So it's Sunday, I'm at GenCon, and I've bought all the "first
tier/gotta have" games I have on my list, and I'm ready to spend a few
more bucks on "second tier/wanna have" games, and it's gonna be at the
Forge booth.

Yesterday, Jake Norwood has given me the 5 minute Riddle of Steel combat
demo and impressed the heck out of me with the combat system, and he's
shown me the magic system and it looks really good. I pick up The
Riddle of Steel and page through it and I'm liking the illustrations
and everything. A sale is imminent. It's just the $35 price tag
that's making it hard; I've got to work up some serious "gotta have
it" juice to justify this purchase. No problem, a flip through the
rulebook should do it.

What's this? Encumbrance rules. Huh. How old school. Let's see how
it works.... Oh. Interesting.

Encumbrance rules in this game aren't just about carrying equipment,
they're also about being fat. The fatter the character, the more
laden-down and overburdened he is considered, and the more penalties
he gets, just as if he were carrying a gigantic pack or weighted down
with heavy armor. Why? Because the rules say (quoting them to the
best of my memory) that "fat people are carrying more weight than the
human frame was meant to hold."

Now... I'm fat. And I happen to think I'm "meant" to weigh pretty
much exactly what I do weigh. I don't think that my body weight is
more than my "frame", whatever that means, can deal with; it's been
dealing just fine all my life thank you.

I felt like I imagine a black gamer would feel who came across a note
that black characters take a -2 penalty on all intellectual skills but
have a +5 at picking cotton, or perhaps a Japanese-American gamer who
was reading some rules which suggested in all seriousness that
Japanese characters should have a penalty on perception rolls because
their eyes were squintier than eyes were "meant" to be.

Now, those examples are patently, openly offensive -- racist bigotry
is a no-no, while bigotry against fat people is perfectly acceptable
and even encouraged, so much so that it's a matter of unconscious
assumption for most people, even most fat people. Fat people really
are portrayed in our culture as gross aberrations, contrary to what
nature "meant" people to be. So I'm sure that the author had
absolutely zero malice when he made that rule, and even considered it
a matter of simple, obvious "realism." I met him. He's a really nice
guy, not a mean or jerk-like bone in his body, at least as far as a
very brief acquaintance would suggest.

But it was enough to just kill the game for me. I put it down (sadly;
I'd really liked it) and spent my dollars on a less offensive game: Kill
Puppies for Satan. No, just kidding, that would have been cool and
ironic, but it was actually octaNe by Jared Sorenson.

Again, I'm not trying to press a point of principle or even to prove
that the encumbrance rules were "factually wrong" in whatever sense a
set of game rules can be said to be factually wrong. I'm describing a
subjective reaction and discussing why, at that moment in time, it
killed my wish to buy TROS.


I'm not even saying I'm never going to buy TROS because of this, but
it was sure the reason I didn't buy it yesterday, in spite of liking
the game a lot and being very impressed with the little system demo
that Jake kindly provided.

I'm not even trying to say "You'd better change this because it
offends me!" Obviously it's your game, Jake, and you should put in it
exactly what you want to put in it. But if I were a game designer and
someone had this kind of reaction to some small detail of my rules,
I'd at least want to know about it. So just so ya know.

Peace,

Ed

I am trying to think of a nice way to say this, but it keeps coming out as "oh please...."

You want a game system where you can weigh 300 pounds and run a marathon, go design one. I can tell you right now that I can carry a larger pack for longer periods of time hiking at the end of the summer, when I have shed my winter 15 pounds and have gotten in shape, than I can on my first hike of the spring. It's called "the real world". And as for racism, most game systems have some modifiers for race - or at least DM's who aknowledge them. Half-orcs vs. elves and all that. Since when does PC mean "politically correct" in this little world of ours.

Jake ran four of us through a demo on Friday. All four of us bought both of his books. He's to be commended for keeping his game gritty and real and mean and bloody and full of real motivations.

