New (very negative) review of THE RIDDLE OF STEEL

[Valamir]

Alan, you and me both.  I went through the same process.

Thing is when you try to explain the different mindset that is required to "get it" to someone who hasn't gone through the process you get all of those "elitist" type comments.

Sometimes I feel like a Vorlon saying "You are not ready".

People hate that and usually respond by lashing out.

[Malechi]

I struggled with DnD for a bit over six years with my own campaign world... trying to find an incarnation/house ruleset that would make DnD "Gritty combat, no healing magic, scary sorcerous magic thats powerful and rare"...

TROS was "What I was looking for all along" and SAs have given me the tools to create those kind of games I only experienced by getting together the best gamers I know and throwing away half of the DnD rules and trusting their own, as I now know its called, Directorial Stance abilities..

funny how things work out..

[Sigurth]

My experience has been all positive, and my players are coming from a DnD 3x background.  Also, one player who is usually slow to get rules, got TROS in one session. I think he was waiting for a combat system where he could describe or mime what he wanted to do, and he could DO it. In 3e, there have been too many times where we've had to say...

"Sorry, you can say you do that, but the mechanic doesn't cover it."

Also, combat has been quick and the round system of two exchanges has allowed me to go "around the table" so everyone gets more play time.

However, its not the combat...SAs have MADE the game.  The same weekend we played with a GM who gave us a 'top-down' sort of adventure. That is, he had some kewl books and a kewl adventure and forced us through it. The players were not happy. In contrast, with SAs driving the Drama, everyone contributes to the Story, and that makes everyone happy. It is not just the uber-mage or uber-cleric or uber-GM that drives the story. I have had to ask players for notes since several conversations have occured in character while I'm doing something else. Plus, I like acting more as a facilitator, a weaver of the tale instead of a judge.

To say that the game does not allow for Heroics is misleading. In one of my first sessions, a player knew he could sneak away and watch an ambush occur, but his Conscience drove him to give away the positions of the ambushers with a shout. Because of the deadliness of combat it put him is serious jeopardy, but with SAs and because he prevailed, fearing for his life, it was very heroic.

I guess I would say the reviewer missed the point, and did not get the Riddle :)

[AdAstraGames]

Actually, the number of people I've personally taught how to play AV:T is under twenty.   The number of people I've done the 5 minute "hi, wanna blow up a chocolate?" walkthrough to is in the hundreds and maybe thousands by now.

One of the major content differences between Delta V (which is what Nathan Banks saw) and the final product is that we formalized that walkthrough into the first chapter of the rulebook, and made sure everything was illustrated and presented in the simplest terms possible, and in the right order...and then alpha tested it on people who didn't know the game but were willing to try it from just that walkthrough.  When they got through the four example turns, and had the same understanding we did, life was good.

The other major difference is component value -- die cut box minis and actual plastic tilt blocks in the box.  I don't think Nathan ever got to try it with those components, and the ease of use and playability difference between doing it with them and without them is far beyond the mere difference of night and day.  

Bringing this back to TRoS, I like TRoS' intent.  Speaking as an old wargamer, I love how it relies on player utilization of tactics and to some extent, knowledge of stances, maneuvers, etc and how it ties into what you're doing.   Speaking as a rapier fencer and SCAdian, a lot of it makes sense to me.   Its armor model reflects Jake's stance on these things, and while I don't agree with it entirely, I can see enough in it to know where Jake's sources are likely coming from.  

Speaking as an RPGer, I find the handling time to be...clunky.  I also dislike the different ways that skills are handled ("getting better at a skill drops your target number, so skill 1 is better than skill 2 which is better than skill 3") to "Getting better gives you more dice".  

I love the SAs, but find that my player group spread like a herd of cats due to them.  Without a strong central aim shared by everyone, each player is maddeningly individualistic and wants to go do Their Own Thing.

Ken Burnside

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

I found the review to be ok, but also a perfect example of what happens when someone plays ROS without any understanding of how SAs are supposed to work.  

Given that over 90% of all game books and articles out there only support games with the heavy hand of a GM devised plot, where the PCs are run through like hamsters in a maze, it can only be expected that a LOT of people aren't going to get it, even if its spelled out in the rules.

When I find these reviews, I usually put up a short post about how the game is supposed to work, which funny enough, is usually misunderstood because people are applying rules and advice from other games onto ROS, instead of simply following what's there.  The same problem is common for Sorcerer as well.

I've stopped replying to folks whom I've deemed trolls on rpg.net, or any other forum.  I'll try to make my point, perhaps reply once, but once the person shows that they are arguing for the sake of arguing, not taking points into consideration, and basically acting like anything but an adult, I just stop wasting my time.  Since they aren't really engaging in discussion, neither will I.

Chris

[Emiricol]

Here I was all curious to read this "new" review, only to discover this thread died in January and just got brought back :)  Confused me for a moment!

[bottleneck]

I struggled with DnD for a bit over six years with my own campaign world... trying to find an incarnation/house ruleset that would make DnD "Gritty combat, no healing magic, scary sorcerous magic thats powerful and rare"...

yep. My dnd-setting is also trying to get there. But it's hard, especially without SA's.

Making good, open-ended adventures in dnd is so hard because there are _no_ SA's. Basically the players just try to bash whoever "looks evil" (or loaded with loot), not paying any attention to the plot or even their own characters. (pure gamism). When presented with a _choice_, they look around uncertainly, waiting for some clue as to which way they are 'supposed' to go ((and still the characters are opposing the priests who say that everything is fated and they are powerless to change it)).
Meaning I often end up leading them by the nose even when I try not to, and the characters are basically a bunch of combat stats (some of the players don't even remember their characters name). I don't want that. I want roleplaying to be a dialogue, not the GM forcing a story and the players screwing it up in order to make their characters more unbalanced.

Making an adventure for tRoS would be a lot _easier_ for me than making one for DnD; the characters goals are defined by their SA's, and most likely they will work towards them if given the chance. (they cannot just go looking for random encounters until they have the levels and loot they want and the adventure is no challenge any more).

playing tRoS _might_ make some of my players actually roleplay their characters ("acting on my SA means getting better? aha!"), which would be a welcome change of style. We're finally starting a campaign next week (where I get to be a player, whoopee!).

[Valamir]

Here I was all curious to read this "new" review, only to discover this thread died in January and just got brought back :)  Confused me for a moment!

Yeah, there is a newer TROS review (Monday I think) which generated alot of good discussion.

This thread referred to an older review which was rather nasty.

[Bankuei]

My bad.  I had thought this was referring to the newer review, not the older one.  

Chris