Well, I initially started this topic in order to seek an answer as to this question:
Do you think it is munchkinish to have a character with a TO of 7, no armor, and the acrobatics skill at 3..?

This also has to deal with my friend's proposed character who has a TO of 8 and plans on using chain armor of some variant...most likely not a full suit.

So what I propose we do as a possible house-rule to combat these high stat characters, is to make TO never exceed the current ST.. and vice versa. This makes it brutally simple to modify the system in order to combat munchkinism and to keep things on a realistic scale.


I should like to view your thoughts everyone on these issues..
-Ingenious

I believe that in the rules a player has to choose one attribute to be his highest. You could just require that TO can't be that high stat.

Also, do these guys ignore SAs? Then a nasty trick wake up call would be to give their opponents high SAs. And don't forget to attack areas not covered by armor.

Well, the problem with my character is, with acrobatics at 3 and rolling 6 dice against it for my agility in a skill test.. means more times than not I will be receiving +6 dice to my combat pool for the evasive move of my choosing. That increased my total combat pool around 25%..and allows me to focus more of my CP towards an attack.. rather than worry about leaving dice behind for a second attack or a defense.. etc. However I can not parry or use a shield or counter with those bonus dice.. so I guess that evens it out...

We don't generally ignore SA's. We don't like doing counterproductive things in session(unless it is part of the plot)..

But the character with the TO of 8 and chain makes for a total defensive rating of 12.. BEFORE successes enter the equation.
I think that is a bit much don't you?

-Ingenious

Ingenious
speaking on the matter of high defense, my character has a defensive rating of 12 and recently took a level 3 wound to the stomach and only survived due to a nice seneschal (thank you very much colby), so I say there is no such thing as to much defense

Ingenious wrote: Well, the problem with my character is, with acrobatics at 3 and rolling 6 dice against it for my agility in a skill test.. means more times than not I will be receiving +6 dice to my combat pool for the evasive move of my choosing. That increased my total combat pool around 25%..and allows me to focus more of my CP towards an attack..

If he gets Acrobatics from a skill packet, yeah, it's 6+1 = 7. If he gets it from putting MA into it DIRECTLY, it's 6. Period. Modifiers in skill packets in no way affect direct-MA-skill purchases.

I remember seeing a suggestion a few months ago that was met with some warmth, on allowing TO to only be as high as the Strength of the assailant; so if the assailant was attacking with str 5, you could only count TO 5, the rest had to be from armor; the theory being that skin stops a small amount of force, but a sword still cuts pretty well unless stopped by metal.

I haven't played enough to know what is almost too high to be countered, if there is such an animal. I do know that I once did a number of practice combats between a plate-armored person and an identical twin unarmored one (or armoroed only to the point that he had no CP penalties). I wanted to test and see whether losing CP or having weaker armor was more detrimental.

What happened is, most of the time the CP pool of the lightly armored one was so high he easily kept the initiative most of the combat, but didnt seem to be able to penetrate the combination of armor and toughness.

Finally, one of them, I do not recall who, finally got lucky, and the battle ended, but it went on for some time it felt.

Is a concept that has no application to roleplaying (as opposed to wargaming.)

So you're an absurdly acrobatic fellow who can take a solid whack from a shortsword without flinching.

Good for you.

That's just who your character is. Is that who you wanted to play? yes? Good.

I don't really like the current rules for toughness or any of the proposed solutions to it so far, but those aren't really the business of this thread...are they?

I actually came with a set of rules for TO:

No starting human character can have a TO higher than 5.

No human's TO should exceed 6 (maybe you'd allow 7, maybe).

No human's TO should exceed their ST.

No human's TO can exceed their EN or HT by more than 1. Why should an unhealthy, unfit human get a high ability to shrug off lethal damage?

non human races can exceed each of these limits by their races bonus to TO (think dwarves)

So, any starting dwarf could get a TO of 7, but his STR would have to be 5 and his EN and HT would have to be 4. Does this make sense? Is it too complicated?