I can sympathize; I've refused to buy certain games because of the attitudes I felt they encouraged towards organized religion, so I know that subjective personal reaction is a real and perfectly valid reason to be annoyed by a game.

At the same time, as you note yourself, the encumbrance rules weren't written with any kind of prejudice in mind, and you don't really offer any suggestions for changing it. I've always believed the best kind of criticism or complaint is the constructive variety.

Assuming that the central point of the encumbrance rules -- i.e., that unhealthy levels of obesity do effectively reduce physical performance in a manner similar to being overencumbered -- has to be accounted for, how would you rewrite the rules to avoid being offensive to folks such as yourself?

Stephen wrote: I can sympathize; I've refused to buy certain games because of the attitudes I felt they encouraged towards organized religion, so I know that subjective personal reaction is a real and perfectly valid reason to be annoyed by a game.

Stephen wrote: At the same time, as you note yourself, the encumbrance rules weren't written with any kind of prejudice in mind, and you don't really offer any suggestions for changing it. I've always believed the best kind of criticism or complaint is the constructive variety.

Assuming that the central point of the encumbrance rules -- i.e., that unhealthy levels of obesity do effectively reduce physical performance in a manner similar to being overencumbered -- has to be accounted for, how would you rewrite the rules to avoid being offensive to folks such as yourself?

I agree with you. I personally don't think those rules add any value to the game and was slightly offended as well. I've just decided to ignore that rule since it has absolutely zero practical game impact to do so.

um... I thought the whole 'fat as encumbrance' thing went along with the Obese Flaw?

Fat doesn't always mean slow, but slimmer people generally have a greater muscle mass to body weight ratio than fat people. In high school I played football, could run a 5.0 second fourty yard dash, and weighed 275 lbs. Do I doubt at all that I would've been able to run faster if I had lost 50 lbs of fat? NO.

Wake up and smell the reality people, Earth is full of bigots of all inclinations, and you can be hated or wrongly judged for all kinds of percieved shortcomings. I've never met a group of people so thin-skinned as American Consumers. Does everyone walk on eggshells these days? I know that I, for one, do not. Our society promotes the notion that all people are equal and all people have the same rights, dignities, and civil liberties. This is a great concept, but conceptualization and practice are two entirely different things. I don't know anyone who hasn't been discriminated against at one time or another, and most of them instead of crying about it, "toughen up" and grow up and go the hell on with their lives.

Fat people really are portrayed in our culture as gross aberrations, contrary to what nature "meant" people to be. So I'm sure that the author had absolutely zero malice when he made that rule, and even considered it a matter of simple, obvious "realism."

You guys are being oversensitive. It was intended to represent the phyiscal problems of being overweight - in particular, to reflect the obese flaw.

And guess what? There are problems with being overweight. If it bothers you so much you can't handle it, then I suggest you learn how to deal with it.

I, for one, grow very tired of seeing so many people sensitive about facts of life. Being overweight has problems, and it was written to be reflected in game. I, for one, think thats just fine, and yet people get oversensitive about these things, as if they feel they are being picked on.

You aren't being picked on; get over it.

And I can say this with complete justification, because I am around 50 lbs overweight myself, and am considered medically obese. And I didn't bat an eye at that text; it surprised me, but only because I hadn't seen a game take obesity in quite that direction. Otherwise, it was no big deal, at all.

I also lost my left leg below the knee while in the military. And I got damned tired of people dancing around the subject like they are afraid to bruise my ego. I just about had the last straw when I started getting letters from my university wanting to do a survey on "handicapable" students.

Handicapable? I'm handicapped, disabled, and heck, I've even had a few people (friends) call me a gimp, and I didn't cry over it. Yet it seems too many americans today wear their hearts on their sleeves when it comes to an issue that directly impacts them.

And this entire subject is rather silly too. I remember this comedian who once said he wanted a new catch phrase to hand to people in the 90's and 00's:

cope.



