I've pretty much decided to pick up and try TRoS, but....

[Morfedel]

I have a few last questions.

I've heard that magic is almost TOO powerful. In reading the playtest review on openRPG, and then the comments from the forum below, one person used two examples, one of a person using sorcery to kill the Boss Bad Guy (tm) sight unseen, and the second using the idea of dropping a meteroite on an island and SINKING THE ISLAND!

And he used these during examples of how sorcerers aren't abusable?!?!

Are such things actually possible in the system? IF so, this is almost frighteningly too powerful. And when the game talks about restoring wonders of magic, I want to point out that I consider magic along the lines of subtle uses of power, ala Gandalf and Merlin - who never dropped big balls of fire from the sky and wipe out entire civilizations; and these two wizards are among our founding examples of sorcery from legends and literature.


The second question I have is in regard to combat: this is more of a gentle tease then anything else, but I have heard that the game suffers from the "naked dwarf" syndrome, where a tough naked person is harder to injure than an average person wearing plate armor. Is this so? IF it is, it seems kind of silly coming from a game bragging about having realistic combat!

Not an insult - a game is still a game, I just find it amusing, particularly considering their claims on realistic combat. :D


Finally - it seems that from what I've read, TRoS focues a lot on combat. Ars Magica, one of my favorite games, focuses a lot on mages, almost too much; so much so that it sometimes seems playing non-wizards isnt as rewarding.

Does TRoS suffer the same problem, particular in regards to those who are both non-sorcerers and non-warriors? For instance, if I wanted to play a "thief" or some other character concept, am I going to have a character with less attention to detail than what mages get in AM, or warriors get in TRoS?


Thanks for your time.

[Jake Norwood]

I'll let the locals here answer most of these questions, but I want to weigh-in on a few.

I've heard that magic is almost TOO powerful. In reading the playtest review on openRPG, and then the comments from the forum below, one person used two examples, one of a person using sorcery to kill the Boss Bad Guy (tm) sight unseen, and the second using the idea of dropping a meteroite on an island and SINKING THE ISLAND!

And he used these during examples of how sorcerers aren't abusable?!?!

Are such things actually possible in the system? IF so, this is almost frighteningly too powerful. And when the game talks about restoring wonders of magic, I want to point out that I consider magic along the lines of subtle uses of power, ala Gandalf and Merlin - who never dropped big balls of fire from the sky and wipe out entire civilizations; and these two wizards are among our founding examples of sorcery from legends and literature.

What people are missing is the TROS is a toolkit-style game. The system allows everything you describe, but it is *intended* to be pre-measured by the group's tastes; all you have to do is put arbitrary limiters like "magic must be subtle" or other such house rules to the use of magic in your games and you've accomplished what you want (oh, and I've always said that fireballs are outside of what TROS magic should be, though not what it can be, apparently). The next issue is abuse--you can't abuse a game that isn't about how powerful you are. What makes TROS so dang cool is that it isn't about magic or combat--it's about drives, motivations, passions, etc... the detail in other rule areas pushes those issues forward (really). I hope some more folks will post about this issue here for you.

The second question I have is in regard to combat: this is more of a gentle tease then anything else, but I have heard that the game suffers from the "naked dwarf" syndrome, where a tough naked person is harder to injure than an average person wearing plate armor. Is this so? IF it is, it seems kind of silly coming from a game bragging about having realistic combat!

Honestly I think this is the most over-debated issue in the game. I've never seen it actually happen. The fact is that everyone in TROS is mortal, including the naked dwarf. Again, it goes to TROS being a toolkit. If you want grindingly-severe-and-unforgiving-combat then you use the really brilliant TO rule variation found in the "TO too useful" thread here. Or you just limit TO to 6 or 7 in your games (which is what I do). TROS, though it comes with a setting, is not setting specific, and is built to handle a wide array of tastes. High TO (naked dwarf syndrome) can be a really good thing if you want to run a so-called "cinematic" game where the players can get wailed on and keep on going.

Finally - it seems that from what I've read, TRoS focues a lot on combat. Ars Magica, one of my favorite games, focuses a lot on mages, almost too much; so much so that it sometimes seems playing non-wizards isnt as rewarding.

The skill set is extensive and useful. In our experiences playing here the "theif" is actually the most dangerous and useful character in the group, except maybe the wizard.

Jake

[Morfedel]

Testing testing... having trouble replying to this @#$@#$%$%&%^ thread....

[Bankuei]

And he used these during examples of how sorcerers aren't abusable?!?!

