http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10177.phtml

errrr ... yeah....
go check it out..

*ahem*

Malechi wrote: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10177.phtml

errrr ... yeah....
go check it out..

*ahem*

If he wants to play Aragorn, well, make a character with all A-priorities. Then the combat system won't be as deadly either (unless of course he acts stupid).

What he really wanted was to play [that other game], just using tROS rules...

Yeah.. it seems to me however that the same things crop up in these reviews all the time:

a) combat is TOO deadly
b) SAs are poorly explained
c) SAs are a crutch for those unable to roleplay their way out of a wet character sheet
d) Slaves are über combat munchies (or "I don't get the character priority system and the idea that choice matters and forget that money and social position determines what weapons I can carry")
e) people seem to ignore the part of the book where it clearly states how to run a combat with multiple opponents
f) they fear their group is going to powergame/munchkinise the game so it'd be unplayable to their particular group
g) Sorcery is all at once too powerful yet ultimately sorcerers are crippled by the ageing system...that one still makes me laugh.

I find it interesting that people seem to have an almost identical set of problems with the game time and time again. Perhaps its an issue of expectations or preconceptions not being met. Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste/preference. Perhaps its just fascimile reviews. I still find it curious that these people can "logically" argue their points and still say they've read the book and playtested the game.

Interesting, though possibly pointless to ponder too much..

Jason K.

Hehe has anyone that "gets it" ever done a review? They always sound like sirens...
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Lots of games have deadly combat systems. At low levels, even DnD.

But they also have quick healing (spells, tech, etc) so you don't have to wait to heal. If 'deadly' combat is someone's problem with TRoS, just add a miraculous healer to the group. POOF you're healed.

Gene

Actually, you're right. If you want to play high-fantasy, just give a few magic-items to your players. If you actually modelled it right, you could even add a stormbringer to the game and have a PC mow down combatants a-la the books. Just power down the sorcery rules and presto, you've got a Melnibone campaign. Just ond't forget that chaos lords can swallow you in two gulps, weapon, armor, and all ;)

Actually, if you think about it, many of the standard magic items from D&D would put a standard character head and heel above the average fighting denizen of the world:

1. Ring of Regeneration (wow is this powerful in TROS).
2. Any wand
3. Any special magic sword: +x defender, vorpal sword(!), dancing sword, nine lives stealer, etc.
4. Ring of Invisibility
5. Magic Armor (D&D magic armor has reduced encumberance)
6. Anything of giant strength...

Okay, so it's not to my taste, but whining about not being able to play high fantasy is silly...

tauman

MrGeneHa wrote: Lots of games have deadly combat systems. At low levels, even DnD.

But they also have quick healing (spells, tech, etc) so you don't have to wait to heal. If 'deadly' combat is someone's problem with TRoS, just add a miraculous healer to the group. POOF you're healed.

Gene

Malechi wrote: a) combat is TOO deadly.

b) SAs are poorly explained
c) SAs are a crutch for those unable to roleplay their way out of a wet character sheet

d) Slaves are über combat munchies (or "I don't get the character priority system and the idea that choice matters and forget that money and social position determines what weapons I can carry")

e) people seem to ignore the part of the book where it clearly states how to run a combat with multiple opponents

f) they fear their group is going to powergame/munchkinise the game so it'd be unplayable to their particular group

g) Sorcery is all at once too powerful yet ultimately sorcerers are crippled by the ageing system...that one still makes me laugh.

I find it interesting that people seem to have an almost identical set of problems with the game time and time again. Perhaps its an issue of expectations or preconceptions not being met. Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste/preference. Perhaps its just fascimile reviews.

Malechi wrote:
a) combat is TOO deadly
b) SAs are poorly explained
c) SAs are a crutch for those unable to roleplay their way out of a wet character sheet
d) Slaves are über combat munchies (or "I don't get the character priority system and the idea that choice matters and forget that money and social position determines what weapons I can carry")
e) people seem to ignore the part of the book where it clearly states how to run a combat with multiple opponents
f) they fear their group is going to powergame/munchkinise the game so it'd be unplayable to their particular group
g) Sorcery is all at once too powerful yet ultimately sorcerers are crippled by the ageing system...that one still makes me laugh.

Most of the review, I agree, was a study in missing the point.

I did find one element of it interesting, though: the idea that the sheer deadliness of combat -- originally meant to discourage characters from engaging in fights casually -- winds up scaring players away from fighting at all, even when they should, and turns it into an unenjoyable exercise in nitpicky planning when you do.

I remember expressing similar concerns about the sorcery system at one point, noting that while all the flavour text of sorcery emphasized how powerful it was, the mechanics threatened to turn sorcerers, in play, into CTN-minmaxers desperately waiting for SA-activating situations rather than the gods-on-earth they were described as.

I think this description too misses the point, but that contradiction is there in both combat and sorcery -- the carrot is an amazing level of in-game "punch" to those proficient at them, but the stick is a level of unforgiveness for even your first mistake (crippling wounds for fighters, youth lost beyond recall for sorcerers) that maintaining enthusiasm through the learning curve can be more difficult than many gamers are used to.

I did buy TRoS for its battle system, and i like it, actually the only thing i don't like is the character generation system. but we somehow fixed it in a boring way.

3 ways to make a character with the prioritys:
CCCDDD
BCCDDE
BBCDEE

then there are no slaves or super nobles with bad stats, no characters with only one skill packet....anyway im thinking on doing a whole new system to make characters.

Hi all.

