Quickstart rules

[Brian Leybourne]

Finally got around to looking through the quickstart rules.

I have to say, they're pretty cool. I like what was done to reduce the complexity of the rules for an introduction and I think it's well presented. Top marks all around, except for the SA's. I think that reducing the SA's to three (particularly faith, conscience and passion) was a mistake - given how central to TROS the SA's are I would have liked to see the whole list (which is only three more, after all) and more discussion about their importance.

But all in all, a very good product. What we now need is for someone to post a review of the QS rules on rpg.net (along with a link to download them). The more exposure... (etc etc).

I could do it, but since I reviewed the full product I maybe shouldn't. Any takers?

Brian.

[Jake Norwood]

I agree with Brian. It needs to be done, and it should be someone else (especially someone who bought the game based on the rules, or who intends to...any of you out there?).

Jake

[Stephen]

Finally got around to looking through the quickstart rules.

I have to say, they're pretty cool. I like what was done to reduce the complexity of the rules for an introduction and I think it's well presented. Top marks all around, except for the SA's. I think that reducing the SA's to three (particularly faith, conscience and passion) was a mistake - given how central to TROS the SA's are I would have liked to see the whole list (which is only three more, after all) and more discussion about their importance.

Steve Barringer here, the author of said rules -- thanks for the good word!

Personally I would have liked to have included all six SAs as well, but I decided to boil it down to three for a couple of reasons.

First and foremost was to save space: the QS rules came out to 33 pages before the art.  That's on the long side for a free QS product to begin with.

Secondly was consistency and simplicity: no other Attribute group in the QS version has more than three scores, and I didn't want one particular section to suddenly get more complex than the others.

Third was marketing.  The entire point of the QS is to give you a stripped-down version that's fun in its own right but still intrigues you into buying the main product, so I wanted to make sure that every aspect of the rules could be enhanced by picking up the main book -- thus, far fewer character options and attributes, a ruthlessly minimized combat system, simplified sorcery and scraps of the complete world -- and that included SA's.

I picked Conscience, Faith and Passion as the QS keepers because those were the most intuitively obvious to explain:  Drive, Destiny and Luck seemed like the best to have as "cool bonuses" to make people feel the purchase of the main rules was worthwhile, and because as SAs they always felt more appropriate to me for long-term campaign use rather than the one-shot adventures most QS rulesets get used for in practice.

However, depending on other reactions, I'm always willing to revise my thinking -- and the great thing about the QS rules is that if you have both them and the main book, you can graft the full SA rules onto the QS system pretty seamlessly.

[Blake Hutchins]

Hello,

I agree with Stephen regarding the SAs, particularly the marketing angle.  However, anyone who frequents the Forge can reconstruct the entireity of the SAs without difficulty.  Out of curiosity, I'd already done so prior to the release of the QS rules.

Best,

Blake

[Jake Norwood]

Blake-

do you frequent rpg.net? would you want to write the review?

Jake

[Blake Hutchins]

Hi Jake,

Thanks for asking.  I'd love to write the review, but it wouldn't be a playtest review for awhile yet.  My startup is keeping me busy - and I'm in the process of rebuilding my gaming group (some key players having moved away recently).  If you're cool with a non-playtest review, I can get to that pretty soon, but I don't think I'd get in a playtest review until after Valentine's Day.

Best,

Blake

P.S.: I scope RPG.net reviews regularly, though I rarely visit the forums or other parts of the site.

[Brian Leybourne]

Even a capsule review is worthwhile, it gets the name of the game "out there" and into peoples minds, you can still give all of your impressions as to the game and system, the coolness of the world, how you loved the quickstart rules so much you bought the book and found it was even cooler, etc :-)

Then you have a link at the end of the review to the quickstart rules, which gets people to the webpage. It couldn't hurt to mention the other cool resources at the webpage like the downloadable GM screen, rulebook errata, combat sim etc.

And then if you feel like posting a playtest review later, well that's even better - it'll freshen it in peoples minds again (with another link to the webpage). It's all good press.

It even couldn't hurt to mention this forum and how easily accessable Jake is for questions and advice etc. That's really important to a lot of roleplaying folks.

And if more than one person decides to review it.... so much the better :-)

Brian.

[Mokkurkalfe]

You seem to assume that every review will be a favorable one.
:D

[Stephen]

You seem to assume that every review will be a favorable one.
:D

:blinkblink:  Won't they be?

;)

[Brian Leybourne]

You seem to assume that every review will be a favorable one.
:D

*shrugs* That's the risk you take when you ask for reviews. However a) a review from most folk on here is likely to be a good one (we know they like it, that's why they're here), and b) even bad press is press. You're never going to sell your product if nobody knows about it, especially when retailers only seem keen to stock yet more D20 products these days.

A bad review? What's not to like? :-)

Brian.

[Spartan]

A bad review? What's not to like? :-)

There's no such thing as bad publicity. :)  If I say game XYZ sucks, then someone who thinks my opinion is a load of bollocks will pick that game up on principle.  Just like D&D in the 80's with all the controversy surrounding it... I imagine some people picked it up BECAUSE it was controversial.  As an aside, I think Hasbro would sue the pants off anyone who publicy made a stink about D&D, which I think is a better route.  

Also, keep in mind that what some people HATE about a game might be what someone else loves it for.  If somebody said to me: "TROS sucks because the combat is way too lethal"... then I'd have rushed right out and gotten it!  :D

-Mark

[Limbo]

I just read the entire quick start rules and it motivated me to buy the TROS yesterday.  I might be willing to take several hours of my time to write a glowing review given a proper incentive to do.   I would be an unbiased and independent reviewer and I have several publications under my own belt.

-bob crane
limbo696@earthlink.net

[Brian Leybourne]

I just read the entire quick start rules and it motivated me to buy the TROS yesterday.  I might be willing to take several hours of my time to write a glowing review given a proper incentive to do.   I would be an unbiased and independent reviewer and I have several publications under my own belt.

What kind of incentive were you looking for? :-)

Brian.

[Stephen]

I just read the entire quick start rules and it motivated me to buy the TROS yesterday.  I might be willing to take several hours of my time to write a glowing review given a proper incentive to do.

Don't suppose my eternal gratitude would suffice?  ;)

Seriously, I don't think RPG.net compensates for its reviews.  People submit them basically either to see their names in print or because they have strong feelings (positive or negative) about the product in question, and often both.

[Limbo]

I will post at least a capsule review of the quickstart rules to rpgnet.  Promise! ;)   Need to learn more about the system first though so it will probably be at least a couple of weeks.