Take the various priorities.

Race, for example.
An F is merely "Normal" -- nothing good or bad about it, you're just the common human.
Indeed, E is the same thing, as is D (which bothers me, but that's a discussion for another time.
And then C is the "rare/cool" Halfling.
And B is a Magical Human or Halfling (halflings are better at it, BTW. This also bothers me, but that too is a discussion for another time), or NonMagical Siehe.
And A is a Magical Siehe or Fey.

Not bad. A very good place to put an F, as it won't hurt you at all.

An extreme example, to be sure, but most of the priority columns don't hurt too bad if you use the lower priorities. And then there's the Attributes table, where you have to spend a B to even become AVERAGE! (C is 39, which requires one or more attributes below average, even ignoring the need for high attributes.)

I think that's a bit too much. I should be able to specialize in things other than attributes and not be a braindead weakling. (the inevitable result of an F in attributes under the present table.)

Thus I came up with the following replacement for the Attribute table (eh. tell me what you think.) It's a little more "heroic", but it seems okay to me.

A- 54
B- 51
C- 48
D- 45
E- 42
F- 39

The just-below average 39 is shifted to F, and the attributes increase by threes, to a high of 54 (just barely enough to have 6 5s and 4 6s, which seems good for someone that specialized to natural ability.)

Yeah, and after that you can make every start out with 3/3 for their skills and 35 proficiency levels too. And everyone should have at least 5 Major Gifts ;-)

Seriously you want to move 39 from C to F?

I probably wouldn't balk too much at seeing it bumped to D. It is very hard to get a noble character with decent attributes who can fight, but all the way to F? 54 attribute points, on top of the bonuses you get for race would have a large number of very high strength, toughness, and reflex combat gods right from the first. This I think is NOT a good idea. Especially when you throw Insight for continueing characters on top of it.

Valamir wrote: Yeah, and after that you can make every start out with 3/3 for their skills and 35 proficiency levels too. And everyone should have at least 5 Major Gifts ;-)

Seriously you want to move 39 from C to F?

I probably wouldn't balk too much at seeing it bumped to D. It is very hard to get a noble character with decent attributes who can fight, but all the way to F? 54 attribute points, on top of the bonuses you get for race would have a large number of very high strength, toughness, and reflex combat gods right from the first. This I think is NOT a good idea. Especially when you throw Insight for continueing characters on top of it.

This is a topic that has come up several times, though it's a hair (but only a hair) different this time.

It depends on what you're going for. I think that I could condone higher attribute priorities for a more "high fantasy" game. I've never belived in "averages," though, which is why there's 39 points in C. Retrospectively, 41 points in C might be better.

Other things to note:

Attributes are easily overcome in TROS, and are very easily raised to 4 within a very few games (or, if you're willing to spend your beginning SAs right away, even before play).

Insight changes everthing over time.

TROS is supposed to be hard. For me Sam in LoTR is heroic, but Aragorn is just doing what he does. Who took the more "heroic" trait set? Sam, for sure. Aragorn just had more points. I wanted priorities to be difficult, and to pose hard decisions.

However, as always, do what you need to make TROS fit your style of play. I've always supported that.

One final tidbit to add: I've been playing with a different priority chart (merging race and social class, frex), which might go in that "compendium" people are talking about. I'm also working on a "dial" like what's found in Octane or IIRC, Dust Devils, for various degrees of "grit" "realism" and "fantasy."

Jake

I agree with Bob.

OTOH, a simpler and better way to handle this is to just say that 3 is average (as opposed to 4) and go from there. Certainly this is what happens anyhow to starting characters. Just making his distinction, suddenly characters seem more heroic. Bob's method reduces the range of available characters which I dislike a lot.

This does make the scale a little short on the low end, but it's a pretty coarse granularity any way you look at it. This way you allow for a greater range of variability in heroes (while only having two levels for below average, bad and crippling, 1 and 2). I can go with that.

Mike

Jake Norwood wrote: This is a topic that has come up several times, though it's a hair (but only a hair) different this time.

