contracycle wrote: I agree with the above - when weapons are actually dangerous, much of the positive feedback powergamers seek vanishes.

Very interesting point, I think your players would see it perhaps a little better if they looked at it as "kewl Cthulu" When you play CoC, you know that your character is going insane, or going to die horribly, even before you play. Period.

If you play ROS, you know that you will probably be seriously injured, or killed if you keep taking risks. Does that mean you stop taking risks? Hell, no! This is an action game, but you play it smart. If you want to know a good attitude to take, if you've read the Sin City comics, all the protagonists do real great about what they care about, take the odds as best they can, and then (mostly) end up dead in the process.

"I've got to play this sneaky. Sneaky, and very, very nasty." - Marv

Or in other words "I am the hero damn it, I get script immunity"

GM: "So don't go kill the baron

Player "You are mssing the point. I play RPG's to do stuff and be heroic. Playing my characters drive of "Avenge myself on the evil Baron' and not being able to do anything about it is boring and it makes me feel helpless. I get enough of that at my job. Listen because combat is so brutal you have to avoid it"

This is a spurious argument. Either the characters are heroically effctive by the Spiritual traits (which is what everyone else playing seems to think), or they are not effective. If they are effective, then you've got no argument. If they aren't effective, then the game is broken, and you should play something else.

What else is there to say? There is an age-old dillema that says that if you make a game too challenging in combat, then the characters will die making it dull. OTOH, if you make it too easy for the characters to survive, then there is no challenge making it dull to play. Most people here feel that the game has struck a good position related to this. Obviously you like the D&D Hit Point cushion.

Play D&D, then.

Mike

Hi,

I wanna see Jake's answer to the question that Anthony poses. In fact, I'll up the ante.

Imagine a fairly stereotypical gamer-guy at the TROS booth at Origins - sounding off in front of ten other potential customers, saying, "I played this game, and ..." going into the whole "What's the point of play if you get maimed every time you fight?" rant.

Now remember, I'm on Jake's side. I know what I'd say. (And it would be pitched to have an impact on the people who are listening to it all.) But for now, I'm standing here, hands folded, smiling slightly. What's Jake say?

Best,
Ron

Anthony,

Truth be told I think you're overreacting to a number of TROS issues. The first is that it's a "Narrativist Game." When TROS was written I had no idea (and I'm still sketchy) about what a Nar game is. I knew that I liked running games with stories where the players had personal involvement and motivation. I can't tell you how many crappy games I've been in where the GM had his own agenda and his own world, and we were spectators and dungeon hoppers. Not heros or even protagonists (that's the buzzword around here, I guess) at all, just mercenaries.

To hit a few things note-for-note:

Frex in Riddle you can build a build a character for years on end then suddenly die because of a bad roll.

Since there is no raise dead or similar it means a lot more caution and realism on the part of the players. This can be a bad thing as a lot of my oplayers will say "I don't want that much realism in my game I play to eascape real life not to emulate parts of it"

Or in other words "I am the hero damn it, I get script immunity"

The conundrum I see in TROS is the fact you have an awesome combat system that you don't dare use.

Player: You mean its easier to die in a bar fight with two mooks than fighting the sick fingered man?

Player "You are mssing the point. I play RPG's to do stuff and be heroic. Playing my characters drive of "Avenge myself on the evil Baron' and not being able to do anything about it is boring and it makes me feel helpless. I get enough of that at my job. Listen because combat is so brutal you have to avoid it"

Bankuei wrote: Very interesting point, I think your players would see it perhaps a little better if they looked at it as "kewl Cthulu" When you play CoC, you know that your character is going insane, or going to die horribly, even before you play. Period.

If you play ROS, you know that you will probably be seriously injured, or killed if you keep taking risks. Does that mean you stop taking risks? Hell, no! This is an action game, but you play it smart. If you want to know a good attitude to take, if you've read the Sin City comics, all the protagonists do real great about what they care about, take the odds as best they can, and then (mostly) end up dead in the process.

