Hi everybody,

Christopher here, recently lurking, but now too curious to hold back.

I've plowed through the RPG.net Thread. I've read everything here. (Except, perhaps, Ron's review? I thought he had written one, but don't know where it is.)

Now. I don't have a gaming group. Still want to play Sorcerer. Waiting for HeroQuest. And don't have any time anyway. So I'm probably not running out to order this game. Nor did I happen to bump into it a WotC today, so I can't flip through it at the store... But all this enthusiasm from so many bright folks has peaked my curiosity. So I must ask: What is it about this game that's making everyone jump up and down?

As far as I can tell, it's like one of my fave games (Pendragon), in that it uses Passions (but in a much more proactive way, for both character actions and storyline); it's got a really cool combat mechanic and moody, powerful and downright wonderfully old fashioned (pre-D&D) magic system; and it's got a vague this from our earth is this on Weyrth kind of action going (homebrew D&D campaign via Ars Magica strained through RuneQuest).

(Note: by referencing the games above am not I assuming Jake immitated anything -- or even heard of the games mentioned. (Though he has admitted a fondness for Pendragon. Good man. Such taste confirms my opinion of him from his posts -- a gentleman and a scholar!) There's no hostility here. The man's clearly done the job right. I'm just looking for more info.)

Now: since my half-assed summation of the game gleaned from a few hundreds posts (most of them about combat mechanics) is probably way off, can anyone actually summarize why the Ga-Ga? I'm really curious. What is it about the feel, the texture of play, the something?

As far as I can tell, it's this: Riddle of Steel is the version of D&D I would have loved to run when I was in high school if the game had existed in high school. That is, a FRPG with exciting (and rational) combat resoultion, magic that's much more than a gun-of-a-different-color, an emotinally driven character and story framework, set in a campaign cobbled together from flipping through my family's Britannica.

Yes? No? Discuss.

Thanks,

Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote: As far as I can tell, it's this: Riddle of Steel is the version of D&D I would have loved to run when I was in high school if the game had existed in high school. That is, a FRPG with exciting (and rational) combat resoultion, magic that's much more than a gun-of-a-different-color, an emotinally driven character and story framework, set in a campaign cobbled together from flipping through my family's Britannica.

Why TRoS?

For me, it's because it's a fantasy roleplaying game done right. I detest AD&D 2nd Ed. though I like 3rd Ed. to some extent, although the *major* gripes I had with AD&D 2nd Ed. are still there (ie, level-based, character-classes, etc.)

TRoS manages to avoid all of the pitfalls of D&D, while capturing many of the aspects I like about other games, and meshing them together in a really unique way. The format is still rough, but it's an awe-inspiring start.

As a disclaimer, though, I've not managed yet to run this game. I've fought precisely 3 duels, 2 online -vs- the esteemed Rattlehead, and one -vs- a friend I managed to bully into making a character. (Notice: the bullying paid off.. He likes the game well enough to help me sell it to the rest of the gaming group) However, any game that hooks me so intensely just from reading rules has got to be fun in the playing as well as the reading.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Hi everybody,
As far as I can tell, it's this: Riddle of Steel is the version of D&D I would have loved to run when I was in high school if the game had existed in high school. That is, a FRPG with exciting (and rational) combat resoultion, magic that's much more than a gun-of-a-different-color, an emotinally driven character and story framework, set in a campaign cobbled together from flipping through my family's Britannica.
Christopher

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the replies so far.

Nick,

I can see how you might have attached a negative connotation to my question, but I don't think I meant it that way. (When I refer to high school, I'm referring to the time I enjoyed RPGs the most, had the most free-wheeling, emotionally based adventures, in a vaguely European fantasy setting.)

Since many of the folks on this board (in particular) had enjoyed the early games of gaming with DnD, let alone AD&D, I was wondering if there is a kind of retro-nostalgiac appeal to TRoS -- or whether or not it stands on its own as something really unique. (Remember, a lot of people had been gushing over without having played it yet, so there had to be something in the basic feel of the game that stirred something within the heart beyond the basic use of mechanics.)

Ron, quoted on the Driftwood website, refers to RuneQuest (and places it in a historical context going back 20 years). I didn't play RuneQuest, but again, to my mind, it seemed to harken back to something.

I'm not saying it doesn't to more than harken back, but on reading the posts, I was struck that in my imagination I didn't think, "Wow, this is new," but, "Wow, this is old, but really done well."

So, it's not a matter of TRoS being a pefect game for high school. It's that when I read about it, it stirred memories of gaming in high school -- because that's when I last played AD&D.

Now when I read Ron's Sorcerer & Sword, I didn't think of AD&D at all. I suspect now if I were to read TRoS, I might suddenly think more of S&S and not at all about AD&D -- and those old fantasy pulp stories in general.

