Unstated bits of TROS

[Bankuei]

Hi Ivan,

No offense taken, your initial post just seemed a bit, well, snippy.  I'll just chalk it up to usual internet miscommunication and get into the fun discussion stuff.

So, how do you keep your character alive with this nasty combat system?  There's two things that make it happen.  First, as a player, your strategy in play makes a bigger difference than getting a good or bad die roll.  If you're a good strategist, you can survive very well.  

Thankfully, TROS doesn't require that you go out and learn how swordsmanship works in real life in order to be able to play it.  You simply need to make a decision about how much do I risk now, and how much do I save, in terms of dice, for the next exchange?  Basically, good tactics keep your character alive, just like good tactics kept veteran warriors alive in real life.

Second, SAs provide bonuses to combat, so that its easier to stay alive when you're fighting for a reason your character believes in.  Obviously if you're fighing mooks, they don't get SAs, which gives your hero some level of Plot favoritism(not quite immunity).

So that's the combat bit.  You don't need to fear and quiver and never get into combat, you simply have to go into it with respect, and the very real idea of "If my ass is on the line, I'm stacking every odd, fair or not, in my favor", which, is not unlike most serious combatants are in real life.

You'll want to get some input from Brian L or Jake as far as the effects of long term campaigns, but consider this... I find TROS character death to happen a lot LESS than D&D 1-3rd level character death, even when you have 1 or 2 combats a session, again, if people are playing smart.

Chris

[Salamander]

So - my question is this - granted, a little tension is good in a game and scene to keep you on your toes... BUT if combat is so dangerous - How the hell do you keep your character alive long enough to actually achieve any goal or storyline?

By playing your character well, whether a fighter or a lover they be, play them as well as you can, if you live, great! If not... well, it was a learning experience.

In my first session of TRoS set in the Renaissance, Rülf of Bern was called upon by his idiotic and romantic of a friend to be a second of his in a duel over a woman. Piece 'o' Cake, right? Wrong, the other fellow was a Fugger! Now Rülf did pause and wonder if his friend was good enough to kill the fellow, and it came up as a draw in his mind, if I recall... but good 'ole Rülf was thinking beyond that. "I have no intention of f*cking with the Fuggers" says he. So he formulated a plan to get his friend out of the city before the Fuggers found out. Well, after a bit of misadventure, the Fuggers found out... Guess what happened next? The Fugger said he would spare his friend the duel if he renounced any claim to the hand of the fair maiden in question. Only one blade was drawn and that was by the idiotic friend as he cut his own bonds to flee his friends who had abducted him in a bid to spirit him out of the city... Still conflict and this time no violence... All told it was good for a couple of SA awards.

If you do it by avoiding combat, then whats the point of a complex combat system?

I don't avoid combat. Rülf figured he could do some damage, and his new friend Renatta could definitely kill a few of them if it came down to it... but they were looking beyond that. What good would it do to anger a massively powerful family for no real gain? They had a solution to the problem and try as he might, the idiot could not vex them and attend his duel with the Fugger.

How have people been running it? In actual games, how does this _really_ pan out?
Do you have so few combats, that character death is not an issue? (and - well, lets just say that I quite enjoy the odd combat in a game, and its a shame if you spend all your time avoiding a fight.)
Or do your characters get in to many scraps, and lose characters left right and center? (I hate loosing a character, as my GM can attest :) )

I have told them to their faces, "play it smart, and you will become wealthy and powerful, make the wrong mistake and...well...".

They have taken the advice to heart. If they have a situation where they must fight, fight they will, but if they can go about it any other way, then they will. They are all pretty keen on the whole idea of following your desires and so on (SAs) to get the Character to grow. It is no longer a killing contest and they are liking the idea from what I can tell.

No theory, talk of how SA's change it all - I want to hear how a real, long term TROS campaign actually runs - Both combat, and what SA's do to characters decisions, and why it made it easier for you as a GM. How it affects the play.
 I personally don't want to play a game where I'm to worried about my character to actually ever DO anything to follow my characters goals, or anything remotely resembling fun.

