The session I'm about to describe took place last weekend.

The system is Riddle of Steel.  I'm the game master.  This is the first time I've run this system.  A friend (Brett) and I both bought copies of the book at the local gamestore (we were surprised to find it there) and we studied the rules.  We both agreed that I would run a short combat session to try out the rules and introduce our group to the system to gauge reaction.  We also agreed that while I would have final authority on rules calls, I would actively solicit Brett's counsel as to interpretations and suggestions.  Both of us, after having read the rules over and discussed it, felt we only had a small grasp on how it worked.  I respect the guys opinion, and I trust his judgement, so I felt my back was covered.

I also put some thought into the input I received from my previous thread.  I have to say I still don't get it, or a lot of it, but I've written down the points that stuck to me and I'm still trying to puzzle them over.  I think I managed to come away with trying a few things new.  Rather than announce a new game and a new campaign for long term play, the Riddle of Steel gameplay would be part of a casual get-together for video games, a movie (some Kung Fu movie, for laughs) and some Magic: The Gathering (Emperor play) as the highlight - something we all like and enjoy and don't have to think about.

I discussed this with Brett and told him what my expectations were and what part I wanted to play (as a co-equal, rather than as The Authority).  Brett agreed we should go that route and advertise the get-together as an "informal social" rather than "Fergus has a new game he wants to push".  I felt better knowing that I had shared the responsibility for the game with him, and that I wasn't going to be commander in chief for a one shot adventure responsible for everybody's fun.  I just wanted to try this out and see what people thought.

I met the group through the friend (Justin) of a co-worker (Caroline, not involved with games).  Caroline would get people together to her house to watch Babylon 5, and Justin mentioned playing RPGs with a group in need of a Gamemaster.  Justin had me meet Brett, and the other members of the group, and we have played together seriously for 7-8 years.  In the early days, for about 2 years, we played every Sunday for 8-10 hours.  But as people have grown older and assumed more responsibility we've cut back to every two weeks for 6-8 hours, to every month for a few hours, and now we get together every few months for 4-6 hours. 

The participants:
- Me, white middle class techie.

- Brett, white middle class wise-ass techie into wrestling and heavy metal.  Playing Sir Mellion, the sword and shield wielding knight in chain armor.  Spiritual Attribute is - Passion "Defend His Village From Saxon Scum"

- Justin, white middle class snob techie.  Very competitive.  Playing Grotty, a dagger-wielding thief about to be hung for stealing.  Spiritual Attribute is - Luck "Everything Always Works Out"

- David, white middle class fat techie.  Socially challenged.  Playing Friar Reynold, a mace wielding church official.  Spiritual Attribute is - Passion "Kill All non-Christianized Saxons"

- Tom, white middle class live-at-home substitute english teacher.  Perceptive and humorous.  Playing Conahr, a bastard sword wielding Irish halfling.  Spiritual Attribute is - Destiny "To Win"

- Charlie, white middle class easy-going techie.  Plays in a local band.  Playing Driant, an archer.  Spiritual Attribute is - Destiny "Strike Fear Into the Hearts of Saxon Raiders"

- Donald, black middle class prankster technie.  Plays games as a secret other life away from his race cars, clubbing and womanizing.  Playing Blamore, a spearman with some armor.  Spiritual Attribute is - Passion "Kill those damn Saxons"

The usual group dynamics are based on a lot of horsing around, punctuated by moments of brief cooperation during combat and attempts to roleplay.  David usually spends a lot of his time making attempts to dominate the group's atention, while Brett and Tom make fun of people's mistakes and try to puzzle out how the game is actually working.  Justin complains and withdraws if he doesn't get what he wants, occasionally being very aggressive in making tactical decisions.  Donald sits back and waits for opportunities to fight in combat (roll dice) and look good, broken up by the occasional overt teasing of someone he thinks is being unreasonable.  Charlie and Tom are only with the group every other session as they live far away and its a hassle to show up if everyone else is not there.  Charlie is very laid back and makes the occasional light-hearted comment, but tends to be very passive in his play.

Since we are focusing on combat, the scenario is going to be a straightforward combat encounter.  The characters are about to hang Grotty at the borders of their home village because of his crime, when a raiding party of saxons equal to the party's number plus one attacks.  Everyone hates Saxons, so differences are put aside and the fight is on.

