In case any of you wanted to jump on the discussion.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37906

Ergh, I can't believe Darth Tang just called the SA's weak!? If its the same guy I think I've seen before, its because he predefines all the motives of all the character classes he makes. Rigid and it's the old 'your bad if you don't do this' method, where SA's are 'If you don't do this, nothing happens, if you do this you get rewarded instantly, you get to be more powerful and you get experience.'.

If it is the same guy I'm thinking of, he's also got too much disposable income and has become too picky because of it. Jeez, I'm being nasty, eh? But 'lame advancemennt system'...he could do with some advancing...*grumbles*

I've seen a lot of people like that at rpg.net. Mostly, they're a bunch of pretentious whiners.

Now let's go soft on RPG.net. They made TROS possible in a very real way with their enthusiastic threads.

Jake

Yeah. To me, you can't get more sentimental about TROS than that huge thread on RPG.net. 'Twas the thread that made me buy it.

Mokkurkalfe wrote: Yeah. To me, you can't get more sentimental about TROS than that huge thread on RPG.net. 'Twas the thread that made me buy it.

Brian Leybourne wrote: Me too. I only ever found TROS because of that old huge thread. I saw "Riddle of Steel" and thought "Hey, that'll be about Conan", jumped in, and the rest is history.

Brian.

Noon wrote: Ergh, I can't believe Darth Tang just called the SA's weak!? If its the same guy I think I've seen before, its because he predefines all the motives of all the character classes he makes. Rigid and it's the old 'your bad if you don't do this' method, where SA's are 'If you don't do this, nothing happens, if you do this you get rewarded instantly, you get to be more powerful and you get experience.'.

If it is the same guy I'm thinking of, he's also got too much disposable income and has become too picky because of it. Jeez, I'm being nasty, eh? But 'lame advancemennt system'...he could do with some advancing...*grumbles*

And how can you have too much disposable income? That's like habving too much sex. Can't happen.

Nicely articulated Tang.

Cool to see an opposing opinion expressed without churlish or redundant insults. But it is an opinion only, not a definition of TROS.

TROS is the best. TROS is the best. I cuss your xp, and ur other games. TROS spills a pint on ur RPGs, then takes them round the back and administers to them a throrough beating about the head. Naaah-naaa. TROS is the best! And I spit on your hideously, fat wad of disposable income.

Seriously though. For me TROS answered my prayers. XP was always too arbitratry, too systematic for me. TROS encourages the making of a good story, providing that incentive for characters and DMs (yeah, yeah, seneschals) to contrive their actions and make a scene cooler. It's not about seeking XP, gaining confidence from any old thug the PC beats up in the inn (I know u said PCs aren't rewarded with XP for kills in ur games but those systems are designed around that). TROS, I believe, intrinsically adds to atmosphere. It is about seeking adventure, destiny, heroism. The things wicked stories are made from.

And that's what I want from a game.

But yeah, nicely expressed thoughts Darth. I genuinely believe there's something about this forum which draws the polite and liberal in people. Haven't seen one flame-fest like you'd have to wade through in conventional forums.


Take care

TRoS is perfect.. If it's the sort of game that's your bag. Otherwise, it's imperfect. TRoS just happens to be precisely what the doctor ordered for nearly everyone in this forum.

What I disagreed with was that you called the system weak. I think the fact that it works immensely well for many different players proves that it's far from weak. It may not be what you prefer, but that doesn't make it weak. I dislike D&D with something approaching a passion, but I'll grudgingly have to admit that classes, XP and levels aren't a weak approach, because they've been working admirably for decades. I hate them, but they're hardly weak.

Said it before, sayin' it again:

The Riddle of Steel as written is a Narrativist-facilitating game with a solid Simulationist underpinning, with the latter in a subordinate position. It's like a vehicle with two engines, but one of them is directly connected to the steering mechanism (what a lousy visual analogy, but ...).

People who like that Simulationist approach will strip off the Narrativist engine and build a new steering mechanism for the Simulationist one. Paul Czege and I predicted we'd be seeing a lot of this with TROS way back in April 2002.

"Weak" simply isn't the issue. It's a matter of preference. I'm glad Darth was able to make the game work for him and his group, although I think it would be nifty if he could learn that we aren't talking about "strong" vs. "weak" except in preference terms. It would also be nifty if some of y'all could learn to let a person use whatever terms without going into blue-balled defensive posture.