Being that guy, I'll re-explain my point...

Abuse- To misuse, or step beyond what should be done in use of

Apparently, there is some hidden rule, somewhere, in rpging in general that is being "abused" when the players have some form of power that the GM cannot control.  That power is the right to change the story.  Guess what?  As protagonists, the players should always have that right anyway.

Like Jake says, you can limit the ability of sorcerers, or not allow players to have them.  But, what are you so damn afraid of?  Will your little preconceived plot go down the drain?  

I'll ask you directly:  What is being abused?  What is it you are afraid of as a GM, that your players will do?  What will "ruin" the game?  How?

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Now, Chris...

What Chris is trying to say is that, yes, by the traditional definitions of "Balance" that are used in other games TROS is horribly broken in terms of magic. That is, if you are worried that players who take Sorcerer characters will be more powerful than those who do not, then, you'd better worry. Because Sorcerer's are waaaaay more powerful. No comparison.

But, um, who cares?

The game is not about who is more powerful than whom. You can kill everyone in the universe, and you still haven't "won" a game of TROS (nor will you neccessarily benefit in any way). The game is not about how well you fight, but instead about what the character finds worthwhile to fight. That is, in TROS, the mightly Sorcerer will not end up blowing up the world. Becasue that won't be the character's goal. Or if it is, it'll be a short game.

Realize that TROS is about character motivation, and then all questions of "balance" become pointless. All characters start with exactly the same number of Spiritual Attribute points. And that makes the game absolutely, perfectly, balanced in terms of what the game is about.

Mike

[Bankuei]

You're right Mike,

I apologize Mord, it's a bit of my "people not being critical" rant spilling over...

But let me ask a little nicer- What is it that people, anyone, is afraid of in the "players have too much power" sense?  What is it that might be abused or ruin a game?

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I've asked people this question before and am always impressed at the deafening silence in response. I'll focus Chris' query just a bit more for you, Mord.

Bob is the GM. James, Bill, and Gabrielle are the players. They're all friends and they all like the RPG they're playing (your choice which one). Let's say the characters are (in order of the players) Zarkon, Herkeloid, and Lirazaya.

Please give me an example of someone, anyone but let's say one of the players, "abusing" whatever-it-is that you're concerned about. Explain it to me in detail: what the real people say to one another, what the characters do or don't do, the works.

This is a bit of a setup, because my real point here is to show that rules cannot abused, rather that people are.

Best,
Ron

[Morfedel]

You're right Mike,

I apologize Mord, it's a bit of my "people not being critical" rant spilling over...

But let me ask a little nicer- What is it that people, anyone, is afraid of in the "players have too much power" sense?  What is it that might be abused or ruin a game?

Chris

Well, I've been trying to post for awhile now, and have been blocked. The Webmaster made an adjustment and asked me to try again.

I'm glad you posted this, because frankly, the original post... inflammed me and was uncalled for. Thanks for the retraction.

It has nothing to do with my ABILITY to dm it, and everything to do with my DESIRE to DM it. If I, say, didnt want to DM star wars, its because I dont want to dm starwars, not because I cant handle it.

The same holds true here. I have a rather clear-cut, crystal-clear vision in my head of what should and shouldnt be with wizards, in my own ideal fantasy world. And I want my games to fit that.

Some games are not so easy to mold to that vision. D&D is very hard, as it would require a substantial rewrite. Ars Magica was virtually perfect, coming incredibly close to my vision.

Among other things, I see wizards having power... but not of the kind to shake mountains and vaporize civilizations (as per the dropping a meteor on an island bit). I see them as the Gandalf or Merlin, who certainly did nothing of the sort.

I also see it another way: if sorcerers had THAT much power, then sooner or later, someone would use it - which would mean that sorcerers would have a massive impact on the world - and most likely, anyone capable of that kind of power would be the equivalent of a nuclear bomb in the fantasy world, capable of bringing kingdoms to their knees.

This would be just fine in a game revolving around magocracies. But thats not the game I want to run. I want to run a game with the gandalf/merlin level of power. Its a matter of taste, not ability.

[Morfedel]

Hi there,

I've asked people this question before and am always impressed at the deafening silence in response. I'll focus Chris' query just a bit more for you, Mord.

Bob is the GM. James, Bill, and Gabrielle are the players. They're all friends and they all like the RPG they're playing (your choice which one). Let's say the characters are (in order of the players) Zarkon, Herkeloid, and Lirazaya.