I wouldn't want to play in such a game either. I am  trying hard to make sure the world is open before them, I give them a way of supporting themselves, they do what they must in order to pay the bills and the rest of the time is thier own! If they want to quit their jobs, fine... their choice. I will still provide a world for them. If they want to fight, I let them, if they want to try and find another way around it, I let them.

But at the same time, I think your boundaries are kind of unfair as the SAs are what make a character do what must be done in their eyes. SAs are the very most important things to them. What would the character fight and possibly die for? Remove the SA arguement and what have you got?

[Mike Holmes]

No theory, talk of how SA's change it all - I want to hear how a real, long term TROS campaign actually runs - Both combat, and what SA's do to characters decisions, and why it made it easier for you as a GM. How it affects the play.

It's a given that if you play reasonably well, and if you have four more CP than your opponent that you will win with near certaintly. Given that, if a player has decided to fight in any situation in which he has only 4 points of SA working for him, less than he starts with in total, and given an opponent that's evenly matched otherwise, the character will win.

Note that it's still interesting because of that "If he plays well" comment. That is, the player still has to pay attention or lose.

So, as long as the GM is paying attention to the SAs in preparing for the game, aloowing for differing avenues along which the player can pursue the character's goals using SAs, character mortality is a non-issue, barring a ridiculous number of fights (at which point the long odds case of death due to bad rolling can come in; a situation unavoidable in almost any system). If you're worried about the random case, just give more SA rewards and the problem vanishes even more soundly. With no downside.

Basically if the GM designs adventures that deal with the character's issues, and the players play in a dramatic way that follows their characters issues as set out by their SAs, you'll have a reliable number of really interesting fights over the long haul that make sense in terms of the story that unfolds. No more or less fighting than makes dramatic sense.

This is pretty much what everybody has been saying. Have I helped to clarify at all? You seem skeptical.

Mike

[Jason Kottler]

I've played lots of games where combat is dangerous, especially compared to what many people think of as RPG combat, that is, D&D.

Ars Magica had combat you could reasonable die from.
Pendragon - Ooh, and I do love the "my old wound is acting up" rules!
GURPS - if people start hitting each other with swords, someone is going to die. End of story. A perfectly "average" character (all stats = 10) will do 1d6+1 damage with a swung sword, which will hover around an average of 4 points of damage. Cutting damage that gets through armor gets a 1.5 multiplier, so two shirtless barbarians will do 6 points of damage to each other on completely average hits. Fight over in 2 hits.

Last week, for the first time in a long time, I really thought a PC was going to die. So did the player. His friends intervened - one because she had promised her alliance, another because his conscience (SA) forced him to take action against what he considered an unfair fight - despite the fact that the crowd would turn on him.

What system are we playing? TRoS.

I'm going to chime in on the side of, "You can run a good game with any system." However, TRoS drives home the point of player mortality. This has a major impact on the way the players perceive the characters, the way they have them act. Especially, I must say, two extremes of player types:

Really experienced players (especially if they harbor Gamist tendencies) would be foolish to ignore the leverage afforded them by the game system.

Really new players without SA's and a knowledge of their own vulnerabilities are a little lost anyhow, and are probably going to wait for adventure to come to them.

Highly Narrativist players play the TRoS way most of the time anyhow. It's all a matter of how hard you have to work for it. I, personally, like N and S, and really don't get into G.

[Lance D. Allen]

::pulls a Leybourne::

However, TRoS drives home the point of player mortality

Player mortality? Man, you've got to be a tough Seneschal to play with.. I don't think I've ever killed off a player yet due to stupid decisions in game. Out of game mistakes, such as drinking the Seneschal's Surge without asking, on the other hand...

