Ok, since im assuming im not the only one who has..."evolved" shal we say, from d20 or DND to TROS, im curious as to your reasons for switching systems. My personal reason is that DnD simply didnt fulfill my need for an rpg with a feeling of realism to it. Simple as that.

ALso if you have any random thoughts on DnD or d20 feel free to post here.

Im especially curious to see what Jake and crew have to say.

Thanks as usual,
Mordacc

D20 bah humbug, that's why.

Any system where experience = immunity from repeated sword blows (to a point, admittedly), is not a good system IMO :-)

Brian.

i personally play more d&d d20 games, han TROS... no one here really cares for it... and i can count the number of people that i know who have the book, on 3 fingers...me and 2 other guys...oh well though..

as for switching, i have yet to do it, but then none of my groups play 3rd ed straight out of the box...in fact the only real problem with d20 games, is the original 3rd ed..there are certainly aspects that are not realistic, but that happens in any fantasy roeplaying game, yes, including TROS.

Brian Leybourne wrote: D20 bah humbug, that's why.

Any system where experience = immunity from repeated sword blows (to a point, admittedly), is not a good system IMO :-)

Brian.

Now im not trying to start some d20 flame here but i also tried posting something on ROS on their boards and i was quickly and violently shot down. im still not really sure why they got violent with me but whatever. And yes im also running my last d20 campaign (at least for a looooong while) and i cant wait to throw away or give away all my d20 books for ever.

Now im not trying to start some d20 flame here but i also tried posting something on ROS on their boards and i was quickly and violently shot down. im still not really sure why they got violent with me but whatever.

Spot on Chris. While some naysayers disagree (largely for reasons that I think mark them as truly unique in the world of gaming) most gamers are going to respond to whatever the system of rewards the game provides tells them to do.

In D&D you get experience for killing stuff <cue cries of protests from D&D players about DMs awarding XPs for anything they assign a CR too...ok are they done...good> You get the vast majority of your XPs for killing stuff. Unlike say Donjon, D&D does not provide a means for the players to set up their own monster pursuits. So most D&D play (with some noteable exceptions, but I stand firmly buy "most") is about players waiting for the DM to present them with a series of targets that need to be killed.

TROS's experience system is SA based. Now, take the same player who wants to turn his starting dude into "master ass kicker of the realm". What he's going to do is look at his sheet and say...hmmm...I need 5 more points to get my next proficiency level...I have an SA of 'Hatred of Duke Gloucester'. Hmm, I guess its time to head to Gloucester and start feuding with this duke".

In other words instead of waiting for the GM to one day say "You happen to find yourself in Gloucester where the evil duke resides" and then try and find some convoluted way of hooking the PCs into caring, the players are going out and seeking out this guy on their own. Because if they don't (or don't follow some other SA) they don't get to "level".

Plus the TROS combat system is just a so much more elegant way of giving players control over their characters fate in combat. Every attempt to make D&D into something more than a battle of attrition where you can predict the outcome by comparing the odds to hit with average damage over the course of a number of rounds has resulted in painfully slow and complex systems. Anyone remember the "Tome of Combat" or whatever it was called from 2e...what a nightmare.

Ahem. I have, in fact, never played DnD. The closest I've come to it is Baldur's Gate.

The biggest advantage of TROS over d20 is a realistic chance of dying. With the addition of hit points at every level with d20 and the insane amount of magical protection, you can quickly (if you have min-maxers in your game) become almost impossible to hit, let alone kill. I like making players think about how to get out of a situation alive instead of automatically assuming that they can muscle their way out of anything.

you guys of course assume that the D&D players have no imagination, or forethought in creaing a beleivable character.. granted these things dont get you awards under the base system.. but thats not the point, the point is fleshing out your characters... course the few players (from various systems) that i have talked to about TROs, seem to hate the spiritual attributes, most chalk it up to just a way that they have to play..more straight jacket than alignment from D&D......but i suppose im probbaly in the minority

prophet118 wrote: you guys of course assume that the D&D players have no imagination, or forethought in creaing a beleivable character.. granted these things dont get you awards under the base system.. but thats not the point, the point is fleshing out your characters... course the few players (from various systems) that i have talked to about TROs, seem to hate the spiritual attributes, most chalk it up to just a way that they have to play..more straight jacket than alignment from D&D......but i suppose im probbaly in the minority

whats not english about what i typed?.....so i had a few misspelled words, dont be a self proclaimed critic....

i am not saying anything, i am saying what other players i have talked to, say... as for my opinion.... well we'll just leave that as a mystery.

as for the baldurs gate thing.....no thats not "close enough"....a computer game isnt the same thing.

