Testing SAs (Split from "Negative Review")

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

I've read JD's review of TRoS and a fair amount of the mudslinging that resulted in the RPGnet forum. The review is not well written, seemingly designed to be controversial or argumentative in an effort to draw a readership and response. All responses to the article have been treated as if the responder has risen to the bait and is attacking the author. As such there isn't much value to be gained from reading through the threads...

On the other hand, I do think that it is important that those who understand TRoS extract the points made in the review from the surrounding hyperbole and, rather than saying "you're wrong -- this is how it is meant to work", look at how JD could have arrived at the conclusions he did from reading the rules and playing the game for a few months.

And it is great to see that this is how many people have approached the review on this forum.

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.

A couple of observations about this broad subject of SAs.

Firstly, as a player and as a referee my favourite campaign of all time was WFRP's "The Power Behind the Throne", or at least the first three modules in the series. As a player the plot had everything -- it was intellectually challenging in its complexity, superbly detailed, and managed that clever balance of having the players caught up in a drama far larger than their own petty lives yet not so large that the players couldn't make a difference.

I now look at this campaign from the TroS perspective of "If your SAs aren't involved why should your character care...?". Would the campaign have worked under TRoS? Would certain PCs have to be asked to take certain SAs as mandatory, so that their hook into the campaign was smooth? Is that an acceptable request, as an alternative to wholly pre-generated PCs?

Secondly, in spite of a complete lack of combat training I find it unlikely that I would fight better when confronted by a knife-wielding attacker if the fight was over something I initially considered important. The situation is life-or-death and that would seem to me to be the over-riding consideration.

I might be more likely to fight over something I cared passionately about, I might even fight more desperately but is that what extra dice in the CP represent? Does desperation make people fight smarter? Maybe, maybe not -- but it looks like having extra dice in the CP lets you use more options in combat, which if it were true would indicate to me that the character was able to fight smarter.

Thirdly, was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use? To divorce the value of the SA from the degree to which the character holds to that SA? I find the rules contradictory. For instance, I have a character with a Conscience SA of 5. The character acts selfishly and loses a point of Conscience. He now has a Conscience of 4. In what way is this Conscience value of 4 different from the Conscience value of 4 he gets when trading in 1 point of this SA as part of an Attribute-raising exercise? Is the character a more or less Conscience-orientated character under either circumstance or both circumstances?

Finally, I find it restrictive that SAs aren't readily testable like the PAs, MAs, and DAs. The temptation process -- assuming for a moment a world-view where temptation represents a spiritual attack that the character must successfully defend if they are to resist temptation -- would seem to be most obviously resisted by Faith (if the character follows a religion that is opposed to the form of temptation) or Conscience. Yet the SAs have values of 0 through 5 and may or may not represent how strongly the character follows the SA.

Cheers,

[Bill Cook]

Secondly, in spite of a complete lack of combat training I find it unlikely that I would fight better when confronted by a knife-wielding attacker if the fight was over something I initially considered important. The situation is life-or-death and that would seem to me to be the over-riding consideration.

To me, SA's are better understood as Heroic Advantage.  There's nothing realistic about it, but it satisfies on another level.

I especially appreciate that SA's are seperated from metaphysical concerns such that, by the stats, "we're all men."  It is also notable that their context certifies the character as a prime driver of situation, setting the category apart from other kinds of attributes.

[Malechi]

I'm going to address your two final points and given that my opinion is just that and the opinion of a player/GM not the designer...

Thirdly, was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use? To divorce the value of the SA from the degree to which the character holds to that SA? I find the rules contradictory. For instance, I have a character with a Conscience SA of 5. The character acts selfishly and loses a point of Conscience. He now has a Conscience of 4. In what way is this Conscience value of 4 different from the Conscience value of 4 he gets when trading in 1 point of this SA as part of an Attribute-raising exercise? Is the character a more or less Conscience-orientated character under either circumstance or both circumstances?