PS: note, that there is a difference between being oversensitive and someone being truly insulting. If someone was attacked for using the term "black" instead of african american, for instance, that would be unreasonable. But, certain other, well known and insulting terms for such same ethnic groups isnt acceptable; its all a matter of the spirit that it was intended in, and, I think, a dose of common sense.

Morfedel said:

PS: note, that there is a difference between being oversensitive and someone being truly insulting. If someone was attacked for using the term "black" instead of african american, for instance, that would be unreasonable. But, certain other, well known and insulting terms for such same ethnic groups isnt acceptable; its all a matter of the spirit that it was intended in, and, I think, a dose of common sense.

Gah! What was I thinking? :D

In real life, I agree with you folks that people need to look at the truth first, and then decide what to do from there, but not in a game. For me this falls into the same category as limiting strength for female characters. In gaming, realism is not an ends in itself, so if realism doesn't add anything positive to the game, I don't think it should get in the way of having a good time.

Everyone is allowed their opinion and I will not tell the offended person that they are wrong about their opinion of the encumbrance rules, but that they ( they being the encumbrance rules....well doh! ....hehe) are based on reality. To prove my point, my wife is considered morbidly obese, that being over 100 pds overweight. She has a hard time walking to the car and basically walking anywhere. She does not play RPG's in any aspect. I let her look over the rules for encumbrance and looked at the pictures. When she was done I asked her her feelings. She said "That's about right." I asked her Were you offended in any way shape or form over the rules or the pictures? She responded "How can you be offended by the truth?"

Now having said that I am overweight as well. When I read the rules and saw the pictures I was a bit caught off guard. No one has portrayed encumbrance quite that way before and it was an interesting route to take because of that fact.

Was I offended? No. Personally, I liked it. It went well with the rest of the game and was, in fact, realistic, to a point. I can think of many points where it is not the case, but they are the exceptions to the rules.

I am sorry to hear that someone was offended enough to not buy the game based on that particular fact as opposed to based on the fact of whether it is a good game or not. My only advice to that person is give the game a second chance. If you don't like the encumbrance rules the way they are set now, then don't use them and come up with your own. This game is so much better then the culmination of it's "faults" that it would be a shame to not buy it based on a dislike for one aspect of it.

These are just my opinions, take them as you will and possibly with a grain of salt. (I personally like sugar better, but to each his own)

Mr. Grimm

P.S. Maybe if you hang out here, you might find that there are more reasons to buy the game then not. .....Just a thought...

Okay, so should there be a new rule in TROS that female characters get a -1 to strength score during character creation and a max of 8? What is the in-game benefit? How does it make the game more fun?

Is that directed at my post?

kenjib wrote: Okay, so should there be a new rule in TROS that female characters get a -1 to strength score during character creation and a max of 8? What is the in-game benefit? How does it make the game more fun?

mrgrimm wrote: Is that directed at my post?

A question from someone who doesn't know how all the rules necessarily interact (me):

What would change if we took Ed's suggestion, and instead of imposing encumbrance penalties on the obese, one simply reduced one's ST and other relative attributes to reflect obesity?

We can impose HT/tn heart attack rolls when the character runs out of EN.

Guys, by all means have this discussion, but can a couple of you take a few dep breaths and re-read your posts before clicking "submit", please.

There's just a couple of comments here and there that aren't going to do anything but generate more similar comments and if we're not careful it's going to escalate.

Lets keep it nice, eh? That's one of the best things about this board - we're all friends.

Brian.

To Kenjib : No biggie just trying to figure out if I should respond. Even though everything is always about me... hehe....

To Lxndr : Sounds like a good start, but Strength, tends to seem better in the larger individuals, because they have their bulk to put behind their muscle. I personally think it should be Agility and Endurance, but that would cause changes to the combat pool and possibly other things as well. If were not careful we'll turn this game into another Phoenix Command.(not a bad game, a great game in fact, just EXTREMELY difficult and many mathmatical equations are involved which tend to take the fun out of it.)