I asked the question because what you've written above is ambiguous. It could mean many things. It was the lack of complete sentences that made it ambiguous, hence the English comment.

But let me be more clear, then.

Are you saying that these players that you've talked to are saying that Alignment is less of a straightjacket than SAs? Or did they say something else that I'm not getting from your post?

And what does

most chalk it up to just a way that they have to play

Prophet, I think the rampant use of ...stream of conciousness clauses... in your last couple of posts is making it difficult to follow. Parentheticals lose their effectiveness when the entire paragraph is nothing but parentheticals.

From what I gleaned from your post (and I had to read it about 3 times) is that you are suggesting that the people you've met who dislike the SA system in TROS dislike it because they interpret it as restrictive, i.e. dictating they're characters behavior.

I'm curious, since nothing could possibly be farther from the truth, do you have any idea how they managed to arrive at such a conclusion? In discussing it with them did you point out why this wasn't the case, and if so, how'd they respond.

what i was saying, is that the people i have talked to, likened the SA's as more retrictive than alignment. I let them read the description of each one, and asked them what they thought.

One of the appeals of D&D/D20, or for that matter, any class system, is that players do not have to think too much about their characters before they play. They can sit down, roll their stats, choose one from collumn A and two from collumn B and start playing. This allows them to learn about their character as they go, instead of making decisions about them up front.

In some ways, this allows the unformed character to become a vehicle for their subconscious, as they haven't had to make any conscious decisions about what they will be, outside from class.

One of the pillars in my gaming group still hails D&D as his favorite system, and I think it's for this reason. Todd thinks he's a bad role-player. He's not, actually, but having a generic template to fall back on functions as a form of security blanket. It must be said that over the past three years, we have dragged Todd from AD&D to D&D 3rd to GURPS: Fading Suns to Agone to Exalted, and he's done well in each. I'm looking forward to "indoctrinating" him into TROS, though he a little pissed off at me for making him buy all those different rulebooks...

As far as the fanatacism of some D20 proponents, it reminds me of the reaction many within my gaming/geeking community have when they find out I use a Mac. Maybe computer systems and gaming systems become things that, for whatever reason, we identify with, and feel threatened by alternatives.

Or maybe some people are French.*


*The previous sarcastic comment was make in the interests of humour and was not intended to cause emotional damage to persons residing or originating in, or descened from those residing or originating in, France.

I'm convinced that a lot of people who react that way to Macs (I'm one, too), and RPGs other than D&D, are either feeling like they're being attacked by the person enthusiastically describing the new mode, or have talked to people who feel this way, and are basing their information on what these people have said.

If you present a new game, say TROS, as a cool new game, instead of, "Blows the pants off D&D!", then I find that people are interested, and open-minded about it. When you make comparative statements many people's reactions are to be defensive. They feel that you are belittling their activity by saying that you've found something better. That they are missing the boat somehow.

The interesting thing about Macs is that they really aren't that different from PCs these days in any way. The differences are cosmetic at best. Still, people have these heated opinions on what's superior to what. Emotional investment. If someone still likes D&D, then somebody attacking it is bound to bug them, no? It's only people who come to a game like TROS because they are dissatisfied with D&D who are going to make such comparisons anyhow, right?

So, if you've come from D&D, might I sugest that when the subject comes up that you take a step back and reconsider making comparisons. Just in case the person you're conversing with is a D&D player. Because ranting against D&D may make them enemies of TROS. And then they breed more enemies.

And what good does that do?

Mike

I've played ad&d since the old old days. I grew tired of restrictive classes, levels, and cartoonish settings. I moved to WFRP, which provided for many of the requirements i wanted from a game.

Combats went from 5 rounds of "i roll to hit. i hit 3 times. i do 39 damage." to whack-chop "I hack his arm off at the elbow." which is a nice touch when you don't have to think this stuff up all the time.

I got rid of levels, which was nice, and I got careers, and a healthy selection of them, as well.

Characters went from being "I'm a thief. I steal." to "I used to be a coin clipper, but now i cat-burgle to finance slavery."

Levels and classes are too artificial and abstract for what i wanted from a game. As we all know, min maxing could be taken to berserk extremes.
This really eliminates a lot of the need for experience. Why give experience at all? To advance a character, of course. What a conundrum.....