SNIP

Chris

This I understand, and I feel for you. I experienced the same thing with just one player (a mega-munchkin powergamer type) and I talked him into being a wizard. He didn't care about aging all that much, and so just whisked 2 years off his life every game on average, but he REALLY got into it, and was working spells of destruction for every occassion. We also got more actual roleplaying out of him than I've ever seen.

The other thing is that TROS really isn't as harsh as you think...okay, I've said it a million times, so I'll stop, but it really isn't.

Overall I've found that very very very few gamers--even D&D types--are dissatisfied with TROS after one game. Most of them become stauch loyalists. My best advise is to play a few combats with your group so that they get accostomed to the feel, advise them to have a high TO or to wear armor if you feel they're going to be really gung-ho, and let them play just once. Let them get into some real personal one-on-one type fights and skirmishes. Let them kill a guy for the sake of SA's (again, to the mook at the bar issue...why would they kill them in the first place...a regular old fistfight will do) so that they can see how cool SAs are, and they'll be hooked.

I promise.

Jake

Mike Holmes wrote: This is a spurious argument. Either the characters are heroically effctive by the Spiritual traits (which is what everyone else playing seems to think), or they are not effective. If they are effective, then you've got no argument. If they aren't effective, then the game is broken, and you should play something else.

What else is there to say? There is an age-old dillema that says that if you make a game too challenging in combat, then the characters will die making it dull. OTOH, if you make it too easy for the characters to survive, then there is no challenge making it dull to play. Most people here feel that the game has struck a good position related to this. Obviously you like the D&D Hit Point cushion.

Play D&D, then.


Mike

I understand your problem, but that has less to do with ROS as much as your players. It's like saying "East Indian food is good, but what good is it if there are no East Indian restaurants around?" The food is still good, whether you can get it or not. We could likewise have this same problem with the Pool, Sorcerer, or any of the other games out there, if the folks we play with only want D&D.

Here's my suggestion; Get two people who you'd know would at least be interested, folks who you haven't gamed with before, perhaps aquiantences, or new folk. Play with the combat system, get a feel for it. Play a few games. Occasionally leak bits of the campaign to select folks in your D&D group. Don't bring the entire group, bring in one person. Get him or her immersed in it, he'll blab to the rest of the folks. Again, do it one by one, and you'll have fully seduced the group.

Or, ask Jake to run a demo at your local shop. I'm sure he's a pro at preaching conversions :P

Chris

Bankuei wrote: Or, ask Jake to run a demo at your local shop. I'm sure he's a pro at preaching conversions :P

A few points I haven't seen touched:

1) Luck. A point may be spent permanently to afford an instant success in any matter normally out of your hands---like a hay cart at the bottom of the castle tower you just fell out of (no matter what the TN!). Pg 10. This gives that soft cusion for when a really bad string of die-rolls threatens a character.

2) RE: The Baron. If a player is worried about the Baron's men, that's a good thing. Tell him to come up with an escape plan, it's not too hard. Remember, the Baron's men are normal people too; they won't pursue forever.

-Jeff

Ace,

Did you read what Chris wrote? You have players who don't want to play TROS, but you want them to play TROS. Well, sorry, but it sucks to be you. This is a very common problem, and it's what GNS is all about. Sometimes you just realize that the style that you want and the style that your player's want are different. This leaves you with three options (can you tell I've written this before?):

1. Play what they want to play, D&D in this case. Not the end of the world.
2. Convert your players. People have given you several suggestions, but you just keep pointing out how it can't be done. Well, you know what? You're probably right. It's the general consensus that this is too hard to do in most cases to even bother trying.
3. Play TROS with somebody else. For some reason Gamers have some sort of problem with this, like the only people they can possibly game with is the people that they are currently gaming with.

Your assertion that TROS is only for experienced gamers is wrong. Most players start with D&D, and that's not a simple game. Your assumption is based on the very false notion that D&D is easy to play. It's not, particularly, it's just waht most people know. And people will surprise you in what they can pick up, anyhow. I've started players on Rolemaster, which is waaayyy more complicated. Add to that that there are plenty of experienced gamers out there (um, say, everyone on this forum) who are willing to try things other than D&D, and the fact that Jake repeatedly points out that TROS actually is appealing to D&D players who do try it, and you have no point to your argument.