Please give me an example of someone, anyone but let's say one of the players, "abusing" whatever-it-is that you're concerned about. Explain it to me in detail: what the real people say to one another, what the characters do or don't do, the works.

This is a bit of a setup, because my real point here is to show that rules cannot abused, rather that people are.

Best,
Ron

Its hard to answer, because you are asking something that will require an in-depth explanation. I can give you two quick thoughts, though.

Earlier, in another post on another board, Chris made a comment about a Wizard dropping a meteor on an island and sinking it. My response was to be appalled - this is the kind of level of gaming I'd not want in my games, and I was asking just how easily the magic system is molded to fit the more gandalf/merlin level/style of play. This is too powerful for the kind of games I generally like to run, with the sole exception of the Amber Diceless RPG.

Another example is Champions: built on a point based system for designing superpowers, I once was able to build a character who could absorb energy, redirect it to increase his energy absorbtion limit, and add some into his energy blast.

Plugging his finger into an electic socket, he had no limit to how much damage he could do - given time, of course. He could crack the earth in two, given enough time.

Another example, also from champions: another guy made a character that spent all his points to purchase followers. He had his followers in turn purchase followers, etc. The way it worked, you would spend a certian number of points to get a character valued that number you spent times another number - since he was an individual.

But you got to build the npcs, and he amde sure all of them had the disadvantage that they were obedient to the original.

When he got to 1 pt npcs (well, they were more like 25 pts, +1 spare point, or something) they all spent their points to purchase... The Death Star. in effect, he multiplied his original points over and over and over.... and was able to purchase a weapon that could annhiliate the planet, and crewed it with his brainwashed his little followers.

Ok, so you might say a good GM can do something about this. Yes he can.

But the people who say this miss the point.

By the PCs pulling these antics, it starts becoming a game about their widgets and abilities, and not about the game, the drama, the story. It becomes about controlling their enormous appetites, and not about the flow of hero and villain.

It puts more work on the DM, not for running a story, but for keeping munchkined, powergamed PCs in check.

And I, for one, think that there is a point where a line must be drawn.

[Spartan]

Among other things, I see wizards having power... but not of the kind to shake mountains and vaporize civilizations (as per the dropping a meteor on an island bit). I see them as the Gandalf or Merlin, who certainly did nothing of the sort.

Well, the TROS magic system is really quite flexible.  It might be just a matter of adjusting what level 3 Vagaries do, or even getting rid of them altogether.  You could make mages take levels in the effects instead of/as well as the Vagaries.  Double all casting times and/or aging penalities.  Tweak, grasshopper. ;)  It can be done.  I did a preliminary Hârn conversion using TROS magic and converting the Vagaries to line up with the Convocations of the Shek Pvar from Hârn.  Easy Schmeezy.  Merely apply the same creative juices that every GM has... chances are you'll find what you're after, or at the very least, come close enough.  I think my conversion, although far from perfect, captures the feel of Hârnic magic well enough to be used in a pinch.  Have fun with the system and don't put any pressure on yourself. :)

Good luck!

-Mark

[Bankuei]

Sorry Mord, for the blow up...

If your intent is to limit what "mages should be" to fit your setting, that's all awesome, and I'm behind that.  It can easily be done by either limiting the maximum Vagary levels available or simply eliminating player sorcerers as an option.

By the PCs pulling these antics, it starts becoming a game about their widgets and abilities, and not about the game, the drama, the story. It becomes about controlling their enormous appetites, and not about the flow of hero and villain.

On the other hand, the big issue is that for players to be ABLE to pull off those "screw the world" type actions is that they will need to have the Spiritual Attributes to make big spells happen.  That is, you can't just sink the island on a whim.  If, let's say, you were the last of your people, and your island is now overrun with Empire X, and you're the last one in the tower...your SAs might let you do something crazy like that.  

But, and here's my only concern with what you're saying:  Villain.  Certainly it pays to have antagonists, but the game hinges on conflict, not on a single individual.  

Consider the difference:  Villain kills Hero, first 5 minutes.  Game over, right?  Hero kills Villain, first 5 minutes.  Introduce new Villain(henchman, rival, whoever).

So, what if a player is an archer and snipes your "big villian"?  What if your mage "zaps" him?  Is your "conflict" solely dependant on that one villain?

See, let me show you my idea of a conflict.  Let's say we've got a irresponsible loser of a king on the throne, a corrupt minister who can do all his dirtywork with the king not paying attention, and a loyal general who wants to protect the people, but also serve the king.  Now make a neighboring kingdom invade.  

