I purchased a copy of TROS and began to digest.

One point stood out (to my thinking): as I undertand the rules, when you must make a contested roll, you roll against a TN set by your skill. It seems... ummm... what's the right words here? Inelegant?

I liked how the higher the TN, the harder it is... now I have to turn that heuristic on its head on think of skills where lower is better? Irks me. But hey, that's the only real complaint I have!

Well, doing it in reverse (having higher TNs denoting a higher skill level a la Arrowflight) requires a roll-under mechanic, which some people (like me) find counter-intuitive as well. Can't have your cake and eat it too, I suppose. ;) Personally, I prefter a roll-over mechanic for dice pools. I suppose that's one of the appeals of the d20 mechanic... higher numbers are always better. However, I prefer TROS by several orders of magnitude. :)

-Mark

Having now read most of the book since receiving it yesterday, I was going to open up a topic on first impressions. On the other hand, finding someone had already opened something similiar, I'll just write them here.

Spiritual attributes and combat system - everybody knows these, and anyone with any sense loves them. Nothing more needs be said. :)

A few things make me uncomfortable... I'm a fan of unified systems, in which everything is rolled the same way. (Blue Planet being a good example.) Having attributes, proficiencies and skills all treated differently is something that doesn't sit that well with me. This is related to my one main problem with the game: the skill system. The base mechanics themselves are fine (though different, but I already mentioned that), but the lack of examples leave me a bit uneasy... Now, the book says that difficulty of a task is simulated by adding or removing dice from the dice pool when rolling. However, after making a few calculations, most of the time this seems to be fairly ineffective; at a SR of seven, almost anything is guaranteed to succeed, assuming the character has a fairly good attribute and the task isn't totally otherwordly. The other difficulty increasing method mentioned is requiring more successes on the roll to succeed. I find this method better, but I've seen no examples in the book of this method, so despite intending to use this mechanic more, I'm a bit stumped on appropriate levels... One success for routine tasks, two for fairly challenging, three for hard and so on seems about right, but what do you think?

Sorcery system; from what I'd read about it, I thought it would be unbalanced, as aging wouldn't be a very important thing for many players. After reading it, it still seemed bland, though original and imaginative. The essay after the chapter was what made the idea "click" for me, and now I think it's very interesting, though I'd prefer to keep it very rare, and most likely not give it to PC's. (I guess it's kind of what the book intended in the first place - congratulations.)

The world section is where I'm in currently, and I find that it's an intriguing combination of realism, imagination, down-to-earth attitude and possibility for heroism. The equipment section is good, especially giving the prices in multiple currencies and dividing into different markets. (The Underworld.)

The writing is good, concise and for the most part, pretty accurate, though a few typos, grammar mistakes and such have slipped in, as well as a few unclear points. (All of those have been cleared up by the examples, so that's no biggie.) Also, the writer occasionally displays a kind of wry sense of humour that I liked very much.

All in all, for the kind of game this book is aimed at (heroic realistic fantasy), I don't think I'd use anything else now. Exalted, Ars Magica or HeroQuest might be better than TRoS in their own fields, but in its own, TRoS seems the best at the moment. (IMO, of course!)

In conclusion, to give a bit of perspective to my point of view, I place myself in the narrativist category, with some simulationist and very little gamist tendencies.

If there is another edition coming, my advice would be to add some more skill use examples in the rules, especially on the multiple-successes-needed-as-difficulty method.

In RPG.net review format, I'd give the game:
Style 4:(Very nice art, good lay-out, little space wasted, concise, just some typos
Substance 3 or 4: Spiritual attributes and combat are great, I dislike the different mechanics for attribute, proficiency and skill rolls, skill use should have been covered more, good sorcery rules that greatly benefited from the essay following them

For any that read all the way to this end, thank you. ;)

Speaking entirely as a fan, and not as a Driftwood guy ('cos I started as a fan):

It's funny, I have heard the same thing said about the skill system a number of times (counting down where everything else counts up). But personally,when I first came across it, I couldn't get over how elegant it was.

Instead of the Seneschal/GM/DM/whatever having to calculate a difficulty on the fly, when a character wants to attempt something you already know the difficulty. Roll attribute (whichever makes sense in the situation) against skill. Done. Simple, elegant, no fuss.

As for adjusting difficulty and knowing how many successes are necessary etc, I have always gone by a simple maxim (one espoused very much by Ron Edwards, who wrote the essay you liked in the Sorcery section):

If a character is trying to do something unopposed, they can. If they're opposed, then roll.

That's not a rock-hard rule of course, sometimes I call for difficulty rolls unopposed, but generally, characters only roll when someone else is opposing them, whether it be a sneak vs. perception, or a toughness vs. torture, and just a strength vs. strength. Then you know how many successes are important, because you have to beat the other guys.

In unopposed situations, yeah, about what you said; don't roll for trivial stuff, the character just does it. one successes needed for hard stuff, two for really hard, three for legendary. They are approx what I use.

Brian the fan, not the other Brian.

I didn't say the skill system wasn't elegant: I did like the idea of it. My problem was just that I prefer consistent game mechanics. But enough of that.

And I see your point about not rolling for unopposed actions. Especially that it seems to be the design philosophy behind the game. And I guess the number of successes needed will be a good enough mechanic.

All in all, I'm really looking forward to testing the game.

Um... you roll (more dice = better) vs. a target number (lower TN = better). That's the case throughout the system... so why, exactly, is it inconsistent?

Would something like, say, you skill adds dice to your pool/roll work? I havent' played, so this may be completely inappropriate! Just wondering...

Also, it seems like a side effects that since skills go DOWN to 3, that's it, 3 is the best skill right? Again, please correct any misunderstandings I have.

On a side note, I was at Necronomicon this weekend and played in a very odd RPG session. There was some excited gaming going on
(sadly, no ROS), and I couldnt wait to get home and try out ROS with some of my regular gaming folk.

Lxndr wrote: Um... you roll (more dice = better) vs. a target number (lower TN = better). That's the case throughout the system... so why, exactly, is it inconsistent?

JamesDJIII wrote: Also, it seems like a side effects that since skills go DOWN to 3, that's it, 3 is the best skill right? Again, please correct any misunderstandings I have.