Thanks,

-Alan

No human's TO can exceed their EN or HT by more than 1. Why should an unhealthy, unfit human get a high ability to shrug off lethal damage?

Silvermane,

I honestly had not thought of that (did anyone else?).

Good point, I guess. But wouldn't such a character be required to take the minor or major flaw of Obesity? That flaw exists, right? Going from memory at the moment? That could be an exception to my suggestion. But I'd force someone to roleplay all that entails...

-Alan

Also remember that "Toughness" is more than just "The Blade Sinks Into My Flesh But I'm Still Fine." It's also, to some extent, "I Managed To Make The Blade Hit Me Less Harmfully."

Or such has always been my interpretation.

I look at Toughness as the "hero factor"- Don't forget that the blow's actual STR isn't determined till after the TO is factored in- you haven't actually hit for damage until you determine what is left over after armour and TO. So even if you have 6 successes, his TO/armour of 6 can make your blow into a near miss.

Bob Richter wrote: Is a concept that has no application to roleplaying (as opposed to wargaming.)

So you're an absurdly acrobatic fellow who can take a solid whack from a shortsword without flinching.

Good for you.

That's just who your character is. Is that who you wanted to play? yes? Good.

Anthony Shmanthony I wrote: I look at Toughness as the "hero factor"- Don't forget that the blow's actual STR isn't determined till after the TO is factored in- you haven't actually hit for damage until you determine what is left over after armour and TO. So even if you have 6 successes, his TO/armour of 6 can make your blow into a near miss.

Ingenious...

For your PC's who want to play with TO of 7 or 8...

Take your own advice from this thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9575

And only allow TO to subtract from an opponents ST. They can have as high of a TO as they want and it still wont stop weapon bonuses and successes... It's a simple solution that doesn't require any extra math or die rolling that's not already part of combat. And it works wonders to reduce munchkinism.

You will probably never have a PC with a TO higher than 6 using that system because it doesn't have the same big payoff.

Also PC's who put everything into TO or ST are missing out on a high, AG, Wit, and Per. All much more useful as ones high stat for a combat based PC's IMHO.

When players propose characters with stats as part of thier proposal - make them go back and think up a real character, and not a stat sheet they want to "roleplay/fight".

- I disagree on TO being a "hero factor" - that's what SA's are for.

- And I disagree on TO reflecting "I make the blade hit me less harmfully" that's what spending CP dice on defense is for.

And if you ever have to wonder if something is or is not "munchkin" - then it is.

This character reminds me of something from a picaresque - the "slippery man" who is called upon by the protagonist during one of his critical challenges to leap, dance, and jump his way through a gauntlet of enemies and/or traps to grab something on the other side.

(Sorry for the length of reply)
Very valid points everyone.
Though I must comment on each of them..
Alan, yes I realize the complete rules for the acrobatics roll and the number of dice you get for each, etc.
However, my views have occured the same as yours have before regarding the starting level at which a skill is gain via MA points.
I realize that the game is not all about combat, I merely have a high TO so that ties into my views of not wanting to be hit.. and also that I can't have armor if using acrobatics(which by background and roleplaying I am never to use armor..ever.) However, we have been playing the buying of skills with MA points exactly as Lx stated..with no modifiers. It is bought at the worst skill packet rating. So in the case that my character has Skills as priority A..6, in the case that it was B..7.
Bob, yes I know that it has no application in roleplaying.. I just wanted to see if anyone thought that this subject was bordering on the 'exploitation of the rules' scheme ala D&D. I.e. min/maxing.
Poleaxe's ideas are interesting..bordering on some of my own thoughts..
Silvermane, if this character had massive amounts of subcutaneous fat.. he wouldnt be so awesomely acrobatic..(yes the obesity flaw exists)
Jake: I beleive it comes more from a fear of their character either dying, getting hurt to the point where they cant defend themselves and THEN die..etc. As the player of the character with the proposed TO of 8 said to me'I chose country X as my character's origin because of the +1 TO.'
..which is quite the same as D&D logic.