But I still am curious about the retro-nostalgia issue. Is part of the appeal that it's a FRPG done right? Is it D&D without being annoying. Or is it something really unique on it's own? And if so, what?

(Or, Ron, am I a fool for asking this without reading the book first?)

Thanks,

Christopher

ok. Now I understand what you meant. Sorry about being slow :-)

Short answer: Yes, you're right


Long answer:
To answer your question, in my perspective on TROS, yes, the appeal of it is that it is a FRPG that is done well. Making a relatively low-powered fantasy setting where combat is lethal and magic is powerful is not exactly the most undiscovered country in roleplaying. With that being said, though, TROS proves its the 'little things' that make an RPG. For example, I'm sure a lot of players think Spiritual attributes are a cute little detail, not realizing how much they can govern a game until a session or two into TROS. Same thing about making strategy a major factor in combat.

I wish I could remember exactly how Ron described the game to me after seeing it at the GAMA Trade Show. It was something like this:

"Here we are, all us new and innovative designers making games with Authorial this and Directorial that, and trying to move away from the RuneQuest paradigm of the 1980's, and here's one guy standing up saying, 'Hey, guys - I'm not done with this yet. I think I'd rather make a great game based on these principles rather than giving up and moving to new stuff.'"

That doesn't even sound as good as he said it, but that's what I get from the game - awesome mid-80's/early-90's sensibility with a hot injection of sleek combat mechanics and a system that supports Narrativism like a screaming engine. On top of that - well, it's made for combat, and as much as you'll see people wiffle-waffle on combat, there's a good reason it's the focus of a large amount of RPGs.

Great. Now. My digging in deeper to the question.

When it comes to movies, a movie can be great, but you don't know that until you see it. And you don't see it unless you want to see it -- and technically, you want to see it without knowing you're going to like it or not.

So why does anyone go to a specific movie if they have no idea what they're getting into? Because there's something about the concept -- whether via the poster, the trailer, the word of mouth -- that conveys some tiny nugget of something about the movie that makes you go, "Oh, that flash of an idea seems like something I'd like to see unfold for 90 minutes." And so you go.

TRoS will soon hit the shelves. Having just been at a WotC yesterday, looking at all the pretty hardcover FRPGs that are marked down by 50%, I couldn't help but think TRoS would get lost in the same mess... But clearly it's really good. But how to distinguish it from other FRPGs. Yes, we only truly know a game once we play it.... But it doesn't get played unless it's bought (or demoed at a con). So, what is the "nugget" of the idea that you tell somebody about this game? What makes somebody go, "Yes."

Cause you can't just say, "It's really good." Every fan of every movie says that, but that doesn't move me to see his favorite movie. It's what about that movie that's good that might or might not appeal to me that gets me to buy a ticket.

Again, too many RPG coffee table books is bad.... Promotion without content is a bad thing. But conent without the hook is almost as bad (for the producer, not the consumer.)

While I appreciate Ron's comments that you quoted Clinton, most people who play RPGs aren't thinking in a historical context when making a game purchase. They're thinking, "Why am I going to have fun playing this game now.

And so my question: Why Riddle of Steel?

Thanks,
Christopher

Because what was the last really good gritty fantasy RPG to hit the market and make an impact? Warhammer? Elric & other MM-based stuff? The riddle of steel is an option for those who like their FRPGs to be focus on a set of concepts. The Riddle of Steel is one of the torchbearers on that red-headed step child of 'dark' fantasy that has lived in the shadow of its brother, 'Epic' fantasy for most of this hobby's existence.

Alternatively, the answer really comes down to, "because _I_ think its cool." All rational arguments will be cenetered on this simple statement: I read it, I thought it was good, and tons of ideas for campaigns and characters came to mind. Inevitably, thats at the core of almost every argument of "why this particular RPG?" Now, backing up from that position, I could give an incredibly personal narrative about the fact I enjoy fantasy RPGs in general, that I was always the guy who enjoyed making the single-classed fighter because I could think of character concepts for that easily, and how my interests started shifting to a low-fantasy style... and then how TROS perfectly fit into what I had already come to love in RPGs. I won't, though, because I just summarized the useful bits, and the rest would just be babble :)

Christopher,

I think the answer to that depends on who you're trying to convey it to: there's several interesting things about RoS that different people would be interested in. Here's some blurbs from me:

- It's got the first combat system that claims to be realistic - and actually is - and is quick at the same time.

- Your success in a situation is dependent on not only how skilled you are, but how much you care about the situation.

- The magic system is unlike any other, and horrifying to boot. Magicians wield godlike power, at the expense of their life.