I think the appeal of 3E is that it can be played fairly easily (not that TROS isn't) and satisfy those who want that kind of game. I'm guessing most 2E players transferred over to 3E because it was the latest thing, and now play it just because it's what they know works for them.

I gave 3E a playtest, and frankly, it wasn't what i wanted. I already had WFRP. So i played that instead.

The appeals of TROS are the combat system and the Spiritual Attributes. Everything else is just extra good gravy.

I suggest you do the following for your group. Make them a template character, say an armed guard, and give them SA: Drive: "Protect the King's family". Put them in a situation like: They are guarding the Princess' carriage on her return from the summer palace for her father the King and are ambushed by brigands. Then after a couple of combats, kill them.

I like D&D. I'll play it at the drop of a hat.

I like TROS. I'll play it at the drop of the hat.

Liking both games is not an impossibility. They have different design goals, and deliver different results (and, frankly, not often the results their detractors claim).

And I don't always want the same thing when I sit down to the table. Which is why I'm grateful for a plethora of games. :-)

Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's point. When you're selling folks on TROS, don't slam D&D to do it. A, you're likely to turn off gamers who could really end up digging TROS; and B, you don't need to: TROS stands damn fine on its own.

Right all. I think we can all agree that both games have their merits for what they are. Plus I think we can all agree on the fairly obvious differences in play(TROS=more deadly, more powerful magic, D&D=more game like play, etc.).

But what is interesting to look at is the difference in play and style. I find that TROS is very good at making "Story Now" as Ron put it. The fact that the characters are very competant, and the SA system makes each session an experience in the GM and the players pushing Story Now. D&D is built around the idea of "building up" or earning story, which I think leads to a lot of meandering play.

Any thoughts?

Chris

Very true, and i dont know about everyone else but DnD also seems to be built for a slightly younger crowd. not that adaults cant play it, but it still does seem catered to kids who are looking for a more arcade style game, such as minimal cursing, not much blood/gore, never a mention of "mature topics". Am i the only one who thinks this?

Well, the game certainly walks the line of happy mc slashy, but i will be honest. It really appeals to a (large) specific group. I'm fine with that.

I've played games where actual characterization happened, and hacking was not the agenda. I can't say i hate D&D. I played it for 9 years. I moved on because there were things about the system that started bothering me, and i found other games.

thats exactly what i think. i dont hate the system by any means, its mainly a few things that bothered me. i also found that as third edition came out, the number of min/maxers and powergamers rose dramatically, which, although min/maxing to some degree is fine, has gotten very out of control.

Valamir and Bankuei's intitial posts express my feelings regarding TROS perfectly.

Irregardless of what reasons people want to play an RPG (cool roleplay, wicked storytelling, hack'n'slash, powerplaying) a system is going to have an effect. TROS provides incentives for storytelling and heroic-realistic combat over hack'n'slash. If that's what you're looking for, play TROS. It'll work better.

As stated above, people are going to naturally gravitate to what the system rewards them for. In D&D, players will concentrate on kills and XP. WHo doesn't want their characters to progress? That will always be an integral aspect of RPGing. As it is in life. Again, as stated by others, it is far easier in TROS to get PCs caring about the plot, rather than having to railroad them into it and eliminating the appeal of any other course of action. WHy should I rescue the Princess? There's only three lvl 5 guards watching over her. I'll get far more XP taking out that orphanage?


So yeah, if u want storytelling over hack'n'slash. Go for TROS. It's not that TROS is a necessarily better game. But it will contribute far more to that kind of game.

However, I do actually reckon that TROS is a better game. (grins sheepishly) Taking on board those points made above concerning getting D&D players into TROS. I agree with that. Far better to cajole and encourage than flame them for playing an inferior game. It will only end up making them defensive and hostile.

But we're all enlightened individuals here ;)

What I reckon makes TROS better is the choice of actions. As stated above, it's not just a case of fight or run. The player can actually influence the outcome of a fight. He/she's decisions matter. In effect, The game becomes cinematic. And even better, a PC is encouraged to fight those battles which matter. He will avoid undue conflict like he would in real life. But unlike real life - kinda - taking out the bad guy becomes that much less uncertain. In TROS, you're rewarded for being heroic (even if it is villainous heroism).


I realise that I haven't actually added anything new here. Just ranted on like some madman on speed. But I suppose I was just trying to amalgamate all those valid points raised by my fellow TROS fans. And what an articulate and tolerant bunch of people we are, may I add. It's been a joy to see such cleverly stated and altruistic points discussed in these forums.

