Hi,

Does anyone know if any web site has sample adventures for TROS? Or does it not work that way? If not, what's the best way of constructing an adventure for it - how blatantly do the PC's SAs need to be included?

(Still getting around a player who wanted to play Race A Social Class F.. is that even possible?)

There are a few sample adventures in the main rulebook (end of chapter 8 I believe), but...

TROS is not a game that you can really publish or provide adventures for, other than in base "adventure hook" form. Unless your players have extremely generic SA's, a published adventure is never going to fit in with them.

To answer your question - it's vital. IMO you can't even begin to design a TROS campaign until after the character creation has been done, because only then will you know the characters backgrounds and SA's, and you use those to build the campaign, weaving the SA's together so you can ensure that as many will come into play as possible every session. A TROS session where none of a players SA's come into play will be a very very boring one for that player, and the more you can get in there (especially if you can make them conflict...) the better.

Race A and Social Class F? Easy. He's a Fey-Siehe who has been outcast from his society and cast out into the world of humans. Maybe he has to atone for his sins (whatever they were), maybe they were too heinous to atone for, maybe other Fey-Siehe are hunting him, or maybe he didn't really do anything and just fell foul of political games within the Fey. Maybe he has NO idea why he was cast out, and this gives you yet another goal for the character that you can build into the campaign (and if he's smart, he'll see you doing that and wrap an SA such as Drive or Destiny around it).

In fact, one of the sample NPC's in "Of Beasts and Men" is in exactly this situation :-)

Brian.

I'll agree with Brian.

You can run TROS with no attention to SAs, but then it really loses most of what makes the game special. Here's what you do for an adventure:

Sit your players down. Explain what the SAs will mean for them in play (= EVERYTHING), and then have them come up with all of theirs together. Some of them can have the same SA, some of them can focus SAs on each other (loyalty, love, whatever), some of them can set a few in opposition (makes for great stories). Then you take one of the "Adventure Seeds" (or one of your own) and see to it that conflicts and issues surrounding their SA's come up frequently. You'll have some of the most powerful roleplaying you've ever had with your group. Don't be afraid to generously reward SA use and never put a restriction on something unless it will add to the game somehow. Let them ham-it-up!

Jake

BrianL wrote:

TROS is not a game that you can really publish or provide adventures for, other than in base "adventure hook" form. Unless your players have extremely generic SA's, a published adventure is never going to fit in with them.

Brian.

Yeah, I think Irmo's got it right. More just locational supplements that include "places the PCs might get into trouble" and such. Just to give the GM ideas during play. If noting else, neat descriptions can be used for filler detail to give a feel of a rich campaign world.

Mike

Hi there,

I'll pitch in with some more agreement. A given locale just bursting with conflicts and hassles that engage the characters, indeed, in which the characters' participation acts as a catalyst, works very well for TROS.

The difficulty, of course, is that by adding more and more game-book detail to locale after locale, one runs the risk of creating a "detailed campaign world" in the classic sense of removing reaons to play, rather than generating them, by limiting attention to the game to canonical fandom rather than shared authorship. In my view, Glorantha has wandered pretty far into this trap despite the efforts of the recent Hero Wars design and presentation to escape from it. The difference between the 1st and 2nd editions of Vampire: the Masquerade is practically a case study for this phenomenon.

Perhaps the best bet is through innovation: presenting a template for adventure construction that shows GMs and players how local conflicts and personal SA's are best brought into maximum expression during play. I tried to do something of this sort for Sorcerer with the relationship-map technique, with limited success.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi there,

I'll pitch in with some more agreement. A given locale just bursting with conflicts and hassles that engage the characters, indeed, in which the characters' participation acts as a catalyst, works very well for TROS.

The difficulty, of course, is that by adding more and more game-book detail to locale after locale, one runs the risk of creating a "detailed campaign world" in the classic sense of removing reaons to play, rather than generating them, by limiting attention to the game to canonical fandom rather than shared authorship. In my view, Glorantha has wandered pretty far into this trap despite the efforts of the recent Hero Wars design and presentation to escape from it. The difference between the 1st and 2nd editions of Vampire: the Masquerade is practically a case study for this phenomenon.

I just wanted to consider a couple of concepts that I don't believe have been brought up yet.

You could build an adventure with pregenerated characters whose SAs *WILL* fit the plot.

Or you could build an adventure designed to work with a set of around ten to twenty SAs and require that, in character design for it, each character pick at least one, and that all be picked.

That makes it so that you're automatically "hooked in"

Clearly not good for long-term campaigns, (for which I think pre-published adventures are silly anyway...) it has definite application for Con demos.

I like the "area source-book" idea, too. Pages upon pages of fluff text full of plot hooks and descriptions of prominent personalities. That would kick butt.

Hi Bob,

I agree with you about con demos. Mine certainly fits the bill you've described.