I'd say the premise is what gets me; unlike many other settings and systems its not the usual, "Fight the super bad evil" or "oh! my angst! Where is redemption?", but instead with the spiritual attributes it becomes
"What do YOU believe in, what are you willing to do for it, and what is right(or acceptable costs) to you in acheiving that?" That's a big question. That's why the first thing you develop in a character is philosophy.

The gritty combat certainly is fun, but it underscores the question in that,"Are you willing to kill for this? Are you willing to die for it?" and no, there is no resurrection. Time to make tough decisions and deal with it.

This is what Runequest tried to do, but the mechanics didn't support protagonization. Here the focus is on the characters. Not the background, not the politics of a metaplot, just the characters. Each player counts and is the hero of this story, and their spiritual attributes are the "Here's why" of it.

So, in a way, you can say ROS, despite its gritty combat, does heroic protagonization far better than being able to withstand fighting armies of thousands with 4 digit hitpoints. ROS does the "I'm the hero" bit far better than D&D ever will.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: "Fight the super bad evil" or "oh! my angst! Where is redemption?"

I don't know if I can explain why I fell in love with RoS. I was very much intrigued when I read the RTC example on the website, but it was when I read the book that I really, really started to love this game. I have not played it, but I *know* I will enjoy it. It's like the Star Wars movies.. You may not have seen the new ones yet, but you know you'll enjoy them.. The only variance is in how *much* you will.

(side note: I saw SWE2 at midnight this morning... KICK ASS!!!)

For me, it comes down to being a fantasy nut. I love fantasy, and desire to roleplay in a fantasy setting more than any other setting. The default option for this is D&D, which I came to despise after playing various other systems out there... Not for the settings or the type of stories it portrayed, but purely for the system. But it's really the only game out there, unless you know about the various indie-games, or the older games which didn't "make it". TRoS is to me, new, and better than D&D ever could be. I'd enjoy it even without the comparison to D&D, but I guess I have to admit that my dislike for D&D just plays up the things about RoS that I like.
Also, any game where I find it difficult to read because of story and character ideas which ceaselessly pop into my head has got to be great, by my reckoning.

For "hook" purposes... From my own standpoint, a lot of the hook is the realism of combat, the grittiness of play, and the versatility of sorcery. From another angle, it's also the fact that it's not D&D. If you really, truly like D&D, and would rather play that for it's own sake, rather than because it's "the only game in town" then you will not like TRoS very much. If, on the other hand, you play D&D because it's the most well-known and most often played fantasy RPG, then you may just find TRoS a very, very nice change.

Wolfen wrote: If you really, truly like D&D, and would rather play that for it's own sake, rather than because it's "the only game in town" then you will not like TRoS very much.

I am new to TROS, still at the point of reading & grasping the mechanics, but I can speak on what grasped my interest in TROS. My understanding was that the game strove for realism in the combat system, emphasizing accurate western martial arts. Most rpg's focus on blanance and glitz over realism, for me that "gritty" realism TROS goes for sets it apart from other systems. Other games lose the feel for what a given weapon or combat style is like... the magic "plusses" are all differentiate the weapons in most other systems, by and large. A few games do add detail but with complexity and questionable realism, but this is the first one I have seen that seriously considers the merits of individual weapons & combat styles.

I am only focusing on one aspect of TROS, but for me it answers the question of "why TROS?" at least from the standpoint of initial interest. I can see the game has a heck of a lot more depth than just the combat, but having sampled over a score of rpg's & systems the "hook" for TROS that grabbed me was the emphasis on realism in the combats (with historical weapons & combat styles). I don't think any other system has touched the subject of how and why some of these weapons were really used, such as "halfswording" with a two-hander in close. I look forward to expansion along this theme in the "Flower of Battle" supplement when it comes out, but that would be a topic for another thread I think...

While I was washing the dishes tonight, I've been thinking about the question Christopher posed with this thread. While I appreciate everyone chiming in with their feelings, I decided to tell you what I thought.

First of all, you all know that I am a staunch believer in the idea that in order to get people to play, you have to hook their emotions into it. Everyone so far have given some very passionate responses in this thread, but I've been 'listening between the lines.'

I've also been listening to Jake 'defend' his creation. First against being GNS labeled, and then against being too deadly. Back here Jake said, "In TROS we're trying to create adventure stories...look at all your favorite books and movies, the ones that you look to for inspiration when you game, and you'll find that all of them completely support the way TROS runs, and not the 'other FRPGs.'" You know what?

I think he's wrong.

In fact, it's exactly how he's wrong that makes The Riddle of Steel so attractive. Let me explain. First a quote from farther up....

Clinton R Nixon wrote: - It's got the first combat system that claims to be realistic - and actually is - and is quick at the same time.

