This was on a thread some time ago, but there wasn't any satisfying answer.
Personally, I imagine that many adventurers are similar to colonists; poor lads and lasses who go away, searching for riches(not nessecarily money). I don't see a good way to portrait characters who only adventure to be able to retire and get a better life than being a poor peasant would have.
The general view thinks to be that there should be no "greedy" drives or passions because of the very high munchkin potential, and the Greed flaw is just too greedy.
Perhaps "Drive: get a better life", but I don't know what kind of adventures that would spark.
Is there any other way, or is tRoS just not for those characters*?


* = Let it not be so...

One question would be are social ties. Are they ONLY out for themselves, or do they want to support a family, or their parents, siblings, etc. If a character is interested in finding his wealth to give his parents a comfortable life, or buy a cousin out of slavery, then that leads to many good (both mechanically and ethically) passions.

If they are only out for themselves, then the question becomes what is the reason for not being a peasant. I'd imagine one answer is they thought that staying on the same manor their entire lives to manage a simple life may not suit all people. These lead to passions that lend themselves to a kind of romanticism that I think can fit in TROS. Wanderlust, Be one's own Man... passions along this line would make one want to have (and possibly even profit) from the life of an adventurer. These passions would create great hooks for characters.

Now... if a player character insists he's in it just for the money, and just for himself...

I've found that one of the ways to deflate munchkin fun is to require justifications. For example, generally speaking, adventuring does not win a cost benefit analysis. You risk your life constantly (ESPECIALLY in TROS), and your earnings are erratic at best (worse in TROS where you won't find a ton of magic items. After a while, a lot of characters built off greed will stop being adventurers. Maybe they'll become taxmen, bandits, merchants, whatever. The point is that the classic idea of adventuring in a FRPG isn't the best idea for making an income safely.

But lets say the character is from a destitute past and is a risk taker, thereby setting himself up for truly munchkin exploits because adventuring is 'his life.' First, at this point, you should question the player what on earth he's doing. Munchkins I've dealt with usually don't understand why I'm annoyed with them, but still conform to my wishes when I'm GM because they want to play, even if they aren't as min/maxed as they wanted. The few who left, well, they made a choice that made it clear I didn't want them in the game.

Second, if the player manages to stay, but still has passions involving greed and risk-taking, there are a few things to do to ensure the character is not a munchkin's wet dream. One of the things I truly love about TROS is that the GM can always make a player character own up to its internal contradictions. If a player really wants a passion as broad as "Greedy," then he should be trying to take everything not nailed down. If he does this, he'll get caught sooner or later. If he doesn't get caught, then the GM is essentially approving of the behavior. If, however, the character DOESN'T steal everything in sight, then you slam penalties on the SAs. He's not living up to what his character is.

The thing about SAs is that for them to be over-powering for a munchkin, he needs to be able to have things both ways. If he's greedy, he's greedy ALL the time. If he takes a more selective SA that allows him to plot 'the big score,' then that SA doesn't apply to that many situations. An SA for a muchkin is that he needs them broad when they'll help his character, and impossibly narrow when they won't. The GM needs to either accept that or sanction the character. Plain and simple.

And plan of last resort: overload a passion. Throw a billion things that activiate the passion at the player character. By the time he gets to the climax and needs SAs, he doesn't have any left. If he didn't use them earlier, then his character should be dead.

Great answer! Thanks!

The wanderlust hit dead-on what I was thinking about*.

As for the cost vs. benefit. It ocurred to me that should a character that is out there to find a better life actually *get* a better life, there is no need for him to keep adventuring. And since my characters usually get a better life before they get really cool, that's not a very good choice.

I might also add that by adventuring, I mean any career or way of life that fit's for play, including soldier, bandit, "true" adventuring and maybe, just maybe even merchants(altough not taxmen).



*=The peasant toiling in the field thinking: "Man, there's gotta be something better than this."

Interesting you should bring this up.

My first attempt at a TROS character (for a campaign that never got of the ground) had the Greed flaw.

I was trying for the archetypical "adventurer" type character.

How I simulated the wandering urge was to give him a "d" priority in social background-- his parents were peasants who starved for many a season to buy their way out of serfdom.


