Knights cannot "cast Fireball" or use "Ki energy blasts" or Teleport from one place to another.  Why not?  It isn't realistic... for them.

The Riddle of Steel is realistic, yet it isn't.  Fey-elves cannot exist in real life, yet here are the stats for them!  But it is realistic because it could exist, and it wouldn't take an excessive amount of twisting to get the world there.

[Le Joueur]

Verisimilitude doesn't have to align with the "really real" world, just with the "really real" world "as modified THUS..."

That has little to do with the point I was making.  The question was "Why The Riddle of Steel?"  Based on so many comments on 'realism'¹, I pointed out that books and movies don't compare to actually holding a blade and fighting for your life.  There's simply no way they can.  The Riddle of Steel does compare.  It's that quality that shines through given that the author has really 'been there.'

Like no other game, The Riddle of Steel 'puts you in the driver's seat.'  How?  Because it was written by someone who does it for real.  Now unless you have some Jedi game designers hidden in your sock, no matter how hard you try, it can't be done; no one has ever been there.  That's the difference.  (Heck, even starting with The Riddle of Steel puts you way ahead.)

Corollary to this has to do with how this won't happen with other designers (Okay "won't" is a bit strong, I mean anything is possible right?), what experience will their games be based on?  How will the difference show?  That's the difference.

It is the quality of being 'put in the driver's seat' that I am arguing is the strength of The Riddle of Steel.  That it's combat won't be as 'epic' or 'eye-catching' or 'cool' as in movies or books is exactly because it's gritty and dirty and 'real'¹.  Verisimilitude can go buy you socks next time; there's just something intrinsically 'real'¹ that I can't describe or explain or point to, it's just there.  And I argue it's there because of who designed it.

So it's not a matter of how well it "aligns" with reality, it's the 'feel' of it.  The 'feel' of it reaching out and putting you in the situation.  It comes somewhere from the gritty, dirty, 'real'¹ details because the author has 'been there.'  And this conflicts with his own statements that the combat is 'just like in books and movies.'

That was the point I was making.  I care little how 'realistic'¹ it is or isn't.

Fang Langford

¹ There's realism (things that are meant to evoke the sensation of reality), realistic (things that have 'the look' of being real), verisimilitude (things that work together in a self-consistent fashion parallel to the self-consistency of reality), and then there's 'the real thing' (actually doing it, for real; or as I like to swipe from The Crow, "the really real world").  Reality doesn't come from realism, or being realistic, and verisimilitude can never evoke the feeling of 'being there.'  But it is possible to get 'the feel' of reality even without being realistic, having realism, or even supporting verisimilitude.  How?  Everyone has a different answer.

[Lyrax]

Actually, I happen to know for a fact that Jake has never fought for his life behind a longsword.

Also, I know that Tolkien never went on a quest to Mount Doom, but his book invokes that same "real" feeling (at least for me).

But thanks for clarifying where you stand.

[Bob Richter]

Verisimilitude doesn't have to align with the "really real" world, just with the "really real" world "as modified THUS..."

That has little to do with the point I was making.  The question was "Why The Riddle of Steel?"  Based on so many comments on 'realism'¹, I pointed out that books and movies don't compare to actually holding a blade and fighting for your life.  There's simply no way they can. (1) The Riddle of Steel does compare.  It's that quality that shines through given that the author has really 'been there.'

Like no other game, The Riddle of Steel 'puts you in the driver's seat.'  How?  (2) Because it was written by someone who does it for real.  Now unless you have some Jedi game designers hidden in your sock, no matter how hard you try, it can't be done; no one has ever been there.  That's the difference.  (Heck, even starting with The Riddle of Steel puts you way ahead.)

(3) Corollary to this has to do with how this won't happen with other designers (Okay "won't" is a bit strong, I mean anything is possible right?), what experience will their games be based on?  How will the difference show?  That's the difference.

(4) It is the quality of being 'put in the driver's seat' that I am arguing is the strength of The Riddle of Steel.  That it's combat won't be as 'epic' or 'eye-catching' or 'cool' as in movies or books is exactly because it's gritty and dirty and 'real'¹.  Verisimilitude can go buy you socks next time; there's just something intrinsically 'real'¹ that I can't describe or explain or point to, it's just there.  And I argue it's there because of who designed it.