[LordIvan]

::pulls a Leybourne::
Player mortality? Man, you've got to be a tough Seneschal to play with.. I don't think I've ever killed off a player yet due to stupid decisions in game.

Well guys, thanks for all the detailed responses - Believe it or not, you've actually done a lot to relieve my concerns about what style of play TROS encourages. Wolfen, nice and simple - I think it says it all - It's always the GM that is the final arbitar of whether a PC dies, not the rules, or their actions. It's the GM.

I still stand by my comments that you can role play great stories in any system, but will grant that maybe TROS might not hamper my playing because of over the top lethality in combat - And might just add a little something. Of course, there's only one way to find out, and thats to play - So next time my GM suggests ROS to our group, I won't be quite so against it :)

Kudos to you all for responding so well to my original comment that was perhaps not as polite as I normally am. (hey, bad day at work or something?)

thnx

[MattFW]

Hi all,

Thought I'd chime in with some thoughts after reading the thread and a number of others on the game. Post started short, got long, apologies in advance :)

Last week, for the first time in a long time, I really thought a PC was going to die. So did the player. His friends intervened - one because she had promised her alliance, another because his conscience (SA) forced him to take action against what he considered an unfair fight - despite the fact that the crowd would turn on him.

What system are we playing? TRoS.

While I appreciate that you're not saying TRoS is the only game that can do that, I do have to look at it and wonder why TRoS encourages it any more than any game with a good GM? That kind of scene is familiar from pretty much every game I've played in or run since leaving school, it would seem to me to be a style of play rather than a style of system.

As you say, engendering a feeling of mortality in the players regarding their characters encourages the avoidance of combat and often deeper play, but you can achieve the same effect simply by having characters who 'live' as characters. Few people want to go around killing, and I've found that few characters want it either when the players actually care enough to develop them and the GM doesn't force it through constant instantly hostile encounters. In fact, case in point, my current GURPS game has an explicitly stated 'you cannot die unless you choose to' rule and has benefitted enormously from it as characters do things that players would previously have avoided for fear of potentially getting in to a deadly combat situation. The 'narrative' has improved, the combats are far more interesting, and the game has shifted from being slightly about combat (it was never really heavily combat based even before that rule was introduced :) to being about playing a character.

Fear of death can be such a shallow motivation IMO. What about the other potential ramifications of a failed interaction with conflict (combat or otherwise)? If the outcome of a combat is victory or death then you're essentially limiting combat to something far simpler than it need be. Even if no death is possible, failure in combat can mean big changes to the way things work in the world and how the plot in general takes shape. That doesn't require anything more than a specific type of GM, and to me seems more flexible than trying to engender 'deeper play' through a dangerous combat system (because you have the choice to use dangerous combat as a motivator, or not, depending on the circumstance). I suppose that as far as I see it, a game that's about avoiding combat is still about combat. Combat is the motivator, or avoiding it, and that would distract from other things because the player is aware that it's often the GM that starts combats anyway, even if you're not going out of your way to do so :)

That's why I look at TRoS as a game that could definitely be good for a group that doesn't gravitate naturally towards that style of play (assuming they want to), but not really holding much for a group that already does that. The SA's are something I have only skirted around in reading, and my limited knowledge of them comes from reading forum posts, but they don't seem to be anything particularly inducive to a deeper game to me unless, as before, the group wasn't already doing it. I have a general distrust of putting character motivation in to game mechanics :) I treat Advantages/Disadvantages/Quirks in GURPS as guidelines, for example. When you whack numbers on movtivation you have to start ruling around human behaviour and that can be tricky.

Quick example, though I won't labour the point, I understand that SA's can't instantly change without being bought off? That strikes me as a rule that's needed to prevent 'bad' players abusing the bonuses (bonuses which are a nice idea), but limits 'good' players who would be quite happy to change motivation instantly in the appropriate circumstances and may be limited by it (feel free to correct my rules understanding :). I'd much rather add bonuses to dice rolls at GM discretion for characters following their 'SA's than apply rules to it. It does seem like another tool for people who don't do it all naturally.