Having gone hungry before he refused to allow it to happen again

Spiritual attributes were IIRC

Drive: Never be poor again 3
Concience: Honor thy Family 1
Luck 3

This way I had a good reason to push beyond his job as a "Kings Bounder" and seek out opportunity without him being a Riddleseeker

You will note the lack of a Passion/SA a Faith/SA or a Destiny/SA this was intentional. The character is a minor player in the fate of Weyerth and a bit of a cold fish.

Stroy wise I was hoping he would have an opprtunity to build a Passion/SA about some lady or other and widen his story

I will post the character sheet if I can find it but I think a Hef took it :)

That seems like a cool PC.
I'd be nice to see what kind of adventures he'd experienced.
Have you played anything with him yet?

Oh, another thing. "Be one's own Man" and similar passions can only be used in situations where one's freedom is threatened, right?
So the only way to get them into play would be to (attempt to) capture the PC's again, and again(or get a hook on them in other ways, i.e. "you go there or I'll kill all your friends). Extremely annoying for the characters. It would be an awful lot like railroading.
Or perhaps one could interpret "Be one's own Man" as *everybody* has a right to "Be one's own Man". Then, there'll be a lot of slave-hunter hunting and slave-freeing.

Another thing again.
I really think we should put up a list somewhere with a lot of really cool SA's(the compendium?).

Mokkurkalfe wrote: That seems like a cool PC.
I'd be nice to see what kind of adventures he'd experienced.
Have you played anything with him yet?

Oh, another thing. "Be one's own Man" and similar passions can only be used in situations where one's freedom is threatened, right?
So the only way to get them into play would be to (attempt to) capture the PC's again, and again(or get a hook on them in other ways, i.e. "you go there or I'll kill all your friends). Extremely annoying for the characters. It would be an awful lot like railroading.
Or perhaps one could interpret "Be one's own Man" as *everybody* has a right to "Be one's own Man". Then, there'll be a lot of slave-hunter hunting and slave-freeing.

Another thing again.
I really think we should put up a list somewhere with a lot of really cool SA's(the compendium?).

Mokkurkalfe wrote: That seems like a cool PC.
Oh, another thing. "Be one's own Man" and similar passions can only be used in situations where one's freedom is threatened, right?
So the only way to get them into play would be to (attempt to) capture the PC's again, and again(or get a hook on them in other ways, i.e. "you go there or I'll kill all your friends). Extremely annoying for the characters. It would be an awful lot like railroading.
Or perhaps one could interpret "Be one's own Man" as *everybody* has a right to "Be one's own Man". Then, there'll be a lot of slave-hunter hunting and slave-freeing.

Nevermet wrote: Those are obviously two VERY different passions. The way you figure out what they mean is to have players (*gasp*) discuss their characters personality, explaining what they mean by various SAs. And then you hold them to it.

Hey all-

Just wanted to add that this is a fantastic thread, and really shows the true beauty of TROS. Keep it up.

Jake

ps. Isn't it cool that we've got a game where one thread can be about pasions and destinies and another about the relative qualities of an axe or armor. This is the game for me. Wish I wrote it (oh, wait...::grins sheepishly::).

SAs are not proscriptive. You can always have your character act against them. Show me where it says you can't.

Concience: Honor thy Family 1

Drive: Never be poor again 3

Oh, another thing. "Be one's own Man" and similar passions can only be used in situations where one's freedom is threatened, right?

To Mike and Nevermet.

I thought that SA's could decrease, should a character ignore an obvious choice, e.g. a PC with Loyalty to the king betrays the king. Is that what you mean by taking away a SA's if the player wants to? He doesn't seem to have that much loyalty to the king after all.

To Jake.

Yeah, we rocks!


And a question:
What kinda cool stuff can you come up with for a guy that has "Passion: Loyalty to the king" and "Destiny: Overthrow the king"?
Would one of them just cancel out the other or what do you think?
And another thing, should a player know his PC's Destiny from start, or have to find out during the game?

Jaif and all:

I agree that Jaif's interperetation of the rules are, well, lawyer-esque and right.