Since I've had a hard day and not eaten much yet, I'll refrain from being diplomatic and come to the point. Most of the reviewers who post a "low score" seem to me like they just started roleplaying and behave like helpless children. "The game doesn't work out of the box the way I want it to. Mom, make it go away. Waaaah!". :(

Shouldn't all RPG material be regarded as just that? Source material that allows a group -needing a competent GM and responsible players in interaction- to weave their very own gaming experience? If parts of the game don't suit you, change them. If you don't like a rule, leave it out. Is there info (like armor coverage) "missing"? Go search the web, or something. RPGs aren't videogames. You actually have to *make them work*. Jake had to carefully judge what to put into the book. Lots of stuff could have gotten coverage, but didn't. Those were tough choices, but I think he made a decent job of it.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone should be a master of improvisation and tuning game systems. I'm not saying that you should have to do your own research to play an RPG. But if you carefully avoid thinking on your own initiative and after years of "gaming experience" still ignore the Golden Rule, then -in my humble opinion- you deserve to fall on your nose.

p.s.: If you don't like the character creation system as it stands, you may want to have a look at the Shadowrun Compendium (either 2nd or 3rd Ed.) and let the point-based system inspire you. That should provide for a more granular character creation.

what I found interesting was the observation that combat skill is in the hand of the players. I hadn't thought of that before and I can see how it is a severe limitation for some groups:
Say, you got a player who either isn't particularly gifted or never gets rules or never can be bothered to read or remember them. These people exist, they game and overall I've found them to be as fun to game with as anyone else.
However in TROS I run into a problem, since I can't hand them the usual combat monster which they otherwise often get to play, since the character simply won't be that combat monster without the player skill to back it up.
This of course resembles the general problem with social skills, where a certain amount of resolution through drama (role-play) is the norm and which often means that people with lower social or argumentative skills have difficulties playing characters with high skill levels in these and consequently often don't. The specialist for social stuff is however usually just one position in a party, so while uncomfortable, the situation is not a major problem (at least for most people AFAIK).

This is going to get my butt chewed, but here goes anyway. I'm a regular here, but fearing repercussions to my normal login I created this second account (that I never intend to use again) so everybody "hates" this login instead of my normal one.

Other than the review's author's highly inappropriate attitude, a little close mindedness (no, only a little, not total), and his tendency to exaggerate some of the items (yes, only some), I really don't see his being that far off the target for a whole lot of things he wrote. Some things were indeed WAY off target, but I felt other issues hit absolute dead center. I know that people here who live and breath TRoS are taking his inapropriately toned attacks very personal and are blowing off the whole article based on his tone alone, but I felt some of his observations are pretty much "on the money" in many areas. So much so, in fact, that I would have hoped that the fanatic devotees and designers of TRoS would have taken the time to read through it and shrug off the highly inappropriate and insulting tone in order to consider the issues being presented, and then decide on content rather than tone on whether or not to give some serious consideration to those issues before just blowing them off as non-sense.

Don't misunderstand me here, I think TRoS is a fantastic system. I just found myself nodding in agreement to MANY of the issues presented in between periods of feeling outraged at the tone of the presentation.

'nuf said

NotOnYourLife wrote: Don't misunderstand me here, I think TRoS is a fantastic system. I just found myself nodding in agreement to MANY of the issues presented in between periods of feeling outraged at the tone of the presentation.

Hello Not,

I don't know who you are, as intended.. but I feel a bit insulted, as a member of this community, that you think us so close-minded that you wish to hide your true opinions behind a mask.

(all you's hereafter are generic)

I agree with many of the negative points made about TRoS. The game is far from perfect. It's even farther from perfect if your preferences differ from those that it is designed to favor. If you like realistic, dangerous combat, with an element of player skill and risk-taking, TRoS is wonderful. If you like the ability to be rewarded for playing your character true to his goals and passions, then TRoS is wonderful.

If you get so attached to a character that you want no chance of losing them before you're ready for them to die, TRoS is not for you. If you prefer all characters to be balanced in power level at specific stages of advancement, then TRoS is not for you. Go play something else, and do so with my blessing, which I'm sure you appreciate. ::wryly::

As for writing and layout, I think Jake did a great job, overall. Many of the things he was slammed for I think were nice touches. The art is pretty decent, and the prose is human. Consider the fact that he did it mostly by himself, and it is his first product of this sort, and the accomplishment grows. Look at D&D3E.. How many years and iterations did it take to get to where it is today, and how many people worked on it? Some people STILL think it's crap.

That said, I think some things, as I mentioned above, needed a lot more explanation. SAs primarily, with terrain rolls, and various combat concerns following. But the lack of perfection does not make this a horrible game, and that is the flaw of most people who review TRoS on rpg.net, not all, but most.

The game isn't perfect, and it may be absolutely horrible for some people and some styles of play. But to take this personal bias and lack of understanding and rate the game badly is wrong, and anyone who does such will have their review curtly dismissed in it's entirety. Why? Because delivery is important. Objectivity is important. And frankly, there has never been a review that's made a decent point that hasn't already been discussed to DEATH here. Even Deacon Blues (something like that..), which was one of the best I've seen over there, failed to critique anything that we've missed.

Bottom-line: You can say the same old thing. You can dislike the game. You can rate it poorly.. But if you do not rate it fairly, objectively (or with allowance for your subjectivity) and give all particulars due honesty and detail, then your review is utterly and totally worthless, and worse because it has the potential to do added disservice to the game by turning off players who would otherwise be converts.

That's all I have to say about that.

Wolfen wrote: As for writing and layout, I think Jake did a great job, overall. Many of the things he was slammed for I think were nice touches. The art is pretty decent, and the prose is human. Consider the fact that he did it mostly by himself, and it is his first product of this sort, and the accomplishment grows. Look at D&D3E.. How many years and iterations did it take to get to where it is today, and how many people worked on it? Some people STILL think it's crap.

I have been a player of Harn for years, and have recently taken an interest in TROS (which is saying something because I have not purchased a new RPG in about 5 years).

