As some of you may remember, I was running TROS games for sometime. They went well, but I decided to shelve them despite the stories being unfinished. To be honest, I am running D&D games in there place. There were a few things that made me seriously shelve the TROS games and I may go into detail about that in another message. Will I pick them up again...perhaps.

seems like a fairly pointless post really.
What are the reasons you have turned back to d&d?
I still like some aspects of d&d just that TROS is my favorite game at the moment :) (and i imagine for a long time to come)

Edge wrote: seems like a fairly pointless post really.
What are the reasons you have turned back to d&d?
I still like some aspects of d&d just that TROS is my favorite game at the moment :) (and i imagine for a long time to come)

Actually I'm keen to hear exactly why you're no longer playing TROS in favour of D&D (or any other system for that matter). Obviously people change the games they play (we're playing standard Ars Magica sometime soon in between the games of TROS we're playing once a fortnight frex.. and we play InSpectres occasionally for some light-hearted fun). Indeed, within my group there are a couple who aren't completely in love with the system (to my surprise) and who are considering using GURPS of all things for their own up-coming campaigns (I know I know.. i've tried ... god knows I've tried! ;) ) I also agree that the boards are here to comment on TROS etc, however I can't help but think that your post wasn't even that.

Jason K. (looking forward to your comments)

....whaaa? No details, no real information or opinions...of anything...presented in any fashion whatsoever...and when asked outright your response is "not sure"...but it's not pointless. Dictionary anybody?

Just teasing. Seriously though, if the guy went to the trouble to ask, he'd probably really like to know what you have to say. Kindof currious myself.

added edit:
Rats, someone beat me to the post! I have to learn to type faster I see!

Yeah i wasn't having a go at you dude.. sorry if it came accross as that. Just when you say 'i'm not playing TROS any more goodbye' it seemed a little pointless.. unless that is you follow that up with a ... 'here are my problems with the game'

I've also currently given up TRoS in favor of Shadowrun. Not forever; Just for now.

Part of my reasoning is that we have started playing BW on opposite weekends, and decided we wanted some a bit more sci-fi to counter it. Secondly, the TRoS game, while not exactly stagnating, is starting to get a bit slow. Some of this has had to do with players showing up, other parts have had to do with my own Seneschal style.

Other parts are because I want to use the mass combat rules from TFoB in upcoming portions of the game, so it's a delaying tactic.

We're going to go back to TRoS eventually. I love the game, I'm enjoying the campaign, so it's certainly not going to be forever.

Well some reasons for one of the TROS games I was running:

First-Lack of Mass Battle rules (invading Gols vs. Humans tends to have many participants)

Second-Though I like TROS SA's and how they work, running the games based around character SAs made me feel like the game was too coincidental if that makes any sense.

Thanks Shadeling. Nods. Makes sense on both issues. Not a real fan of the SA based experience myself to begin with, but hadn't considered the "recurring theme" effect yet (only played two games so far, and didn't have the SA list for everybody to the Seneschal yet so he was kindof winging it and we haven't really had time to notice yet). I like most everything else (that I've been able to remember and understand) in the system, but on my first read I was majorly turned off on it. It kindof grew on me as I re-read and re-read it. It became obvious fairly quickly that tons of thought went into it and it wasn't quite as unsurvivable as my initial gut reaction led me to believe. Haven't had anywhere near enough time in yet to start finding holes (that sound like they're being patched in TFOB anyhow for almost everything I have read in the forum thus far).

Shadeling-

Thanks for your post. I'd like to hear more, really, as the more I know, the more I can make future stuff better.

And, for the record, we're playing Sorcerer right now, not TROS.

Jake

Hell, *I'm* playing TROS. The campaign is going bloody well, too.

Brian.

Brian Leybourne wrote: Hell, *I'm* playing TROS. The campaign is going bloody well, too.

I'm trying to get my group to convert, but until I get the book and we can actually try the game out, we are playing 3.5 Edition D&D.

I don't know how the conversion will go. There is a lot of attachment to the D&D campaign because the characters are finally reaching "epic" status. To some of us that's when the game gets fun, to others that's when the game gets silly (I'm in the later class). Personally I'm looking forward to campaigns driven by SAs because I like conflicted, tormented characters. My current character is a Half-Elf Ranger who is exhiled from his home on pain of death for being a werewolf. Originally this was a big deal since I had to make continual checks to avoid turning when I didn't want to, possibly killing my friends, etc. Now I'm high enough level that my saves make such checks irrelevant, so most of the drama has worn off. Its more like "Hmmmm....do I need damage reduction for this fight?".

I'm hoping the SA system allows things to stay more dramatic for longer, though I can see how eventually things might start to feel like a soap opera if every story hits the same recurring elements.

On a related tangent: are there werewolves and other shapeshifters in TROS?

Tash wrote: On a related tangent: are there werewolves and other shapeshifters in TROS?

mmmmm....werethings.....I love em to.

I can't really say that TROS is more fun than anything because I haven't played it. Still waiting for my damned book to show up. If the first campaign goes well enough that my group decides to switch I will grab the OBAM expansion. Untill then I guess I'll have to use my imagination for any werecritters I want to roll up.

Shadeling wrote: Second-Though I like TROS SA's and how they work, running the games based around character SAs made me feel like the game was too coincidental if that makes any sense.

