I have a few last questions.

I've heard that magic is almost TOO powerful. In reading the playtest review on openRPG, and then the comments from the forum below, one person used two examples, one of a person using sorcery to kill the Boss Bad Guy (tm) sight unseen, and the second using the idea of dropping a meteroite on an island and SINKING THE ISLAND!

And he used these during examples of how sorcerers aren't abusable?!?!

Are such things actually possible in the system? IF so, this is almost frighteningly too powerful. And when the game talks about restoring wonders of magic, I want to point out that I consider magic along the lines of subtle uses of power, ala Gandalf and Merlin - who never dropped big balls of fire from the sky and wipe out entire civilizations; and these two wizards are among our founding examples of sorcery from legends and literature.


The second question I have is in regard to combat: this is more of a gentle tease then anything else, but I have heard that the game suffers from the "naked dwarf" syndrome, where a tough naked person is harder to injure than an average person wearing plate armor. Is this so? IF it is, it seems kind of silly coming from a game bragging about having realistic combat!

Not an insult - a game is still a game, I just find it amusing, particularly considering their claims on realistic combat. :D


Finally - it seems that from what I've read, TRoS focues a lot on combat. Ars Magica, one of my favorite games, focuses a lot on mages, almost too much; so much so that it sometimes seems playing non-wizards isnt as rewarding.

Does TRoS suffer the same problem, particular in regards to those who are both non-sorcerers and non-warriors? For instance, if I wanted to play a "thief" or some other character concept, am I going to have a character with less attention to detail than what mages get in AM, or warriors get in TRoS?


Thanks for your time.

I'll let the locals here answer most of these questions, but I want to weigh-in on a few.

I've heard that magic is almost TOO powerful. In reading the playtest review on openRPG, and then the comments from the forum below, one person used two examples, one of a person using sorcery to kill the Boss Bad Guy (tm) sight unseen, and the second using the idea of dropping a meteroite on an island and SINKING THE ISLAND!

And he used these during examples of how sorcerers aren't abusable?!?!

Are such things actually possible in the system? IF so, this is almost frighteningly too powerful. And when the game talks about restoring wonders of magic, I want to point out that I consider magic along the lines of subtle uses of power, ala Gandalf and Merlin - who never dropped big balls of fire from the sky and wipe out entire civilizations; and these two wizards are among our founding examples of sorcery from legends and literature.

The second question I have is in regard to combat: this is more of a gentle tease then anything else, but I have heard that the game suffers from the "naked dwarf" syndrome, where a tough naked person is harder to injure than an average person wearing plate armor. Is this so? IF it is, it seems kind of silly coming from a game bragging about having realistic combat!

Finally - it seems that from what I've read, TRoS focues a lot on combat. Ars Magica, one of my favorite games, focuses a lot on mages, almost too much; so much so that it sometimes seems playing non-wizards isnt as rewarding.

Testing testing... having trouble replying to this @#$@#$%$%&%^ thread....

And he used these during examples of how sorcerers aren't abusable?!?!

Now, Chris...

What Chris is trying to say is that, yes, by the traditional definitions of "Balance" that are used in other games TROS is horribly broken in terms of magic. That is, if you are worried that players who take Sorcerer characters will be more powerful than those who do not, then, you'd better worry. Because Sorcerer's are waaaaay more powerful. No comparison.

But, um, who cares?

The game is not about who is more powerful than whom. You can kill everyone in the universe, and you still haven't "won" a game of TROS (nor will you neccessarily benefit in any way). The game is not about how well you fight, but instead about what the character finds worthwhile to fight. That is, in TROS, the mightly Sorcerer will not end up blowing up the world. Becasue that won't be the character's goal. Or if it is, it'll be a short game.

Realize that TROS is about character motivation, and then all questions of "balance" become pointless. All characters start with exactly the same number of Spiritual Attribute points. And that makes the game absolutely, perfectly, balanced in terms of what the game is about.

Mike

You're right Mike,

I apologize Mord, it's a bit of my "people not being critical" rant spilling over...

