Having just received the book and quickly read through it I must say I am impressed. There are a few questions that I do have regarding spiritual attributes.

There are two mechanisms for advancement -
successful use of skills
spending spiritual attribute points

Lets say for the purposes of discussion a player creates a character with a Drive 'To be the best swordsman in the world' and over the course of many sessions earns points towards that drive by defeating enemies, learning from master swordsmen etc.

The Drive was initially a 3, through roleplaying and combat the player earns an additional 12 points. Now the Drive is 15.

What happens if the player decides never to spend those points and simply relies on successful use of skills and an increased dice pool to see himself though the game?

At some point does a Drive of 15 that is applicable to combat become more important than raising say a sword proficiency from 6 to 7 by spending 6 points?

My question is must the spiritual attribute points be spent and what happens to the system when they are not?

Thanks,
Steve Danielson

Spiritual Attribute points may never exceed 5 (p 19), except for a few select nationalities such as in Fahal) where certain ones might go higher. Therefore your swordsman character would need to spend points for sure once he hits 5 in any SA. Also note that Insight it only gained when SAs are spent, so if the aforementioned swordsman died without ever having spent a single SA point, his replacement character will start out brand new, without the "consolation prize" for the last character dying or being retired.

Also, even if you could have a Drive of 15 (which you can't), those extra dice would only come in every so often--certainly not in every duel even--making them nice from time to time (very nice from time to time), but not generically helpful.

I hope that helps.

jake

Aha!

I did see limitation on page 19, but when reading it I assumed it only applied to character creation and was not a limit that would carry over once actual play started.


Thanks
Steve

I did see limitation on page 19, but when reading it I assumed it only applied to character creation and was not a limit that would carry over once actual play started.

I did see limitation on page 19, but when reading it I assumed it only applied to character creation and was not a limit that would carry over once actual play started.

I would imagine the 11s are for those ethnic groups who have a bonus to an attribute (+1 Toughness or something)

Also, and this is JUST my opinion, I would force players to pay off the Spiritual Attribute Costs as onelump sum, not over time. I would do this specifically BECAUSE its draining the character.

A lot of RPGs make self-improvement WAY too mechanical. The player decides the character should have something increased, they have enough XP to have it increased, its spent, and Bang, ya got it. There are some variations on this, but this really is a core theme.

This isn't how it works in TROS. For skills, they improve as you use them successfully. Every three successes, you get to roll to see if it improves. This rewards using skills, which is good.

Attributes are for TROS (And most RPGs that have them) something a bit more central to the characters being. How strong or willful or knowlegeable one is, compared to how good he is at say mathematics, is more central to who the character actually is. And from personal experience, I can say that making serious improvements on one's core being is not always easy or pleasant. Sometimes it takes a lot of work, and a lot of struggle. Often, by doing so, other things suffer.

In my view, having a character get KNOCKED in the spiritual attributes simulates this very well. Going from a 9 to a 10 basically means you're approaching maximum human potential. Essentially, perfection. Imagine in real life the kind of total commitment it takes to reach that level. The self-sacrifice and character necessary and determination. Not everyone is willing to do what that takes. They aren't being lazy necessarily; it just doesn't make sense for them to expend that level of effort, even for perfection.

The one lump sum approach puts players in the same dilemma for character development. Sure, a character could move one step closer to human perfection in an area, but the level of focus on that specific thing will mentally and spiritually drain him. In game terms, his Spiritual attributes would get sucked dry, and it would take a few game sessions for him to recover. A player would need to decide if such a vunerability (even if its temporary) is worthwhile to him/her and the character being played.

What will happen if you do this in a TROS game? It would limit the number of characters running around with 10s in their most useful attributes. Sure, it would be useful, but the character was never safe enough that the player was willing to drain him so much. In stead, they would have reasonably high attributes, spread in many different areas, and maybe a few enhanced skills (through a few forced rolls), perhaps a new advantage or a flaw overcome.

What would happen if you let them pay over time, in small doses? You'd have players carefully creating a layaway plan to perfection (assuming there was enough time in the campaign, and they had enough SAs). This would result in more characters with very high attributes, as there wouldn't be as much of a threat of having them pumped up.

In my personal view, the former path of character development is more in line with my vission of how TROS should be played.

Wolfen wrote:

Example: I want to raise my agility from 9 to 10, because I'm just a badass like that. That's going to cost me 22 points.. I only have about 17 points spread across my 5 SAs. I opt to spend 5 points now, and spend a few more over the next several sessions until I have met 22.