MrGeneHa wrote:

Shadeling wrote: Second-Though I like TROS SA's and how they work, running the games based around character SAs made me feel like the game was too coincidental if that makes any sense.

I can't help you on the first one, but there's a pretty easy solution to make TRoS SAs work just like DnD XP.

Make everyone's SA goal "kill bad monsters and amass treasure" :)

Gene

As one of Shadelings players, we do plenty of RPing. I think I can speak for most of the players in that we all look foward to the RPing more then the encounter/treasure xp. Even though we do like our share of the treasure:)


Farseer

Hi,

Shadeling wrote: Second-Though I like TROS SA's and how they work, running the games based around character SAs made me feel like the game was too coincidental if that makes any sense.

While coincidences don't always make for strict realism, they are good storytelling devices.
Think about it: Why are there snakes in every location that Indiana Jones goes into? Because there are. Or rather, the GM of that "world" (the director, I guess) is using Indy's personality to tell an exciting story.
Realism is great, but a lot of players simply want an exciting story. When my players (in any of the various RPGs I've done) decide they want to play characters from very different locales, it's often coincidence/destiny that they meet. What they do after that is up to them...

What giving an "extra" SA to all players that couldn't be used for additional dice, but could only be saved up and spent on character development. The GM could give out points to this SA in situations where none of the character's actual passions/drives/etc came into play, thus allowing players to feel like they still accomplished something even if they didn't advance their "plot" so to speak.

I think casinormal got it right: SAs make for great stories where your character is *the* main character, and who wouldn't want that? Isn't that the hope of every player who ever wrote a detailed backstory, or interesting character hook. Too often these are tossed aside in favour of the GMs story/plot/game ideas. Come to think of it, I don't think I can recall an *actual* story where the people in the story, aren't the centre of the story. That may seem redundant, but in the context of a roleplaying game, it seems to need repeating. To have it any other way means your character is nothing but audience...

... those that are having trouble with the concept of SAs or those that perceive game session design based on them as too "coincidental" or "contrived" are, I think at least, having a basic clash in game-style. SAs, as we all know, make the characters the centre of the conflict. Versimultitude and campaign setting internal consistency/"realism" often don't encourage this kind of play, instead peripheralising PCs or punishing their connections to the world. SAs make PCs protagonists (as Forge readers will know). While I don't think they're as incompatible as people make out, Protagonist/Narrative(sorry had to use it ;) ) and that versimultitide/Simulationist(cringe) combination can be somewhat problematic if you cling to one and use the other.


cheers

Jason K.

Remember now, I had been running the game since 2002, and then a few months ago, I realized my problems. Yes to have everyone from different places meet and adventure together is a contrivance that sometimes needs to be used...but constant contrivance on part of constantly crafting every session to allow possibilities for SA growth had finally gotten to me.

Hi,

casinormal wrote: While coincidences don't always make for strict realism, they are good storytelling devices.

Think about it: Why are there snakes in every location that Indiana Jones goes into? Because there are. Or rather, the GM of that "world" (the director, I guess) is using Indy's personality to tell an exciting story.

Malechi wrote: I think casinormal got it right: SAs make for great stories where your character is *the* main character, and who wouldn't want that?

Malechi wrote: SAs, as we all know, make the characters the centre of the conflict.

Shadeling wrote: Yes to have everyone from different places meet and adventure together is a contrivance that sometimes needs to be used...but constant contrivance on part of constantly crafting every session to allow possibilities for SA growth had finally gotten to me.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
SAs may or may not make a character the centre of the conflict but that isn't their purpose. They are a tool for the referee to use to ensure that everyone sticks to the plotline in a relatively predictable manner. Where most RPGs struggle to provide a logic for the PC group to get together and act in unity, TRoS provides the SA nose-ring to help the referee lead the PCs through the scenario as a cohesive unit -- rewarding them when they do the right thing and (conceivably) punishing them when they do the wrong thing.

yeah, Alan. Absolutely. The idea of SAs as a nose ring for the GM to pull on makes me shudder.

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: SAs may or may not make a character the centre of the conflict but that isn't their purpose. They are a tool for the referee to use to ensure that everyone sticks to the plotline in a relatively predictable manner. Where most RPGs struggle to provide a logic for the PC group to get together and act in unity, TRoS provides the SA nose-ring to help the referee lead the PCs through the scenario as a cohesive unit -- rewarding them when they do the right thing and (conceivably) punishing them when they do the wrong thing.

Alan wrote: Jeez, I think you've got this completely backwards. It's not the players that are lead by SAs, it's the GM. Players can change their SAs at any time and it's players that choose SAs, not the GM. They are completely free to set out on stories that interest them.