Jaeger, thanks for linking me to that... The thing is our seneschal doesn't really see a problem with superiorly tough characters.(But I might play a protagonist PC again..and how am I ever going to succeed in that if i am going up against a brick-wall of a character?)((hypocracy noted))

Aaaaand back to the concept of you only get to spend one point on any one skill, and then have X amount of MA points left.. and you can't put more than one point of MA into any single skill.
I do not see that expressly written myself.
You all are taking liberties with examining and the interpretation of the rules.
'Each character gains an additional skill, language, or -1SR adjustment to any one skill for each point of his MA.'
So, for example.. say I spend 5 points of my MA into lowering a skill that had a then current SR of 8. It would then be 3. But then I might be out of MA points. Thus to improve dramatically on one SR.. I sacrifice improving others. Exactly like it is with making several attributes 6's and 5's and one 7.. the rest of those stats are going to be lower because of it. Compromise is built into the system you know.

Thanks again for the opinions.
-Ingenious

Ingenious wrote:
'Each character gains an additional skill, language, or -1SR adjustment to any one skill for each point of his MA.'
-Ingenious

I'll bet Allen's interpretation is aligned with design intent.

Anyway, . . . Cory (Ingenious), I think you're min/maxing and you're feeling guilty about it and you started this thread because you want someone to affirm you.

I guess I'm an ass for speaking plainly, but I am your friend, after all.

Don't necessarily buy into the negative connotations of any idea that provides some payoff for you (e.g. Munchkinism). And keep in mind, any system can be broken if you incessantly poke at it. Just use TROS for what it does well and let the inconsequentials blur.

A few months ago, when Jason was running that AD&D dungeon crawl he wrote when he was 16, I thought I'd get back into the swing of things by playing a thief (my longtime favorite class). I never could divine the procedure to backstab and the God-damned dwarf ended up finding all the traps and secret doors. I tried to pick a lock and got paralyzed by a poison needle; the dwarf then proceeded to brush me aside, while laughing, and cleanly whack the padlock free of the chest with the butt of his axe.

You remember how frustrated I got when combat started and I couldn't hit anything? And I started rolling (and failing) to grab my own elbow just to express my impotence? Well, the next campaign we ran, I drew up a half-elf fighter/magic-user with sword weapon specialization, lightning bolt & fireball spells, a ring of fire resistance, a ring of wishes, a bag of holding, a sword that disintegrates evil, a cloak of invisibility, a scroll of teleportation, bracers of AC -2, and a THAC0 of 2. ("Hold onto something, brother, 'cause you're about to feel my impact!")

It was hoaky as Hell, but hey, I kicked more ass per round and had a great time doing it.

To me, what's exciting about TROS is its integrity of ways to be cool. That is to say, it all hangs together, whereas AD&D looks more like a ball of bandaids.

Why quibble with TO maximums, attribute leveling angst or what have you? There's grapple to pin and poleaxe hook maneuvers to explore!

This is true Billy.. but I'm not feeling guilt about what I want my character to do.

This'll all be hashed out by the time the next session/adventure is.
I'd rather have my friends speak plainly than to blow smoke.. if you get my drift.

Anyways, back on topic..

What Nick seems to want to do however is have a TO of 8, choose his country not for roleplaying reasons.. but for the benefit of a +1 to TO..
And wear chain, though assumedly not a full suit of it.. which makes for a very potent adversary.. and it seriously amplifies the difficulty of attempting to subdue his character should such a situation warrant it.