But let me ask a little nicer- What is it that people, anyone, is afraid of in the "players have too much power" sense? What is it that might be abused or ruin a game?

Chris

Hi there,

I've asked people this question before and am always impressed at the deafening silence in response. I'll focus Chris' query just a bit more for you, Mord.

Bob is the GM. James, Bill, and Gabrielle are the players. They're all friends and they all like the RPG they're playing (your choice which one). Let's say the characters are (in order of the players) Zarkon, Herkeloid, and Lirazaya.

Please give me an example of someone, anyone but let's say one of the players, "abusing" whatever-it-is that you're concerned about. Explain it to me in detail: what the real people say to one another, what the characters do or don't do, the works.

This is a bit of a setup, because my real point here is to show that rules cannot abused, rather that people are.

Best,
Ron

Bankuei wrote: You're right Mike,

I apologize Mord, it's a bit of my "people not being critical" rant spilling over...

But let me ask a little nicer- What is it that people, anyone, is afraid of in the "players have too much power" sense? What is it that might be abused or ruin a game?

Chris

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi there,

I've asked people this question before and am always impressed at the deafening silence in response. I'll focus Chris' query just a bit more for you, Mord.

Bob is the GM. James, Bill, and Gabrielle are the players. They're all friends and they all like the RPG they're playing (your choice which one). Let's say the characters are (in order of the players) Zarkon, Herkeloid, and Lirazaya.

Please give me an example of someone, anyone but let's say one of the players, "abusing" whatever-it-is that you're concerned about. Explain it to me in detail: what the real people say to one another, what the characters do or don't do, the works.

This is a bit of a setup, because my real point here is to show that rules cannot abused, rather that people are.

Best,
Ron

Morfedel wrote: Among other things, I see wizards having power... but not of the kind to shake mountains and vaporize civilizations (as per the dropping a meteor on an island bit). I see them as the Gandalf or Merlin, who certainly did nothing of the sort.

Sorry Mord, for the blow up...

If your intent is to limit what "mages should be" to fit your setting, that's all awesome, and I'm behind that. It can easily be done by either limiting the maximum Vagary levels available or simply eliminating player sorcerers as an option.

By the PCs pulling these antics, it starts becoming a game about their widgets and abilities, and not about the game, the drama, the story. It becomes about controlling their enormous appetites, and not about the flow of hero and villain.

Ah! A fellow Champions veteran.

Let's start with some ground rules, OK? Neither of us is allowed to anticipate the other person's response. I can't say, "You're gonna say ..." and then respond to whatever it is. We have to be responding to what one another really says.

Here's another ground rule - we have to assume that the other person wants to gain something from the dialogue's content. Not just make the point we carry around in our back pockets and march out whenever possible, and not just smack at the other person's isolated sentences.

These aren't based on anything you've done so far, but are the rules I demand for discussing anything on-line (or elsewhere, really).

Assuming that you go for it, let's do it.

1. "Balance" or "game balance" is an undefined term. People use it all the time to make a point, but what that point is, is never clear. There are several pretty good threads at the Forge already about this, mostly in RPG Theory.

2. So looking at your examples, I see two distinct and different things which look, to me, as if you're considering to be one thing.

a) Raw power levels. In Champions, we'd be talking about Active Point totals, right? With 60 STR, I do 12 dice; with 80, I do 16, and so on. One of your concerns is just how many dice the characters deliver (or how much poundage they can lift, and so on).

b) Cost per unit power level. In Champions, we're now talking about sneaky tricks regarding Limitations and perhaps some fun things like the REC/STR/CON boondoggle (you know that one, right?).

Again, these are different things. I suggest that a given game with a hell of a lot of (a), but really excellent rules for managing (b), will only pose problems for some few groups who really don't want high power levels (prefer 1960s X-Men rather than 1980s, e.g.). I also suggest that a given game with not much or variable (a) but with really broken (b) will pose problems for just about any group, and they'll have to set up a bunch of local "rules" in order to play at all.