Here's the thing. Shadeling doesn't like it that things happen just because the characters have SAs for it.
When we play (I'm his wife and fellow gamer) we all make characters together and have at least one SA that directly relates to each other. Obviously we make our backgrounds compatible.
The idea is that how big is the world? How possible is it that there are more than the 4 PCs who have the same ideas? Therefore why is it that these four just happend to find each other, find out about their common ideals, and decide to adventure? That I think is what really starts to bug him.
It's like in any game. You have four characters, great how do they meet? For him its a big coincidence and unrealistic for them to reasonably meet, talk, and then decide to all hang out together.
Also Shadeling enjoys playing a game with supplements. He likes a lot of things being defined, less guess work. When we first picked up the TROS book we were excited about the supplements coming out in such a short time. Now its been awhile and in order to keep playing he wants the supplements. We have run into a mass battle/war raging between different races and countries. All the PCs want to engage in that fight but there are not rules for it. Also, there has been ALOT of stuff going on with Fey relating to destinys and so we want Sorcery and the Fey before we continue on those plot lines so there is less to make up.
As far as D&D, we started playing it because characters are easy to make, most people know the system, and we already had all the books. A good lot of our games don't involve the ideas of only killing things to get loot. There is always role-playing involved. D&D was just easy because it was there.
Shadeling likes coming up with spur of the moment plots and twists and stories but I think he feels like he can't because of the SAs. If the SAs are supposed to be incorporated enough in each game session to award like what 3-5 points, than the whole game has to be about the SAs. Giving him not enough room to do other things. Plus if the characters are always centered around the SAs than wouldnt they realistically not want to do anything else? Making an SA too broad "kill all evil" seems silly as well.
So I dont know if I helped sum anything up or just made it more confusing. But I was trying to help.

Amy

Ian.Plumb wrote:

Alan wrote: Jeez, I think you've got this completely backwards. It's not the players that are lead by SAs, it's the GM. Players can change their SAs at any time and it's players that choose SAs, not the GM. They are completely free to set out on stories that interest them.

Try looking at it this way. I develop a TRoS scenario for publication. It includes pre-generated characters for the PCs. As with any TRoS scenario the SAs are integral to the plot and so the pre-gens include SAs.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
The players assume the roles of the pre-gens and play the scenario. Being experienced RPers they are well capable of assuming the roles of the highly detailed and complex pre-gen characters designed for the scenario.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
IMO those characters that pursue their goals with such single-minded determination are not particularly life-like.

We kind of have two threads going here, don't we?

Ian:

There've only been a limited number of times players in games I've run have actually used the pre-gen's. And come to think of it, in that case, I made them do it, just to see what it was like. The coolest thing about it was that the pictures matched, not so much the plot.

I don't see use of pre-gen's as encouraging play that follows a pre-defined plot. The same goes for keeping the group together. I guess there're two models: (a) keep everyone together and follow a trail of clues until the GM's secret is revealed and (b) create situations that incite player investment, allowing that in-game action to create a causal chain. As long as the group is crystal on expectations for play, either model can be fun. With respect to SA's, . . . this is speculative on my part, but I imagine with (a), really the Seneschal should write all the SA's. Or at least provide a plot synopsis (without spoiling any juicy discoveries, which are so important to this model) and approve player-written SA's as being in-line with his plans.

I see two dynamics: pre-determined vs. improvised and multi-threaded vs cohesive view. These ideas are more general than the TROS system. Personally, I like to push things ‘til they break. And I enjoy loss of control. So, I more favor improvised multi-threads. But my pleasure would probably drive another man mad. (Just like the only way I can seem to comfort some people is by wearing a straight jacket.) These dynamics drill out to the Social Contract level, arguments to what the system supports, aside.

Which, I think that's a losing argument, BTW. It's probably more productive to seek common interest and use TROS to support what your group has established, to the limit that it may. Play is rarely so tidy. This effort will likely be a process.

Ian.Plumb wrote: IMO those characters that pursue their goals with such single-minded determination are not particularly life-like. Most people do not behave in this way and most people have more depth to their character than this. I enjoy playing and writing for characters who fall short of their goals and ambitions, as their reaction to this is what makes them life-like and interesting.

Amy1419 wrote: How possible is it that there are more than the 4 PCs who have the same ideas? Therefore why is it that these four just happend to find each other, find out about their common ideals, and decide to adventure? That I think is what really starts to bug him.

Amy1419 wrote: Shadeling likes coming up with spur of the moment plots and twists and stories but I think he feels like he can't because of the SAs. If the SAs are supposed to be incorporated enough in each game session to award like what 3-5 points, than the whole game has to be about the SAs.

So far, my players haven't had as much SA improvement. Last session, they only got 1 or 2 each. However - and this is important - it was mainly a story of "getting there". The next session, I believe I will see a lot of SA's in action. However, SA's facilitated what I believe was the smoothest addition of a PC to the party I've ever run.

So far, I really like 'em.

Amy1419 wrote: The idea is that how big is the world? How possible is it that there are more than the 4 PCs who have the same ideas? Therefore why is it that these four just happend to find each other, find out about their common ideals, and decide to adventure?

Hi there, I just thought I would throw in my two cents here because this is a topic I was recently discussing with one of my players.

Our view became that SAs are a brilliant idea and really flesh out the character as well as providing a 'metaplot' framework for that particular character. However for individual one shot scenarios it can twist the scenario if you are trying to incorporate these 'metaplot' SAs, expecially if it is a stand alone scenario you have converted for play with TROS.

My idea was to add a new SA category, which would be based on the main goal to be achieved in the adventure (or in that chapter of the campaign) the PC is involved in - lets call it the 'adventure SA' for arguments sake. This would then change (in terms of descriptor) for each individual scenario or for each individual chapter in the ongoing campaign. Each time a PC contributed to the group's success in that particular scenario or chapter, then they would gain SA points in that SA. These can not be used to add to pools for game purposes but are purely for use for advancement purposes. I know that sounds a bit like experience points...

