Hey there,

As I said in this thread, I managed to get in some brief Riddle of Steel play last week. It wasn't much, just a few neat encounters and a quick, out-of-context combat.

Some Forge members are probably going to think I've gone 'round the bend, or at the very least am allowing my love for real pulp sword-and-sorcery to blind me. I mean, we are talking about a game in which a typical combat sequence looks like:
- announce stance
- determine simultaneously who's attacking and who's defending
- opponents split dice pools into offense and defense
- opponents announce target zone, as well as specific maneuvers and further manipulate dice pools to suit the maneuvers (e.g. lose one die to gain extra damage for your Cut)
- attacker rolls attack dice; defender rolls defense dice; each checks internal success for each roll (vs. target number), then actual success is determined by the difference in the two internal values
- subtract the opponent's Toughness and the armor of the target zone from the single value derived above
- take the new value to the tables ... and there's a table for every target zone cross-ref'd with every weapon type (puncture/bash/etc)
- roll 1d6 to determine actual spot of the injury within the stated target zone; modify if you used Accuracy or the Counter maneuver
- the result on the table tells you Blood Loss (add it to existing Blood Loss, roll Endurance vs.the total or faint), Shock (which is a one-round penalty to your dice pools and may entail some math with your Willpower), and Pain (which is an ongoing penalty to your dice pools and may entail some math with your Willpower), and Knockdown (in which you roll to see whether you fall)
- if the defender is not maimed or incapacitated, he may now attack and the attacker must defend

The usual result is being maimed and falling to the ground, and bleeding-out is the typical Plan B. This is a fine thing regarding combat realism, and I will go so far as to say that the game captures "being in a fight" better than any game I have ever played. Its sequential mechanics, usually something I avoid like the plague, are much more fun than their closest relatives, RuneQuest and Rolemaster. (I still plump for Swashbuckler as the finest for stunning fight choreography embedded in the mechanics; Riddle tends to rely on "common sense" to get this effect.)

But I can also see that people will be justifiably concerned about two phenomena: (1) tactics regarding maneuvers becoming, themselves, the point of play in a strategic sense, and (2) the straightforward disjunct between the facts that fights in reality kill people regardless of whose "side" they're on, whereas fights in stories are heavily biased in favor of the stories' protagonists.

In other words, why do I grip my Aquilonian broadsword, scowl menacingly, and pronounce The Riddle of Steel to be a Narrativist game?

Because in many ways, the whole game is a cruel trap. It's the opposite of de-protagonizing; if you go in without committing to your character as a protagonist, the combat system will kill you. If you don't ramp up those Spiritual Attributes via role-playing (and moral choices), then you ain't gonna have the dice to survive combat. In this sense, The Riddle of Steel is very much like Sorcerer, in terms of players being surprised at how hard Sorcerer's demon-summoning is - if you're not using both circumstantial and metagame bonuses, it's probably not going to work, and your Humanity losses while you try will wax your character. Jake referred to this as the "natural selection" effect regarding ROS, and I think he's got a point. Planning to power-game? You'll die - unless you convert that competitiveness into a motor for your Narrativist priority. Planning to get into the realism? You'll die - unless you convert that Exploration into a motor for your Narrativist priority.

I have a lot, lot, lot to say about the history of this ambition in role-playing design, particularly in terms of the latter issue (Sim/Narr). The first game to try it was RuneQuest. Realism, so-called, was supposed to be the foundation for heroic, mythic tale-creation. Without metagame mechanics or any other mechanisms regarding protagonism, the Sim took over, and RuneQuest became, essentially, a wargame at the individual level that was based largely on Glorantha fandom (this trend is still a very strong gaming-subculture in Britain). The BRP (RuneQuest) system is right up there with AD&D and Champions in terms of its influence, and until just now, no game has attempted to "power Narrativism with Simulationist combat" from the ground up again; they just imitate RuneQuest and go right down the same road.

The alternative, as illustrated for just about every Narrativist game, is to move combat mechanics very far into the metagame realm: Swashbuckler, Sorcerer, Castle Falkenstein, The Dying Earth, Zero, Orkworld, Hero Wars, and (my God) The Pool take that road to various distances, and it works.