This is how we interpreted the rules. Spiritual Attributes apply to every roll that is relevant.  Every Character has a Spiritual Attribute of 5, to max out the available bonus.  This would have consequences later.  Every character had a high proficiency in their weapon of choice, about 10 or 12.

Brett and I were unable to fully understand how the combat system worked, even after multiple readings, so we came up with a rough approximation.  We discarded all the proficiency maneuvers as we wanted to get a feel for the bare bones system without any "tricks".  This is how we decided the combat probably went:

1. You roll for maneuvers (we left this part out, as we couldn't understand it at all), to decide who gets to fight whom and under what conditions.
2. You throw down a red or a white die and the higher number goes first in the case of simultaneous attacks.
3. In the case of simultaneous attacks you can try to steal the initiative - multiple times as long as you have dice.
4. You allocate dice pools to attack a location or defend, and roll an "exchange of blows".  If you hit during an attack, you go first next exchange.  If you defend successfully, you get to attack first next exchange.
5. Damage is based on Strength plus Successes plus Damage Modifier of the weapon, minus the armor of the location and the characters "toughness".
6. You find out how much damage got through and use that wound factor to roll the "critical hit" and apply the results.

Overall, I'd say the gameplay went longer than I thought it would, and it was generally unsatisfying.

General Synopsis:

We played at Justin's condo on a Friday night, with everyone bringing some form of contribution to the snacks, beer/soda, and pizza ordering.  So far, so good.  Brett and I reveal the game as "Riddle of Steel", which noone has ever heard of.  Tom's fave movies are Highlander and Conan, so we made a big dramatic "show" of how at last he will get to "learn the riddle of steel", mostly in jest, but hoping he'd have the most fun.

We take turns playing/demonstrating video games, drinking and eating, and catching up with each other.  After about an hour and a half, everyone is there and everyone wants to play "Fergus's weird game".  We hand out pregenerated character sheets and begin to explain how the game works.  At first, the fact that Brett and I are both telling people what we know confuses people, but everyone pays attention.  We run a demo of the rules to show how the dice rolling works.  Grotty versus Conahr just as an example.  The fight goes quickly, and the rules seem to work alright, but I feel something's missing.  Nonetheless, everyone is shocked to learn that "Grotty stabs Conahr in the Eye and kills him instantly" takes about 2 seconds of real time.  There's a surge of interest as though the viciousness of the combat has grabbed people.

The group starts asking detailed questions about the mechanics, and its here that the problem of not understanding the order of combat operations comes up.  Brett and I realize we're going to have to wing it.  David and I get into a loud argument over the "Seize Initiative" rules, mostly because I can't answer his questions and he demands some kind of call.  I haven't got this stuff down enough.  But Brett comes to my rescue and we all agree we'll have to see how it goes case by case.  Justin then brings up a certain point:  Given what we know of the rules, isn't it better to always attack first with everything you've got, and screw defense?  Neither Brett nor I can give a good answer to that.

We jump into the battle, and go around in a circle for people's actions.  The Saxons show up, brandish their greatswords, and begin charging while screaming obsenities.  While the other characters charge in response, Driant readies an arrow and shoots, hitting his opponent in the collarbone.  The bone shatters and the Saxon falls to the ground screaming in pain as horrible blood loss leads to slow death.

Conahr attacks, his opponent fails to gain initiative, and the Saxon's arm comes off.  The Saxon collapses and dies due to shock, pain and blood loss.

Friar Reynold goes for the attack, wins Initiative, and bashes his opponent's arm in with the mace.  The Saxon suffers a compound fracture and loses his weapon.  Friar Reynold smashes his skull in with the follow up.

Grotty rushes into the attack, wins Initiative, and stabs his saxon opponent in the abdomen.  The Saxon suffers the triple blow of pain, shock and blood loss and dies.

Sir Mellion choses the attack, steals Intiative, and knocks his foe down with a heavy cut to the chest.  The saxon is toast, but we have a moment of crisis as we can't find the Knockdown Rules.  Both Brett and I look through our copies, and can't find anything that tells us what it means (it was in there, we just both missed it).  Since it doesn't really matter, we stop wasting time looking for it, but its a flaw that Tom and Justin make snide comments about.  Then we realise that the Saxon, even on the ground, has a few dice to roll, so he does, and he manages to get a hit in on Sir Mellion, but his heavy armor and shield absorb the blow, impressing everyone.  Sir Mellion follows up and finishes off the Saxon, no problem, cutting through the poor guy's weak defense.