Wolfen wrote: From my own standpoint, a lot of the hook is the realism of combat, the grittiness of play

Le Joueur wrote: In fact, it's exactly how he's wrong that makes The Riddle of Steel so attractive. Let me explain. First a quote from farther up....

Clinton R Nixon wrote: - It's got the first combat system that claims to be realistic - and actually is - and is quick at the same time.

I'll have to take this as gospel, between here, Jake's site itself, and all the 'realism' talk; I haven't played the game (I can't afford it) so I don't know for sure.

The point that needs to be made is that "adventure stories" and favored books and movies rarely, if ever, have 'realistic' combat. They just don't; it's either too complicated to describe or just plain, well...plain. 'Real' combat would look boring in comparison to watching those Jedi go at it, and the movie makers know it. Simply put, if realistic combat isn't the opposite of "adventure stories" dramatic confrontation, the two are at least utterly unrelated. Which brings me to another quote....

Fang Langford

Adventure novels and movies have varying degrees of realism. tRoS should be seen as being on the high end of fantasy/adventure realism, but is still not even really close to real combat. At leat I'm not an ever-growing bag of "hitpoints" any more. :)

Jake Norwood wrote:

Adventure novels and movies have varying degrees of realism. tRoS should be seen as being on the high end of fantasy/adventure realism, but is still not even really close to real combat. At leat I'm not an ever-growing bag of "hitpoints" any more. :)

I realize that this is not an insult, flame, or challenge (nor is it viewed as such) but I felt that I wanted real fast to say why it is that TROS combat is the "most realistic" RPG combat system (or, for those of us that are more conservative or don't believe in the "most" of anything, we'll say very very very realistic).

The most obvious difference is hit points...or rather their lack, along with no "abstract" wounding really at all, but rather hundreds of real, tangible, describable wounds.
The second point is the attack-defense dynamic, or that players respond to each other's actions and die-choices instead of just rolling against a skill
The third is not only the presence of maneuvers, but the fact that every maneuver is historically attested to. I can preform any one of them for you at any time.
The fourth is the grouping of weapons into schools and the way that defaults word off of each other. These schools come from real-world fighting styles and are not "invented" by the designer, but rather researched and practiced by him (er, me). I train daily, sometimes for several hours (though this forum and writing for Driftwood has cut down on that time).
The fifth is the way that weapons are statistically depicted, playing on the real-world strengths and weaknesses of each weapon with the most accurate data available, including actual use and handling.
The sixth is the Combat Pool set-up, or rather that it comes from a combination of training, mental quickness, and nimbleness of body.
The seventh is the emphasis on thought and strategy, allowing each fighter to develop a personal "style" of fighting, as well as forcing players to adapt to other, different styles.
The eighth is footwork, terrain, and range, all handled in a quick-but-realistic manner that facilitates fighting instead of hampering it.
The ninth is the effect of someone's emotional state on how they fight, via the Spiritual Attributes.
The tenth...oh you get the idea...

My point is not that all of these things are individually exceptional (although some of them are close to it), but rather it is the smooth and rather seamless combination of these qualities that makes TROS combat so realistic.

Is it real combat? Hell no. Is it close to the real thing? As close as you'll get on a table with paper and dice. Could it one day be surpassed? Sure, and I'll be one of the guys trying.

Anyway, there's a lot of talk about the "realism" in TROS combat, and I just figured that I'd explain what was meant by "realism" in RPG combat.

Jake

Bob Richter wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: In fact, it's exactly how he's wrong that makes The Riddle of Steel so attractive. Let me explain. First a quote from farther up....

Clinton R Nixon wrote: It's got the first combat system that claims to be realistic - and actually is - and is quick at the same time.

I'll have to take this as gospel, between here, Jake's site itself, and all the 'realism' talk; I haven't played the game (I can't afford it) so I don't know for sure.

The point that needs to be made is that "adventure stories" and favored books and movies rarely, if ever, have 'realistic' combat. They just don't; it's either too complicated to describe or just plain, well...plain. 'Real' combat would look boring in comparison to watching those Jedi go at it, and the movie makers know it. Simply put, if realistic combat isn't the opposite of "adventure stories" dramatic confrontation, the two are at least utterly unrelated. Which brings me to another quote....

Jedi Lightsaber combat (in the newer movies -- the old choreography was terrible beyond belief and I'd rather NOT watch it.) is "realistic," but only because it has Jedi in it. Jedi can forsee each others' moves, making defense easy and attack difficult.

Le Joueur wrote:

Bob Richter wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: In fact, it's exactly how he's wrong that makes The Riddle of Steel so attractive. Let me explain. First a quote from farther up....

Clinton R Nixon wrote: It's got the first combat system that claims to be realistic - and actually is - and is quick at the same time.