Is the above example possible, or must all points be spent at once

I can't speak for Jake, obviously, but it seems to me that it wouldn't matter. I mean, if the attribute isn't going up until you've spent all 22 points, why not just wait until you can spend them all at once, rather than "getting it on Lay-Away"? Not only that, but you'd have to keep track of just how many points you'd put toward that until you'd actually spent enough to increase it.

Just an observation... :-)

Brandon

Rattlehead wrote:

Wolfen wrote:

it seems to me that it wouldn't matter. I mean, if the attribute isn't going up until you've spent all 22 points, why not just wait until you can spend them all at once, rather than "getting it on Lay-Away"? Not only that, but you'd have to keep track of just how many points you'd put toward that until you'd actually spent enough to increase it.

Just an observation... :-)

Brandon

I can (and I also am not speaking for Jacob :) ) think of 2 major advantages to the layaway plan:

1) You never are totally depleted of Spiritual attributes, which you would be (or close to it) if you manages to spend 22 points at once

2) 22 points is a LOT. That means that a Character has 2 fives and three fours in their spiritual attributes. Thats a lot. That takes a long time to save up. Beyond that, I'm guessing that some attributes just won't be luck's draw get upped very much. If someone took a passion: Country of Origin as an SA, but the campaign didn't focus on that much at all, then they'd be hard pressed to get the 2 5s, 3 4s needed. (even if the other 4 SAs were all dealt with)

Also, keep in mind we're talking about the single most extreme purchase in the game: Buying the max value of an attribute. Things SHOULD be a little loopy at the extreme, or rather, the priority should not be consistency there, but consistency in the more attainable ranges.

OK.. having thought about it - and having it pointed out to me.... ;-)

I can see the advantage of the layaway plan. I stand corrected.

Brandon
(Hey, I was sleepy when I posted last.... )

I can see and thought of both sides to the coin, and both make sense to me. I'd probably play it the same way as Nevermet stated, but I'd just like to get Jake's stance on it, for officiality purposes.

I'm not Jake, but...

Oh, wait, I am Jake...

No "Layaway Plan" was ever intended...I'd make you do it in one lump sum, with reasons being roughly identical to those stated by Neverment, above.

BUT that doesn't mean that you can't do it any way you want at home. That's just how I do it.

Jake

The difficulty I have is this:

Imagine that a campaign has moved on in a different direction. Right now we're all helping one of our buddies on his personal quest, a many-adventure epic. My drive & destiny are at a low point, and aren't being exercised. I'm living off my faith, conscience, and luck as I play a supporting character for a time.

This is all well & good, but now there's no way for me to muster 20 points. Say my drive and destiny are at 1s (I spent them at the end of the last epic), the best I can muster w/o layaway is 17.

I don't expect this to come up all that often, but if I was GMing a player with that situation I'd certainly allow him to tuck points away.

-Jeff

Hmm... yeah, I can see how that would get a bit touchy. I can think of two things, though, that make it still 'work' for me.

1) If the GM was planning it to be a campaign cenetered around one character's personal question, he may or may not want to make sure everyone's SAs support that. This goes back to another comment in another thread that making sure everyone's spiritual attributes are complementary is one of the most important things to do before play starts.

2) Chances are, if a character is living off of conscience, faith, and luck in such a campaign, they may very well be getting a lot of it. In my view, I'd like to stick to the "3 to 5 points per session" rule in the book. That means if your character is specifically playing a supporting role (the voice of reason, the conscience of the party, etc), they're SAs will flow from that. In other words, their supply of SAs will be specialized, but not necessarily less, than the 'main character.' The result of this is that the main character will be able to be the one most likely to make the Big Improvements (be the greatest swordsman ever, or whatever), while everyone else get to be a support cast with a ton of moderate-to-good skills and attributes to back him up. If the campaign is really supposed to be based around one character's deeply personal quest, then I would think this overview of who is specialized and who isn't would be a valid one.

And also, yeah... this won't come up very often. The issue of needing all your SAs near maxed only comes up when a character is trying to improve to an 8 or higher in a stat, having a proficiency in the mid teens or higher, or getting rid of aa major flaw. Unless different characters are trying to do one of those things, then this won't be a huge issue in play

Hello,

I would never permit the layaway plan under any circumstances of TROS.

Why are SA's the basis for Insight Points at all? Why not kill-count? Why not accumulated riches? Why not the total of one's attributes and/or skills (as in L5R)?

I trust the answer to this question is clear: reward systems generate value systems. TROS has a distinctive value system: passionate and committed protagonist decision-making is the most important thing.

Therefore, it seems to me, a player who is not playing to his or her SA's has chosen to reduce his or her Insight benefits as a matter of course.

Jaif's example of the character whose Drive and Destiny are not involved illustrates, to me, this very case. No one makes the player bring the character into that story.

