I'm an old time player of AD&D and GURPS and haven't played for almost 15 years now. My son is getting old enough to play now though and I thought it would be entertaining for us to play together. At first, I thought it would be fun to do some simple wargaming using an RPG rulset and then later moving on to real roleplaying using the same set of rules. I was always unsatisfied with the combat engines/rules of all the games I've ever read or tried--I wanted as much realism as possible without the system being too cumbersome and one that allowed you to make significant tactical decisions in combat. An internet search revealed TROS to me and after reading up on it some, I think it may fit the bill exactly! I've always thought it would be cool if a combat system was based on real life combat simulation (i.e., ARMA) and this is EXACTLY what Jake has done. This is why the game has me drooling at this point.

However I have a concern. Obviously, the system is geared toward realistic 1-on-1 human combat. But how well does the system work beyond this? For example, is it too difficult/time consuming to run a melee say with 10 or so fighters going at it? What about multiple combantants versus a single combatant? For example, what about a tactical situation like 4 spearman going up against a much more skilled swordsman (I assume that the swordman would be very hard pressed despite his skill level in a situation like this.) Last, how does the system deal with non-human combatants? Namely, something larger like a dragon or a muich bigger and tougher Tolkien troll? I'd like the system I play to be very similar to the melee shown in the LOTRs with the troll in Moria. (Actually, more lethality would be okay--I could use hero points or something like that to tone down the lethality if needed for the heroes in the RPG--I want realism!!!).

Thanks.
-bob crane
trash696@earthlink.net

Hi Bob.

Well, lets see.

For example, is it too difficult/time consuming to run a melee say with 10 or so fighters going at it?

It's not bad, basically you handle each 1-on-X individually for a couple of rounds and then move to the next, etc (just like you see combats in a film or whatever). Because combat is generally pretty fast in TROS, this doesn't take as much time as you would think (no 200 hit point warriors taking blow after blow and slowing things down).

What about multiple combantants versus a single combatant? For example, what about a tactical situation like 4 spearman going up against a much more skilled swordsman (I assume that the swordman would be very hard pressed despite his skill level in a situation like this.)

This is handled by the lone swordsman making what's called a terrain roll. He chooses as many dice from his Combat Pool as he likes and rolls against a difficulty based on how many opponents there are and how fast he is moving etc, and if he succeeds, he gets to only face one of them that round because he has maneuvered them around to block each other. Failure means you face two (or three on a botch) and then you're probably in serious trouble. It works really well. Tyhe choice is an agonising one, let me tell you. You only need one success on the terrain roll, but of course you're using up the die pool you'll then be using to fight with. So, do you spend only a couple of dice, risking failure but still having plenty of dice to fight with, or spend many, almost guaranteeing that you'll only have one opponent to face, but maybe not having enough dice to beat him with :-)

This very elegant terrain system works in other situations as well - fighting on a narrow precipice? Make a terrain roll to fight effectively - either you're fightiong all out but then you aren't paying much attention to the precipice (because you didn;t put many dice to the terrain roll) and might fall, or be very sure about your footing (lots of dice on the terrain roll) but be concentrating on that so much your actual fighting suffers. Combat involves hard choices :-)

Last, how does the system deal with non-human combatants?

At the moment, it doesn't, but the first suppliment Of Beasts and Men is coming out in a few months (it's been written and is in the final editing and layout stages) and that has rules for animals and beasts, special maneuvers only they can use, hit location diagrams for their unique physiques, mounted combat, and so on. Yes, you can do everything from trolls to dragons to whatever else, and I think it works pretty well.

Actually, more lethality would be okay--I could use hero points or something like that to tone down the lethality if needed for the heroes in the RPG--I want realism!!!).

Hey - realism is one of TROS' selling points, you can't do better.

Plus, of course, on top of a cool system there's this excellent forum where you can exchange ideas, advice or just shoot the shit with other TROS players and Jake himself (who is away at the moment but is otherwise a very regular poster here).

Regards,
Brian.

BrianL wrote: and if he succeeds, he gets to only face one of them that round because he has maneuvered them around to block each other. Failure means you face two (or three on a botch) and then you're probably in serious trouble.

ShaneNINE wrote:

BrianL wrote: and if he succeeds, he gets to only face one of them that round because he has maneuvered them around to block each other. Failure means you face two (or three on a botch) and then you're probably in serious trouble.

How does that work when the PC is one of many going after one NPC? Does the GM make a Terrain Role for the NPC and then arbitrarily tell some of the PCs they can't attack this time? Seems a little one sided to allow only the defender to affect this.

I read on a previous post somewhere a suggestion of letting the attackers make terrain rolls to attack the single defender. I thought that sounded like a good idea. I use it like an attack. The sole character decides how many dice he is putting into the outmaneuver and at which of the two target numbers(as per the terrain book). His opponents then decide how many dice they are each willing to put in to try and outmaneuver his outmaneuver, rolling against the same target number. Basically its an opposed roll. If the sole fighter gets at least 1 success and more than at least one of his opponents he may choose who he is facing. If all his opponents who attempted achieved more successes he has to face them all. All of the opponents must achieve more successes to win this opposed roll.
Seems to work pretty well. Comes down to another real tactical decision and helps stop the peasant from outmaneuvering two swordsmasters.
Aaron.