Let us take for example.. both of our characters in the same situation of being caught with our collective pants down.
Let's say an archer attacks either of us with a crossbow. And let's say that he gets 3 successes..and that we did not see the attack coming. This would result in a damage rating of 9.
For me that's a level 2 wound.. for Nick that is a level 0..
In order for that crossbowman to hit Nick for a level 5 wound.. he would need 11 successes. Going on Nick's defensive rating is 12, with no defense, crossbow's total damage is 6..
So in order to kill Nick's character in one hit.. that crossbowman better have a very high MP..(though I picked this as a 'possible' event due to a crossbow's ATN of 5)
In order for his character to get killed in one hit by a melee fighter.. they had better have a very very very large CP and use the whole entire thing in one attack.
But then there is the 'swarm' approach.. whereby Luke might send 6 NPC's after him in order to challenge him.. collectively they could chip away at him.. but knowing that his character can't be killed nearly at all even without a defense.. he might just split his pool into 3 parts.. and use that against 3 of them(I beleive the max number of people that can attack you in melee is 3).. and with his high strength and most likely margin of success.. he'd hack down three of them without receiving a scratch.(not accounting for a terrain roll on Nick's behalf, which would allow him to focus on a smaller number of foes at that moment unless he fumbled it.)..

My only fear is that the GM in these cases has to work double-time in order to challege the character as much as the rest of us would be/are in combat. While it may be fun in the short term to stand single handedly against 6 or 7 people.. that turns into D&D very quickly..

Remember Billy.. when Luke sent the level 20 demon at us in DND and we all lived..we all said 'what is the point of it all?'
We werent challenged, nothing could stop us.. and that seriously made the fun factor go down the crapper.

So you see, my character is far from invincible.. but the only ways that Nick's character could get ANY better at all was to wear plate.. and to have his TO 2 points higher.

I remember when we got the shield/blocking rules mixed up.. and allowed the AV of a shield to absorb damage in an active defense..
Stan had a defensive rating of 20 with that.. and the 'modified' NPC Luke was using against me had all of his SA's firing and he had a CP of around... 25 or 28.... it was well into the 20's though..

I do not want Luke or any of us to have to go to extremes again like we had to in D&D..

Excuse the semi-non-coherence of this post.
-Ingenious
edit: After seeing the light of how non-fun it is to have a high TO character in either case..I will be modifying my character before the adventure starts..thus improving his statistics elsewhere.

Actually, you can do the skill thing Cory's way and not be out of line with the rules. I certainly allow multiple MA points on the same skill - why can't someone make a character who has spent a lot of time training to become really good at one thing? That's not unrealistic at all, and the fact that he has done so means that he's suffered in other areas (by not putting the MA points in them). Again, perfectly realistic.

The real answer is, of course, do it how you want to. Whichever way works for your group is exactly the right way to do it. Neither is expressly disallowed by the rules.

Brian.

Brian Leybourne wrote: Actually, you can do the skill thing Cory's way and not be out of line with the rules. I certainly allow multiple MA points on the same skill - why can't someone make a character who has spent a lot of time training to become really good at one thing?

Criminy. You don't check the boards a day, and miss two pages.

My only pertinent question is this: Is the character fun? Does the player enjoy the character? Do other players in the group enjoy the character? Or is this character detrimental to the group's enjoyment of play?

That's the only important question. I have allowed rules-breaking characters on various occasions before because they were fun. In most roleplaying groups, that's all that matters.

If the character is ruining your fun, then fix it. Otherwise.. Enjoy it and leave the rules alone.

Cory:

I see now where you're coming from. I've been going back and forth on how to address this issue. To me, the main thing that doesn't make sense
is that TO reduces all damage, regardless of weapon characteristics.

At the grossest level, weapon and delivery should match to defense and penetration. e.g. "I whip you with a leaf of grass" up to "I fire a laser cannon at your chest." Likewise for defense, "you are standing naked in an open field" up to "you take refuge in an underground bunker."

TO just can't reduce crossbow damage as effectively as damage from a punch, but the formula for figuring Wound Level makes no such distinction.

Jaeger wrote: - I disagree on TO being a "hero factor" - that's what SA's are for.

- And I disagree on TO reflecting "I make the blade hit me less harmfully" that's what spending CP dice on defense is for.

And if you ever have to wonder if something is or is not "munchkin" - then it is.

Alan wrote:

Here's some quick approximations of the costs of improving skills by experience checks. You can see that the return on SR after 6 goes up asymptotically. ie way out of proportion.