If I got out of line, I apologize. I'm just offended by political correctness.

Is it PC to respect someone for being offended at PC? :D

I will be the first to say that if I have written anything that has offended or struck a bad nerve with anyone that I am sorry. It was not intended as such. I'd rather have friends than enemies.

Okay.

Obesity rules are common in Simulationist RPGs. TROS's mechanics are largely sim. This is nothing new. Clearly it wasn't meant to offend.

In the area of encumbrance, it is documented both historically and currently that obesity has a negative effect on what TROS calls "Combat Pool." We can't go off claiming "realistic combat based on historical models" and spit in the eye of that particular fact.

I've been significantly overweight, a little overweight, and currenly only about 10 lbs over, and I can say that my ability as a fighter and athelete has only been improved by a thinner waistline. I also teach swordsmanship, and heavier people are always at a disadvantage in a fight.

There is no offence intended, and it's not meant to be some form of discrimination (although I would like to point out that various races in RPGs do have bonuses and minuses based on no other criteria than race). Lastly, it's a very simple rule, and one that is easily ignored.

Jake

Hey, for what it's worth, my observation is that the only thing that got ejh upset enough to post is the word "meant" in the phrase "meant to hold."

Change it to "people carrying a significant amount of fat are essentially already partially loaded down by their own weight, and thus have a reduced capacity to carry additional weight," and my guess is, we never see this thread.

*Should* he (or others) care so much about a little word like "meant"? Should an author care about keeping it in because it's "true"? Hell if I know. But best as I can tell, ejh isn't challenging the reality of the rule, or saying that it was intended to harm - he's just reporting that he felt kinda bothered, enough to not want to buy the book right away.

If the text ever gets rewritten, that observation can be taken into account, and changes either made or not, at the discretion of the author. Not much else to say, really.

Gordon

Egads, Gordon actually read my post! Congrats, Gordon!

And thanks, Jake, for your reply. Sorry to have caused such a firestorm. Like I said in the first place, I never thought you *meant* to give offense, only that you might want to know if you unintentionally had. Just another molecule of feedback to throw in the bucket. And again, overall I find the game quite outstanding, and if I weren't already wavering over spending the money I might well have just bought it anyway.

When we originally put those in I was a little concerned about offending, but then I figured that it was a game about killing people, so...

Jake

This thread bothered me to begin, but something someone said (no, I'm not going to be more specific. I'm sick and feeling petulant.) made me think..

Considering that the charts in the character creation section allow you to make character weight based on their attributes, I'm beginning to think that the encumbrance rules are slightly redundant.

Now, I'm significantly NOT overweight, so I can't even begin to fathom what it's like, but perhaps it's a bit much to have weight reflected in both locations.

OK, responding to and elaborating on what Wolfen said, I'm going to further explain why the "weight as encumbrance" thing seems creepy to me. In doing so I'm going to appear to rant and tell people what to think, but please ignore that appearance, because I'm doing this in order to explain my OWN "this is creepy" reaction. I'm not asking anyone to share these opinions, just explaining my own. No need to try to argue back and prove me wrong; this is documentary, not rhetoric. Whether I'm wrong or right I'm describing the background of the reaction that I started this thread with....


------

The concept of treating a part of someone's body as if it's (a) not a part of their body and (b) entirely a negative thing simply strikes me as creepy, very creepy. Creepy in a way that is pervasive in our culture (cue the Richard Simmons "inside every fat person there's a thin person trying to get out" image), but creepy when you are able to put enough distance between yourself and cultural preconceptions to examine it.

Fat people are not thin people wrapped in fat, any more than tall people are short people on stilts. They're just fat people. The fat is a part of their bodies, there because their genetics, environment, and behavior working together put it there, just like every other aspect of their body. They're not "carrying around" their fat any more than people "carry around" their brains, or pancreas, or lungs, or muscles.

The "fat as encumbrance" rules creep me out because they emphasize and articulate the body-alienation that is foisted on fat people by our culture. In this game the mechanics work as if fat bodies were not real bodies with their own integrity, but fat suits.