Even with Super Ass Whup Magic/Sword Technology(TM), how do you set things straight?  Who should be in charge?  Who is capable of protecting the kingdom?  How do you know?  Who will be opposed to any decision you make to support one group or another?

Do you see the difference? Kill any one, or all the people involved.  Use magic up the wahoo.  Shoot, take the throne for yourself.  Still, problems going on.  Even if you can fling planets at each other Infinity Gauntlet style, it still doesn't fix the real issues.  And I guarantee that, more than anything will truly frustrate a munchkiny player.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Ah! A fellow Champions veteran.

Let's start with some ground rules, OK? Neither of us is allowed to anticipate the other person's response. I can't say, "You're gonna say ..." and then respond to whatever it is. We have to be responding to what one another really says.

Here's another ground rule - we have to assume that the other person wants to gain something from the dialogue's content. Not just make the point we carry around in our back pockets and march out whenever possible, and not just smack at the other person's isolated sentences.

These aren't based on anything you've done so far, but are the rules I demand for discussing anything on-line (or elsewhere, really).

Assuming that you go for it, let's do it.

1. "Balance" or "game balance" is an undefined term. People use it all the time to make a point, but what that point is, is never clear. There are several pretty good threads at the Forge already about this, mostly in RPG Theory.

2. So looking at your examples, I see two distinct and different things which look, to me, as if you're considering to be one thing.

a) Raw power levels. In Champions, we'd be talking about Active Point totals, right? With 60 STR, I do 12 dice; with 80, I do 16, and so on. One of your concerns is just how many dice the characters deliver (or how much poundage they can lift, and so on).

b) Cost per unit power level. In Champions, we're now talking about sneaky tricks regarding Limitations and perhaps some fun things like the REC/STR/CON boondoggle (you know that one, right?).

Again, these are different things. I suggest that a given game with a hell of a lot of (a), but really excellent rules for managing (b), will only pose problems for some few groups who really don't want high power levels (prefer 1960s X-Men rather than 1980s, e.g.). I also suggest that a given game with not much or variable (a) but with really broken (b) will pose problems for just about any group, and they'll have to set up a bunch of local "rules" in order to play at all.

There! Made my point without ever bringing "balance" into it. So now to discuss TROS.

3. The (a) issue in TROS sorcery is clear - yowza, lots of power. The (b) issue is rather well handled as long as you ignore the pseudo-science in the rules text (which can be interpreted in annoying ways). The limits or "managers" of the power levels include the potential for the sorcerer to age himself badly by accident and also certain dice considerations.

Whether the managers work well for your group is a good question. My own experience is positive. I think most instances of play seem to bear it out well - at least, based on my observation that the cries of fear which arise about it in on-line forums seem to come almost exclusively from people who haven't played the game.

Finally, another setting-based consideration about all this which doesn't seem to get recognized by many people in this forum is that the existing sorcerers, or even all previous sorcerers in existence, had a stake in keeping the world intact. If you try to blow up the world or bring down the moon, it makes perfect sense that you'll encounter an existing, subtle spell that was set up centuries ago just to keep some moron from doing that.

Best,
Ron

[Brian Leybourne]

I think part of the issue here (and please don't take offense) is that you seem to be under the impression that anything the book says is instantly available to the players in whatever fashion they want to use it.

TROS or otherwise, I think you're always going to hit problems if you roleplay that way, with the possible exception of a game like D&D that is anally forced into perfect (well, "perfect", anyway) balance exactly because people play it that way.

As Jake said today in another thread, TROS is a toolbox. The only things in the rulebook that the players can use is whatever the GM says they can use, and they can only use it HOW he says they can. If you want magic to be Gandalf/Merlin like, then tell the players that's how it works, and disallow island sinking fireballs. It's really that easy.

Brian.

[Morfedel]

And thats really what I wanted to know. I had heard of the "problems" with the power level, and I wanted to know how easy it is to tweak it, retool it.

Let's face it, not all game systems are created equal, and not all are as easily tweaked; I just wanted to know how easily tweaked to my own vision it would be (Again, since I dont have the game book til this weekend), and I wanted a forewarning of what I was getting into.

And I didnt intend to stir up the proverbial hornet's nest! :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Morf,

No hornet's nest, my friend. You're talking to people who really want to see you get your money's worth from your purchase, and who support your intent/willingness to play. Count me first on the list who's looking forward to your first reports of actual play, and I'm not alone.

Besides, I want someone around who knows the difference between a Multipower and a Variable Power Pool.

Best,
Ron