(5)So it's not a matter of how well it "aligns" with reality, it's the 'feel' of it.  The 'feel' of it reaching out and putting you in the situation.  It comes somewhere from the gritty, dirty, 'real'¹ details because the author has 'been there.'  And this conflicts with his own statements that the combat is 'just like in books and mvies.'

That was the point I was making.  I care little how 'realistic'¹ it is or isn't.

Fang Langford

(6)¹ There's realism (things that are meant to evoke the sensation of reality), realistic (things that have 'the look' of being real), verisimilitude (things that work together in a self-consistent fashion parallel to the self-consistency of reality), and then there's 'the real thing' (actually doing it, for real; or as I like to swipe from The Crow, "the really real world"). Reality doesn't come from realism, or being realistic, and verisimilitude can never evoke the feeling of 'being there.'  (7)But it is possible to get 'the feel' of reality even without being realistic, having realism, or even supporting verisimilitude.  How?  Everyone has a different answer.

(parenthetical numbers mine, added to decrease confusion.)

(1) No it doesn't. Combat in tRoS reminds me of nothing so much as a fight choreography jam session and really in no way of the fights I've had in real life. It's all fun and games, and there's no way to break down that final barrier. There's also no reason you'd ever WANT to.

(2) I'm as much a Jedi as Jake is a sword-fighter. I'll bet a million to one he's never faced an opponent with blade bare and sharp and fought for his life. He's studied real-world fighting and tried to create a "realistic" set of game mechanics to simulate it.

(3) I've never been in a sword fight, or even devoted to it the same extensive study Jake has. I don't even own fencing gear and have never fenced with foil, sabre, or rapier. Nevertheless, I've had very similar concepts batting around in my brain for years. Those of us who've studied real combat will never be satisfied with hitpoints and vague ideas of "I attack him with my sword."

(4) Yes, in the driver's seat, so far as the driver is miles away from the car. RPGs can never give you the feeling of BEING THE CAR, and if they do, YOU NEED MENTAL HELP. Combat in tRoS *IS* eye-catching and epic and cool (which hitpoints are not.) That's part of its appeal.

(5) But the combat *IS* just like that in the best books and movies: a fight with a master choreographer's touch.

(6) Mince word however you like, you will never get reality from paper and dice. The best you can get is VERISIMILITUDE, or the simulation of the real. This is what happens when Jay tosses a punch past Frank's nose, Rob breaks a board, and frank clutches his face and screams. The only thing that sounds like Jay breaking Frank's nose is Jay breaking Frank's nose. The only thing that LOOKS like Jay breaking Frank's nose is Jay breaking Frank's nose.
And the only way to know what it's like to be Frank or Jay is to *BE* Frank or Jay.

7) It's never possible to get the feel of reality without willful suspension of disbelief. How and when you choose to suspend your disbelief is up to you, but I like to demand verisimilitude as a minimum stricture.

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay, my inner snipe is coming to the surface, but I'll try to be nice..

(2) I'm as much a Jedi as Jake is a sword-fighter. I'll bet a million to one he's never faced an opponent with blade bare and sharp and fought for his life. He's studied real-world fighting and tried to create a "realistic" set of game mechanics to simulate it.

This is so far from belief that I can hardly begin.. But begin I shall. If, all of a sudden, Jedi, lightsabers, blasters and the Force were real, you wouldn't have the foggiest idea of what to do with it all (unless you happen to be a martial artist of the eastern variety, disciplined, adept at using your body beyond what is considered human norms, and trained to harness your own chi to perform feats normally considered nigh impossible by the laws of physics, yet have been documented here in the really real world regardless). Jake, on the other hand, IS a swordsman. It does not take blood and risk of death to make you a swordsman, though that is undeniably the truest test of skill. If Jake suddenly found himself in a world where swords and primitive medieval weaponry were the tools of war, he could definitely hold his own. Your comparison is far from reality... Hyperbole is best used with a pinch of moderation.

To finish off this post, I'll toss in the tiniest bit of entropy...

So there are no Jedi.
So there is no Force.

I have never cast a spell. I never will...

Fey-elves cannot exist in real life,

My response to these comments, and others like them, is stolen directly from Star Wars: Episode I.