And finally (well, nearly finally): I've not seen anyone comment on why the combat system is so detailed and complex if it's meant to discourage people from combat? As someone mentioned previously, GURPS combat can be pretty deadly, and it's not as detailed or complex (at least not until you add all the extra rules :), so shouldn't it be encouraging the same style of play?

When it comes down to it, and to clarify my position, I'm absolutely not saying that there is anything wrong with TRoS and its combat system. I am just wondering why it is the way it is, and if I'm disagreeing with anything it's the concept (not necessarily stated here so much as on other threads I've seen on other boards) that TRoS is any better at creating a deeper, grittier, more realistic game than any other reasonable product that's well presented by a GM who wants that style.

My personal preference is to go number-light, so naturally I'm not a fan of complex combat (and even the RoS combat sim app saw me quitting after about a round of combat (it was hard to tell :) because I just didn't want to get in to the numbers). I understand completely that my cup of tea isn't necessarily the next person's, and I say cool to those people who play TRoS and enjoy the freedom it gives them. I just have mumblings about the idea that the system is responsible for any of that, or perhaps rather that any other system couldn't do it with a group who wanted it and the right GM. It almost certainly encourages that style of play, but I believe that with the right group, that encouragement isn't necessary.

That was probably way too long...

[LordIvan]

But at the same time, I think your boundaries are kind of unfair as the SAs are what make a character do what must be done in their eyes. SAs are the very most important things to them. What would the character fight and possibly die for? Remove the SA arguement and what have you got?

Just one last brief comment - My last character in a game had something that he believed was worth dying for, and risked all to achieve. He didn't have SA's; he didn't get special bonuses; the rules didn't force him to choose a passion or a drive. I just told my GM what my character really, really wanted to do, when I first created him. And we finally resolved that in the last session we played. The game system? D&D - And yet the character was one of the deepest, most complex and compelling character's I'd ever played.
how do you prevent SA's from becoming a crutch, and eventually something that gets in the way? How can you have character growth when their motivations are defined in the rules and their statistics?

And how have SA's made your life as a GM easier? By forcing some players who wouldn't normally, to define goals for their character? Is that the only benefit? or is there more? Does it promote deeper roleplaying from players? Even those who always had deep backgrounds and passions for their characters?

--
Sarcasm? Condescending Irony?
What? Me? Never.

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

I just wanted to thank everyone for really pushing some good, good questions.  

First, yes, you can have this sort of stuff in any game, with the right GM, and right players.  But, here's the difference:  Most games, people are happy enough if the rules "stay out of the way".  Not enough people ask that the rules proactively push for what the game is supposed to be about.

Frankly, I look at what I call the Fudge/Fixin' Test.  The more times I have to modify, out and out ignor the rules, or fudge rolls for the game to do what I want, the less the game is designed for what I'm looking for.  So, yeah, you can play this sort of way using D&D, no problem.  How many D&D players are out there doing it?  The rules not only give you NO advice on how to make it happen, but also if you happen to be a stickler for some rules, they may, in fact, actively work against what you're trying to do.

For example, let's take the movie Unforgiven, where William Munny, once a cold blooded murderer, decides to change his ways, and settle down.  Of course, things down allow for that, and he returns to his dark side.  In D&D, that'd be 2 whole alignment changes, which are very much discouraged.  In GURPS, it'd be spending a LOT of points to shift around Advantages and Disadvantages to represent the character changes at hand.

So, how do SAs make the big difference with TROS?  Well, here's the multifaceted answer, going from simple to deep...

-SAs make what is more dramatically appropriate, MORE likely to succeed.  How many times have you had to fudge or GM fiat to have someone save the day?