The Riddle of Steel is like a guy waving his hand in the back of the room -"Scuse me, scuse me, what about that first road? I'm not ready to jettison that idea yet." It's as if someone stepped into The Chaosium in 1977, and said, "Hey, you know, if you don't put some kind of player-modulated personality mechanic in there, this game is going to be all about killing monsters and collecting Clacks." This didn't happen in 1977, and that's why RuneQuest was all about those things (and avidly speculating about Gloranthan details). But it's happened now ...

Best,
Ron

Damn, that sounds amazing. I'm definitely going to have to bump my deep read of RoS up in the channel, because I didn't pick up on anythis on an initial quick read. On an initial read it looked pretty much like Rune Quest with a cool dice pool mechanic to me, so I had demoted it down my reading pile.

Is that possibly because the Narrativist engine you're seeing is buried in all the sim text and you only picked it up because you were looking for it and are naturally focused on using such mechanics.

In other words, I guess, what I'm indirectly asking is whether or not this story driving element is front and center enough to be picked up by the majority of players, or will most players just see the combat, decide they die way too quick, and never realize the potential you spotted? It certainly wasn't featured strongly enough for me to notice it on my initial once over.

If it is somewhat buried, than Jake should definitely note that as something to take care of in an eventual second edition, because what you describe sounds down right exciting.

Taking note!!!!

Ron--you captured exactly what I was trying to do!

Valamir--you captured exactly what I need to do!

Okay, okay...so I'm excited. Generally the phenomenon that Ron mentioned comes out very strongly in play over more than one game, but you're right (shameful to admit) that it isn't talked up enough in the text, and so those that never play it rarely see it. It's been our experience at conventions and demos that we always create about 90% + fanatics from those in attendance, and this is why.

So, thanks you guys. Ron, for being perceptive and putting into words what I didn't, and Valamir, for pointing that out.

Cool...

Jake Norwood
Driftwood Publishing

Hey Ralph,

It depends on perspective to some extent, certainly. I'm pretty sure that it's front-and-center, given that a character's "philosophy" is cited as the first and most important element of design. On the other hand, bitter experience has taught me that many players blaze right past that (blah blah blah, they read). I also think that all the Spiritual Attribute text is explicit about how important they are, and clearly the improvement mechanics will reinforce them in a big way.

However, to my way of thinking, what the book needs desperately are examples, examples, examples of the central role of these attributes, especially regarding surviving combat.

It's a tricky problem. I think to a large extent, the game advertisement relies on the immediacy, gore, and uncompromising nature of the combat as a selling point. "This game is cool! You get to gut your opponent! Real-time combat!" (All of which is 100% true if you're using D&D and Rolemaster for comparison; veterans of Hero Wars or Swashbuckler will probably shrug, 'cause we get gore and real-time combat too.) Now, this is a great selling point at the superficial level. People like that stuff, and I specifically include female players, several of whom saw the game book last week and immediately wanted to play a severer, a slicer, a gutter, and a cruncher, all at the same time. My only fear is that (as with your experience) that advertising might be too effective and fail to grab those people who are the most pre-game prepped to grasp the real, underlying power of the game.

Jake, what do you think? I understand that the game is selling very well, direct, and that's good. Do you think you might be missing a key target-audience though?

Best,
Ron

Jake, what do you think? I understand that the game is selling very well, direct, and that's good. Do you think you might be missing a key target-audience though?

You're bitter experience is probably right on Ron. I've been reading game books so long now that alot of the chunky text gets blown over the same way as I'd skip over the "how to read dice" and "whats an RPG" sections. "blah blah blah".

I've been a systems monkey from day one and a long time arguer that the right rules make the game better, so when I quick read a rule book I'm very much in "show me the money" mode.

i.e. "yeah I see, a bunch of text telling me how stuff is supposed to work, where the heck are the actual mechanics so I can tell what will *actually* happen"

So you're probably right. They probably were featured in exactly the sections I don't bother reading closely in my first quick impressions once over.

But now I'm excited. My first suspicion was that Ron (perhaps blinded by his love for S&S) was seeing what he wanted to see, and over estimating the power of the Spiritual Traits...;-) But, Jake, hearing you confirm that that is, in fact, how the game was designed (and is not merely a mechanical coincidence that a dedicated Narrativist can exploit) has me eager to read more.