I'll have to take this as gospel, between here, Jake's site itself, and all the 'realism' talk; I haven't played the game (I can't afford it) so I don't know for sure.

The point that needs to be made is that "adventure stories" and favored books and movies rarely, if ever, have 'realistic' combat. They just don't; it's either too complicated to describe or just plain, well...plain. 'Real' combat would look boring in comparison to watching those Jedi go at it, and the movie makers know it. Simply put, if realistic combat isn't the opposite of "adventure stories" dramatic confrontation, the two are at least utterly unrelated. Which brings me to another quote....

Jedi Lightsaber combat (in the newer movies -- the old choreography was terrible beyond belief and I'd rather NOT watch it.) is "realistic," but only because it has Jedi in it. Jedi can forsee each others' moves, making defense easy and attack difficult.

Forseeing each others' moves? Jedi? Lightsabres? Realistic?

What world do you live in? I've never seen any of them in the really real world. I think Jake will attest that all the grasshopper flips and other 'Hong Kong Fight Movie' conventions happen nowhere in the really real world.

And that's exactly what I was saying. You can't deliver that (Jedi action) to the players without it seeming, I dunno, unreal. The 'realism' in Jake's game is just something you can almost 'touch.' He makes a good point out of it rising out of his own personal experience. You can't beat that for 'pulling in the players.'

And you'll never get that out of a book (or movie); they're more concerned with the 'decorative' quality of the product (than the 'entrenching realism').

Fang Langford

Bob Richter wrote: In fact, the two are SO closely related that me and my buddies are working on porting the world of Star Wars-- Jedi, Lightsabers, Force and all-- into the tRoS system.

Me too me too! The fact is that I really want to do this, too, but don't have the time. So, uh, send me your notes, huh.

Jake

Eh, time for me to get in on this.

Why Riddle of Steel?

Short Version: Weyrth!

Long Version: Aside from quick character generation, the most realistic combat I have ever experienced, the least arbitrarily restrictive and most intuitive magic system I have seen, the ability to start out as a character who is not level one and must slay ten thousand rats in order to get to level two, what draws me in the most about The Riddle of Steel is the game world. It is almost real, a world full of superstition and people, less full of magic, orcs and (Heaven Forbid!) +1 longswords. Gritty? Yes, just like Tolkien would have wanted it (remember that almost everything about our "fantasy" genre is Tolkinesque). Optimistic? It can be. Deathtrap? No, this isn't a Cthulhu game.

The magic (or lack thereof) is really what makes the game world interesting.

Shoot. This thread evolved. Oh well, I'll just put in two scents about that too. (sic intended)

Realism: I have never cast a spell. I never will. But if it WERE to be possible, this is the way I'd want to do it. Similarly, Gandalf the Grey isn't anywhere on this earth. Yet, on Middle-Earth, he is real. The ring is real there, too, and it isn't realistic because you will find sorcerors running around tossing magic rings to hobbits with abandon, but because it COULD happen. If the world were only a little bit different. Frodo acts like a real person (a real driven person). Zifnab acts like a... okay, bad example. But Haplo and Alfred act like real people. Same with Anakin, Obi-Wan and Palpatine. They are real people in a different world, but because of that, they make the world seem real. Yes, Jedi Knights can deflect laser blasts with light sabers, but it makes sense for them to do so. Why? Because:
A) Light sabers exist.
B) Blasters exist.
C) Their attunement to The Force allows them to predict where the next blast will be.
D) They have trained their entire lives for this.

Now, I can't do any of the things they do, so for me, it is unrealistic. But for a Jedi Knight, it is more than possible. There are, naturally, limits to all this. Jedi Knights cannot "cast Fireball" or use "Ki energy blasts" or Teleport from one place to another. Why not? It isn't realistic... for them.

The Riddle of Steel is realistic, yet it isn't. Fey-elves cannot exist in real life, yet here are the stats for them! But it is realistic because it could exist, and it wouldn't take an excessive amount of twisting to get the world there.

Bob Richter wrote: Verisimilitude doesn't have to align with the "really real" world, just with the "really real" world "as modified THUS..."

Actually, I happen to know for a fact that Jake has never fought for his life behind a longsword.

Also, I know that Tolkien never went on a quest to Mount Doom, but his book invokes that same "real" feeling (at least for me).

But thanks for clarifying where you stand.

Le Joueur wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: Verisimilitude doesn't have to align with the "really real" world, just with the "really real" world "as modified THUS..."

That has little to do with the point I was making. The question was "Why The Riddle of Steel?" Based on so many comments on 'realism'¹, I pointed out that books and movies don't compare to actually holding a blade and fighting for your life. There's simply no way they can. (1) The Riddle of Steel does compare. It's that quality that shines through given that the author has really 'been there.'