Note that the PCs could still use SA die from Luck, Concience etc in the scenario. However, I would also allow new 'minor plot' SA's to be created based on the flow of the game. For example a powerful NPC creates difficulties for one of the PCs. That PC then has a SA specifically geared to defeating/killing that NPC. Such a SA would of course vanish at the end of the adventure if that NPC had been dealt with (or of course it could remain if that NPC still survived and would thus become one of the metaplot SAs). The SA die in these 'minor plot' SAs could be added to pools as well as being used for advancement purposes.

I have not tested this yet but I propose to see if these adventure goal SAs and minor plot SAs are workable in my next few sessions with my players.

Edit: Just to note that when a new 'minor plot' SA was created during gameplay then I would start it at an initial level of 1 point, which could of course grow as the PCs deal with the difficulty/goal that 'minor plot' SA describes.

The entire aim of course is to develop tailored SAs to a specific scenario or chapter in the campaign as well as have 'metaplot' SAs which provide a good description of that PCs main drives and ambitions. Such 'minor plot' SAs need not necessarily be combat based. So for example one of the PCs decides he wants to run a successful courier service during the course of game session as a cover then he might gain a SA in that 'drive'.

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: Try looking at it this way. I develop a TRoS scenario for publication. It includes pre-generated characters for the PCs. As with any TRoS scenario the SAs are integral to the plot and so the pre-gens include SAs.

Alan wrote: You're assuming that a TROS adventure has to be packaged like the myriad of D&D3e modules available, that require characters to go a particular way.

Alan wrote: I am right now writing a TROS adventure package that throws this approach out the window. Instead, the players spend a session learning about the setting and situation, discuss what they would like to do with the material, then they create characters with SAs of their choosing.

Alan wrote: You can certainly use SAs as a pull for players - especially if they don't get to choose their SAs. But that ignores a fundimental rule of TROS (that players choose their SAs and can change them whenever something new interests them.) Finally, I think restricting the rules in that way is a waste of game potential.

Alan wrote: TROS characters aren't intended to be life-like, they're intended to be fiction-like.

Let's look at it from a different angle and see if something like this would work better.

Start by telling the players "The Cabrano House runs the large city of Pravatti. They are a very old family that believes in now outdated ideals of honor. In their hearts, they still believe that the rightful king was slain and the current king is an usurper. They would support an heir of the old line should one come forth and make a claim on the throne. Their enemies in the city are the Vasco family, who made their fortune running shady business deals during the civil war and are only newly come to wealth and power. They support any king that will help them become more wealthy and powerful (which at this time means the new king) and their business reach is starting to eclipse that of the old Cabrano family. The captain of the city guard does not belong to either family, but was placed by the new king to keep an eye on the Cabrano family."

Let the players pick a family and put the burden on them to define how they know each other. Let's say they pick Cabrano, and make three characters.

One is the daughter of the head of the family. She dabbles in forbidden arts which she must keep secret from her kin and other authorities at risk of execution. She is vain and wants to make sure that she can always show up her rivals, the three daughters of the head of the Vasco family. She has, at times, used her magic secretly toward these ends. Perhaps this is why the city is so enamoured of her.

The second character is the family's Swordmaster - a master swordsman who serves as the family's personal trainer, guard, assassin, etc. He is an exotic immigrant from Anu and has been charged by the head of the house with the protection of his daughter (the first character). He knows about her secret occult pastimes and has vowed on his life himself to keep it a secret.

The third character is a cousin from a down and out branch of the family - a girl of dubious talents with whom she escapes the drudgery of social life by slumming it in the poor districts. She has gotten the daughter into trouble more than once and while the head of the house frowns on their friendship, he can do nothing because they are family.

The SA's are all wrapped around the two families so there's plenty to work with as long as the story revolves around the tensions between them.

Okay, now figure out some background info to unravel later. There is a plot by a secret society to overthrow the king and start a popular
revolution which will lead to a new form of government without a king. Unbeknownst to the players one of character 1's uncles was involved in the plot. Plant some clues leading to this. The game starts with a scream in the night in the Cabrano house. An assassin has killed the uncle and is still in the house. Plant some clues pointing back to the Vasco family. Decide why the Vascos wanted to kill the uncle. Etc.

From there out, the players do what they want, and let things fall from there. They can play through the funeral, which the Vasco daughters have the audacity to crash. Investigate what happened. etc. Every once in a while, throw a new twist or plot thread into things, and as long as it's related to the same central conflicts some SA's will likely line up, like character 2's SA drive: protect the daughter, and character 1's passion: loyalty to House Cabrano. Specifically target certain characters' SA's - if character 2 has passion: love for the Vasco family swordmistress, either have her try to lure him into treason or create a fun, light-hearted love-hate kiss-kill relationship. Introduce new characters with their own interests and SA's to further complicate the plot.

When characters uncover the plot, they are likely to change some of their SA's to re-orient around the new conflict. This conflict opens things up on a wider scale and the game can shift focus from the city to the bigger kingdom level dynamics.

I think a pre-made scenario could provide all of the pieces for this, maps of major locations like the Vasco and Cabrano family manors, the city gaol, the king's castle, the store of an underground fence and information broker in a bad part of town (and what he knows, when), a couple of cities; factions and people that may come into play depending on what happens along with their SA's, relationship with others, and actions they might take, etc. Various pre-made twists, plots, and potential timelines can be provided.

These are all materials for the Seneschal to improvise off of depending on how the characters were set up, who they had allegiance to, etc. In this case they start trying to catch the assassin. With different characters they might have started out as the assassins, or framed for the murder, or are investigating it for the captain of the city guard, or any number of options that would pull them into the intrigue.

