I've run the simulator a few times and played the quick start rules, and have a general question about combat.

It seems if you have a few more dice (2-3?) in your CP and are otherwise pretty well equal to your opponent (Str, Tough, weapons, armour) that as long as you fight reasonably smart, you will win a very large majority of the time.

This does make sense from a realistic point of view. It seems if you have a decent skill advantage, you can survive some bad rolls as long as you don't do a complete botch job on rolling.

The thing I'm concerned about is it seems to take a lot of the variability out of the equation. Where I am concerned about this is that it would seem opponents would have to be pretty well tailor made for the group, for if you go against someone who outclasses you by a few dice and the SNL plays with reasonable competence, you have very little chance of winning.

Not that this is bad or unrealistic, but my concern is you can pretty well predict the oucomes of combat.

Any comments by someone more familiar with the system would be appreciated.

Tactics Tactics Tactics!

Seriously though, if you're not stronger or tougher than you need to be better (ie: more skilled). If you're not more skilled you need to fight smarter! Also don't forget spiritual attributes. If you fight for what you beleive in you will stomp on an equal (or even slightly better) opponent who isn't.

I think the idea that the occasional bad die roll will not greatly discommode a better fighter in keeping with the concepts behind TROS. Think about it, would you trust to "good luck" to carry you through a life or death fight? Not if you could help it!

I just read your post and think I see the issue. If you are simulating fights and going over quick start rules alot of these options probably aren't jumping out at you. Winning in TROS is about picking your battles.

Yes two things about the real rules vs. the quickstart. First the ones in the simulator are simplified, there are a lot more options and variations in the main rules. Second the sim is a not a human. Going up against a human opponent is going to be completely different.

But you are right, opponents need to be tailored to the group. Duh, what RPG doesn't do that. The GM decides how tough, skilled or even smart (You can make mistakes on purpose as aGM) the opposition needs to be.

Tash Wrote:

But you are right, opponents need to be tailored to the group. Duh, what RPG doesn't do that. The GM decides how tough, skilled or even smart (You can make mistakes on purpose as aGM) the opposition needs to be.

Turin wrote:
That is one thing I dislike seeing, the tailor making of opponents. I guess what it brings back is the dungdeon for 6-8th level characters idea.

The two areas where this is a problem for me - you tailor your "bad guys" higher as the group gets better. Without some additional randomness, it may be too predictable.

One thing I like is for a group to attampt to bite off more than they can chew, but make an exit and have learned they were not good or smart enough, without too many party members dying. Heck, even getting injured and captured is not bad, as they escape can be another adventure.

It just appears to me that with the lethality of the system, going into a fight where you are a bit outclassed is suicidal (even with ambushing techniques, etc.).

Don't get me wrong. I hate systems that rely on that arbitrary pool of resources known as hit points. Having PC's wounded badly, and some risk of dying in any combat without regards to managing the hit point pool is what makes a game more exiting. I just think allowing characters to be defeated but not killed or maimed quite as often would enhance playability. The predictabilty of combat and lethality level is probably very realistic, but I would like my PC's to be luckier than the average guy, and to be able to get into bad scrapes that don't go their way but live and learn without being killed as easily.

And for PC's to be able to interact in a world where the opponents are not tailor made (the gate guards don't go from a CP of 8 to a CP of 15, without any logical reason other than the PC's are now tougher) adds to the suspense of disbelief. There is no reason, why for instance some brigands waylaying now is much more skilled than the ones that waylayed them 4 years ago.

I guess another thing in regards to tactics - If PC's can ambush, can't the PC's be ambushed by NPC's as well? It would not make sense for the PC's to be the only ones who take advantage of this tactical advantage. Granted, the PC's may be smart, wary, but logic holds that they will eventually be ambushed themselves.

Yeah, I've gamed using the HM system (with a large amount of houserules). The maximum type characters can outhit some competent type soldiers about on a 4/1 ration, but can and do take blows themselves in combat. On the other hand, moderately competent PC's can do the same to an expert NPC. This allows both parties a chance of giving their opponent a serious injury, although the combat is skewed heavily to the more skilled one's advantage.

I've thought about adding a variant to TROS combat, a D5 added to weapon damage, using a colored die thrown with the others, and the colored die/2 for the 1-5 number. Of course the sucesses needed for wound levels would have to increase, as a one better sucess will result in the equivalent of 2-6 sucesses, averaging 4.

I thought about using this and making a 3-4 a 1 wound, 5-6 a two, 7,8, and 9 a 3,4, and 5 wound respectively.

It seems this would work, but it still might be a bit to lethal to accomplish what I am looking for. Maybe even doing as above but making a 7-8 a level three wound, and a 9+ is a level 4 wound, and no level 5 wounds. This might work.

I also want to say is I love the combat options with TROS and the way it flows and works for man vs man type combat, as well as many of the mechanics, such as the CP adjustments to make thrusting at the arms, legs, face not as effective as swinging from both chance of hitting and damage inflicted.

One thing that I find is frequently overlooked when assessing the tailor-making of opponents is the issue of reputation. In many cases, there will be an automatic tailoring of opposition through the reputation the characters have.

If they are a bunch of unknowns trying to take out a local 'robber baron', the latter might just ride into the mountains, waiting for their inhabitants and natural dangers to take out the insolent, wet-behind-the-ears nuisance. If they have a reputation for being dangerous, he'll probably await them with a well-designed ambush, and along with his best thugs personally take care of what remains of them.

If they interfere with the operations of the local Gelure spy, the local spymaster may hire some harbor thugs to teach them a lesson. If they have thwarted dozens of operations already and are on the edge of pushing clandestine Gelure operations out of the entire Stahl coast area, then the Gelure chief of operations just MIGHT decide that more drastic measures are necessary to stop this insolence and send something supernatural their way....

I don't even think tailoring the level really means much.

I had a single player take out two sorcerers who were guarded over by animated corpses during a ritual. The power levels couldn't have been much more disparate. I thought he was dead. He didn't die. He killed both sorcerers in short order, and survived the animated corpses.

Lethality goes both ways. You can deliberately set up a suicide situation, where the player would be stupid not to disengage their character immediately, but instead, they win through. Never, ever underestimate the power of SAs and blind fury.. or simply blind luck.