They warded me off from the game because they articulate assumptions which I think are wrong, misguided, and harmful (but which also happen to be very common, which is the reason that I don't have any personal grudge against Jake for including them).

---

For what it's worth, this isn't a huge issue to me; I'm not that fat, it hasn't been that much of an issue in my life, I don't take any flak for it from day to day in real life; I have virtually never taken a stand on such an issue in public. But it's still what I believe is right and wrong.

"Offended" is a buzzword that has been abused and provokes all kinds of snotty reactions and shouts of "down with PC!" from different sorts of people, so let's not use it.

I think it's wrong to portray people in ways that tend towards the hurtful. I'm willing to look past it for the sake of genre conventions or the like, but TroS isn't about following genre conventions, it's about "realism." I don't think these rules are reflecting reality, I think they're reflecting a harmful prejudice and a hurtful way of conceptualizing things.

Y'all can disagree with me, that's fine, but give me the credit that this is a little bigger than "oooh, I feel like people are picking on me." I saw something that didn't bother me because it made me feel bad, it bothered me because it seemed *wrong* to me.

OK, I *did* get ranting there. Apologies. It just seemed that some of the issues involved had gotten either misunderstood or trivialized, and I wanted to clarify.

Flame on again, brothers, if you must.

EJ, I commend you for your patience in the face of a degree of hostility, and for successfully articulating your point quite well.

Its a point I don't happen to agree with. I think biologically that given the actual method the body uses to store fat, that the image of "carrying it around" is actually pretty accurate. Fat is stored in pockets underneath the skin in a manner not too disimilar to if one carried around a big gob of it in the pocket of their jeans...so equating it to encomberance I feel is pretty reasonable.

But that's beside the point entirely. I'd like to remind everyone on this thread that this wasn't a "Why TROS sux" thread. This is a "Why I didn't buy TROS" thread. EJ's decision in this regard is everybit as valid and rationale as deciding not to buy a car because the interior is done in mint green velour. Doesn't make the car crap. Does make it one I wouldn't want to own.

Big difference there. If there are additional posts in this thread please keep this distinction in mind.


With that said, EJ, the encomberance rules are of such minor importance to the game that you could pretty much rip the page out and not miss it (so to speak); you won't be hammered with the conceptualization you find distasteful throughout the book.

ejh-

So how would you do it? The existing rules are based on my experiences at the time. It is undeniable that any weight in excess of 10 lbs effects atheletic performance for the kind of activity that swordfighting is. How would you realistically represent that?

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: So how would you do it? The existing rules are based on my experiences at the time. It is undeniable that any weight in excess of 10 lbs effects atheletic performance for the kind of activity that swordfighting is. How would you realistically represent that?

I'm just weirded out that ejh was offended by TRoS and not by octaNe.

xiombarg wrote: However, if you wanted a game that accurately simulated social reality in the US, being black would give you a negative "reaction modifier" from most white people, an unfortunate fact of life brought to us by the television age.

Jared --

Read up in the thread to the part where I mention "genre conventions." :) All's fair when you're not trying to say "this is reality" but "this is a particular perspective on reality enshrined in literature and/or film." Changes the whole way I look at things. I'm not *in general* easily offended, this just pushed a particular button in my little mental universe.

Valamir --

Thanks. :) Like I said, I don't expect to change people's minds on this, I was just articulating where I stood and why my reaction to it was strong.

Jake --

I've never had very much fun arguing on any topic in which my interlocutor starts out with phrases like "It is undeniable that..." -- that pretty much signals to me that this is probably a "we're going to have to agree to disagree" situation right off the bat, and it's better to cut losses before we begin.

Even if that weren't the case, though, I didn't get a chance to get to know TroS well enough to make any kind of intelligent suggestion at all -- I'd be pulling stuff completely out of my ass.