The Seneschal didn't have to get the characters together. They worked with the scenario to do it themselves. There is also plenty of room to throw new twists in, some of which can be teased out from existing SA's.

hrmmm

I wonder if this debate would benefit from an exercise similar to Ron Edwards' "Art Deco Melodrama" thread list.

We postulate a setting with as much detail as needed or as you would classically give at the beginning of a campaign (the seeds that kenjib posted might be a good start). Then go through the processes of character generation with SAs etc and have the Seneschal explain how he's going to make the character soup into a campaign startup. There's no actual game, just a run through the processes behind a well setup TROS game that emphasises the SAs at work with feedback to the players who submit their characters to the thread for integration. I know some might have a really good grasp of SAs, but I'm still occassionally seeing players and people comment about SAs that i don't think fit under the headings they give them (passions that are really drives, drives that are really destinies, destinies that are wayyyy short term, drives that are really conscience). This kind of tutorial run-through might be beneficial to those who are having some concerns or trouble with the kind of game we're trying to talk about here.

Any takers (Seneschals, Players, Commentators, Observers?)

Jason K.

kenjib,

Awesome set-up. Any adventure books for TRoS would have to be precisely such a thing. If someone wanted to run a game with a set-up like that, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

Hi,

bcook1971 wrote: There've only been a limited number of times players in games I've run have actually used the pre-gen's. (SNIP)

I don't see use of pre-gen's as encouraging play that follows a pre-defined plot. The same goes for keeping the group together.

Ian.Plumb wrote: IMO those characters that pursue their goals with such single-minded determination are not particularly life-like. Most people do not behave in this way and most people have more depth to their character than this. I enjoy playing and writing for characters who fall short of their goals and ambitions, as their reaction to this is what makes them life-like and interesting.

bcook1971 wrote: I also prefer down endings. But player-driven stories do not preclude this.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Counter-point: This is an illusion. The referee has ample opportunity to mould the SAs that the players will take.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
The SAs, because they are linked to the reward mechanism, ensure that the players will stick to the plot in order to ensure that their characters will develop as quickly as possible.

I have to say, TRoS is fantastic for one-off modules, but much more difficult to make ordinary "insert any party" stories. I have run two once-offs (you can tell I am not in the country for long periods!), both of which I have set up characters that are directly antagonistic, with a strong drive. The first scenario involved the retrieval of a certain artifact for a king, with characters doing it for money, prestige, loyalty to the king, or religious concern for the artifact. It was a test for me on how to set up a party with disparate aims (in their SAs), and worked very well... (well most of them killed each other, but only after much roleplaying!).

For campaigns, if the party is not coached to select obviously compatible SAs, the seneschal needs to be sneaky. The influence of an outside force is always useful in getting mutually antagonistic enemies to cooperate. The campaign I am currently putting together (as a mini-supp with enough ideas for Ian and many more!) postulates an invasion as a motivation, with a hefty dose of interference from powerful entities.

And surely, fear of snakes is not an SA? I would have dismissed it outright, turning it into a Flaw, not a character-defining trait.

James

I have a hard time seeing how the GM can restrict player SA choices - he can suggest, but they are the player's choice. Can you give me an example that doesn't involve pre-gens?

What stops a player from just spending four SAs to zero and announcing he's changing two of them? Within moments, he can radically change the direction of the character.

Hey guys,

meant to drop this in much earlier...appologies since it looks like it would have removed much debate.

Doesn't the book say changing SA's is like major expensive? I.E. players won't be changing them willy nilly because they wouldn't be able to. Page 66 TROS core book, paragraph two under "1. Spiritual Attributes".

Unless I'm missunderstanding, you have to zero out the SA you want to change (makes sense) AND zero out some other SA (painful but ok) AND LOSE 10 more Spirit Points. In other words, you have to have a TON of SA points just to change one SA, and after you do so you've pretty much made it impossible to change again for a while because you basically blew away all the points you had and you have to play a while to regenerate some more SA points before you have enough points to TRY to change an SA again.

Someone let me know if I'm misreading or just plain wrong.

Hi Dain,

In another thread Ben and Jake confirmed that the 10 points of SAs are not lost - you spend them on character improvement.

I even got the impression, but I can't find the quote right now, that even that requirement might be reduced in their games.

Thanks for the info, but even if they are not lost and are spent instead, they still come off the SA's anyhow, right? If so, that doesn't change the math and still makes it unlikely one could change SA's with any frequency. You only have 25 as a max...if 10 must be spent, you're down to 15 max, at most you could change one more SA because that would only leave you 5...and you'd have to play for a while to get at least back up to 10 in order to try again. Right? or am I still off?

AFAIK they clarified that dropping 2 SAs to 0 for the change just means spending the points on improvement. But the 10 extra points you have to pay for also changing the type of SA (e.g. passion to luck) would still be a price for the change, no?

I believe it's 10 total, not 10 more. You drop the SA you want to change down to zero, plus one more. If both of those SAs were maxed at 5, you're done. Also, the requirement of 10 points is only when changing the type of an SA, for instance from Passion to Drive. If you only want to change the focus, (Passion: Love of fiancée to Passion: Hatred of fiancée's killer) you only have to drop the two SAs.

