Yet another RPGnet TROS thread

[Shadeling]

In case any of you wanted to jump on the discussion.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37906

[Callan S.]

Ergh, I can't believe Darth Tang just called the SA's weak!? If its the same guy I think I've seen before, its because he predefines all the motives of all the character classes he makes. Rigid and it's the old 'your bad if you don't do this' method, where SA's are 'If you don't do this, nothing happens, if you do this you get rewarded instantly, you get to be more powerful and you get experience.'.

If it is the same guy I'm thinking of, he's also got too much disposable income and has become too picky because of it. Jeez, I'm being nasty, eh? But 'lame advancemennt system'...he could do with some advancing...*grumbles*

[arxhon]

I've seen a lot of people like that at rpg.net. Mostly, they're a bunch of pretentious whiners.

[Jake Norwood]

Now let's go soft on RPG.net. They made TROS possible in a very real way with their enthusiastic threads.

Jake

[Mokkurkalfe]

Yeah. To me, you can't get more sentimental about TROS than that huge thread on RPG.net. 'Twas the thread that made me buy it.

[Brian Leybourne]

Yeah. To me, you can't get more sentimental about TROS than that huge thread on RPG.net. 'Twas the thread that made me buy it.

Me too. I only ever found TROS because of that old huge thread. I saw "Riddle of Steel" and thought "Hey, that'll be about Conan", jumped in, and the rest is history.

Brian.

[Sneaky Git]

Me too. I only ever found TROS because of that old huge thread. I saw "Riddle of Steel" and thought "Hey, that'll be about Conan", jumped in, and the rest is history.

Brian.

Same here.  Thread on RPG.net was mentioned on HarnForum.. in fact, Jake came and answered questions/offered explanations and clarifications/etc.  That, more than anything else, got me rooting around for TRoS.

[Darth Tang]

Ergh, I can't believe Darth Tang just called the SA's weak!? If its the same guy I think I've seen before, its because he predefines all the motives of all the character classes he makes. Rigid and it's the old 'your bad if you don't do this' method, where SA's are 'If you don't do this, nothing happens, if you do this you get rewarded instantly, you get to be more powerful and you get experience.'.

If it is the same guy I'm thinking of, he's also got too much disposable income and has become too picky because of it. Jeez, I'm being nasty, eh? But 'lame advancemennt system'...he could do with some advancing...*grumbles*

Aha! So that's what you say about me behind my back!

For what its worth, I have always been against the SAs, and have said so on this board as well. I do not consider them a useful tool in my campaigns; I prefer players choose a more defined agenda for their PCs, and make it worth their while via xp. RoS is not perfect, and I will not claim it as such. However, I have been quick to point out that I use it whenever I post about my current or future campaigns, and I have endoused it in many threads in both Open and Tangency. In fact, I just arranged via e-mail for a guy from that thread to buy Theron's unwanted copy of RoS.

And yes, I dislike RoS' advancement system. I do not like the 'class' system either, but the fact remains that it is popular with players, who like to see a visible result from their actions, and useful because xp can be used to reward role-play and ideas, as well is in-character agendas. And I don't award xp for kills. And before we start tossing 'rigid' about, the RoS skill packages severely limit PC breadth as well.

RoS is not perfect. I bought the game, use the parts of it I like, and will buy the supps (in both pdf and hardcover) as soon as they come out. I support it on RPG.Net when I think it deserves it, and am frank about its shortcomings as well; it was that sort of frank eval  on RPG.Net that moved me to buy it in the first place.

[Darth Tang]

And how can you have too much disposable income? That's like habving too much sex. Can't happen.

[Vanguard]

Nicely articulated Tang.  

Cool to see an opposing opinion expressed without churlish or redundant insults. But it is an opinion only, not a definition of TROS.  

TROS is the best.  TROS is the best.  I cuss your xp, and ur other games.  TROS spills a pint on ur RPGs, then takes them round the back and administers to them a throrough beating about the head.  Naaah-naaa. TROS is the best! And I spit on your hideously, fat wad of disposable income.

Seriously though.  For me TROS answered my prayers.  XP was always too arbitratry, too systematic for me. TROS encourages the making of a good story, providing that incentive for characters and DMs (yeah, yeah, seneschals) to contrive their actions and make a scene cooler.  It's not about seeking XP, gaining confidence from any old thug the PC beats up in the inn  (I know u said PCs aren't rewarded with XP for kills in ur games but those systems are designed around that).  TROS, I believe, intrinsically adds to atmosphere. It is about seeking adventure, destiny, heroism.  The things wicked stories are made from.

And that's what I want from a game.

But yeah, nicely expressed thoughts Darth.  I genuinely believe there's something about this forum which draws the polite and liberal in people.  Haven't seen one flame-fest like you'd have to wade through in conventional forums.  


Take care

[Lance D. Allen]

TRoS is perfect.. If it's the sort of game that's your bag. Otherwise, it's imperfect. TRoS just happens to be precisely what the doctor ordered for nearly everyone in this forum.