Jake, I'd start with something akin to the Real Time Combat and Riddle of Steel essay. Between the two of those they capture the essence of the combat focus. I think what you need is an essay that captures the essence of how these spiritual traits work and feature that just as prominently.

The fact is that before a month ago I never cared a bit for "narrativist" or "sim" or any other game-theory issue. Someone asked me if I was into that stuff once, when I was in the early stages of putting TROS together, and I said "beats the hell out of me...I'm just writing the game that I always wanted but never had." My games, no matter what the system, have always placed key importance on the elements that are highlighted in the Spiritual Attributes section...we had that worked out before we had dice pools and damage tables and maneuvers. I remember playing Greg Stafford's excellent Pendragon, and thinking, "damn--here's a game that actually motivates players to play a certain kind of character, with passions an morals and weaknesses, and it's all worked into the mechanic."

It changed the way I looked at RPGs for good.

The combat came from trying to play a swordsman in a bijillion campaigns in a bijillion systems and always feeling that I was either too abstract (D&D), too chaotic and thrash-and-bash (Warhammer FRPG), or too long-winded (White Wolf combat). I was a practicing martial artist, and felt that the closest thing available to real combat was GURPS, maybe, but even that reeked of SCA-influence and took too darn long...

So I put this thing together.

I get the whole "narrativist" and "sim" thing now, and I guess Ron is right (he really seems to know his stuff), but I'd just say that I've never gotten into a character more than the one I'm playing now, despite a weak GM (hope he doesn't read that...he's new), and I'm having more fun gaming than I have in years.

Jake

Valamir wrote: Jake, I'd start with something akin to the Real Time Combat and Riddle of Steel essay. Between the two of those they capture the essence of the combat focus. I think what you need is an essay that captures the essence of how these spiritual traits work and feature that just as prominently.

Jake,

I just browsed the site again, and I suggest taking a look at the "What is The Riddle of Steel" section. It has a colorful intro (which unfortunately will be read by many as color text with no content). That intro mentions the combat system in some detail. It has a pure combat section. And it has a FAQ, in which the first question is about the combat. See? The message is, "fight, fight, dice, dice, slay, slay."

I think that a fourth section to that section, called, "What's the point" or something like that, would be a perfect place for a Spiritual Attributes discussion, exactly as you described to me verbally at GAMA. You have the words, but they need to be on a page. Also, include a reference to the same issues in the FAQ section, just as you do with combat.

Those are my thoughts. Anyone else?

Best,
Ron

I was thinking on the web site, pretty much exactly how Ron described above.

For whatever 2nd Ed plans you have, i'd make sure to incorporate those sentiments repeatedly and often throughout the text. As is repeated often around here, if 80% of the game rules is about combat, than combat is what the game is going to be about in play. So I'd work to make sure the story driving elements of the Spiritual Traits et.al. gets just as much time and space in the text as the combat.

You mentioned Pendragon, (my all time favorite RPG although the skill mechanics are somewhat stupid), if that was your inspiration you can't be very wrong :-)

What an active little discussion we have going here (hey, I just finished my last final...life is good).

The web site idea is excellent, and it's definitely the next course of action. I agree about the "80%" comment, though I'd like to point out that combat only occupies 39 pages out of 266 (if you include all of the maneuver and proficiency rules in the skill chapter)...that's about 15%. If you add damage tables and weapons and all those extras in the appendix it kicks it up to 66 pages, or about 25% of the book. Compare that to 42 pages of magic, 50 pages of World and Setting, 22 pages of skills and abilities not related to magic...so it isn't as large as some think, but it is true that 80% of the advirtising has gone to the combat, which is probably where this perception is coming from (go figure).

As for "2nd edition," there's a lot that we want to do, but the question is, "when is it too early to do 2nd ed?" Or should I just do one now and call it revised?

Jake

If you're winning converts from the playtests and folks are picking it up, I'd wait until you 1) get back more responses, and 2) get your forum/community stuff up on the ROS site before doing a revised or 2nd edition. You may find that you want to focus more on certain aspects or backgrounds, or provide certain types of examples.

I'd definitely like to see a little more focus on the actual concept of the Riddle of Steel, the warrior enlightenment that is kinda borderline hinted at in the book.