On the other hand, I think that modifiying what constitutes the SAs is part of what sets the mood of the game. Tweak at will.

I do a bit of both, I think.

Jake

Mokkurkalfe wrote: I thought that SA's could decrease, should a character ignore an obvious choice, e.g. a PC with Loyalty to the king betrays the king. Is that what you mean by taking away a SA's if the player wants to? He doesn't seem to have that much loyalty to the king after all.

What kinda cool stuff can you come up with for a guy that has "Passion: Loyalty to the king" and "Destiny: Overthrow the king"?
Would one of them just cancel out the other or what do you think?
And another thing, should a player know his PC's Destiny from start, or have to find out during the game?

I personally disagree with Jaif's constant stricture on Drive. Who decides what is worthy? I say it's the player who decides, with the Seneschal only having power of approval/disapproval based on whether or not it can overpower the character. Noble ideals are listed among the examples not in the definition. You're limiting things far too harshly, in my book.

Passions I am also likely to interpret a bit more loosely than you are. I still require a love, hate or loyalty, but what the subject is I allow to be more vague than a specific person or entity. I think that a Love of the Sea is a viable Passion, and can think of a good many situations in which it would be highly appropriate and quite dramatic.

Your rants, on the other hand, I agree with. I have a bad tendency to want to punish those who do bad things, because it's not the sort of play I enjoy most of the time. (There are exceptions, like my V:tM Sabbat game... but that's neither here nor there.) I like heroic stories and characters, and I'm much more likely to reward such play than selfish play.

Jaif wrote: I know it's all the rage to dress in black, do your own thing, walk around plundering the land murdering sentients for loot, and generally play the cool, silent anti-hero...but who wants to GM that? You want big numbers on a character sheet, or want to say "I got this, and I got that, then I got this other thing?" Enjoy. It's all yours. Write it down and I'll go watch the LoTR video.

Me, I'm going to reward heros in the traditional mold - people who give of themselves to help others. If you want to play a selfish character, do so. Take luck, and nothing else, and live a mediocre gaming life. Great people do great things for others, not for themselves.

I know it's all the rage to dress in black, do your own thing, walk around plundering the land murdering sentients for loot, and generally play the cool, silent anti-hero...but who wants to GM that? You want big numbers on a character sheet, or want to say "I got this, and I got that, then I got this other thing?" Enjoy. It's all yours. Write it down and I'll go watch the LoTR video.

Me, I'm going to reward heros in the traditional mold - people who give of themselves to help others. If you want to play a selfish character, do so. Take luck, and nothing else, and live a mediocre gaming life. Great people do great things for others, not for themselves.

At least when I'm running the game.

Mokkurkalfe wrote: What kinda cool stuff can you come up with for a guy that has "Passion: Loyalty to the king" and "Destiny: Overthrow the king"?
Would one of them just cancel out the other or what do you think?
And another thing, should a player know his PC's Destiny from start, or have to find out during the game?

I had something like that in mind.
And when he realises that he has been fooled to overthrow the king, he will get mighty angered and his loyalty passion will soar as he set out to hunt down this nemesis.

Ho boy.

First, I completely agree with Mike about SAs not being proscriptive. PCs can act against them. If I was using a more harsh tone about the limiting sides of SAs, it is because the original question that started this thread involved the potential munchkining of SAs. IMHO, the more a player tries to milk the rules for power, the more the rules should bite back. My more draconian comments about losing SAs and what SAs allow and don't allow were pointed toward the Hypothetical Munchkin. A 'normal' player who was roleplaying his character well I would imagine should be allowed a bit more flexibility to make his PC a living entity with several dimensions. (there are more proper opportiunities for a GM to be harsh with a munchkin is my basic argument) I realize Mokkurkalfe wasn't purely speaking about the bloodthirsty killer, but the word munchkin was mentioned in passing, and my personal experiences make me very, very aware of how a system reacts to munchkinism.

I also agree about flaws or tension making a character more interesting/entertaining. The ways of creating flaws for a particular character involving his SAs is pretty much limitless, so I'm not gonna even try to give examples.