I do feel some of the comments in the review are valid, but overall from what I have seen I like a lot about TROS. My experience is limited to the quick start rules and info I have been able to download. But from what I have seen, I am interested enough to seriously consider purchasing TROS.

In regards to combat being deadly, the review seemed to be coming from the mindset of someone who counts their hit points to see if they have enough to charge the 10 archers who are threatening them!

I love how TROS uses range - Most sytems make it only something that effects iniative, and counter this by giving longer weapons a high damage mod. A dagger is as deadly as most thrusting weapons, it's disadvantage being it's length - you have to close with your opponent, and are at a severe disadvantage "to hit" until you do. Some games represent this with no changes for the most part to hit, but making the dagger a little poker that does 1d4 damage.

The "feel" of the combat system is great as well, giving you many options and making you feel as if you are in the combat, something unlike almost any other system. Yes, you have to know the system to be skilled, but I actually like this idea - it's less bragging about your 20th level character and more what you can actually accomplish in a fight.

But I dohave some dislikes of the system that mirror to some extent the review:

1. Combat is to deadly - Even though I do not like hit point systems, TROS combat is a bit too deadly. Realistic yes, but to deadly for playability if you wish your characters to survive. Harn's system has bleeding, instant kills, and death through infection and shock as well. But with competent healers, you can live through many battles (although combat is still deadly and to be avoided). I've thought Harn combat should be a bit more deadly, but TROS goes to far in that direction IMO.

2. SA's - I like how these address motivation. It also provides a good way to represent types such as Tolklien High elves IMO. A special SA like "the light in their eyes from Aman" could be represent this well with a little work. Kind of like when Finrod "draws forth his power", bursts his bonds and kills a werewolf barehanded, but is mortally wounded himself. Although I would like to see developemnt be a combination of training and combat experience with devopement slowing (and maxing out short of superhuman capabilities) and SA's.

3. 1/2 steps for strength, weapon damage, and the toughness thing changed - with a strength of 7 compared to the norm of 4, a character does a minimum of a 4 level wound if they strike unarmoured flesh. Any positives to their weapon damage (i.e. +1 for an arming sword slashing) makes this even higher. I would prefer strength to have an impact on damage, but not nearly as high or as much. Same goes for toughness. And with this in place for weapon damage, that +3 slashing weapon can never inflict a minor wound.

4. Combat with large and/or non-humanoid creatures - Most games, TROS included have you "fence" with an enraged bear. I have not read the Beasts and Men supplement, but I would think many combat techniques would not work in this situation. The combat dice situation also does not work as well here. The Bear would barge through any block or parry attempt and knock you down. The only valid options I think would be an evasive attack, a full dodge, or a counterstrike, in which case you need to hope your counterstrike severely wounds the animal before it kills you. I also don't like the fact that with enough of a combat pool, you are pretty well gauranteed being able to evade the beast. Most sytems don't do this well however. The only thing is that the more absract the system, the less noticeable this problem is. Even Harn does not do this real well, I've had to concoct a set of house rules to handle this better.

With all that said, I still like a lot what I have seen so far!

The main issue that i notice people have with TROS is that combat is to deadly.
I actually totally disagree.
Combat is only as deadly as you make it.
In a game i am running at the moment 2 of the characters are combat orientated, one is fairly average at combat while the other is pretty good.

Both of them have managed to avoid being killed so far. This is a combination of knowing when to flee from combat (while fighting some goblins, and winning mind you they were charged by a giant, needless to say they fled as fast as they're little legs could carry them), what maneovres to use against which opponents and to know when not to pick a fight. When it comes to picking a fight they make sure it is on their terms not their opponents.

SA's have played another big part in keeping characters alive. As a normal person would they only pick fights which are tied in to their beliefs. As a result of this they quite frequently have a couple extra dice (thanks to SA's) to play with

Edge Wrote:

The main issue that i notice people have with TROS is that combat is to deadly.
I actually totally disagree.
Combat is only as deadly as you make it.
In a game i am running at the moment 2 of the characters are combat orientated, one is fairly average at combat while the other is pretty good

Eamon wrote:

Malechi wrote: d) Slaves are über combat munchies (or "I don't get the character priority system and the idea that choice matters and forget that money and social position determines what weapons I can carry")

Actually, this is something I don't like about TROS and many other games. Throwing in the accuracy issue, generally slaves have been poorly fed and poorly trained throughout history. They simply don't get access to the high protein diets of the nobility, and rarely have the amount of time to spend on practicing how to fight or read. I tend to call this issue the sad human rights condition caused by the Gaming Oppression of Nobility, in that nobles lose out on attributes and skills due to their rank.

The issue is that losing in combat is too dangerous.

dysjunct wrote:

Eamon wrote:

Malechi wrote: d) Slaves are über combat munchies (or "I don't get the character priority system and the idea that choice matters and forget that money and social position determines what weapons I can carry")

SNIP
I tend to call this issue the sad human rights condition caused by the Gaming Oppression of Nobility, in that nobles lose out on attributes and skills due to their rank.

The complaint here comes from, I think, people looking at the chargen system as a way of generating an infinite amount of characters to populate the world with. And if this view were true, then I'd agree with this criticism of TROS's chargen system. But it's not Demographics: The Bell-Curving, it's a ruleset for generating PC heroes.

Ok, I think the criticism against the chargen namely the Noble vs Slave thing has been covered in other threads: player choices, use of insight points, etc.

However, in the interest of laying to rest the whole "Oh my god, my (starting) noble character is crippled, deaf, mute with one good eye" myth, I went ahead and put together a noble character. Two things to note though, 1 its late here, and 2 I don't have tons of practical (read in game) experience with the game, but I view this as hey, if I can throw a decent noble character together, so can you. (Also note, crippled nobles can be pretty awesome as character concepts in their own right, witness Tyrion Lannister of George R. R. Martin's series).