Like no other game, The Riddle of Steel 'puts you in the driver's seat.' How? (2) Because it was written by someone who does it for real. Now unless you have some Jedi game designers hidden in your sock, no matter how hard you try, it can't be done; no one has ever been there. That's the difference. (Heck, even starting with The Riddle of Steel puts you way ahead.)

(3) Corollary to this has to do with how this won't happen with other designers (Okay "won't" is a bit strong, I mean anything is possible right?), what experience will their games be based on? How will the difference show? That's the difference.

(4) It is the quality of being 'put in the driver's seat' that I am arguing is the strength of The Riddle of Steel. That it's combat won't be as 'epic' or 'eye-catching' or 'cool' as in movies or books is exactly because it's gritty and dirty and 'real'¹. Verisimilitude can go buy you socks next time; there's just something intrinsically 'real'¹ that I can't describe or explain or point to, it's just there. And I argue it's there because of who designed it.

(5)So it's not a matter of how well it "aligns" with reality, it's the 'feel' of it. The 'feel' of it reaching out and putting you in the situation. It comes somewhere from the gritty, dirty, 'real'¹ details because the author has 'been there.' And this conflicts with his own statements that the combat is 'just like in books and mvies.'

That was the point I was making. I care little how 'realistic'¹ it is or isn't.

Fang Langford

(6)¹ There's realism (things that are meant to evoke the sensation of reality), realistic (things that have 'the look' of being real), verisimilitude (things that work together in a self-consistent fashion parallel to the self-consistency of reality), and then there's 'the real thing' (actually doing it, for real; or as I like to swipe from The Crow, "the really real world"). Reality doesn't come from realism, or being realistic, and verisimilitude can never evoke the feeling of 'being there.' (7)But it is possible to get 'the feel' of reality even without being realistic, having realism, or even supporting verisimilitude. How? Everyone has a different answer.

Okay, my inner snipe is coming to the surface, but I'll try to be nice..

Bob Richter wrote: (2) I'm as much a Jedi as Jake is a sword-fighter. I'll bet a million to one he's never faced an opponent with blade bare and sharp and fought for his life. He's studied real-world fighting and tried to create a "realistic" set of game mechanics to simulate it.

Bob Richter wrote: So there are no Jedi.
So there is no Force.

Lyrax wrote: I have never cast a spell. I never will...

Fey-elves cannot exist in real life,

Bob Richter wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: Verisimilitude doesn't have to align with the "really real" world, just with the "really real" world "as modified THUS..."

That has little to do with the point I was making.

(parenthetical numbers mine, added to decrease confusion.)

• No it doesn't. Combat in tRoS reminds me of nothing so much as a fight choreography jam session and really in no way of the fights I've had in real life. It's all fun and games, and there's no way to break down that final barrier. There's also no reason you'd ever WANT to.

• I'm as much a Jedi as Jake is a sword-fighter. I'll bet a million to one he's never faced an opponent with blade bare and sharp and fought for his life. He's studied real-world fighting and tried to create a "realistic" set of game mechanics to simulate it.

• I've never been in a sword fight, or even devoted to it the same extensive study Jake has. I don't even own fencing gear and have never fenced with foil, sabre, or rapier. Nevertheless, I've had very similar concepts batting around in my brain for years. Those of us who've studied real combat will never be satisfied with hitpoints and vague ideas of "I attack him with my sword."

• Yes, in the driver's seat, so far as the driver is miles away from the car. RPGs can never give you the feeling of BEING THE CAR, and if they do, YOU NEED MENTAL HELP. Combat in tRoS *IS* eye-catching and epic and cool (which hitpoints are not.) That's part of its appeal.

• But the combat *IS* just like that in the best books and movies: a fight with a master choreographer's touch.

• Mince word however you like, you will never get reality from paper and dice. The best you can get is VERISIMILITUDE, or the simulation of the real. This is what happens when Jay tosses a punch past Frank's nose, Rob breaks a board, and frank clutches his face and screams. The only thing that sounds like Jay breaking Frank's nose is Jay breaking Frank's nose. The only thing that LOOKS like Jay breaking Frank's nose is Jay breaking Frank's nose.

And the only way to know what it's like to be Frank or Jay is to *BE* Frank or Jay.

• It's never possible to get the feel of reality without willful suspension of disbelief. How and when you choose to suspend your disbelief is up to you, but I like to demand verisimilitude as a minimum stricture.

Le Joueur wrote:

Bob Richter wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: Verisimilitude doesn't have to align with the "really real" world, just with the "really real" world "as modified THUS..."

That has little to do with the point I was making.

(parenthetical numbers mine, added to decrease confusion.)

• No it doesn't. Combat in tRoS reminds me of nothing so much as a fight choreography jam session and really in no way of the fights I've had in real life. It's all fun and games, and there's no way to break down that final barrier. There's also no reason you'd ever WANT to.