Chris :)

Hey Ron,

The usual result is being maimed and falling to the ground, and bleeding-out is the typical Plan B....in many ways, the whole game is a cruel trap. It's the opposite of de-protagonizing; if you go in without committing to your character as a protagonist, the combat system will kill you.

I would bet my girlfriend that I know exactly how a friend of mine would respond to exposure to Riddle of Steel. This is a guy who loves Mayfair's MEGS system, and GURPS, and the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms settings, a guy who gave up gaming after playing in an Everway scenario I ran last year, and a Theatrix scenario that Tom ran. "Paul, you know what I think about games with not enough rules," he said to me subsequently when I was trying to get him interested in a game of Prince Valiant.

Attracted by the crunchiness and realism of Riddle of Steel, he'd make an axe-wielding barbarian character. He'd get this guy disembowled and killed wading into a fight with an adolescent cutpurse or something, and then he'd deliver a "This game sucks!" verdict.

And if for some reason he couldn't pull himself away from an interest in the game's color, he'd start in on modifying the game, probably by somehow boosting the combat effectiveness of starting characters. He would never ever notice or accept the Spiritual Attributes as a valid and legitimate linchpin for combat effectiveness across all character types. He doesn't want a premisey interpretation of combat. He wants combat success embedded in an elaborate illusion of realism.

I can't help but think he's fairly typical of gamers who'll be most drawn to Riddle of Steel at first blush. Can you really deliver premisey combat to these guys? When it comes down to "natural selection," I can't help but think the gamer survives and the game as designed doesn't.

Paul

That was weird. The forum logged me out and accepted my post as "Guest". Is that a feature of the new version of the phpbb engine?

Paul

Paul -

Sorry about that. When I set up the RoS forum, I forgot to set the permissions so guests couldn't post. Fixed now.

Clinton

'ello,

I'd like to point out that Riddle of Steel was one of the first games I checked out upon coming to the Forge, and that I was immediately intrigued. I read the website stuff mostly because the name was interesting, and I got hooked on the idea of the game because of the rather interesting combat mechanics. I saw them, and just said to myself "Hmm.. Wonder how that would work out in this situation..."

I am, somewhat like Valamir, a bit of a rulesmonkey. I like neat mechanics, or at least simple ones which work for various aspects. My own game is more of the latter than the former, but Riddle of Steel's combat mechanic, and the vague references to how magic worked really whetted my taste.

However, I decided upon looking at the price and ordering section that I probably wouldn't attempt to buy the game direct, but would possibly pick it up if I saw it in a gaming store, and had the dough. Not really sure what prompted this decision, but that's what I came to. Question I'm having is on distribution... How widely can RoS be found? What are the chances that I'd find it in a gaming/comic book store in Phoenix, AZ? Would I be better off trying to order it direct?

From reading the info on the aforementioned web site, its only available by direct sales currently (until August ISTR)

Rusty

TROS is only available through direct order currently, but that doesn't mean that stores don't have it--only that distributors don't (though we did ship to Esdivium, the London distributor, today! Woo-hoo!).

It just so happens that Imperial Outpost Games (www.imperialoutpost.com), in Phoenix AZ loves The Riddle of Steel, and have been carrying it for about a month now.

You can reach them at

4212 W. Cactus Rd. ste. 1111
Phoenix, AZ 85027
(602) 862-9683

We met the manager, "Preacher" Bob at GAMA, and bonded immediately. They're even starting some sort of TROS tournament structure down there. I'll probably be visiting Phoenix for some Convention in late July as well.

For a semi-complete list of Retailers CURRENTLY carrying The Riddle of Steel, go to our page www.theriddleofsteel.com/market/best.htm , or if that doesn't work go to the www.theriddleofsteel.com/market and click on the "only the best" link.

Jake

Ron Edwards wrote: Jake,I think that a fourth section to that section, called, "What's the point" or something like that, would be a perfect place for a Spiritual Attributes discussion, exactly as you described to me verbally at GAMA. You have the words, but they need to be on a page. Also, include a reference to the same issues in the FAQ section, just as you do with combat.