Blamore takes on the last two Saxons, and decides to split his pool against two opponents.  This is where the Spiritual Attributes first seem to have a noticeable effect, as everyone oohs and ahhs about how they affect every roll.  Blamore steals Initiative for both Saxons, and rolls like a God managing to kill both Saxons with a one-two cut-stab of his spear.  Saxon One gets a broken collar bone and a Knockdown, while Saxon Two's head explodes like a cantalope.  Blamore takes a weak thrust to his chain and a slight wound, but he too stabs right through the on-the-ropes-Saxon's defense and kills him.  Its clearly the outstanding display of the night.

Now, this combat took two and a half hours to run.  The main handling time was in the stealing of Initiative and trying to decide how the mechanics flow went.  Arguably, Brett and I were noobs and learning the ropes, but I'm really disappointed this thing took so much time, with everyone sitting around waiting for their turn, or wondering when they'd get to roll again (they didn't).  The game stimulates some witty discussion, but its obvious that it hasn't grabbed anyone.  Justin reads the rules and points out that the pregenerated characters were not put together right - I gave the characters too high a proficiency for starting characters.  He also pointed out that defense sucks and you should always attack (even though the Saxons did the exact same thing and they all lost).  Donald raves about it however, and expresses a desire to play our old WFRP campaign again.  We all shrug, decide to skip the movie, and play Magic.

Conclusions:
At the time, I felt something crucial had been missed.  Brett agreed we'd missed something big time, but he was at a loss to explain it.  Something kept nagging me.  I'd heard all sorts of raves for this game, and reading it had got me really excited.  Why hadn't the Spiritual Attributes done anything?  I wanted to play again, but until I figured out what was up I couldn't bring it up again.

So I read every post here by Jake Norwood, the designer, to get inside his head and see how he intended the game to be played.  Its about this time it hits me how much I missed Spiritual Attributes.  I blew it!  They are an active characteristic, not a passive one.  I also got a better idea of how the order of operations is supposed to go.  Maneuvers and how crucial they are is not very well explained, I think.  The book could have done well with at least two other different examples.  But I understand that this game is not a company effort, but a labor of love.  That's why I want to play again.  I've got a score to settle with myself, I'm going to give this game another shot and next time I think it will go great.

The demo was a let-down, but I'm not sure anything is to blame there except player preconceptions.  I'm an intuitive sort, and Brett's an investigative sort, and we both missed so many important cogs that I think there's a lesson in there.  Despite the let down, I think I learned a lot here.  The social set up stuff people told me about really worked.  The demo was longer than it should have been, but because it wasn't the focus, we were all able to go to the next thing, and the Magic game was what it was all about.  Also, I liked sharing the responsibility.  That made it so much easier, and even though it confused people, I think it also interested them and made the whole process more collaborative.  I'm coming away with that observation thinking this is how it should be.

i have not played TRoS (the more typical abbreviation) but I have been the one to bring the new games to the table and try to stumble though the rules with people watching me. I fear you broke my cardinal rule: No more than three. I never introduce a new game that I have not played before with more than three players. I prefer two in fact! No matter how well you read the book the first time you need to know what happens when this guy does THIS and the bad guy has THAT and his buddy can do THIS, you will have to look in the book. if you have only 2-3 players you might be able to pull it off, otherwise in a new system you are toast. I know. I have been fried a number of times.

every game seems to have something that makes it shine, and if you forget that bit and don't know the rules it makes an impression.

sorry it did not work out for you! Don't give up.

It has been too long since I've played to be of much use in resolving rules details.  But conceptually I may be able to help you out.

1) Never ever play with spiritual attributes for a quick combat testing session.  You will lose the impact every time.  Spiritual attributes shine in one of two situations a) for pregenerated characters in a conflict loaded situation.  You don't ever ever design a "scenario" for RoS.  Instead you create a bunch of characters who all want something different and set them lose to figure out how to get it.  Spiritual attributes are a great way to preload where those conflicts are.  b) longer term play where players selected their own SAs...ideally jointly with all of the other players in a group situation creation endeavor.  You have to earn you SAs, you have to do things to demonstrate your passions, earn those points and then spend them for improvements.  Only if you see the full cycle of how they work will their impact on the dice pool have any meaning.

I also recall their being some discussion as to whether SAs apply to every roll.  Many folks agreed with your interpretation that they did.  I feel very very strongly, however, that the dynamics of the system are greatly improved if you add SA dice to the POOL, and not double up on each side of the roll. 