Also note that since we're talking about just the mechanics, we're leaving out all the great narrative bits that the game really encourages in your character development.

Noble - chargen priorities -> Race F (human), Social Class A (landed nobility), Attributes B (43), Skills D (8/8), Prof. C (6), Gifts and Flaws E (1 major flaw, 1 minor gift)

Ok, what have we got here? Race is pretty straight forward. If I wanted to min/max I prolly could have taken a B in Social Class and bumped something else up, but you know what? Being able to afford a complete set of "fine" arms and armor, as well as innumerable social benefits is pretty significant. Now that I think about it, if we're min/maxing sort of, why don't I use my influence and cash to get some vassals to help me go out and oppress those slaves! (just kidding). Anyhow, my attributes (not even considering nationality) are going to be all 4s with a couple of stats above 4. That is to say, by the system's defination mostly average stats with a few above average stats. With skills at 8/8, I took the knight and soldier skill packets, and then spread my MA bonus points around so that all my skills are pretty much 7 with one skill left at 8. With 6 proficiency points I'll put them all into Sword and Shield for a pretty classic weapon setup with decent defaults if I want to wield something different. Finally, I'll take Phobia: Cats (what the hell, its late) as my major flaw, and minor Beauty of Legend as my minor gift.

So, all in all, I'm human with slightly above average stats, a decent though hardly world shattering combat pool, averagish skills, and while I may not be a supermodel, I look pretty damn good, especially in my shiny, best-that-money-can-buy armor. And I hate cats.

Now, I'm no insane combat monster, but I'm hardly a cripple either. With the chargen process, I'm pretty much saying, "Hey, Attributes are the 2nd most important thing to me about this character" which is again reflected by my attributes being slightly above average which is a far cry from the malnorished nobles we've been lead to believe are running the show. All that, plus again, note my character is pretty damn good looking, thank you much.

I dare some starting character slave to penetrate my "fine-quality" armor with... his bare hands? His improvised chains and manacles? Ha! You know what? I'm thinking I should have taken the overconfidence flaw instead of phobia!

Seriously tho, if you're a slave, you're prolly branded for live. While I'm not saying a slave can't rise above his station, its most likely far easier for me to improve my skills and prof. Now, if you want your slave character to be the next Spartacus or Maximus, etc. That's cool too. I'm just saying that starting nobles aren't that shabby.

Hail to the King, baby!

You hit that right on the nose man.
My noble is setup much like yours, except that I've used insight so as far as a 'starting character' goes.. using mine for a comparison is invalid.

Yes, there are several manifestations of the arrangement of priorities for nobles.. mostly being that you can switch a few around and come up with a totally different kind of noble.

Mine for instance is social priority B..
He's got attributes at A, etc etc.
You could make it attributes at A, social at B, prof's at C, skills D, gifts/flaws E, and race F..
or if you wanted a bit more knowledge in the combat aspect.. switch the above C and A... making you have 8 prof's in one weapon vs 6.. giving you 2 more CP.. unless due to the drop in attribute points to spend your reflex takes a drop. Or you could be very skilled and have skills as A... etc.

In either case the main idea of a starting character is that you can't have you cake and eat it too. I can however via the use of insight points..
If you want a higher priority in something, you must sacrifice something else for it.

Let's say you have an average character with skills at C, D, or E. Your skills can be lowered over time via practice.. so perhaps you can write those poor skill ratings off as the character being young, inexperienced..and slightly trained...etc. Perhaps he was more concerned as a kid learning swordsmanship than riding a horse.. or whatnot. Perhaps vice-versa.. in the case that skills are A or B.. and prof's are lower.

Just look at the big picture and it's easy to find an explanation for everything in the character generation process. At least it is for me.

-Ingenious

First of all, let me extend heart-felt appologies to Wolfen and any others who felt insulted by my choice to remain anonymous. Before I go further, please let me explain the motivation a bit so as to (hopefully) reduce the feelings of insult. Please understand I chose to remain anonymous in this post as a result of MY inadequacies and personal baggage...not as a comment on the open mindedness on the TRoS community in this forum. I am a person of extreme low self esteam who is ALWAYS afraid to the tenth degree that others will degrade and belittle his every idea and then demean him and treat him as a child forevermore in every possible way (even though my general IQ is fairly well into the ridiculous range, making the above delusion even more absurd, the intellect still can't overcome this emotional disability that at least I do recognize that I do have). Even though I know at a base level that the participants in this forum would not do that to me, my psychosis is STILL so overpowering that I feel the need to unnecessarily protect myself. So again, my appologies for any insult taken as no insult was intended at any level.

Now on to issues, and replies to things I've read thus far.

First of all, Kenjib said:

I agree. Jake did a really fantastic job pulling this off as a one man show.

I find it interesting that people seem to have an almost identical set of problems with the game time and time again. Perhaps its an issue of expectations or preconceptions not being met. Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste/preference.

Perhaps its an issue of expectations or preconceptions not being met.

Perhaps its an issue of expectations or preconceptions not being met.

Ralph hit the nail on the head about deadliness. Many of us are just not used to the "surrender" option being a real one, because we're used to fighting "Bad Guys" (tm) who will kill you if you let down your guard. But most of what I think happens in TROS combat is two guys whacking at each other in an effort to win. Both are scared shitless, frankly, that the other guy is softening him up for the kill. If somebody has an advantage and presses it, he's really, really hoping that the other guy will throw down his sword and scream, "Uncle! Please don't kill me!" So when you find yourself in a really bad combat situation, what you do is surrender.