This is Jake's forum and not under my jurisdiction as moderator, but man - the guy uses one, little teeny word, and you lose your cool. Not impressive.

Best,
Ron

Everything is a matter of opinion; every game has its advocates and detractors.

I used the term 'weak' because:

A) I felt that the points I attacked were weak links in the game system

B) I did not feel that 'bad' was appropriate.

I use a very story-based and plot-immersive game; to me, the SAs randomize what I have been using for years, thus making my job more difficult.

For example: in my current Fading Suns campaign, one of the PCs (Remmie) is extremely fadicious about his quarters aboard the ship. On an op in a rebel-infested area, he stumbles across a Second Republic cigarette vending machine (he smokes) in a junk shop. He buys it, and they lug the damned thing around (for three+ weeks game time, 2.5 game sessions so far). In the middle of an ambush he sprints through enemy fire, jerks a wounded comrade out of the seat, and drives their flat-bed cargo vehicle out of the line of fire, all to protect his vending machine, which was strapped to the cargo bed. Since then he drew up (on Paint) a scale drawing of the cargo hauler, and how their supplies are arranged on it, so that the water cans, ammo crates, folding hoist, half a golem, rations, packs, cots, tent, and rope protect his vending machine.

And that's just a player-chosen incident. Remmie is also trying to get a copy of their recordings of six Ur pylons for his Scraver masters, (to boost his Status, as he's in line for a promotion.

Checking my chart, I've eight major factional agendas, three personal agendas, and some odd habits (like the vending machine) going in my current campaign. With that, who needs SAs?

Just my opinion, though.

Hi Darth,

See, this is an interesting difference between how people use the internet, and how they approach discussions in general.

Before I start, let me repeat: your play of The Riddle of Steel is your baby, and it flies (or walks, or whatever) on its own - and I totally support that. You are, emphatically, "playing right," which is to say, the way that lets you have the most fun.

The issue is how this stuff is discussed - "For my style of play, TROS is weak," is a very different phrase than, "TROS is weak." The first one makes sense. The second one fails to see a difference between one's own preferred role-playing and anyone else's, which is a problem. Your last post is a wonderful example of the first phrase, and here I am, saying, "Yes! D.T. is on the money." (All the GNS guff above explains why, but never mind that.)

So with any luck, we are now on the same side of the table, sharing port and cigars, calling one another "old bean" and similar. Good enough? If not, then the following is going to be mis-read ...

Basically, "opinions" are worthless. No one is entitled to an opinion. No one need listen to anyone else's opinion. They are empty, meaningless blather, no matter how deeply felt nor how glibly articulated.

Opinions play no role in discussion of any kind except to press people's buttons. Saying "just my opinion" is pushing the button twice.

I support your point when you explain your perspective on play and why TROS as written doesn't work as well for it as TROS as you've tweaked it. That makes sense. It's not an opinion; it's a reasoned argument. However, when one plays the "opinion" card in order to make his or her claim invulnerable, then poof - that person just stopped being an intelligent member of a community and became another key-clacking blatherer.

I'd like to think of you as the former, not the latter. Stay with your valid argument, because it's very strong. There's no need for the "just my opinion" card.

Best,
Ron

Darth Tang wrote: I use a very story-based and plot-immersive game; to me, the SAs randomize what I have been using for years, thus making my job more difficult.

For example: in my current Fading Suns campaign....
[amazing game story that makes me grind my teeth with envy snipped]

Checking my chart, I've eight major factional agendas, three personal agendas, and some odd habits (like the vending machine) going in my current campaign. With that, who needs SAs?

I use a very story-based and plot-immersive game; to me, the SAs randomize what I have been using for years, thus making my job more difficult.

Darth wrote: Checking my chart, I've eight major factional agendas, three personal agendas, and some odd habits (like the vending machine) going in my current campaign. With that, who needs SAs?

quot;Bankuei]
Darth, I believe that a good key to answering Stephen's question comes in the answer to this question:

Is story something that the GM makes up and "happens" to players, or is story made up by player's actions and the GM's reactions?

Chris

quot;Matt WilsonHey DT:

Wouldn't the SA's be the motivating factor behind most of what you listed above? Better yet, how would they interfere? Suppose that character you mentioned had the Drive: "climb the ranks of the Scravers." How would that be a hindrance or whatever for your style of play?