It might be worth a go, Paul. I've done a fair amount of fantasy gaming with what sounds like a simliar level of mechanical detail (but without the cunning mechanic and whatnot), I found my habitual barbarian axe-wielders developed a distinct fondness for rapiers. I speculate that what was furstarting them was a sense of decisiveness in combat, hence the max damage approach. Once they could kill flat out with little pointy things they started getting very light-footed. Its the throwing knioves you have to watch out for :)

Jake,

That's very good web text for the new section, and I'm not talking about the quotes from me. It's solid.

I was looking through the GM-type, what-play-is-about section in the book again, and the emphasis on the Spiritual Attributes and the "point of play" can't get more explicitly Narrativist than that.

Again, it's all about the examples. Some folks are staring in horror at the price of sorcery, for instance, and they are completely missing the point that sorcerers will casting magic for passionate reasons, and thus will have 5 to 7 more dice available than is immediately obvious from just looking at sorcery pools.

To me, once I read the stuff in Chapter One about the Spiritual Attributes, I'm all set - I just apply it as I go through the following chapters about combat and sorcery. But I have discovered through painful experience that people don't do this much. In Sorcerer, it's very much like ROS; the first chapter explains a whole ton of ways to get bonus dice, then the combat and sorcery come later, and I expect readers to be applying the Chapter One stuff as they go. But a few people have wailed, "You didn't say you can use bonus dice in sorcery!" and when I say, "Um, yes I did, in Chapter One, first thing," they wail again, "But you didn't say it right there!"

So if we're talking about any changes for the August edition, one key example in the Codex section and one key example in the Sorcery chapter, both very heavily based on showing how Spiritual Attributes make the difference in play, would be my highest recommendation.

Best,
Ron

Heh, as one of those types of people...
IMO having a central locaton ("Chapter One) where all of the "cool bonus" stuff is located and then expecting players to extrapolate that chapter throughout the rest of the book is a flawed layout strategy.

First and foremost when using rules as reference material (particularly in-game) you are going to use the chapter dedicated to what you're looking up and aren't likely to cross reference back to "Chapter One". If the cool feature isn't in the combat section when I'm looking up combat stuff, and it isn't in the sorcery section when I'm looking up sorcery stuff, chances are its going to get overlooked.

Secondly, placing the cool stuff first may SEEM like a good idea on the grounds that the stuff thats first is the most important. In practice I'd say thats the WORST location for things like Spiritual traits and Sorcerer die bonuses. When people read the rules for the first time, the first thing they'll encounter is all the cool stuff...which they'll have no real idea how to use so it will only be partially understood. By the time they get done with the rest of the book, that first chapter will be long forgotten. Better would be to have the cool stuff towards the end so that it can be understood in the context of all of the rules that have already been read. Best would be to integrate the cool stuff over and over in each pertinent section.

And third, traditionally the early section of RPG rulebooks is where the nonsense fluff stuff is found. The "Introduction", the "how to roll dice", the "Whats an RPG", the flavor BS etc. I think most RPG buyers are more or less trained to think of the first X pages as being the crap you have to skim through before you get to the meat...so putting the important core concepts right at the beginning I think is conflicting with this tendency.


My advice would be to go a step farther than just example (although definitely have those) but include a side bar summary "reminder" about Spiritual Traits and how they are used specific to the section in question.

Going by the rule that the stuff written about most in the rules will get played the most in the game, I'd hit this feature over and over and over until only the most determined player could even think of playing RoS without also thinking about these rules. Basically just integrate their use into everying rather than put them in one section where they could be thought of as just something tacked on to the game as an after thought (which clearly isn't the way they were designed to be).

Hi Ralph,

It's a differing-values thing. I tend to hold expectations for readers, one of which is actually to read what's written and to consider it critically. In some ways, Sorcerer was written in an elitist fashion - if you don't get it, good-bye; if you do, cool; if you're intrigued but not inclined to get critical about it, then you have a choice, to leave or to enter into dialogue (which is available).

Don't anyone get mad about that yet; I have more to say. One thing is that Sorcerer tends to minimize the "good-bye" part and maximize the "intrigued" part. To me, that's an advantage, because it means more people will play their take on the game rather than accepting my spoon-fed stuff, which I refuse to provide beyond good examples.

Now, before anyone gets mad ... These days, I look at things a little differently. Both Elfs and (soon) Trollbabe are written to be more accessible, both in terms of mechanics and in terms of internalizing the look and feel.