There! Made my point without ever bringing "balance" into it. So now to discuss TROS.

3. The (a) issue in TROS sorcery is clear - yowza, lots of power. The (b) issue is rather well handled as long as you ignore the pseudo-science in the rules text (which can be interpreted in annoying ways). The limits or "managers" of the power levels include the potential for the sorcerer to age himself badly by accident and also certain dice considerations.

Whether the managers work well for your group is a good question. My own experience is positive. I think most instances of play seem to bear it out well - at least, based on my observation that the cries of fear which arise about it in on-line forums seem to come almost exclusively from people who haven't played the game.

Finally, another setting-based consideration about all this which doesn't seem to get recognized by many people in this forum is that the existing sorcerers, or even all previous sorcerers in existence, had a stake in keeping the world intact. If you try to blow up the world or bring down the moon, it makes perfect sense that you'll encounter an existing, subtle spell that was set up centuries ago just to keep some moron from doing that.

Best,
Ron

I think part of the issue here (and please don't take offense) is that you seem to be under the impression that anything the book says is instantly available to the players in whatever fashion they want to use it.

TROS or otherwise, I think you're always going to hit problems if you roleplay that way, with the possible exception of a game like D&D that is anally forced into perfect (well, "perfect", anyway) balance exactly because people play it that way.

As Jake said today in another thread, TROS is a toolbox. The only things in the rulebook that the players can use is whatever the GM says they can use, and they can only use it HOW he says they can. If you want magic to be Gandalf/Merlin like, then tell the players that's how it works, and disallow island sinking fireballs. It's really that easy.

Brian.

And thats really what I wanted to know. I had heard of the "problems" with the power level, and I wanted to know how easy it is to tweak it, retool it.

Let's face it, not all game systems are created equal, and not all are as easily tweaked; I just wanted to know how easily tweaked to my own vision it would be (Again, since I dont have the game book til this weekend), and I wanted a forewarning of what I was getting into.

And I didnt intend to stir up the proverbial hornet's nest! :)

Hi Morf,

No hornet's nest, my friend. You're talking to people who really want to see you get your money's worth from your purchase, and who support your intent/willingness to play. Count me first on the list who's looking forward to your first reports of actual play, and I'm not alone.

Besides, I want someone around who knows the difference between a Multipower and a Variable Power Pool.

Best,
Ron

Hi Mord,

You seem to have resolved this issue for yourself, but you keep bringing up Merlin and Gandalf as the sterling examples of what kind of wizardry and spellplay that you want.

My question to you is this: They never DID call down meteors on an island to sink it, but did that really mean they couldn't? Merlin supposedly lived backward in time. He would have known about nukes, and naphtha and all sorts of nasty ways to kill people. It's even possible that he knew how to make and use these things. But he didn't, because it wasn't his goals. Gandalf on the other hand was a fairly renowned wizard, with many years of study and practice under his belt. I believe he was capable of a great deal more than he ever did in the series. But he didn't, either because of the watchers who might pinpoint him due to his magic, or some other cost, and for the same reason.. What good would it have done to call down a meteor on Mordor.. Sauron could have turned it aside, I'm sure. It's often about the checks and balances. TRoS sorcery is, according to some, capable of destroying the world. But it doesn't happen because of the checks and balances. Other sorcerers who can stop it, or the gods, or whatever.

That said, it's perfectly acceptable to limit the power level of magic in your game. I definitely wouldn't allow someone to call down meteors every time some island pissed them off... Or if I did, they'd have people looking for them, and these people wouldn't intend to chastise them, slap 'em on the wrist and say "Stop that."

Wolfen wrote: they'd have people looking for them, and these people wouldn't intend to chastise them, slap 'em on the wrist and say "Stop that."

Sorry again Mord if I contributed to the Hornet's nest idea...

I've just seen a lot of the nifty ideas for TROS get thrown out before they ever get tried in play. Frustration and overreaction on my part.

Like everyone else, looking forward to hearing you play.

Chris

HAHAHAHA!!!!