• I'm as much a Jedi as Jake is a sword-fighter. I'll bet a million to one he's never faced an opponent with blade bare and sharp and fought for his life. He's studied real-world fighting and tried to create a "realistic" set of game mechanics to simulate it.

• I've never been in a sword fight, or even devoted to it the same extensive study Jake has. I don't even own fencing gear and have never fenced with foil, sabre, or rapier. Nevertheless, I've had very similar concepts batting around in my brain for years. Those of us who've studied real combat will never be satisfied with hitpoints and vague ideas of "I attack him with my sword."

• Yes, in the driver's seat, so far as the driver is miles away from the car. RPGs can never give you the feeling of BEING THE CAR, and if they do, YOU NEED MENTAL HELP. Combat in tRoS *IS* eye-catching and epic and cool (which hitpoints are not.) That's part of its appeal.

• But the combat *IS* just like that in the best books and movies: a fight with a master choreographer's touch.

• Mince word however you like, you will never get reality from paper and dice. The best you can get is VERISIMILITUDE, or the simulation of the real. This is what happens when Jay tosses a punch past Frank's nose, Rob breaks a board, and frank clutches his face and screams. The only thing that sounds like Jay breaking Frank's nose is Jay breaking Frank's nose. The only thing that LOOKS like Jay breaking Frank's nose is Jay breaking Frank's nose.

And the only way to know what it's like to be Frank or Jay is to *BE* Frank or Jay.

• It's never possible to get the feel of reality without willful suspension of disbelief. How and when you choose to suspend your disbelief is up to you, but I like to demand verisimilitude as a minimum stricture.

First of all, you missed the part where I said, in my opinion way up farther. This is not some definitive answer to the threads question, just mine. To wit, clarifications.

Okay, by the numbers:

• Of course "there's no way to break down that final barrier;" don't be absurd, that isn't what I am saying. What I speak of is how close this comes relative to anything else published. What I keep trying to clarify is that I am not talking about 'realism.'

By your own admission, "I've never been in a sword fight...I don't even own fencing gear and have never fenced with foil, sabre, or rapier." Jake has; as a self-confessed "avid practitioner of European Medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts" and, I believe, a practicing member of The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, I think he's had plenty of 'live steel' experience, or as close as anyone comes (short of the 'fraternity' I read about in England) these days. (Not to mention that it's the only role-playing game ever approved by The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts; if they don't have experience in live steel, I don't know who has.) It's a quantum leap or two from where you or I sit (well, me at least).

• It should be clear by the above that since Jake actually practices this. Whether he's held bare steel in a battle for his life is trivial when compared to the fact that you don't even live in a universe where light sabres function. I'd say he's plenty more a swordsman than you've ever been a Jedi.

So I'd say that's a lot more than most game designers mean when they say they've "studied real-world fighting."

• Similar as much as your ideas may be, I am trying to say his experience shows through in his design in such subtle and pervasive ways that only luck could put in your or my work.

• It doesn't matter how much you split hairs, I'm not talking about 'realism.' So what if you aren't in a real car? Crazy Taxi puts you a lot closer to 'in the driver's seat' than Car Wars ever did, regardless of how 'real' it is. The point I am making is not the 'realism,' but the proximity.

And I have to say that now we're talking about two different kinds of "cool." There's the 'getting drawn into it' cool and there's 'watching Jackie Chan' cool. The Riddle of Steel is one, but definitely not the other (at least not yet).

• We're going to just have to disagree on this one. I have yet to find a book that portrays combat with any of the engaging detail or specificity that The Riddle of Steel does. And all I can say is that movies are set up to look better than an elegant or engaging combat would (being a visual medium).

• I still have to say that the appeal of The Riddle of Steel is not the accuracy or verisimilitude or 'realism,' but how all of that is used to engage the player. I don't know why I am having so much trouble getting past the 'is it real or not' argument with you when all I have been saying is that that isn't the issue; it's how the [whatever you want to call it] is used to engage the players, not how much of [whatever you want to call it] The Riddle of Steel has.

• That's quite true, there is a verisimilitude there (or a realism, or whatever you want to call it). It's just that isn't the central feature. It may look like it; it may even be advertised as that, but many games have done and said the exact same thing. Yet none of them had the experiences (like Jake has had) to color them.

It's not 'how real' a game is, but how the 'realness' is used as a feature of the game. I am surprised so many writers get that wrong. A better simulation or emulation of reality does not inherently make a better game. Even verisimilitude, as important as it is made out to be, is pointless unless it makes the game better.

What I have been saying is that, by depending on his own experiences, Jake has tapped into an essence of [whatever you want to call it] that colors how his game is engaging. He didn't just 'stick' it in there; this quality is subservient to what makes the game engaging yet an important part of it.