"You assume too much..."

::grins:: Take that as you will.

[Le Joueur]

Verisimilitude doesn't have to align with the "really real" world, just with the "really real" world "as modified THUS..."

That has little to do with the point I was making.

(parenthetical numbers mine, added to decrease confusion.)[list=1][*]No it doesn't. Combat in tRoS reminds me of nothing so much as a fight choreography jam session and really in no way of the fights I've had in real life. It's all fun and games, and there's no way to break down that final barrier. There's also no reason you'd ever WANT to.

[*]I'm as much a Jedi as Jake is a sword-fighter. I'll bet a million to one he's never faced an opponent with blade bare and sharp and fought for his life. He's studied real-world fighting and tried to create a "realistic" set of game mechanics to simulate it.

[*]I've never been in a sword fight, or even devoted to it the same extensive study Jake has. I don't even own fencing gear and have never fenced with foil, sabre, or rapier. Nevertheless, I've had very similar concepts batting around in my brain for years. Those of us who've studied real combat will never be satisfied with hitpoints and vague ideas of "I attack him with my sword."

[*]Yes, in the driver's seat, so far as the driver is miles away from the car. RPGs can never give you the feeling of BEING THE CAR, and if they do, YOU NEED MENTAL HELP. Combat in tRoS *IS* eye-catching and epic and cool (which hitpoints are not.) That's part of its appeal.

[*]But the combat *IS* just like that in the best books and movies: a fight with a master choreographer's touch.

[*]Mince word however you like, you will never get reality from paper and dice. The best you can get is VERISIMILITUDE, or the simulation of the real. This is what happens when Jay tosses a punch past Frank's nose, Rob breaks a board, and frank clutches his face and screams. The only thing that sounds like Jay breaking Frank's nose is Jay breaking Frank's nose. The only thing that LOOKS like Jay breaking Frank's nose is Jay breaking Frank's nose.

And the only way to know what it's like to be Frank or Jay is to *BE* Frank or Jay.

[*]It's never possible to get the feel of reality without willful suspension of disbelief. How and when you choose to suspend your disbelief is up to you, but I like to demand verisimilitude as a minimum stricture.[/list:o]

First of all, you missed the part where I said, in my opinion way up farther.  This is not some definitive answer to the threads question, just mine.  To wit, clarifications.

Okay, by the numbers:[list=1][*]Of course "there's no way to break down that final barrier;" don't be absurd, that isn't what I am saying.  What I speak of is how close this comes relative to anything else published.  What I keep trying to clarify is that I am not talking about 'realism.'

By your own admission, "I've never been in a sword fight...I don't even own fencing gear and have never fenced with foil, sabre, or rapier."  Jake has; as a self-confessed "avid practitioner of European Medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts" and, I believe, a practicing member of The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, I think he's had plenty of 'live steel' experience, or as close as anyone comes (short of the 'fraternity' I read about in England) these days.  (Not to mention that it's the only role-playing game ever approved by The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts; if they don't have experience in live steel, I don't know who has.)  It's a quantum leap or two from where you or I sit (well, me at least).

[*]It should be clear by the above that since Jake actually practices this.  Whether he's held bare steel in a battle for his life is trivial when compared to the fact that you don't even live in a universe where light sabres function.  I'd say he's plenty more a swordsman than you've ever been a Jedi.

So I'd say that's a lot more than most game designers mean when they say they've "studied real-world fighting."

[*]Similar as much as your ideas may be, I am trying to say his experience shows through in his design in such subtle and pervasive ways that only luck could put in your or my work.

[*]It doesn't matter how much you split hairs, I'm not talking about 'realism.'  So what if you aren't in a real car?  Crazy Taxi puts you a lot closer to 'in the driver's seat' than Car Wars ever did, regardless of how 'real' it is.  The point I am making is not the 'realism,' but the proximity.

And I have to say that now we're talking about two different kinds of "cool."  There's the 'getting drawn into it' cool and there's 'watching Jackie Chan' cool.  The Riddle of Steel is one, but definitely not the other (at least not yet).

[*]We're going to just have to disagree on this one.  I have yet to find a book that portrays combat with any of the engaging detail or specificity that The Riddle of Steel does.  And all I can say is that movies are set up to look better than an elegant or engaging combat would (being a visual medium).