So for The Riddle of Steel, I think it's up to Jake just how he wants to go about it. There will come, eventually, a bar that one has to set in terms of expectations from the reader; I think that taking a baby-bird play-it-for-me reader to be the default is doomed to failure, especially for games that require judgment and a certain desire to exercise that judgment both creatively and thematically.

Best,
Ron

Jake (et al);

It seems to me, having spent a bit to make my character for TROS, that your Narrativist hook is strong enough to survive without need for down-and-dirty explanations. What I mean by this is that it will only take a person experiencing the hell of someone with Drive (Protect the Secret of Nymh) [bad example all 'round] at 3, and your silly PC ass trying to figure it out, to sell the point. Those 3 dice are going to put someone in a quick and early grave.

This, combined with an improvement system that fluctuates during play (for the Spiritual Attributes), means that characters naturally will drive toward those goals through gameplay that can give them "oh shit" dice. Spiritual Attributes, acting even as a hedge (for you gamists flying about) against outlier rolls still means that your character is acting in the interests of internal motivations to succeed in combat.

The Riddle of Steel seems to be: combat is where the heart is. With everything funneling toward making your character a more efficient warrior, the natural extension is to make that killing meaningful. You succeed already with the Spiritual mechanics and their development.

The in-game improvement means even the rudest, min-maxing bore on the planet wants to play to them. This is, of course, because play, then, can have a double-duty improvement. Have your Spiritual Attributes increase through play, and the swash and the buckling improve through more traditional end-of-game points.

I don't see that there is a direct need for change, mainly because I think the improvement system of the game sells the overall philosophy (which is EXACTLY what a good improvement system should do). Kudos.

Dav

Dav et all-

Thanks. That's very much how we felt (Dav's post) out here, but hearing what everyone else thinks is always helpful (no matter what we do with it).

One thing that always clears stuff up is actual play. When you play TROS, those Spiritual Attributes become very prominent, if not in the first game, then in the second, because every player says "gimme my XPs," and then says "what can I use those for?" followed by "Well that woulda helped when I was fighting the dude that stole my girl..."

But a reminder littered throughout isn't a bad idea either.

btw, Ron, I ordered Sorcerer from my FLGS today.

Jake

System: Besides issues already posted Re: Sorcery et al, I love the system. It's form follows function to a tee. However, I can see Val's point. Valamir is not a "baby bird" RPG player, yet he admits a tendency to skip over the front when first reviewing a game. This should cite the example that "baby birds" are not the only sort who might miss the goodies in the front. I admit to some of this tendency myself, especially when it *does* begin with an intro. (Intros are fun to read, but when you're trying to get to the meat, you tend to skip them) However, schooled by comments on here, I read through the intro, and paid particular attention to the Spiritual Attributes. I must say, just *reading* those had me getting character ideas, but I think that was because I started with the knowledge of what they were for. Many people, when trying to get the meat, skip over the attribute descriptions, expecting them to be the same old thing, and come back to them when it comes time to create characters.

The above is, I guess, just my convoluted way of agreeing with Valamir. As Spiritual Attributes are a primary mechanic, SELL them. Make it very, very plain that the game is "'bout that". Where they are in the book is fine, but make sure that the reader WILL go back and pay attention to them, if he does skim over them the first time.

Edited to remove unnecessary content

Edited to remove repetitious content

'nother quick question.. I noticed a few things that appeared to be missing from your charts. I didn't see a weapon chart for ranged or thrown weapons, though they do exist in the purchase lists. (bows, throwing knives, etc.) Am I missing something, or is the book missing it?

Also, is Flower of Battle out yet? I'm interested to see what *didn't* get included in the core book. If it is, can I buy it retail, or is it on an order only basis right now?

Grayed out swords, huh...we DID! That's the problem with printers. On the original manuscript they're 5% gray...you can hardly see them. Live and learn.

Ranged weapons are at the end of all the weapons.

Typos and what not are the main focus of the August print. And I'd love to get another sheet of errata. Every one is a bit different.

Jake

The Flower of Battle is our pet project, and isn't out yet, though we do have significant portions of it written. We're shootin' for X-mas at the earliest.

Doh! There you go, making me feel stupid again. I was looking for a chart, like the rest of the weapon charts in the appendix, so therefore overlooked the information on bows and such NOT in a chart.
...
...
...
It's them un-grey swords, I tell ya! They're to blame!