Theoretically the same could be done for old-time movie serials, like George Lucas claims to want to make. If you could capture that essence and then put it wholly in the service of what makes a game engaging, you would have a better game than one that simply makes a point of 'being like' those serials. It's a subtle distinction (being 'serial' versus being engaging via 'serialness'), but I think the important one that answers "Why The Riddle of Steel?" for me as a game designer.

Fang Langford

Bob Wrote:

2) Being TRAINED in a martial art-- and practicing it as a martial art-- is still a million miles away from actually FIGHTING, though it is closer than most of us ever get. As Jake understands the principles of swordsmanship, so do I understand the principles of the force. Sure, he's had more PRACTICE using a sword, but not ever in a _truly_ realistic fashion. :)

Jake Norwood wrote: Bob Wrote:

2) Being TRAINED in a martial art-- and practicing it as a martial art-- is still a million miles away from actually FIGHTING, though it is closer than most of us ever get. As Jake understands the principles of swordsmanship, so do I understand the principles of the force. Sure, he's had more PRACTICE using a sword, but not ever in a _truly_ realistic fashion. :)

Okay, we've got a lot of discussion about what I do or don't know going on here, so I figured I should finally come in on this. Yes, I have fought, swung, and defended myself against a piece of steel at full speed. Several times. No, my opponent wasn't *trying* to kill me, but he did strike with full intent, speed, etc. If I didn't counter correctly, I'd be dead or badly wounded (and, for the record, not just "scratched").

I train anywhere from 6-10 hours a week. I train with wooden wasters--the western equivalent to bokken during most of my work with other partners. All of my solo work is done with steel--not wall-hangers, but well-made and functional swords. I regularly cut and work at the pell. I also spar *a lot.* I am an ARMA certified Free-Scholar, proficient in the Longsword, greatsword, and Cut-and-thrust styles. I have dabbled in English staff, rondel fighting, german grappling and knife fighting, and sword-and-shield (by "dabbling" I mean that I can beat any untrained person any time, assuming bad luck doesn't step in). I am the head of the ARMA in Utah (NOT worldwide), and responsible for the training of anywere from 2-20 padawans (okay, newbies...) at any given time.

I am not a "master" (not even close), but I have used all of my training in acutal full-speed sparring. I understand the function of a sword and the nature, result, generics and specifics of every technique in TROS, plus several that I left out for simplicity's sake.

Bob-
I appreciate your praise of the game, as well as your criticism, but I don't thing you and Fang are speaking the same language. No, TROS isn't really fighting (duh). But it is not--in any way, shape, or form--derived from ficticious books or movies (or any movies, actually). It is modeled after the real thing as it was really practiced, including the most realistic model we (or anyone, IMHO) possible could.

Also, combat and the force are apples and oranges. The only person that might even get the force is George L, and I doubt that really he does (midichlorians, anyone?). But I get swordfighting. I practice it. Do I need to kill someone in mortal combat to be called "a swordsman" or even a sort of authority in the matter...I sure as hell hope not. I don't just understand the principles of swordfighting, I have applied them in a safe (more or less...*grin*) manner. Have you--or anyone--ever successfully applied the force? I have successfully applied every technique in TROS on multiple occassions, without killing anyone.

If you want to spar sometime, give me a four foot stick and you can have the force, and we'll see what happens (heck, I'll give you a stick to go with the force).

Anyway, this isn't a flame, but I did feel that there was a lot of conversation about what I do and don't know without actually consulting me at any point. If I can be of further service in explaining my "credentials," let me know.

Jake

Bob Richter wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: 6. I still have to say that the appeal of The Riddle of Steel is not the accuracy or verisimilitude or 'realism,' but how all of that is used to engage the player. I don't know why I am having so much trouble getting past the 'is it real or not' argument with you when all I have been saying is that that isn't the issue; it's how the [whatever you want to call it] is used to engage the players, not how much of [whatever you want to call it] The Riddle of Steel has.

What I have been saying is that, by depending on his own experiences, Jake has tapped into an essence of [whatever you want to call it] that colors how his game is engaging. He didn't just 'stick' it in there; this quality is subservient to what makes the game engaging yet an important part of it.

Theoretically the same could be done for old-time movie serials, like George Lucas claims to want to make. If you could capture that essence and then put it wholly in the service of what makes a game engaging, you would have a better game than one that simply makes a point of 'being like' those serials. It's a subtle distinction (being 'serial' versus being engaging via 'serialness'), but I think the important one that answers "Why The Riddle of Steel?" for me as a game designer.

6) And now you've completely lost me.

Bob Richter wrote: 7) We may have to agree to disagree.