2) The core of the combat system is the choice of whether to throw red or white and how many dice to throw.  The key maneuvers you should always play with are Counter and Feint as they are vital to the currency of those choices...there's one other that's important too, but its escaping me now.  The rest really provide a great deal of flavor but are not hugely important to the very way the dice pools work.  Stealing initiative is one of those fiddly things that really should be left out of an introductory rules test.  Maneuvering for position is not.  Maneuvering is key in a couple of situations.  When fighting on bad terrain, the terrain roll is a great differentiator and how many dice to "waste" to make sure you aren't screwed by terrain is a key decision.  Also when faced with multiple opponents using terrain rolls to choose who you face and who you don't is crucial to keep from getting screwed.

3) Pay careful attention to the differences in dice.  2 dice difference is a notable advantage.  With two equally skilled players with equally armed and equipped characters a bit of luck is required to overcome a 2 dice disadvantage.  4 dice is a pretty solid advantage.  All else being equal you should win with a 4 dice advantage nearly every time unless you get very unlucky, or make a foolish (usually overly aggressive) move.  A good player can still beat a less good player and a player with superior armor and weapons can overcome 4 dice with skillful play, but its hard.  6 dice is like 4 but more so and an 8 die advantage is almost certain victory, the combat comes down to seeing whether an unlucky exchange leaves you with a wound or if your opponent can drag it out long enough to fatigue you...winning is rarely ever in doubt at that point unless the under dog player is signficantly more skilled at the system (even then its unlikely).

How big of an advantage did your characters have over the Saxons?  From the sounds of it, your players either got really lucky or the Saxons were just outmatched?

4) Flow should go basically like this as I recall

a) select white or red...selecting red is very dangerous and it shouldn't be uncommon to see players both throwing white a couple times in succession as they nerve up to see who will throw red.  Feint and Counter are CRUCIAL to this step.  If you aren't playing with those moves, this step winds up seeming somewhat pointless...with those maneuvers, its down right nail biting.  I'll happily throw Counter against some Red happy overly aggressive newb and hack him to pieces with my white die play.

b) Whoever finally throws red decides and announces how many dice they'll roll and what target area they're attacking.  The defender then decides how many dice to defend with.  This is the dicey decision.  You want to defend with as few dice as you feel confident will protect you and leave you enough for your own attack.  Tthe existance of the Feint move really makes close defenses risky however, especially on attack bids that start on the low side of average.  If you just match a low attack and the attacker turns around and Feints you...you can get colossally screwed.  If you waste too many dice on the defense to protect against a Feint you can go through several exchanges without anyone landing a blow.  Killing someone in the first exchange they way your description reads means either the Saxons were hugely out matched...or they played really really poorly (which is no foul just starting out).  Having weapons with different target numbers makes this decision even more interesting.  Dare you defend with fewer dice because your target number is one better?  How many extra dice should you throw to make up for a TN deficit?  How does your decision on how many dice to use on the Terrain Roll play into your options now?  Armor is also a temptation.  How many fewer dice will you roll to defend yourself if you're confident that your armor can protect you from minor hits?

c) Both roll and count successes.  If the attacker wins they add the margin of victory to their weapon damage and reduce by opponents armor and toughness (I think...I maybe misremembering that formula a bit) and compare to the effects table which usually results in some combination of immediately lost dice, long term lost dice, and blood loss.

d) whoever won that roll now makes the next attack.  Usually any given exchange will have a natural point where it makes sense to pause and cut away to another duel to give other folks a chance to roll.

The website used to have an excellent PC based combat simulator where you can pick your moves and roll the dice and watch it walk you through every step of the process.  Its a great learning tool, and dang fun in its own right.

Hi there,

I'm not sure whether you've found the old Riddle of Steel forum here at the Forge. I know you said you looked for Jake's posts, but it might be the case that you didn't know about that forum. It's a gold mine of dialogue, and you might do well to start at the very beginning (my thread from April 2002) and casually work your way forwards.

Here's something Jake set me straight about right away: you do not have to use the red-die/white-die method for every encounter or fight. In most of the cases, he told me, and as I found from play, the people's actual comments during play already account for who is attacking and who isn't yet (or whether they are trying to hit first while being attacked). So most of the time, never mind the red and white dice and just start rolling based on the statements of intent as made. It's only when both characters start by "waiting and threatening" that you use that system.