I just got together today with a bunch of people to try the Quick-Start Rules and get a feel for the game. I guess the biggest bone of contention was why isn't there a penalty for aiming for the head? Is it not the hard-to-hit target that other games have made it out to be?

Another issue was, is there a cap for the number of proficiency dice a person can initially put into a single weapon. We had players dumping all their points into one weapon (these were test combats) and making hellacious rolls with fistfuls of dice.

Another issue was that of social class determining the type of armor that could be worn. I understand this historically. What incentives have people used in their campaigns to keep a bunch of serfs from getting helmets (or is it simply a question of money?)?

Thanks for your help. If this all works out well (and I'm hoping it does) there might have 5 more converts on this end. Thanks.

Hi Samspectre,

I don't kow how the quickstart rules work, but in the core book, maximums for Attributes and proficiencies for starting characters limit a starting character's combat pool to 14 dice. Of course, this requires certain trade offs in other areas.

*Head Shots*

A little experience with a bo-ken leads me to think that swings to the head are easier than most rpgs make out. I also note that helmets were very popular in the real world, even when no other armor was worn. Will anyone with more experience verify this?

According to the TROS rules, one should try to describe attacks in a flowing pattern. After a head attack your weapon is down. Your next attack will be up or sideways. So not every attack goes to the same area.

Also consider that the area you choose to attack may provoke your opponent and make him more dangerous.

*Armor by Social Class*

In a setting like Weyrth (the TROS world), Serfs found bearing weapons and armor illegal for their status would be summarily executed, preferably torn apart by dogs or impaled. TROS isn't D&D where a character can get enough hit points to ignore the law.

In a feudal system, a lord might give permission for his men at arms to wear chain or even plate. I think this is implied in TROS.

Finanlly, I'm thinking that when I run a game, there'll be a social exception when it comes to head gear. I'll let freemen of any allegence buy pot helms or caps.

Gidday. Welcome to the forum.

samspectre wrote: I just got together today with a bunch of people to try the Quick-Start Rules and get a feel for the game. I guess the biggest bone of contention was why isn't there a penalty for aiming for the head? Is it not the hard-to-hit target that other games have made it out to be?

samspectre wrote: Another issue was, is there a cap for the number of proficiency dice a person can initially put into a single weapon. We had players dumping all their points into one weapon (these were test combats) and making hellacious rolls with fistfuls of dice.

samspectre wrote: Another issue was that of social class determining the type of armor that could be worn. I understand this historically. What incentives have people used in their campaigns to keep a bunch of serfs from getting helmets (or is it simply a question of money?)?

samspectre wrote: Thanks for your help. If this all works out well (and I'm hoping it does) there might have 5 more converts on this end. Thanks.

Thanks for your responses. I do have a full version of the rules incoming through the mail. Once I read through them I'm sure I'll have more questions!

I guess another follow-up question might be... With such a deadly combat system, what sort of methods have you as GMs (assuming there's some GMs on the forum here) used to "encourage" or get characters involved in more classic adventures. Granted, I imagine "adventures" would be of a different variety than found in D&D (less monsters/opponents can serve as an equal threat if things come to blows)... I guess I'm curious as to mechanisms you've found effective... Or a general idea as to the flavor of your games. Thanks again.

Hi samspectre,

Regarding your last question, I strongly recommend reading and contemplating the rules for characters' Spiritual Attributes. The dice generated by these attributes are the core of "what TROS is about" during play.

Welcome to the gang of us here, and I'm sure I speak for everyone in looking forward to hearing about your group's experiences with the game.

Best,
Ron

Question 2.

A guy swings a big wooden club at someone's head. Let's say he does 8 damage. The guy he's hitting has a BRN of 4 and a Pot Helm AV of 4. So 0 damage is done. In effect, his brawn and armor has absorbed the blow. BUT doesn't it make sense also that he'd be knocked silly?! I mean it was STILL a 8 damage level hit to the head. Do the real rules take stun into effect for attacks that don't register real damage? Thanks again.

Hi Sam,

Ah, this comes up a lot. Given his Toughness, no, he was not knocked silly.

Just what this means in game terms is a matter of dispute around here, or rather, subject to group interpretation.

How I look at it is that blows have variable effects on people. Having a high Toughness means that the range of those effects is skewed toward the "lesser" end, for this person.

One of the biggest issues regarding TROS, which is very hard for some people, is that the game is not - despite appearances - a "realism engine." The combat system will not provide you will all the options and circumstances of hitting someone (see Brian's above comment about which sword-stroke is "valid" following a given move), nor will each combat stepp provide you with a perfect, complete, and finished outcome for any action during combat. The combat system is about outcomes, not about some kind of stop-motion simulation of reality.