What I disagreed with was that you called the system weak. I think the fact that it works immensely well for many different players proves that it's far from weak. It may not be what you prefer, but that doesn't make it weak. I dislike D&D with something approaching a passion, but I'll grudgingly have to admit that classes, XP and levels aren't a weak approach, because they've been working admirably for decades. I hate them, but they're hardly weak.

[Ron Edwards]

Said it before, sayin' it again:

The Riddle of Steel as written is a Narrativist-facilitating game with a solid Simulationist underpinning, with the latter in a subordinate position. It's like a vehicle with two engines, but one of them is directly connected to the steering mechanism (what a lousy visual analogy, but ...).

People who like that Simulationist approach will strip off the Narrativist engine and build a new steering mechanism for the Simulationist one. Paul Czege and I predicted we'd be seeing a lot of this with TROS way back in April 2002.

"Weak" simply isn't the issue. It's a matter of preference. I'm glad Darth was able to make the game work for him and his group, although I think it would be nifty if he could learn that we aren't talking about "strong" vs. "weak" except in preference terms. It would also be nifty if some of y'all could learn to let a person use whatever terms without going into blue-balled defensive posture.

This is Jake's forum and not under my jurisdiction as moderator, but man - the guy uses one, little teeny word, and you lose your cool. Not impressive.

Best,
Ron

[Darth Tang]

Everything is a matter of opinion; every game has its advocates and detractors.

I used the term 'weak' because:

A) I felt that the points I attacked were weak links in the game system

B) I did not feel that 'bad' was appropriate.

I use a very story-based and plot-immersive game; to me, the SAs randomize what I have been using for years, thus making my job more difficult.

For example: in my current Fading Suns campaign, one of the PCs (Remmie) is extremely fadicious about his quarters aboard the ship. On an op in a rebel-infested area, he stumbles across a Second Republic cigarette vending machine (he smokes) in a junk shop. He buys it, and they lug the damned thing around (for three+ weeks game time, 2.5 game sessions so far). In the middle of an ambush he sprints through enemy fire, jerks a wounded comrade out of the seat, and drives their flat-bed cargo vehicle out of the line of fire, all to protect his vending machine, which was strapped to the cargo bed. Since then he drew up (on Paint) a scale drawing of the cargo hauler, and how their supplies are arranged on it, so that the water cans, ammo crates, folding hoist, half a golem, rations, packs, cots, tent, and rope protect his vending machine.

And that's just a player-chosen incident. Remmie is also trying to get a copy of their recordings of six Ur pylons for his Scraver masters, (to boost his Status, as he's in line for a promotion.

Checking my chart, I've eight major factional agendas, three personal agendas, and some odd habits (like the vending machine) going in my current campaign. With that, who needs SAs?

Just my opinion, though.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Darth,

See, this is an interesting difference between how people use the internet, and how they approach discussions in general.

Before I start, let me repeat: your play of The Riddle of Steel is your baby, and it flies (or walks, or whatever) on its own - and I totally support that. You are, emphatically, "playing right," which is to say, the way that lets you have the most fun.

The issue is how this stuff is discussed - "For my style of play, TROS is weak," is a very different phrase than, "TROS is weak." The first one makes sense. The second one fails to see a difference between one's own preferred role-playing and anyone else's, which is a problem. Your last post is a wonderful example of the first phrase, and here I am, saying, "Yes! D.T. is on the money." (All the GNS guff above explains why, but never mind that.)

So with any luck, we are now on the same side of the table, sharing port and cigars, calling one another "old bean" and similar. Good enough? If not, then the following is going to be mis-read ...

Basically, "opinions" are worthless. No one is entitled to an opinion. No one need listen to anyone else's opinion. They are empty, meaningless blather, no matter how deeply felt nor how glibly articulated.

Opinions play no role in discussion of any kind except to press people's buttons. Saying "just my opinion" is pushing the button twice.

I support your point when you explain your perspective on play and why TROS as written doesn't work as well for it as TROS as you've tweaked it. That makes sense. It's not an opinion; it's a reasoned argument. However, when one plays the "opinion" card in order to make his or her claim invulnerable, then poof - that person just stopped being an intelligent member of a community and became another key-clacking blatherer.

I'd like to think of you as the former, not the latter. Stay with your valid argument, because it's very strong. There's no need for the "just my opinion" card.

Best,
Ron

[Stephen]

I use a very story-based and plot-immersive game; to me, the SAs randomize what I have been using for years, thus making my job more difficult.

For example: in my current Fading Suns campaign....
[amazing game story that makes me grind my teeth with envy snipped]

Checking my chart, I've eight major factional agendas, three personal agendas, and some odd habits (like the vending machine) going in my current campaign. With that, who needs SAs?

Darth, I was curious about the phrase "randomize what [you've] been using for years".  The SAs are very player-controlled in actual play, and provide tangible mechanical rewards for roleplaying in a very consistent and immediate fashion.  How do you find it to be "random", and exactly how does it make your job as GM more difficult?

Genuinely interested here because I'm in the middle of a game design which features a highly-SA-influenced character personality mechanic, and would be interested to hear about any pitfalls that have been encountered.