A multivariable power pool? Yeah, those were the days. And elemental control..... You could munchkin the heck outta that game! :)

ITs been several years, but man, that game was.... well, fun, if in a bulky, I'm wearing a ballroom dress to play raquetball sort of way. :)

Hey, Ron, do you like the game? I'd assumed you did, but I just read an "Actual Play" report where you said you eyed another's play report suspiciously, and made comments on your concerns over a very bulky combat system.


I also need to have a better grasp of the learning curve, and let me explain why:

I have a group of players back in texas I haven't seen in years. I'm moving back there soon, from seattle.

They are the "old school" types. It took me ages to get them to play Palladium fanasy instead of second edition D&D, although later I got them to try out Ars Magica without quite the fuss.

There is a three person core besides myself. Two of them might be bent, but they arent comfortable with learning something with a high learning curve. And the third.... man, he gets lost fast, and a complex system is gonna see him swimming.

So I've been debating on which game to run when I get back. I've been considering:

3rd edition D&D - just because they know it. (sigh.... ugh)

Lord of the Rings RPG - very similar, but every so slightly, superior to 3E IMHO

Ars Magica - A far better alternative, but A) it focuses a bit TOO much on mages (meaning that the rules revolve around them so much that the other characters feel kind of like a supporting cast), B) we arent terribly fond of troupe style play (although we love the magic system, and covenants are cool)

The Riddle of Steel - dont own it, so dont know, but like what I've heard.

Hackmaster - D&D, sigh, but at least its a funny version of it. Don't own this either, but hearing about spells like the socially enhancing spell "Strengthen Smile Muscles" made me laugh out loud, and I love the comics. And it would be familiar to the D&D set, yet again.

I WAS considering Harnmaster, but the new third edition, with the Religion and Magic rules seperate, are too expensive for my tastes, and my players would rebel :)


Even toyed with the idea of a couple other games on the side that I was told about (Agone, Arrowflight, FUDGE) but I know little about them, and haven't investigated them.


So, there you go. A group that has been pretty much D&D / Palladium fantasy for many many moons, and are resistant to new games. If its too "hard," they will just veto it and go back to D&D or something.

I'm a game system junkie myself, but... So, how hard a sell am I going to have with them?

Hey Chris, no worries, and thanks man! :)

Bankuei wrote: [But, what are you so damn afraid of? Will your little preconceived plot go down the drain?

I'll ask you directly: What is being abused? What is it you are afraid of as a GM, that your players will do? What will "ruin" the game? How?

Concerning how I believe TROS allows a DM to handle sorcery is pretty much as Wolfen described. As stated, Merlin and Gandalf might well have been capable (technically) of achieving such munchkinny feats. But factors and forces at play would discourage overt displays like that.

In your world, you run it like you want. Maybe the PC is the only wizard around. Powerful enuff and he becomes unstoppable. On the other hand, Populate ur world with a multitude of gods, devils, saints, demons, and institutional wizards probing the ether for unsanctioned sorcery, and what u'v got is very cautious practitioners. And beyond this, there are costs and risks involved in sorcery on top of narrative issues which limit sorcery use.

And concerning combat. Phew.

The system basically revolves around a contest of how many successes opponents have rolled. Tactics comes down to the way in which you invest those dice: aggressive, probing, evading, etc... What can confuse new players is then introducing the manouvers on top of this.

I've found that the best way to get new players comfortable with TROS is to explain to them the basics of combat only (it's fun and tactical enuff as it is) and then explaining the specifics of a manouver only when a player wants to do something special. 'I want to bash his sword away with my shield, and then smack the pomel of my sword against his skull - what do I roll, DM?'

Or another way is to have NPCs demonstrate new manouvers; letting the PCs gradually become familiar with what can and can't be done with the system. Sometimes the hard way. 'Wow! What a clever thing that man did with his foot against my face.' It works out.


Phew. Sorry for rambling. And hope that helps at all. TROS really is a great game. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea (misguided helots), but it got me back into RPGs from a long absence. I even had to dig out some old mates in order to play the bloody game.