Sure, if the GM is a real jerk he can say, "Sorry, this guy's a psychopath, and you dropped your sword and shield, so he kills you, ha ha." But that's a problem with your GM and not the system.

The sort of combats I imagine being usual, in terms of the games I'd want to run with this (see this thread for details), come in the following forms:

1. A small squad (3 to 5) gets the drop on a single guy or a pair. If the latter has a brain, he surrenders.

2. A single guy duels with another single guy. The first to get an advantage, or draw any blood, wins, because the other guy surrenders.

3. A couple of squads face off warily. Probably somebody bites it if both sides are serious, and then those who can run away and the rest surrender.

4. A small squad makes a very, very bad mistake and jumps a single guy who's a kick-ass combat god. He uses things like bind, counter, and double attacks, and quickly has everyone in agony while he stays clean. He suggests that maybe they'd like to apologize and stop it please, and they hobble off to get some first aid.

5. Once in a long while, a serious little platoon (say, 25 guys) decides to take on The Crew From Hell (say, 3 guys who are all combat gods with uber-cranked skills and stats and SA's from hell). Tactics rule, and if The Crew work as a smooth team, the platoon doesn't have a chance because only so many of them can get in on it at once. Pretty soon they realize this, and those who can't flee surrender and beg not to be used for off-hand back-hand beheading practice.

6. Very, very rarely, some nutbar decides to fight to the death. If his opponent is clever and equally skilled, the nutbar probably dies, because the opponent is going to use SA's if possible, and besides won't constantly go for the death-shot. In my planned campaign, this is likely to happen when some very skilled nutcase takes on one of the Champions to Make A Point, and then his entire street cred (as it were) is on the line and he'd rather die than surrender. The Champion will eat him for breakfast as soon as he realizes that this guy won't stop; there are ways and means, after all (cut his hands off, then hamstring him; cut his hand off, then step past and drag the sword-blade across his throat; bind super-high and then chop his head open; etc.).

So I don't see the system as too deadly. It's just a question of having the basic clue required to surrender when you're not going to win. If this is a problem in your games, you might want not to have so many vicious critters attack: stick to hardened professionals who'd rather swing the sword one fewer times and have a nice prisoner to show at the end of the day (and maybe also somebody interesting to talk to, with some new jokes, god I'm getting tired of the rest of this squad's jokes).

Chris Lehrich

[edited to add]
P.S. NotOnYourLife: I don't think The Forge is a place you need to worry about being stomped, particularly. This post was a bit of a flame-bait, but I think you weathered it just fine. Here's hoping to see you posting here and there around the site!

Hi,

The observation was made that spending less on social status allows you to spend more on other things. Conversely, spending more on social status requires you to spend less on other things. The net result of this must be that those who govern are less individually capable than those who are governed.

dysjunct wrote: The complaint here comes from, I think, people looking at the chargen system as a way of generating an infinite amount of characters to populate the world with. And if this view were true, then I'd agree with this criticism of TROS's chargen system. But it's not Demographics: The Bell-Curving, it's a ruleset for generating PC heroes.

So no, slaves (in general) don't have higher attributes than nobles (in general). But PC slaves have higher attributes than PC nobles. I don't have a problem with this.

Hi,

NotOnYourLife wrote: This is going to get my butt chewed, but here goes anyway. I'm a regular here, but fearing repercussions to my normal login I created this second account (that I never intend to use again) so everybody "hates" this login instead of my normal one.

NotOnYourLife wrote: (SNIP) ... I would have hoped that the fanatic devotees and designers of TRoS would have taken the time to read through it and shrug off the highly inappropriate and insulting tone in order to consider the issues being presented, and then decide on content rather than tone on whether or not to give some serious consideration to those issues before just blowing them off as non-sense.

I too suspect that most of the complaints about "too deadly" and "not heroic" come from under-utilization of SAs. My recent game has seen SAs firing in every combat, partly because of player choice, partly because I don't throw irrelivant fights at the characters.

However, unlike some, I _like_ the so-called sketchiness of setting material. It's just enough to trigger major ideas for setting and situation without restricting the creative options. I've always hated detailed settings because they take away a large part of my fun as GM.

Also, I think that this approach to setting material _supports_ the kind of play SAs encourage: it gives enough information to trigger player ideas, but leaves canvas space for them to paint the results. Anything more detailed would produce situations where players can only participate in the setting by constraining their SA choices.

- concerning char-gen, and assuming Merritt Baggett and Ingenious sought to address my point: I think you missed what I was trying to say. The point is not, that nobles are cripples, that was joking (see the ;) above) aside to those who exaggerate the issue. The point is, that char-gen forces the player to make a choice, that (a) leads to "non-realistic" results and (b) has nothing to do with the Riddle.

And since I'm in the process of making "enemies" anyway ;) I'd like to add a complaint concerning the artwork. Which is a bit tricky, since I don't own TROS because (a) there is zero interest in a fantasy game in our group right now and (b) I am unfortunately not rich enough to buy the game simply to support an indie game designer who IMHO has done a tremendous job overall.
Going from the art in the quickstart rules, well, IMHO it sucks .. badly. Apparently a couple of other people are feeling the same way, so, with your leave, I'll leave general considerations of aesthetics out of the debate for now, and simply take it as given, that the artwork in TROS is disliked by a sizeable number of people, which is larger than your average "can't please everyone" crowd.
And this is important to me. I'm the guy who comes up with "strange new systems" in my group, and if we were about to play a fantasy campaign, I'd argue for using TROS. Unfortunately the default over here is DSA, sold in the US as "The Dark Eye" and I would to argue why TROS is better. Sadly, listing the benefits of TROS will have roughly the same overall impact on my group as showing them some stunning artwork would. It isn't rational, and shouldn't be that way, but it simply is.
So, because the artwork is not that great, I would have a harder time to persuade my group to try TROS, which makes it less likely that I'll get to play it and less likely that anyone else will buy it as well. Heck, I could understand it if someone said they're not getting TROS form themselves because they'll never be able to persuade their group anyway, since the [other system]-fanboy in the group will simply point at the art, ridicule it and be done with it.
So yes, art does matter.