Anthony I wrote:

Jaeger wrote: Munchkinism is such a bullshit concept, it should be struck down from the lexicon of gaming and burned at the stakeI say you want a guy with high TO and wearing armour so you can't be touched in combat- so what. Go be an untouchable tank, and have fun doing it. The only thing that really matters in TROS are SA's.

I couldn't agree more, I'm toothgrindingly sick of the hypocrisy of people who use combat oriented systems with a billion and one intricate optimization options and then bitch when people take advantage of them. These are usually the same ones who talk about how much 'roleplay' is important to them then spend 90% of the game resolving combat (D&D is FILLED with DMs like this)
Don't like 'Munchkins"? Stop using systems which enable them and stop running games I which you have to be one to survive. Simple Eh?

Anthony I wrote: The Hero Factor is what makes characters like Conan survive when faced with insurmountable foes- His Destiny-to be King or whatever

Conan's a little rule-breaker, ain't he? That's a lot more than 5.

No, that's just the full list he went through through the period depicted by the film. Remember that you can only have 5 at a time, but you can change them around as you need/want to. He didn't gain hatred for Thulsa Doom until his Love for Valeria wasn't relevant anymore, for example.

Brian.

kenjib wrote:

Alan wrote:

Here's some quick approximations of the costs of improving skills by experience checks. You can see that the return on SR after 6 goes up asymptotically. ie way out of proportion.

You run into the same situation when you allocate your stat points. During character generation they are allocated linearly, but once playing it is on a curve.

Anthony I wrote: make a good attack to my neck area and get 6 successes, my TO and armour reduce it to 1 success. Now we narrate the scene. You didn't do a killing blow that was reduced- you only did a flesh wound. It doesn't matter how many successes you get till after you reduce based on TO and armour- then you have determined what the ST of the blow was. Not before. If my TO and/or armour reduce you to 0 successes- you missed or did less than a flesh wound- it had nothing to do with my physical toughness turning aside the sword blade, or my skill saving my ass- you just didn't hit, or hit in such a way as to do no damage.

In Simulationism: The Right to Dream, Ron Edwards wrote: Purist-for-System designs tend to model the same things: differences among scales, situational modifiers, kinetics of all kinds, and so forth.

As I see it, Purist for System design is a tall, tall order. It's arguably the hardest design spec in all of role-playing.

Anthony I wrote: I say you want a guy with high TO and wearing armour so you can't be touched in combat- so what. Go be an untouchable tank, and have fun doing it. The only thing that really matters in TROS are SA's.

b_bankhead wrote: I'm toothgrindingly sick of the hypocrisy of people who use combat oriented systems with a billion and one intricate optimization options and then bitch when people take advantage of them.

b_bankhead wrote: Don't like 'Munchkins"? Stop using systems which enable them and stop running games I which you have to be one to survive. Simple Eh?

bcook1971 wrote: The way I see things, it's the latter. First you hit, then you penetrate.

bcook1971 wrote: "ST of the blow?" Do you mean Wound Level? ST is static and unrelated to Margin of Success for an attack. It is certainly not "determined" by success. Which strikes me as odd, but that is what I read.

bcook1971 wrote: I'm all for kewl, but I sympathize with Cory's concerns as they relate to group responsibility for our fun.

b_bankhead wrote: Don't like 'Munchkins"? Stop using systems which enable them and stop running games I which you have to be one to survive. Simple Eh?

Alan wrote: linear buy should be limited - just rules on page 20 indicate.

Well, I guess it's time I discussed my veiw on the whole issue since it talks about my char and I.

I'm not trying for an invincible char I'm going for a Riddle-Seeker with bloodlust and bad social skills. I don't see a man with these hold backs living very long with a low TO. I picked the place I liked, Saramatov not just for it's Bonuse of TO +1 but becouse it seemed like a great place for my char to be from due to the chaos, weapon styles, and open invitations for challenges based on the color of ones scabbard. I only plan on wearing my armor when I know a fight will occur most the time I'll just be wearing a leather jack.