-Matt

Darth Tang wrote:
Because it would require the players to set their goals when createing their PCs, and deny them flexibility as time went on. I'll use Max, the party leader in the previous campaign. He started out with merely wanting to aquire enough gp so he could go home, marry his sweetheart, and open a carpentry shop; he started fooling around with a female bard (whom he eventually married), got into business investment, sought expertise with the sword...etc. As the years passed, Max changed radically.

Valamir. I was about to say the same thing.

Darth, I ackowledge ur concerns regards SA inflexibility (because I originally shared them), but further reviewing of TROS has led me to realise that it can perfectly accomodate evolving play.

Take care

Ron Edwards: I'm not terribly focused on impressing, I'd finished a reading darth tangs post where he said SA's were lame, so I was pretty much in the same mind set (which I felt didn't impress). In addition I said weak when lame was the actual word used…is 'weak' more of a loaded word? My mistake, if so.

I'll just do a quote of Darth Tang, from RPG…

I had even an easier time of it. Since I dumped most of Ros (especially the lame SAs), it was easy enough to write up the manuvers and weapons charts, plus a quick guide to the combat system, and give them to my players.

The PC generation system is good, but the magic system in undeveloped, and the PC advancement system is extremely weak, as is the 'skills package' concept. RoS attempted to do away with the 'classes' system (not a bad idea), then went with lame skill packages that revert right back to cardboard PCs.

Ok, let me explain a bit:

XP: The advantge of xp is that the player's demand contunally increases (kept of reminds you of an addiction, eh?), in that it takes bigger & bigger amounts to see a benift. You can toss a player a XP 'bone' of a hundred or so points several times in the course of a game, and still avoid 'inflation'. It gives you a flexible reward system that can absorb a lot of use. Wheras a 1-10 system cannot handle a long-term campaign as well.
A note: no xp for kills in my game.

PC classes: Yeah, I use my own. However, unlike D&D, where a class is a genertic bundle of abilities, the way I use it is to represent the background and inclinations of a PC. Plus, in both Fading Suns and fantasy worlds, knowledge is restructed by the various Guilds. So what a class does is determine your access to skills. I have a list of 350+ skills, broken down into catagories. There are General skills (first Aid, ride bike, etc) which are avalible to every player. Then each class has its own skills. For example, an Armsman is a combatant whose focus is on individual skills, such as LE, bodyguard, etc. Besides General & Armsman, he gets decent rates on Guardsman skills, but increasingly steep skill costs in Tech, Rogue, etc. Guardsmen are military men; besides General and Guardsmen, they buy Tech skills at a moderate rate, Armsman skills at a decent rate, etc.
So each PC is unique, based on the skills they choose. You can have an Armans whose good at theiving type skills, a Tech who can snipe, etc. Increasing in level simply gives you a 2% bonus to your 'class' skills and the opportunity to increase your stats. Learning new skills is done by nstruction or buying with xp.

Every PC should be unique, IMO, and that's how I set up my games.

I don't know how great my campaigns are, but I've always been able to keep a reliable group entertained, and find good replacement players, so I'll call myself a 'sucess' and leave it at that. Because if you've got a group, obviously you're good enough.

I am slightly curious about something.. It may turn out that you were right to take what you wanted and scrap the rest, but I'd like to know if you even attempted to play the game "as is" without a bias toward the "lame" and "weak" elements of the game. It really doesn't sound like you did, because your examples as to why your system is better could easily be turned around to support the SAs and advancement system.

But as Jake often says.. It's your game now, do as you like with it.

Wolfen wrote: I am slightly curious about something.. It may turn out that you were right to take what you wanted and scrap the rest, but I'd like to know if you even attempted to play the game "as is" without a bias toward the "lame" and "weak" elements of the game.

but I won't actually use most of RoS until I switch to a War Hammer campaign

Darth Tang wrote: Because (they (SAs)) would require the players to set their goals when createing their PCs, and deny them flexibility as time went on. I'll use Max, the party leader in the previous campaign. He started out with merely wanting to aquire enough gp so he could go home, marry his sweetheart, and open a carpentry shop; he started fooling around with a female bard (whom he eventually married), got into business investment, sought expertise with the sword...etc. As the years passed, Max changed radically.

arxhon wrote:

but I won't actually use most of RoS until I switch to a War Hammer campaign

Do you mean WFRP? If so, sweeeeeet! :-)

I love that game, and the world for it is great. TROS would go nicely with the Warhammer world.