Yes it was a good idea.. in your example the person has grown somewhat as a result of Spending his SA point.  He has increased one of his attributes which can, in turn increase his ability to pursue his ideals/philosophy.  The other guy hasn't grown, he's gone backwards.  The payoff in spending the point to get better is that you don't have those extra points available to burn on Combat, Skill rolls or whatever.  However, all you need to is simply play your character as defined by SA and Philosophy and you're back on track, but a little better on the ground level thanks to spending that SA point on your Attributes, combat prof skill or whatever.  SAs are a fluid, dynamic thing, not something that indicates a particular level of Conscience, Drive, Passion, Luck, Faith etc... Thats better measured by Insight points, and knowledge of the characters action.  I'm not sure SAs were intended as an external measuring stick on how cool the character is just by their very fluid nature.

Finally, I find it restrictive that SAs aren't readily testable like the PAs, MAs, and DAs. The temptation process -- assuming for a moment a world-view where temptation represents a spiritual attack that the character must successfully defend if they are to resist temptation -- would seem to be most obviously resisted by Faith (if the character follows a religion that is opposed to the form of temptation) or Conscience. Yet the SAs have values of 0 through 5 and may or may not represent how strongly the character follows the SA.

I think you're making a fundamental error in the way you're understanding the system here.  in your example and in most games I know of tests refer back to your core Attributes and in TROS its no different.  I can't see the benefit of testing an SA amount if its inherantly fluid.  The test should test the characters inherant core ability to resist whatever  the temptation is.  In this case its probably Wit or something like that.  The SA is just a reserve to call on in times where the temptation is important.  Temptation isn't always going to be contradictory to your Conscience or your Faith.  I get tempted walking past Donut King... thats hardly going to need my extra resolve if I'm a hardcore buddhist or whatever.  Its just tempting me at a base level.   In other situations you'll be tempted where your base level of resistance is boosted by the relevant SA.  

I've probably got more to say, but I gotta dash...

[Alan]

A Spiritual Attribute doesn't measure how much the character is committed to an issue, it measures how much the player is.  SAs exist solely as a mechanic to encourage player contributions of a particular type.  To assess them as just another Attribute is to miss the point.

[Jaif]

I now look at this campaign from the TroS perspective of "If your SAs aren't involved why should your character care...?". Would the campaign have worked under TRoS? Would certain PCs have to be asked to take certain SAs as mandatory, so that their hook into the campaign was smooth? Is that an acceptable request, as an alternative to wholly pre-generated PCs?

The short answer is yes, either the characters need to adapt to the campaign, or the campaign needs to adapt to the characters.  This is actually nothing more than formalizing something that decent GMs do anyways: "guys, I'm running a campaign where you're the good guys who fight chaos"..."ok, I can do that, but my character still hates Bretonians".

Secondly, in spite of a complete lack of combat training I find it unlikely that I would fight better when confronted by a knife-wielding attacker if the fight was over something I initially considered important. The situation is life-or-death and that would seem to me to be the over-riding consideration.

Yup, SAs are a story-telling element, not part of the simulation.

Btw, there's nothing stopping you from modifying things to your tastes.  You can play by simply handing out experience points for gold pieces found or goals accomplished at the end and doing away with the SAs.  Of if you want to run in WFRP, do that but keep the luck SA, which closely resembles fate points anyways.

-Jeff

P.S. When I first started my campaign, I told my players well in advance the general theme, and that I was nailing down 2 SAs and letting them only pick 3 (some still had a hard time).  Over time I've freed up and told them they are welcome to buy down those 2 SAs.  This was both to give the campaign a bit of focus at start and to help players figure out the new system.

[Tywin Lannister]

Besides, there is nothing wrong with things happening in the campaign in spite of SAs.
For example, Player Characters forced to wander through a desert while their SAs relate to NPCs on the other side of the world. Bad example, but you prob know what I mean

[kenjib]

I found this post by Ralph Mazza very interesting and thought I'd quote it here for those who don't want to wade through everything over there:

http://www.rpg.net/forums/phorum/rf08/read.php?f=2191&i=343&t=181

I think it's a very insightful look into what makes RPGs fun.

Author: Ralph Mazza (---.2.30)
Date:   01-29-2004 07:22

Sure, and to be clear, I have no problem at all with TRoS not meeting your preferences. And for 2 very good reasons. First, no game is going to meet everyones preferences; and Second, you are willing to acknowledge that just because it isn't your cup of tea that that doesn't make it a bad game design (a lesson several others in these discussions could learn).

I will say on final comment about "learning the system and how well they learn".

The system isn't particularly hard or difficult to understand. I'll avoid comparisons with the difficulty of other games because that would just open up a whole can of worms. But we aren't talking Phoenix Command here.