It depends on what you're going for. I think that I could condone higher attribute priorities for a more "high fantasy" game. I've never belived in "averages," though, which is why there's 39 points in C. Retrospectively, 41 points in C might be better.

Other things to note:

Attributes are easily overcome in TROS, and are very easily raised to 4 within a very few games (or, if you're willing to spend your beginning SAs right away, even before play).

Insight changes everthing over time.

TROS is supposed to be hard. For me Sam in LoTR is heroic, but Aragorn is just doing what he does. Who took the more "heroic" trait set? Sam, for sure. Aragorn just had more points. I wanted priorities to be difficult, and to pose hard decisions.

However, as always, do what you need to make TROS fit your style of play. I've always supported that.

One final tidbit to add: I've been playing with a different priority chart (merging race and social class, frex), which might go in that "compendium" people are talking about. I'm also working on a "dial" like what's found in Octane or IIRC, Dust Devils, for various degrees of "grit" "realism" and "fantasy."

Jake

Whoa, there,

I agree that for many styles of play at least 2 or 3 more points may be ideal. I also think that what makes a character heroic is their weaknesses, not their strengths.

Again, I encourage tweaking the system.

Jake
who has about 38 points IRL, and doesn't feel weak, but wishes he could lose about 15 pounds or replace it with muscle.

All my players took an "A" in priorities (except for one who took an "A" in proficiencies and a "B" in priorities). Why? Because they are min/maxing. The fact of the matter is that people choose high attribute priorities not to get away from the "bad" C and below priorities, but because it gives them the highest "stats" and most "points."

Is the solution to *RAISE* the attribute level? I think not! It's already stacked in favor of choosing high attribute priorites. I believe that raising the attribute level will encourage players to put their high priorities into attributes even more than the current situation, unless you raise all the attribute priorities EXCEPT the A and B priorities (which are quite high, IMO).

If you don't think a B is high attributes, I must tell you that I took a B priority in attributes for my character, who started with a seven in perception as well as three sixes in agility, social and wit. He rarely even uses anything else. One of my players began the game with a seven REFLEX. Think about that one.

Neato, I get to be contrary again. :-)

If you're min-maxing the system, it's dumb to take a high priority in attributes. Instead, make a focussed character who is good at some things, and wretchedly, massively poor in other areas. The classic would be the fighter with a 1 MA & 1 SOC.

Why do I say this? Because it takes 6 points to get both of those up to 3s. Hell, you can do that with your starting allotment of SAs, if you want. More realistically, if all you get is 3 SAs a session, your bad attributes are 2s at the end of the first, and 3s at the end of the second.

I'm not saying you shouldn't change the table to match your desired starting conditions, but doing so because you think the attribute points are a big deal and under-represented is silly, IMO.

Tangent - where I think the system lacks most is in the 'races' area. There are some picks that are mechanically better than others, and some that simply don't seem worth the priority, e.g. non-casting halflings and a 'c'.

-Jeff

Lyrax wrote: One of my players began the game with a seven REFLEX. Think about that one.

BrianL wrote:
(alright, I lied, I love it) but given that you can't start with an attribute higher than 7, and you have to have one high attribute (so the next one can't be higher than 6), and averages round down, it's not possible (by the rulebook, anyway) to start with a reflex higher than 6 :-)

Furious D wrote:

BrianL wrote:
(alright, I lied, I love it) but given that you can't start with an attribute higher than 7, and you have to have one high attribute (so the next one can't be higher than 6), and averages round down, it's not possible (by the rulebook, anyway) to start with a reflex higher than 6 :-)

You are forgetting regional modifiers. All you need is an affiliation that gives a bonus to Wit or AG. Or both (like Angerhad/Picti).

BrianL wrote:
Damn, I hate being out-pendanted :-)

A) That's why I said "think about that" and

Furious D wrote:

It happens to all of us :)

Jake Norwood wrote: Whoa, there,

I agree that for many styles of play at least 2 or 3 more points may be ideal. I also think that what makes a character heroic is their weaknesses, not their strengths.

Again, I encourage tweaking the system.

Jake
who has about 38 points IRL, and doesn't feel weak, but wishes he could lose about 15 pounds or replace it with muscle.