Many people play a little bit looser with these rules. I certainly do. I would allow you to zero 3 attributes to change 2 of them (the requirement is only that the changed attribute, and one other, has to be zeroed, after all) I also don't play with the additional requirement to change type. I think I totally missed it in my initial read, and it wasn't until a player pointed it out that I became aware.

nsruf,
That makes sense to me, and seems to match what I'm reading...but I'm a newbie, so that doesn't mean much. Think I've opened a can of worms here.

added edit:
I see good sir Wolfen snuck in on me before I hit post. Man my typing speed must suck. Thanks for the insight Wolfen.

Dain wrote: ...but I'm a newbie, so that doesn't mean much.

Ok, assuming Wolfen is on the money (always has been so far as I've seen thus far) and it's 10, not 10 additional, that still means switching only 2 at most before having to play a while to generate more points (25 max, change 2 means spend 10 twice, for a reduction of 20, leaving only 5). Not quite so easy to change SA's as a lot of the above debate would tend to imply.

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: Counter-point: This is an illusion. The referee has ample opportunity to mould the SAs that the players will take.

Alan wrote: I have a hard time seeing how the GM can restrict player SA choices - he can suggest, but they are the player's choice. Can you give me an example that doesn't involve pre-gens?

Ian.Plumb wrote: The SAs, because they are linked to the reward mechanism, ensure that the players will stick to the plot in order to ensure that their characters will develop as quickly as possible.

Ian.Plumb wrote: What stops a player from just spending four SAs to zero and announcing he's changing two of them? Within moments, he can radically change the direction of the character.

Concerning the zeroing out 4 SA's thing, remember that's only altering 2 SA's, not 4....out of a total of 5. I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say that a 2 out of 5 change on a single character is going to "radically change" the direction of a character. Significant, yes. Radical,...well, that's stretching a bit.

added edit:
before I get myself in trouble here, just offering an opinion...not discounting the person who said it...I'm a major newbie here and probably am all wet on all kinds of things.

Dain wrote: Ok, assuming Wolfen is on the money (always has been so far as I've seen thus far) and it's 10, not 10 additional, that still means switching only 2 at most before having to play a while to generate more points (25 max, change 2 means spend 10 twice, for a reduction of 20, leaving only 5). Not quite so easy to change SA's as a lot of the above debate would tend to imply.

Hi,

Jaeger wrote: Playing TROS is a two way street between players and the GM. The players get to influence the campaign all day long - but the GM should also get to enjoy things and I (and my past group) felt he should have a little say in the PC's SA's so as to make life a little easier.

Thanks kenjib,

Haven't found that option yet...off to the books for me...need to read a while to find that option.

added edit:
dummy me...same page (66), same paragraph, just at start.

Amy1419 wrote: How possible is it that there are more than the 4 PCs who have the same ideas? Therefore why is it that these four just happend to find each other, find out about their common ideals, and decide to adventure? That I think is what really starts to bug him.

bcook1971 wrote:
How does changing the system to D&D resolve this?

Amy1419 wrote: Shadeling likes coming up with spur of the moment plots and twists and stories but I think he feels like he can't because of the SAs. If the SAs are supposed to be incorporated enough in each game session to award like what 3-5 points, than the whole game has to be about the SAs.

bcook1971 wrote:
The shoe's on the other foot. There will still be spur of the moment twists; they'll just come from the players. The Seneschal's job becomes providing opportunities rich with twisting potential.

Hi,

Shadeling wrote: But see thats not the point. Shadeling doesn't necessarily want only the players to do such things. He likes to do it himself. If the characters twist a plot or do something unexpected that's good but also normal for one of our sessions. It still revolves completley around their SAs. There can't be deviation if the players want experience.
Whereas other games, you do whatever and get experience. In TROS it is more rigid and therefore not as open to different things.

Ian.Plumb wrote:



While the talking about yourself in the third-person thing is kinda spooky...

Hi Ian, one house rules I've seen here several times that might help address your problem (but certainly not entirely) is that if a character has two SA's and is in a situation such that he must choose between them, instead of the standard rules where he might gain a point in one SA only to lose a point in another, the character instead gains two points in one SA only to lose a point in another - still a net gain of one point. This makes it easier for a player to set up contradictory SA's for their character and for a Seneschal to reward interesting internal conflicts.

Let me go back to your original description of the problem (and please correct me if I am misunderstanding you):

I can't agree with this. TRoS defines SAs as being at the core of the character (hence the massive bonuses that apply when they're firing). As such failure to attain or follow these core concepts is as interesting to the plot (and is more important to character development, IMO) as attaining or following these core concepts.

However, while the reward mechanism is tied only to the positive (that is, the player that follows the goal is rewarded whether successful or unsuccessful in the specific instance), player-driven stories won't head down the negative path -- characters that do this will develop slowly and will be seen as having a negative impact on the plot.

Ian.Plumb wrote:

Alan wrote: I have a hard time seeing how the GM can restrict player SA choices - he can suggest, but they are the player's choice. Can you give me an example that doesn't involve pre-gens?

The player chooses SAs based on the information provided by the referee. There is ample opportunity for the referee to mould the choices that the player will make. In the end every PC is subject to referee approval.

Dain wrote: Thanks for the info, but even if they are not lost and are spent instead, they still come off the SA's anyhow, right? If so, that doesn't change the math and still makes it unlikely one could change SA's with any frequency. You only have 25 as a max...if 10 must be spent, you're down to 15 max, at most you could change one more SA because that would only leave you 5...and you'd have to play for a while to get at least back up to 10 in order to try again. Right? or am I still off?