What makes me stress the skill required is not because its a particularly difficult skill to learn, but because its a particularly *different* skill to learn (for most gamers, esp those predominately players of D&D).

In a game like D&D there is little you can do to avoid getting hit. There are various pre battle choices you can make to boost your AC, but by and large once the fighting starts whether you get hit or not is more dependent on what your opponent does then what you do. So D&D combat comes down primarily to trading hits. You expect to be hit, its ok to be hit as long as you're hitting the other guy harder.

In TRoS whether a character gets hit or not is more in the hands of the defender than the attacker. Its the defender whose in the drivers seat and the attacker who must use tactics and feints and timing in order to land a blow. In TRoS you don't trade hits. You trade attacks. You trade attacks until one side gains an advantage that they have the courage to exploit and land the blow. I say courage, because most of the time the attack needed to exploit that opening also leaves the attacker vulnerable too.

Its a different mentality. Not a harder mentality.


As far as the "metagame" issue. You and I could probably have some very interesting discussions on the variety of ways Metagame can effect play.

But for purposes of this discussion, I enjoy playing games where my choices as a player impact the success of my character in the game. I find the alternative pretty boring.

If my skills as a player don't matter, if the only deciding factor in whether or not my character lives or dies are the skills written on his sheet and how the dice fall, I see little point. Anyone could play my character. Anyone could pick up the sheet, roll the dice and determine my characters fate.

See, one of the common arguments against metagame is that it detatches the player from the character. For me I find the exact opposite to be true. I care MORE about the character and wanting to play that character when its me determining whether he lives or dies.

This operates on 2 levels for me. First mechanically. As I said if you postulate a game with zero player skill impact on the outcome of a fight, then I feel no attachment to the character at all. It could be anyones character. Anyone could "run" it through the battle and the results will 100% determined mechanically. When its MY choices making the difference, I feel MORE attached.

I know my character will survive because *I'M* going to win. Bob sitting next to me would get killed if he were running the character, but I'm going to save his bacon. I get to feel as a player anxiety from the risk of losing and the thrill from winning. Its the anxiety and thrill of losing or winning a game rather than the anxiety and thrill of losing or winning your life. But its still an emotional connection to the character. I'm feeling what the character is feeling because I know that I live or die based on what I do as a player. I don't feel that in games where the decision is determined solely by character skill level and die rolls. There's no anxiety there for me. There's no thrill there for me. Its just dice hitting the table. Might as well be playing the card game "war".


The second level for me is enjoyment of play. Lets say a character is supposed to love someone and be willing to risk there life for them in the game. Ok, sure I can *play* the character so that the character's actions demonstrate this love. But unless *I* as a player am interested in seeing this relationship develop its not fun to do that. Roleplaying becomes a chore. It becomes work. It becomes going through the motions of "what I'm supposed to do because its on the character sheet" whether or not I'm finding it the least bit fun.

That's why I stressed in my "situation" rant a while ago the importance of hooking the player not the character. I will engage my character in the parts of the setting and situation that *I* find interesting...not whatever parts the character is supposed to find interesting. Who cares what the character finds interesting, its just a piece of paper. It can't high five you for a job well done.

This awareness of what the player finds interesting also is important for the enjoyment of the *group*. I can engage with the story/setting/situation with my character in a way that others at the table can appreciate and enjoy. I can make decisions for my character primarily on the basis of enhancing their fun. Of getting them excited. Of maybe shocking them a little (in a good way). This is all "meta" gaming in the sense that it takes the cues and inputs of what's "right" from the living breathing players at the table rather than some scribling on a piece of dead tree.

IMO a character is just a vehicle for the enjoyment of the play group. It has no life and it has no rights. I have no duty or obligation towards a piece of paper. What I do have is a duty and obligation to the enjoyment of all of the members at the table whom I'm playing with.

That's metagame. That's why I shake my head whenever someone like polaris pipes up with a "metagame is bad" statement of dogma. Its a nonsensical statement to make.

As soon as you admit that the primary purpose of roleplaying is for the people at the table to have fun...you're talking metagame. The interests of the players are paramount.