I see it as wise to place attribute points in the same spot. It only cost a point to move an attribute from 5 to 6 now, but in the game it will cost 10 SA points to make the same change. Having lower attributes are much less costly from 3 to 4 it cost only 4. So what's the point in having an average charactor for all your skills when it seems more effective to have high/low attributes.

There is more to this game then combat. I did make my charactor tough in fights but also I will make him enjoyable to play with.

Anthony I wrote: The effect of hitting and penetrating are not determined seperately, and the actual effect of the attack isn't determined till after the wound level is reconciled against the TO and/or armour.

Anthony I wrote: Yes, I meant Wound Level, which is your margin of sucess + ST + any weapon modifiers.

Anthony I wrote: It is most certainly determined by your amount of success- if your margin of success is larger you have a better chance of damaging your opponent.

bcook1971 wrote: ST is static and unrelated to Margin of Success for an attack. It is certainly not "determined" by success.

Anthony I wrote: I'm not talking about Kewl, necessarilly, I'm just talking about different approaches to gaming and that what you might consider Munchkinism is an entirely appropriate and fun way for someone else to play- just not for you.

Oh, shit. I just realized: my "it" was Wound Level! (Throws courtroom papers into the air.)

Please receive a free coupon to ignore me:)

Anyway, what I was noticing is how MoS is the only dynamic component of Wound Level. Everything else is static. And I was thinking (warning . . . radical thinking ahead . . .), maybe they should have range. i.e. Have ST be a MoS proportion (somehow), and have Armor and TO be proportions of . . . weapon characteristics.

They're rough ideas. Inelegant. But I am on about something. Bare skin a crossbow bolt stop will not.

bcook1971 wrote: Well, the way I understand it,


• you say, "I swing my sword at the guy's chest,"
• you roll allocated CP,
• if it is determined that you succeed, you call out the damage
• and if it is determined that your damage exceeds the guy's defenses, you roll for fine grade location.


So they seem separately determined to me. I guess we're just into semantics.

Brian Leybourne wrote:

Alan wrote: linear buy should be limited - just rules on page 20 indicate.

The rules do NOT say that.

Allow me to crawfish for a second and admit my assumptions.
I assumed that Nick chose his country for the +1 TO, though I might not have seen the next sentence he might have typed due to being disconnected.
I am glad however, that this is not the case.. where-as he has reasoning behind his character for choosing his country other than the bonuses...which directly affects the roleplaying aspect of the game.
So, sorry for the assumption.

Also, this issue between me and the high TO is over now.. since I have redone my character and I happen to be completely happy with the results. While I may be Sir Dodge-a-lot still, I won't have the benefit of a high TO to counteract the possibility of me getting hit in the case that my skills in defense fail... for if they fail.. that means another person was more skilled than my character was. So I'll leave that at that.

-Ingenious

Mantis wrote: Well, I guess it's time I discussed my veiw on the whole issue since it talks about my char and I.

I'm not trying for an invincible char I'm going for a Riddle-Seeker with bloodlust and bad social skills. I don't see a man with these hold backs living very long with a low TO. I picked the place I liked, Saramatov not just for it's Bonuse of TO +1 but becouse it seemed like a great place for my char to be from due to the chaos, weapon styles, and open invitations for challenges based on the color of ones scabbard. I only plan on wearing my armor when I know a fight will occur most the time I'll just be wearing a leather jack.

I see it as wise to place attribute points in the same spot. It only cost a point to move an attribute from 5 to 6 now, but in the game it will cost 10 SA points to make the same change. Having lower attributes are much less costly from 3 to 4 it cost only 4. So what's the point in having an average charactor for all your skills when it seems more effective to have high/low attributes.

There is more to this game then combat. I did make my charactor tough in fights but also I will make him enjoyable to play with.

Sadly my group and I wont be able to get together and play this month (usually we play about 6-7 hour long games once a month), due to everything getting suddenly getting busy on the nights we meet. Hopefully I'll be able to answer questions about my char sometime early in March.

TROS is truely a great game and I'm personally in 2 gaming campaigns, and it frustrates me that I don't have time to play more.