Can I just say I infinitely prefer threads like this one over the "How many rivets are in platemail" threads. This probably has more to do with my total lack of historical knowledge than anything else, but ANYWAYS...

On the subject of loyalty & overthrowing kings... The destiny SA is a touchy one for me. It sounds like you're planning on getting a lot of campaign mileage out of it, which works. The real dangers come up if people make PCs the way my old D&D group did: everyone makes their characters in private, and then drops them all in front of the DM 15 minutes before gaming starts. uh-uh. Can't work very well, especially with things like destiny involved.

I think you also point out a good point about SAs: seeming conflicts and contradictions do not need to be. A character can sometimes walk a moral tightrope successfully, and sometimes the world the PC lives in creates unusual circumstances.

And why are you talking about taking only luck when the discussion is about finding fitting SA's for someone who's *not* prepared to put the rope around their on neck themselves to save a serial-killer who's been wrongly convicted of stealing a wagon?
That peasant I mentioned earlier, who does he fit into your looting and killing anti-hero?

Second, I think that there's a large difference between the "dressing in black and being bad" thing, and having heroes with flaws. The fact that SAs can reflect these flaws (if designed appropriately and withng the rules) is a very cool thing.

Besides, I don't like your elitist view that your gaming is somehow superior.

Nevermet wrote: On the subject of loyalty & overthrowing kings... The destiny SA is a touchy one for me. It sounds like you're planning on getting a lot of campaign mileage out of it, which works. The real dangers come up if people make PCs the way my old D&D group did: everyone makes their characters in private, and then drops them all in front of the DM 15 minutes before gaming starts. uh-uh. Can't work very well, especially with things like destiny involved.

I'm not against the anti-hero, actually. I just prefer the 'anti-' part be background, and we start the gaming with the 'hero' part.

One-offs? Sure.

Didn't mean to give this impression. In all honesty, I do like Diablo and other games which emphasize wargame-skills and greed. I don't think pen-and-paper are a really good outlet for these things, though. One-offs? Sure. But a long-term campaign built around self-serving characters? Boring, to me the GM. Again, I think you can have much more fun with those drives in different games.

I thought of a different way to phrase some of this.

Let's say you take 'Passion: Wanderlust'. Under what situations do you get to use those points? Under what situations are you awarded points? I honestly can't figure out the first (when you get to add the points to die rolls). For the second, I need to come up with a situation like this: "...you did great work their son. Our town could really use more men like you; would you consider hiring on permanently?..." Then you chose to move on, and I give you a point. Every adventure.

Then there's 'Drive: Fame and Fortune'. Again, ask yourself the 'use' and 'award' questions. I think you can see that this one absolutely leads to munchkin gaming very quickly. If that's your goal, well, that's your goal. It's not mine, and not one I would GM.

-Jeff

Actually, it was the "Take luck, and nothing else, and live a mediocre gaming life. " that ticked me off.

Jaif wrote: I thought of a different way to phrase some of this.

Let's say you take 'Passion: Wanderlust'. Under what situations do you get to use those points? Under what situations are you awarded points? I honestly can't figure out the first (when you get to add the points to die rolls). For the second, I need to come up with a situation like this: "...you did great work their son. Our town could really use more men like you; would you consider hiring on permanently?..." Then you chose to move on, and I give you a point. Every adventure.
-Jeff

Jaif wrote: Then there's 'Drive: Fame and Fortune'. Again, ask yourself the 'use' and 'award' questions. I think you can see that this one absolutely leads to munchkin gaming very quickly. If that's your goal, well, that's your goal. It's not mine, and not one I would GM.
-Jeff

Another scenario for the king thing, with plenty of historical precedent. the character has loyalty to kingSHIP, but not necessarily the present incumbent. So, when attending court, the character makes all obeisance due the stature of the king, but secretly plots treason on the basis that they need the Right King. Such a character would never permit even the false incumbent to be demeaned in their kingship, but would happily conspire for them to have a fatal accident.

Theres also an unconscious variety, in which the very pursuit of loyalty to the king results in the king being overthrown - because the king is unworthy of such loyalty. The honourable servant is betrayed by an unworthy master - in fact that very betrayal of the character by the king could precipitate the crisis that brings down the dynasty.

