A few months ago I started reading rpg forums and began running into references to TROS both here and elsewhere. There's alot of enthusiasm for the game, so I read up on it, starting with Ron Edwards ' review, then moving to RPG.net and some of the discussion there.

In his review of TROS Ron wrote:

Quote:
My call is that we are looking at Narrativist-Simulationist hybrid design, with the latter in a distinctly subordinate/supportive role.


This interpretation seems to be generally accepted. However, the more I read the more uncomfortable I became.

From James Durnan's review http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10048.phtml:
Quote:

Initially, I was really excited about the character creation system. It allowed for a lot of flexibility on the player’s part, yet kept them from creating unrealistic characters. It makes you make well-rounded characters, the hope of all games, yet gives you plenty of choices to make him your very own, without forcing you into ridgid classes. I liked that idea. But something occurred to me after making a couple of characters, and helping my players make theirs. One player of mine noticed a huge flaw, and after that, I couldn’t view it as a viable creation system anymore. Here’s why. As you create your character, you must assign priorities to various aspects of him or her, including race, attributes, social status, etc. using letters from A to F. This is fine and dandy, but what this means is that the knight, who must take at least a B in social class, will be less educated, have fewer attribute points, fewer advantages, and be worse in combat (combat skills are separate from other skills - I’m not sure why) than the slave! It’s true. If you make a slave, his attributes will be higher, he’ll have more skills at lower (better) levels, and can have a cool advantage or two to boot. For a system that brags how realistic it is, this seemed rather funny to me.

Combat is a large section of the book, and it should be. It was quickly apparent that the more you were familiar with the system, the better you would be at it, which is cool, but then a player brought up a good point. Why does my combat skills as a player matter to my character in combat? The answer is - it shouldn’t. This is a role-playing game, after all. My ability to use the combat system should have no bearing on my character’s ability to fight, but unfortunately, it matters a lot. To prove a point, one new player with a sword battled a more experienced one with just a dagger, and was trounced 5 out of 5 bouts, due to player skill alone. This was a surprise and major reason to take a closer look at this game.

If a player is better with the combat system than the GM all opponents that player faces are worse than that player's character.

That kind of doesn't make much sense.

As a player versus player skirmish game the reliance on player skill is fine. As an rpg it leaves much to be desired.

Absolutely the game can be faulted for that. That's because TROS advertises its realistic combat system as a selling point. Relying on player skill rather than character skill is not realistic, and leads to metagaming which in turn encourages poor RPing.

In short, I find the system little more than an RPG skeleton wrapped around Mr. Norwood's pet combat simulator. There is nothing wrong with simulation gaming using a combat simulator....but I do not consider that roleplaying.

Helstorm wrote:
-------------------------------
Yes, but while the SAs influence combat, what the author is really saying is that Spidey isn't heroic when he's not rescuing Aunt May, which makes no sense.
-------------------------------

I haven't seen the game (so take this comment with a grain of salt), but I suppose it would depend on how big the increase in ability is.

Spider-man to Spidey rescuing MJ isn't that big a jump. However, something like Bruce Banner to the Hulk is a big leap, and may be a better example of what the reviewer intends.

If the character is "Bruce Banner" normally, but turns into the Hulk if an SA hits, well, that does sound a bit weird to me. It seems to a question of degree to me.

If the character is "Bruce Banner" normally, but turns into the Hulk if an SA hits, well, that does sound a bit weird to me. It seems to a question of degree to me.

That's kind of what happens, yes...

I think the only RPG that has approached combat similarly is Swashbuckler from Jolly Roger Games. The two games have a lot of similarities. (1) They share a commitment to the intensity of combat in terms of player identification with the process, in part through the players choosing specific maneuvers, in part due to simultaneous resolution. (2) They have no "hit points:" - people hit the dirt by failing attribute rolls, which gets easier to do as resisted hits accumulate. (3) Skill values do not stack to increase fighting proficiency; the mechanics for skill use and those of fighting are almost entirely separate.