Hi all.

I haven't read the review yet. I'm trying to decide if I want to, since it sounds like more of the same criticism that we usually get (half on play preferences, half on real concerns that would be fixed, were a second edition in the making). I used to be a regular at RPG.net, but frankly there's a lot of negative energy floating around there and I spend about 2 hours a day reading forums and answering emails as it is.

For the record: TROS wasn't a one-man show, although it was a one-man-guided project. I wore a ton of hats for the book, but not all of them. Rick McCann in particular was of great assistance in making TROS a reality, as was everyone else in the Credits page in their individual ways.

Some of the reviewer's concerns, apparently, are valid. I have no problem with valid concerns (and I only have a problem with invalid concerns when someone won't let them go or listen to reason...otherwise I just let them go). Much of the art in TROS isn't very good, but it was all more-or-less free, so whatyagonnado? People forget that TROS was produced from the same size company and budget as, oh, InSpectres, which for years had no art at all and was only 30 pages of text. The hard-cover format has been a mixed blessing for exactly this reason. I *do* take notes on all valid criticisms, however, and we're always trying to do it better. It will never be perfect, and I don't just mean "for some people." That's a fact, and I won't pretend otherwise. For the record:

TFOB will have typos. Some stuff won't be as clear as you want it to be. You won't like some of the art. Something you wanted the book to have will be missing, and lots of the book will be full of things you probably won't use, just like every other RPG supplement you've ever bought.

Do I think TFOB is going to rock? Yeah. Are we doing our best to make it better than OBAM, which I believe was a more professional product than TROS was? Hell yeah. Will we ever reach the top? No, so don't hold your breath. Driftwood is one guy (me) with a very dependable helper (Brian) and a bunch of contracted artists. And it probably will never get to be more. That's why we only get out one book a year, depsite our desires to do much, much more.

So, anyway, no further comment, really.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: I haven't read the review yet. I'm trying to decide if I want to, since it sounds like more of the same criticism that we usually get (half on play preferences, half on real concerns that would be fixed, were a second edition in the making). I used to be a regular at RPG.net, but frankly there's a lot of negative energy floating around there and I spend about 2 hours a day reading forums and answering emails as it is.

I actually only think that when making a character that you need to remove the social class columm, and handle the social class via gift and flaws. saying that all starts on low/high freeman and being a peasent or slave is either minor or major flow, and the other way around on nobles...this would be MUCH MUCH better!.

If bergh isn't "letter perfect" there in his idea, I don't think he's far off. The problem there is rollup fairness. For rollup fairness of character design it does make sense to put it into the priority picks...because having cash, land, and influence IS A MAJOR ongoing benefit to a character that other characters wouldn't have access to that can CONSTANTLY turn the tide of any given adventure. So it would probably have to be something more than just a major gift if altered, because cash and status can just have way too much impact on a game. Don't know what the answer is myself, but having it as a priority pick does tend to make slave characters somewhat superiour to noble characters in an overview kind of way as regards all aspects OTHER THAN social status...which is fair, but a little unrealistic when compared to the real world examples of real slaves versus real nobles.

I'm pretty sympathetic to that point of view Dain. I've touched upon it myself in times past.

But you know...when you play TROS, you're not playing any old "slave character". You're playing Sparticus.

Folks can stand there all they want and proclaim how its not realistic because a "real slave" would be malnourished, and a "real slave" would be undereducated and all sorts of other stuff (although in Rome that's certainly not automatically the case). But I ask you...who would want to play that character?

Ok Player X, for this game you are going to be a slave. Your average attributes are going to be 2 points lower than everyone else, your skill target numbers will be 1 higher than everyone else, you'll have 0 proficiencies, twice as many flaws, 1/2 as many gifts, no money, and anyone who wants can whip and beat you if you don't do exactly what you're told.

Who's going to play that character? No one. So why in the hell would Jake want to waste his time writing rules for how to create that character? Its ridiculous. If someone REALLY wants to play that character, all they have to do is ask the GM to trade in their A and B priorities for D and E priorities.

So I don't understand really the logic that says that the rules don't produce "realistic" slaves, because no one wants to play a realistic slave any how. If you're going to play a slave character you're going want to play Sparticus not Gimpy McSores the Piss Boy. So, in TROS, you get a little advantage in having slightly higher average Priorities (post Social Class spending) than a nobleman.

I don't know how it could be any plainer than that.

Hey Valamir. Kindof got it backwards from my perspective. I wasn't saying unrealistic slaves....I was saying unrealistic nobels. Much like you wouldn't want to play a malnourished slave but rather play Sparticus, you wouldn't want to play a pasty wimp nobel. Basically the system allows Sparticus just fine, but nobles tend to be a bit on the pasty side.

yes, you are right, only having it like a major gift is not enough, but then again how evolved is the gift/flaw system in TRoS,....not much!
ALL too few gift/flaws in the book, and only having two classes, like major & minor is also to undetailed.

in my campaign we have borrowed all kinda flaws/and gift from other rpg games and even invented some we liked.
Flaws are from -1 to -5 points and gifts are from 1-5. 0 is a rather geneic number.

lets say that the Social status is not into the flaw/merit catogory, all characters start from being a low freeman (or something like that) type, and this means that he have the gift/flaw: Social 0, which all start with.
If the player decides that he wanna use his merit/flaw points to change his "social" status.