The entire idea of avoiding metagame to me is like driving from L.A. to Vegas by way of Atlanta. You're in L.A (start of the game). You want to get to Vegas (players having fun)...just drive to Vegas for crying out loud. Why go out of your way to ignore, suppress, or avoid the needs, wants and preferences of the players (by driving to Atlanta i.e. avoiding metagame) when the road to player enjoyment is so much simpler and easier than that.

[Jaif]

Good post.  The object is for the players to have fun, not the pieces of paper. :-)

[Pyske]

I agree that Ralph / Valamir's post was very well stated.  I think that for some people he is completely right.  The only point I see missing (possibly intentionally), is that for some people process is important to the goal.  Less abstractly, for some people maximum fun means minimum metagame.  Like many of the other things people fight about, it's a taste issue.

Can TROS work for such people?  I suspect it can, but in a more limited set of scenarios than for those who are comfortable with including the metagame (i.e. that subset which avoids the requirement to make metagame decisions which can't be mapped to character decisions).

. . . . . . . -- Eric

edit PS:  Decided I wanted to add some context.  Ralph's post was originally a response to someone claiming that metagame is never OK.  Thus, it was perfectly reasonable to present it as a defense of the position.  Didn't want my comment about "possibly intentially" to seem like I was accusing Ralph of anything.

[Valamir]

Hey no problem there Eric.  The Forge is all about identifying play preferences, seeing them as equally valid, and encouraging people to find people of similiar preference to game with if differences in play style is causeing difficulty.

So absolutely there are people whose source of fun comes from an absence of metagame.  One point that I do want to make clear however is this.

I have no problem with people who prefer to play Without MetaGame (WMGs) as long as that is a decision they arrived at rationally.  Meaning, they've played alot of different ways, with alot of different people and in the end concluded for themselves that they do, in fact, prefer WMG play.

What I do have a problem with is people who are WMG players forcibly indoctineating new gamers with WMG dogma (through peer pressure and lectures on the "proper" way to play).  I firmly believe that WMG play is  foriegn to "normal" non gamer sensibilities, and that this period of indoctination is often the reason why potential new players show up once or twice and never go back.  Its the WMG zealots who I have BIG issues with, because they IMO are severely damaging to our hobby.



I regards to your question about TRoS working for WMG players, I'd say this.  TRoS is not IMO a tool kit design.  d20, GURPS, Hero, Tri Stat, Savage Worlds, etc, many of the more popular game systems out there are tool kit designs.  By this I mean that each subsystem is reasonably self contained so that with a little work one can lift out one sub system and substitute in something else.  In d20s case this is how you get all of those OGL variants like M&M, etc.

This sort of thing is so common (and has been for so long) that many people just assume that any game can be mixed and matched as much as desired.

TRoS, however, is a much more monolithis system.  The combat system is not a seperate subsystem from the SA rules and the character advancement rules.  One can not simply mix and match with these.  They are all fundamentally tied and integrated with each other.

It would require much more careful "surgery" to seperate them.

This is the problem James ran into with his group.  He didn't question for a second (and still doesn't) that he could simply lift the SA and character advancement system out of TRoS, drop in an alternative and have the game work.  It didn't.  And the reason it didn't is because the game is not a tool kit like this.

If one REALLY wanted to make an RPG out of TRoS that didn't use the SA system (and James's version didn't really, he called them SAs but in practice they sound more like Burning Wheel-esque call on traits), then the combat system needs to be reworked.  Its the SAs that prevent the game from being a new-character-every-other-session death fest.  Without them, modifications are required.

Because combat is such a finely tuned machine, any mechanical changes that seriously reduced its lethality would have some pretty severe ripple effects (unless someone just rewrites the damage tables to have weaker effects).

So yes, I think you could incorporate the mechanical foundation into a WMG game.  But you'd need to revise the lethality of the system substantially.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi all -

I posted something over in that rpg.net review thread - pardon me for reposting it here, but I thought the folks in this thread might find it interesting.

I was in the game where Ralph got wacked by the kid with a stick. It was an incredible role-playing moment - arrogant knight brought low by youngling with a sword. Not just "a kid" - a Fahal tibes-child with a culture strange and unknown to us, and a toughness that even my Kazak raider found imposing.

System used to support style of play - "meta gaming" in the service of desired game-reward. "Role" and "playing" enhanced by the interplay of charcter, player, GM and system.