-As Ivan points out, they make players define ACTIVE goals for their characters, and also provides obvious markers for the GM, as "what play should be about"

-SAs also serve as the character improvement pool, so it sets up a "vicious" cycle of Pavlovian reward mechanisms to encourage folks to play to their SAs.

-Changing SAs does involve spending them down, but by doing so, you improve your character, and very likely, at the point you've done it, you've probably earned an SA point or two while you were at it.

-Players can ignor, or change SAs at will.  They are never a box, or set in stone sort of thing.

-Folks who always have had similar things in mind now find that they are actively rewarded during play for playing that way.  If you reward killing monsters, players strategize towards the best monster killers.  If you reward immersion in character, and fulfilling character goals, players strategize towards that.  You're rewarded with bonus dice, as well as character improvement.

Does that help with the SA question?  Please feel free to fire away!

As far as TROS combat is concerned, its not about avoiding fighting, or being afraid for your character's life, its about 1) Not Fighting Stupid(TM), and 2) Is this worth risking your life over?

The first is basically, well, duh.  You can also find other games that have a similar mentality, although "deadliness" tends to be a greater function of critical hits and fumbles rather than good tactics.  The second point, really states a lot about your character as you play.  Consider the coward who decides to sacrifice himself for his true love.   Or the suicidal guy who steps in front of the blade.  Both are risking their lives, but WHY is the key point.

Chris

[MattFW]

Interesting comments, again. I think what I'm seeing (perhaps due to misunderstanding, I admit :) is that RoS is encouraging what I believe is 'good behaviour' (that's where personal preference steps in). However, I don't personally see a need to apply rules to the things that it's applied them to, and feel that with the groups I play with at least, applying rules to it is inappropriate.

As a GM, I provide bonuses when I feel they're appropriate, and applying rules to that could just end up leading to an expectation of bonuses in various situations, which is a bit too rigid for me. I don't tend to gel with the concept that rules should be applied to character personality in that manner.

The board game 'Scruples' has an odd rule whereby if you don't explain your motive for doing something clearly enough, you can be overruled and your reaction to a situation is deemed inappropriate for your own personality. It suits the game, but it's a gross oversimplification of human behaviour brought about by letting one person interpret someone else's motives. Applying rules to motivation seem similar to me. As a GM I can interpret people's actions, but I trust my players and I know that if someone tells me his character is going to do something, I know it fits the character. I don't really feel the need to try and use rules to enforce players playing their characters 'properly' because the player is the only one who really knows how to play the character.

Again, I guess I'm not really disagreeing with anything that's being said, I do feel that the way the combat system and SAs are presented will help encourage certain styles of play, but I also feel that they're a patched solution that would limit groups that handle all of that without hard and fast rules, so they suit some but not others (not a big surprise :).

The concept of the combat system helping to clarify what the character would risk his life over seems pretty similar to me: It's something that would help add depth for someone who didn't think about that kind of thing without it. Interesting how all I'm really saying is that everything depends on the group... I used too many words to say it :)

One potentiall controversial thought, just to throw it in to the melting pot while I'm pondering: Isn't it possible that the combat system could do exactly the opposite of helping a group play in this grittier style? In the hands of a good GM it can be used to remind players of character mortality and encourage a deeper approach to conflict. In the hands of a bad GM a deadly combat system can just end up ruining the game with constant deadly combats that the GM isn't capable of dealing with at a deeper level. I hasten to add that any game system could do that, it's all down to the GM, but I was thinking about the whole issue of what the combat system in RoS enables you to do, and that thought struck me. It's like a hand saw v. a high performance band saw, at least a slip with the hand saw can only give you a cut, not lop off your arm :)

That said, I'll reiterate that it's not something I'm actively suggesting is true, I haven't played the game and it may not be noticeably different to a combat-mad GM playing any other game.

[Bankuei]

Hi Matt,

Granted, as said before, you can always make rules to fit what you need, or simply play with a lot of loose, unstated rules.  For example, if you wanted to in D&D, there is a rule that says you could give a +2 bonus if there seems to be favorable odd for a character.  One could certainly say things such as fighting for your one true love is worth a +2 bonus, perhaps more if you're willing to swing it that way.