H'm, I'm not sure if I'm putting this right. Perhaps if I phrase it this way: in TROS, you do not know that the blow connected solidly until after Toughness is factored in. This approach is often very hard for some role-players, especially those who are used to GURPS, Rolemaster, or RuneQuest, to understand. To them, the "damage roll" (or whatever) set the force and placement of the blow, and thus any "armor" or "toughness" must be coping with that force and placement.

In TROS, think backwards a little. So the guy with 4 Toughness withstood a 8-point blow (with his helmet). What this means is that for this guy, such blows land less solidly, perhaps with less force or inferior placement. But really, never mind why. He's the "tough guy" in the movie, so to speak, and we just know that Blow X will flatten his slender buddy, but not really worry him.

Thinking of Toughness as a part of a character's "thematic bundle" (right up there with Philosophy) instead of some kind of physical attribute (like armored skin or something silly like that, for humans) is one way to deal with the issue. Other ways have been discussed on this forum too.

Best,
Ron

Yeah, what Ron said.

That said, if it really bothers you that a head blow like that ends up doing nothing, there's an optional rule in the combat section where all head attacks have a chance of knocking out an opponent, or at least making him see stars. I don't use it personally, basically for all the reasons Ron outlined, but different strokes for different folks.

As for your other question about getting players involved, again Ron is right on the button with the comment on SA's - they ensure that the adventure is always focused on what's really important to the characters. To be honest, without the SA's TROS would really just be a fairly soul-less hack 'n slash combat game (albiet a nifty one). It's the SA's and how they integrate right throughout the system that make this such an overall damn cool game.

Basically, because combat is so deadly, it makes the characters/players say to themselves "what's really important enough to risk dying for", and the answer is right there on the character sheet in the SA section. Cool stuff.

Brian.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Just what this means in game terms is a matter of dispute around here, or rather, subject to group interpretation.

on toughness, imagine it like this, if you, average guy x, hits me, wimpy dude y, I am gonna have a nice shiner. Throw the same punch at heavyweight pro boxer z and he laughs at you.

Thats toughness in a real world application.

Another example is my friend from college who was hit by a minivan going 30 MPH and he got up and walked away without more than a bruise.
Another guy I know was hit by a car going 50 MPH and he only broke an arm. thats toughness IRL.

On outmaneuvering:

An idea that came to me.. The single combatant can choose to attempt to outmaneuver his opponents. He chooses a number of dice to use.. Then the others can choose to either attempt to outmaneuver him, or not. If they choose to, they must meet use the same number of dice, or more, but not less. So if the sole combatant uses 3 dice, any others who try to outmaneuver him must commit 3 or more, or simply not outmaneuver. Whoever beats the sole combatant's roll can fight him, but those who match or fail to beat the number of successes are outmaneuvered. This keeps Less committed combatants from rolling a single die and just getting lucky. If they want to fight, they'll have to have the same level of commitment.

On Toughness: My interpretation of toughness (either as it's own attribute, or composited into Brawn, as in the QS rules) is that it's not simply beefiness or the ability to take a beating. I see it likewise as a certain instinctive knowledge of how to lessen the impact. In the case of the club to the head, the character, seeing the blow coming and realizing that they cannot totally avoid it instinctively reacts to lessen the impact. They move their head directly away from the blow, and/or tilt it in such a way that it only glances. If not for the helmet, it still would have been enough to crack their skull (level 4 bashing wound... ouch?) But with the helm, it just makes a rather loud clank (no-doubt muffled by whatever padding is inside the helm) and does no harm.

Wolfen wrote: This keeps Less committed combatants from rolling a single die and just getting lucky. If they want to fight, they'll have to have the same level of commitment.

Limbo wrote: For example, is it too difficult/time consuming to run a melee say with 10 or so fighters going at it?

toli wrote: This overall view was backed up by US army studies from WW2, Korea and Vietam. One point these studies made was that in a combat situation, relatively few people are actually trying to win the battle (something like less than 5%). The majority are 'surviving'. That is they respond to attacks and fight when attacked but lack initiative in a sense.

I've always felt that what makes TROS combat more "heroic" than all the systems so dubbed, is that it requires real "heroism" in the face of danger--the virtue that the 2/7 posess. It's the PC's that make the choice to be part of that 2/7 (not the mechanics that do it for them, as has been discussed). On the other hand, this is great advice for seneschals and those wishing to throw dozens of screaming suicidal masses at their PCs...not many will really stand up to a fight.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: On the other hand, this is great advice for seneschals and those wishing to throw dozens of screaming suicidal masses at their PCs...not many will really stand up to a fight.

Brian Leybourne wrote: IMG, it's a rare NPC who doesn't throw down his weapon as soon as a) he gets wounded, or b) the PC's look like they're quite prepared to fight to the death. A town guard just isn't going to lay down his life for 2 copper pieces a day.