There may yet be hope for the human race - if only everyone could play TROS and watch the simpsons....


Take care, all you shiny happy people - and in particular to MR Norwood; our new messiah.

All hail Emperorl Norwood! All hail Emperor Norwood!

While i do think the worship of Jake is a little...wierd, i do agree with the simpsons part completely :p

Mordacc wrote: i do think the worship of Jake is a little...wierd

Vanguard wrote: Take care, all you shiny happy people - and in particular to MR Norwood; our new messiah.

All hail Emperorl Norwood! All hail Emperor Norwood!

Brian Leybourne wrote:

Mordacc wrote:
i do think the worship of Jake is a little...wierd

You mean you're not making weekly blood sacrifices to Jake? The rest of us are.

How did this guy slip through the cracks, Jake? I think we need to send "the boys" around.

Brian.

Jake Norwood wrote: Uh, if I'm getting worshiped, I need a cult-leader's salary. And the chicks ;-)

Jake

Well, despite the interesting theories or "Norwoodism", i still think youre all crazy.

Mordacc wrote: Now im not trying to start some d20 flame here but i also tried posting something on ROS on their boards and i was quickly and violently shot down. im still not really sure why they got violent with me but whatever. And yes im also running my last d20 campaign (at least for a looooong while) and i cant wait to throw away or give away all my d20 books for ever.

I'd almost actually suggest that TROS can give more hack and slash than D&D can.

In any hitpoint system, its often quite hard to kill or crumple someone in one hit. In tros you could take off a head in the first swipe.

Thats pretty powerful. And that seems to be what some players adore.

However, they also want it with a strong sense of security.

Cue any GM who starts treating luck points almost like WHFRP fate points, but letting them regen normally, and that's not a problem.

It may sound a little heretical, but TROS can be flexed in ways probably some wouldn't like, but the average D&D punter would. The system should get another gold star for this, I think.

Because in the end, sometimes you want a "greasy joes burger" and sometimes you want a fine dining experience. Both are quite valid...though the fine dining might add less to your waist line (and in RPG terms, add more to your suspension of disbelief).

BTW, that whole "SA's are straight jackets" thing is so...oblivious to how they work. Its not like you have to play up to your SA's. You can ignore them if you like, with no change of circumstance. But if you do play them, you get rewarded.

Mebe this difference isn't noticed as the RPG industry is steeped in the old writing style of "This is what you can't do" rather than more possitive stuff. A hang over from war gaming, probably.

[facetious]

DRIVE: To kill things and take their stuff.
FAITH: Things should be killed, and their stuff, taken.
PASSION: Killing things.
PASSION: Taking their stuff.
DESTINY: To kill all things and take all their stuff.

[/facetious]

;-)

I completely agree with Noon, that TROS can be tweaked to provide a more...visceral...game. And there' nowt wrong with that. As you said, sometimes you just want that greasy burger.

But what I meant by hack'n'slash (and it's all down to definitions) is that D&D culture of formulaic combat. There's fewer decisions involved. It is just a case of rolling dice until the surrounding horde of goblins have lost all hit points, and hoping you've got enuff urself to soak up all their damage. You're just not required to think as much.

In TROS, it is almost impossible to have your high-power PC being repeatedly struck by that horde of goblins whilst he himself methodically goes about killing them one by one - his vast reservoir of HP far from depletion. In TROS, all it needs is for one foe to acquire that dreaded five-success margin on ya (past armour and TO granted)

Ths means you can have that massacre feel, should your PC be tough enuff and skilled enuff, but he can't guarantee success as easily. It's not possible to just say, ' well, I've got 120 HP, and they're doing a maximum of 6 dmg per blow - that's a minimum of 20 blows before I die. In TROS, all it takes is that one lucky strike.


(must control my ranting)


Take care

Jim DelRosso wrote: [facetious]

DRIVE: To kill things and take their stuff.
FAITH: Things should be killed, and their stuff, taken.
PASSION: Killing things.
PASSION: Taking their stuff.
DESTINY: To kill all things and take all their stuff.

[/facetious]

;-)

Noon wrote: I'd almost actually suggest that TROS can give more hack and slash than D&D can.

In any hitpoint system, its often quite hard to kill or crumple someone in one hit. In tros you could take off a head in the first swipe.

Thats pretty powerful. And that seems to be what some players adore.