On the other hand, Jake has a nifty trick of building a scenario right there during the demo, starting with SA-less characters ... then everyone takes SA's that complement or interfere with one another, which permits Jake to set up an NPC or two who will "fire up" all the potential alliances and conflicts.

Best,
Ron

BrianL wrote:
To answer your question - it's vital. IMO you can't even begin to design a TROS campaign until after the character creation has been done, because only then will you know the characters backgrounds and SA's, and you use those to build the campaign, weaving the SA's together so you can ensure that as many will come into play as possible every session. A TROS session where none of a players SA's come into play will be a very very boring one for that player, and the more you can get in there (especially if you can make them conflict...) the better.
Brian.

Holt wrote:
I apologise for bringing something negative to the discussion, but, does anyone else think that the very fact that SAs need to be used in every adventure, does not bode well for long running campaigns?

I know my players personal preferences are always for long campaigns in which their characters grow and change. Now, I think TRoS is perfect for this, except when it comes to SAs. Without some rulings on changing SAs, or gaining new ones (Yes, I know the book mentions changing SAs, but it is a little vague on the subject) then the characters are going to be stuck with the same old thing time and time again (What!...my evil arch enemy has followed me to yet another town and kidnapped my father AGAIN!!) :)

Ok, I'm sure everyone here can be more creative than that, and it won't ever get that bad, but if one of a player's SAs is, Passion (Wife, Brother, etc.), it would get harder and harder to factor it in (without turning it into a Pulp setting).

Admitedly, if a charcter had a particularly grand destiny, that would be a long campaign all on it's own. The other SAs strike me as more short term or always there (like Luck, if it's chosen).

Holt you may wish to revisit the rules for changing SAs a bit.

As I recall its as simple as spending it down to 0 and then in between sessions writing a new one.

Valamir wrote: Holt you may wish to revisit the rules for changing SAs a bit.

As I recall its as simple as spending it down to 0 and then in between sessions writing a new one.

You're right, but how is that hard? It's a given that there's one you can spend down (the one you want to replace), and then you have 4 others to choose from to spend down as well (gaining experience for). Just sell down the one that is currently coming into play the most, and it'll probably get back up to 3 or 4 the following session anwyay...

Brian.

Valamir wrote: Holt you may wish to revisit the rules for changing SAs a bit.

As I recall its as simple as spending it down to 0 and then in between sessions writing a new one.

'Should a player ever change the focus of a Spiritual Attribute (such as a change in religion, lovers, or ideals) that Attribute and any one other Spiritual Attribute must be dropped to zero and the focus re-written. It may then progress as normal. An even rarer and more dramatic event is when a Spiritual Attribute changes entirely (e.g. replacing "Destiny" with a "Passion"). This is only possible if (1) the seneschal approves it and if (2) 10 Spirit Points (explained below) are spent to facilitate the change over. Whatever happens one's Spiritual Attributes should always be compatible with one's Philosophy, as set forth during character creation.'

Holt wrote: Let's say that I created a character with Loyalty (King) and the philosophy of 'Everything in it's rightful place. If during the course of the campaign, the King repeatedly betrayed my character eventually leading to the death of family members and my character decides enough is enough and helps in a coup d'etat would you penalize me for not playing according to my philosophy and SAs?

Hello,

Also, given those conflicting SA's, recognize that they can change very easily in the midst of play. Almost all of my favorite moments from playing TROS may be pinpointed at moments in which a character (for instance) throws aside his Faith by spending it to 0, spends his Luck to 0, and then changes the Faith into (say) hatred for someone. Or vice versa.

Best,
Ron

Holt wrote:

Valamir wrote: Holt you may wish to revisit the rules for changing SAs a bit.

As I recall its as simple as spending it down to 0 and then in between sessions writing a new one.

Ok, it reads as follows (pg 66)...

'Should a player ever change the focus of a Spiritual Attribute (such as a change in religion, lovers, or ideals) that Attribute and any one other Spiritual Attribute must be dropped to zero and the focus re-written. It may then progress as normal. An even rarer and more dramatic event is when a Spiritual Attribute changes entirely (e.g. replacing "Destiny" with a "Passion"). This is only possible if (1) the seneschal approves it and if (2) 10 Spirit Points (explained below) are spent to facilitate the change over. Whatever happens one's Spiritual Attributes should always be compatible with one's Philosophy, as set forth during character creation.'

This is hardly as simple as you said...nor is it, I admit, vague. However, I do have a problem with a couple of points...

Why should my (for example) Passion for my wife drop to zero just because I change my religion (it may well be that she is the reason it changed)?

Also, are we to assume that characters in TRoS are not supposed to change after character creation?...Take William Wallace from the movie Braveheart, his starting philosophy would probably be something like 'live and let live'. Owing to tragic events in his life, his philosophy changed to something darker. He probably started with Love (Murran) and this would have changed to Hate (English)...now obviously this would not fit with his original philosophy.

I'm sorry, I can't see a reason to justify the high cost of changing a character's SAs. Characters are supposed to grow throughout a campaign not stay the same...if they are not changed by the events that unfold around them, or that happen to them...something is seriously wrong.