I did ask a question that somehow got lost.

Does the magic system lend itself to tweaking, if I wanted to, say, retool it into something more akin to my vision, such as Ars Magica style magic?

I ask because, lets face it, not all games are as easily tweaked. trying to forge D&D into something akin to Ars Magica would not be an easy endeavor, heh!

Morfedel wrote: Does the magic system lend itself to tweaking, if I wanted to, say, retool it into something more akin to my vision, such as Ars Magica style magic?

Hi Mord,

You asked whether I liked the game ... I'm not sure whether you're referring to TROS or to Champions.

If it's TROS, then see my review of the game in the Reviews section (see links across the top of this webpage).

If it's Champions, then let's head over to Actual Play or to RPG Theory forum to discuss it. I humbly suggest checking out my article called "GNS and related matters of role-playing theory," which is in the Articles section (see links above), beforehand 'cause I'll use a lot of terms from there.

Best,
Ron

Hi Stephen,

While I don't disagree with your point, I will note that doing hours and hours of work on a situation intended to provide a challenging, complex plot, only to find it derailed by a player's imaginative shortcut in the first hour of play, is a valid complaint.

Morfedel wrote: I did ask a question that somehow got lost.

Does the magic system lend itself to tweaking, if I wanted to, say, retool it into something more akin to my vision, such as Ars Magica style magic?

I ask because, lets face it, not all games are as easily tweaked. trying to forge D&D into something akin to Ars Magica would not be an easy endeavor, heh!

Hey Morfedel loved the example of the cheat character in Champions with the mindless minions buying a death star. Gave me a good laugh, though I think that would be an example of what Ron called people abuse rather than game abuse. I dont think the rules of the game actually allow for his billions of followers to pool their leftover points to buy a death star, it may not specifically disallow it but it's definitely munching the spirit of the rules.

We once had a contest on who could make the most broken character using the hero system.

Ah, the days! :)

We also once ran a champions silly superheroes game. Where everyone had, well, unusual powers.

The two most memorable heroes from that game were:

Jean Claude, ze super frog! who has super strength, but only in his legs.

And the Incredible Duckmaster! Who has all his powers based on summoning and controlling ducks. For instance, his power "Force Wall" summons a wall of force, defined as a bunch of summoned ducks that fly in front of attacks - the poor ducks - and his energy blast with explosive on it was a duck who would waddle up to you, drop a grenade, then look up at you with these innocent eyes a second before the grenade goes off at your feet.

The Duckmaster had an archvillain, known as The Infamous Toadmaster!

Then the entire group had a single, archvillain known as Incredibly Dark Person. His powers was that he was always incredibly depressed, and had the power to do presence attacks that make your characters feel the same way:

[door to base swings open, and the dreaded Incredibly Dark Person comes in...] "Hi guys. My life really sucks. I've never had a girlfriend, and today a dog peed on my leg, and I'm broke and don't have a job, and no one likes me..." [GM rolls for presense attack, and watches the other PCs descend into waves of depression themselves]

:D

The closest I ever came to that kind of lunacy was the evil clock assassin, a recurring villain through several different games I played. He was always in the background and you could never catch him but every once in awhile when no one expected it boom a grandfather clock would come falling off the top of a building aimed at one of the characters.

And then I guess in D&D we did come up with a vampiric were-whale once but thats another story.

But to get back to TROS...

I think that you'll find that the magic system is easy to tweak. If you're looking to incorporate Ars Magica magic, consider that there are others here working on the same idea. So you'll have support on that. It should be easy given that the systems are both die pool systems and have other similarities.

Mike

Ben Lehman wrote:

BL> As someone who has tweaked the magic system of TROS into a form that barely resembles the original (a system where you progress via pacts with gods and embodiment of heroic legends), I can say that tweaking is very possible and, in fact, highly supported by a very open-ended system.

yrs--
--Ben Lehman

kenjib wrote: Do you have that online anywhere?

Thanks Ben! I'll PM you.