Shadeling wrote:

bcook1971 wrote:
How does changing the system to D&D resolve this?

It doesn't. This is a problem with any game genre. The idea here is that with TROS it seems so much more important for everyone to have common ideals, common SAs. In D&D yeah it is necessary to have people with the same types of likes, you don't want the character bent on destroying the world with the character who wants to help the needy. But there are no SAs that need to mesh so that the characters will keep on adventuring together.

Shadeling wrote: But see thats not the point. Shadeling doesn't necessarily want only the players to do such things. He likes to do it himself. If the characters twist a plot or do something unexpected that's good but also normal for one of our sessions. It still revolves completley around their SAs. There can't be deviation if the players want experience.
Whereas other games, you do whatever and get experience. In TROS it is more rigid and therefore not as open to different things.

Amy1419 wrote: This is a problem with any game genre. The idea here is that with TROS it seems so much more important for everyone to have common ideals, common SAs. [TROS has] . . . SAs that need to mesh so that the characters will keep on adventuring together.

Amy1419 wrote: But see thats not the point. Shadeling doesn't necessarily want only the players to do such things. He likes to do it himself. If the characters twist a plot or do something unexpected that's good but also normal for one of our sessions.

Amy1419 wrote: It still revolves completley around their SAs. There can't be deviation if the players want experience. Whereas other games, you do whatever and get experience.

Amy1419 wrote: In TROS it is more rigid and therefore not as open to different things.

silburnl wrote:

Shadeling wrote:

bcook1971 wrote:
How does changing the system to D&D resolve this?

It doesn't. This is a problem with any game genre. The idea here is that with TROS it seems so much more important for everyone to have common ideals, common SAs. In D&D yeah it is necessary to have people with the same types of likes, you don't want the character bent on destroying the world with the character who wants to help the needy. But there are no SAs that need to mesh so that the characters will keep on adventuring together.

So TROS has in-game mechanics to discourage "five-strangers-meet-in-a-pub-and-decide-to-trust-each-other-with-their-lives" syndrome and this makes D&D preferable? I don't get that.

Is it that its less easy to do a pick-up "lets go kill the evil kobolds!" sort of session? I guess so, but then a game that has mechanics to encourage one mode of play will almost certainly be hard going if you are in the mood for a different mode.
Luke

Shadeling wrote: I didn't switch to D&D for 'lets go kill monsters' games. The point was in D&D, there is less headache for me to just run sessions on the fly if I feel so compelled...1) I have no worries of stepping on the toes of someones SAs, and 2) I don't have to worry in said situations of someone not getting XP. XP in D&D doesn't have to be tied to killing things.

Shadeling wrote: Also the other big problem as you have heard my wife say, was the lack of promised supplements.

Hey, Ian. Just noticed your reply.

I hear you saying that the Seneschal retains influence at time of SA writing. And because of the SA/reward link, he has leverage during play.

I can see how the author of a module could script SA's as supportive. Were the goal in writing to bind the characters to a pre-defined story-line, it makes sense that SA's could be used to this end. Not that Shadeling was playing from a module, but within this context, it is ironic that your conclusion is the opposite of his reality. (I don't see that as detracting from your argument. I think he's coming from a different place.)

More generally, you assume the value of a pre-defined plot. And advancement as a driver for player behavior. These ideas are probably mainstay, but not universal. Clearly, there are different schools of taste, but a workable (if not primary) use of TROS is to support story arising from play. And not just the drapes. The whole damn house from nothing. (I guess, count the SA's as a foundation, to complete the analogy.)

As concerns driving behavior, at least for my part, I've always done things with my character just to make things happen. I bet I'm not the only supposed spoiler out there. No experience points, powerful gizmo or gain in ability has ever moved me in the slightest. Not being bored, facing down a challenge, choosing from an array of tactics, mattering to what's developing in the imaginary space: that's what drives me. As far as being effective, that's a non-negotiable starting point, for my needs.

My group uses a pre-defined plot and is generally driven by SA awards and the advancement they bring, BTW:) The session before our campaign ended, someone had to explain to me how to spend SA points. And even then I didn't. It just seems silly.

************

You make an interesting point regarding SA awards being tied to the positive. And that acting out character struggle in play is not suitable for support by SA's. In as much as you are portraying struggle. This gets back to assuming advancement as a driver.

SA's also function as a compass. The mere fact that they are written out will impact player decisions. Of course, this is a matter of player sensibility and not something whose pursuit may be mechanically enforced.

You're making an argument against player-driven stories as losing out on the contrast and enrichment that struggle and suffering hardship provide. I don't know . . . Maybe you could make self-destructive SA's like "Destiny: Drink myself to death," like in Leaving Las Vegas.

How does the Seneschal leveraging awards solve this issue? Or are you saying this is a limitation of the mechanic and not something a style of play could address?

Hi there.

Just a little note about player-driven vs. GM-driven playing:

GM: You see lots of people gathering around a man putting up posters in the town square.

Player 1: Do you know how to read?
Player 2: Nope.
Player 1: Me neither. What's that over there

Players walk away...

Sometimes GM-driven stories are good, but beware of rebellion. Let the players decide what to do once in a while as well.
:)

bcook1971 wrote: The session before our campaign ended, someone had to explain to me how to spend SA points.

Starshadow wrote: Hi there.