Best, Ron

khelek:

I promise to give the game another shot, and next time I'm going to make it count.  There were some serious mistakes made, but I think now that I look back on it me and my friend had to screw up to drive us to really understand what is going on in this game.  We talked about it afterwards and both agreed we'd missed a lot of important rules concepts that would have helped us all "figure it out".

Valamir:

1) Yeah, this stuff is obvious to me now, but at the time I got hung up.  I was trying to figure out a good demo scenario and I hadn't grasped the SAs as anything more than "bonuses", despite reading Posts that said they were more than that.  I plan to try both ways of using the SAs, as I understand now what the differences are from having read all of Jake's Posts.

2) Yeah, the Maneuvering step is huge, I get that now.  Me and my friend kept looking at the table for TNs and terrain and going, "Huh?  Is this like a Saving Throw list?"  But yeah, after the SAs, this was a huge blunder to leave out.

3) The Players had a 4-6 dice advantage, depending on the character (they were all made up differently so we could see how the different stats worked in-game, which was actually kind of a waste), and I played the Saxons as low-skill, super-strong mooks, going for broke every time.  So yeah, the Saxons got creamed, only two characters ever got hit and one of them only took a Level 1 Wound because he split his targets.

4) Now this is what me and my friend were missing, not just "what happens", which we kind of got, but "how and why".  This is where the book would have benefited from an additional, different example, or a description like the one you just gave - showing that there are actual choices to be made and why.  We didn't use things like Counter and Feint precisely because we didn't understand the skeleton of the system, otherwise we would have thrown one or two in there.  We just didn't have the confidence.

So since then, I've delved into the RoS website and read Jake's posts so things are a lot clearer.  I'll look for that tool you mentioned, and I'll look at the broader forum here at the Forge, since only now am I ready to see what other people have come across.

Ron:

I did know about the RoS forum, but after the sting of not "getting it" from my demo, I felt I really had to look into the mind of the creator and see what his personal vision was.  I wanted to play the game as *he* intended it to be played and see if that jived with what I wanted.  I felt that if I tried to follow the dialogue of a discussion I'd get confused until I understood where the rules were supposed to be coming from.  And I really did read every one of his Posts and strain to "get it" until the light bulb went off, about a third of the way through.

It was when I suddenly realized that SAs were not static, they were dynamic.  Then this huge floodgate of fear and excitement opens up because I don't know if I can play with that much freedom!  Yeah, characters get to choose their destiny, fight fights yadda yadda, roleplay, blah blah, great game.  Its like all the words I had read, I hadn't read them at all, and now, bing!  Then, I understand I don't need a demo scenario, and why there isn't anything in the book.  The Players have to decide what they are going to do and whats going to be important, and until I actually got that, I was just telling them what to do and that's what they were expecting.

So from there, I started looking at the combat rules from that perspective, and then that's why I couldn't see the structure, because I wasn't looking for "choices for the Players to make", I was looking for "ways to run the game".  Literal blindness!  After that, stuff like "you can just use declared intent instead of throwing down the die" makes sense to me.

So, uh, I guess I'm not asking for help at all with this thread.  I think I just put into words what I was looking for.  Uh, thanks people!

It was beautifully stated, too! Many thanks for starting the thread and sticking with it, and processing it all, and so on.

Best, Ron

If it's not too late for some rules clarifications..

I'm somewhat of an old hand at TRoS. I've run it pretty often, and will soon be starting another game of it, so I'm dusting off my rules familiarity.

Combat goes like this:

1. Declare stance: This is semi-optional; As Ron said with the red-white dice, it may be that stance is a foregone conclusion. If both people are rushing to the attack, then you may deem that they both have an aggressive stance, or no stance at all (given that charging isn't necessarily the most optimal posture from which to launch an attack) Important: This only happens ONCE in a given duel, unless the combatants break off long enough to regain their stances.

2. Determine Initiative: Again, semi-optional. Many times, it's a silly thing to drop dice when intent is already well established.. Although if one person's intent is well established but the other's is not, it can be a good idea to do it anyhow. Whether or not to drop initiative is something you'll have to determine on a case-by-case basis. Regardless, if you do it, you do it thusly; Both combatants pick up a red and white die (or dice understood to be attack and defense, regardless of actual color), one in each hand. At a signal, they drop attack or defense at the same time; At first you'll want to be semi-lenient if they hesitate, but once you've got a game going, stick it to them if they hesitate. The number on this die doesn't matter at all. All that matters is the color.