One more thing...more of a question really...

Let's say that I created a character with Loyalty (King) and the philosophy of 'Everything in it's rightful place. If during the course of the campaign, the King repeatedly betrayed my character eventually leading to the death of family members and my character decides enough is enough and helps in a coup d'etat would you penalize me for not playing according to my philosophy and SAs?

Regards

-Holt

Bob Richter wrote:
As to the scenario you present, that's certainly going to test and try your loyalty, but if you don't change the SA, I'll penalyze you for not upholding it, yes.

Wow, another really cool SA thread.

The 10-point change-over cost is high, and mostly exists to prevent really random change overs or situations where a cool conflict (ie: Lancelot, Arthur, Gwenevere) comes in. It's preventing an "easy way out." I would actually strongly support a global SA re-work between stories (should have put that in the book, yeah...).

The other change--from Passion:love so-and-so to Passion:hate such-and-such is intentionally easy because it's perversions of one emotion or motive that make another so cool.

Finally, check my post on the other SA thread.

Jake

ps. If your group doesn't need the extra limitations on SA changing, then ditch them.

Well.. you have to bear in mind here that the players I'm working with are normally die hard hack-n-slay gamists, and that one of the main reasons I got into TROS in the first place was as a way of introducing alternate styles. On one hand, once I explained the point of SAs they got it immediately - the problem was explaining the mechanics ("how can I have 5 slots when I only have 4 points?"); on the other hand, the SAs I have represent a bit of a problem, as one person has basically taken Generic Paladin SAs, and the other player has made an evil character (he took the Destiny "Destroy The World" (!!!)).

Of course, the most obvious solution to this is to actually base the game on the two opposing each other. Can this type of thing actually work or does it lead to fallout, especially in this "introducing new type" style?

(The evil character player also asked how to do a D&D style Fireball in the TROS magic system. At the moment it seems to be that the best way would be something like: Spell of Three - Affects Incorporeal, LOS Range, Effects are Glamour (red beam coming from character), Sculpture (Turn air into natural gas), Sculpture (Ignite the natural gas). Of course, this is a lot bigger and scarier than a D&D Fireball, but it has more of a penalty for abusing it too... But I'm not sure if this is right, especially the "turn air into..." business (which seems like an all-too-easily exploitable fudge around the rule that matter is conserved even by magic))

hyphz wrote: Well.. you have to bear in mind here that the players I'm working with are normally die hard hack-n-slay gamists, and that one of the main reasons I got into TROS in the first place was as a way of introducing alternate styles. On one hand, once I explained the point of SAs they got it immediately - the problem was explaining the mechanics ("how can I have 5 slots when I only have 4 points?"); on the other hand, the SAs I have represent a bit of a problem, as one person has basically taken Generic Paladin SAs, and the other player has made an evil character (he took the Destiny "Destroy The World" (!!!)).

Of course, the most obvious solution to this is to actually base the game on the two opposing each other. Can this type of thing actually work or does it lead to fallout, especially in this "introducing new type" style?

(The evil character player also asked how to do a D&D style Fireball in the TROS magic system. At the moment it seems to be that the best way would be something like: Spell of Three - Affects Incorporeal, LOS Range, Effects are Glamour (red beam coming from character), Sculpture (Turn air into natural gas), Sculpture (Ignite the natural gas). Of course, this is a lot bigger and scarier than a D&D Fireball, but it has more of a penalty for abusing it too... But I'm not sure if this is right, especially the "turn air into..." business (which seems like an all-too-easily exploitable fudge around the rule that matter is conserved even by magic))

hyphz wrote: (The evil character player also asked how to do a D&D style Fireball in the TROS magic system. At the moment it seems to be that the best way would be something like: Spell of Three - Affects Incorporeal, LOS Range, Effects are Glamour (red beam coming from character), Sculpture (Turn air into natural gas), Sculpture (Ignite the natural gas). Of course, this is a lot bigger and scarier than a D&D Fireball, but it has more of a penalty for abusing it too... But I'm not sure if this is right, especially the "turn air into..." business (which seems like an all-too-easily exploitable fudge around the rule that matter is conserved even by magic))

hyphz wrote: Of course, the most obvious solution to this is to actually base the game on the two opposing each other. Can this type of thing actually work or does it lead to fallout, especially in this "introducing new type" style?

(The evil character player also asked how to do a D&D style Fireball in the TROS magic system. At the moment it seems to be that the best way would be something like: Spell of Three - Affects Incorporeal, LOS Range, Effects are Glamour (red beam coming from character), Sculpture (Turn air into natural gas), Sculpture (Ignite the natural gas). Of course, this is a lot bigger and scarier than a D&D Fireball, but it has more of a penalty for abusing it too... But I'm not sure if this is right, especially the "turn air into..." business (which seems like an all-too-easily exploitable fudge around the rule that matter is conserved even by magic))