I suspect I am seeing an unspoken assumption that the GM preps "the story" and the players line up their PCs to be involved in it. I also think I am seeing the assumption that "just participating," being at the session, should reap equal rewards.

Here are the options, as I see it.

1) A "story" (actually, Situation) shapes up via play. The character stays involved in this story and bluntly, doesn't reap the Insight benefits that he might, because his Drive and Destiny aren't involved. He is, as Jaif said, a secondary character in the story. Hence, he is a secondary character (and the player is a secondary player) in terms of rewards. This strikes me as fair, fine, and desirable - up to and including the distinct difference in how the rewards play out, even though all the characters "participated" in play.

2) The player decides that this Situation isn't for this character, whose Drive and Destiny are about totally other things. The player walks the character away from the action, so to speak, into other action. Now, in some traditional modes of play, this is defiant, angry role-playing: "My guy doesn't wanna!" In TROS, as I conceive it, the story is what the characters do want to do. If someone does this in TROS play, they are not "defying" me as GM. They are simply exercising their perfectly good right as co-author of the overall story, and that's what one of the heroes is doing. I don't think that the "squad" model of character-groups is viable in many settings, and the TROS setting least of all. (If anyone wants to discuss multiple-simultaneous-scene play, I will be happy to explain how easy it is, in an appropriate forum.)

Both of these options seem fine to me.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
SNIP
Therefore, it seems to me, a player who is not playing to his or her SA's has chosen to reduce his or her Insight benefits as a matter of course.

Jaif's example of the character whose Drive and Destiny are not involved illustrates, to me, this very case. No one makes the player bring the character into that story.

I suspect I am seeing an unspoken assumption that the GM preps "the story" and the players line up their PCs to be involved in it. I also think I am seeing the assumption that "just participating," being at the session, should reap equal rewards.

In TROS, as I conceive it, the story is what the characters do want to do. If someone does this in TROS play, they are not "defying" me as GM. They are simply exercising their perfectly good right as co-author of the overall story, and that's what one of the heroes is doing.

I don't think that the "squad" model of character-groups is viable in many settings, and the TROS setting least of all. (If anyone wants to discuss multiple-simultaneous-scene play, I will be happy to explain how easy it is, in an appropriate forum.)

Let me toss a more specific example out there, because I get the sense we use some words (e.g. story) slightly differently.

Imagine the group decides to play a game centered around the cold war between Stahl & Gelure. Everyone, with this setting in mind, makes their characters and does a reasonable job of keeping them consistant to group play.

I make a character who comes from the fallen kingdom of Farrenshire. He has a Drive: Oppose Gelure and Passion: Hatred for the current Military Governor in Farrenshire. Having seen enough carnage and unholy magics to last a lifetime, this character turns to Stahl Atheism in spades. A decent conscience & some luck rounds out this character.

We play many adventures in this setting: revealing Gelure agents in Stahl, tracking down rogue sorcerers heading to join Gelure, the underground railroad from Farrenshire, and so on. Lots of happy-happy sessions.

Another character in the group happened to pick the Prophet as his faith, and plays a relatively faithful but cosmopolitan adventurer. He's always helping, and adds color to the situation.

One day our young Propheteer runs into a wise man of his people. They spend some time around the fire telling tales, when the wise man asks the fatefull question: what did you feel during your pilgramage to Hakhmah? The character is embarassed: he never made his pilgrimage. In fact, he realizes now that he's been avoiding it, and risking death while so doing. He decides to make the pilgrimage.

All the characters decide to come along. No, not a sheep-like maneuver; they're all friends, comrades in arms, and if one of them needs to make a trek of this magnitude, then all will assist. On the flip side, all the players agree this would be a fun excursion, and a welcome change of pace.

Now the players are working this out. It's a many game-session affair, and my character's drive & passion have nothing to do with it. In mechanical terms, my drive & passion are low right now anyway, simply because I've bought up some skills.

So now I'm out playing a supporting role, while the Propheteer guy gets lead for a time. I do a really good job: I come up with some brilliant plans, memorable die-rolls, make tough choices at the right time and follow-through on them, and actually survive many challenges to my faith.

I build up points over the sessions, and soon my luck/passion/conscience are maxed. I want to buy this one attribute up: it's what I've been working towards. But I can't and by the game system I'm forced to spend my points elsewhere (or lose them, I suppose).



Sorry for the length. All I was saying before is that in this situation, where the mechanics smack into decent gaming, as a GM I'd be happy to let a player slide a bit and stash some points away.

Now, if a character is only playing one of his SAs all the time, I can see being dictatorial. But for me there's got to be some flexibility on the GM's part when the system starts to arbitrarily penalize people who are just having fun.