That's what TRoS invites you to engage with, and what its' tools will support you in doing. You may not like the way it does it - that's fine. It may not be the goals you're interested in - also fine, and TOTALLY understandable. But obviously, objectively a "bad" game? That's just . . . insane, to my mind.

Gordon

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Thirdly, was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use? To divorce the value of the SA from the degree to which the character holds to that SA? I find the rules contradictory. For instance, I have a character with a Conscience SA of 5. The character acts selfishly and loses a point of Conscience. He now has a Conscience of 4. In what way is this Conscience value of 4 different from the Conscience value of 4 he gets when trading in 1 point of this SA as part of an Attribute-raising exercise? Is the character a more or less Conscience-orientated character under either circumstance or both circumstances?

Yes it was a good idea.. in your example the person has grown somewhat as a result of Spending his SA point.  He has increased one of his attributes which can, in turn increase his ability to pursue his ideals/philosophy.  The other guy hasn't grown, he's gone backwards.

I agree with what you are saying. What is represented by a value of 4 in Conscience as opposed to some other value? What impact does the method by which the character arrived at this value have on the character?

It looks like a value of 4 has no more nor less bearing on the Conscience than any other value. Nor does the method by which the character arrived at the value impact anything beyond the immediate determination of the value. The reason this is the case is mechanistic rather than simulationist -- as the SAs are part of the experience point mechanism (for want of a better word) the values of the SAs will be fluid and therefore must be divorced from any inherent meaning.

Finally, I find it restrictive that SAs aren't readily testable like the PAs, MAs, and DAs. (Snip)

I think you're making a fundamental error in the way you're understanding the system here.  in your example and in most games I know of tests refer back to your core Attributes and in TROS its no different.

Quite correct -- I'm saying that I find it restrictive that TRoS has no testable attributes that relate to the character's spiritual make-up. To use your terminology, the character's strength of spirit is not a core attribute in TRoS.

The test should test the characters inherant core ability to resist whatever  the temptation is.  In this case its probably Wit or something like that.

Notice how difficult it was to come up with an MA that really suited a check against temptation? Would you use a measure of the character's mental reflex and sharpness to test against temptation? Would you use a measure of how quickly the character learns to resist temptation? Would you use a measure of mental endurance and determination to resist temptation?

TRoS is great in that it divides the character into three areas of core attributes -- the physical, the mental, and the spiritual. Most RPGs rely on a Piety-type attribute to represent the whole of the character's spiritual state while TRoS devotes a section of attributes to the spirit! Yet they aren't testable attributes, which I find frustrating.

In TRoS, how do you test belief?

Cheers.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

A Spiritual Attribute doesn't measure how much the character is committed to an issue, it measures how much the player is.

From which we draw the logical conclusion that when the player decides to trade in 5 points of their character's maxed SA to raise an MA or PA that they are no longer as committed to that SA...

That was a joke. Look, I think you are trying to say that the act of defining an SA allows the player to indicate to the referee the core values of their character. That's quite correct (though for me is blurred a little by the idea that the player can change those SA definitions as they see fit).

Is that function -- and a great one it is for player and referee alike -- necessarily linked to the character development function? Or does that link create as many issues as it solves?

Should TRoS have testable attributes that relate to the spirit of the character? Should TRoS cater for spiritual development as it does mental and physical development?

Cheers,

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Secondly, in spite of a complete lack of combat training I find it unlikely that I would fight better when confronted by a knife-wielding attacker if the fight was over something I initially considered important. The situation is life-or-death and that would seem to me to be the over-riding consideration.

To me, SA's are better understood as Heroic Advantage.  There's nothing realistic about it, but it satisfies on another level.

I absolutely agree.

Do you define SAs for NPCs? Do you develop your long-term NPCs using the same mechanisms as the PCs?

Cheers,

[toli]

In TRoS, how do you test belief?

Cheers.

I think TROS does test your 'current level' of belief throught the mechanic of SA's aiding you in time of stress.  If you believe strongly in a cause, you get bonus die...and all that.  That is a great mechanic (as I think most of us agree...).

It does seem odd, however, that this belief must be sacrifieced in order to increase one's proficiencies or attributes.  One day you strongly love your wife (Passion 5), then your dagger skill goes up and you don't really care any more (Passion 0).  At the same time you can only rebuild your passion for you wife by having a knife fight about her.  (Ok, I know this is simplified).

I just go along with the mechanic...