Social -5 would be like being an slave maybe and the +1 is something like you are a high freeman, and 3 you maybe is a noble, but poor in noble terms, and being noble 5 would be like a duke.

the term major/minor is converted into points; flaw are negative and gift positive.

Generaly we have not writtean any rules for for this, but all understand it in our group. hope you also do. but ofcourse much work should be done to make out details of this system if they should be in somekind of rulebook, for now its just something we invented.

that you can make super slaves are no problem for players who understand the idea of ROLEplaying and like to make make his character a real person with background history and such.
most persons don't want to have a slave background.

BUT when it comes to these Munchkin type players, who the GM tryes to tell em how great it is to ROLEplay instead of just killing. most of these people cannot understand the concept of having a nobleman who can't fight, is something who you can get ALOT of fun out off. so most of them choose slave social background and HIGH stats, so he can kill somestuff.

this is fine if is an all hack-and-slash-munchkin game, but when the GM want some more ROLEplay, then it sucks.

Im my gaming group one of the characters choose slave as an background option, and when the game started he was the best fighter, but with no gear, then he borrowed some money from the landless noble and vupti now he got nice gear and is the best fighter in the group, and all the others has been angry since.

I don't know how to make him down to his "slave & prisoner" level again, he got good clothes and fine weapons, he canceled his F priority in around an hour of game time......what to do now as a GM?

you wouldn't want to play a pasty wimp nobel

most of these people cannot understand the concept of having a nobleman who can't fight

Ok, fair enough. I think this is starting to sound like a personal bias thing. Basically I'm getting the "get over it" response to what seems to me (and judging from countless other threads, many other people as well) to be a reasonable stance, but also seem to be getting the other side from just as many people and just as often. Since Jake respects Valamir's opinions so highly (some recent thread, forget which one), I'm going to go wishy washy here and conceed the point even though I still personally don't agree. Gotta respect the guy who Jake says is the man who "gets TROS in a scary way".

Dain wrote: I'm going to go wishy washy here and conceed the point even though I still personally don't agree. Gotta respect the guy who Jake says is the man who "gets TROS in a scary way".

<chuckle>...I did...but I actually wanted to play a slave on top of that to try out some good roleplaying ideas I had thought of....so I wasn't just crunching the numbers. At work right now so don't have access to the details to start a new thread right now...maybe later tonight.

You know what...can't do it. Other players not up to speed on the character yet might browse out here and lose all the surprise of finding out entertaining details during the game. Have to pass on starting that thread until after the campaign has been running long enough all the secrets are out. Best I could do is a PM or something.

I've never had anyone even consider slave, except for me.. And I'll guarantee it was story reasons. (See the thread which is probably now on the second page about Tuin)

As for nobody wanting to play a pasty nobleman.. Hey, Lx.. Did you enjoy playing Dominick?

No system is munchkinproof. If someone is hell bent on creating a war machine he will create a war machine no matter what system it is. The counter to this is often to change the circumstances of the game; make one adventure heavy on political intrigue and the combat slave will all of a sudden be very unimportant; noone cares what the slave wants. If the PC is a run away criminal it becomes even worse. Mix that with adventures where there is a lot of combat where the slave can excel and you have a mix where noone feels unimportant. Then people will make diverse PCs.

If you on the other hand only make adventures where the PCs fights all the time and noone cares whatever you are a slave or belong to a 500 years old noble family of course the players will make combat slaves. Noone wants to feel cheated and everyone wants to feel useful. This process is of course easier if the players arent trying to beat the system all the time.

All in all, I dont think this problem has so much to do with the system as it has to do with players and GMs.

Well, as goes the "munchkin" problem, I always find it's a bad idea to deal with these things in game (from hard experience).

All you tend to end up with is the player getting frustrated and leaving the game... because, in making the combat god character, they're writing a wish list for the game to come, and it says "Please give me lots of combat, I've been a good boy and made a really, really good combat character."

So you give them politics... and they think you hate them.

You could always talk to them, striaghten out expectations before it gets personal. Or, tRoS, you could point out that the "combat advantage" isn't gained during character creation, it's gained by a) learning to use the combat system to best advantage, and b) Getting and spending SA's like they're going out of fashion.

Once they grok that, they're grooving on SA's... and your plotting starts to write itself.

bergh wrote:
Im my gaming group one of the characters choose slave as an background option, and when the game started he was the best fighter, but with no gear, then he borrowed some money from the landless noble and vupti now he got nice gear and is the best fighter in the group, and all the others has been angry since.

I don't know how to make him down to his "slave & prisoner" level again, he got good clothes and fine weapons, he canceled his F priority in around an hour of game time......what to do now as a GM?

problem is that my group has traveled to another part of the country, and how do people reconise him as a slave?

By the Large 'S' branded into his forehead?

bergh wrote: problem is that my group has traveled to another part of the country, and how do people reconise him as a slave?

In the game just like in real life, social status can change. Especially if no one knows his origins. Hope noone finds out though hehe

NotOnYourLife wrote: I'm a regular here, but fearing repercussions to my normal login I created this second account (that I never intend to use again) so everybody "hates" this login instead of my normal one.

Valamir wrote:

bergh wrote: problem is that my group has traveled to another part of the country, and how do people reconise him as a slave?

His old master shows up?

Consider...he's starting to make his way in the world. Earn the respect of important people and what not...all of the sudden, at a banquet for high ranking visitors who've come for a market week, or a tournament, the character is called out, by his old master...even better if he escaped...

Then have his social house of cards collapse. Money doesn't guarentee you status. Even the great wealth of Monte Cristo didn't amount to much when the truth was revealed.

The embarassment, the public humiliation, the fact that now whereever he goes in the region people know he's an imposter.