The main difference between the games is instructive. Swashbuckler combat is largely defined, exchange to exchange, by whatever moves were performed in the previous exchange. Each maneuver has a limited range of possible following maneuvers, and the authors did an exceptional job of picking "flows" that match cinematic sword combat. Just where a blow lands, or what combination of blood loss and pain takes a combatant down, are handled through Drama.

By contrast, The Riddle of Steel combat is largely defined, exchange to exchange, by whoever hit or didn't (retained or gained initiative), and by the specific damage done to a specific body part, defined mainly through attendant shock, pain, and blood loss. Just how a blow (taking or receiving) feeds into the body postures and the next exchange's options is handled through Drama.

They both work. They both achieve an immediacy of decision-making within the context of specific maneuvers that role-players often crave. And to my way of thinking, both benefit from leaving certain aspects of the combat events open to colorizing through Drama, rather than nailing down every last detail procedurally. However, exactly what is formalized, and what is left "open," is the opposite for these games.

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me as if the system may have begun strictly as a Gamist enterprise, that is, a combat-only pocket-style game for two players.

I agree entirely. Attempts to use TROS for Simulationist terms have been unsatisfactory at best.

Which means the door is still open for a really hardcore sword-porn RPG that differentiates each and every possibly type of pointy-thing.

yrs--
--Ben

Freaky that you should post this now, I'm plowing through the main TROS rulebook and both supplements at this time. As a group we've been looking forward to trying TROS, but I was beginning to come to some of the conclusions you have as well. It really isn't SIM, or perhaps parts of it try to be, but it's a strange mix of elements from all three creative agendas - definitely focused on NAR though, based on the spritiual attributes.

Another way I see it as a gamist design is that how good players have an advantage in combat. I can see this going over damn well with my gamist friends, whereas my SIM buddies will complain about it not being realistic.

I am also interested in how IIEE is handled in TROS, I haven't found any strict guidelines yet, and find them sorely missing. Oh, and I'm referring to actions outside of combat, as combat is covered quite well as is.

The game seems focused on Task Resolution, which I guess goes well along with the combat system, but I'm a huge fan of conflict resolution systems, has anyone experimented with changing the basic resolution system?

TTFN,

Yokiboy

Ben Lehman wrote:

I agree entirely. Attempts to use TROS for Simulationist terms have been unsatisfactory at best.

The game seems focused on Task Resolution, which I guess goes well along with the combat system, but I'm a huge fan of conflict resolution systems, has anyone experimented with changing the basic resolution system?

I think TROS has some elements that would work well as gamist if taken on their own, but they're pretty much dwarfed by the nar elements.

You could play the game in a gamist fashion, where the GM tweaks out opponents, and you try and win with only X dice left in your pool, picking the right maneuver, and so on.

But after that TROS has nothing going for it to support gamist play. No guidelines for the GM on how to set up tough encounters, no suggestions on maneuver combos (at least I don't recall any), nothing like that.

On top of that, as soon as you bring in spiritual attributes, it's like holding a candle up to the sun. You can be as tactical as you want, but dude, I love the princess and I have 15 extra dice.

I'm not speaking for Ron, but I consider the sim elements to be the skill system (improve it by using it), the encumbrance stuff, the extensive items list, the differences in all the weapons, and the detailed "what happens if you hit this location" charts, not to mention the careful attention to "what it's like to live in such a time" in the text.

Remember that simulationism doesn't exclusively mean simulating "real life" like situations with rules. That's only one form of simulation.

As I understand it, simulationist play involves, more explicitly and intimately than either Gamist or Narrativist play, exploration. Exploration of setting, system, situation, character, etc, often to the detriment of making the tactically best decision, or the most narratively appropriate one.

While you make a valid point that the combat system, requiring a higher level of player skill as opposed to character skill, does not simulate "reality" well, it is very strongly supportive of exploration. It sets up a situation and allows the player to explore possible outcomes by making certain choices.

Choices, more than anything, is what TRoS is about. Jake perhaps made a mistake of overstating "Realism". The combat system is "Realistic" in that it closely mimics actual combat techniques and outcomes. But realistically simulating the ability of a combatant is not what it's about.