What you have is a personal problem. Stop blaming TROS for not being attractive to die-hard D&D players. It wasn't designed to, nor should it be. The best game for such players is D&D.

Mike

Mike, in the sense of rules complexity, you're right that D&D is harder. But TRoS is hard in the sense that Chess is hard. It's not the rules, it's the game, and the decision making that goes into the game.

-Jeff

Jake Norwood wrote: Anthony,


You cannot and will not die in TROS because of a bad roll. You'll die because of a decision you've made. Do bad rolls happen? Yeah, but look at the botch rules--I've seen 5 botches in 2 years of constant play. Its really hard to botch in TROS. Second, if you've been building a character for 10 years in TROS, he'll be approaching some serious power here...CP of 25, TO of 6 or 7, etc...he'll be damn near impossible to kill. .

As for escapism...I can understand that. Most of us game as some form of escapism or (all of us) as recreation. If you like blown-up board games (which is what the better portion of FRPGs are) then play one and enjoy. I can't play them anymore. I lost my "escapism" when I could no longer believe in what was going on in the world of my characters, when I took 13 arrows, 3 sword wounds, and fell off a 60' cliff...and walked away. That's far fetched for even the most outrageous of old myths and Baron Munchausen stories. TROS isn't emulating reality--I don't really kill with a sword--but it allows us to be someone we're not in a believable way that most other FRPGs don't provide. .

Script immunity...you can still cheat on rolls as the seneschal. Beyond that, though, I sense a kind of Hackmaster-esque "GM vs. the Players" thing here, where you ambush the players and try to kill them all the time because if you were the bad guy that's what you'd do. 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 (exept anime, perhaps) completely support the way TROS runs, and not the "other FRPGs." .

The conundrum I see in TROS is the fact you have an awesome combat system that you don't dare use. Have you played a campaign? Have you tried it out. Yes, it's realistically deadly but (how many times have I said it) it isn't what you think! Even combat-heavy games (and mine always are...I have a minimum of one serious fight every game) don't cause the loss of players or limbs... Yes, we do have to step out of a D&D mentality and stop fighting 17 orcs per PC. One Gol per PC is going to be a challenging fight, but infinitely more meaningful than the orc battle because you actually earn your victory. If you feel combat is too deadly (again, your assumption is off, as a few real sessions will show), then don't throw hordes of badguys or powerful enemies at your players. [quote/]

I have tried it in a duel. Howver I may have used the rules wrong so we will see. If the deadliness is more than GURPS it is a no sale with my guys.

Player: You mean its easier to die in a bar fight with two mooks than fighting the sick fingered man?
Sorry I'm jumping around your post a bit but this fit better here. This assumption is wrong...the 6-fingered man is a master swordsman, with whom you become equal or superior through the use of SAs. Mooks are just that. Cronies with a CP of 8 (or less) and no real desire to die fighting for their crappy boss.

fair enough. But doesn't the six fingered man have SA's too. Heck don't the guards? I can see guard having SA's like "Serve my liege" or "take care of my family" and those will count

This is what I see in many games: You spend a long adventure fighting cronies. It's fun, because you get to clean house, but by the 73rd mook you're bored as hell. But in order for the GM to challenge you he needs to throw 74 mooks at you. Then, you come to the 6-fingered man, who you abstractly whittle away at and (again) are bored to death by the time you win. Your win is, of course, guaranteed, because you've got "script immunity." Half way through that fight, though, half the players have wandered off with questions like "where's the cheetos" and "hey Graham, can I have a Mountain Dew?" Where's the challenge? Where's the fun. Honestly, during your next important combat in most any other FRPG, see who's sleeping...it'll be everyone but the guy rolling saying "hit"..."miss"..."hit"..."miss"..."27 points"..."hit"..."miss"...and so on. [quote/]

Spot on. Thats why I was attracted to TROS and its flashy/cool combat system. There is a conundrum however. I am afraid a TROS game will veer the other way and look like this.

Well its the final showdown.

The Wizard died last session do to being hit by an ambush then exploded by another mage.