But, is there anything in D&D(or other games that have the 'open modifier' option) to suggest giving bonuses based on things such as motive, or dramatic appropriateness?  In a few games, yes.  In most games, no.

What actually prevents SAs from being a restrictive box(which is a fear I've heard from many people, none of who have used them...), is that as a player, you can choose to change or ignor them at will.

In other words, if I decide I no longer want to have Passion-Loyalty to the King, but instead want to switch it to Passion-Hate for the King, and change another to Passion-Love for the Princess, because I find out the King is a jerk, then that's completely within my rights as a player.  Or maybe I just don't want to play my Loyalty and don't care at all about getting or losing points by not changing it.  All within my control, all without any sort of restriction placed on me.  In the middle of the game.

A similar fear might be raised about stuff like rating "character intelligence" or "charisma" as limiting factors to folks who are very much into playing their character via immersion.  Someone might be very stupid, and receive a rude awakening, and become quite cunning.  Another person might be charming, but put under pressure, reveal a rather unpleasant persona.  

If you don't find stuff like rules for rating Intelligence, Charisma, or Alignment "crutches" or "boxing in" because you can choose to ignor them, SAs are even better, because its written in the rules for players to change or ignor them at will.

What makes them even more interesting, is that as a player, the choice to ignor, or change an SA is making a BIG statement.  The decision to go from Drive-Vow- Never Kill Again, to Drive-Vengeance for my friend's death, says a lot about a character.

Of course, really the only way to get a real view on SAs and ROS is to play it yourself.  Other than that, I've found most folks either have come to ROS with fear about the mechanics and rules, or else brought the attitude that "it's just like any other game" and gotten lost along the way.  This thread was initially started to attempt to clarify some of those issues, but really the best proof is in the play.

Chris

[MattFW]

(Posted with big quote by accident, see below :)

[MattFW]

(Oops, this may have been posted twice with the original quoted, if so, I'll endeavour to remove the first one...)

I'm not sure I'd agree with a comparison between internal attributes such as Intelligence and personal motivations like SAs or GURPS Disadvantages such as 'Sense of Duty'. Charisma has always been a dodgy one to my mind, but it is also an attribute that defines the limitations of the character, rather than an 'attribute' that defines the motivation. I'm certainly not going to claim that D&D has anything in the way of encouragement for deep play over anyone, either :) Even the Disadvantages characters in my GURPS game have are just guidelines however, because people are more complex than that. My point isn't really that 'other games have those rules too, or you can add them yourself' so much as that I don't feel the game needs those rules in the first place and wonder if perhaps those rules are putting in to game mechanics something that I don't feel numbers/notations/dice can deal with adequately.

I guess at a core level I'm not disagreeing that SAs can be great for some. I just don't feel that they're necessary for me or the groups I'm with. The decision to change a core motivation to deal with a desparate situation is something I've seen in my game without any need for codification of that motivation in an attribute, or rules that say this can be done. We've seen, for example, the personal vow never again to use a form of magic that cost the character enormous amounts of character points, and the sudden (pained) decision many months of game play later to use it once, when the entire group and an institution dear to them was threatened by an overwhelming force. We've also seen someone (who's reading this thread :) give up a large percentage of the point value of his character due to a decision to leave his past behind. It's all par for the course in the game without any attributes to govern it, and bonuses are given (in a less game mechanic way, admittedly) behind the scenes when the characters are striving in this manner for something they'd die for, but that's just a group/game style thing. I suppose it's not standard GURPS, we definitely don't keep a close track of character point value :)

I do applaud the idea of focusing on that style of play, and I'm certainly not against the concept of SAs, I just don't feel it brings anything to the table for my group so I was interested to know what use others get out of them.