~If red-white, the attacker declares his attack by declaring the maneuver (typically cut or thrust) the zone he's going for, and the number of dice he wishes to roll. The defender then declares defense by declaring the maneuver (usually evade or parry) and number of dice. These are for the first exchange of blows for the round.
~If white-white, then that whole round, not just the exchange, is taken up by circling each other.
~If red-red, then the attacker with the lower Wits (I think..) declares his attack first, as described in the red-white engagement above. Then the other attacker declares his attack. Certain defensive attack maneuvers may be used, such as evasive attack, or block and strike, as appropriate. At this point, each player rolls a number of dice equal to his reflex against the attack target number for his weapon. If either attacker (or both) are thrusting, they get a bonus die to roll. Whoever comes out with more successes has his attack take place first. If they tie, then both attacks are considered to happen simultaneously. Finally, at this point, the slower attacker (or either in a simultaneous strike) may choose to steal initiative. I seriously recommend you avoid these rules until you're overall more familiar with the system.

3. The Exchange of Blows: Once initiative is determined, the attacker rolls his attack, and the defender rolls his defense (if any; In the case of a red-red engagement, if the slower opponent is using a block and strike, he rolls his defense at this point as well) If the attacker wins, damage is calculated (you seem to have that part down) and determined via the charts. If the defender wins, then no damage is done, and it progresses. If this was a red-red engagement, then any shock/pain penalties are applied directly to the slower attacker's attacking dicepool first; A sufficiently strong attack can negate the slower attack entirely. If the slower opponent has any dice left to attack with, he rolls them now. If the quicker opponent chose a block-and-strike, he may now roll his defense as well. In the case of a simultaneous strike, both attacks and any applicable defenses are rolled all at the same time, and all damage is applied at the same time.

4. The Second Exchange: After all damage and penalties due to pain and shock are assessed, whoever won the last exchange gets initiative on the second. There will sometimes be cases where both combatants scored hits, or failed to score hits; In that case, you'll have to adjudicate. As a rule, if one received more damage than the other, then I deem that they lost it. If neither managed to do more damage, I'll usually just have them roll off reflex to determine initiative. This doesn't happen too incredibly often.

Some notes on Pain, Shock and Bloodloss:

Bloodloss is rolled for each round, beginning on the next round following the injury. Unless the combatant is incredibly low on EN or HT, it won't usually be an immediate concern.

Shock: Shock is applied immediately, beginning with any dice already declared, and moving on to any undeclared dice. If Shock is more than the remaining dice, then the unused portion bleeds over to the combat pool in the next round. Once it has been fully applied, it goes away.

Pain: Pain never stacks on top of Shock, or vice versa. If your Shock amount is greater than your Pain (as it usually will be, unless it bleeds over to a new Round) then ignore Pain. If Shock is less than Pain, then ignore Shock.

Also, as one final nitpick, you got some of your SAs a bit off:

Passion "Defend His Village From Saxon Scum"
Luck "Everything Always Works Out"
Passion "Kill All non-Christianized Saxons"
Destiny "To Win"
Destiny "Strike Fear Into the Hearts of Saxon Raiders"
Passion "Kill those damn Saxons"

First, your Passions are generally closer to Drives than Passions. I am strict in my interpretation that Passions must be defined as aLove, Hate or a Loyalty. It tends to make them easier to determine when they apply. Secondly, while it's not required to define a descriptor for Luck, there's nothing that says you shouldn't, either. Third, Destiny "To Win" I can see as being either very, very interesting, or very, very vague and easily abused. Destiny Strike Fear..." is frankly kind of weak; I mean, I'm sure he fulfilled that one right there in that town. Although on a second consideration, if you meant to Strike Fear into the Heart of the entire Saxon nation... that could be very interesting.

At any rate, don't be too discouraged. I muffed my first attempt to run TRoS, and I'd taken part in countless discussions here on the Forge, as well as more than a few combat system duels. Later campaigns proved very fulfilling.

Fergus, sweet.

Hope you have a chance to play again and report back how it went.

Great thread! I'm planning to start a game of TRoS too, as soon as the book arrives and I guess I'll need any and all advice.

Valamir: You're scenario sounds rather interesting, starting off with a nice bit of conflict right there. I think I might steal it for my own game, depending on the PCs ofcourse.