And don't look for solace among the lower classes. Historically speaking the commoners resented other commoners who tried to rise above their station..."tried to get all uppity didja? Thought you waz better'n us dja? Well look atchu now..." as the stones begin to fly.

Another thing to consider is the slaves status before slavery, it's possible he was born a slave, but it's also possible that he had come from a rulling class before becoming a slave.

For example in the greek world when city states warred with each other the losers became slaves. So one minute you could be a wealthy citizen with the right (and money and training) to carry arms, and then find yourself wearing a slave collar and working in a field living of gruel. Same for the Celts and their European ilk, the slaves they took were the warriors (and their famillies) who they had taken in war, people who in their own society would have had the same status as the people who now owned them.

I suspect (and I may be wrong) that some of the players in the reviewers group may have made slave characters took the benefits and then conviently forgot the downside.

As to balance, realism, etc who cares if you pick Prof A for class yes it means you cant have both mega attributes or mega weaps proffiencies, or be the most skilled. If you don't have prof A for class you still only get to really excell in one of those, you can't have everything topped out.

Unless of course that's the way you want to play becasue after all, It's not like Jake's gonna kick down your door and come burstin in with a dopplehander cos you might have strayed from his rules as written.

From everything I read in the posts attached to this review and especially the other one (things like TRoS has had this coming-?WTF?) it just seems like some of the advertisng blurb upset some people so much that that they felt the need to attack TRoS which is I think just ever so slightly strange.

ZenDog wrote: Unless of course that's the way you want to play becasue after all, It's not like Jake's gonna kick down your door and come burstin in with a dopplehander cos you might have strayed from his rules as written.

So er what is the best defense against someone in the aggressive stance weilding a Dopplehander?

ZenDog wrote: So er what is the best defense against someone in the aggressive stance weilding a Dopplehander?

Quarterstaff thrust or bash to the head, running him over with a haycart, using either a bow or crossbow, hiring a few mercs... noone is invincible. Ever.

ZenDog wrote: So er what is the best defense against someone in the aggressive stance weilding a Dopplehander?

Brian Leybourne wrote: Heh, you probably didn't know then that admins have the ability to see the IP address an account has connected from, and all the other accounts that have ever connected from the same IP address.

I don't think that's possible, but try PMing Clinton Nixon, he's the Forge Admin guy, if anyone can do it, it would be him.

Brian.

Just a note on the whole idea that nobles in TROS are wimps...

Do you have any idea how deadly being able to afford a good warhorse and a good suit of plate mail makes a character? It's frightening... and only nobles can start out this way... and only a bad GM will ever give any other social class enough money to afford such things until way late in the game... by which time your noble will have caught up in stats anyway.


One of the single deadliest combat characters I've ever seen was a noble tin can with a NICE warhorse and a riding skill of 3. He slaughtered people with combat pools twice his size... en masse in a couple occasions.

how did he do that?

Put together that character? Or slaughter ppl en-mass?

The character was Landed noble (A), with attributes at B (43 pts), Profeincies at C, Skills at D, Gifts and Flaws at E, and race at F

He was from Stahl, giving him a free horse, which the Gm allowed him to use as a discount on a better horse. So he got his really nice warhorse for relatively cheap.

Reflex of 6, all six points of his Prof went into sword and sheild, and he bought a couple points in lance after the first session.

He spent all his MA points to bring his riding down to three... which gave him a scary TN for fighting from that really nice warhorse.

Finally, he made a deal with my master blacksmith character, who in exchange for him setting me up with a shop on his land and preferential treatment, made him masterwork plate for the cost of normal. Combined with the cost of the forge, it cost him as much as fine plate normally would have.

His CP with the plate and helm on was 9... and he could all but ignore defence against most opponents. The sheild only made it that much worse. That made him formidable on his feet. A match for all but the smartest combat monster PC's.


He got really dangerous once you put him on horseback. He at one point plowed into an infantry formation... and all the way through it, and was killing three or four men per round simply becasue they didn't have any room to get out of the way and our plans had disrupted any chance they had at setting up a effective anti-cavalry formation.


Any combat-moster slave or peasent would have been all but helpless against the man if he got on his horse, and he would have held his own agaisnt most all on foot if he played even remotely smart.

Very cool!

Same basic character as mine then, except I used insight.. bought the plate(as compared to your approach).. social B and attributes A. Oh, and mine has a riding of 6 or 7 I think.. he hasn't had to use his horse yet. Slightly larger CP than yours, due to an understanding seneschal and better CP modifiers for the fine full plate.(Only 2 dice differential..) But I don't primarily use a shield, though I do have one.. and a longsword with which to one-hand whilst mounted.

Gained 13 SA points last session via very stackable SA's.. conscience, a drive to protect innocent villagers from an undead horde.. and the passion of hating aforementioned undead horde..
10 dice throwing in other words... chopped one in half I did. Barely..

Anyways, yes.. nobles are certainly not pushovers. That fine plate saved my ass on 3 occasions.. I got hit that number of times.. but never felt a scratch.

Also, I elected to buy off my dependancy on dialogue.. rather than try and improve my CP by one die. (Allowing me to finally be able to lower a CTN by using dialogue rather than gestures.. and also allows me to cast without using either gestures of words.. which is alot more covert.. is such a thing possible though??)

Two last points.. are you using OBAM? If so, don't forget the optional rule that states a destrier quality horse(such as those warhorses from Stahl) give +3 dice instead of the old +2. Also, our tin-can nobles on horseback are still vulnerable. Someone can choose to be dastardly and hack at the horse's legs...or set a spear, etc. And of course the whole archery concept.. that's a bitch. Luckily I have not had to deal with either yet.

-Ingenious