But when it comes down to it, this issue is the only even remotely negative thing I've seen about TroS. I kind of took for granted that you already know that the game rocks the world, but let me say it again -- it's an outstanding game and you are to be commended.

ejh-

You're missing my point. It's useless having a discussion arguing that being overweight doesn't effect swordsmanship and other combat arts based on reflex and agility. Wrestling and football are different animals. You will see no centers playing tied end.

My question is: how would you model the realistic disadvantage in play, if you feel we have done it incorrectly. That's all.

Jake

Jake,

I'm not really missing the point. I'm just adding one. I've got no problem with the effects on sword play etc. They are modeled well. I was just noting that in some situations, extra weight is an advantage--generally when you are trying to bash your way through something. I'd agree that I don't think it is in a regular sword fight.

NT

Note that heavier characters have a significant advantage in wrestling in TROS rules. I don't hear any skinny people shouting out that anything is wrong.

Listen guys, I hear you. I was a "husky" kid that has worked very hard to get the weight off. I'm there with you. But I'm just asking how would you do it differently.

So how? No more explanations, apologies, or whatever. Just. Mechanics. and. why.

Jake

I don't remember if this is in the rules already but...

Make mass ratio a factor in maneuvers like shield bashing or shoulder charging or even block open. More massive fighters might gain CP advantages (or cause CP disadvantages to their foes) by unbalancing opponents.

NT

Jake --

Already told you, I don't know the mechanics of TroS, or the details of real world combat, well enough to make any suggestions. (You'll note that it has not been me, but other users, piping up with rules suggestions of one kind or another.)

If you want the simplest change that would be necessary to get rid of what put me off it, that would probably be:

"keep the mechanical effects, whatever they are [I don't know what they are, I didn't read that far] exactly the same, but get rid of the conceptual unification between fat and encumbrance -- i.e. put 'em in different sections, get the Increasingly Fat Guy out of the 'sample encumbrance' pictures, and so on."

In other words, it wasn't the mechanics that bugged me -- I didn't even read far enough to know what the mechanics *are*. It was the conceptualization of fat as equivalent to carrying a bunch of heavy inanimate objects, and the illustration that reinforced that conceptualization.

(And a final disclaimer: I didn't come in here to tell you how to rewrite your game! I'm only responding to a specific request on your part. :)

ejh-

I think the problem, them, is misunderstanding what "encumbrance" is in TROS. In TROS "encumbrance" is anything that gets in the way of mobility for the sake of combat and similar movment. Thus a guy in a long robe is more encumbered than a guy with a heavy back strapped on tightly. Large amounts of body fat do this in my experience, observation, and reasearch. The other effect of obesity is reduced endurance, which is handled through normal old endurance rules in TROS.

IOW, I think that your reaction, while understandable on a gut level, was a little premature. I hope you pick up TROS anyway and see what I mean.

Jake

Jake --

From the very beginning of the discussion, I never said I wasn't gonna buy it ever, just that I didn't then. :) We'll see what happens the next time I have $35 in my pocket and am confronted by a copy of it. :)

A side note: while I am not a member of the ARMA (never really had anyone in it around to recruit me or anything) I have done a lot of SCA combat (which I know is not the same) and SCA fencing (ditto). I will point out a few absoultey true facts from those experiences:

Big people make bigger targets for rapiers. While this is negligible in armored combat (heavy list), when two people are duelling in a circle using reasonably light weapons (Schlager weight), short, thin people are simply harder to hit than bigger guys (be they athletic or not). For a thrusting weapon, it matters a lot.

Big people are EXACTLY who you want in your shield wall. I've been in numerous, numerous battles where having 10 250+ pounders in my shield wall led to VASTLY supperior tactica positioning 10 seconds after the walls collided. MASS MATTERS. Now, once the combat became chaos, i would argue that my ability to run around quickly, in lighter armor, with not-too-much extra weight, led to me surviving much longer than those brutes who got me into the battle in the first place.

I think the rules capture these points pretty well (need to refresh the thrusting rules in my head though).