On the wanderlust thing.
It would probably be good for keeping the characters moving. I would give them points when reaching a new land, famous landmark or somesuch. A little like Tourist points.
Perhaps Wanderlust is better as a gift or flaw. It'd make you travel farther and perhaps an endurance bonus of sorts. On the downside, it'd give you a penalty for staying too long in the same place. It might lower all your Mental attributes for being absent-minded and just wanting to be on the road again.


On Fame and Fortune.
Personally I'd drop the Fortune part and make it a minor Greed flaw. With only Fame as a goal might be cool.
He get points as soon as he does something that will make him more famous(duh!). He gets the dice as soon as he is doing something important(i.e. jousting, acting on a theatre, debating) in front of a big audience. Of course, it doesn't work if he is performing glorious actions deep down an abandoned fortress with only the spiders left alive to tell the tale.
When he actually gets famous, one use up the entire SA for buying Wit or whatever, and replace it with a new SA.

Another thing.
A character can only be truly great if he acts according to his SA's, right?
Doesn't that mean that all the very top elite swordfighters has "Drive:Be the best swordsman" or somesuch?
It would be cool when a character watches his opponent during training and trough a PER-roll estimates he has about 16-19 dice.
Then, when the real fighting begins, he have like 24 dice.

As soon as I got TROS, I started wondering about the "be the best" Drive SA. My conclusion was that the best swordsmen don't necessarily have it, but the most obsessed swordsman do. Personally, I can think of one way to make that drive work: its a reputation thing. Formal duels, public displays, trying to maintain one's repuatiion is where the drive to be the best would enter in. In 'real life,' it would also enter in for skill improvement, but that isn't done mechanically with SAs as much as the player deciding how to spend SAs. A drive for RECOGNITION of being the best would I think be a pretty cool Drive.

If a player INSISTS that it applies to the majority of combat, then I would try to persuade him/her not to take such a Drive. If that fails, and if his character is becoming just plain silly by being in a constant sprititually charged state, then thats when he starts bumping into a ton of other bladeslingers; some better than him (who would beat him and possibly kill him), and some worse than him (who if he kills he potentially becomes infamous and wanted for murder).

Nevermet wrote: If that fails, and if his character is becoming just plain silly by being in a constant sprititually charged state, then thats when he starts bumping into a ton of other bladeslingers; some better than him (who would beat him and possibly kill him), and some worse than him (who if he kills he potentially becomes infamous and wanted for murder).

Mike Holmes wrote:
On the subject of munchkin play, munchkins are dysfunctional despite any system you use. There is no need to restrict non-munchkin players, and no way to restrict munchkin players. Why would you want to anyhow? Kick the munchkins out (or convert them if possible, I suppose), and move on. Allow the good players to do their thing unhindered by excessive limits. Just my opinion on the subject.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:

Nevermet wrote: If that fails, and if his character is becoming just plain silly by being in a constant sprititually charged state, then thats when he starts bumping into a ton of other bladeslingers; some better than him (who would beat him and possibly kill him), and some worse than him (who if he kills he potentially becomes infamous and wanted for murder).

Which is fine. Actually the player is telling you he wants to fight these guys, and probably should bump into them anyhow (or, more likely, be looking for them). I mean, how does he know if he's the best or not until he's fought others who might be the best.

That's the essence of the bladeslinger's riddle, no?

Mike

Nevermet wrote: However, maybe I'm just unlucky with who I've played with, but I can envision a lot of players being truly surprised you threw a potential enemy in front of them that is actually superior.

On the subject of munchkin play, munchkins are dysfunctional despite any system you use. There is no need to restrict non-munchkin players, and no way to restrict munchkin players. Why would you want to anyhow? Kick the munchkins out (or convert them if possible, I suppose), and move on. Allow the good players to do their thing unhindered by excessive limits. Just my opinion on the subject.

Then he will either keep it and used it whenever he has to defend his position as the greates in the world. Or it will wane and disappear as he set out for different goals in life(other SA's)
That's one thing I like with SA's. They can change.