Just a little note about player-driven vs. GM-driven playing:

GM: You see lots of people gathering around a man putting up posters in the town square.

Player 1: Do you know how to read?
Player 2: Nope.
Player 1: Me neither. What's that over there

Players walk away...

Sometimes GM-driven stories are good, but beware of rebellion. Let the players decide what to do once in a while as well.
:)

Alan wrote: Hey, didn't it bother you when you lost SA points awarded in play because your SA scores had maxed out?

Hi,

kenjib wrote: (SNIP idea about modified reward mechanism) This makes it easier for a player to set up contradictory SA's for their character and for a Seneschal to reward interesting internal conflicts.

Ian.Plumb wrote: However, while the reward mechanism is tied only to the positive (that is, the player that follows the goal is rewarded whether successful or unsuccessful in the specific instance), player-driven stories won't head down the negative path -- characters that do this will develop slowly and will be seen as having a negative impact on the plot.

kenjib wrote: I see two situations that you describe here. The first is a character who fails to attain a goal he is trying to attain.

kenjib wrote: The second situation is the inability to reward a player's character for not really trying to follow his SA's. It is a failure in effort and I agree that it has dramatic potential. However, I don't see that this is not supported once we except the subcase of conflicting SA's that the house rule above solves. If a character no longer wants to attempt to follow an SA, then why not change it to something else?

Hi,

bcook1971 wrote: I can see how the author of a module could script SA's as supportive. Were the goal in writing to bind the characters to a pre-defined story-line, it makes sense that SA's could be used to this end.

bcook1971 wrote: As concerns driving behavior, at least for my part, I've always done things with my character just to make things happen. I bet I'm not the only supposed spoiler out there. No experience points, powerful gizmo or gain in ability has ever moved me in the slightest. Not being bored, facing down a challenge, choosing from an array of tactics, mattering to what's developing in the imaginary space: that's what drives me. As far as being effective, that's a non-negotiable starting point, for my needs.

bcook1971 wrote: My group uses a pre-defined plot and is generally driven by SA awards and the advancement they bring, BTW:) The session before our campaign ended, someone had to explain to me how to spend SA points. And even then I didn't. It just seems silly.

bcook1971 wrote: You make an interesting point regarding SA awards being tied to the positive. And that acting out character struggle in play is not suitable for support by SA's. In as much as you are portraying struggle. This gets back to assuming advancement as a driver.

bcook1971 wrote: You're making an argument against player-driven stories as losing out on the contrast and enrichment that struggle and suffering hardship provide. I don't know . . . Maybe you could make self-destructive SA's like "Destiny: Drink myself to death," like in Leaving Las Vegas.

bcook1971 wrote: How does the Seneschal leveraging awards solve this issue? Or are you saying this is a limitation of the mechanic and not something a style of play could address?

Allow me to burst in here and make a few comments randomly after not posting in this thread for sometime..

To expand upon the idea of an SA regarding 'love my wife and kids' and then cheating on them...
Perhaps if you look at it from my perspective it would be done by rolling willpower vs a target number based on the attractiveness of the subject at hand.. and the SA would be added dice to the WP roll.

What REALLY can get someone tripping over the issue of fidelity and this SA(whilst still using it).. is if the subject that has made a pass at the PC.. or otherwise just sat there and was attractive.. if this NPC had either version of the beauty of legends. I would see that as a very high TN. Of course, I am basically twisting the flaw of lecherousness into this example.. and how such behavior can detract from the SA..etc etc. So the character in this hypothetical situation can have his cake and eat it too. Remember people.. flaws can be gained through the course of an adventure...whether that's just a simple amputee flaw.. or otherwise.

I will begin reading this thread and posting to it more.. once I get some sleep. It's 4:30 AM.. there's 71 posts in this thread so far.. and mine makes it 72.. and I am too damn tired to read all of the stuff I've missed.

Pardon the non-coherence..
-Ingenious

Hi,

Ingenious wrote: To expand upon the idea of an SA regarding 'love my wife and kids' and then cheating on them...

Perhaps if you look at it from my perspective it would be done by rolling willpower vs a target number based on the attractiveness of the subject at hand.. and the SA would be added dice to the WP roll.

Not having played TRoS yet, I can't add much to the dialogue yet (my book arrived yesterday). However, I want to say that D&D doesn't have to be about killing kobolds and phat lewt, so to speak.

For example, in my D&D campaign (3.5 rules) the characters gain XP each session equal to (X*Y)*Z where Y is the average level of PCs in the party rounded down, and Z is the number of hours the session lasted (usually 3). X is 25, 50 or 75 depending on the challenge of the session, whether roll play or role play for the evening (most of the time, 50).

The players have figured out that they gain the same XP whether they kill the bandit or roleplay a meeting with the estranged father of one of the characters, and so are much more willing to take the non-combat approach. They've also figured out that I let them assume a little bit of a director's stance (I'm working on increasing that, but it still makes me uncomfortable as a DM).

So this has been a long post to simply say "D&D doesn't have to be that way." Once I've actually played TRoS I'll have more to say on the rest of this subject matter as well :)

A good point Emiricol, and one I've seen, even without an alternate XP system.

However, I should point out that posting to threads over a month old, or which have dropped off the main page due to lack of recent posting is generally frowned upon. If you feel the need to make a point in response to an older thread, the accepted thing is to make a new thread and add a link back to the old one.

Thanks,