[*]I still have to say that the appeal of The Riddle of Steel is not the accuracy or verisimilitude or 'realism,' but how all of that is used to engage the player.  I don't know why I am having so much trouble getting past the 'is it real or not' argument with you when all I have been saying is that that isn't the issue; it's how the [whatever you want to call it] is used to engage the players, not how much of [whatever you want to call it] The Riddle of Steel has.

[*]That's quite true, there is a verisimilitude there (or a realism, or whatever you want to call it).  It's just that isn't the central feature.  It may look like it; it may even be advertised as that, but many games have done and said the exact same thing.  Yet none of them had the experiences (like Jake has had) to color them.[/list:o]It's not 'how real' a game is, but how the 'realness' is used as a feature of the game.  I am surprised so many writers get that wrong.  A better simulation or emulation of reality does not inherently make a better game.  Even verisimilitude, as important as it is made out to be, is pointless unless it makes the game better.

What I have been saying is that, by depending on his own experiences, Jake has tapped into an essence of [whatever you want to call it] that colors how his game is engaging.  He didn't just 'stick' it in there; this quality is subservient to what makes the game engaging yet an important part of it.

Theoretically the same could be done for old-time movie serials, like George Lucas claims to want to make.  If you could capture that essence and then put it wholly in the service of what makes a game engaging, you would have a better game than one that simply makes a point of 'being like' those serials.  It's a subtle distinction (being 'serial' versus being engaging via 'serialness'), but I think the important one that answers "Why The Riddle of Steel?" for me as a game designer.

Fang Langford

[Bob Richter]

Verisimilitude doesn't have to align with the "really real" world, just with the "really real" world "as modified THUS..."

That has little to do with the point I was making.

(parenthetical numbers mine, added to decrease confusion.)[list=1][*]No it doesn't. Combat in tRoS reminds me of nothing so much as a fight choreography jam session and really in no way of the fights I've had in real life. It's all fun and games, and there's no way to break down that final barrier. There's also no reason you'd ever WANT to.

[*]I'm as much a Jedi as Jake is a sword-fighter. I'll bet a million to one he's never faced an opponent with blade bare and sharp and fought for his life. He's studied real-world fighting and tried to create a "realistic" set of game mechanics to simulate it.

[*]I've never been in a sword fight, or even devoted to it the same extensive study Jake has. I don't even own fencing gear and have never fenced with foil, sabre, or rapier. Nevertheless, I've had very similar concepts batting around in my brain for years. Those of us who've studied real combat will never be satisfied with hitpoints and vague ideas of "I attack him with my sword."

[*]Yes, in the driver's seat, so far as the driver is miles away from the car. RPGs can never give you the feeling of BEING THE CAR, and if they do, YOU NEED MENTAL HELP. Combat in tRoS *IS* eye-catching and epic and cool (which hitpoints are not.) That's part of its appeal.

[*]But the combat *IS* just like that in the best books and movies: a fight with a master choreographer's touch.

[*]Mince word however you like, you will never get reality from paper and dice. The best you can get is VERISIMILITUDE, or the simulation of the real. This is what happens when Jay tosses a punch past Frank's nose, Rob breaks a board, and frank clutches his face and screams. The only thing that sounds like Jay breaking Frank's nose is Jay breaking Frank's nose. The only thing that LOOKS like Jay breaking Frank's nose is Jay breaking Frank's nose.

And the only way to know what it's like to be Frank or Jay is to *BE* Frank or Jay.

[*]It's never possible to get the feel of reality without willful suspension of disbelief. How and when you choose to suspend your disbelief is up to you, but I like to demand verisimilitude as a minimum stricture.[/list:o]

First of all, you missed the part where I said, in my opinion way up farther.  This is not some definitive answer to the threads question, just mine.  To wit, clarifications.

Okay, by the numbers:[list=1][*]Of course "there's no way to break down that final barrier;" don't be absurd, that isn't what I am saying.  What I speak of is how close this comes relative to anything else published.  What I keep trying to clarify is that I am not talking about 'realism.'