Jaif wrote: I know we're tossing terms liberally here, but a 'munchkin' isn't a binary thing. My friends and I also play board (and computer) wargames. Gaming the system is part of what we do. It's nice to set clear limits in advance in this cases. Why set limits? Because I want to tell stories that I find entertaining, and people running finding reasons to kill and loot gets dull w/o context.

-Jeff

Mike Holmes wrote:

And then when he proves he's the best; then what?

Mike

Well, my point was the same as others here, it's OK for a PC to be the best, because then he will have to change his drive. He's obtained what he was going for. Now he can't keep trying to be the best, he is. He must now try for something else.

I love the fact that TROS is so new that nobody has any "Oh, yeah, I had this one guy with a 64CP who killed three hundred men al by himeself" stories. Think we can avoid it entirely? Probably not. But there's always hope.

Anyhow, Jeff is, of course, correct about the whole communcation thing. This is a fine way to slay the earstwhile munchkin. But I also want to see that character who is the best in my game have to make that "What next" decision. I think it will be a cool moment. Certainly a good place to retire a character, but also a great place to change him radically. I mean, at this point shouldn't he have his answer to the Riddle? And if so, shouldn't that set him off on a new path?

Well, whatever the answer, I'd like to see it anyhow.

The only big concerns that I have with SAs is that one player does not take ones that are so outrageous compared to the others that theirs seem lame in comparison. Character envy can destroy player interest. As such, I advocate more than just player/GM communication, but player/player. "Oh, you're taking that? Then maybe it would be cool if I took this?"

Another thing I'm really looking forward to is players taking Passions for their dear friends, the other PCs. That's a cool way to keep a group together, and to make them internally powerful. This is one of those occasions that the player drive for power, and the GMs drives coincide nicely. No longer do I need to have lame reasons why the characters are together, they can come up with good reasons themsleves, leaving me more free to do my thing.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Another thing I'm really looking forward to is players taking Passions for their dear friends, the other PCs. That's a cool way to keep a group together, and to make them internally powerful. This is one of those occasions that the player drive for power, and the GMs drives coincide nicely. No longer do I need to have lame reasons why the characters are together, they can come up with good reasons themsleves, leaving me more free to do my thing.

Heh, I have gladiator on DVD too. Awesome flick - I skip all the talking stuff, and go straight for the fight scenes!

Love watching the famous Roman Longbowmen firing fire arrows! :-)

-Jeff

Jake Norwood wrote:
I just wanted to pound my stein and say, "here here!"

Jake,
who isn't feeling very useful, but is pleased with himself nonetheless.

True, but I do have a stein with a naked lady in the bottom. I'll show it to you next time you're in Utah...a present from my dad in his drinking days.

Jake

Earlier in this thread there was talk about taking away SA Points... which was heartilly decried....

My alternative is to declare a point move out of a SA that is consistenly or blatantly violated.

For instance the "Pasion Obtaining Wealth/ never go hungry again" or similar SA and the charachter doesn't lift the sack of coins from his slain foe.

This can either be to where the player wants, or to an SA specified by Sen.

Anyway, i didn't see anyone pose that as a workable alternative.

Removal of SA points was something that I had originaly considered, but felt thta too many games punish players for doing things when it doesn't make the game more fun. I have been known, sporradically, to take away SA points in-game when someone regularly and blatantly violates some of their SAs. More often than not I ask them to change their SA if they're not going to play it.

The occasional violation, however, has great story-making potential.

Jake

Removal of SAs is something in the rules, at least in the first edition.

-Jeff

Jaif wrote: Removal of SAs is something in the rules, at least in the first edition.

-Jeff

I'll have to work on my stage name then. "The Amazing Jeff" just doesn't have much zing. :-)

Removal of SAs is something I agree with also. Otherwise the SAs become convient situation modifiers. The whole point with SAs, to me, is that they should tug at a character just as much as a character can use them.

-Jeff

Jaif wrote:
Removal of SAs is something I agree with also. Otherwise the SAs become convient situation modifiers. The whole point with SAs, to me, is that they should tug at a character just as much as a character can use them.
-Jeff