Basically, a lot of your examples miss the point. I'm not going to do a point by point response, as you put forth a LOT of examples. I'm just going to respond to a few that caught my eye.

~Chargen: Chargen is not about realism at all, really. Sure, it has some "realistic" touches, like the system to determine height and weight (which I LOVE), but there is absolutely no intent to create realistic people. It is, like I said above, about making choices, tough choices. Realistically, you are quite correct, a nobleman would be better trained both in combative skills and education than a peon. But in the TRoS system, you have to make choices; If you want a noble character, what are you willing to sacrifice to have it? Do you want to be really good at swords? What falls by the wayside? It's about making characters who have definite strengths and weaknesses, and every choice you make should say something VITALLY important about the character you want to play. If you choose Landed Nobility just because it comes with gobs of cash, you've just missed the point. (not imply you based your decisions on that)

~Combat: Again, this suffers the most from the "Realism" appellation. It's realism is only in the one aspect of realistically simulating the flow, options and outcomes of combat. In play it is as much about making choices as char-gen, perhaps moreso. You make a decision, and you numerically determine your commitment to that decision with every exchange.. And then you deal with the outcome.

~SAs: SAs are in no way intended to be realistic. None whatsoever. SAs are what take you above and beyond the capabilities of "reality", and give you the reasons to go there. SAs are what allow you to kick into overdrive and pull off those crazy heroics that make movies and books so cool to read. They're what drive you to better yourself, the motivation to become the best at what you do.. To, heh, "Be All You Can Be", as it were. And here's the most important part: They do it well.

Now, I'll admit that the combat does have some strongly gamist elements. It is fun enough to divorce from the system, to divorce from roleplaying entirely, and just play around with. Hell, I'm in the (slow and frequently interrupted for long periods of time) process of doing precisely that with my TRoS: Gladiators game; It uses the combat system in a purely, unabashedly gamist sense. But if you try to play the game as written with purely gamist concerns, you'll fail, unless you adapt your gamist tendencies to take advantage of the narrative focus. The only way to be the badass is to have the best story, to be the most driven, passionate, faithful, conscientious, destined and lucky person at the table.

As for sim, it does that well too, so long as you understand that "realism" isn't the point. The point is to set up those specific situations and see how your character will react. The point is to visit Fauth, Odeon, Krym Khanan and Gelure. The point is to find the Riddle of Steel by knowing the right maneuver for every situation, by being aware of what makes you get out of bed each morning.

TRoS suffers from many small mistakes, but is overall an exceptionally well-focused product. The issues come from some of the same ideas we've been discussing recently in RPG Theory, involving Self-Deceit and the rhetoric of the game. The biggest single problem people have with the game is, unfortunately, the way Jake chose to describe certain things, but at least some of it is the mistake of applying it to aspects of the game that it wasn't intended to apply to.

Hello all,

Nothing that I wrote above should be taken as a criticism I am making of TROS. The only argument my first post is making is that the label of "narrativist/simulationist hybrid" that has become attached to the game is incorrect and that "narrativist/gamist hybrid" is a better expression of how TROS works in play. The quotes that are critical of TROS are included not as criticisms of the game but rather as examples of what I interpret to be simulationist objections to SAs, combat and chargen. In other words, the game is percieved to be supportive of Sim play/decision-making, but as the examples demonstrate players with Sim preferences dislike aspects of the game because they don't support their preferences. They don't get the game, which leads me to conclude the label of sim is misapplied to TROS.

In my second post I asked a number of questions to further explore whether my conclusion is correct. Matt Wilson offered the following:

I'm not speaking for Ron, but I consider the sim elements to be the skill system (improve it by using it), the encumbrance stuff, the extensive items list, the differences in all the weapons, and the detailed "what happens if you hit this location" charts, not to mention the careful attention to "what it's like to live in such a time" in the text.

Hello apparition13,

apparition13 wrote: In other words, the game is percieved to be supportive of Sim play/decision-making, but as the examples demonstrate players with Sim preferences dislike aspects of the game because they don't support their preferences. They don't get the game, which leads me to conclude the label of sim is misapplied to TROS.