It's actually a side note to my original concerns, to be honest. The reason I don't really want to play RoS is that I don't like the combat system (it's my aversion to rules again, I'd wager ;). The SA issue was really just me looking to see if it brought anything else that would make me change my mind.

Thanks for the reasoned discussion though, it's been interesting to hear people's take on it from the inside and I do like the way the game actively pushes to get away from traditional hack & slash. It's a different kettle of fish, I guess, it does its own thing while old school games like D&D do theirs, and there's a lot of room for both. I don't GM D&D, nor would I really want to outside the occasional one off parody sessions we do from time to time, I'm happy with my nebulous freewheeling game and I suspect from what I've heard that style wise it's very similar to a RoS game in terms of character depth and meaning. I'm also pleased that that kind of game has a codified approach out there and that people are taking an interest in it (wow, that sounds so elitist :).

[Salamander]

Just one last brief comment - My last character in a game had something that he believed was worth dying for, and risked all to achieve. He didn't have SA's; he didn't get special bonuses; the rules didn't force him to choose a passion or a drive. I just told my GM what my character really, really wanted to do, when I first created him. And we finally resolved that in the last session we played. The game system? D&D - And yet the character was one of the deepest, most complex and compelling character's I'd ever played.

Fisrt of all, kudos to you for having the desire and drive to play such a character. Also for asking such a good question.

how do you prevent SA's from becoming a crutch, and eventually something that gets in the way? How can you have character growth when their motivations are defined in the rules and their statistics?

Well, as the Character develops he changes, as he changes, so do his SA's. I find that they are not a crutch, but a guide for the player into true roleplaying of the Character. I am a big proponent for Character developement. The SA's create a way for the players to actually see them at work! To be able to really know what they are up to and what their Character (ergo the player to an extent) really cares about.

And how have SA's made your life as a GM easier? By forcing some players who wouldn't normally, to define goals for their character? Is that the only benefit? or is there more? Does it promote deeper roleplaying from players? Even those who always had deep backgrounds and passions for their characters?

The SA's have made my life as a GM infinitely easier! It is not that they force a player to define and expound for their Character, but it aids them. I have a new roleplayer in my group and she has foundered a few times, but she shows great promise. She has always tried to come up with what her Character was all about, and has done an okay job, but she has struggled. This gives her tools she can use to great effect, I believe. As for those players who had a propensity for deep development of their Characters, this just rewards them for all their hard work, in my opinion.

Sarcasm? Condescending Irony?
What? Me? Never.

I like the sig by the way.

[Kaare_Berg]

I will begin with admitting that I am lazy. At the same time I agree with MattFW on several of his points (notably the part where a good group does all of the above). But why have I the fallen into the TROS fan camp?

For me the great thing about TROS to me is "the feel" of the game.

Yet "the feel" is an emotional thing and is hard to quantify.

IMO "the feel" is about how the setting, the rules and the way it is all brought together. And more importantly how this makes my job as a GM easier, so that I can feed of my players enjoyment.

TROS does this by actually stimulating thinking in the players. Arguably one can say that all games rewards thinking in the players, but for example there are few games out there where a duel between to PCs isn't a dice-tossing competition won by he with the higest roll, most successes, etc.
Respons:
"So wow, now my thief can finally get back at joe's paladin without him giving me a solid beating with his Holy Thiefsmasher + X!"

What I am trying to say is that because of the thinking, the flavour of combat changes. Thus dramatic oppurtunities arise, and for a GM, experienced or not, this is gold.

As for the SA part. Well every character has five subplots included from the start. Every character has defined something that makes him tick, something that makes him draw his sword and charge into battle (figurativly speaking). This giving arise to more dramatic oppurtunities. And more gold to the GM.

Sure you get this in other systems, and sure if your group already does this with TOON, the hey all the power to you. But it is the combination of the two, along with the emphasis on character wich made me fall for TROS. And I found that unlike other games this character emphasis work.

No flame intended.