Jims made a bad choice backed with a bad die roll so his character is dead.

Jerry "sniper" is still alive but he tool a level three last week and won't be good for much.

Those guys are off eating cheetos, talking Monte Pyhton and drinking my Mountain Dew.

That leaves two of the player characters, and Me, The Senechal

A few hours later.

They got around the mooks but Bob took a level2 to the chest.

Look its the six fingered man lets get him

Big fight-
Bob (operating a few dice down) dies and Inigo (who used up his luck SA's) even with his vengance thing going gets a bad roll and a takes a dagger through his throat.

Not Fun

Player "You are mssing the point. I play RPG's to do stuff and be heroic. Playing my characters drive of "Avenge myself on the evil Baron' and not being able to do anything about it is boring and it makes me feel helpless. I get enough of that at my job. Listen because combat is so brutal you have to avoid it"

On the contrary you'll never have so much fun killing the barron. Dammit, try it...you rave about the system being great and the combat and so on, and then feel that it isn't really a playable game. IT IS! I swear it to you! Just...play!

I would like too but I have no players willing to try at this time (my other group disappeared on me). The players know what to expect and just aren't interested. At all...

[Quote]
Yes, you'll have to modify your GMing style a bit, by letting the characters help you put the story together. No, TROS isn't D&D...based on feedback, that's apparently one of the game's strong selling points. Why is that? Because "Traditional" fantasy gaming--which fails to resemble the literature that it was meant to re-create and emulate--is lacking horribly. TROS fills that gap. Your players are feeling it too. So are you. Go play for 3 weeks. Use an even hand and don't compete with your players. When one dies, they stay dead...go back and read a book and you'll see exactly what I mean.
No, TROS isn't powergaming and it's not D&D...it doesn't have to be Narrativist either--just play it.

Jake [quote/]

We shall see.
If I ever get players who are interested I will try 4 sessions solid play before I decide the game is unplayable.

As to when, well the second group I had may want to play in a month, so there is hope.

As to finding new gamers, I have noticed that gamers in my neck of the woods are not interested in joining new groups, taking on new players or trying new things in general.

They are the most pathetic lot of gamers I have ever seen :)

Ps. Looking over my post I realize that it might sound a little harsh. That isn't my intention and this is definitely not meant to even resemble a flame. What I am seeing repeatedly, though, is that people buy the game, read it, love it, don't play it for a week, then decide that it's unplayable. Try it, really. Lastly, go watch all your favorite fantasty films and read any fantasy book (even D&D ones) and you'll see what I mean about the contradiction in gaming reality and gaming literature that you don't see in TROS[quote/]

No offense taken Jake. TROS is your baby and you are rightly a little protective of it.
Asfor me I think TROS is cool, combat is utterly brilliant (I still can't figure out how you manged something so awesome) and the rest is still solid.

Please understand I want to make TROS the best game possible so if my comments seems harsh or over critical I apologize. if it turns out it is not the game for me then Ah well. I still think it is a masterpiece.

Hello,

I've been follwing this discussion with some interest and I thought I'd jump in here concerning the whole 'Narrativist Game' thing. The reason something is CALLED a 'Narrativist Game' in the first place is because it directly and easily facilitates Narrativist thinking. Theoretically, what this means is that any random GNS-ignorant schmoe off the street who picks up the game and follows the rule will NATURALLY start thinking down Narrativist lines without really trying or being aware of it.

I haven't looked at Riddle of Steel personally myself but as Jake keeps repeating, he didn't design it with GNS in mind. He did what the best game designers do. He designed it from the heart. He said, damnit, I want a game that does THIS. And he went out and he built a game that did THAT. The fact that, THIS and THAT, happen to align with Narrativist goals is rather IRRELIVANT.

Look at Sorcerer, another 'Narrativist' game. So long as you do EXACTLY what the book tells you, (mainly, concretely define Humanity, make play center around player's kickers, and follow the normal game rules) then a thematic story about sacrifice and power will NATURALLY follow. Why? Because eventually the players will latch onto the Humanity statistic as their main 'power' vector and start doing things that relate to that statistic. Things that relate to that statistic are things that relate to HOW you defined humanity and thus your players are constantly addressing that thing in a thematic way.