Last point - this is a situation "at the edge". Frankly, the layaway shouldn't be needed at all normally.

-Jeff

Hi everybody,

Jake,
Clinton started the multiple-scene play discussion here in the RPG Theory forum, so c'mon over. Anyone else, too.

Jeff (Jaif),
I see your point, and I also want to say that working this stuff out with you in dialogue is always a pleasure.

I think (if I'm not reading the system wrong) that the solution exists already.

We're talking about the Passion and Destiny attributes being "left out," right? Wouldn't the very fact that the character is, for all intents and purposes, ignoring his Passion and Destiny (the latter being pretty in-character psych and the latter being more metagame-y) lead to those SA's dropping? All the while he's helping his Prophet-worshipping pal, God knows what's going on back in Farrenshire, etc.

So they have an adventure on the way to Hakhmah, and when they're done, our hero has to decide - OK, turn back? Go home and fight the good fight? Or proceed further to this (frankly) heathen place? If he proceeds, drop that Passion.

So I see his Passion and (maybe) Destiny dropping. They might drop to 0. I can see his Passion (loyal to pal) growing. All sorts of things can happen from there: e.g., he might leave Destiny down at 0 and just build it back up again when they get back to war-torn Gelure-fighting again. At the most extreme, the character could change radically.

My real point, though, is for the duration of this excursion or detour, the character's SAs will almost certainly change, starting with a nosedive to 0 for at least one of them. The Passion seems inevitable in this regard; so would a Drive. Destiny is kind of funny, of course; he might find that a black-clad squad of Propheteer horsemen think he's just the coolest, so he brings them back home (which is a kickass Destiny development).

Best,
Ron

Ron's solution is the one that I myself always imagined, but by the same token I think that the "extreme circumstances" layaway plan that you describe has potential. It all goes back to the "make the game what you need it to be" principle, and you're proposal for a layaway plan fits that bill perfectly.

As a side note, that's a pretty cool campaign-in-a-bottle.

Jake

> As a side note, that's a pretty cool campaign-in-a-bottle.

Thanks. I was envisioning all sorts of power-hungry, lackluster leadership on all sides. Gelure expands, grabs a lot of land, and then Uglub portions it out amongst his people. The truth is, though, he expanded on the backs of sorcerers, and these are a bunch of driven & powerful folk who are tough to please. Furthermore, since sorcery costs so much, the sorcerers tend to pass on jobs unless it means something to them personally.

As for Stahl, they have their own problems. As a nation they are almost unbeatable physically, but they lack a unified will.

My personal hangup with the campaign so far is how to stop Uglub's (or anybody's) sorcery. A sorcerer can kill someone at a range instantly, which is a tough act to balance. It becomes tougher when you realize that a demon can probably wipe out the population of a castle without much trouble.

I think part of my solution is to detail every one of Uglub's sorcerers, say all 35 or 40 of them. Not all of them will be "PC level", and some will be much more powerfull. Furthermore, there ambitions will hopefully have a self-balancing effect.

Still, I need to think of how sorcerers are opposed consistantly, both by each other and by humans with means.

-Jeff

Jaif wrote: Still, I need to think of how sorcerers are opposed consistantly, both by each other and by humans with means.

How do sorcerers live forever.
Magic cannot reverse aging and sorcerers age by casting magic (and by living if they are not Fey).
Do people think it is reasonable to have a spell that slows or stops human aging?

OllyG wrote: Do people think it is reasonable to have a spell that slows or stops human aging?

Sneaky Git wrote:

OllyG wrote: Do people think it is reasonable to have a spell that slows or stops human aging?

Not as far as I understand the rules.. If you accept the rules of nature as represented in TROS to be fact, then I would say that's a no-no.

BrianL wrote: For example, some of the folk on here have proposed body transferral spells, allowing an aged sorceror to find a (gifted) youth and take over their body, thus lengthening his life that way.

If I'm not mistaken, the fellow in the story that you're talking about isn't exactly human. Isn't he some supernatural sort? Been a while since I've read this particular part of the backstory, but he's supposed to be one of "The Nine" or something. I think.... Then again, my voice could be muffled - because I could be talking out of my ass.....

Brandon

Rattlehead wrote: If I'm not mistaken, the fellow in the story that you're talking about isn't exactly human. Isn't he some supernatural sort? Been a while since I've read this particular part of the backstory, but he's supposed to be one of "The Nine" or something. I think.... Then again, my voice could be muffled - because I could be talking out of my ass.....

Brandon

Only the wise live so long.. Methinks he was wise, and Fey. Remember, you only age if you FAIL to resist your aging roll....

Rolls, not roll. VERY big difference.

Lyrax wrote: Rolls, not roll. VERY big difference.