By your own admission, "I've never been in a sword fight...I don't even own fencing gear and have never fenced with foil, sabre, or rapier."  Jake has; as a self-confessed "avid practitioner of European Medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts" and, I believe, a practicing member of The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, I think he's had plenty of 'live steel' experience, or as close as anyone comes (short of the 'fraternity' I read about in England) these days.  (Not to mention that it's the only role-playing game ever approved by The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts; if they don't have experience in live steel, I don't know who has.)  It's a quantum leap or two from where you or I sit (well, me at least).

[*]It should be clear by the above that since Jake actually practices this.  Whether he's held bare steel in a battle for his life is trivial when compared to the fact that you don't even live in a universe where light sabres function.  I'd say he's plenty more a swordsman than you've ever been a Jedi.

So I'd say that's a lot more than most game designers mean when they say they've "studied real-world fighting."

[*]Similar as much as your ideas may be, I am trying to say his experience shows through in his design in such subtle and pervasive ways that only luck could put in your or my work.

[*]It doesn't matter how much you split hairs, I'm not talking about 'realism.'  So what if you aren't in a real car?  Crazy Taxi puts you a lot closer to 'in the driver's seat' than Car Wars ever did, regardless of how 'real' it is.  The point I am making is not the 'realism,' but the proximity.

And I have to say that now we're talking about two different kinds of "cool."  There's the 'getting drawn into it' cool and there's 'watching Jackie Chan' cool.  The Riddle of Steel is one, but definitely not the other (at least not yet).

[*]We're going to just have to disagree on this one.  I have yet to find a book that portrays combat with any of the engaging detail or specificity that The Riddle of Steel does.  And all I can say is that movies are set up to look better than an elegant or engaging combat would (being a visual medium).

[*]I still have to say that the appeal of The Riddle of Steel is not the accuracy or verisimilitude or 'realism,' but how all of that is used to engage the player.  I don't know why I am having so much trouble getting past the 'is it real or not' argument with you when all I have been saying is that that isn't the issue; it's how the [whatever you want to call it] is used to engage the players, not how much of [whatever you want to call it] The Riddle of Steel has.

[*]That's quite true, there is a verisimilitude there (or a realism, or whatever you want to call it).  It's just that isn't the central feature.  It may look like it; it may even be advertised as that, but many games have done and said the exact same thing.  Yet none of them had the experiences (like Jake has had) to color them.[/list:o]It's not 'how real' a game is, but how the 'realness' is used as a feature of the game.  I am surprised so many writers get that wrong.  A better simulation or emulation of reality does not inherently make a better game.  Even verisimilitude, as important as it is made out to be, is pointless unless it makes the game better.

What I have been saying is that, by depending on his own experiences, Jake has tapped into an essence of [whatever you want to call it] that colors how his game is engaging.  He didn't just 'stick' it in there; this quality is subservient to what makes the game engaging yet an important part of it.

Theoretically the same could be done for old-time movie serials, like George Lucas claims to want to make.  If you could capture that essence and then put it wholly in the service of what makes a game engaging, you would have a better game than one that simply makes a point of 'being like' those serials.  It's a subtle distinction (being 'serial' versus being engaging via 'serialness'), but I think the important one that answers "Why The Riddle of Steel?" for me as a game designer.

Fang Langford

1) It's still more like "Rock'em Sock'em Robots" than sword-fighting. It comes so much closer to real combat because most other games have made truly half-assed attempts at combat systems.

2) Being TRAINED in a martial art-- and practicing it as a martial art-- is still a million miles away from actually FIGHTING, though it is closer than most of us ever get.  As Jake understands the principles of swordsmanship, so do I understand the principles of the force. Sure, he's had more PRACTICE using a sword, but not ever in a _truly_ realistic fashion. :)

3) Hm. I truly doubt that if I wrote an RPG to stand beside tRoS that you'd be able to tell the difference. What DOES shine through is Jake's deeper background in fantasy novels and movies. :)

4) A million miles away is a million miles away. "Close enough to see the action" is close enough for me, and tRoS gives us some pretty nifty action to watch.

And, actually, I'm talking about the "watching Jackie Chan Fight" cool that's definately *THERE* in tRoS (that's exactly what a graphic and specific combat system does for you.)

5) Hm. You read the wrong books, then. :)

6) And now you've completely lost me.

7) We may have to agree to disagree. To me, it *IS* the central feature, it's make-or-break.