Similarly I assume that if the Spiritual Attributes are as central to the Riddle of Steel as everyone makes them out to be then similarly the 'Narrativism' thing will work itself out. Don't even make THAT big a deal about the Spiritual Atributes. Just make sure the players know they exist, what they are for, and the rules that goven their use, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER DAMN RULE IN THE GAME.

Eventually, some player will notice, "You know, the only thing that's keeping me alive is this Faith Score. I need more of this Faith Score. How do I get more of this Faith Score?" Then they will go off and do something Faith related. BAM! Again, you get thematic protagonist driven story, AUTOMATICALLY, and easily.

That's the whole point concerning quality rules design. If you follow the rules then the STYLE the game facilitates will naturally follow. So, I can't help but just back up what Jake said and agree that the best thing to do is just play the game. Explain the rules carefully and clearly and the rest should work out for you on it's own.

Jesse

Thanks for the advice!

There is a lot to consider in all your posts so I will stew on it for a while. Until then I well I have said all I need.

Okay, I'm a little numb from reading through this whole thread, but I do remember one of the points I wanted to address.. Lethality and Injury in TROS..

I have fought 7 duels with 2 opponents. I have lost and died 5 of those (Shortsword isn't the best for head-on duels.. but then, the character wasn't designed for head-on duels, anyhow) The other two, the two that I won, my character took absolutely no damage, and his opponent didn't die. My point?

Combat is lethal, and dangerous.. But it doesn't have to be. Play it careful, take only the risks you can afford, and make the best of your goofups. And when it comes down to it... Not all NPCs (or PCs, for that matter) need to be stone-cold killers. Most bounty hunters and guards will prefer to take an opponent without bloodshed, or failing that, alive. Tiberius could have finished his opponent easily both times that he won (after the very first hit) but chose to hold off, and demand a surrender. (Because it was a duel, the surrender was denied... but it's IC for Ti to do so).

But, even if this additional consideration isn't enough to sway your players.. It may not be meant to be. Some people just like D&D, and that's fine. If it really comes down to it, D&D is a niche game too... it's just got a really big niche. TRoS will find it's player base, but it's player base may not overlap with a lot of others.

One thing to remember, too, concerning lethality in duels. One of you is gonna die. If both characters are roughly equal, then a degree of "luck and randomness is gonna solve this" is to be expected. If you run 7 combats in D&D with 10th level characters, one is gonna die...but D&D doesn't have a lethal system.

It really and only can be shown in real play.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: One thing to remember, too, concerning lethality in duels. One of you is gonna die. If both characters are roughly equal, then a degree of "luck and randomness is gonna solve this" is to be expected. If you run 7 combats in D&D with 10th level characters, one is gonna die...but D&D doesn't have a lethal system.

It really and only can be shown in real play.

Jake

Not all NPCs (or PCs, for that matter) need to be stone-cold killers

Not all NPCs (or PCs, for that matter) need to be stone-cold killers

Some comments on the lethality issue, from someone who ran a similar system for several years.

The increase in lethality is a good thing - characters start behaving more like real people. So do NPC's. The biggest shift, for my money, is that it made people think about what they were doing in combat much more. In D&D, you just rolled until it was over. With realistic systems, people go "there's three of them? We'll ambush the first and confront the other two". Characters, especially PC's, start to run away (woohoo!). If they inflict a nasty leg wound which is impairing to an enemy, why not disengage and talk? - the old swine could get lucky, its not worth the risk. This is another important lesson for GM's - most NPC's will NOT fight to death, and almost never to the last man. D&D fights often looked like massacres - a realistic system gives a much better distribution of injuries and the walking wounded.

On the down side, I found I seldom played NPC's to the best of my abilities - I had to dumb down and make deliberately stupid decisions on their behalf. But stuff like that is good and adds to the depth of sim; people are behaving more reasonably and plausibly. But it did start to annoy a bit, especially as I hesitated to lay a heavy glove on the PC's for obvious reasons. So probably the person who gets the least joy out of such systems is the GM.