::meanders off, feeling sheepish::

As long as folks are commenting on the layout I found the weapon charts in the back of the book especially the missle weapons stats hard to use due to grey "art" overlap.

Also just out of curiousity, how come there are no throwing axes? There are throwing knives but no Fransiscas or Hurlbats? What gives? :)

So far I think the Flower of Battle is my most anticipated supplement. More weapons/styles etc are always a good thing in a game with a strong combat orientation (sim tendencies who me ?)

If you are taking suggestions may I propose The aformentioned throwing axes, an expanded armor and weapons list. Chain Hauberk is conspicuously absent as are padded gambesons and asketons - and no a sleeved mail shirt is not a Hauberk ;)

And one more question. Will you be including any fancifull or weird weapons? If not then well you will be needing another book

Maybe Paradoxes of Defense :D

I have a personal tendency to "distrust" weird fantasy weapons. Weapons are supposed to be functional, and while I've drawn up a couple of really cool looking weapons inthe past, I want the Flower to stay away from all the bizareness that modern fantasy is absolutely rife with. If I see something really striking and believable, though, I'll go for it.

Throwing axes and hurlbats are a must. Expect to see them.

We tried to keep the armor section pretty minimalist in the core book, as getting into all the bits and pieces and the differences between hauberks and chain shirts (which are minor, all things considered) were left out for playability (we had enough "complicated" stuff without armor thrown in), but we're planning on quite a bit of stuff on armor for the Flower (anyone want to write it, by the way?). Either way expect an expanded weapons and armor list.

The "grey" art overlap looked great on our proofs, as we've mentioned. Not much we can do about it exept remove it in future editions, or find a way around it. Check out the pdfs of the damage and weapon tables on our site--that's how they're supposed to look.

One more thing I'd like to repeat. If there's supplemental stuff that you want but I'm not planning on (such as Klingon War-thingies or whatever) then write up the stuff and I WILL PUT IT ON THE SITE (if it's any good, that is). We have a guy that wrote a theif supplement that we may be posting soon, for example, after we get to tinker with it a little.

The Flower of battle is probably the generally most anticipated supplement, but it's also going to be a horrible amount of work and, truth is, I'm dreading the amount of research I'm gonna have to do to keep the TROS claim to authenticity in whatever form...it's like school work, only it costs money to make and you can only hope it pays off (okay, then, it's exactly like school...)

Jake

OK I agree kewl stuff like Batleth (which are a now a martial arts weapon adopted by the Koreans and supposedly under consideration by Navy Seals <no I am Not Kidding> ) and my three lobed throwing rotary throwing knives belong on the web page.


I will be sending you a few tidbits and guidelines on armor and a couple or three realistic styles for your consideration. ASAP

My aunt owns a batleth.. ST:TNG choreographers did a great job of making it look like a viable weapon, neh? I suppose that's enough to kick off people actually wanted to make something real of it.

Anyhow, I can agree with your tendency to distrust "weird fantasy weaponry" (though my early RPGs were rife with kewl weapons I read about), but what about exotic or unusual real world weapons? Tonfas, kamis and other eastern martial arts weapons? Whips? Blackjacks or saps? Perhaps even the scythe as a combat weapon? I always used to like to create the occasional character who used a scythe, partially for the cool factor, and partially because it's a wicked weapon if used properly.

Also, Book Seven mentions a combat art used by Vedij peasantry.. Are we going to see more on that?

Another point to mention for the new book (or a revision of the core book). The armor listed is a good start, but one thing I'd like to see is a statement for each piece of armor regarding exactly what it covers. That way, when someone rolls on the hit location tables, there's no question as to what is protected and what is not. I didn't see info like that in the core book, but maybe I missed it? I know that common sense plays a big part in this game, but some people need concrete rules. The funny thing about common sense is that it isn't common. ;-)

Brandon

Brandon makes a good point. I've seen various suits of armor in my experiences as a SCAdian, but a lot of gamers have never seen any except what they've seen in the pictures in the game books. It can be kinda difficult to say whether a piece of armor covers an area without this knowledge..

Though, I suppose it's quite possible for a Seneschal to go ahead and make an arbitrary ruling, so long as that ruling is consistent throughout their game.