Hi Silmenume, you wrote:

I know this is thick with Forge jargon and I apologize deeply. It is late and I am tired so I will have to resign myself to being a poophead. Fret not, there are better mannered posters here than I!

a13,

First a question: Do you actually own TRoS and/or have actually played it? If so, I think people would love to see an actual play report, especially one that supports the ideas you are saying.

a13 wrote: From what a couple others have said here I think there is some agreement that SAs facilitate nar play and combat has a gamist facilitating element (though SAs still rule).

I think in TRoS you can find support for whatever mode of play you want. I do own it, I have played a small one-shot (which didn't prove anything, it was more about learning the system), and I've read it very carefully.

I think it is a perfect example of how different people's approach to a complex rule-set will yeild support for many different types of activities.

In my experience it was Gamist. The presence of SA's told one where there would be a better-odds fight but they did not (in my one-shot) create a premise-style question.

I'm not suggesting that they couldn't. Clearly they can and do in a lot of play. However since they don't have to the idea of CA-facilitation is, IMO, clearly based on the player's approach to the game, rather than the mechanics themselves.

I point to Over The Edge as another example of this.

-Marco

You could play the game in a gamist fashion, where the GM tweaks out opponents, and you try and win with only X dice left in your pool, picking the right maneuver, and so on.

But after that TROS has nothing going for it to support gamist play. No guidelines for the GM on how to set up tough encounters, no suggestions on maneuver combos (at least I don't recall any), nothing like that.

Timothy wrote: But I will also take this a step further. The idea behind TRoS (ie, premise) is "What will you kill/die for?" Because combat is so deadly and complicated, it encourages people to avoid it unless their SA's are firing. In other words, they won't fight unless the fights about something that's important to them. Thus the deadly and complicated combat system actually play into the Nar elements of the game!

Apparition wrote: While my intuition is that TROS interferes with sim play I am as of yet unwilling to state that categorically because, just as with combat, Sorcery looks simmy. So, once again, how does sorcery play? Which CA dominates decision making? Is it sim (look at this cool spell I designed), game (allocation of spell pool to casting/resisting) or nar and those SAs? Is the sim appearace of sorcery, like combat, an illusion or does it actually play out as sim in this case?

Noon wrote:
Now, I wonder if I should start a post on how Rifts is missclassified as gamist, and how it's sim with only opportunities for unsportsmanlike gamism.

Noon wrote:

Apparition has already said it should be NG, he's not arguing about that (as far as I can see)

I'm on the fence with TROS, not least because I think the mode of play can change from minute to minute. I certainly think the SA's and the Nobility trade-off* are a huge problem from a sim perspective. But, most of the game seems to have been written from a presumed sim aesthetic, in my eyes.

Hi all,

What gets me about these discussions about "is it N and G or N and S?" etc. is that the fact that, by definition, a particular instance of rpg play cannot have more than one Creative Agenda. Creative Agenda is defined by which of the three agendas is chosen as the deal breaker, not by the appearance of mechanics, which in the absence of other considerations, might produce a different agenda.

So what's the purpose of this thread? To identify those rules in TROS that would support gamist play if the Spiritual Attributes were absent?

I don't think that the sorcery system is gamist at all. The rules are very easy to mangle and abuse from a gamist perspective, allowing you to kill people off with little resistance or destroy the entire world. Furthermore, the very vague descriptions of what the different vagaries can do create a hole in the negotiation aspect of spell design that must be filled by a group's social contract. This also makes gamism rather problematic because the rules aren't really defined in a quantitative fashion.

Ron Edwards' essay included in the sorcery section really brings out what that part of the game is about. The only limiter to sorcery, really, are spiritual attributes. It's not about "can you do it" it is about "why will you do it". I think that sorcery, more than any other part of the game, is very heavily weighted toward narrative to the point of G and S not really being relevant. The sorcerer is given the potential of nearly unlimited power. The question is, what does that really buy him?